Entertainment desk
< March 23	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 24

Cultural Classics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic#Cultural_classics

Hello wikipedia reference desk, I was told by an email that I'd get some good help here with my question I just have one. My question is this in classic article cultural classics section there is a sentence that puzzles me as to what it means. A contemporary work may be hailed as an instant classic, but the criteria for classic status tends to include the test of time. Is this saying that contemporary works are instant classics or exactly what is it saying? Is it saying in order to get a classic it can't be contemporary?

I agree it's poorly written (including the wrong use of "contemporary" for "modern"). I think it's saying that a modern work may be termed a "classic", but [this is seen by many as incorrect and] the criteria for classic status tends to include the test of time.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The term "instant classic" falls into another realm of culture called "Hype. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:05, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This question sounds awfully familiar. Ah, this and this are why. Man, that article really needs help! Well, maybe some of the answers there will help. As for the question about categories, see Wikipedia:Categorization. Matt Deres (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The questioner here, and in the previous questions, all seem to be labouring under the same misunderstanding. They all seem to think that the term "classic" is somehow regulated or maintained by an impartial group who vet these things and officially decree whether such-and-such is a classic or modern classic or instant classic or whatever. Nothing could be further than the truth. A reviewer, or more likely in these cases, the publicist, is completely free to say stuff like that whenever they wish. If you want to write a book saying that there are only three classic films: Citizen Kane, The Seven Samurai, and Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles you're completely free to do so. It's an opinion, so we could argue over it, but it still remains your opinion. Matt Deres (talk) 13:14, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It makes a lot of sense what your saying but I'm trying to look at evidence a classic is often things that are old and valued today and when they say old and then they're saying contemporary works may be hailed as an instant classic. My question is when they say old and when they are saying contemporary works may be hailed as an instant classic. Can it not be contemporary?

Again, read the Hype article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Film

I once watched a film that appeared on TV about a little boy who, during a trip with his parents to Australia, is accidentally abandoned and forced to fend for himself. He chances upon a man who teaches him how to survive before the same man dies. Does anyone know what this film is called? déhanchements (talk) 22:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walkabout? A brother and sister are stranded in the desert after their father commits suicide. They survive with the help of an Aboriginal boy. Rojomoke (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was not about parents who were visiting Australia, nor was it about a child being accidentally abandoned. A boy and his elder sister were involved, and the father, a local Australian, suicided and deliberately abandoned his children. But yes, that was the film that came to my mind when I saw the question. I can't think of another that exactly fits the question. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found it, it's The Earthling. déhanchements (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]