The Instigator
SegBeg
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
HeavenlyPanda
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points

Is theatre acting inferior to film acting?

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 1 vote the winner is...
HeavenlyPanda
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2016 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 337 times Debate No: 93848
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

SegBeg

Con

It's me again. I kind of enjoyed debating you in the other debate so I think we should try again. But this time, you can make longer arguments now that the word count is 10,000. But this is still supposed to be non statistical but a normal discussion debate. You are free to use resources though.

This time, instead of arguing whether theatre acting is a step down from film acting, we will be arguing whether or not film acting is superior to theatre acting. By superior I mean requires more skill, mor difficult, better, etc. You get what I mean? Hope you can officially accept the challenge!
HeavenlyPanda

Pro

Definitions
The definition of inferior is "Lower in rank, status, or quality:" [1]
The definition of superior is "Higher in rank, status, or quality:" [2]

Therefore, the three categories that need to be addressed are rank, status and quality.

Rank
The definition of rank is "A position within the hierarchy of an organization or society:" [3] Film acting is in a higher position in the organization of society than theatre actors and that is quite clear when you use the media. Film actors are a lot more popular than theatre actors, they are the ones you see posing on the front of magazines, not theatre actors. Film actors are certainly held with more reverence than theatre actors. When people think of theatre actors, they think of Shakespeare, and while Shakespeare may be interesting to some, it's certainly not interesting to the majority of people. Film actors get paid more, have more popularity and get the credit they deserve. Theatre actors are generic, we all know who Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp are. But most people would have to look up a name of a current theatre actor. Film actors have more power than theatre actors too. Because they're so popular, film actors can say something and it will impact people. Theatre actors would just be overlooked. Anyways, back in the old days, theatre acting was seen as something close to prostitution.

Status
The definition of status is "Relative social or professional position; standing:" [4] A film actors standings are certainly higher than a theatre actors standings. Like I said before, a film actor can make a statement on media and actually impact people. A theatre actor would be overlooked. Film actors social positions are higher also considering they are a lot more popular than theatre actors. And their professional standings are higher than theatre standings too. Who do you think gets paid more? Brad Pitt or a theatre actor?

Quality
The definition of quality is "General excellence of standard or level:" [5] Film actors quality are much better than theatre actors. There are no mistakes for film acting whereas theatre acting is open to mistakes since everything is live. The quality of film acting as a whole looks better than theatre acting. Theatre acting allows for no special effects and the actors are stuck with a stage that they have to work with. Film acting requires a lot more skill because film actors usually have to react to something invisible on a green screen whereas a theatre actor would react to a human dressed up in a costume. Therefore the quality of film acting is significantly better than theatre acting.

[1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[3] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
[5] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
Debate Round No. 1
SegBeg

Con

Thanks for your argument but mine will be even better.

First your definitions of inferior and superior are infact accurate of course.


Rank

While I agree that film acting is held at a higher position to theatre acting in society this does not necessarily make it better. But while film actors tend to be more popular than theatre actors, there are still many famous Broadway/West End actors such as Idina Menzel, Judi Dench, Ian McKellen, Alan Rickman, Eddie Redmayne, Lea Michelle, Bernadette Peters, Amer Riley, Patrick Stewart, Laurence Oivier etc some of whom acted in both theatre and film.
Second, how do you know that when most people think of theatre they think of Shakespeare? It sounds like you are using your own personal thoughts and using it to geeralize everyone's thought about theatre. I know I don't think about Shakespeare when I think about theatre. I think of musicals such as Grease or Les Miserables. Shakespeare is actually the last thing on my mind. So your strange claim is ceratinly not true. I am not much into Shakespeare but have seen a Shakespeare play: Romeo and Juliet at the Globe Theatre in London, though I'm not really that much into Shakespeare plays it was I ust say AMAZING. Bettter than any film could make it. I connected with the actors and it helped me emphasize with them more than if I watched it in front of a plastic screen. I think most people just don't give theatre a chance and you might be one of those people.


