The Instigator
WildTiger
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

JJ Abrams is a bad director

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 3 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2015 Category: Movies
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,498 times Debate No: 84334
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

WildTiger

Pro

Just look at his Star Trek reboots And his poor, unoriginal Star Wars The Force Awakens. JJ Abrams' movies have no heart and no soul. Not to mention his irritating shaking camera technique that give me nausea, and his irritating lens flare. Enough already, Jim. Grow up. Start making movies with actual content, instead of hollow dumb movies full of irritating lens flare and shaky camera.
imabench

Con

I dont normally noobsnipe but this resolution is so unbelievably preposterous that I couldnt help myself, and had to accept this debate to prove otherwise



1) Ratings of movies JJ Abrams has directed

There are 5 movies that JJ Abrams has directed, each one is listed below along with the Rotten Tomatoes rating each movie received:

Mission Impossible 3 (2006) ========= 70% from critics, 69% from viewers
Star Trek (2008) =================== 95% from critics, 91% from viewers
Super 8 (2011) ==================== 82% from critics, 75% from viewers
Star Trek Into Darkness (2011) ======= 87% from critics, 90% from viewers
Star Wars The Force Awakens (2015) == 94% from critics, 91% from viewers

(Anything above a 60% is considered a passing grade)

http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com...

Movies JJ Abrams has directed have averaged 85.6% from critics and 83.2% from viewers according to Rotton Tomatoes, the go-to source for ratings of movies

When you factor in Metacritic, the second most major source for movie ratings, the reception still holds up

Mission Impossible 3 = 'Generally favorable reviews'
Star Trek = 'Universal Acclaim
Super 8 = 'Generally favorable reviews'
Star Trek Into Darkness = 'Generally favorable reviews'
The Force Awakens = 'Universal Acclaim'

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...(film)#Reception
https://en.wikipedia.org...(film)#Critical_response
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

A director cannot be considered 'terrible' if literally all of his movies are liked by film critics and general audiences



2) Financial Success of films JJ Abrams has directed

The only other means of telling if a movie is a good movie other than overall reviews of the film is how much money the movie makes. Its certainly not a foolproof means of determining how good or bad a movie is, but more often then not, well made and well directed movies will make more money than poorly directed movies.

List of JJ Abrams directed movies and how much money they made:

Mission Impossible 3 = $400 million
Star Trek = $385 million (Second highest in franchise)
Super 8 = $260 million
Star Trek into Darkness = $450 million (Franchise high)
Star Wars 7 = >$1 Billion (Franchise high)

The average gross of JJ Abrams' films he has directed is $500 million each AND CLIMBING as The Force Awakens continues to dominate in the box office.... It is impossible that movies made from a 'terrible' director routinely go on to average $500 million in income, meaning that JJ Abrams cannot be considered a terrible director. Even if you dont count Star Wars, the new average income of JJ Abrams movies still averages $300 million each, which considering the amount of money it costs to make the movies in the first place (listed below), indicates that JJ Abrams is a great director, since all of his films he has directed have been financially successful

Mission Impossible 3 = $150 million to make, grossed $400 million............. $250 million in profit
Star Trek = $150 million to make, grossed $385 million.................................. $235 million in profit
Super 8 = $50 million to make, grossed $260 million....................................... $210 million in profit
Star Trek Into Darkness = $185 million to make, grossed $465 million......... $289 million in profit
Star Wars 7 = $200 million to make, grossed $1 Billion and counting........... $800 million in profit and climbing

https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org...(film)
https://en.wikipedia.org...
https://en.wikipedia.org...

So not only are literally all of the films JJ Abrams has directed gone on to be liked by film critics and general audiences, his movies he has directed routinely gross very large sums of money and always have made more money than what they cost to be filmed.......
Debate Round No. 1
WildTiger

Pro

Super 8, another very unoriginal movie, he just copied the classic E.T. How moronic.

If 1 idiot (JJ Abrams) directs idiotic movies in a country of say 1000 people and 950 of those people are complete idiots who will still watch his crap, only 50 people are intelligent, intelectual and have good taste in movies... Sure you can mention box office, money, ratings, but it doesn't mean anything because the majority of the people on those statistics are idiots like JJ Abrams. His movies are still bad, have no soul, no heart, no story, irritating shaky camera, he abuses lens flare so much that it gives me vomits. Complete shallow idiotic dumb moronic garbage. Of course, the 950 idiots will watch and like his garbage.

Also, I never use Rotten Tomatoes or Meta Critic. I use IMDB to check ratings, Super 8 is a mere 7,1, Mission Impossible 3 just 6,9 rating. Very poor ratings to consider someone a great director. Compare those poor ratings to a great director like Christopher Nolan. All of his movies are way above the rating 8. The Dark Knight got the rating of 9! No JJ Abrams movie got a 9. BOOYAH!

Nolan's movies (IMDB ratings):

Memento 8,5
Batman Begins 8,3
The Prestige 8,5
The Dark Knight 9
Inception 8,8
The Dark Knight Rises 8.5
Interstellar 8,6

JJ Abrams' movies (IMDB rating):

Mission Impossible III 6,9
Star Trek 8,0
Super 8 (cheap copy of E.T.) 7,1
Star Trek Into Darkness 7,8
Star Wars: The Force Awakens 8,6 (I hope this misleading rating will drop a lot during the next months)

The comparison is obvious. While all of Nolan's movies have a rating higher than 8, almost all JJ Abrams' movies have ratings lower than 8... One of them even lower than 7. I rest my case.
imabench

Con

1) Critic Ratings and Income

"it doesn't mean anything because the majority of the people on those statistics are idiots like JJ Abrams."

