It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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?
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.
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)
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)
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)
The Godfather (1972)
Forrest Gump (1994)
Mary Poppins (1964)
The Lion King (1994)
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?
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.
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.
Yet, I strongly disagree with your assumption that potentially workable remakes are the exception, not the rule.
It also showed how remakes offer choices.
You know your opponent is scrambling when they shift their focus away from building their own case to concentrate on refuting yours
Colorized remake examples...
The Day The Earth Stood Still, The Mummy, Oceans Eleven
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
Many films with fantastic plots were originally silent
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?
Indiana Jones is based on the 1930's serials
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.
What my opponent is not admitting is that he saw my post before removal due to an opponent forfeiture.
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.
He is erroneously coming to the conclusion that all remakes are bad because some are bad
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.
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.
I'm sure we'd all be happy to profit that much on a 'bad' investment
1. Statistical probability.
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.
Shakespeare's plays have been adapted into films with both classic and modernized themes
I have no strong opinion either way. I say do both in varying ratios
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.