Status

The thing about status is that it is flawed. You say film acting is better because film actors have a higher status that thast of theatre actors? This does not make any sense. Rich people have a higher stauts that poorer people so does that make them superior? Celebrities have a higher status than normal people so does that make them superior? You see, that logic of yours is flawed. Just because something is helt to a higher status does not necessarily make it better. Also, it would be nice for you to name a few theatre actors to make you less ignroant.


Quality

What do you mean film actors' quality is much better than theatre actors'? In film, there are many mistakes that either go unnoticed or are pretty obvious. Did you know that in the film Titanic, Leonardo DiCaprio got a line wrong but the director decided to leave it in the movie because he liked it? If you've seen Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, there is a scene where Harry, Ron and Hermione break into laughter which was not part of the original scrip but the driector decided to leave it in? See, there ARE mistakes in film acting. But I think you proved one of my points, in theate acting, there is no room for mistakes which mean you have to up your game in theatre In film you can just show up on set with some lines forgotten, the director yells "CUT" and they will remind you of your lines and then BAM, you carry on witht he scene. In theate acting if you forget your lines live on stage, it is not acceptable.
Your claim that theatre acting has no room for special effects is ludacris:

https://www.youtube.com...

They may not be the same like in movies but they seem MUCH more impressive and MUCH more complicated than CGI or a green screen that sometimes looks totally fake.

I think your claim that film acting requires more skill is RIDICULOUS. In fact, theatre acting in a way requires much more skill than film acting. In theatre, you have to work extra hard to connect with the audience. In theatre acting you ae PERFORMING in from of THOUSANDS of people LIVE. You have to have more nerve and courage. Not that you don't need this in film acting but you are not performing LIVE infron of an audience. They will see it later. Theatre acting can be more physically demanding than theatre acting. In film, you film for a few months usually and then you're done. In theare, you perform at least eight shows a week sometimes for a YEAR. That can be VERY demanding especially if you're in a musical theatre play that has a lot of dance numbers like say Aladdin or Harispray. Even in ones that don't like Les Miserables which is sung through, it is VERY demanding on your voice. Imagine singing for at least two hours eight shows a week. Don't you think that is going to put pressure on your voice a bit?
Another thing, why are theatre tickets ore expensive than film tickets? You might say it is because less people watch theatre but it might also be because theatre acting is seen as more authentic than film acting. Theatre has been around for centuries. Film acting is fairly recent and is taken more for granted.


Sources:
http://www.infoplease.com...

https://answers.yahoo.com...

http://commongoodriverside.org...



I also urge you to watch these two videos. One is the theatre version of one sing from Les Miserables and the other is the film version. I want you to tell me which one you think is better vocal and acting wise.


https://www.youtube.com...



https://www.youtube.com...;



First link is the Broadway (aka theatre) version, second link is the film version.
HeavenlyPanda

Pro

Rank

Rank is a position in hierarchy.

"While I agree that film acting is held at a higher position to theatre acting"

Therefore my opponent admitted that film acting has a higher posterior than theatre acting which cancels out the rest of his points. Though there may be famous theatre actors, non of them probably compare to the famousness of Brad Pitt. People think of Shakespeare and plays because Shakespeare wrote a lot of plays.

Status

Film acting has a higher status than theatre acting. It's more in demand than theatre acting and there's no mistakes when film acting is finally produced. Rich people have a higher status than poor people, just like celebrities have a higher status than normal people. Are rich people better than poor people? Yes in social standings and that is what status is. I do not need to name theatre actors because honestly most of them aren't famous enough to remember. Yet I remember a lot of famous film actors and actresses. This is the difference between theatre acting and film acting, not a lot of people remember theatre actors because they're social status is not up to par with a film actors.

