Debate Tournament- Round 1 *PLEASE READ AND VOTE*

[USF Sam]

The first round of debates is over and it's time to place your votes.

All eight of our contestants put a lot of work into their debates, so please take a moment to read through the exchanges and cast your votes.

I have placed all four debates in this thread to make it as easy as possible for you, dear voter.


Cast your vote by PMing me your winner for each debate WITH THE REASON for your vote.
A simple "I vote for XXXXXX because they rock." will be ignored.

Thursday at noon EST I will post the comments (without stating the author) and the votes for each debate, naming the winner in each exchange. They will move on to Round 2.


PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT ON ANY OF THE DEBATES IN THIS THREAD UNTIL AFTER THE RESULTS ARE ANNOUNCED.


Once again, please take a moment to read the exchanges below and cast your vote.


Debates to follow....

 

[USF Sam]

ZIRC versus HART
​

What musical performer currently under the age of 25 will we look back on in 2031 as having a career with the same level of success and longevity as Madonna, Prince or Michael Jackson has had from the 1980s?

Well, I'm going to have to go with Taylor Swift. She has an annoying name, sings annoying music and is basically annoying all around. This is a one-way ticket to long lasting fame.

Taylor Swift is a very good choice and I admire my esteemed collegue's choice. Someone else I believe will stand the length of time is Alicia Keys. She is, of course, a songwiter and artist of several hit albums, Songs in a Minor, The Diary of Alicia Keys, As I am and The Element of Fredoom and a live album Unplugged, has won some grammy awards and was named a R&B artist of the decade. She is a talented signer, muisician, composer and actress and I see a long career for this very talented artist.

Alicia Keys is a very talented musical artist but I am going to have to disagree with you. While she is infinitely less annoying than Taylor Swift, she happens to be over the age of 25 and isn't even in the same league according to the confines of this debate.

While Zirconaz is correct Alicia Keyes is BARELY over 25 it is extremely hard to find any artist that has established themselves as other than one hit wonders by the age of 25, very few even get signed before that age. But if that is, indeed a dEAL breaker, then I will conceed defeat and look forward to a rematch next subject

Alicia Keys is 30 years old. That's not barely over 25, that's in the next decade! There are artists like Rhianna, Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber who are successful and still under the age of 25. None of them hold a candle to Taylor Swift in terms of being both annoying and timeless. (One could make an arguement for Justin Bieber based on the annoying factor alone but I believe he is just a fad.)

Alicia Keys is 29 by a whole day! :24:

 

[USF Sam]

REDRYDER vs HK
​

Hollywood ran out of original ideas long ago. Will Smith dug up an 80's franchise and turned it into a star-making role for his son in "The Karate Kid". "Friday the 13th", "Batman", "Nightmare on Elm Street" and others have been given the big money remake treatment. Producers even go across the pond and the Japanese hit "Ringu" is reborn as "The Ring". What would be the best movie to undergo the next mega-bucks remake?

I gave this some thought. There are so many movies to choose from. I definitely think it would have to be a movie that has been out of the system for a couple of decades or longer. That way, it would be given a chance on its own merits to succeed or fail. Not succeed or fail because those who have seen the original movie hold it in their minds as one that could or could never be remade.

I think that the next best movie to remake would have to be GREASE.

Not a sequel. But the original movie content.

My reasoning: People love to look back at the past when times seemed to be easier. This movie offers a great story line with lots of things going on at the same time.... set to '50s music. It's mostly upbeat and fun. The songs are contagious and the dancing fabulous.

Picking the right actors/actresses would definitely be key to its success.

Although I agree with you on the musical genre that is likely to undergo a revival, I disagree on the choice of movie. Grease is undeniably a classic, but it's too recent to undergo a really significant revival - I think far too many people are still very attached to the classic version for a remake to go down well. John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John are practically icons in that movie, and trying to get younger versions to fill their shoes has huge potential for disappointment.

