The Instigator
SeventhProfessor
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Wylted
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Resolved: Disney buying out LucasFilms is more positive than negative

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
Wylted
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 4/30/2014 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,011 times Debate No: 53749
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (3)

 

SeventhProfessor

Pro

For daytonanerd's DDO World Cup tournament. First round for acceptance only.
Debate Round No. 1
SeventhProfessor

Pro

Before we start, let me provide a list of films produced by Lucasfilm [1]. I would also like to note that, as such a nonserious topic, I'll keep my points brief. I shall be arguing that all parties benefit to show that the decision was positive. Now, onto my arguments.

Disney

Now, this one should be obvious. Disney buys Lucasfilm, and can continue and/or reboot several different franchises and movies, such as Labyrinth, Indiana Jones, and Star Wars, leading to them earning quite a lot of money. Not eally any negatives here, onto Lucasfilm.

Lucasfilm

Disney bought Lucasfil for $4.05 billion [2]. Disney is great with movies, and its features Lion King, Frozen, and Avengers (with the aid of Marvel Studios) are seen as legends in fiilmography today. Disney can clearly lead the Star Wars franchise to even more fame, along with the company as a whole.

Fans

As I said before, Disney has had huge success with movies, and especially those with other franchises they have bought. I am, of course, talking about Marvel (also bought for $4 bill). Originally, people were very critical of the choice [3], but The Avengers went on to win over fifty awards [4], and is still the third highest-grossing film of all time [5].

1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com...
3. http://www.sodahead.com...
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...;
Wylted

Con

I actually have a limited amount of time to post my arguments. So mine will be short as well. They also won't be proofread or use any Html code. Since I'm on an Iphone that means no bold. I hope that it's easy to read and easily comprehended.

"Now, this one should be obvious. Disney buys Lucasfilm, and can continue and/or reboot several different franchises and movies, such as Labyrinth, Indiana Jones, and Star Wars, leading to them earning quite a lot of money. Not eally any negatives here, onto Lucasfilm."

That is a negative for the fans. George Lucas will be given a role as the executive producer on Star Wars, which has a lot more creative control than the director many times. He's also going to have a hand in every part of the creative process. George Lucas is 67 years old and out of touch. Fans of Star Wars hated episode 1. Lucas inserted that annoying Jar Jar Binks character among many other missteps.

There going to completely water down and destroy the Star Wars universe. They are plan on releasing a show, rushing out 3 new Star Wars films, starting a theme park etc. http://www.forbes.com...

Disney has a lot of incentive to keep Walt Disney's (AKA Hitler's http://www.debate.org...) original creative work sacred. There's no such incentive with Star Wars. The best thing the CEO can do to keep his job and get a huge raise is; rush out a new trilogy extremely quick, remake the original trilogy, insert a bunch of new characters into all these films to increase how many toys they can sell, and start a stupid mini theme park.

This would bring disney billions of dollars extremely quickly making the CEO look like a genius, while also destroying Star Wars. Once the current generations of fans die and the new blood sees the watered down stuff first, and doesn't give the old trilogy a chance. The franchise will be discarded like an old prostitute.

Remakes of Labrynth are likely to be like remakes of Robocop. Everybody has fond memories of the original film, but it has no cult following. This means the movie has to stand on it's own merit an can't use the previous incarnation to bootstrap sales with.

People are tired of the Indiana Jones crap. http://thedailycougar.com...

Indiana Jones was thrown out in an attempt to cash in on it's predecessors success. They couldn't manage to make a good film out of it. This is what's going to happen to Star Wars. A bunch of sequals will be spit out to get an easy fast profit and the franchise will be destroyed before Lucas is old enough to see his grave.

I'd like to point out, the comparisons to Marvel aren't fair. Marvel's fans are created in the comic book store. Disney can screw up several times and the fan base doesn't care, because the comics are still good. If the comics started to suck, they then lose all that consistent revenue. If you look the films released by Marvel they're sub par. They're extremely mediocre and the fans know it. They don't care, because the comics are awesome. Part of the reason comic fans go to see these movies is so they can complain about how the movie sucked. Look at Iron Man 3, both Thor movies and the Spider-Man reboot. Fans hate those movies, but they can't help themselves.

The Lucas franchise doesn't have the same type of fan base. Their fan base is created in the theatre. Once they start putting these subpar movies in theaters their fan base will start eroding. The original fans that are remaining will stop paying to watch these movies in protest of where the franchise is headed.

