The topic for this debate is 'Movies Should be Remade'.

AshleyD will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
Skyfloating will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post.

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations.

Opening and closing statements must have no more than 3 references.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Each debater must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

Edit: To Change The Challenger.

[edit on 21-1-2009 by MemoryShock]

You know your opponent is scrambling when they shift their focus away from building their own case to concentrate on refuting yours. They unwittingly admit your case is stronger by attacking yours instead of creating theirs. Skyfloating's rebuttals seem impressive but most were predicted by myself and will be addressed and exposed as errors after I focus on my own case: Movies should be remade.

TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES

THE MAGIC OF COLOR

Not all remakes were originally in black and white but many were so let's focus on the magic of color to show the benefits of colorized remakes. Most of you will probably agree color is more desirable. If it wasn't, our movies would still be in black and white. We'll use the remake The Wizard of Oz as an example to show the magic of color:


The Wizard of Oz understood color brings a plot to life. The movie transitions from black and white into color to show the magic as black and white could never adequately capture the magic they wanted to convey. Those ruby slippers were supposed to be 'Ruby,' NOT 'Hues-Of-Gray.' Then once the magic of Oz was over, Dorothy returns to her bleak black and white world.

COLORIZED REMAKE EXAMPLES

Now that we understand the benefit of color, let's compare three color remakes to their originals. I'd prefer the colorized remake every single time. What about you? If you had to view the same plot from the below choices, which version would you prefer? My opponent claims our focus should be on 'new' but I'm thrilled somebody felt the below examples deserved the benefits of color and that the technology isn't reserved for new plots only.


MODERNIZATIONS

Unlike my opponent's earlier claim that remakes are copies, I explained they are actually artistic interpretations. Such is the case with modernized adaptations. Scrooged with Bill Murray is a big screen adaptation the of Dickens' plot previously portrayed in film. The plot is similar, the original characters are represented with modern counterparts, we have three Christmas ghosts, etc.

Great Expectations with Ethan Hawk is another modernization of a classic. Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes is another. Maybe you like modern adaptations, maybe you don't. Either way it's OK because it all comes down to personal artistic tastes. Modernized remakes are yet another example of art inspiring art.

SILENT FILMS

How many of you enjoy watching a movie that repeatedly cuts to text you have to read? Would you rather watch the silent version of a plot instead of a version with sound? Me neither. Many films with fantastic plots were originally silent. I'll use one of my favorite movies as an example:


In the original, where is the sound? The music? The lyrics? The seductive voice of the Phantom? Everything you need in a plot revolving around an opera house is not there in the original but it does exist in Andrew Lloyd Webber's version of Gaston Leroux's timeless classic. Another highly successful musical remake is Chicago. It also started out as a silent film in 1927. However, according to my opponent's arguments, the above examples should have 'waited in line' for the magic of the music once the technology became available because the plot isn't 'new.'

There are many movies preceded by silent film originals. The Wizard of Oz, Ben-Hur, Moulin Rouge, Hamlet, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Scarlet Letter, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, etc. SOME of them are classics today, have won numerous awards, and were box office hits but NONE of them deserve to exist because they weren't 'new.'

FOREIGN FILMS

Another one of my favorite movies, Wicker Park, started out as a French film, L'Appartement'. Had this not been remade for English-speaking audiences, I never would have experienced one of my favorite films. You'd be shocked at how many American movies were inspired by foreign films. Classics like The Sound of Music with Julie Andrews, Some Like it Hot with Marilyn Monroe, The Parent Trap with Haley Mills, and The Long Night with Henry Fonda. Then modern blockbusters like The Departed with Jack Nicholson, Twelve Monkeys with Brad Pitt, and Scent of a Woman with Al Pacino.

This is another major flaw in my opponent's position although he bases his argument on opinion that foreign films are subpar. Personal opinions vary so why can't we have the remake and let us decide for ourselves?

---

Next up we'll see even more reasons why movies should be remade but first I want to address my opponent's rebuttals.