Quality

Did you know the famous line in StarWars where Darth Vader is speaking to Luke and says "Luke I am your father." That was a mistake. Funny thing is, is that its probably one of the most famous quotes of StarWars. That's the difference between mistakes in film and mistakes in theatre. Mistakes in theatre create a mess. Just because there is no room for mistakes in theatre acting does not mean that the quality is better. That doesn't mean mistakes don't happen.

As for special effects in the theatre, that's just it. They're just effects, there's nothing special about them. Rowing the boat at the beginning of Les Mis has effects but none of them are special. There's the sound of the waves and the people are pretending to row the boat as dry ice spills around the stage. But none of that is in particularly special. Not like the special effects of Jurassic Park or of the 2009 Avatar. The special effects in movies are a lot better than that of theatres.

Film acting has more skill than screen acting. Have you seen the Joker in the Dark Night Rises-Batman? Because that is what acting is. The Joker is absolutely ridiculously amazing. No theatre could replicate that. Theatre acting is good but not as good as film acting. The battle between Romeo and the enemy family member is quite dull compared to the fights in Gladiator. You have to agree with me on that. Or what about Pitch Perfect, all the actors sing plus they dance too. As much as you'd like to think that musicals in theatre performances are good, Pitch Perfect is better. Most theatre musicals require an orchestra but Pitch Perfect only uses voices to create music.

Therefore I have proven the quality of film acting is better than theatre acting.
Debate Round No. 2
SegBeg

Con

Rank is a position in hierarchy.

True but like I said before, heirachy does NOT mean that you are necesarily superior. A General in the army is MUCH higher in rank than a Private but does that make the superior? Armywise yes. That is what they are called, superiors and those under tham are subrdinates but does that make them superior as a PERSON? No. That General could be a nasty vicous and vinidictive person who does not give one flying hoot about his/her soldiers while the Private could be a kind hearted, good man or woman who cares about others and their country.

Therefore my opponent admitted that film acting has a higher posterior than theatre acting which cancels out the rest of his points.

First of all, I am a girl so please refer to me as a "she" in the forseeable future.
No it does not. I said I agree with you that film acting is held at a higher position than film acting but that does not necessarily make it better. Take this for example, one's beauty or handsomeness is held at a higer position in society than character but does that make beauty/handsomeness better? No. If you get maried to someone because they are pretty, you are most likely going to end up in the divorce court fighting over custody of your children. If you marry someone based on their character, you are more likely to have a happy and healthy marriage. Just because film acting is has a higher position than theatre acting in society does not mean that it is better. It could itself be inferior.

Though there may be famous theatre actors, non of them probably compare to the famousness of Brad Pitt.

You seem to think that fame makes you superior to others. Yes, most theatre actors aren't as famous as Bradd Pitt but who cares? There are some jobs that make you more popular than others but does that make that job better? Acting makes you more famous than say a businessman but does that make their job superior? Actors might get paid more than some directors but does that make their job better? No. They are just different jobs with their different challenges. Fame does NOT make you better.


People think of Shakespeare and plays because Shakespeare wrote a lot of plays.

What "people"? Do you speak for all people? How do you know that people think of Shakespeare when they think of theatre. Have you asked anybody to back up your subjective claim? You definately do not speak for me because I certainly do not think of Shakespeare when I think of theatre. I am not saying that people DON'T think of Shakespeare when they think of theatre but to claim that ALL do is an illogical and unsupportive position to hold.


It's [film] more in demand than theatre acting and there's no mistakes when film acting is finally produced.

Film has room for mistakes just as much as theatre acting does. There are many mistakes in films that I cannot list out as the list would be a VERY long list.

Are rich people better than poor people? Yes in social standings and that is what status is.

What does that mean? Being an actor has higher social status than being a nurse but does that make their job better? Whose job is better for a person's health? I'll leave you to answer that one.

This is the difference between theatre acting and film acting, not a lot of people remember theatre actors because they're social status is not up to par with a film actors.

But like I said, status does not make you better!




Did you know the famous line in StarWars where Darth Vader is speaking to Luke and says "Luke I am your father." That was a mistake.


