Challenge Match: AshleyD vs Skyfloating: DeJa View?

page: 1
8

log in

join

posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 07:39 PM
link   
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]




posted on Jan, 15 2009 @ 08:06 PM
link   
Hello everyone! This should turn out to be a very fun debate topic and I am excited to submit the arguments, evidence, and Socratic questions I have up my sleeve to support my position: 'Movies should be remade.' I believe the reader will be highly entertained. Instead of relying solely on figures and statistics, I will mostly be relying on ingenuity, creativity, logic, appealing to the reader's personal opinion, and movie screen shots due to the fact a picture is worth a thousand words.

Many thanks to FSBA for coming up with such an exciting topic on which I'm sure we all have our own opinions. Thank you to Memory Shock for hosting the debate and to the readers and judges for taking an interest in the subject.

 

AN INTRODUCTORY ANALOGY

How many of you have heard a song on the radio you instantly liked only to be surprised once you later discovered it was a remake? How many of you possibly liked the remade version even more than the original and felt it had more energy and better sound quality? Of course, song remakes are only an analogy but throughout this debate I will show the same thing can happen with movies. Starting now.

DID YOU LIKE ANY OF THESE MOVIES?

I wonder if my opponent liked the Bourne Identity starring Matt Damon. Do any of you enjoy watching The Ten Commandments starring Chartlon Heston every Easter when it is played as a special? How many of you have childhood memories of The Wizard of Oz with Judy Garland?

Did you see the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Did you like Scarface with Al Pacino? Gone in 60 Seconds with Nicholas Cage? The Ring with Naomi Watts? Steven Spielberg's Munich? Have you or any of your children enjoyed movies like The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? Have you snuggled on the couch with your spouse while watching Father of the Bride with Steve Martin? Have you ever enjoyed watching Scrooged with Bill Murray around Christmastime?

If you answered 'yes' to any of the above, take it up with my opponent. They're all remakes that should not exist according to his position. The careful reader will also notice a few of the above listed examples are also considered classics. This will be important in this debate if my opponent chooses to go the predictable route by claiming 'remakes destroy the classics.' The list also contains remakes from animated movies, silent films, black and whites, modernized plots of timeless classics, etc.

THE POSITION OF MY OPPONENT DEPRIVES YOU

Not only does my opponent's position deprive you of the ability to develop your own preference between the original and the remake (because according to my opponent, the remakes shouldn't even exist to allow you to form that preference), but he is also depriving you of experiences.

We'll explore specific examples in this debate but think of all the movies that have been remade from foreign languages that turned out to be great films in English. Unless you speak French, Japanese, German, etc., you should never experience those plots, according to my opponent. What about silent films based on classic musicals (they do exist, as I will show later on)? Even once the technology became available to include the score in a movie, it wouldn't matter because my opponent's position says those musicals, now with sound, never should have been remade. What about movies that were originally animated like The Lord of the Rings but later remade into an actual movie? Too bad if you don't like cartoons because that is the only way you will experience the plot on film if my opponent has his way.

The above point demonstrates just how broad this debate can become. From animation to actual actors, from silent film to sound, from one language to another, from 'shorts' to full length features, from black and white to color, etc. Creating remakes doesn't sound like such a bad idea now, does it? This subject isn't so cut and dry now is it? There are a variety of reasons and advantages to remake movies and I will be going over them in this debate.

THE POINTS I WILL COVER IN THIS DEBATE

I will be pointing out the technological advances in the movie industry which have resulted in movies consisting of better sound quality, bringing sound to silent films, bringing color to black and white films, vibrant, high resolution color compared to the previous grainy, low contrast originals. I'll also compare the vast improvement in special effects from the sub par (and sometimes humorous) effects of the originals to the impressively realistic special effects of modern remakes.

I will be advocating the remaking of movies in general and for numerous reasons including popular demand, improved special effects, technological advances that result in a higher-quality film, how remakes can spark an interest in the classics, and how remakes do not necessarily take away from the classic versions.

While my opponent might take the unbending stance that no movie under any circumstance should ever be remade or that the classics will always be better than the remake, my position will be more fluid and will offer reasons why remakes are not the bane of movie goers and deserve to exist just like the classic versions already exist. My opponent already has his original versions so why can't we have our remakes?

I'll also be presenting numerous examples of remakes sprinkled throughout this debate like I did above in this opening statement. Who knows? Maybe your favorite movie will be among them- your favorite movie that should not exist according to my opponent's position. I know three of my favorite movies are remakes. Will yours be, too?

WHAT I WILL NOT ADVOCATE IN THIS DEBATE

What I will not be doing in this debate is pretending I personally am a fan of every movie that has been remade. I'm not going to throw sound business practices out the window and pretend I think remaking a box office flop from ten years ago is a good idea. I will not dishonestly argue against the facts by claiming every remake has been a success or pretend that every remake was a movie I personally enjoyed.

While my opponent may take a 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' position in this debate by pointing out examples of bad remakes and ultimately come to the conclusion that all remakes are bad, my attempt is to be fully honest and say there are some flop remakes and some hit remakes, and that we should not discard the opportunity for a hit the public will love just because there are some box office bombs when it comes to remakes.

