I'm glad my opponent finally comes around and agrees it's a compromise. We can
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
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
. 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
'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.'
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
My opponent does a good job appealing to the reader's emotions but once again only tells half the story.
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.
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
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
It leaves us choosing the position to this debate that allows the compromise. Which position of the debate does that? Mine: Movies should be
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
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
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.
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!