Enter the Ethereal Dream
Have you noticed that there is a special mystique and feel to black/white movies that makes you stop switching TV channels and just linger there?
Why might that be?
Is it because colour represents "reality" to us and black/white takes us to an ethereal places outside of our daily life reality? (And wouldnt that
be the reason we watch movies anyway...to be taken far away for an hour or two)
Is it because Imagination loves to fill in the gaps instead of having everything force-fed? Is that why we feel slightly more elated after watching a
b/w movie?
Are b/w movies more artistically and aesthetically pleasing because the different shades of gray let us notice things such as sharpness, light,
tone, depth, texture - things we would not notice if everything were splashed with colour?
Is it because they awaken nostalgic feelings of a supposedly better time or because more care was invested into making movies back then?
Frankly, my answers to these questions is "Yes". I will go into Detail on these and other points throughout the Debate. I will also be presenting
pictorial samples of the wonderful world of bl/w movies.
To make it more worthwhile to the reader, I will also discuss how this topic touches on perception, reality, relative-value, aesthetics and art. My
hope is that somewhere out there, a filmmaker will read this and get the idea to bring back the black and white film if even only for purposes of
visual enjoyment.
I hereby dedicate this piece to the enjoyment of all involved...you, my respected opponent Rising Against, the Readers, the Debate Judges and
TheVagabond who created the space in which we play.
Highest Regards,
Skyfloating
Round 1. Skyfloating vs Rising Against: You should have seen it in Monotone, page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times
Topic started on 27-10-2010 @ 02:49 AM by The Vagabond
The topic for this debate is "On average, black and white movies are better than movies in color.”
Skyfloating will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
Rising Against will be arguing the "Con" position.
The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.
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- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).
Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.
Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 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. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.
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:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.
Each debate 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 for a 24 hour extension 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.
If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.
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.
In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.
All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.
Skyfloating will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
Rising Against will be arguing the "Con" position.
The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.
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- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).
Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.
Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.
Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.
Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 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. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.
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:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.
Each debate 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 for a 24 hour extension 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.
If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.
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.
In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.
All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.
) prefer B/W. 
reply posted on 29-10-2010 @ 05:06 PM by Skyfloating
6. Directors Pick
Despite having made color films or having the option of making color films, these are some brilliant directors of past Generations who chose to make black/white movies for artistic reasons:
Alfred Hitchcock
Ingmar Bergman
David Lynch
Federico Fellini
Billy Wilder
Akira Kurosawa
Woody Allen
Steven Spielberg
The Cohen Brothers
(among hundreds of others).
If, as my Debate opponent says, b/w is so dull and uninspiring, many of the most brilliant directors of all time would not have chosen it over easily available color.
The Beatles "A Hard Days Night" was a huge success, forever remembered, whereas the Beatles movie "Help" which was full of color and effects, kind of flopped and is almost forgotten today. If it were true what my Debate Opponent says, this would not have been the case.
In TIME Magazines ALL-TIME-100-MOVIES there are a disproportionate amount of b/w movies athough many million more color movies have been made. That is no coincidence! If they were as boring and dull as my opponent says, why did so many make the ALL-TIME Top 100?
In fact, as you can see on the ranking-pages, the Top 10 feature 7 black and white movies, some of them shot in color-decades (70s, 80s)!
Regardless of whether the casual viewer wants their cinematic fast-food, the film-experts and critics have spoken. And they say black/white is better.
Since my opponent spent his entire last post and parts of the post before last arguing that b/w movies are boring I asked that this section be considered a rebuttal of that.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Responses
When reading a book you are not telling yourself a story. The author is telling the story. Only when you write the book yourself, are you telling the story. Thats where Imagination is trained the most. Thats the least lazy position. Here's a scale from active and wakeful to inactive and untrained Imagination:
Writing "The Wizard of Oz"
Reading "The Wizard of Oz"
Watching "The Wizard of Oz" in Black/White
Watching "The Wizard of Oz" in Color
With each consecuitve step on the scale, less Imagination is required from you. Too much of tis obviously dulls the mind. A dull mind then things "black and white films are dull". As we are, so we see the world.