STANDING FIRM

My opponent's summarized points are in orange while my reply is in white.

1. Most blockbusters are not remakes but originals. My opponent only picked the few that are not

Incorrect. There are more but I didn't feel the need to rub it in. If you insist: Ben-Hur is a remake and a winner of 11 Oscars, Snow White was previously a silent film, Indiana Jones is based on the 1930's serials, etc. Your emphasis on 'new creation' also backfires when you fail to realize many of the movies in your list were inspired by books, musicals, real life events, etc. There are more adaptations and remakes on your list than 'creations.' Thanks again for the assist.

2. Special effects in sci-fi and horror are wasted debate space because I admitted to it in my previous post

What my opponent is not admitting is that he saw my post before removal due to an opponent forfeiture. My argument must have been good if he had to concede those points in advance since he knew they were coming. His sneakiness backfires.

3. *Disinfo Alert* I said that actually producing remakes is the exception not the rule.

And I summarized your ultimate implication of the 'exception' by showing the amount of originals leads to 'potentially workable remakes' to negate your false assumption.

4. While remakes offer choice and variety, it is no satisfactory counter-argument to new movies offering variety and choice. Are the debate judges getting this?

I also ask, 'Are the judges getting this?' because my opponent is using a ploy by setting up an off topic either/or false dichotomy which is not the topic. When have I said to not make new movies? Not once. I say bring them on along with the remakes. I also ask the judges is the topic 'New movies vs. Remakes?' No. Therefore his entire case (read: distraction attempt) crumbles as a logical fallacy.

5. Examples of remake hits vs. disasters

First of all, several of your examples earned tens of millions of dollars in profit. I'm sure we'd all be happy to profit that much on a 'bad' investment. But that's beside the point as there'll always be the occasional project that loses money. As with any business venture (even your 'new' movies), there is a risk.

I anticipated my opponent's predictable/flawed logic by stating I will not dishonestly claim every remake has been a success. I referred to his tactic of citing failed examples as a 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater.' He is erroneously coming to the conclusion that all remakes are bad because some are bad. He also contradicts himself because he previously admits not all remakes are bad but his illusion is exposed by employing this fallacious logical tactic.

I'll turn his logic around to expose the absurdity: There are new movie flops therefore we need more remakes. Now does that make any sense? No.

REFUTING MY OPPONENT

My opponent uses 2 examples of successful new movies as his only non-rebuttal point. I remind him again the topic is not 'New Movies vs. Remakes.' He continues to grasp at his either/or straws by making you think that's the case while I am emphatically stating we can have both. There are blockbusters for both remakes and new films.

MY SOCRATIC ANSWERS

1. Statistical probability.

2. Your accusation is false. To refute your examples: A). I never even used Alice in Wonderland as an example. B). You claim LOTR isn't a remake yet cite wording like 'adaptation' and 'numerous homages to the 1978.' The same citation then contradictorily states 'Neither Jackson's nor Bakshi's films bear any relation to the Rankin/Bass Hobbit and Return of the King.' Did that make any sense to you when you posted it? Based off the same literary work and 'pays homage' vs. no relation? That source refutes itself. C). Sword of Gideon was a movie (not a TV show like you claim) broken up into a miniseries. I'll provide sources verifying the remake status of Munich if necessary.

Conclusion: Remakes are adaptations and interpretations- not carbon copies. A remake is a recreation of the plot. The above classify as this.

3. It depends. A couple of your examples have remakes to compare them to: Shakespeare's plays have been adapted into films with both classic and modernized themes and I first remember Aerosmith's version of the Beatles' 'Come Together.' For me it was the catchy song that turned out to be a remake. It's all discretion.

4. I have no strong opinion either way. I say do both in varying ratios. This topic is not the false dilemma you are forcing it to be.

5. You imply opinion is fact by using the word 'know.' So, no I do not 'know' foreign film remakes are 'worse' especially when one of my favorite films is a foreign remake.

