The Instigator
rosa17
Pro (for)
Losing
5 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

European films are better than american movies

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/28/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,023 times Debate No: 34290
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (4)

 

rosa17

Pro

This debate pretends to determine which cinema is better: European or American.
_____________________________________________________________________

Rules

The opponent must prove that american movies are better in four criterias:

Round 1: Plots
Round 2: People (directors, actors, writers, producers...)
Round 3: Language (why english is an advantage)

In any round, the opponets can choose to defend their point of view, attack the opponent's preview argument or both.
In any round, should be presented, at least, two arguments with two examples concretes by each opponent.

_____________________________________________________________________

European films are better because they have plots more interesting. While american movies concentrate in big scenes with great affects, european prefer to get emotional. Thomas Vineberg made a movie named "Festen" for the Dogma 95 project and it was a great job, even if he couldn't edit the pictures and sounds or use the best ilumination (the rules of the project didn't allow it). It was a good film, without any effects and very cheap, who had an superb plot.
Other example of the better use of emotion is the comparison of the original/swedish version of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" with the american. While David Fincher (american and one of my all-time favorite directors) chooses to use scenes with great adrenaline, Niels Arden Oplev prefers the drama, which is by far the better option to a movie based on trilogy of books.
Of course, american can make great drama movies, but they are often too slow, like a little boring, they have too much explicit violence/sexuality or are not an original story (based on true events, a book, remake), and even then they modify the original story a little bit, so you end getting a false impression about the people they characterize (John Nash in A Beautiful Mind).
imabench

Con

"European films are better because they have plots more interesting"

Opinion.

"Of course, american can make great drama movies, but they are often too slow, like a little boring, they have too much explicit violence/sexuality or are not an original story"

Opinion

"Thomas Vineberg made a movie named "Festen" for the Dogma 95 project and it was a great job"

Opinion....

Look a large majority of pro's argument is just his own opinion.... Allow me to show evidence for why American films are better then European ones

Here is a list of the top grossing movies of all time and where they were produced/edited/written:

Avatar: US
Titanic: US
Avengers: US
Deathly Hallows Part 2: US
Iron Man 3: US
Dark of the moon: US
LOTR Return of the King: US
Skyfall: US. Yes the US actually makes the best James Bond films since it is owned and filmed by MGM, an American film company
Dark Knight Rises: US
Pirates of the Caribbean, Dead Mans Chest: US

Literally all of the top movies of all time are American made, The same is true of the top 10, top 25, top 50, and the top 100 too. Even the Da Vinci Code, a thriller that encompasses all of Europe, is actually based off of a book written by AMERICAN author Dan Brown.

US movies are so good that US movies of Europe are even better then European films about Europe.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Lets look at Academy Award Winners for Best Picture:

Argo - American
The Artist - European
The Kings Speech - European
The Hurt Licker - American
Slumdog Millionaire - European
No Country for Old Men - American
The Departed - American
Crash - American
Million Dollar Baby - American
LOTR Return of the King - American
Chicago - American
A Beautiful Mind - American
Gladiator - American

http://en.wikipedia.org...

History literally shows that the best films have always been American, and that only recently have European films gained any competency.... The most critically acclaimed films have almost always been American ones, and the most successful films have almost always been American ones. Therefore European films are most certainly not better then American ones.
Debate Round No. 1
rosa17

Pro

It is true that american movies leader the tops. However that does not prove that they have better plots.

American movies also leader The List of the Most Expensive Films. In fact, here's the budgets, in millions, of the movies mentioned before.

Avatar: 237 millions
Titanic: 200 millions
Avengers: 220 millions
Deathly Hallows Part 1 & Part 2: 250 millions
Iron Man 3: 200 million
Dark of the moon: 195 milions
LOTR Return of the King: $94 million
Skyfall: $150–200 million
Dark Knight Rises: $250–300 million
Pirates of the Caribbean, Dead Mans Chest: $225 million

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Of course, a great amount of money is not enough to make a good movie, helps it, but is not enough.
And there is more, because these numbers are merely estimates. Now cames the intrigant part:

Producing in Hollywood takes so much money, but after the movie is done is not all profit. To sell a movie with a budget of $70.8 million - the average production budget of a major studio movie in 2007 - the studios spent another $35.9 million on marketing.

David Puttman, the chairman and CEO of Columbia Pictures from 1986 to 1988 and author of the
The Undeclared War, said "It was clear that, for the most part, film-makers and executives in Europe were preoccupied with the creative art of production rather then with the business of distribution and marketing".

http://tvinteractiva.no.sapo.pt...

Conclusion: Distribution and marketing do not affect the quality of a movie or, as matter of fact, his plot, since they came a posteriori. Yet, they still have an important role on the success of a movie.


_____________________________________

Now let's skip to the people related to the film productions.

There are many many more american people related to the film productions than european, and therefore the numbers of acclaimed artists are higher.

However we had our share of stars throught the years, even if they choose to go to US, because, since in Europe is not about the industry but about the art, there they could turn international icons.
Yet, they births' locations' remains in Europe and they are European talents.