Yes. If you want to know whether a movie is really good or not, strip it off special fx and color. If its STILL good, then add the color back and you have a great movie. Without color you see a movie unmasked, you see the script and the acting for what it is.
Let me explain: Back before Television, in Shaekespears day, some performances lived from the awesome presence, charisma and personality of the actors. And some performances had to be spiced up with better lighting, better dress, better color - in order to mask mediocre performance. The same applies to color and special effects. If something is good it doesnt matter whether there are effects or not. If something is good it doesnt matter what it cost or didnt cost to make it. It is certainly true that low-budget movies require more effort, better acting, better scripts because nothing can be masked by effects and mega-filmsets.
Throughout this Debate you have based your entire argumentation on "more viewers = better on average". However, more viewers does not equal better. Just because the majority of people prefer blood and guts to romance and drama it does not make blood and guts "better". Just because the majority prefers McDonalds to French Cuisine, it does not make McDonalds "better". More convenient, yes. More for the lazy, yes. But by no means better. If you prefer to get High with Cocaine instead of working out in the Gym, does that mean that Cocaine is "better" for you than working out? I dare say it isnt.
You also said that taking away the color in a war movie takes away the "shock effect" and the "blood and gore". To which I ask: Why does a war movie need "shock effect" and gore? What about characterization, dialogue, drama, romance, adventure, action?
From this Debate I get the sense that for you entertainment is everything that is shocking, bloody or flashing. But there are other forms of entertainment. And many of us actually enjoy b/w war movies. Especially the ones that show WWII.
In reply to my question whether you would rather choose a color yourself, you answered:
I will take this as the third concession of the Debate. If you prefer to choose color yourself rather than having it forced upon you, you agree with fans of b/w movies who would rather imagine what color things are themselves.
Best film in b/w is Casablanca, best film in color is Groundhog Day.
Best sci-fi b/w is Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Best sci-fi color is The Matrix.
In no way do I consider one "better" than the other, just different. B/W only becomes better in a perceptual and artistic context because it requires more imagination and sophistication of the viewer.
Question 1: Do you agree that in terms of pictures and movies , what is "better" is a matter of taste?
Question 2: Which horror movie do you think was more shocking: "Night of the Living Dead" (the 60s version) or either "The Fog" (recent version)? (If you havent seen one or either, which one do you suspect to be better in shock-value)
Question 3: What is generally more important to you in life, quality or quantity?
Question 4: Do all Asians pretty much look the same to you, or do you tend to notice the differences between say Japanese, Koreans and Chinese faces? (is your way of seeing more generalized or do you notice details)
Question 5: Would you say boredom is a subjective inner state, or something caused by an outside thing?
Looking forward to your response...
Despite having made color films or having the option of making color films, these are some brilliant directors of past Generations who chose to make black/white movies for artistic reasons:
Alfred Hitchcock
Ingmar Bergman
David Lynch
Federico Fellini
Billy Wilder
Akira Kurosawa
Woody Allen
Steven Spielberg
The Cohen Brothers
(among hundreds of others).
If, as my Debate opponent says, b/w is so dull and uninspiring, many of the most brilliant directors of all time would not have chosen it over easily available color.
The Beatles "A Hard Days Night" was a huge success, forever remembered, whereas the Beatles movie "Help" which was full of color and effects, kind of flopped and is almost forgotten today. If it were true what my Debate Opponent says, this would not have been the case.
In TIME Magazines ALL-TIME-100-MOVIES there are a disproportionate amount of b/w movies athough many million more color movies have been made. That is no coincidence! If they were as boring and dull as my opponent says, why did so many make the ALL-TIME Top 100?