I will go in to some of my opponents post in my closing post, but for now I feel its time to take a deep breathe, sit back and look at this topic from the birds-eye-view. (If we imagine, for a moment, that a hollywood-producer will be reading this debate as to help him decide whether to do a remake or shoot an original script, he certainly wont be pleased with this petty arguing back and forth).

Essay on the Nature of Art

Truth is discovered not by following others footsteps, but by creating your own path. I am an artist myself, I produce music and write books. I use art as a form of not only of self-expression but also self-discovery. Art in its truest form is to dare treat where nobody has gone before. True Art is not based not on what is known but inspired “from above” or "from within", whichever way you want to see it. This is creating in its purest form. This is also Spirituality in its native state. “You were created in the image of God” even the ancients tell us.

Therefore I see the work that artists, painters, writers, filmmakers, musicians do as something sacred.

When I am tired and uninspired I use material invented by others in my music. In the music field of business these are called “samples”. Samples are recycled material, copies, replicas, originals made by others. My only reason for doing so is lack of inspiration. This may be a sampled voice or a sampled guitar or any other work someone else originally received through "divine input". And sometimes it works. Sometimes the track I produced using samples, sells. But not only does it leave me unhappy and unproud but its also a betrayal of my fans. I remade another track because I could not come up with anything else. When I compose something that has not been done before though, when I create my unique individual thing, I feel energized, happy and deeply IN LOVE with life and what I created. It feels as if I have come to live my original purpose for being alive in the first place:

To create!
To expand awareness!
To learn something new!

And the audience then also learns or feels something new. New parts of their brains are activated. New associative-patterns drawn. A new story was told. Its no different with paintings. Its no different with writing poetry and fiction. Its no different with writing movies and directing and producing them.

The artistic mind does not like remakes. It knows remakes are, in exceptional cases, made to improve the effects of horror and sci-fi. But in other cases they are only made to make a quick buck by appealing to the more base emotions of society: Aversion toward the unknown, the need for familiarity.

To Remake or Not: The Hollywood Producers Checklist

Lets say we have a producer, director and scriptwriter in one person, and he is asking himself what his next project should be: A Remake or a New Idea?

And so he lists the possible advantages of doing a remake:

* People are familiar with the topic. This may be good for $$$.
* The rough story is already outlined. This amounts to less work.
* The actors are already familiar with the story. This also means less work for them.
* The studio has a rough idea of what to expect. They are more likely to finance it.
* The special effects of the old version may be poor while a new version affords us the opportunity to take something good and make it better.

And he lists the possible advantages of doing something new:

* Offers the opportunity for more creative self-expression.
* Offers the opportunity for more Acknowledgement of my work.
* It takes much more work...but that can also be more fulfilling.
* There is no risk of taking a good original version and messing it up (as there would be with a remake, as has often happened before). This would be even more humiliating than simply making a poor new movie.
* The audience widens their perspective and taste with something new.
* No restrictions in script, dialog and acting.
* Offers a chance to one of the millions of new and emerging talents or scriptwriters.

As is typical with many other subjects in life, our Producer/Director/Writer realizes that one side offers some security and less effort and the other side offers more fun and fulfillment - on a personal level and for the audience.

And this is the simple reason many more new movies than remakes are produced. Given the choice, most people would choose to "make their own thing" rather than base their creation on others work.

The Nature of this Debate: Lets get Real

This ATS-Debate has been a lot of fun so far. AshleyD offers a lot of amazingly beautiful pictures, I offer a lot of YouTube videos of amazing movies. AshleyD does an excellent job of denying anything I bring up, I do a good job of denying everything she brings up.

But while its been great fun, denying each others points and posting cool rhetoric and image, will not necessarily lead us to the very core of the issue here.

The original debate title was: "Movies should be remade". I think all of us - me, my opponent, the readers and the judges - will agree that this statement is a bit too general to reach any final debate conclusions.
Neither "Movies should be remade" nor "Movies should not be remade" can be seen as "true" statements. The statement immediately brings up questions, the most important being:

What movies should be remade? What movies should not be remade?