My choice of movie to remake would instead be The Sound Of Music.

How many people can name more than one actress - Julie Andrews - from that movie? Hardly anyone. It's iconic, but old enough that at least one generation if not more only know about it through osmosis - hearing other people discuss it and seeing references in other films or on tv shows. Hell, I've seen it and all I remember is Julie Andrews running up a hill.

Not only is it old enough to warrant a revival without any serious problems against nostalgic fans, it's incredibly catchy. The songs in that musical are ripe for a renewal with some backbeats and faster pacing, and Hollywood already knows they have staying appeal with the public because as I said, even though far more people haven't seen it these days, we all still know that those hills are alive with the sound of music.

Too recent you say? 33 years ago. 1978. Sorry, but I disagree.

My last sentence said that picking the right actors/actresses would be key to (a remake of GREASE) its being successful. There is a lot of talent out there that I believe could accomplish this feat. I'm not talking about look-a-likes. I'm sure there are no perfect John Travolta's or Olivia Newton-John's out there. They aren't needed for a remake to become successful anyway. If the right people are chosen and have looks, talent, and a commanding performance, they should succeed with an audience who is searching for such a movie and are looking to be entertained by an era gone by.

As for naming the actors or actresses in GREASE.... Can you really name any others besides John and Olivia? No googling now.

The Sound Of Music is a wonderful movie. I'll give you that. But the audience would be a different venue than GREASE. The music would not appeal to the types of people that would flock to and fill a Rock N Roll movie venue. Remake or otherwise.

Truthfully, I cannot imagine any of the songs in The Sound Of Music kicked up a notch by 'backbeats' and 'faster pacing' as you suggested. Unless the Chipmunks were offered a role. Then..... No. That just wouldn't work.

It's true, they would be different target audiences to a degree - obviously the same people who are attracted to the dirty high school appeal of Grease aren't necessarily going to be attracted to a family classic. The Sound Of Music does have cross-generational appeal though - older people who remember the original fondly, adults who watched it as kids, and families who will take their children to see it

I understand what you mean about it being hard to imagine more upbeat music than the original, but they do remixes of old songs all the time, and they're invariably popular - and like I said, Hollywood already knows that they're popular, catchy tunes that people all of ages will remember!

I also think that whether or not a movie is going to sink or swim with critics and awards ceremonies is a big consideration. A film like The Sound Of Music is a far safer choice critically than Grease - the message a movie sends can be critical to it's performance. Grease advocates changing who you are to try and 'get the guy', and that being a good girl like Sandy is something to be shied away from. The Sound Of Music is all about being who you are deep down inside and staying true to yourself. That kind of message is going to go down far better than the easy promiscuity Grease promotes, and at the end of the day Hollywood values things like awards and good reviews a lot.

A remake that messes too much with the musical score will invariably lose the draw it was intending to make in the first place. I disagree wholeheartedly about speeding up the pace of any classic musical.

As far as awards go, the content isn't as important as the actors/actresses performance(s). Take a look at some of the movies that won awards. There is a wide variety of subject matter. Comedy, Drama, etc., rated anything from G to R. Some had very controversial subject matter in their time. And still do. Anything goes in Hollywood these days.

I totally disagree with your take that GREASE promoted promiscuity. It was a love story from start to finish. A young couple meet away from high school and can be themselves and fall in love. Later when they meet again in high school, everything that happens while a student comes between them. Popularity standards on Travolta's part mainly. He's torn by it as you should have been able to deduct by how the movie's outcome shows. I saw no sex scenes that would suggest your take on the movie. One of the other girls 'thinks' she is pregnant and that eludes to her having sex..... but it in no way promotes such a thing as promiscuity.

Awards aren't won by a movie's subject being 'safe'. Awards are won on the abilities of the actors/actresses and the writers/producers/directors.

I stand by my choice. GREASE.