Sure disney sees some short term benefit to milking Star Wars for all it's worth, but they screw over the fans and they screw over the original creators, it's probably even a long term negative financially for Lucas and Disney, but what do they care they'll be dead before the negativity rebounds and hits them in the face.
Debate Round No. 2
SeventhProfessor

Pro

"George Lucas will be given a role as the executive producer on Star Wars, which has a lot more creative control than the director many times. He's also going to have a hand in every part of the creative process. George Lucas is 67 years old and out of touch. Fans of Star Wars hated episode 1. Lucas inserted that annoying Jar Jar Binks character among many other missteps."

While Lucas created the much-hated episode 1, let's not forget he created the original trilogy as well. George Lucas's creativity is what made episodes 4, 5, and 6, along with the entire EU, possible and as great as it is. While he made plenty of mistakes like Jar Jar, you'd have to be really thick to not see that fans hated him. It would be incredibly difficult for Lucas to never have seen all the hate inspired by his mistakes, and there's no way he'd try something like that again. Even if he makes a few new ones, that just means less mistakes made next movie.

"There going to completely water down and destroy the Star Wars universe. They are plan on releasing a show, rushing out 3 new Star Wars films, starting a theme park etc."

There's already been a show and hundreds of comics and books based on Star Wars, and very few people claimed these "ruined" or "watered down" the Star Wars universe. Even Harry Potter got a theme park, and all it did was get Warner Bros. extra money, it never effected the quality of the books and/or movies like you think the Star Wars one will.

"Disney has a lot of incentive to keep Walt Disney's (AKA Hitler's http://www.debate.org......) original creative work sacred. There's no such incentive with Star Wars. The best thing the CEO can do to keep his job and get a huge raise is; rush out a new trilogy extremely quick, remake the original trilogy, insert a bunch of new characters into all these films to increase how many toys they can sell, and start a stupid mini theme park."

Yes, that will earn the CEO money, but you provide no reason for why this harms Star Wars or a fan's view of the series.

"This would bring disney billions of dollars extremely quickly making the CEO look like a genius, while also destroying Star Wars. Once the current generations of fans die and the new blood sees the watered down stuff first, and doesn't give the old trilogy a chance. The franchise will be discarded like an old prostitute."

So, what you're saying is, new fans of a franchise will like different parts of it than current fans? The horror! And there's no reason to forget the original Star Wars trilogy will be forgotten. Star Wars is one of the three biggest sci-fi franchises ever, along with Star Trek and Doctor Who. The prequel trilogy didn't make everyone forget about the original Star Wars, TNG didn't make anyone forget about the original Star Trek, the new series didn't make anyone forget about the new Doctor Who. In fact, each of these reboots only led to people looking into the originals, a lot of them to like the beginnings more. So, why should the sequel trilogy be any different?

"Remakes of Labrynth are likely to be like remakes of Robocop. Everybody has fond memories of the original film, but it has no cult following. This means the movie has to stand on it's own merit an can't use the previous incarnation to bootstrap sales with."

Robocop certainly does have a cult following, which is why almost no one liked that remake. However, Labyrinth, at least to today's generation, is almost unknown. This would make a remake, catering to today's shorter attention span, let a new generation see what everyone else did in the eighties.

"People are tired of the Indiana Jones crap."

Yes, the fourth one was a mistake. But, not because it was more Indiana Jones, because it was a bad script. If a new, actually good Indiana Jones fillm came out, I'm sure there would be no reasonable objections.

"I'd like to point out, the comparisons to Marvel aren't fair. Marvel's fans are created in the comic book store. Disney can screw up several times and the fan base doesn't care, because the comics are still good. If the comics started to suck, they then lose all that consistent revenue. If you look the films released by Marvel they're sub par. They're extremely mediocre and the fans know it. They don't care, because the comics are awesome. Part of the reason comic fans go to see these movies is so they can complain about how the movie sucked. Look at Iron Man 3, both Thor movies and the Spider-Man reboot. Fans hate those movies, but they can't help themselves."

While Iron Man 3 and the Thors were both not very good, almost no other recent movie of theirs (Spider Man belongs to Sony) has had any serious, justified criticism. As I've said multiple times, Star Wars is constantly getting pumped with EU material, in the forms of comics and books. If fans are disappointed, they can just read those, just like comic fans.