In fact, as you can see on the ranking-pages, the Top 10 feature 7 black and white movies, some of them shot in color-decades (70s, 80s)!
Regardless of whether the casual viewer wants their cinematic fast-food, the film-experts and critics have spoken. And they say black/white is better.
Since my opponent spent his entire last post and parts of the post before last arguing that b/w movies are boring I asked that this section be considered a rebuttal of that.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Responses
But, whether you're watching a movie in B/W or Colour, you're always having the story told to you rather than telling it yourself like you do upon reading a book.
When reading a book you are not telling yourself a story. The author is telling the story. Only when you write the book yourself, are you telling the story. Thats where Imagination is trained the most. Thats the least lazy position. Here's a scale from active and wakeful to inactive and untrained Imagination:
Writing "The Wizard of Oz"
Reading "The Wizard of Oz"
Watching "The Wizard of Oz" in Black/White
Watching "The Wizard of Oz" in Color
With each consecuitve step on the scale, less Imagination is required from you. Too much of tis obviously dulls the mind. A dull mind then things "black and white films are dull". As we are, so we see the world.
It seems as though not much is left other than those special effects, gimmicks and frills from where I am but if I've misunderstood, please do enlighten me but it certainly seems as though this is what you're saying..
Yes. If you want to know whether a movie is really good or not, strip it off special fx and color. If its STILL good, then add the color back and you have a great movie. Without color you see a movie unmasked, you see the script and the acting for what it is.
Let me explain: Back before Television, in Shaekespears day, some performances lived from the awesome presence, charisma and personality of the actors. And some performances had to be spiced up with better lighting, better dress, better color - in order to mask mediocre performance. The same applies to color and special effects. If something is good it doesnt matter whether there are effects or not. If something is good it doesnt matter what it cost or didnt cost to make it. It is certainly true that low-budget movies require more effort, better acting, better scripts because nothing can be masked by effects and mega-filmsets.
More viewers equals more money after all.
Throughout this Debate you have based your entire argumentation on "more viewers = better on average". However, more viewers does not equal better. Just because the majority of people prefer blood and guts to romance and drama it does not make blood and guts "better". Just because the majority prefers McDonalds to French Cuisine, it does not make McDonalds "better". More convenient, yes. More for the lazy, yes. But by no means better. If you prefer to get High with Cocaine instead of working out in the Gym, does that mean that Cocaine is "better" for you than working out? I dare say it isnt.
why not a whole type of movies. Maybe the ‘war genre’ perhaps?
Seeing the flames and explosions in all their glory, the gore which is so essential to the shock value, the true expression of fear on ones face.
You also said that taking away the color in a war movie takes away the "shock effect" and the "blood and gore". To which I ask: Why does a war movie need "shock effect" and gore? What about characterization, dialogue, drama, romance, adventure, action?
From this Debate I get the sense that for you entertainment is everything that is shocking, bloody or flashing. But there are other forms of entertainment. And many of us actually enjoy b/w war movies. Especially the ones that show WWII.
In reply to my question whether you would rather choose a color yourself, you answered:
Of course I would rather choose it myself.
I will take this as the third concession of the Debate. If you prefer to choose color yourself rather than having it forced upon you, you agree with fans of b/w movies who would rather imagine what color things are themselves.
What would be the greatest B/W and colour movie you've had the privilege to see? (To clarify, please state what is, in your opinion, the best film of B/W and the best film in colour)
Best film in b/w is Casablanca, best film in color is Groundhog Day.
Best sci-fi b/w is Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Best sci-fi color is The Matrix.
In no way do I consider one "better" than the other, just different. B/W only becomes better in a perceptual and artistic context because it requires more imagination and sophistication of the viewer.
Question 1: Do you agree that in terms of pictures and movies , what is "better" is a matter of taste?
Question 2: Which horror movie do you think was more shocking: "Night of the Living Dead" (the 60s version) or either "The Fog" (recent version)? (If you havent seen one or either, which one do you suspect to be better in shock-value)
Question 3: What is generally more important to you in life, quality or quantity?