I respect your choice however, I still think that if Hollywood weighed up the likelihood of which movie were going to crash and burn, against which were more likely to earn them some safe profits, The Sound Of Music is a much more logical choice simply because it has far less risk involved. The Grease musical numbers have already been remixed in the past to be used in nightclubs, so it wouldn't be offering anything new musically (I know you doubt that The Sound Of Music could be redone well, but I disagree - in the last year two different pop music artists have used samples of the soundtrack on singles that were extremely popular, which suggests it could have a potentially decent reception if redone properly).

We'll have to agree to disagree on the message that Grease promotes. It might be a love story, but in the beginning it shows a young couple fall in love away from the stereotypical roles they have in high school. When they get back to school, it is impossible for Sandy to hold onto her man unless she conforms and becomes the kind of girl his friends are seen with. She has to wear tight-fitting clothing, start smoking and make countless double-entendres in order to be 'the one that he wants'. I don't call that a triumph over adversity at all. It sends the message that you won't get the guy unless you dress up and let go of your morals - that's just not a family friendly, promotable message.

 

[USF Sam]

EDGRAY vs BUTTERFLY
​

TV is cyclical in nature. For a while, the most successful genre was the Drama (NYPD Blue, LA Law, CSI, ER). This was followed by the success of the Sit Com (Friends, Frasier, Cheers). The hot genre for the last few years has been the Reality Show (Survivor, American Idol, Big Brother, Dancing with the Stars). According to industry experts, the Reality Show is ebbing in popularity. What will be the next wave?

I disagree with the premise that Reality TV is waning in popularity. The current crop of reality shows might be losing interest, but the genre itself will continue to dominate the viewing figures for years to come, and the intrusion into every aspect of human life will increase as the demand does.

The reasons for this are obvious. Firstly, the viewing public is nosey and voyeuristic in nature, and for the first time, reality TV gave them a look at how others might be living their lives. This satisfies the natural curiosity that humans have in the most passive, and least effort needed of ways.

Secondly, the lure of fame and fortune is a strong one amongst the masses. The dream of being "discovered" and taken from their everyday living situation into one built upon instant fortune and fame, no matter how short lived, is incredibly appealing. This instant gratification sits well with our throw-away consumerist culture.

And, as user-created media dominates the internet, and the growing number of cable channels permits, the thirst for ever-increasing looks into people's lives, from how they cook, to how they raise their children and how they maintain their house, will continue to grow and eventually cover every imaginable niche of human existence.

Finally, competition from rival media sources such as the internet, and the increasing number of channels out there, producers will continue to look to ever cheaper means of filling the blocks between the revenue-generating commercial breaks.

I do believe that the popularity of the Reality Genre will begin to decrease. Yes, people are voyeuristic by nature, and yes, they enjoy watching other people in every aspect of their lives. However, I believe people will reach a point where they begin to feel that they are simply watching other people live the same plain, uneventful lives that they themselves are using TV to escape from. Furthermore, as people begin to realise that many of these shows are actually staged, they will feel as if the industry is trying to fool them.

Which brings me to your point of people hoping to "be discovered". Given the staged nature of many of the reality shows, people will begin to realise that the likelihood of them being discovered and cast into a roll on one of these shows is actually minimal, and will once again lead to the feeling of being duped.

As the industry wanes I believe it will create an opening for a fantasy based genre that creates true escapism for the viewer.

Fantasy based genres have been around for some time, and whilst a couple have achieved massive mainstream success, the majority remain in cult status. Fantasy based series have ranged from sci-fi, through to more horror based dramas including the most recent crop of vampire-obsessed shows. Their appeal is limited generally to young people with imagination, and as the amount of young people in society is on the decline, I cannot see this genre being taking the place of the reality genre, which has an undeniably broader appeal.

Youngsters, adults and the elderly alike can all relate to reality TV. They can picture themselves in the same situations, and can all judge the relative merits of human behaviour in the given situations in a much more real and tangible way than they can to anything fantasy-based. Everyone is able to comment on what they’re seeing, no one is left out. It’s a far more inclusive form of entertainment. It also strengthens real world relationships as people discuss what they’ve seen.