No I did not, but thanks for the info!



Mistakes in theatre create a mess.

Exactly,meaning you have to step up your game in theatre because you CANNOT make mistakes.



Just because there is no room for mistakes in theatre acting does not mean that the quality is better. That doesn't mean mistakes don't happen.

But status makes film acting better? Also, I was never denying that mistakes in theatre never happen.


As for special effects in the theatre, that's just it. They're just effects, there's nothing special about them.Rowing the boat at the beginning of Les Mis has effects but none of them are special. There's the sound of the waves and the people are pretending to row the boat as dry ice spills around the stage. But none of that is in particularly special. Not like the special effects of Jurassic Park or of the 2009 Avatar. The special effects in movies are a lot better than that of theatres.

The reason you find nothing special about special effects in theatre is because they are different to those in film. I mean come on, do you really think they can get a 30 ft CGI dinasour on a stage? Special effects in theatre are different to those in fim and in some cases more complicated. Sure, in a film you can just use CGI to make a dinasour and get a greenscreen for a scene in a desert but that is common in film and rather cliche. SO nothing about the special effects in film makes them "special" because most use the exact type of techniques as other film companies do. It's unoriginal.

Film acting has more skill than screen acting. Have you seen the Joker in the Dark Night Rises-Batman? Because that is what acting is. The Joker is absolutely ridiculously amazing. No theatre could replicate that.

First of all, I would just like to ask you something: Have you ever actually BEEN to watch an actual play in theatre to know all this stuff. I can say because I have but you are only making assumption probably based on what you saw in an amateur school play or something. Not that film acting does not require skill but to say it requires more skill than theatre acting is just fooling yourself.

In theatre, you sometomes have VERY little time to change, some people only have a few seconds and them your on the air. Sure in in film, they'll give you at least a few minutes but some have hours to spare. In theatre you are performing basically every night nearly EVERY single day of the week for at least a few weeks or moths and sometimes for a YEAR. That could be a t least 100 performances.


The battle between Romeo and the enemy family member is quite dull compared to the fights in Gladiator. You have to agree with me on that.

I applaud your ignorance of a play as famous as Romeo and Juliet that you cannot even remember the name of the rival family the Capulets and Tybalt the man Romeo fought against. Second, Rome and Juliet is not about fighting. It is about two star cross'd lovers who take their lives. Fight scenes are near to irrelevant so it is illogical and insensible to try and compare the two when they are about two completely different things.


Or what about Pitch Perfect, all the actors sing plus they dance too.

Yes they do.


As much as you'd like to think that musicals in theatre performances are good, Pitch Perfect is better.


Have you even taken the time to watch a theatre perfromance to make that assumption? Also, although Pitch Perfect is a movie, they are performing it on STAGE meaning they are STAGE performers. See that?

Most theatre musicals require an orchestra but Pitch Perfect only uses voices to create music.

So what? I do not deny that acapella is a VERY impressive form of music but so is orchestra and this also shows your ignorance of theatre. Depending on what play or musical you are in say you are in a more classical type of musical like the Phantom of the Opera you will definately have an orchestra but if you are in more of a modern tyle of musical like Grease you will have more of a BAND. Please have knowledge of these things before discussing them.


Last but no least, I gave you a task and you did not follow it. I asked you to watch those two videos and compare them and decide which one you thought was better vocalwise. I would like you do it for me in the next round please. Thank you!

Therefore, I have proven that the quality of theatre acting is different from film acting.

https://www.youtube.com...



https://www.youtube.com...

WATCH!!!

(first link is Broadway and second link is film)
HeavenlyPanda

Pro

May I remind you what the definition of superior is. "Higher in rank, status, or quality;" As I have proved before, film acting has a higher position in hierarchy than theatre acting. Therefore that means it's superior. The authority of a film actor is much greater than a theatre actor. A film actor like Emma Watson could stand up and make a speech about feminism and people would listen. If a theatre actor tried that, people would look at him/her weirdly. The status of a film actor is greater than that of a theatre actor. Status is measured by social standings and film actors have a higher social standing than theatre actors. It doesn't matter whether a private is morally good. He is still inferior to his general.