"The original fans that are remaining will stop paying to watch these movies in protest of where the franchise is headed."

And millions of new fans shall continue to pay for Star Wars, most likely mre than making up for the old fans that leave.

"Sure disney sees some short term benefit to milking Star Wars for all it's worth, but they screw over the fans and they screw over the original creators, it's probably even a long term negative financially for Lucas and Disney, but what do they care they'll be dead before the negativity rebounds and hits them in the face."

Disney spent $4.2 bill. How likely is it they won't earn it back through the theme park, toys, and movies? Even if they only have a net gain of $1 bil per movie, they could still easily earn the rest through toys and the park.
Wylted

Con

"While Lucas created the much-hated episode 1, let's not forget he created the original trilogy as well. George Lucas's creativity is what made episodes 4, 5, and 6, along with the entire EU, possible and as great as it is. While he made plenty of mistakes like Jar Jar, you'd have to be really thick to not see that fans hated him. It would be incredibly difficult for Lucas to never have seen all the hate inspired by his mistakes, and there's no way he'd try something like that again. Even if he makes a few new ones, that just means less mistakes made next movie."

He's not a beginner whose refining his craft. These mistakes aren't there because he's just learning, they are there because he's an elderly man out I touch with what people like. As people age they lose creativity http://creatingminds.org... . That's what Lucas has done. He's also fallen for the expert trap, where he has become an expert and he's leaning on that (same as previous source). The problem is he's an expert in a film market from over 40 years ago. That same stuff just doesn't work now.

So to reiterate. Lucas's mistakes aren't from honing his craft. They are from being out of touch due mostly to age but also from prestige and wealth. The mistakes are also from his lack of creativity and leaning on knowledge that is useless and counterproductive in today's film market.

"There's already been a show and hundreds of comics and books based on Star Wars, and very few people claimed these "ruined" or "watered down" the Star Wars universe. Even Harry Potter got a theme park, and all it did was get Warner Bros. extra money, it never effected the quality of the books and/or movies like you think the Star Wars one will."

The books don't ruin the movies, because Star Wars fans are filtered from the movies first. Imagine a big filter. In Star Wars the biggest and first filter is the movies. You're comparing a fan base that is filtered from movies to ones that aren't. Harry Potter is filtered from the books. Marvel fans are filtered from the comics. If 6 new Harry Potter books come out that are absolutely crap, the fan base will be severely crippled. The importance of the fan base is that they are lifetime customers and provide a margin of safety on high risk projects. Here is on expert on the purchase of Lucas and particularly Star Wars.

"Disney should never have been allowed NEAR the Star Wars franchise." BSH1 http://www.debate.org...

"Yes, that will earn the CEO money, but you provide no reason for why this harms Star Wars or a fan's view of the series."

I did give reasons. Earning them short term money is good if it is an effect of building on the fan base and releasing quality projects. The problem is that when the purpose is short term fast profit with reckless disregard to the future of the franchise. This hurts the fans long term profits and quality of work available to the general public. The distance Disney has from the Lucas label allows them to not tarnish their name with short term cash grabs. Disney is in the habit of creating distance between their silly for profit projects and the heart of their business, which is the Disney label. http://www.mtv.com...

If Disney slips up on Star Wars they will cut and burn just like they did with ICP (last citation) and on numerous other occasions.

"Yes, the fourth one was a mistake. But, not because it was more Indiana Jones, because it was a bad script. If a new, actually good Indiana Jones fillm came out, I'm sure there would be no reasonable objections."

It doesn't matter how good it is if nobody watches it. The franchise was ruined by a crappy movie and the few die hards around to watch a new Indiana Jones flick won't be enough to make the film break even.

"Disney spent $4.2 bill. How likely is it they won't earn it back through the theme park, toys, and movies? Even if they only have a net gain of $1 bil per movie, they could still easily earn the rest through toys and the park."

Doesn't matter if they gain 2 billion total. If you gain only 2 billion instead of 10 billion then it's actually an 8 billion dollar loss. This is the difference between short term good for Michael Eisner thinking and long term good for Disney, Star Wars and fans thinking.

"While Iron Man 3 and the Thors were both not very good, almost no other recent movie of theirs (Spider Man belongs to Sony) has had any serious, justified criticism. As I've said multiple times, Star Wars is constantly getting pumped with EU material, in the forms of comics and books. If fans are disappointed, they can just read those, just like comic fans."