With regards to the idea of people feeling duped after realising they may very well not become stars through reality TV, I think that the option simply being there is more than enough for most people. Those that want to be on a reality show can, and the rest are just happy the option is there, as they are far closer to being there than they otherwise would watching a drama or other kind of TV show.

Television is escapism. If people wanted to dwell on their real world problems, they would not need something to distract them for a brief time. Sooner or later the voyeuristic appeal is going to wear off, and folks are going to realise they need only look around at what is happening in their own house or that of their neighbour to see all the content they would on reality TV. Sure, it's fun to play peeping Tom for a while, but they will tire of it and search for something that leads to better relaxation/escape.

Given, current fantasy based viewing is geared towards a niche market, but that does not mean that it cannot be expanded to the mass population. At this point in time they are competing with reality TV for viewing slots, but as these reality shows lose favour and ratings begin to drop, networks will be on the lookout for the next "IN" thing to fill those slots up, giving the fantasy writers a perfect opportunity to flight some new ideas that will capture the minds of the masses.

But reality TV delivers escapism. But it’s a tangible escapism that people can relate to. It’s “comfort food” escapism: it’s not too serious, it provides enough drama, enough excitement to satisfy the needs of the majority. It’s this satisfying escapism that makes reality TV so compelling - ordinary people in anything but ordinary situations. Perfect for these increasingly strenuous times.

For fantasy to grab an audience these days the budget needs to be enormous - great writers, clever directors, a talented cast, not to mention the expense of post-production effects. And because of that, few can be produced. Reality TV is cheap TV, and with more time to fill on the ever-increasing number of channels, budgets for all but the major evening slots once or twice a week continue to shrink.

The non-primetime slots on every cable channel will continue to be filled with more mundane forms of reality TV for budgetary reasons, and for that fact alone, fantasy simply can never compete. People love to watch people, and networks love shows that cost them nothing to make but still generate revenue.

Reality TV makers continue to find many ways to make sure that they’re not simply watching something that’s happening in their own house. Reality contestants are put in such varying situations, situations designed to bring about extreme emotional reactions that the variety is anything but what happens in everyday life. But the people, the people are real. And that’s the point, that’s where the connection comes from.

There will come a time when the viewer will come to realise they are being fed reality TV as a way to bring more money to the pockets of those in charge. The average person does not enjoy feeling like they are being used to line someone else's pockets. They will begin to wonder why networks think it is OK to serve up inferior programing, and start to feel, once again duped.

This disillusioned mass will need something else to entertain them. And it will have to be big and over the top for the networks to be able to win back their approval. They will want to feel like they are getting something more than "cheap TV". And that is where a fantasy series of high quality and mass appeal will find it's footing in the viewers' world.

 

[USF Sam]

CAM vs RETRO
​

What movie that has been released in the last five years will we look back on in 2031 as a classic in its respective genre along the lines of a "God Father", "Star Wars" and "Animal House"?

This is VERY subjective, so Im going to attempt to use logic rather than personal opinion.

Avatar. Not just for the message it delivers, but for being one of the first 3D 'adults' movies.

Having James Cameron directing also doesnt hurt, as 2 of his could already be classed as "classics" Titanic and The Terminator.

Truth be told, Avatar was the first movie that came to mind when I read the topic, but after thinking about it, and seeing Cam's response, I had a few other movies come to mind, among them: The Social Network and Inception. But while those movies were good in their own right, none matched what I finally settled on. The Dark Knight.

While Avatar was fueled by its computer driven effects first and foremost, The Dark Knight was driven by characters and emotional connections with them. Heath Ledger's haunting performance as the Joker, in the last role of his career before tragically dying, was nothing short of perfection, and completely deserving of the Academy Award he received posthumously. Lost in the shadow that Ledger's portrayal of the Joker cast was Aaron Eckhart's transformation from "white knight" District Attorney Harvey Dent into the villain Two-Face. The Joker's murder of his girlfriend, Rachel Dawes, left Dent horrifically scarred, both physically and emotionally.