For the sake of "getting real" within this debate I think both me, my opponent, the readers and the judges can agree that it makes sense to remake the following type of movies:

* If the original story/script has a lot of potential but its implementation as a movie sucked. .
* Of the original movie is a good one, but the effects, look, style and perhaps dialog are outdated.

And I think we can also all agree that the following type of movies should not be remade:

* Character-driven movies (as opposed to special-effects-driven), Dramas, Romances, Tragedies, Adventure-Films, Westerns, Classics that are good as they are or in which it is unlikely that they can be done that much better.
* Movies that had scripts that sucked.

So why do I post in this way now? Because truth is not necessarily always discovered by fighting each other, but by looking at that WHICH ALL SIDES AGREE UPON. And the simple truth of this Debate is that some remakes are good, some are not. The simple truth is that sometimes its good to do a remake, sometimes its better to do something new.

Having thus achieved a balanced viewpoint, its up to the debate judges to weigh remake vs. non-remake on a scale. Which side of the scale carries more weight?

I think I have shown, beyond a shadow of the doubt, that despite all its benefits, the non-remake/new-movie side carries more weight. Thats precisely the reason more non-remakes than remakes are produced.

Another way to judge this debate is by who contributed more truth to the debate. And I am convinced that AshleyDs denial of anything that contradicts what she posted, does not make for balance, truth or even a good line of argumentation - as any professional deal-broker can tell you.

The scale is lopsided.

Thank you for your attention.


No images, videos, links, references are offered in this post to make a point on creating from ones own heart and mind, without help, without copy, without remake.

I'm glad my opponent finally comes around and agrees it's a compromise. We can have both.

---

THE ARTISTIC MERIT


I'd like the reader to ponder the above analogous image I made which demonstrates the condensed evolution of film. If you wanted to see the hypothetical movie 'Red Rose' and the movie was originally created in the styles of the left images, that is most likely the only way you would experience the plot according to my opponent. It's an 'old dull copy' so our effort should be put into his hypothetical new movie 'Yellow Daffodil' instead.

His either/or choice between new and remake was an illusionary dilemma. I believe he finally realized this due to some of the concessions he makes above. You can have both. A remake, just like the original, is a form of artistic expression. The music, special effects, cinematography, etc. It all entails art. The remake offers a new interpretation of previous art. With the modern interpretation and improved technology, we're now able to experience the rose on the right (the remake) through a fresh artist's eyes.

NEW TO ME

My opponent has placed emphasis on 'new' throughout this debate but I'd like to explain something he may not realize. And that is, many remakes are 'new' to those who have never seen the original, will never see the original, or don't know the original even exists. Even remakes can become 'new' like the expression 'New to me.' I'm sure many readers in this debate were surprised to discover some movies were remakes. To you, it is new and you never would have experienced that creator's art if not for another artist's interpretation.

Like the analogy in my opening statement, it was that song you heard on the radio, you loved, then later discovered was a remake. A remake that was 'new to you.'

ARTISTIC REBIRTH

In his above post, my opponent focuses on the creation of new art. But he claims he has 'proven beyond a shadow of a doubt' new movies 'carry the weight.' I strongly disagree in light of everything I have shown and the statistics I provided showing BOTH new movies and remakes intermingle and 'carry the weight.'

But I'd like to focus on his artistic perspective. Does a remake not give rebirth to the former artist's work? My opponent claims remakes are 'dull, lazy, uninspired copies.' In my opinion, that insults the original as well. Can a remake not revive art that has vanished into obscurity and enchant audiences once again? Must a plot remain sealed in the vault of time because to pay homage to it would be 'lazy and uninspiring?' Not at all.

My opponent does a good job appealing to the reader's emotions but once again only tells half the story.

