"Birddemic Shock and Terror" is the worst movie
Debate Rounds (4)
I choose Zyzzyx Road, the lowest grossing movie of all time.
Rod (Alan Bagh) is a young software salesman living a successful life in Silicon Valley. He meets up with old classmate and aspiring fashion model Nathalie (Whitney Moore) and begins dating her. Things go well for the couple, with Rod receiving a large bonus that he uses to start his own business, while Nathalie is chosen as a Victoria's Secret model. As they grow closer, the couple remains oblivious to signs of something going wrong around them, such as unexplained wildfires and the corpses of diseased birds turning up on beaches.
After consummating their relationship in a motel, Rod and Nathalie wake up to find that their town is under attack from eagles and vultures that spit acid and explode into flames upon striking the ground. Rod and Nathalie escape from the motel by joining up with an ex-Marine named Ramsey (Adam Sessa) and his girlfriend Becky (Catherine Batcha). As they leave town, they rescue two young children, Susan (Janae Caster) and Tony (Colton Osborne), whose parents have been killed by the birds.
The group proceeds to drive from one town to the next, fending off more bird attacks along the way and briefly meeting a scientist named Dr. Jones (Rick Camp) studying the phenomenon. Becky is killed by the birds, and Ramsey, in an attempt to exact revenge, tries to save a busload of tourists. As they leave the bus, Ramsey and the tourists are doused in acid excrement by the birds and all die.
Rod, Nathalie and the kids continue to flee from the birds, driving into a forest where they briefly meet a "Tree Hugger" named Tom Hill (Stephen Gustavson), who explains to them that the birds have only been targeting gas stations and cars and that the attacks are the result of global warming. After escaping a forest fire, the quartet ultimately settles on a small beach, where Rod fishes for dinner. As they prepare to eat, they are attacked by the birds, which are suddenly""and for no explained reason""chased away by doves. The film ends as Rod, Nathalie and the kids watch the birds fly off into the sunset.
One of the best videos possible to describe how bad the movie is JonTron's video, www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzV8Q2fsN0o
The worst (most funny)part is when they run out of the house and fend off terribly made birds as shown in this gif, http://giphy.com...
While it has terrible ratings, at least people watched it. There are nearly 10,000 reviews on that movie. Look at Zyzzyx Road. http://www.imdb.com...
It has only about 800 users, not even as much as 100 times less than the reviews on The Birddemic movie. The rating on Zyzzyx road may not be as low, but it's more inaccurate, since if 9,000 people voted it one star, then it would have been much lower, possibly even lower than BST. But 800 users is not a lot. It's not enough to compare to BST's 10,000 reviews.
And BST is at least well recieved enough for a SEQUEL to be made. Not to mention the producers actualyl got to improve and got a better rating than the fisrt movie. You see that BST was only a "ploy" so that the next movie would be awesome in comparison (since BST number one was so so terrible) http://www.imdb.com...
But Zyzzyx Road is so darn terrible the creators didn't even give it a second chance. No sequel!
Also....you still haven't refuted the fact that Z.R. is the lowest grossing movie of all time.
One of the reasons why BST has so many "fans" is because of how bad the movie was. But this did not happen for ZR since it started off with little people liking it, no one would to someone else to see it to show how bad it was.
If my contender is to read this I would like you to know that this was a rebuttal to your statements and that you should do the same thing, I forgot to add this to the intro.
The reason the Road was so terrible was that it's a sequel. Sequels are usually worse than the original movie. Yet, BST was an exception. Zyzzyx was terrible, but its sequel was even worse, having even less people view it, as well as only grossing a measly 30 dollars. It is so dang bad that only those handful of people can spread its infamy, while BST is at least bad enough for loads of people to know it and review it.
Here's the comparison if it's not clear
BST: Incredibly terrible, but at least known for its horribleness and has a cult following from bad film fans. Plus, has a superior sequel.
Zyzzyx Road: A terrible terrible sequel, even worse than the original film. No cult following, no fans, nothing. Not even up to 50 bucks for the film producer's efforts.
It was so bad that people WANTED to see the movie since it was so bad and to criticize it.
Again if you want to see how bad the movie was with great criticism then watch this. www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzV8Q2fsN0o
See? My opponent admits that people actually wanted to see how bad the movie was. But Zyzzyx broke the roof, people didn't even care, since the few people who HAVE saw it thought they wasted their money, at least BST is KNOWN for its badness. Zyzzyx isn't even infamous, it's the worst of the worst of the bottom-dwellers. Thus, Zyzzyx Road is the worst movie ever made. There's a reason it's the lowest grossing movie of all time.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Blade-of-Truth 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct - Tie. Both had proper conduct throughout the debate. S&G - Tie. Both had adequate spelling and grammar throughout. Arguments - Con. The only thing Pro had going for him was the incredibly low rating of 1.8/10. However, as Con pointed out, it wasn't as bad as Zyyzzx road because it at-least still had a following. The fact that people at-least watched BST enough to give it a cult following definitely doesn't compare to a movie so bad that people don't even wanna watch it twice. This was a major argument in favor of Con. Additionally, Pro never really rebutted against the fact that Con's movie was the lowest grossing movie. Ultimately, I believe Con was more effective at providing solid rebuttals against each point raised by Pro, whereas Pro was too dependent on the single fact that it was rated low. For these reasons, Con wins arguments. Sources - Tie. Both utilized sources in this debate and neither really stood above the other in terms of quantity or quality.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.