I will also not be dishonest and claim there is no beauty in the classics. Instead, I will focus on the position that remakes do not cheapen the value of the classics and that even if the classics have their own cult following, remakes still spark an interest in the classics, have their own fan base, can achieve immense popularity and success, have better special effects, and sometimes even become classics themselves.

SOCRATIC QUESTIONS

The following Socratic questions for my opponent will be based off the below image comparing the original 1931 black and white version of Dracula and Bela Lugosi's stereotypical 'I vant to sahck yaw blahd' portrayal to the 1992 colorized remake starring Gary Oldman and Winona Ryder.


Question 1: Let's assume you have seen neither version before. You go to rent a movie and the only two movies left on the shelves is one copy of each version. Which do you choose?

Question 2: Let's now assume you have seen both versions before. If you were forced to sit in a room and watch one of the versions three times in a row, which version would you honestly pick? This scenario is being asked for a reason.

Question 3: You make a bet with a friend and the wager is $10,000. The bet between the two of you consists of anticipating which of the two versions above is rented more by the public. Your friend gives you first choice and he will bet on the alternative. Do you place your wager on the 1992 version receiving more rentals or do you place your bet on the 1931 version receiving more rentals?

Question 4: The 1992 remake version was extremely popular, raking in three Academy awards, grossing $215,862,692 world wide, was the most popular version of the film to date, and has sparked multiple fan sites and pages (1). So why would you want to take that away from audiences?

ASKING THE READER AND THE JUDGES TO CONTEMPLATE THE ABOVE

My opponent might possibly choose the original version in his answers to the above Socratic questions so he doesn't betray his position. Therefore, I ask the reader and judges to answer the above questions for themselves. Would you answer the above questions by choosing the 1931 or the 1992 version? On which movie would you place your $10,000 bet for receiving more movie rentals? Can you acknowledge the remake's success and that it has a market? If so, how can you agree with my opponent's position that movies shouldn't be remade?

A FINAL SOCRATIC QUESTION


Question 5: Would you personally be interested in seeing the 1938 version of A Christmas Carol? If so, tell us why. Explain to me your reasons behind wanting to see the 1938 version, why it's magical, what it has that the 1984 version doesn't have, what you may find entertaining about the movie, or however you feel like explaining your answer.



posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 03:30 PM
link   
***Arguing in Favour of Creative Script Writers and Filmmakers with New Ideas***

I agreed to this Debate because I know how beautifully and meticulously AshleyD does things...from Avatars (she did mine!) to Debates. I therefore look forward to an opponent that is very hard to beat.

One core question I would ask myself as a Hollywood-Producer is:

Should I remake an old movie or make a new movie?I

I will be arguing that it makes more sense to invest ones $$$$$$$ into fresh, creative and brandnew stories rather than re-telling the old.

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.

But: "Movies should be remade" as a blanket statement is unacceptable. The only instances movies should be remade are:

1. If a producer, director or screenwriter are too lazy or dull to come up with anything new.

2. If the advancement of technology has rendered the special effects of an older movie silly (the genres sci-fi and horror are good for this).

3. If a script really does have the potential to be better than the older movie. This was the case with a movie like Titanic, but it is rather unlikely with movies such as One flew over the cuckoos nest, Pulp Fiction, , Gone with the wind, just to name a few.

Saying "movies should be remade" without a sense of discernment is naive.

A big reason producers go for remakes instead of fresh material is fear of failure. "Since this movie worked 50 years ago, it should work again" They go with that instead of one of the MILLIONS OF NEW SCRIPTS put out by TALENTED people being put out every year".

Doing a remake is a kick in the face of all these talents. And we really are talking about Millions of scripts waiting to be made.

Rehash is fine, but it is human nature to look for the new and exciting. . Remember when "The Matrix" first came out? Didnt you just love how it featured a plot, a story, special effects and acting-styles we had not seen before?



__________________________________________

To answer my opponents questions:




Question 1: Let's assume you have seen neither version before. You go to rent a movie and the only two movies left on the shelves is one copy of each version. Which do you choose?


I´d prefer the remake over the 1931 version. But even more likely is that I will take neither because Im sick and tired of yet another Dracula remake. There most be more than half a dozen by now.




Question 2: Let's now assume you have seen both versions before. If you were forced to sit in a room and watch one of the versions three times in a row, which version would you honestly pick? This scenario is being asked for a reason.


Again, I´d "choose" the newer one.

You are offering two choices while ignoring 1 Billion+ other ones. Im sure there is some cunning debate-strategy reason behind that





Question 3: You make a bet with a friend and the wager is $10,000. The bet between the two of you consists of anticipating which of the two versions above is rented more by the public. Your friend gives you first choice and he will bet on the alternative. Do you place your wager on the 1992 version receiving more rentals or do you place your bet on the 1931 version receiving more rentals?


Same again: The newer one.



Question 4: The 1992 remake version was extremely popular, raking in three Academy awards, grossing $215,862,692 world wide, was the most popular version of the film to date, and has sparked multiple fan sites and pages (1). So why would you want to take that away from audiences?


You make the mistake of assuming I´d want to take that away from the audience. You even presuppose in your first post that I seek to "deprive" people.