In the 30's, America was full of actresses, but they still admire the europeans. Samuel Goldwyn, from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, "desperately wanted his own Garbo, his own Dietrich", refering to Greta Garbo, a legendary sweedish actresse, and to Marlene Dietrich from German.

In directors, Europeans presented Alfred Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergman, Roman Polanski, Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, Luis Buñuel, Michael Curtiz, Jean Renoir, William Wyler, Fritz Lang, Federico Fellini, Sergio Leone, David Lean,...

Nowadays, many directors choose to stay in Europe (for example, Roberto Benigni, from Life is Beautiful) and, if the situation is appropriate, to make a few movies in Hollywood or with Hollywood.













imabench

Con

"David Puttman, the chairman and CEO of Columbia Pictures from 1986 to 1988 and author of the The Undeclared War, said "It was clear that, for the most part, film-makers and executives in Europe were preoccupied with the creative art of production rather then with the business of distribution and marketing"."

So European film makers in Europe focus mostly on the plot while American film makers dont prioritize it as high, yet Americans still make better films then Europeans do anyways.... Good to know

"There are many many more american people related to the film productions than european, and therefore the numbers of acclaimed artists are higher."

Ill take that as a concession that there are more American acclaimed artists then European ones....

"In the 30's, America was full of actresses, but they still admire the europeans. Samuel Goldwyn, from Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, "desperately wanted his own Garbo, his own Dietrich", refering to Greta Garbo, a legendary sweedish actresse, and to Marlene Dietrich from German."

So what? the 1930's were literally 80 years ago, and American movies have been reigning supreme ever since.

"In directors, Europeans presented Alfred Hitchcock, Ingmar Bergman, Roman Polanski, Frank Capra, Billy Wilder, Luis Buñuel, Michael Curtiz, Jean Renoir, William Wyler, Fritz Lang, Federico Fellini, Sergio Leone, David Lean,..."

Hitchcock: Dead since 1980
Bergman: Dead since 2007, inactive since 2005
Polanski: Hasnt had a good film since 2005
Capra: Dead since 1991, actually American
Wilder: Dead since 2002, almost entire career spent in America
Bunuel: Dead since 1983
Curtiz: Dead since 1962
Renoir: Dead since 1979
Wyler: Dead since 1981, actually was american
Lang: Dead since 1976
Felini: Dead since 1993
Leone: Dead since 1989
Lean: Only made two movies, both of which were short films that arent even real films!

So of the filmmakers that Pro has listed; almost all of them died years ago, many of which were actually American or worked their whole careers in America, and all of them are people who people have never even heard of in the first place!

If European films were truly better then American ones, then European directors would be well known and more famous to everyone. Instead though it is the other way around, Americans like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, JJ Abrams, Clint Eastwood, etc are the legendary film makers while most people cant list a single European director who has done anything meaningful.

"Nowadays, many directors choose to stay in Europe"

That is a complete and utter lie. Time and time again directors have chosen to leave Europe and do business in America since American films are far better films then European ones

======================================================================

Extend all arguments about how American moveis do better then European ones both critically and box-office wise....
Debate Round No. 2
rosa17

Pro

"only recently have European films gained any competency...." and "the 1930's were literally 80 years ago, and American movies have been reigning supreme ever since."

Contradiction.

"So of the filmmakers that Pro has listed; almost all of them died years ago, many of which were actually American or worked their whole careers in America, and all of them are people who people have never even heard of in the first place!" and "most people cant list a single European director who has done anything meaningful. "

First, all of the listed were born in Europe. Then I, and all the people I know who understand a bit of cinema, would classify Alfred Hitchcock, Ingrid Bergman, Roman Polanski as "cinema marsters" and very well-known. The "most people can't list..." excuse is worthless since that only proves one thing: "most people" have little cinema's knowledge, and therefore they are inadequate to judge a movie.
Last, but not least, the directors who already died are the ones who mentor and created most of whattoday is seen. They are the ones who inovate, the pioneers. So, if they hadn't lived, both cinemas (European and American) wouldn't be the way they are. Today's films ows everything to these gentlemen.

"That is a complete and utter lie."

In fact, there are many directors who prefer to stay in Europe. Yet there are the one who go to the United States because there their salary is, probably, higher as the budget and the opportunities.

"Ill take that as a concession that there are more American acclaimed artists then European ones...."

Of course there are more american acclaimed artists then european ones, if there is more people associated to the film industry is only logical that that happens. Still, Europe has shown great, if not greater, artists. As usually said "is not about the quantity, but about the quality".

"So European film makers in Europe focus mostly on the plot while American film makers dont prioritize it as high"

This means con agree that european films have better plots? If the answer is , as it seems, yes then is establish the european films are better in criteria #1 (see rules above) than the american ones.

Con's insists in showing that american movies that "American moveis do better then European ones both critically and box-office wise....". He is absolutely right. Yet, as said in round #2, it is spent many money (normally an additional half-of-the-budget amount) in advertising to make the movie a big hit. So, since "most people" don't know much about cinema, they are manipulated by the media to go to teathers and see the movies they want to be successful. Therefore, the success of a film does not depend only of his quality.