The Dark Knight was not only one of the highest grossing and critically acclaimed films of the past five years. But Eckhart and Ledger's respective performances even overshadowed the Dark Knight himself, Batman. This says a lot about their characters, because Christian Bale's portrayal of Batman in this film is second to none.

Where Avatar had special effects, The Dark Knight had compelling characters with depth and meaning. That is why it will stand alone in 2031.

Whilst I agree that The Dark Knight was an excellent movie, there will be others released in the "Batman" franchise so I think it will only be remebered as the best of the Batman series, not as a "stand alone/classic" movie as such. It will be remembered as Heaths last and best role for sure, but the movie itself wont be classed as a "stand alone " classic.

A "Batman" classic, yes.

While that is true, I think The Dark Knight stands by itself in as an iconic film. I personally think of it as a great film first, and a Batman film second.

James Cameron plans on releasing two additional Avatar movies, the first of which is tentatively slated to be released in 2014, and the second in 2015. So by the time that 2031 rolls around, we'll be looking at Avatar as the first movie of a trilogy.

Additionally, I think you have to look at The Dark Knight in the terms of its scope within the Batman universe as well. There have been many other Batman movies over the years, but this is the second in a specific trilogy of Batman movies. You have to set them apart from the other Batman franchises, as it is a reboot of the franchise and doesn't rely on the other movies in the Batman "world" for anything but source material.

If we consider Avatar and The Dark Knight to simply be singular entries in their respective trilogies. This Batman trilogy will end in 2012 with The Dark Knight Rises, and Avatar will end with it's final entry in 2015. As such, we're left with a fairly level playing field between the two. If there weren't going to be any additional entries to the Avatar franchise, I think you would have a very valid point. But since that is not the case, we're left to simply compare the two films head to head.

All true, but Avatar was the first in the series so a "groundbreaker". Not only for the storyline, but the effects.

The Dark Knight is the middle of a trilogy in a series, so will eventually be "swallowed up" in the whole franchise. Think Star Wars. Even though the first movie was actually the first in the last part of the Trilogy...everyone remembers it the most because it was the first released and introduced all the characters.
All The Dark Knight really has/had going for it was Heath.

I believe the argument that The Dark Knight will be “swallowed up” by the first and third films is meritless. You mentioned how Star Wars Episode IV overshadowed Episode V, which isn’t actually the case, and here is why. The Empire Strikes Back is considered to be the best film of the franchise, and can be watched without having seen Episode IV. Similarly, you don’t need to have seen Batman Begins to be able to enjoy the Dark Knight.

I strongly disagree with the argument that all The Dark Knight had going for it was Ledger. You have to consider the depth of the characters. Especially the emotional turmoil that Eckhart’s Dent/Two-Face endured; transforming him from “white knight” to villain with a perverted sense of justice twisted by vengeance.

Lost under Eckhart’s and Ledger’s performances was Christian Bale’s Batman/Bruce Wayne. He was caught between trying to do what was needed for Gotham and his own desire for a relationship with Rachel Dawes. He eventually turned himself into the villain, because that’s what the public needed.

Finally, while Avatar’s effects were groundbreaking, its story was not. Replace Jake Sully with John Smith, Pandora with North America, and Neytiri with Pocahontas, and you have history that Disney made into a cartoon years ago. There are other films and stories that Avatar liberally borrows from as well, such as Ferngully.

The Dark Knight has Avatar soundly beaten in every area except for special effects, which in my view makes it the superior film.

 

[RedRyder]

I saw this thread.... after I cast my votes!

..... but I voted.

 

[USF Sam]

BUMPITY BUMP BUMP

These posters have put a lot of effort into their arguments.

