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.
James Holmes is one of those, a disturbed individual, but influenced by the melodramatic visions of a recent movie. I'll admit it may be a stretch, but we may always be one movie away from another horrendously violent act.
For now I ask, what does Hollywood primarily promote more so than anything at all? Creativity.
- Do you not agree that Hollywood does greatly help one with expressing themselves, particularly creatively?
- Can you prove beyond a reasonable doubt that James Holmes committed his crimes largely because of a Hollywood influence?
- Is Hollywood to blame for ones failures, or is it instead Celebrity life?
Where are the wholesome films like Saving Private Ryan in this list? Why does Hollywood serve us Fantasy? Do we want it, or is it being force-fed to us?
Hollywood is not the only place celebrity status can be achieved, it is but one way in which it can be. For that simple, honest reason alone, It’s not fair to lay the blame squarely on them alone.
- Do you believe money made gives a more accurate picture of what is a good film, or does an actual vote from fans mean more?
- Would you not say that Hollywood does a good job of helping us think outside the box?
Hollywood might glamorize thugs like Bonnie and Clyde in part, but it played no role in the creation of the real monsters that were these two gangsters of a distant era.
Perhaps the real question is, "Why are we trying to shrug off our civic responsibilities and trying to pin our ills on the makers of movies and the actors who play the roles? Well, because it is easier than fixing an actual problem of course.
In the Hollywood debate, I felt that Druid42 made a strong opening, although I immediately questioned the relevance of celebrity divorce. Rising Against counters with a very effective opening, and his inclusion of Socratic questions allows him to undercut Druid's arguments regarding violence in film, though I thought his reliance on creativity left a big hole for Druid to come back with.
Round two opened with exactly what I anticipated -- a great argument by Druid42 that Hollywood holds no monopoly on creativity, and him pointing out that the creative types are actually some of the worst paid. I thought that he could have really slammed the door on the argument by pointing out that film adaptations of books are almost always inferior, but he still makes a great counter. The remainder of his counter, that the majority of popular films are rooted in violence and immoral behaviour, was good, though a bit of a stretch in places. For some reason, RA goes back to the divorce and bad celebrity behaviour of Druid's opening, and, while he scores points on his argument, as I said, it seemed odd in the first place, so I think his time would have been better spent in this round bolstering his previous points. His point about financial success not being indicative of quality is well taken.
In the last round, Druid42 pounces on the "quality" list, pointing out that it is hardly a scientific survey, and that the popularity of a film is more indicative of what Hollywood has taught the public to want. The continued bit about celebrity behaviour was distracting, but I think he made a good closing argument that if Hollywood wanted to make the world a better place, a charitable and moral message would be a more effective way to accomplish it. I really liked Rising Against's closing argument, but he once more wandered into the area of creativity which is also addressed in other mediums, so it had little effect.
I have to give this debate to Druid42.
Both participants did an incredible job of stating their positions, leaving a very tough to judge debate in their wake. Congratulations to both on a job very well done.
Druid42 began the debate with a stellar opening position that left RisingAgainst with little do do but rebut run for cover.
The middle posts, from both debaters, seemed to "lose the script". True to form for the very Hollywood movies they were debating, the "middle" film of the trilogy tended to be the hardest to follow and most emotional.
It is very difficult to judge, as morality and issues such as individual moral opinion and "quality over quantity" emerge.
Of the closing posts, Rising Against fared best, going out with a poetic and well considered summary of our love of, and need for, escapism and entertainment. Subtly reminding us that art and life are mutually influential upon each other.
Left with this first and third round split decision, I must revisit the middle round to decide a winner.
In the second round I find myself more naturally in agreement with RisingAgainst in his opinions, but must give the second round to Druid42. This sentence sold me:
"Hollywood watches the statistics, and grinds out more of the same, continuously addressing what sells, regardless of the content. Anything goes"
My judgement, though close, is for Druid42.
My thanks to both debaters for a compelling and interesting insight into the psychology of the entertainment business.