I dont. I just think that more fresh and new movies than remakes should be made. The ocassional remake is fine...and sometimes even good. But in general? Nope.



Question 5: Would you personally be interested in seeing the 1938 version of A Christmas Carol? If so, tell us why. Explain to me your reasons behind wanting to see the 1938 version, why it's magical, what it has that the 1984 version doesn't have, what you may find entertaining about the movie, or however you feel like explaining your answer.


Sorry, I dont recall this movie compared to the other one well enough to pass judgement. I`ll be fine with seeing both.

Socratic Questions to AshleyD

1. Do you agree that it takes more effort to create something new than copy something old?

2. Do you believe in new creative talent?

3. Do you concede that "Movies should be remade" as a blanket statement, is completely invalid and that remakes should be the exception rather than the rule?

4. Would you happen to know which percentage of movies that are released on a yearly basis are remakes and which are new material?


5. How many of the following most successful movies of all time do you think are remakes?




Gone With the Wind (1939)
Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977)
The Sound of Music (1965)
E. T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
The Ten Commandments (1956)
Titanic (1997)
Jaws (1975)
Doctor Zhivago (1965)
The Exorcist (1973)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
101 Dalmatians (1961)
Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
Ben-Hur (1959)
Star Wars: Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983)
The Sting (1973)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Jurassic Park (1993)
The Graduate (1967)
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
Fantasia (1940)
The Godfather (1972)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Mary Poppins (1964)
The Lion King (1994)
Grease (1978)




posted on Jan, 19 2009 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Thanks to Skyfloating for standing in!


SPECIAL EFFECTS

Although we'll be discussing a variety of technological advances, I'd like to focus on one specific improvement: Special Effects. They are a major factor in determining quality and realism and an extreme advantage remakes can have over the originals. I'll use examples of three genres where special effects are of the highest importance, Horror, Sci-fi, and Fantasy/Adventure, although ANY genre could benefit.

HORROR


When you see a horror movie, are you looking for a good laugh or are you wanting to see horror? For me, I want to see horror but all I see in the screen shots from the 1978 version is a million reasons to laugh. What did they do? Slap gray paint on a bunch of extras and squirt them with stage blood? Those campy effects would cause most of us to laugh- not cringe in fear. On the other hand, we see a vast improvement in picture quality in the remake and the realistic effects that inspire the film's purpose: HORROR.

The 1978 version appeased movie-goers at the time and some today may even prefer the original. And that's fine! It's all personal opinion. But those people already have their version. What about the millions of movie-goers who loved the remake and caused it to be a hit but found the original to contain bad effects and lacking in energy? We are a market as well and appreciated this remake that grossed $96,990,765 world wide in theaters alone (1).

SCIENCE FICTION


I could save the creators of the 1953 version lots of cash by giving them some of my five year old son's Happy Meal toys and Playdough to use as their spaceship and alien. Although impressive at the time, those effects are so cheesy to us today it would honestly distract me from enjoying the plot. Hands down, the special effects from Steven Spielberg's remake are much more realistic and was another box office hit earning an astonishing $591,745,532 world wide at the theater alone (2).

FANTASY AND ADVENTURE


You may remember the 'jerky' movement of Kong and the other animatronic jungle creatures in the original version. In the remake, we can see the special effects show a massive improvement. Although I'm a fan of the original, I still love the new version even more. Apparently millions of others do, too, as it grossed a whopping $550,517,357 world wide in theaters (3).

VIVE VARIETY

We are obviously all attracted to the best special effects possible and would rather experience a plot with top-notch effects. But what if you wanted to experience the plot of an older movie yet the 'old school' filming style/effects kept you from enjoying a plot to the fullest? The above examples reveal the greatly improved and more realistic and professional capabilities of special effects. We can also see the remakes brought in huge audiences. 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.

ANSWERING THE SOCRATIC QUESTIONS

Fighter Rule: Make your opponent regret asking Socratic Questions.

Do you agree that it takes more effort to create something new than copy something old?

Absolutely. However, such is not the case when it comes to remakes. Remakes are not a copy inasmuch as they are an artistic reinterpretation. I'll explain your clever psychological wording for the reader in case they didn't realize how you just implanted certain imagery into their mind by using the words 'old copy.' A 'copy' according to what my opponent just had you visualize:



None of us like copycats. It immediately conjures up mental images of uninventive cheats (personified) or photocopied images (metaphoric visual- never as good as the original). However, looking at the examples of remakes above (I'll provide more throughout this debate), instead of copies we see reinterpretation and improvement of art. In this debate I'll show how remakes are improved creations and not mere 'copies.'

2. Do you believe in new creative talent?

Absolutely. I believe in the creative talent regarding the making of new movies as well as the creative talent that goes into the interpretation and effects of remakes. It takes creativity and talent for both, as I will explain in this debate.

***READER TAKE NOTE***

My opponent is emphasizing the angle of 'new' and 'creation' (compared to his equating remakes with 'old, copy, lazy, and dull'). I urge the reader to remember the adages, There is nothing new under the sun and Art inspires art. His 'new' movies are often 'created' after being inspired by books, plays, musicals, real life stories, and comics. 'New' is very rarely a 'creation' especially when it comes to movies. Thus, his appeal to 'new' is arguable and, more often than not, falls apart like wet paper.