Please take a moment to read them and PM me your vote in each pairing.

 

[USF Sam]

BUMP.

VOTING ENDS IN A LITTLE OVER ONE DAY.


The most interesting of our debates have the fewest votes. Come on people, step up and vote.

 

[USF Sam]

voting ends in 90 minutes.

 

[USF Sam]

I just compiled the votes and as it stands now two of the contests are being decided by ONE VOTE.

Just like in 2000- your vote counts.

 

[edgray]

 

[Thornless]

Voted! took me a while to read and read the debates and give you a reason for the vote other than 'they are awesome'

 

[USF Sam]

Thanks for your vote... but now I'm stuck for a solution...:willy_nilly:

Both of the races are now a TIE with 10 minutes still on the clock.

Not sure how I'll break this... :willy_nilly:

 

[HottyToddyChick]

Offer tokenz for the last person to submit a vote before the time line?

 

[USF Sam]

VOTING IS CLOSED.

Results will be posted shortly...

 

[USF Sam]

CAM vs RETRO
​

While I initially agreed with Cam that Avatar is potentially iconic, I felt like Ret has strong points that won out against it. Though I don't agree that Dark Knight will be looked at with that status, he defended it well. I was won to agreement that it would not be lost in the trilogy of films. I also was moved by his assertion that Avatar is simply a re-telling of an all-too-familiar story, in this case, Pocahontas.

Ironically, that final dagger strike COULD have been what won it for Cammie. Should could have used Avatar's familiar storyline as a CASE for it's iconic status... that the story in itself is already timeless and worthy of being around for many years.

Point to Retro.

Cam Elle Toe vs Retro
My vote in this one is for Retro.
He makes a compelling argument for The Dark Night, and his reasons for believing git will stand the test of time are very good. Avatar my be the first of many, but the story is not totally original, and there will be many movies with similar effects to follow. Retro's argument that the Dark Night will stand the test of time based on it's characters/actors has huge merit.

Retro because of his choice, mostly. I'm not sure I agree, but when you throw in Heath Ledger, it's for sure a lasting film. I think Cam had a good idea with Avatar, but does anyone remember the first old school cheesy 3D that came out?

Cam v. Retro: I had a really hard time choosing, but I think, in the end, retro did a better job of stating his argument. Mostly because he had a lot more to say in his posts, so it seemed like his argument was well-formulated.

Hi, Sam ~

Again.... I read what each wrote a couple of times. Cam didn't use as many words as Retro.... but I do think she got her point across.

However.... I am voting for Retro. When he dismantled each movie as such.... he elaborated on the 'why' the movie he selected would be remembered separately rather than as a group of others from the same format. I agreed with his reasoning and liked how he went about it.

Hi Sam, again,

My vote is for Retro in this round, as I think he did a better job of attacking Cam's arguments as well as defending his own position.

Thanks!

Cam vs Retro

Retro wins this one, his comparison of Avatar with pochahontas was pure brilliance, Cam did well and deserves merit for her points are valid, yet Retro convinced em to the iconic status that is the Black Knight

Retro

Both sides argued well, but I have to agree that DK will become a classic because of the actors, because of Ledger. Plus, it has the additional advantage of being a part of a franchise, like “Star Wars”. Avatar was a good movie, but cool special effects do not a classic make.

CAM ELLE TOE - no way will the super movies be thought back on in the same way was starwars and the lot for the very fact she mentioned... too many different takes, visions, and crossing of stories. i could see Avatar being up there.

WINNER= RETRO​

 

[USF Sam]

ZIRC vs HART
​

Hi Sam

I'm going to vote for Zirconaz, because although her argument wasn't very complex, Hart's side was flawed because her choice of musician didn't fit the confines of the debate, and Zirconaz obviously took the time to look this up, and then provided examples that would have been more appropriate.