Again my opponent states that film acting is held in a higher position than film acting which cancels out her other points. Then she makes a comparison that film acting is like dating someone because they're beautiful even though they have a rotten core. This is a stereotype and only someone who is shallow would do this. This is not what film acting is. Film acting is had better social standings than theatre acting which means it has higher rank than theatre acting. Since rank is what needs to be measured, film acting wins in that category.

My opponent misunderstands me when I speak about fame. Fame is a social standing and since film actors have more of it, they have a higher social standing. And social standing matters when measuring rank and status. Also do you deny being paid more is better than being paid less? Film actors are paid more and technically both kind of actors are acting. Therefore film actors get paid more for acting. Unlike theatre actors who get paid less for acting. Which sounds better?

As for mistakes, theatre acting still has mistakes whether you like it or not. As does film acting but the difference between film acting mistakes and theatre acting mistakes is that film acting can fix them. That makes film acting quality better. The Star Wars example is a great example.

As for a film actor being better than a nurse, we are comparing theatre actors and film actors. Not film actors and nurses. And rich people are generally better socially than poor people. As for social status, it does matter because we are comparing which one is more superior and status is one of the categories. Saying that it doesn't matter is purely subjective.

Then my opponent denies that the movies Jurassic Park and Avatar had no special effects. So were those dinosaurs real? They were special effects, you just want to deny that because theatre acting has none, unless you count dry ice as a special effect.

As for seeing plays, yes. I've seen lots of them. I've seen Romeo and Juliet, Midsummer's Nights Dream, Phantom of the Opera, The Sound Of Music, Lion King, Mary Poppins, Les Miserable. I've seen them all played live and some of them in Broadway. So no, they aren't based off of a school play. And I can tell you that I've seen actors try to over act and that's annoying, I've seen actors under act. But I have never seen someone act as good as the Joker in batman. You claim that theatre acting is exhausting so maybe that's why it's not up to par with film acting.

As for skill, like I said, is not Gladiator more exciting than a plays fighting? Acting is to amuse people and people are more amused by film actors acting than theatre acting.

As for Pitch Perfect, that is way more skilled than most plays. Orchestra doesn't make a theatre actor better. Which just shows how inferior theatre actors are. As for knowledge on music, I play three classical instruments and have done my music theory, I think I'm good.

As for the two videos, I go with the film version. It's a known fact that Eponine's voice is always stronger than Cosette's voice in Les Mis. But in the Broadway version Eponine's voice is actually quite nasally. Also the Broadway version seems to blend together at the end in a muddy way. It's like a piano song played with the sustain pedal really badly. The film version is clear and Eponine's voice is actually strong.
Debate Round No. 3
SegBeg

Con

May I remind you that just because something is regarded as superior does NOT necessarily mean it is. People underappreciate things all the time, some things are VERY overrated take Frozen for example. I do not deny that Forzen is a fantastic film and is definately deserved success but don't you think it was a bit overrated? Like this. I LOVE films and I LOVE film actors. I even WANT to be an actress when I grow up and although I lean more towards a career in theatre, if I were offered a role in a film, heck yes I would take it!

But to be honest, what I initially mean by superior is which one is better actingwise and in the case of musical, dancing and vocal wise. I didn't really mean higher in rank or social status or anything. But since you want to debte on the dictionary version of the word superior, I will do it for you.

The authority of a film actor is much greater than a theatre actor.

The dictonary definition of the word authority is "the power or right to give orders, make descisions and enforce obedience" So a film actor can just go up to a film actor and say, "bow down to me," and then because film actors have more authority than a theatre actor, they have to obey. Is that what you're implying? Well that sounds ludacris. Therefore I have refuted your argument that film actors have more authority than theatre actors.