3. Do you concede that Movies should be remade as a blanket statement, is completely invalid and that remakes should be the exception rather than the rule?

Again, I admire your attempt of thought-influence with wording like 'concede' and 'invalid,' however this topic is not 'EVERY Movie should be remade.' I'm obviously not going to defend remaking a movie currently in theaters, for example. Including the things I specified in my opening statement of what I will not advocate, we both agree that the remaking of movies calls for discernment.

Yet, I strongly disagree with your assumption that potentially workable remakes are the exception, not the rule. There have been millions of original movies made. Percentage-wise, how many are 'no-go zone' classics? How many are movies that shouldn't be touched? You use a few 'don't touch' examples in your above post that I agree with personally. Yet, those untouchables are in the vast minority. So, 'doable remakes' are the majority.

4.Would you happen to know which percentage of movies that are released on a yearly basis are remakes and which are new material?

Percentage-wise, no. Number-wise for the last five years, yes, which will be included in upcoming statistics I plan to present.

5. How many of the following most successful movies of all time do you think are remakes?

According to your list, two in the top five alone are remakes. The Sound of Music is a remake of the 1956 German film Die Trapp-Familie incorporating Rodgers and Hammerstein's music and The Ten Commandments is a remake of the 1923 silent film under the same name. Some would also consider Titanic a remake as it involves the 1912 tragedy that has been brought to film before. Were you trying to help my case or was this an accident on your part?


Also, there are many successful remakes that are more successful than originals and new movies. By your logic and list, revenue ranking partially determines a film's right to exist. Considering the intermingling of remakes and originals in your list, new movies as well as remakes should be created as they both have the potential for extreme success. Your logic is flawed.

Another flaw in the point you were trying to make is the fact some of those movies on your list have no remake as a comparison. Could a remake eventually come out and kick the original off the list? Time will tell... unless we do as you say and only focus on 'new.' In that case, the remake would never exist for us to ever know.

EXPLAINING THE LOGIC OF THE DRACULA SOCRATIC QUESTIONS

While answering my Socratic questions, my opponent was honest and admitted he preferred the remakes.
I'm now going to explain the logic behind the questions and the underlying importance.

Questions 1 and 2

This got the reader thinking about their personal preferences and how most people would probably prefer the remake. It also showed how remakes offer choices. If it was not for the remake, if you wanted to see a movie based on Bram Stoker's Dracula, the 1931 version would be the only option in our above hypothetical scenarios. Question 2 revealed our possible interest and appreciation for the original while still ultimately preferring the remake. And that's all I ask. Thanks for the classic. It was great in its own way. But I'm also thankful for the remake. Some may have a preference for the classic and that is totally fair. However, countless others have a preference for the remake and it deserves to exist.

Questions 3 and 4

This got the reader and my opponent to contemplate the extreme success and popularity of the remake. They demonstrated the potential success and popularity of remakes and asked why my opponent (or those of you who agree with his stance) would want to take the enjoyment of away from others.

CONCLUSION

I'll leave the rest of my opponent's post alone for now since it's only his opening statement and he will be expounding on his case shortly. Next up, we'll be looking at many more technological advances that support my position.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 06:38 AM
link   
Rebuttal # 1:

Most of the all-time-bestselling blockbusters are not remakes but originals. My opponent did nothing but pick out the few that are not. So why are they more successful than remakes? Because people prefer to pay for something new..

Its as simple as that…no matter how many beautiful colours, fonts and underlined words AshleyD offers up.

Rebuttal # 2:

AshleyD writes in her opening post:



Did you see the Lord of the Rings trilogy? Steven Spielberg's Munich?
How many of you have childhood memories of The Wizard of Oz with Judy Garland?


*Disinfo Alert*


Some notable examples of films based on common material, but not considered remakes of each other:

* The Peter Jackson Lord of the Rings films are adaptations of Tolkien's books, although they contain numerous homages to the 1978 Ralph Bakshi film. Neither Jackson's nor Bakshi's films bear any relation to the Rankin/Bass Hobbit and Return of the King.

* Any adaptation of Alice in Wonderland: one important factor in this is that each adaptation either does or does not include sections from Through the Looking Glass.
Source

Neither is Steven Spielbergs "Munich" known as a remake. It is only rumoured that Spielberg borrowed some Elements of the TV Show "Sword of Gideon"

Rebuttal #3:

A large part of my opponents last post is wasted showing how special effects in sci-fi and horror can be improved. This debate-space is wasted because it is already something I admitted to it in my previous post. There’s no doubt in my mind that cheesy effects need to be redone.

Not always is it necessary to invest millions into a remake though. George Lucas re-did the special effects of the old star-wars trilogy without remaking the film!

Old Star Wars in a New Light

Rebuttal #4:

My opponents rebuttal on my question “Do you agree that it takes more effort to create something new than to copy something old” is a weak attempt to distort. Instead of using the word “copy” I could have used the word create, make, remake…it doesn’t matter. No logical line of argumentation would deny that making something new takes more effort than remaking something that already exists. Despite AshleyD saying:



There is nothing new under the sun and Art inspires art. New' movies are often 'created' after being inspired by books, plays, musicals, real life stories, and comics.