THE TOPIC

My opponent employed a very common strategy I've seen used many times. And that is, if you can't beat the topic, shift the goal posts and change it. Instead of 'Movies should be remade,' which is the topic and what I advocated, he tried to shift the topic to 'Remakes vs. New Movies' which I've already pointed out ad nauseum as being a false dichotomy so I'm not going to harp on that again here.

In light of the concessions he has made above, the admission of there being good remakes, and shifting the topic, he has subconsciously admitted movies should be remade but he can't admit it. Let's reverse the situation to demonstrate how my opponent's case fails.

A REVERSAL

Let's pretend the topic was 'Movies should be made.' If I followed the footsteps of my opponent, I'd focus on the flop movies while ignoring the good. Or perhaps I'd say the topic 'Movies should be made' is too general and claim since there are bad movies, we can't possibly come to any conclusion that 'movies should be made.' Or I'd ask the question he asked, 'What movies should be made? What movies should not be made?' as if it's some sort of conundrum so by default I win the debate because it's just too hard to figure out.

I might also advocate the making of plays instead of movies and hope the reader doesn't realize I created an unnecessary line in the sand because you can have both movies and plays. I'd then present the 'top plays of all time' list and hope my opponent doesn't notice all the plays on the list that were originally movies. I'd also ignore all the solid examples my opponent provided, focus on his debatable examples hoping the judges didn't notice I ignored the others, and then list the best plays. Or maybe I'll pretend that all these problems that exist with making movies couldn't ever possibly apply to plays when they obviously do.

Does the above sound illogical, misleading, and filled with half-truths? Yes it does but that is my opponent's case in a nutshell.

THE CONCESSIONS OF MY OPPONENT

The keen reader will notice my opponent has conceded many points to my position throughout this debate starting with his opening statement. Some were obvious like admitting remakes can be good or his preference for the remake when given an option. Some of his concessions were a bit more subtle like when he finally comes around again and admits it's a compromise.

When even my opponent can see the forest for the trees, what's left to debate or decide? I've noticed these subtleties in his posts and think he realizes this, too. I know he can't wave the white flag in a debate but it's apparent he is in his heart.

SO WHERE DOES THIS LEAVE US?

As I've been saying all along, this is a compromise but my opponent was trying to make it an absolute. Like my debate reversal analogy above, my opponent claims we cannot come to a definite conclusion of remaking movies because some are bad (implying that some are also good). It all goes back to the 'baby with the bathwater' analogy.

We can see in my statistics and the evidence throughout this debate there are good and bad plots for BOTH new films and remakes. There are successes and flops for BOTH new films and remakes. There is an audience and market for BOTH new films and remakes. So where does this leave us?

It leaves us choosing the position to this debate that allows the compromise. Which position of the debate does that? Mine: Movies should be remade because the opposite of that is NOT 'make more new movies' which already happens by the hundreds. The true opposite is movies should NOT be remade which I have shown is a horrible idea. Use more discretion if needed but don't stop making them.

THE TOY BOX

This debate makes me envision a giant toy box. You'll notice the toy box is filled with an even mix of movie examples my opponent and I presented throughout this debate:


I can't help but think of my opponent's case as a child insisting we play with his toys because 'they're just better.' But I want to dump the whole toy box out and play with them all. Maybe after doing so, you'll find a toy you thought was 'new' and still sealed in the package but it turns out to be older than you thought. That toy is 'new' to you. Maybe after experiencing them you'll realize just how entertaining they can be once the stigma of 'remake' is dropped. And it is a stigma- one that is terribly unfair.

Maybe you'll find a toy that isn't very popular but you love it any way. For instance, one of my favorite movies (Wicker Park mentioned previously) wasn't a huge hit or a theater-filling blockbuster. But it moved me. Likewise, for a 'new' movie, maybe you're a fan of the cult classic Office Space. It was a new movie that bombed but it has a dedicated following today.

Why choose the new toys my opponent suggests when I believe we can dump the whole thing out, mix it up, and find our own gems, both newly cut and repolished.

REMAKES: THE UNDERDOG. NOT THE MAJORITY.