A film actor like Emma Watson could stand up and make a speech about feminism and people would listen. If a theatre actor tried that, people would look at him/her weirdly.

A woman like Melania Trump can get up and make a speech about the same thing. So what? What evidence do you have of this strange claim? Have you ever seen it happen? If not, who are you to say something so presumptious like that?


The status of a film actor is greater than that of a theatre actor.

In polularity yes, but like I said, popularity does NOT make a job better.

Status is measured by social standings and film actors have a higher social standing than theatre actors. It doesn't matter whether a private is morally good. He is still inferior to his general.

A private has had less experience in the army than a general thus they are lower in rank, but from a private all the way up to a Field Marshal have an important role in serving their country. One rank may be lower or higher than another but does that make their job superior? If we were to get rid of privates, the army would crumble? Why is that? Because they are important.


Again my opponent states that film acting is held in a higher position than film acting which cancels out her other points.

No it does not. I will repeat this again? Higher position does not make a job superior. The only way it is higher in poition is socially. But to say that film acting is inherently better because it has higher social standing is ridiculous. Take this for example, let's say there's a singer who has a voice just as powerful or even better than someone like Jennifer Hudson's. But because Jennifer Hudson has higher social status and is more popular, that makes her better? Well that's kind of what my opponent is implying. I am using her flawed logic.


Then she makes a comparison that film acting is like dating someone because they're beautiful even though they have a rotten core.

Note that my opponent make a flase claim about me here. I never said that film acting is like dating a beautiful person with a "rotten core" far from it even. I said that a person's appearence is NORMALLY favored over their character whether or not they have a "rotten core" and so with my opponent's logic I made the assumption that since beauty is normally favoured over one's character that makes beauty better.

This is a stereotype and only someone who is shallow would do this.

I agree. But it is also quite shallow to assume that film acting is inherently better than theatre acting.


Film acting is had better social standings than theatre acting which means it has higher rank than theatre acting. Since rank is what needs to be measured, film acting wins in that category.

Again, I do not need to hear this over and over again. My opponent has said this hundreds of times and I have continuously refuted them but she still seems to think that because I admit that film acting has a higher SOCIAL position than theatre acting, that means all my other points are cancelled out which is not ture. Despite the MANY times I have said that social standing does not necessarily make you better, she seems to refuse to acknowledge it and then goes and plays the "status card"


My opponent misunderstands me when I speak about fame. Fame is a social standing and since film actors have more of it, they have a higher social standing.

My opponent must know that not everyone wants fame and popularity so therefore her claim that film acting is better simply because it has a higher social standing than theatre is not valid. Not everybody wants fame. Second, the reason film akes you more popular is because film is easier to access that theatre. You can watch a film in the theatre, a phone, a tablet, a laptop legally or illegally unlike theatre acting where you have to actually go to the theatre to watch it, but I suggest you avoid using this against me because like I said above, not every person cares about fame and not everyine wants it.


Also do you deny being paid more is better than being paid less?

I NEVER denied getting paid more is better than getting paid less. Of course getting paid more is better. But is money a reason to have a job? Well yes, especially if you are in desperate need of money, but really you should be in a job that you enjoy whether or not you get paid a lot of money. A proverb says "it is better to be a failure at something you love than a success at something you hate." There are many theatre actors who do not want to go onto film because they love the theatre just as there are many film actors who do not want to go onto theatre acting because they love film and there is nothing wrong with that. These theatre actors don't care about the money, they love their job regardless of how much they get paid.


Film actors are paid more and technically both kind of actors are acting. Therefore film actors get paid more for acting. Unlike theatre actors who get paid less for acting. Which sounds better?

See above.


As for mistakes, theatre acting still has mistakes whether you like it or not. As does film acting but the difference between film acting mistakes and theatre acting mistakes is that film acting can fix them. That makes film acting quality better. The Star Wars example is a great example.