No it's way different. Marvel fans are filtered to the movies through the comic books. If the movies suck they'll still read comic books, but if the comic book sucks the fan base erodes and the Marvel name dies. Star Wars book readers are filtered from the movies. If the books suck, no big deal. If the movies suck then no more/new book fans and the Lucas brand dies.

It should also be noted that Marvel has fans that only watch the movies, however they are still dependent on the comic fans and Star Wars doesn't have book only fans.

"And millions of new fans shall continue to pay for Star Wars, most likely mre than making up for the old fans that leave."

The new fans won't happen if the movies suck. The old fans will die and new ones won't be there to replace them.
Debate Round No. 3
SeventhProfessor

Pro

"He's not a beginner whose refining his craft. These mistakes aren't there because he's just learning, they are there because he's an elderly man out I touch with what people like. As people age they lose creativity. That's what Lucas has done. He's also fallen for the expert trap, where he has become an expert and he's leaning on that (same as previous source). The problem is he's an expert in a film market from over 40 years ago. That same stuff just doesn't work now."

You don't have to be a beginner to make mistakes. In fact, the more established a fan base, the more likely you are to experiment with it to safely find what will be considered god and what will be considered bad. This can easily be seen through companies like Nintendo, who experiment and sometimes produce something widely received as brilliant (motion controls/Wii) [1] and sometimes the experimenting leads to a negative (Wii U) [2]. Lucas's experiment of Jar Jar was clearly a negative, and he shall likely experiment some in episode VII, use results to help episode VII, and then use those results to help episode IX.

"The books don't ruin the movies, because Star Wars fans are filtered from the movies first. Imagine a big filter. In Star Wars the biggest and first filter is the movies. You're comparing a fan base that is filtered from movies to ones that aren't. Harry Potter is filtered from the books. Marvel fans are filtered from the comics. If 6 new Harry Potter books come out that are absolutely crap, the fan base will be severely crippled. The importance of the fan base is that they are lifetime customers and provide a margin of safety on high risk projects. Here is on expert on the purchase of Lucas and particularly Star Wars."

I concede your point about the movies being the filter. However, that is irrelevant to my Harry Potter comparison. In my Harry Potter comparison, I stated that the theme park did not water down the Harry Potter park did not water down its respective universe, as you claim the Star Wars park will ruin its.

"I did give reasons. Earning them short term money is good if it is an effect of building on the fan base and releasing quality projects. The problem is that when the purpose is short term fast profit with reckless disregard to the future of the franchise. This hurts the fans long term profits and quality of work available to the general public. The distance Disney has from the Lucas label allows them to not tarnish their name with short term cash grabs. Disney is in the habit of creating distance between their silly for profit projects and the heart of their business, which is the Disney label."

So, this would be good if Disney releases good movies that build on the franchise in a positive way? The main problem with this argument is that it relies on the assumption that Disney's movies will be bad, when my opponent's only argument for why this will happen is Disney made three bad movies for a different franchise.

"If Disney slips up on Star Wars they will cut and burn just like they did with ICP (last citation) and on numerous other occasions."

Yes, so if Disney starts harming the franchise as you claim they will, they will get out, as in, no more harm to the Star Wars universe. So even if we stayed neutral and said Disney has a 50% chance of making good movies (and the percentage should honestly be higher), then Disney either makes content enjoyed by a large group of people and continues to make it, or makes content disrespectful to the franchise and disliked and stop making it. So, to reiterate, Disney's potential positive effect on Star Wars is more positive than their potential negative effect is negative.

"It doesn't matter how good it is if nobody watches it. The franchise was ruined by a crappy movie and the few die hards around to watch a new Indiana Jones flick won't be enough to make the film break even."

But most of the younger generation hasn't even seen the original movies or the newer one, and are more likely to want to see a new reboot after a trailer or two showing the storyline.

"Doesn't matter if they gain 2 billion total. If you gain only 2 billion instead of 10 billion then it's actually an 8 billion dollar loss. This is the difference between short term good for Michael Eisner thinking and long term good for Disney, Star Wars and fans thinking."

As I said, net gain. So, in this hypothetical situation where they apparently spend $10bil per movie, they would gain $11bil, or a net gain of $1bil.

"No it's way different. Marvel fans are filtered to the movies through the comic books. If the movies suck they'll still read comic books, but if the comic book sucks the fan base erodes and the Marvel name dies. Star Wars book readers are filtered from the movies. If the books suck, no big deal. If the movies suck then no more/new book fans and the Lucas brand dies."

