The Instigator
Babeslayer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
StevenDixon
Con (against)
Winning
11 Points

Is film a dying art form?

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 2 votes the winner is...
StevenDixon
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/30/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,591 times Debate No: 34380
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

Babeslayer

Pro

I get a sick gut feeling whenever I see a rubbish film come out. Film used to mean something so much more, it used to be a real art. Nowadays, most films are stupid cash in with terrible acting and a dumb plot. Why do I have to wait until fall every year to get consistently great films? Don't get me wrong, I like some action movies. But most of them make me feel bad for what film has become.
StevenDixon

Con

Film infact isn't a dying art. In 2012 the box office reported that the film industry climbed to a record breaking $10.8 billion. Just because the majority of films made don't appeal to you does not mean that it is dying as an art form. Many people connect with the movies that come out and even if they don't have a great plot, the visual effects are often stunning(for instance transformers).
http://insidemovies.ew.com...

There are hundreds of independent films made every years with a large portion focusing on the more artistic side of film. New series shows like Game of Thrones have incredibly witty dialogue, great character development and in depth story telling.

I feel the sentiment you share is similar to people that say "Man, new music sucks" when fantastic bands like Animals as Leaders are out there instrumentally manhandling ANY older band. The film industry is thriving and it remains a place for artistic expression.
Debate Round No. 1
Babeslayer

Pro

But music was always a product. It was always something to make money. Movies were too, but both of those industries have lost touch on the fine line between artistic creation and product. Film isn't taken seriously as an art form anymore thanks to people like Michael Bay. Now it's used as a way for big producers to cash in on popular books and other stuff. And yes, there is a thriving indie community in film (thank god) but most of the people in the indie community STAY in the indie community. Granted you'll sometimes get a Beasts of the Southern Wild and a Blue Valentine where an amazing indie film actually becomes popular, but that doesn't make up for great films like "Ruby Sparks" & "Brick" remaining unknowns.

I've heard the argument that film is actually a thriving industry before, but a thriving product and a dying art usually one in the same. As a cinephile, I find it annoying how many people look at my quizzically if I so much as mention "In Bruges" in a conversation.
StevenDixon

Con

"But music was always a product. It was always something to make money. Movies were too, but both of those industries have lost touch on the fine line between artistic creation and product. Film isn't taken seriously as an art form anymore thanks to people like Michael Bay."

Yes film is taken seriously as art, a large portion of people dislike Michael Bay nor does Michael Bay's work even come close to being a large portion of the film industry. This would be equivalent to saying music isn't taken seriously as art because of Solja Boy, obviously his work only reflects himself and not the industry or film in it's entirety.

" Now it's used as a way for big producers to cash in on popular books and other stuff. "

Not just cash in on popular books, but bring them to life via film storytelling instead of through a novel. There was never, ever, a time where the majority of movies that came were good, most movies suck and it's always been that way. Film is not dead as an art because there are always the gems in the pile of feces.

" And yes, there is a thriving indie community in film (thank god) but most of the people in the indie community STAY in the indie community."

So? This debate is about whether FILM is a dying art form not if the theaters play good movies. With social media sites like youtube and people downloading movies for free, more and more movies are coming out that are produced by underground companies, allowing them to express freely and not have to worry about what will make the most money.

"Granted you'll sometimes get a Beasts of the Southern Wild and a Blue Valentine where an amazing indie film actually becomes popular, but that doesn't make up for great films like "Ruby Sparks" & "Brick" remaining unknowns."

You agree then that great movies are still coming out all of the time, just beecause Ruby Sparks and brick are unknown does not counter the fact the movies were made and there is a segment of people out there that enjoy them. There is no sign of indi movies or the mainstream film industry dying out as an artform.

" I've heard the argument that film is actually a thriving industry before, but a thriving product and a dying art usually one in the same. As a cinephile, I find it annoying how many people look at my quizzically if I so much as mention "In Bruges" in a conversation."

Personally, I think blue valentine is a horrible movie, but I'm not going to go as far to say it's not art. People just have different tastes, alot of people really enjoyed the Michael bay movies because of how visually stunning they are as well as the nestalgia they bring.

Basically, just becase you don't like the majority of movies doesn't mean that film is a dying art. You haven't really given any evidence that it's a dying art, just mentioned some movies you disliked as well as movies you liked...kind of defeating your point.
Debate Round No. 2
Babeslayer

Pro

Okay see, here's the thing I mean. If a painting is good, people enjoy it nomatter what. But if a film is boring or pretentious or depressing, people hate it. And yes, a film being visually stunning is a good thing, but if that's what people go to see a movie for, then I strongly object. People don't go see the Mona Lisa specifically because of her cans. People go to art galleries to witness art.

And I beleive that all films are art, regardless of whether I like them or not. I'm saying if it's become a cheap way to make money, then it's dying as an art form and becoming a product.

