> > Now that I think about it, this was roughly how I
> >felt when I saw "Amityville 3-D" air on American
> >Movie Classics.
>
> Would that be based on the "age" definition of classic, or the "worth" definition? Or some combo definition?

Either way! But I was thinking of age. AMC defined itself by airing uncut, uninterrupted films primarily between the 1930s and the 1960s. Then, all of a sudden, the station went to pot and started cutting the movies, interrupting them with advertisements, and dramatically changing its programming to include such "classic films" as Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Superman II. Though I don't remember titles, I know I've seen stuff from the 90s there, too. More for the cutting/interrupting than the schedule shift, I've since entirely abandoned my once-favorite channel.

So it's not just a simple matter of 80s movies ageing enough to be included; it was more an abrupt shift in direction for the station itself. Still.

The other thing is that the approximate cut-off point of the late 1960s is not arbitrary. Film (arguably) changed more between about 1967 and 1971 than it did from 1930 to 1966, or from 1972 to the present. Contrast, for example, a Doris Day musical with A Clockwork Orange. Crossing that critical period in history isn't just a matter of ageing movies into a loosely defined "classic" era, it means a shift in the audience you're targeting.

Well, I guess it's like lumping White Snake in with the Beatles.