Its true that everything is based on everything else. Its not true that artistically and creatively there is no difference between a RE-make and a new-make.


Rebuttal #5



Yet, I strongly disagree with your assumption that potentially workable remakes are the exception, not the rule.


*Disinfo Alert* I did not say this. I did not talk about “potentially workable” remakes. I said that actually producing remakes is the exception not the rule and should remain the exception not the rule.

Btw: Why are remakes the exception, not the rule? We’ve already answered that, haven’t we? Because people prefer the new and fresh.

Rebuttal #6


It also showed how remakes offer choices.


One of the main pillars on which my opponents argument rests is how remakes offer viewers more choice and variety. While this is true, it is no satisfactory counter-argument to new movies offering variety and choice. Are the debate judges getting this?

________________________________________________

On to my case. My opponent having painted a picture of remakes being box-office hits or critically acclaimed masterpieces, lets look at more than only a few remakes that turned out to be disasters. Despite superstars, despite special effects, despite high budgets:

The Invasion (Nicole Kidman)
Poseidon (Kurt Russel)
Planet of Apes (Mark Wahlberg)
Psycho (Julianne Moore)
Heaven can Wait (Dustin Hoffmann)
Godzilla (Mathew Broderick)
Wickerman (Nicolas Cage)
The Pink Panther (Beyonce Knowles)
Get Carter (Sylvester Stallone)
Solaris (George Clooney)

I could go on and on but do not wish to disgust the readers more than necessary. If you have seen the newer versions of any of these all-time-classics you understand the sentiment.

Therefore the generalization “Movies should be remade” remains invalid. Remakes should be the exception, not the rule. From the producers point of view. And from the audiences point of view.

Contrast these disgusting remakes with the all-time-bestselling-blockbusters (most of which are not remakes) and we have a more balanced picture than the one AshleyD provided.

Conclusion:

Neither the blanket statement “Movies should be remade” nor “Movies should not be remade” are true. The debate topic then is then, which of the two is preferable, which of the two should be the rule and which the exception.

_______________________________________________


Socratic Questions

1. If doing remakes is so good, then why are most new movie releases not remakes?

2. What were you trying to achieve when posting non-remakes as remakes in your OP?

3. Are good works of art best left alone or do you also think the works of Da Vinci, Shakespeare, Picasso, Mozart, The Beatles, etc. should be remade?

4. Should producing remakes be the exception or the rule?

5. Did you know that most Hollywood-Versions of European and Asian movies turn out worse than the originals because Hollywood tries to impose narrow mass-market standards and plots upon them?

For the enjoyment of readers: A scene from "Dances with Wolves"...



And another scene from "Dead Poets Society"...



Both movies by talented writers who had the guts to come up with something new.



posted on Jan, 20 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Sidenote: My last post contained the error of including "Alice in Wonderland" in the external-quote box. I apologize.

Whats wrong with the film industry is that too many mediocre movies get made in the first place. Billions are wasted a year, despite our "economic crisis". In addition to that Ashley would like to add more remakes...

I've been enjoying AshleyDs picture-book-style. I will admit that its an effective way to do this debate...simply showing the old-versions beside the new-versions, thereby driving the irrefutable point home: "Remakes are better than the originals!"

Is putting pictures side by side enough to base an entire debate on though? Are most remakes better than their originals? Is it better to do a remake or a new movie? Should remakes be the exceptions or the rule?
AshleyD does a fairly good job in evading these questions. But not good enough. Lets have a critical look at what on the surface appears to be an airtight argument.



You know your opponent is scrambling when they shift their focus away from building their own case to concentrate on refuting yours


In this case its a matter of my side being so clear-cut and common sense (non-remakes are already the rule, not the exception...and for good reason), that there's not really much more to say on the subject.
It is therefore my task to focus on and uncover the misinfo and disinfo in your posts.



Colorized remake examples...

The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Mummy, Oceans Eleven


The recent remake of "The Day the Earth Stood Still" was rated as one of the worst blockbuster-remakes ever by fans and film critics alike. Not to mention "The Mummy" which went down as one of the worst film scripts of the year 1999.

Conclusion: Putting color to a film does not necessarily make it better.



Modernizations

Scrooged with Bill Murray is a big screen adaptation the of Dickens' plot previously portrayed in film.
Romeo and Juliet with Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes is another


As already shown in my last post, adaptions of classics are not actually classified as "remakes".



Many films with fantastic plots were originally silent


Couldnt have been that many because the silent film area did not last too long and the yearly movie output was not what it is today.




FOREIGN FILMS

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?


AshleyD does the same thing she has done in every post up to now: List the few good movies (often adding that there are so "many") and ignore hundreds and thousands of abysmal remakes, wastes of resources and money.

Currently, European and Asian (especially japanese horror and thai kung fu) movies are being remade by the dozens...none of them better than the original.

Conviniently Ashley fails to provide evidence that all the movies she says are remakes are actually remakes. We have already seen in this debate how false information was provided (some of those werent actually remakes).



Indiana Jones is based on the 1930's serials


"To be based on" does not equal remake.



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.


Again, adaptions of comics and books are not remakes!!!