My opponent has continually fallen back on 'the exception, not the rule' argument and has tried to use the fewer amount of remakes to mean they are somehow less desirable. But I think it is highly impressive that with so few remakes comparatively they still found top spots on his hit movies list. Statistically they stood less of a chance but they beat the odds.

Then in my statistics we see about 15-20 remakes are released each year (both famous and obscure) while 600-700 new films are released each year (both famous and obscure). This is not, as my opponent dramatically brings up, contributing to our economic crisis. Nor are the dozen or two remakes preventing 'millions' of new movies being filmed like he implies in his opening statement.

Let us have our dozens while you enjoy your hundreds. You go to your theater room and we'll go to ours. Fair enough. And don't be surprised if we make a visit to your theater room because my position allows us to do so.

CONCLUSION

My opponent and I had a lot of fun. We both had some laughs, made some mistakes, agreed and disagreed, brought up some good points, and covered a lot of ground. This was a BLAST on all counts.

But I ask the reader, who had the more logical case? Who offered you options and who focused on the either/or route? Who made the concessions? Who stayed true to the topic? Who told both sides of the story? Who focused on the real issues and who engaged in distractions including criticism of someone's font style? And most of all, who convinced you whether or not, 'Movies should be remade?'

Thanks a bunch to everyone! To my wonderful opponent, to the judges and readers who took the journey with us, and to Memory Shock for making it all possible. See you in the pub!

To have the time to more intensely distill the essentials of this debate I will be making use of my 24-hour extension.

The judges have spoken and the winner is Ashleyd!

Their comments:

What a fascinating debate to read.

The debate itself

Both fighters presented interesting cases. Ashley's use of photo's throughout was impressive. As was SF use of youtube videos. The lack of an image policy in this debate was a little strange. Since there wasn't any limit on them, I had to give AD major style points for her use of them. SF did point out that the images didn't always correspond with the direct links though and correctly. I had to search for the info through further links.

The Topic Definition and definition of a remake.

The battle to define the topic was well fought as well. Both fighters conceded points to the other. AD agreed to the concession made SF that only some movies should be remade but than later tries to portray SF position as that no movies should be remade. SF stated in his opening that wasn't his position and never tried to argue that point of view through out the debate. He gave me the better parameters for his case.

I found the use of Munich as the main focus of contention as to what constitutes a remake and what is a new movie based on a common source rather intriguing. As a fan of both movies, I knew of the controversy that surrounded it. If AD had provided a link to her claims as she promised she may have won this point.

Strength of Argument

Ashley had the more solid argument through out. SF using an entire post to show that new had a stronger appeal was kind of refreshing though. Regardless, AD had the more well rounded position. She built her case post by post and stuck to the main points she was using much better. SF seemed to wander a bit and spent maybe a little too much time on rebuttals. I thought AD could have addressed the Socratic questions a little more directly. Also, just as a courtesy to us judges and the readers, she really should put the question she is addressing above the answer. Having to scroll back and forth between posts was annoying. No big deal, just a a small request.

Decision.

I had to think about this decision for a bit. Ashley had an early lead as Skyfloatings concession in his opening and not much case building in his first post left him trailing. He did manage to comeback however, presenting a strong case for the creativity and freshness of new films over remakes.

In the end, I have to call it a draw. Both fighters missed chances but took advantage of others. Both conceded enough to each other to make it hard to decide a winner.

AshleyD vs Skyfloating: DeJa View? (AD and Sky for the sake of expediancy)

A hugely enjoyable debate for any film fan and one which was also very informative.

AD made a very strong start and made very good use of visual imagery to back up her points throughout the debate.
AD made excellent points and from the outset attempted to control the pattern of the debate, and keep Sky on the back foot with some very good arguments and also some very good tactics - statistical analysis used was also very informative, and a very nicely presented visual, which unfortunately did not "prove" the case in the (seemingly) desired way.
The way in which AD attempted to use Sky's statements against Sky was impressive, but ultimately futile, as there was a lot of twisting of words and arguments, which AD seemed to get a little bogged down with and which detracted from the solid case AD had already built.