About critically response, they are not so easily convinced as random people.
But, if awards matter that much, let's take the Academy Awards.

Even experts, and try to list one who disagrees, believe that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences
has made terribly choices. Here a few (more can be seen in http://www.hitfix.com......)

How Green Was My Valley instead of Citizen Kane (won both The Best Picture Award and Best Director);
Going My Way
Gigi instead of Vertigo;
Annie Hall instead of Star Wars
Ordinary People
Dances with Wolves
Shakespeare in Love (in the same year as Saving Private Ryan)

So the awards' winners are not always the ones who deserve it (experts agree).
Also, as experts agree, there are films who are most likely to win an Oscar. Here's a list of what to do in order to win an Oscar publish by the newspaper Independent:

Make a biopic
Man Up
Hire a famous and/or male director
Know your audience
Give it a snappy title
Make it long
Don't make 'em laugh
Keep the British end up
Go to war
Make it period

Let's now suppose the following: there's this movie wich is simple brilliant and perfect. However, only ten random people have seen it.
The profit from it is none. It has not won an award. Is not successful. Is not well-known.
Should this perfect movie be considered bad?
Yes, if one may choose to accept the con's argument.

Conclusion: The success and the awards are not proofs to declare a good movie, since they came, as already said, after the film is done and, therefore, they cannot affect his quality.
_______________

Now about the language.

The use of english is probably why the american movies are more famous. However, the language shoudn't be a factor in determinate the quality of a movie.

In a globalized world, the language is not a barrier, and, even if it was, is easy to eliminate her with subtitles. People will gain a lot more if they stop the prejudice against languages they don't undestand and just use subtitles.

Also, italian seems to work in comedy films and spanish is very used in thriller/terror movies (even American ones).
imabench

Con

""most people" have little cinema's knowledge, and therefore they are inadequate to judge a movie."

Thats like saying people who dont know everything in history shouldnt be allowed to judge it.... Which is an idiotic claim to make and a poor way to try to dismiss an argument.

"Today's films ows everything to these gentlemen."

But thats just your opinion now isnt it.... Everything youve posted is not only unsupported by any evidence at all, but is nothing more then your own opinion which isnt valid evidence.

"This means con agree that european films have better plots?"

No idiot, you just cut me off mid sentence. What I said was, "So European film makers in Europe focus mostly on the plot while American film makers dont prioritize it as high, yet Americans still make better films then Europeans do anyways.... "

Since you didnt respond to the argument ill count that as a concession too

"So, since "most people" don't know much about cinema, they are manipulated by the media to go to teathers and see the movies they want to be successful. Therefore, the success of a film does not depend only of his quality."

Seriously? Youre claiming that American movies only seem better then European movies because theres some mass conspiracy meant to make it this way? Theres nothing that prevents European movies from being advertised and the media has zero influence in what critics think of movies, so youre argument is as pointless as it is ridiculous.

"Even experts believe that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has made terribly choices........Shakespeare in Love (in the same year as Saving Private Ryan)"

1) Just because the Academy makes a bad choice once in a while it doesnt mean they do it all the time every time

2) In your own argument you actually list several European made movies that did win Best Picture and argue that they shouldnt have won, and that an American one should have won instead!

"So the awards' winners are not always the ones who deserve it "

And not always =/= every time, which you cant seem to accept

"Here's a list of what to do in order to win an Oscar publish by the newspaper Independent:"

The Independent doesnt control the process for how Best Picture films are chosen....

"Should this perfect movie be considered bad? "

If a film is perfect then not just 10 people would have seen it.... Your example is terrible

==========================================================================

"The success and the awards are not proofs to declare a good movie"

You see, this is what the pro's entire arguments circulate around.... Being financially successful doesnt indicate a movie is good (even though it is a damn good indicator), being well received by movie critics doesnt indicate that it is a good movie (even though thats just illogical) and the only thing that makes a movie a good movie is whether or not Pro thinks it is.

Pro uses his own opinion in stating that European films are better then American ones, and nothing else. I have provided sources and evidence showing that American movies are financially more successful, are more well received by movie critics, and are generally better then European movies.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by rosa17 3 years ago
rosa17
In round 3, I spelled wrong Ingmar Bergman. So I wrote Ingrid Bergman, which is a well-knonw swedish actress. My bad!
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Babeslayer 3 years ago
Babeslayer
rosa17imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: I love european films
Vote Placed by newbiehere 3 years ago
newbiehere
rosa17imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con presented evidence of American movies being better (or at least not being worse), whereas Pro seemed to only have his own opinions. I did not check the sources, so I have called it a tie. (Sorry for being lazy.)
Vote Placed by Juris_Naturalis 3 years ago
Juris_Naturalis
rosa17imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ran into trouble early on by basing the majority of his arguments off of opinion. Opinion is relative. Con was more convincing and made more of a factual argument.
Vote Placed by mananlak 3 years ago
mananlak
rosa17imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had a superior argument and pro got way off topic in R2.