I think you underestimate how many people watch the movies vs. read the comics. Marvel is a growing branch of Disney, and the reader to watcher ratio is getting smaller and smaller with each release. Right now, the average comic book costs about $4 [3], while a movie ticket costs about $8.38 [4]. Marvel's best selling comic of January was Avengers World, selling 86,727 copies for $3.99 each [5], totaling in about $346k. Iron Man 3, often considered the worst of the movies, grossed over a billion dollars [6], showing that Marvel movies at its worst still makes over three times more than comics at their worst. Keep in mind that the rest of Marvel's comics don't even compare to my example's selling figures, and are far lower. It is now clear that Marvel could not only survive as a movie franchise alone, but there are far more people buying movie tickets than comic books. It is a safe assumption that the movies act as a filter, and my point of Star War's EU stands.

"The new fans won't happen if the movies suck. The old fans will die and new ones won't be there to replace them."

Oh, but new people watch Star Wars every day. Reputation alone is enough to provide the new Star Wars movies with enough net gain to fund for the future, and Disney will also more than likely provide and advertise box sets for the original and prequel trilogies.


1. http://n4g.com...
2. http://www.fool.com...
3. http://www.theawl.com...
4. http://variety.com...
5. http://www.comichron.com...
6. https://uk.movies.yahoo.com...
Wylted

Con

"You don't have to be a beginner to make mistakes. In fact, the more established a fan base, the more likely you are to experiment with it to safely find what will be considered god and what will be considered bad. This can easily be seen through companies like Nintendo, who experiment and sometimes produce something widely received as brilliant (motion controls/Wii) [1] and sometimes the experimenting leads to a negative (Wii U) [2]. Lucas's experiment of Jar Jar was clearly a negative, and he shall likely experiment some in episode VII, use results to help episode VII, and then use those results to help episode IX."

I'm not sure if you understand how being an out of touch old man works. It's one thing to be constantly in touch with what your fans want, like Madonna or Stabley Kubrick. Once you are out of touch you're screwed. Comparing Lucas to the makers of Nintendo isn't fair. The gaming industry is very competitive and with a constant influx of new people. You're not going to find a 70 year old out of touch man trying to design games. You'll find the creativity of youth. Lucas and by extension Star Wars works differently. George Lucas has creative control of the Star Wars movies and will continue to suck like he did when he made new episodes of Star Wars.

I concede your point about the movies being the filter. However, that is irrelevant to my Harry Potter comparison. In my Harry Potter comparison, I stated that the theme park did not water down the Harry Potter park did not water down its respective universe, as you claim the Star Wars park will ruin its.

I was a actually just trying to show the short sighted let's grab all the cash we can as fast as we can approach that Disney plans to take with Star Wars. This strategy as an overall approach will cause them to create very forgettable movies or worse. It's one thing to bring on some young blood to write a creative groundbreaking movie, but Disney is allowing an old out of touch man to mantain creative control and mixing in their formulaic approach to movie making. This is a combination that can't win.

So, this would be good if Disney releases good movies that build on the franchise in a positive way? The main problem with this argument is that it relies on the assumption that Disney's movies will be bad, when my opponent's only argument for why this will happen is Disney made three bad movies for a different franchise.

My opponent is equally assuming the movies will be good and using evidence from completely unrelatable things. I'm at least showing things that are relatable. Further more my argument is more then just that Disney made 3 movies. My argument is out of touch old man having creative control, Disney's history of a slash and burn approach to projects that go wrong, and the short term gain with no focus on the longterm approach. This is a dramatically different argument then my opponent has made. My opponent has argued the purchase is good because Disney made good films with Marvel, but Marvel has some bad movies as well. Reread my opponent's first round. This whole back forth is from that. His only arguments were that Disney purchasing Marvel worked out, because they made good movies. I showed the only premise for his conclusion is wrong.

Yes, so if Disney starts harming the franchise as you claim they will, they will get out, as in, no more harm to the Star Wars universe. So even if we stayed neutral and said Disney has a 50% chance of making good movies (and the percentage should honestly be higher), then Disney either makes content enjoyed by a large group of people and continues to make it, or makes content disrespectful to the franchise and disliked and stop making it. So, to reiterate, Disney's potential positive effect on Star Wars is more positive than their potential negative effect is negative.