When music shifted from art form to pure product, do you know how much it's level of respect shifted? Well, the majority of music fans approve of Nicki Minaj and stuff like that.

"So? This debate is about whether FILM is a dying art form not if the theaters play good movies."

They're one in the same, really. If art galleries started showing rubbish, then paintings would become a dying art. If movie theaters rarely play good movies, then film classifies as a dying art. And if you think that's an overexxateration, then that just goes to show about how much of a dying art form it is.
StevenDixon

Con

"Okay see, here's the thing I mean. If a painting is good, people enjoy it nomatter what. But if a film is boring or pretentious or depressing, people hate it."

What is good is subjective, not everyone enjoys the same paintings, Visual art doesn't connect with me at all...I've never seen a painting that I actually "enjoy". American History X is a very depressing movie but it's more than a cult classic, I've never EVER heard anyone call it bad, American Beauty won acedemy awards despite being depressing. Of course people hate being bored....The move is there to entertain them, if they're not entertained then they're not going to enjoy it. I don't even know what a pretentious movie is...do you mean like...the matrix? One of the most loved movies of all time?

"a film being visually stunning is a good thing, but if that's what people go to see a movie for, then I strongly object. People don't go see the Mona Lisa specifically because of her cans. People go to art galleries to witness art. "

This debate is not about what people see, but film dying as an art and the visual appearance of a movie ala Avatar is more special than ANY single drawing, an entire world is created in painstaking detail, it's truly a marvel and clearly a great piece of art, even if the story line was bland and rehashed. I honestly don't understand why people go to see the Mona Lisa, it's a painting of a woman, it's not really detailed...I don't get it.

"And I beleive that all films are art, regardless of whether I like them or not. I'm saying if it's become a cheap way to make money, then it's dying as an art form and becoming a product."

Right here my opponent admits that every single movie made is art, and the box office is still breaking records. This speaks for itself that film is infact not a dying art form, just that it's moving in a direct pro doesn't want it to...so? This does nothing to show it's a dying art. Major films are incredibly expensive, oblivion cost 120 million to make, The newest batman cost 250 million. They're definitely risks.

http://www.nytimes.com...
http://www.forbes.com...


"When music shifted from art form to pure product, do you know how much it's level of respect shifted? Well, the majority of music fans approve of Nicki Minaj and stuff like that."

The majority of music fans DON'T approve of Nicki Minaj, look at the amount of people there are in the US compared to the amount of people that enjoy and buy her music. It's no where NEAR the majority. Just because the majority of people enjoy shitty music does not mean that music is a dying artform. There will always be fantastic bands like Animals as Leaders who makes music that's complex, melodic, and has depth. You just have to look in the right areas. The majority of everything is garbage, people are simple minded therefore most art will appeal to simple minded people...it's always been that way.


"So? This debate is about whether FILM is a dying art form not if the theaters play good movies."




They're one in the same, really. If art galleries started showing rubbish, then paintings would become a dying art. If movie theaters rarely play good movies, then film classifies as a dying art. And if you think that's an overexxateration, then that just goes to show about how much of a dying art form it is."

No they're not, because there's far more venues to access film than just Theaters. As mentioned, there are good movies that come out in theaters and still make a large amount of money, just because you don't like the majority does not mean that it's dying as an artform, different pieces of art resonate with different people. If some galleries showed rubbish paintings this would no way counter the fact great art was being made and there was no sign of great paintings no longer coming about. The movie theaters play good movies all the time.


Pro has not provided a single ounce of evidence that film is a dying art, merely that in his opinion most movies aren't good. Pro has no met his burden while I have showed that the music industry is thriving and has pointed out numerous examples of good art, even pro himself has listed newer films that he enjoyed. Vote con.

Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
CON: "Right here my opponent admits that every single movie made is art, and the box office is still breaking records. This speaks for itself that film is infact not a dying art form, just that it's moving in a direct pro doesn't want it to...so? This does nothing to show it's a dying art. Major films are incredibly expensive, oblivion cost 120 million to make, The newest batman cost 250 million. They're definitely risks."

I stopped reading the debate here.

This debate was all about technique. CON was correct in pointing out that PRO didn't really have a solid argument defending the resolution, and combined with the above concession, really did not engage in this debate well. CON was engaged, refuted all of PRO's points, made the debate interesting and accessible (to me at least), and really fleshed out his position.

For this, I will give 5 points to CON, 3 for arguments, and sources mainly because of the sheer lopsidedness of the victory, and CON also happened to source.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by wrichcirw 3 years ago
wrichcirw
BabeslayerStevenDixonTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: see comments - total domination by CON
Vote Placed by newbiehere 3 years ago
newbiehere
BabeslayerStevenDixonTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made some damn good points in his argument. YouTube and its giganormous library of videos hadn't even occurred to me. "overexxateration," so the spelling and grammar point goes to Con. Con argued form an objective standpoint and used sources to back up his points.