What my opponent is not admitting is that he saw my post before removal due to an opponent forfeiture.


A weak argument and false info remains weak and/or false...no matter in when it was posted.



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.


You may be fooling the readers, but you are not fooling me or other keen observers. The Debate topic says "Movies should be Remade". It is your side to argue that. It is therefore my task to argue: "Movies should not be remade, instead lets invest in new movies".



He is erroneously coming to the conclusion that all remakes are bad because some are bad


More *Disinfo Alert*. I really do hope this nonsense does not pass as a "debate win". Already in my OP I admitted that there are good remakes. I also said that neither "Movies should be remade" nor "Movies should not be remade" are valid or true statements. 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.



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.


Silly. In the opening of her last post she says I should not focus on refuting her points but on building my own case (new movies). Now she says that "new movies" is not the topic. I think my opponent would only be happy if I dont post at all
May I remind you that I was the one who brought up the balance of remakes and new movies at first...with a preferred bias towards more new movies than remakes. The box office agrees with my side. Fans agree with it. The facts agree with it.

Here are comprehensive lists of movie remakes:

List 1 A-M

List 2 N-Z

The fact that only two wikipedia-pages contain almost every remake ever made reveals one important thing: Remakes are the exception.

If you examine those lists closely, something else is revealed: At least half of the movies were either box office flops or worse than the original! A remake that is better than the original is rare indeed.

As far as Im concerned, even a superficial glance at the lists proves it: Remakes are mostly a waste of resources and time. Last year is a good example of what has happened in many film years:


Taking a quick look at the top earning movies in 2008 (thanksBox Office Mojo!), there are no remakes in the top 25. The Day the Earth Stood Still was #39 on the list.


Source: Do Remakes Actually make any money?

Contrast the FACTS with my opponents statement:



I'm sure we'd all be happy to profit that much on a 'bad' investment




1. Statistical probability.


This is my opponents answer to the question: "If doing remakes is so good, then why are most new movie releases not remakes?". Does the answer make sense? No. But this answer does: Because people prefer the new over the old.



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.


Judges: Please take note how AshleyD, in each and every one of her posts, announces that she WILL provide evidence for something "in a later post".


I look forward to to you proving that Spielbergs Munich is a remake of this TV Series.



Shakespeare's plays have been adapted into films with both classic and modernized themes


And again: Adaption is NOT Remake. A REMAKE of Shakespeares writings would turn up different writings.



I have no strong opinion either way. I say do both in varying ratios


This is my opponents answer to "Should remakes be the exception or the rule?". This means she does not think that remakes should be the exception.

Are we to believe that she cares more for remakes than new and original material? Or is she only pretending to, for the purpose of this debate?

The purpose of a Debate in this Forum is to find out the core truths of a subject. And the core truth we have found out is that more original movies than remakes are produced. Why? Because they make more money. Because they have more fans. Because they are more critically acclaimed. If that were not true, we would have more remakes.

AshleyD has cited the cream of the crop regarding remakes, naturally ignoring all the trash produced. But even the best of the best regarding remakes, pales in comparison to good original movies. Lets first look at remakes Ashley cited in pictures:

Dracula
A Christmas Carol
Dawn of the Dead
War of the Worlds
KingKong
Phantom of the Opera
The Wizard of Oz
The Mummy
Oceans Eleven

Question to Readers: How many of these movies are among your all-time-favourite Top 10?

Now please check out this list of movies:

The Godfather
The Matrix
Forrest Gump
Star Wars
Dances with Wolves
Groundhog Day
Rain Man
Pulp Fiction
Gone with the Wind
Doctor Zhivago
E.T.

How many of these movies are among your all-time favourite top 10?

Enjoy original script writing:



Socratic Questions:

1. Remaking has nothing at all to do with copying?

2. You think remakes should not be the exception?

3. You say I should neither be focusing on new movies nor on refuting your points: What in your opinion, is my debate-side then?


4. Do you agree that a good Debater must also admit when he/she has made a mistake?



posted on Jan, 21 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
My opponent has now pretty much abandoned his case after I exposed it as a logical fallacy and is now depending on rebuttals. He previously asked what takes more effort: Copying or Creation? So I ask the reader what takes more skill: Creating or Criticizing? Although I find his rebuttals petty, erroneous, and redundant, I'll address them shortly. First: My case.

THE STATISTICS

We've discussed the aesthetics of remakes so let's focus on statistics. Revenue isn't the only factor in determining a film's success but it is an immensely important one as it reflects public interest. If the public had no interest in remakes, the amounts would be far less. While my opponent only shows you his top lists, I'll show you all from both. Statistics collected from HERE and HERE. Adjust the url for other years. Domestic gross is shown, click on the movies for worldwide.


The above domestic averages reflect all movies and remakes both famous/obscure and successes/flops. On average remakes win and bring in more revenue than new. Now here is another calculation where new movies win. Although the new movies consist of sequels, prequels, and plots loosely done before, they're still new:


If you think what I just did was risky, you've fallen into my opponent's either/only trap. But I'm not falling for it so I'm showing both. My opponent only presented all time top movies (which also included remakes) so I wanted to be fair and show how remakes and new movies again intermingle and take the lead over each other depending on how you tally the statistics. Fair enough? I say so. So let's have both.