This one has to go to Zirc, simply because Hart's choice didn't fit the remit of the question. Hart was also clearly wrong about not many artists being signed under the age of 25. Alicia Keys herself was, not to mention the scores of teen music idols we see these days.

Zirc by default. Both are quite wrong tho.

Neither said much to convince me at all. In fact, Zirc's choice was only supported with sarcasm and apparent contempt, at least in the way I perceived it. The case that could have been made for Alica Keys would have had much more foundation, but I cannot overlook the glaring fact that the question posed was specific about "under the age fof 25." Missing that key point of information, in my opinion, does disqualify Hart.

Point to Zirc (by TKO)

Zirconaz vs Hart
While I don't agree with Zirconaz' pick of artist, I feel she needs to win based purely on the fact that she was able to stay within the confines of the question. Hart, in my opinion, took herself out of the running by picking an artist who is considerably older (and thus has obviously had more time to establish herself in the business) than the question specified.

Between Zirc and Hart: I kinda hate to do it, but I have to pick Zirc. While I don't necessarily agree with her reasoning for choosing Tay Swift, I do have to agree with the fact that she has a good chance of still being around. On top of that, Hart did pick someone who was technically invalid for the debate.

I vote for zirc. Although she made a terrible argument for Taylor Swift, she chose someone under the age of 25 which Hart did not.

I'm casting my vote for zirconaz. She stayed within the debate constraints... ie, "age". Therefore, she gets my vote.

Hi, Sam ~

My vote is for Zirc.

Hart didn't do her homework and ignored the age factor.

A good debate is between those with some knowledge of the subject at hand. Winging it just won't do at times.

My vote goes to Zirconaz because she's awesome[/IMG]

Okay, in all seriousness, my vote goes to her because she stayed within the confines of the original topic. The rules were artist under 25, and she chose someone that was older than the rules indicated. Therefore, Zirconaz is the default winner in my book.

Zirc because she stuck to the age posted in the question.

Zirc v Hart
Did not like Zircs negative approach but she has to get my vote as hart ignored the u 25 condition

my reason for all my votes is simple...I believe they presented their case better, and more importantly...I agree with them
Zirc

ZIRC is my vote, hart didn't really debate at all.. just sorta whined about the age of Alica. Zirc at least made valid points for controversy, hart didn't take any bites to show an original thought on the topic. Zirc is also awesome.

WINNER = ZIRC
​

 

[USF Sam]

ED vs BUTTERFLY
​

Ed clearly won this. He was spot on about the appeals of reality, it's versitile and changing nature, and most importantly - that's it's extremely cost-effective programming at a time when TV networks are struggling and dying for advertising dollars.

Fantasy? It was a niche to begin with and will never have the mass appeal to become a dominant genre. There was no real evidence to suggest that it could.

Point to Ed.

Butterfly because she has a point about TV being escapism and reality tv just being more of our own blah lives.

Ed v. Butterly: Phew, this one was hard. lol. I have to go with Ed. I feel that his argument is very valid, and while he didn't say what he believed would replace reality TV when it starts to phase out, he did make a convincing argument for why it's not on it's way out the door.

So, after thinking about this one long and hard today, I think I'm going to have to give my vote to Ed. His argument was stronger and better thought out than Butterfly's. Her assertion that people would care that others were making money off of them by producing cheap television was a weak argument. While Ed's comments about humans being voyeuristic in nature, hence the reason that reality television will never die were better thought out and presented.

Like I said, it was very difficult, but Ed wins slightly... sucks that they were matched up this early.

Hi, Sam ~

I had to reread their posts a couple of times to figure out each of their angles.

All said and done.... I vote for ED.

My reason is because Ed found his format and dove in to defend it and stuck with it. Butterfly seemed to do okay..... but I'm not quite sure her argument about the viewer feeling duped would win any points. Viewers can always change the channel.

Hi Sam,

I'll vote for Edgray in this debate, as I think his argument that reality tv will continue be popular for some time was more convincing and he defended it well.