No actually it makes film acting a whole lot easier. A theate actor is a lot more disciplined than a film actor. If you make a mistake that ruins the whole performance, you might get reprimanded by the director and then you will step up your game. In film, you make a mistake in the middle of filming, director just says "no prob, we'll just redo the scene" or "no prob we'll just fix it in editing." Which sounds easier?


As for a film actor being better than a nurse, we are comparing theatre actors and film actors. Not film actors and nurses.

Then why are you comparing Romeo and Juliet to Gladiator?


As for social status, it does matter because we are comparing which one is more superior and status is one of the categories. Saying that it doesn't matter is purely subjective.

Saying the Joker was miraculously amazing is subjective also.


Then my opponent denies that the movies Jurassic Park and Avatar had no special effects.

My opponent is accuing me of denying movies like Jurassic Park and Avatar of lacking special effects while she denies the theatre performances have special effects which seems rather hypocritical.

They were special effects, you just want to deny that because theatre acting has none, unless you count dry ice as a special effect.

She. Here she denies that theatre acting too has special effects. Actually yes I do count dry ice as a special effect. If it sets the scene well then yes it is a special effect.

Watch this and tell me they are not special effects

https://www.youtube.com...


As for seeing plays, yes. I've seen lots of them. I've seen Romeo and Juliet, Midsummer's Nights Dream, Phantom of the Opera, The Sound Of Music, Lion King, Mary Poppins, Les Miserable.

Great so at least you have some experience of watching theatre.


And I can tell you that I've seen actors try to over act and that's annoying, I've seen actors under act.

That is kind of the point in theatre. They are supposed to overreact because they are supposed to interact with the audience. Sorry, film acting and stage acting are COMPLETELY different ard require completely different skills. You can't just expect a film actor to come along to stage and act like they do in a film. It won't make sense. Transition from theatre to film or film to theatre is VERY difficult because they require different types of skills. So yes theatre actors overreact becaue that is what they are supposed to do. You can't expect them to act like they would in a movie because tht would not make sense in theatre.


But I have never seen someone act as good as the Joker in batman.

And I have never seen someone act as good as Ian McKellen in Macbeth. No film actor could replicate it.


You claim that theatre acting is exhausting so maybe that's why it's not up to par with film acting.


Um no. This just goes to show that it requires more work than film acting as in physical endurance. In film, simple, you can get a stunt double which just makes the job easier.

As for skill, like I said, is not Gladiator more exciting than a plays fighting?

I urge you to STOP trying to compare Gladiator's fighting to a play's fighting. Look, the difference between the two is that in theatre it would be a lot easier for a person to get hurt in a fighting scene than in a film because the fight is live. In a film, they mght have cuts in between and edit them together afterwards.
I'll continue my argument is the comments section.




HeavenlyPanda

Pro

My opponent goes on for a half of her argument about social standings so I will clarify. Social standings are linked to rank and status. Rank and status are two out of the three categories that measure ones superiorness. My opponent has said countless of times that film acting does have a higher social standing than theatre acting, therefore film acting has a higher rank and status than theatre acting. The only thing left to measure is quality.

Then my opponent says that film actors don't have authority. Then she gives an example of Melania Trump. Melania Trump is not a theatre actor. Emma Watson would have more influence in a speech than a random theatre actor because she's well known and popular. Famous people have more influence and social standings than normal people.

Again my opponent admits that film actors have a higher social standing than theatre actors. Social standings are linked with rank and status and those are two out of the three categories that make something superior. Again I will use an example. A private is like a pawn in chess. Sure it's important but its not as important as the king or queen. That just proves that a general is superior to a private. Just like film acting is superior to theatre acting.

Then my opponent tries to imply that social standing is all that is needed to be superior. This is obviously not true. I have proved before that social standings are linked to rank and status but there is also quality.

The quality of the job of film acting is better. Not only are they paid more but they are appreciated for it too. Like I said before, film acting is acting. So is theatre acting. Yet film actors get paid more for acting and theatre actors get paid less for acting. Which one seems better?