AN OLD ADAGE RINGS TRUE

My advice to my opponent is, 'If you don't like it change the channel.' If you don't have a taste for remakes- that's fine! Nobody is forcing anyone to see them. But don't take away our preferences, options, and interest in remakes. Remakes do have a profitable market, as the above statistics show, even if one wishes to not be a part of the market. Enjoy your 'new' but please let us enjoy our remakes.

My opponent has focused on remakes being the minority of releases and the statistics prove this. There are fewer remakes in proportion but don't let my opponent's opinion fool you into thinking majority = better. The statistics show BOTH in a good light and also prove it's not the case where my opponent implied remakes prevent 'millions' of new movies. The minority remakes are not the 'bullies' my opponent claims they are.

CLASSIC REMAKESS

I already mentioned some examples of remake classics like The Wizard of Oz and The Ten Commandments. Here are a few more:


My Fair Lady with Audry Hepburn, Ben-Hur with Charlton Heston, The Man Who Knew Too Much with Jimmy Stewart and Doris Day, His Girl Friday with Cary Grant, The Maltese Falcon with Humphrey Bogart, and the Sound of Music with Julie Andrews.

How many modern remakes of today will become the classics of tomorrow? According to my opponent, they wouldn't even have a chance because they're not 'new.'

IS A MOVIE YOU LOVE A REMAKE?

I offer the reader a challenge. Visit IMDB and search for some of your favorite movies. You may be surprised to see how many of them have matches with earlier dates. I know some of my favorite movies are remakes. What about you? If so, my opponent thinks your favorite plot is 'old and dull.' Since some movies are remade under different titles you may also enjoy browsing through the list HERE my opponent also presents. The list isn't complete but it's pretty massive. Will one of your favorite movies be on the list? Were you surprised to find out a good movie was a remake?

REMAKES BRING THE ORIGINALS OUT OF THE VAULT

How many times has a remake been released in theaters only to have the original pulled out of the vault and publicized? I've seen this numerous times. Remakes spark an interest in the original and expose the original to many who may not have known it existed. As a result, they are given the opportunity to either develop an appreciation for the original or to formulate their own preference.

STANDING FIRM AGAIN

Again, instead of presenting anything from his own case, I'm only left refuting his rebuttals- and silly ones at that. He's being awfully repetitive so 1 paragraph each works well:

1. Putting pictures side by side to win a debate. Is that all I'm doing? No. I think everyone can easily see through that accusation. Turning this around: Is posting You Tube clips of new movies (not even the topic) enough? Quote snipped top lists? Presenting false dilemmas? No.

2. Skyfloatings case is clear cut common sense. Not quite. Logical fallacies of a false dichotomy and strawman are far from 'common sense.' His 'case' begins and concludes on a false premise. Absurd.

3. Ratings from critics and fans. And? I prefer to make up my own mind. The revenue is a reflection of public interest and many were interested. They can see it and develop their opinion. What my opponent is ultimately implying is censorship for 'your own good.' SOME remakes MIGHT suck so let me save you from the experience and think for you.

4. Adaptions of comics and books are not remakes. Not what I said. What you quoted was not a defense of remakes. It was a rebuttal of your 'new creation' shtick.


5. A weak argument and false info remains no matter when it was posted. A 'weak argument' and 'waste of debate space' that caused you to concede some pretty important points. I wouldn't call that weak or a waste. And false? Nope. King Kong, Dawn of the Dead, and War of the Worlds are nonnegotiable remakes. But throw around the term 'disinfo' a bit more. I'm getting a kick out of it.

6. Judges: Please take note how AshleyD announces that she WILL provide evidence for something in a later post. Yes, judges please note my opponent's desperation. Have I not delivered as promised on the few times I have done this? It's because I spend hours meticulously planning my case and know where each argument is designed to go. This criticism is petty and reeks of desperation.

7. Proving Munich is a remake. Depicting the same historical event, using the same book, Spielberg gobbled up the rights to 1978 film, etc. Sounds like a remake. Hint: It's also on your remake list you presented.

8. Mediocre movies, billions wasted, economic crisis, etc.. That's some serious grasping by my opponent. Not to mention misleading. Do 'new' movies not ever flop or turn out mediocre? Economic crisis? Nice try at playing to people's stressed wallets but check out my statistics links above. MUCH more money was lost on new. Your logic actually supports remakes but I won't go there. It's just more illusionary either/or.

9. Question Evasion. I think I have done a stellar job of answering what you've put forth while still presenting my own case with a very limited character count. I think you know this.

10. Ashley lists the few good movies and ignores the flops. Completely false. Since my opening statement I have exhibited honesty by saying there are dud remakes. I have not even presented a list of top remakes like he has done with movies because I understand it's bad logic.

What's really happening: My opponent is only listing the top new movies while ignoring the countless new duds. By his logic, I should claim new movies have duds so new movies = bad. Absurd. He criticizes me for highlighting remake blockbusters (yet I also admit the duds) then he turns right around and highlights new blockbusters (with no mention of the duds). Hello? He also only focuses on my photo examples when I have listed more than that and focuses on the examples he believes are debatable while ignoring the others.