Question 4: Do all Asians pretty much look the same to you, or do you tend to notice the differences between say Japanese, Koreans and Chinese faces? (is your way of seeing more generalized or do you notice details)
Question 5: Would you say boredom is a subjective inner state, or something caused by an outside thing?
Looking forward to your response...
reply posted on 30-10-2010 @ 02:04 PM by Rising Against
Third Rebuttal
Once more, addressing some of my opponents most interesting points is my choice for opening:
When reading a book you are not telling yourself a story. The author is telling the story. Only when you write the book yourself, are you telling the story. Thats where Imagination is trained the most. Thats the least lazy position.
Yes, the author is the one originally telling the story to you; my original point was in regards to imagination. You see, yes, the author can give you the story, the tools to work with so to speak, but the one telling it is..you! And you are the one re-enacting out the story in your mind. Yes, you may be given the colours of any one "thing" in that story, but you are the one who is deciding what it looks like, the tone of it, everything. You are the one whom chooses what’s going on (to a degree admittedly) but in terms of a movie, B/W or colour, the story is always being given to you.
Throughout this Debate you have based your entire argumentation on "more viewers = better on average". However, more viewers does not equal better. Just because the majority of people prefer blood and guts to romance and drama it does not make blood and guts "better". Just because the majority prefers McDonalds to French Cuisine, it does not make McDonalds "better". More convenient, yes. More for the lazy, yes. But by no means better. If you prefer to get High with Cocaine instead of working out in the Gym, does that mean that Cocaine is "better" for you than working out? I dare say it isnt.
I disagree. This will be my main next point however, but I've not tried to base my entire argument on a single truth - more viewers = viewer’s choice why? = favourite = Why is it favoured? Because it's simply better. My whole argument throughout this debate has not been on this at all. It's a plausible argument but not my sooe, deciding one
When mentioned, It's always for a very good reason.
Since my opponent spent his entire last post and parts of the post before last arguing that b/w movies are boring I asked that this section be considered a rebuttal of that.
Yes, but Sky, you spend the majority of your last post, simply trying to pick mine apart and the one before that primarily on imagination (something I showed to be untrue). I feel that I should also heavily address a key point worth making here once more, which is the entertainment value of B/W is and always has lacked which is a contradiction of a films purpose, again, this is why you are seeing it mentioned, because it's simple truths. Not that all B/W films are boring, but on average, they most certainly are boring, dull and lacking in life especially when being compared to it's superior colourful version.
In reply to my question whether you would rather choose a color yourself, you answered:
Of course I would rather choose it myself.
Yes, but here was your question: Question 1: "Would you prefer choosing your carpet or bed sheet colour for your home or having a ready-made one delivered to you?" Again, you seem to ask an unrelated question and claim it's very much related to the argument, and once again, this is not the case. I know you seem to be doing this because you said this after my response: "I will take this as the third concession of the Debate. If you prefer to choose colour yourself rather than having it forced upon you, you agree with fans of b/w movies who would rather imagine what colour things are themselves. "
But no, you seem to be forgetting something here, the differences between the 2 are incredibly vast and contrasting. If you dislike the colour of a movie, I doubt one would be disheartened by it, in fact, it's what it is and you move on. Simple. If you disagree with or dislike a bed sheet or carpet colour for example, who reading here wouldn't complain/show discontent about it? Reason being, the colour of said film is showing those real life qualities I agued previously. The latter is on the contrary.
The viewer decides...
For this point of my argument I'm not simply going to talk about why colour viewing is better or anything like that (I've said it all before already), instead, I'm going to refer to something which says it for me it seems. Simply put, here's a list of movies, as voted for by millions, showcasing the best movies ever made. This is a sort of "marker" in pursuit of proving the viewer’s choice (the viewer’s choice again equalling favourites and again why are they favoured you ask? Because they are simply better) and also proving that colour is certainly the way forward meaning B/W to be a firm step backwards.
