Would it be age? How popular it was back then? How popular it still is? Can teenagers in 2006 enjoy a 20 year old movie?
So would Nightmare on Elm street, Citizen Kane, Indiana Jones and Titanic all be considered classics?
What shows presently running would be a classic? The Simpsons?
If there’s an English language word more abused than “classic” it might be “perfect” or “unique” (especially when used in the comparative form) but I believe “classic” wins in the noun category. It can mean virtually anything. To hear that something is an “instant classic” is like hearing that somebody who’s been a performing artist for 30 years is now an “overnight success.”
That said, if I were given the task of naming “classic” movies or TV shows, I’d first eliminate anything more recent than 1980. AMC (the C is for Classics, right?) lets stuff in as recent as the 90’s.
TV as a younger medium by a few decades might make for a little more slack, but not much. The B&W era for sure but early color as well would qualify as periods to choose from. But anything after the 70’s is (I would maintain) too young to be a classic.
Age alone is not enough. It would have to have some special characterstics like new ventures in writing, acting, directing, technical work or else blaze new trails in pop culture. Old established actors would help. Founding of a new genre would be nice, too.
But after a genre is well established, be it Western, Thriller, Sci-Fi Fantasy, Futuristic, War Zone, Political Intrigue, Spy Story, you name it, having more than a very few “classics” per genre would defeat the notion.
I’d hate to see from a list of 200 TV shows more than 20 classics. Of the thousands of movies to select from, I’d get weary after 100 “classics” were named. Otherwise you’d have added to the spoiling of the meaning of the term, not that you’d be alone in that venture.
I’d say it’s a movie or TV show which has so insinuated itself into the popular conscience that everybody knows (or at least would recognize) a handful of lines from the movie or show.
Consciousness, I meant.
Maybe the closest thing to a universally-agreed-upon definition of a classic is “something that has passed the test of time.” That is, a classic is something that people are still watching (reading, listening to, etc.) for a long time afterward; something that won’t go out of style.
One thing about this definition, that may or may not be an objection to it, is that there is no direct relationship between classic status and quality. If, hundreds of years from now, people are still watching Plan 9 From Outer Space just to see how bad it is, would it qualify as a classic?
It may not help a whit, but the notion of “Classical” music is just about as confusing as “classic” in the more generalized usage. There are also fairly specific periods of other art forms (painting, sculpture, architecture, literature, drama, and probably others that I’m less familiar with like dance and even fashion) denoted as “classical” periods. In that sense, it’s hard to distinguish from what often is referred to as the “Golden Age” of whatever. If that fusion of concepts is allowed, that would put a “classic” movie in the 30’s through 50’s era and TV shows in the 50’s and 60’s time frame.
Again, quality is not being addressed in my comments and that’s as important as date or age.
I’d say The Simpsons is a classic. My definition of a classic is a movie or TV show that is still entertaining to watch after all these years- old I Love Lucys, for example. They’re still funny after 50 years. And old Simpsonss are still funny after 10 or 15 years. That’s a classic to me.