Sky seemed to be a little slow out of the blocks, and seemed to have the more difficult side of the debate, but fashioned a good argument all the same.
Some excellent points were made, and if we look past the flashy imagery of AD, which was an excellent tool, we can see that Sky built a solid case, although Sky was still being reactive rather than proactive up until the last rebuttal and closing.
For me, the points brought up in the last post before closing should have been made much earlier in the debate, and then tied in to other points over the course.

For this reason I have to give this debate to AshleyD by a narrow (ish) margin.

Congratulations to both fighters and thanks for a great debate.

Judgment; Winner is AshleyD

Opening;

AshleyD comes out strong. Fine form, substantive, logically consistent, and all of that in an engaging writing style. She utilizes visual cues and spacing to break her argument up into easy to digest pieces. It was really a brilliant opening.

Skyfloating's opening pales in comparison. It almost seems as if he is crafting it as he reads hers rather than beginning with his own vision of his side of the debate. He has a very good counterpoint, that new movies like the Matrix excite us in a way that remakes often cant, but he isnt really demonstrating it.

Round One;

AshleyD carries on unfazed by Sky's opening. She sails right into her own case, continuing along nearly as if Skyfloating had not even made an opening statement. She does not neglect his point, but rather brushes it aside with;

While my opponent is arguing the point 'new' movies should be the focus of our attention, I say we can do both by investing our capabilities in classic films, too.

Sky has a very good and strong point here, regarding how mew movies can open new frontiers to us, but AshleyD is not going to make his case for him. He put very little into building the argument, and she returned very little. He spent most of his post answering her opening, and she spent most of her first round supporting her opening. The debate is becoming very lopsided, with both fighters focused in on Ashleys case, and neither focusing much on Sky's case.

Skyfloating opens his first round with Ashleys case rather than his own. He is focused on rebuttal, which is very important, but so is presenting your own case to be considered. By presenting his rebuttal first, he is unwittingly giving her case top priority over his own. He offers us 12 lines of text and a list of movies as his case in round one. The rest of the post is spent rebutting.

Round two;

Ashley; opens with exactly what I am thinking. Skyfloating is letting her control the debate and spending all of his energy on her case rather than his own. Again, she goes on with her case building. Addressing his points, answering his questions, but never putting them above her own case.

Skyfloating; Again, he allows Ashleys case to dominate his own. He just isnt seeing that complaining about her case, or even offering appreciation for it, is not the same as making his own case. He offered us a very valid point, that the new and unique movie has real value. But he is not telling us what that value is in any real, organized way. He also has another good point;

The question that then remains is What should be the exception, what the rule?. And I think we've all seen how and why remakes should remain an exception...and only be made if the script is exceptional.

They have agreed that blanket either or statements are not what they are arguing. But he is mistaken in thinking he has demonstrated to the reader why remakes should be the exception.

This may be part of the problem;

As far as Im concerned, even a superficial glance at the lists proves it: Remakes are mostly a waste of resources and time.

He is relying on the fact that many of us would prefer a new movie to a remake to make his case. However, Ashley is vigorously involved in case building, and he is just giving it a "superficial glance." That might work if Ashley were NOT building a case, but as she most definitely is, it is costing him dearly.

Round three;

Ashley; More of the same, consistent case building without failing to address her opponent.

Skyfloating; Finally, Skyfloating presents his case. He did not present what I thought his strongest points were, however, that new movies offer something to the people in general that is more desirable than a remake, but rather chose to focus on a more "artist centered" view. That for the artist making something "new" is more satisfying. It was not his strongest point, but it was good to see him actually case build at all, rather than simply let Ashley run him over with her case.

Closing;

Ashley;
Does a fine job in closing. I was a little confused as to why the topic issue arose again, as they had both seemed to agree that the topic was not "should ONLY (remakes, new films) be made." It seemed a little late in the game to be stressing the point that a concession by him that blanket statements were a tad extreme meant a win for her automatically. After all, she also conceded the same point to him if he chose to use the topic in such a way.