As for the quality of acting, my opponent has this misconception that just because theatre acting cannot afford a mistake means that it is better. No it's not, it's just more stressful on the actor. Another reason why film acting job is better. Theatre plays will have mistakes yet movies will be perfected before being introduced. It is like a book being published. A theatre play is like a book being author edited before the author publishes the book himself. A film is like having a publishing company publish and edit the book themselves. Which one is better?

Watch actors like the Joker. Then watch a theatre actor. Theatre actors exaggerate. They try too hard and its like a little kid sucking up to the teacher. It's annoying.

As for the quality of watching, film is a lot more appealing. Film has better special effects than dry ice that theatre uses. Again I use Avatar and Jurassic Park. Those two movies have special effects even though my opponent tried to deny it. Also what is more exciting, watching Gladiator or watching a live fight on stage? Probably Gladiator. Why is that? Because as much as you try to pretend, theatre stages are just that. A stage. No matter how many props you put up it will never amount to the detail that film goes to.

Then my opponent says that theatre actors work harder than film actors. Sure they may have a 100 shows and they may be exhausted but that doesn't make them better or their job better. Getting into film acting is difficult and many people over look that. The skill it takes to live up to people's expectations is great. In the Hunger Games Jennifer Lawrence had to learn to shoot a bow. For plays, theatre actors don't go to those lengths.

I have proven through status, rank and quality that film acting is better than theatre acting. Therefore film acting is superior to theatre acting.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SegBeg 10 months ago
SegBeg
"As for Pitch Perfect, that is way more skilled than most plays. Orchestra doesn't make a theatre actor better."

Neither does acapella. And like I said, although Pitch Perfect is a movie, the Barden Bellas are not film actors- they are STAGE performers so they perform in STAGE, not screen.

"Which just shows how inferior theatre actors are."

My opponent had the audacity to say flat out that hardworking theatre actors are straight out "inferior" tell that to a theatre actor's face.

"As for knowledge on music, I play three classical instruments and have done my music theory, I think I'm good."

And I have played, piano, drums, violin, steel drums, been in choir and I sing. I think I'm good too.

"As for the two videos, I go with the film version. It's a known fact that Eponine's voice is always stronger than Cosette's voice in Les Mis. But in the Broadway version Eponine's voice is actually quite nasally. Also the Broadway version seems to blend together at the end in a muddy way. It's like a piano song played with the sustain pedal really badly. The film version is clear and Eponine's voice is actually strong."

I agree with you that the film Eponine's voice was much better than the Broadway one's but you see, Samantha Barks who plays Eponine in the film is a THEATRE actress. She played Eponine on the West End. And Amanda Seyfried who is not a theatre actress you say's voice is not as good. You might not also know that Eddie Redmayne, Hugh Jackman, and Aaron Tveit are all THEATRE actors as well. They had the strongest voices when compared to the ones like Amanda Seyfried and Russel Crowe who had okay voices but not GREAT. But in my opinion, the Broadway one was MUCH better. Their vocals more advanced and the choreography better and the acting was spot on.
Posted by SegBeg 10 months ago
SegBeg
Ps. Sorry for the spelling mistakes. I'm probably going to get penalized for that.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Foodiesoul 10 months ago
Foodiesoul
SegBegHeavenlyPandaTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: Both pro and con made very repetitive arguments throughout this debate. Although both had very flimsy arguments, Pro made better arguments because pro barely had any grammar or spelling mistakes in her arguments and pro used more reliable sources. Oxford dictionary is a more reliable source than YouTube because YouTube can be very flawed and inaccurate due to the fact that it's more of a comedy site than an informational site. Oxford always tries to be as authentic and accurate as possible. The problem with this debate is that it's full of repetition, flawed/illogical arguments, and arguments that aren't really backed up with any substantial evidence. Therefore, I vote for neither pro nor con.