The critics who review movies are people whose careers go entirely into analyzing movies and judging whether they are good films or not to general audiences.... To dismiss every critic who likes a JJ Abrams as an idiot while assuming only smart people dont like JJ Abrams's movies is such a bad argument that ironically, it makes YOU look like the idiot....



"His movies are still bad, have no soul, no heart, no story, irritating shaky camera, he abuses lens flare so much that it gives me vomits. Complete shallow idiotic dumb moronic garbage"

Now youre just whining.



"While all of Nolan's movies have a rating higher than 8, almost all JJ Abrams' movies have ratings lower than 8"

Not being as good as of a director Christopher Nolan doesn't mean that they must therefore be a terrible director though, it just means that they are not as great of a director as Christopher Nolan. You can still be a great director but not be as great as Christopher Nolan.





Pro's borderline idiotic arguments are completely entrenched in his own warped bias against JJ Abrams and not grounded in any sort of reality whatsoever. Any professional movie critic who approves of JJ Abrams' movies is automatically branded as an 'idiot' according to con, and according to him, anyone who isnt as good of a director as Christopher Nolan must therefore be a terrible director, which does not make any logical sense whatsoever.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 2
WildTiger

Pro

"The critics who review movies are people whose careers go entirely into analyzing movies and judging whether they are good films or not to general audiences.... To dismiss every critic who likes a JJ Abrams as an idiot while assuming only smart people dont like JJ Abrams's movies is such a bad argument that ironically, it makes YOU look like the idiot...."

In case you didn't get it, I was talking about user reviews, not critic reviews.

"Now youre just whining."

Nope, telling the truth, I gave 2 good arguments:

1) his annoying shaky camera

2) his annoying lens flare

These are facts, valid arguments, not whining. I see you just respond to my 2 valid arguments with an insult (you say that I'm whining), without giving any valid arguments yourself to counter my 2 valid arguments, which are real facts, no way to deny them.

"Pro's borderline idiotic arguments are completely entrenched in his own warped bias against JJ Abrams and not grounded in any sort of reality whatsoever. Any professional movie critic who approves of JJ Abrams' movies is automatically branded as an 'idiot' according to con, and according to him, anyone who isnt as good of a director as Christopher Nolan must therefore be a terrible director, which does not make any logical sense whatsoever."

Whoa, now you call me an idiot and my arguments idiotic? Lol I never called you an idiot before. This is how you debate? By insulting your opponent out of nowhere? How mature of you. Not. I didn't call you an idiot before, but you called me so maybe you are the idiot. I was talking about idiots in general who like JJ Abrams. Maybe you've automatically included yourself in that category, not me.

You are wrong. I never talked about the critics. Can't you read english properly? I was talking about user reviews!

Also, your profile pic is from the terrible movie Pirates of the Caribbean? Really? How old are you? Wow. That shows your intellectual level or lack of. That movie is complete plagiarism. It just copies left and right entire scenes, characters, etc. from Monkey Island (1990). Even Ron Gilbert knows this. It has nothing original. Shame on the directors, to just ripoff in a cheap way a great original videogame and try to fool younger generations who don't know Monkey Island into thinking POTC is original when it's not.

There are many videos that expose the cheap ripoff, here are 2 blatant ones. I despise this kind of plagiarism.

https://youtu.be...

https://youtu.be...;

I'm new to debates.org, I didn't know this site well. But now I see people actually post big posts on here. So, I don't care if I lose this debate, I know when I say JJ Abrams is bad, it's just my personal opinion, there is no evidence to back this claim. Just like there is no evidence to prove the majority of the population are not intellectual, but are dumb idiots like JJ Abrams who like his shallow, empty movies, without a story, without heart and without a soul. Few people will probably be intellectual enough to realize I'm right.
imabench

Con

"'I know when I say JJ Abrams is bad, it's just my personal opinion, there is no evidence to back this claim"

I'll take that as a concession.... Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Blade0886 1 year ago
Blade0886
Super 8=ET?

You must be very blind then, the only things similar to ET are:

1: an alien.

2: the army(and even then, in ET they only took form of the CDC)

That's it. Like literally.
Posted by jzonda415 1 year ago
jzonda415
Pro extends illogical and irrational arguments; Con sucessfully points to out several times. Pro's arguments are not sourced nor are they anything but pure conjecture. The only argument which Pro puts forth with any sourcing or explained rationale behind it is his argument concerning Nolan, which, as Con points out, is a poor argument. As Con claims, "Not being as good as of a director Christopher Nolan doesn't mean that they must therefore be a terrible director." This clearly debunks Pro's only argument, which means Pro can't fulfill his BOP, which he has the sole authority to fulfill. Con prevents Pro from fulfilling his BOP and pushes back against his claims, citing critical acclaim and financial success. Con clearly wins arguments.

No glaring problems with Sources, as both Pro and Con used the same ones, or with S&G.

As for Conduct, Con takes the cake. Pro attacks Con personally and unjustly throughout most of his last round. While Con does attack Pro as well, it is not in the same manner nor severity of Pro; hence, I award Conduct to Con.

Always happy to discuss/explain my vote to anyone.
Posted by Reformist 1 year ago
Reformist
Watched the new star wars movie yesterday

At least better than the prequels
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Sam7411 1 year ago
Sam7411
WildTigerimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: No question who held better conduct and used more than just opinion (Con). By the way, the lens flares are a signature style and were used masterfully in Star Wars.
Vote Placed by debatedeity111 1 year ago
debatedeity111
WildTigerimabenchTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro engaged in reductio ad absurdum
Vote Placed by jzonda415 1 year ago
jzonda415
WildTigerimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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: Vote in comments.