Please see this link of the top movies as voted for by movie fans everywhere*originally brought to my attention by a good friend..*
Now, do you wish to have a guess how many B/W movies were in the top 20 for example (this being a list of 250 but 20 seems a fair marker for now)? The answer is a mere 3, obviously meaning 17 were in colour which as most will note, is quite a bit higher than mere average.
The reason it's so high (and there's no denying that the viewer’s choice is colour as it's everywhere for you, me and the readers of this debate to see) is because it's favoured heavily, sure you can state that B/W is still used and I agree it is and should be as it has it's benefits, but on the whole it's not favoured by the common watcher of a movie in today's world. In the past yes, but not anymore - as I said to you previously in this debate, the times have changed and we must change with them. Movies have certainly changed, people’s views and preferences have also.
Now, which movies are voted to be not the best, but the most successful, in other words, most viewed of all time as well as most money out of curiosity?
Please see this link of the most successful movies of all time
Not a single B/W here and something else you'll notice, the more modern day films are nearer the top (the ones in the year 2000+ at least), something I mentioned in a previous argument which is the evolution of cinema, something that's more than certainly occurring and clearly shown for all to see. Because of this evolution, the "olden films", the ones in B/W, are no longer seen as being as "good" as they once were, or as entertaining etc., instead the modern films replace them and in turn replace them in the category of what is seen as a "good film."
There's no denying the modern, colourful and evolved ones are being seen by millions and millions of viewers. Reason: they are watching "good films"
Sure, an argument on your case could be that movie and TV watching wasn't as prominent during the generations of B/W as it is now or because now, business in the cinema world is massive compared to what it was then, but I say, that even if today, those same films were brought out for the first time, they would fail dramatically. Actually no, I don’t just say, I challenge this...
Also, I had a quick look at the link you provided to back up your argument and it seems to, if anything, agree with my side of the argument than yours also. Here is what I mean exactly..
please see this link. :wow
The comments made by those viewing the list, a list you used to back up your argument, massively disagree with it themselves. It seems as the viewer once more disagrees with your side of the argument.
In reply to your Socratic questions.
Question 1: Do you agree that in terms of pictures and movies , what is "better" is a matter of taste?
Yes I do, which is why I feel strongly about this debate as it's my personal opinion, the personal taste of the many (something I've purposefully kept bringing up) is in favour of the "colour viewing seeking" individual.
__________________
Question 2: Which horror movie do you think was more shocking: "Night of the Living Dead" (the 60s version) or either "The Fog" (recent version)? (If you havent seen one or either, which one do you suspect to be better in shock-value)
Well, sadly I haven't seen either (Unfortunately, I'm too young for them both.
) and in my aim of being completely honest, I'm assume the
60's version would certainly be better. Reason being, horror in the "olden days" was generally better and/or scarier I’ve always thought. Yes,
imagination is why. __________________
Question 3: What is generally more important to you in life, quality or quantity?
Quality..
__________________
Question 4: Do all Asians pretty much look the same to you, or do you tend to notice the differences between say Japanese, Koreans and Chinese faces? (is your way of seeing more generalized or do you notice details)
In all honesty, yes, but the same question can be asked with Europeans, Africans, the Americas....
__________________
Question 5: Would you say boredom is a subjective inner state, or something caused by an outside thing?
In my most honest opinion (and being vague really isn't my intention) but I'd have to say it's most certainly both.
SOCRATIC QUESTIONS
Do you honestly think a B/W film can compete in today’s modern world of movie watching and actually compete well? If so, why?
__________________
Can you explain to me how entertainment wise, a B/W film could compete with colour despite my statement B/W is lifeless and dull looking?
__________________
Can you honestly tell all those reading that B/W should be the main focus of cinema and movie watchers today?
I await your closing statement in excitement....
Pages: ^^TOP^^