Butterfly vs Edgray

Butterfly totally sold me on the argument that TV should be escapism and if people think they are watching themselves it is no longer exciting, reality TV will continue to decline

Butterly

I will have to go with Butterfly - while Ed makes some good points, you cannot milk reality TV endlessly, while the fantasy genre is on the rise.

my reason for all my votes is simple...I believe they presented their case better, and more importantly...I agree with them

Butterfly

BUTTERFLY - she's got valid points. while fantasy was been around, it's getting bigger and crazy popular. i could see if being the new tv buzz.

WINNER = NONE. MOVES TO TIE-BREAKER ROUND
​

 

[USF Sam]

REDRYDER vs HK
​

whilst I think they're both way off the mark with this one, it has to go to HK.

HK's idea of The Sound of Music being remade is actually quite justified - the story being set against a harsh back ground of wartime europe with plenty of opportunity for drama, as well as the iconic scenes from it, I could see Disney re doing this musical with good success.

Grease, on the other hand, has already been done to death, and the show is already in most theatres in every country in the world. Grease had it's resurgence, but didn't make it to the cinema.

HK for the win.

Tough, and close.

I was not convinced in any way that Sound of Music would make a good choice to be a viable re-make film. But the arguments AGAINST Grease were too solid to ignore. The deciding factor for me was the strong assertion that Grease has a message that's not in line with today's today's acceptable standards. I've never understood why that film was ever considered "wholesome." The message is clearly "If you want to win your man, be the slut he wants." And if there is any doubt ... the lyrics of "Greased Lightening" with it's "getting lots of tit" and "a real pussy wagon" would have been a slam dunk. I wish she would have pulled that out.

Very slim margin of victory,

Point to HK

Red Ryder vs HK
In this one, Red Ryder has my vote. Her take on why Grease should be the next big remake does have merit. HK's argument seems to be mainly focused around 'moral lessons' and 'family movie' potential. I don't believe those two things are what Hollywood strives for in every movie. I think Red is totally correct in her feeling that Grease would make more compelling viewing than Sound of Music would to the modern viewer.

Between Red and HK, I think I have to go with HK. I think she brings up a lot of good points on why RED'S choice might not go over so well. I think she did a better job of rebutting her opponent's argument than she did necessarily backing up her own. But hey, that's the point of debate anyways, right?

I vote for HK because I agree that Grease is too recent to remake.

So, this was a tough one, because I think both of their choices were horrible films to remake, and even more difficult to defend why you would do that.

However, I have to give the debate to HK, not so much because she proved why The Sound of Music should be remade (because it shouldn't), but because she was successful in proving why Grease shouldn't.

So, HK is my vote.

I'm casing my vote for Red. Why? Because I think she nailed it on the "love story" aspect of Grease. We have generations coming up who would love to see a remake done to suit modern times.

Ask any youngster today about the Sound of Music, and this is what you get... yuk

Red because she has a valid point about SOM not benefiting from being kicked up a notch. I think SOM is probably a better pick, but I think Red has a better argument. Damn, this is hard!!!

Red Ryder vs HK

HK focussed to much on family values which might appease the conservative elements in Hollywood but i dont think this is enough of an argument

Red

I have not seen “The Sound of Music”, while I've seen “Grease” a couple times. The later is a much
safer choice to remake, chick flicks are always popular and I can see it being a stepping stone for one
of the many famous actors' spawns. LOL

My reason for all my votes is simple...I believe they presented their case better, and more importantly...I agree with them

HK

REDRYDER - no offense to HK, but I can't stand the sound of music. And would promptly turn off the tv if I saw it or a remake on. grease would certainly do better remade more modern.

WINNER: NONE. MOVES TO TIE-BREAKER ROUND
​

 

[cam elle toe]

Holy hell...I was creamed.....

Thanks to my ONE voter....


Now....Im off to watch what this Batman "classic" I have yet to see.:thumbup

PS...Your welcome Retro