She also says;

Some of his concessions were a bit more subtle like when he finally comes around again and admits it's a compromise.

When in fact he says in his opening;

I will not be arguing that movies should never be remade at all. I acknowledge the validity of my opponents opening-post arguments. The amount of poor remakes balances out the amount of worthy remakes.

Skyfloating;

After presenting us with his case in the third round, he goes back to letting Ashley take the lead in closing arguments, and much of his closing is a rebuttal of hers.



Summary;

Ashley is a very good case builder. She took the lead in the debate, and answered her opponents points without ever allowing his points to direct her own case. She is very talented in the use of graphics, though some of them seemed gratuitous and unnecessary. Too much of a good thing can distract from or trivialize the point you are making. Some points, such as the toy box, seemed created just to showcase her graphic skill and added little to her case.

Skyfloating had some very interesting and valid points that he simply failed to develop sufficiently. He allowed Ashley to direct and control all but the third round of his own argument. His form was choppy, and it seemed as though he was simply writing as things occurred to him, or as they were brought up by Ashley. This lack of organization may have contributed to his belief that he had presented us with more case building than he actually did.

Judgment to AshleyD.

Wow. Thanks for the SUPER quick judgments. I never expected to get them in so fast. As to the Munich thing- it is listed as a remake in links both Sky and I presented. No biggie, though.

Thanks a bunch to Sky for an insanely fun debate. It was a good topic- not too heavy or controversial. Just fun and entertaining. Many thanks to him for picking up as my opponent. It was gracious of him to do that.

Kudos to Sky for keeping me on my toes. It was a 'ferocious' debate but in that light hearted way. I'd go up against him again any time. He's a true fighter.

Oh, and edit to add: I'll definitely quote the Socratic questions in my posts from now on. If you hit 'quote' on any of my posts, you'll see I practically used ever single character space available. In that one post, I spent hours narrowing down characters even to change little things like 'I would' to 'I'd' to be able to fit in everything. I'll definitely make sure I quote them in the future, though, now that I see it could be an issue.

Thanks again, everyone.

[edit on 1/27/2009 by AshleyD]

If I had to judge this debate, I would have judged it in favor of AshleyD too...by far.

As already mentioned in FCP, I think she managed to take control and force her opponent (me) into the reactive. I noticed it too late.

Well done AshleyD. Very strong. Fully deserved

Just reread the judgments again and then reread Sky's opening to see where I went wrong. The 3rd judge said this:

Ashley;
Does a fine job in closing. I was a little confused as to why the topic issue arose again, as they had both seemed to agree that the topic was not "should ONLY (remakes, new films) be made." It seemed a little late in the game to be stressing the point that a concession by him that blanket statements were a tad extreme meant a win for her automatically.

It looks like I owe Sky an apology. Integrity in a debate is of the utmost importance to me- I'd rather lose with honesty than win by misrepresenting someone's argument. Just wanted to let Sky know that was unintentional. What I was trying to infer by stating 'coming back around' was making the connection to the concessions in our opening statements to your 4th post. Wasn't trying to come across as saying you were still on the 'only' route. That was just a summary of where the debate eventually turned. I never meant to imply it was like that 100% throughout the debate and feel horrible that is how what I was saying may have come across to someone reading the debate. I'll try to be more clear in the future with the point I am trying to make.

My apologies to Sky if he found that frustrating. After rereading, I can definitely see how that came across but it was not my intention to misrepresent his case at all. I believe in full honesty in a debate and people who resort to those kind of tactics really turn me off. I hope you realize that was an accident on my part, Sky, and was not purposely done to imply you hadn't said it all in the debate until he 4th post. I was trying to show the 'bringing back around' and not 'Oh ya sure NOW he is saying that.'

That's all. Thanks again. I'm still reviewing to see where I need to improve. Well fought, Sky!

[edit on 1/27/2009 by AshleyD]