11. Some of those werent actually remakes. My opponent keeps claiming I'm submitting non remakes but I have refuted all of his disputes. He also accuses me of not proving my movies are remakes. I guess links and pictures isn't enough. Talk about a skeptic. Is he proving his movies are new? No.

12. Is Ashley only pretending to like remakes for the purpose of this debate? NOPE. I like BOTH. Notice the mix. Honesty is vital.


Well THAT was awkward. I want to say more but unlike my opponent, I'm actually presenting a case and don't have the luxury of 10K character rebuttals. I will not sacrifice my case to engage in petty squabbling about font color since he has nothing else. I trust the reader to see what's up.

SOCRATIC ANSWERS

1. THE DEFINITION of copy looks like it mostly mentions paper/books but you asked 'at all' so the word 'reproduction' fits. It would be like saying some 'new' movies 'copy' a book. Inspiration seems more appropriate for both.

2. I truly have no strong opinion on it. In light of the statistics, BOTH have their advantages in different ways. Although remakes are in the minority, you ask me my personal opinion. Since I like BOTH, my answer is BOTH. It's not either/or.

3. Nice try. I'm not giving you any tips.


4. Absolutely. Integrity is crucial.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:10 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:26 PM
link   
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!



posted on Jan, 23 2009 @ 05:37 AM
link   
To have the time to more intensely distill the essentials of this debate I will be making use of my 24-hour extension.




posted on Jan, 24 2009 @ 03:24 AM
link   
Misinfo or Disinfo?

We have misinfo when someone posts false information without knowing it. It becomes disinfo when the person knows that what they are posting is false. It is not for me to judge what is misinfo and what disinfo, but only to point out that with this much false information, one cannot possibly expect to drive a debate point home:

* Maintaining that “Munich” by Spielberg is a remake and still not providing a shred of evidence for that. Why? Because


And on what does Lantos base the claim that Munich is a remake of Sword of Gideon? To judge from this story, his claim would seem to rest on little more than a single scene.
Source

* The “statistics-brackets” on movie Revenue and Profit were created by AshleyD, and nicely cherry-picked to her benefit. If you follow the link you will not see those stats anywhere. She made them!!! I have already proven on two accounts, that remakes do not make more than new movies. Where? In the all-time-movies-list I posted in my OP plus in my reference of 2008 stats which were not created by me but by box-office analysts.

* AshleyD, in every single post, maintained:



His either/or choice between new and remake was an illusionary dilemma
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.


Dear Judges: In a Debate entitled "Movies should be remade"...what exactly is the counter argument to that? Right: "Movies should not be remade" Instead? New Movies should be made. This is by no means a "false dilemma" but something I am obliged to argue. Just like it is incorrect to say "All Movies Should be Remade" or "Movies should always be remade" it would be dishonest of me to say "No Movies Should be Remade".

* The Rose analogy was shown in order to divert from the fact that remakes = the use of older material rather than creating something new. This simple fact cannot be refuted. Can the old be improved to something new? Sure. I never denied that. Is that something BETTER than creating something new? I think I have built a convincing case for that - including proper citation and referencing.

* A misrepresentation of my argument:



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.

you can have both


From the very beginning I openly said that both making new movies and doing remakes is entirely fine.

Why? Because only a moron would argue that "movies should not be remade" or "movies should be remade" as a general statement. Did my opponent really expect me to argue that???? Did I expect her to argue that????


No. Instead it is a matter of what is BETTER. , new movies or remakes. Throughout the entire debate my opponent has ignored my actual position in the Debate and acted as if I believe "No movies should be remade at all". I think if she would have focussed on a few actual logical rebuttals instead, she might have built a convincing case.



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.


Not at all. Again, I defended BOTH sides throughout the debate, merely pointing out that most of your favorite toy-box movies are no remakes.




But I ask the reader, who had the more logical case? Who offered you options and who focused on the either/or route?Who told both sides of the story?Who focused on the real issues


Please see my last post


Imagine a World in which...

I would like to say that AshleyD is an extremely talented Debater, especially when it comes to presentation and style. I think she could have made more out of the Debate without all the misinfo/disinfo...which diminishes her otherwise outstanding performance.

Imagine a World in which Remakes are not the Exception but the Rule. A world full of "War of the Worlds", "Phantom of the Opera", "Dracula", "Dawn of the Dead".

Wouldnt that be a sad world, bereft of imagination?

Please let remakes be the exception, not the rule.

Please do let let last years gift be this years gift:



In the movie scene just seen, could you feel what it feels like when people give no thought to stuff but just do the same thing again?

Do not support a movie industry that is cynically milking and recycling the old. Support the abundance of new ideas, of talented script writers and of progress and creativity.

Do you know how many threads on ATS are recycled and remade topics?

Do you really prefer remade topics to fresh, new and exciting info?



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   
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.




posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 12:26 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 01:49 PM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:42 PM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 27 2009 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Alright...but I wouldnt have taken offense to it because I believe that in a game or fight, while its important to play within the rules, its expected to twist, turn, push, pull, conceal truth to some extent.

If we wanted to "tell the truth" the debate would be done with "Some remakes are cool, some are not, period".

So, certainly no offense taken.





new topics
top topics
 
8

log in

join