That's not really how Disney's slash and burn strategy works. It's a slow burn they completely disassociate themselves from the project. They will let this thing die. Even if they do change strategy and sell Lucas to somebody else, they'll be selling a worthless franchise. One that's a shell of it's former self.

As I said, net gain. So, in this hypothetical situation where they apparently spend $10bil per movie, they would gain $11bil, or a net gain of $1bil.

You're focusing on net gain instead of potential gain. If you gain $200 but gaining that $200 immediately causes you not to gain $10,00 more later on than you've actually lost $8,800.

The rest of my opponent's arguments that I left out of this round rests on a ton of assumptions. In one argument he discusses Marvel entirely too much and doesn't connect that to Disney's purchase of Lucas that well. In the other he argues that Indiana Jones could sell again, but completely ignores recent history showing it can't. In the other he says Disney can just release box sets and do pretty good, which just isn't true. The DVD market is dying and this strategy handcuffs Disney to doing nothing new with the projects that make the Lucas name worth the purchase price. It's also clear as previously cited that Disney has and to milk the Lucas name for everything it's worth now.

Thank you 7th, for debating this topic with me and thanks to everyone reading this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Romanii 3 years ago
Romanii
I'm not able to decide on a winner for this debate...
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
Well, unlike bsh1, I'm not a Star Wars expert, but I'll do my best to provide a reasonable decision here.

I buy that there's going to be a substantial short-term gain to Disney, and that Lucasfilm and Lucas himself have already benefited and will likely continue to do so in the near future. I think Pro is winning these points, and in many ways, Con is granting them.

The question becomes, is there a longer term harm that these franchises will meet their doom at the hands of Disney? I think Pro has basically admitted that such a situation is net harmful. He says that new fans can create a new following that is separate and just as strong, but I buy Con's argument that this sufficiently distorts the base, to the point at which a series essentially becomes a gimmick with little or no following.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
The concept of what Lucasfilm and Lucas himself would have done in the absence of a buyout was conspicuously absent from the debate as a whole. I would probably have bought an argument that Lucas wasn't interested in expanding the series further or doing anything with the other movies, and that lost fanbases are still net beneficial when compared with no growth on prior series or individual movies, but I didn't see that argument, so it doesn't factor into my decision.

However, what was discussed was George Lucas himself. I get enough from Con to show me that his continued control makes him a regular player, which both players seem to agree with. I also buy that Lucas is, at least by past example, out of touch. The best response Pro provides is that it shows a willingness to experiment and improve, but I'm not sure whether experimentation is net beneficial, especially with someone who has had a concerning background in this regard.

Disney's effect on several movies was explored, but most of these were dropped before the final round. I grant the analysis on Labyrinth to Pro, so that's a net benefit even in the long term. I'd say Indiana Jones shows a probable harm involved in attempts to expand a series through Lucas as well, though this just negates the point on this series, showing that it has already been floored and that expansions are going to have a minimal effect in reviving it. It's not so much a negative.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
We get two major examples from Pro. I'll start with the second, which was Nintendo. This example could have made some headway if it had come out earlier, but given that Pro posted it in the final round, he opened himself up to a simple and dismissive response from Con. I'm not strongly buying that the comparison to Nintendo is unfair, mainly because George Lucas isn't the sole person working on these movies and because Nintendo isn't staffed solely by new, young people (in fact, that may be part of the problem for them), but I see that it's an example with some uncertainty in comparison. Still, even if I'm buying Con's argument here, I think he has to show examples of a Lucas movie where he experimented and got results, since all I get throughout the debate is examples of where experimentation has harmed things.

The first and most important of these examples, however, is Marvel. Both debaters spend a lot of time here. I buy that it shows that Disney can make a good movie out of a separate franchise and recruit a lot more people. Both sides accept that not all of these movies have been good, and that people have stuck with them anyway, making it an effective example of Disney converting something to their brand without harming the base. However, this where the filter comes in. I buy that a lot of the base is functionally insulated from bad movies by having a good base of comic books to come from (though I question whether that's accurate). Since Star Wars doesn't have this basis, affecting the films causes more massive harms. I'm surprised that the argument that a massive book series has tied a lot of fans to the series in a stronger way than the movies themselves wasn't made, but that's off the table.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
There have been a number of arguments directly on the subject of Star Wars. The question of how much harm they could really do versus how much benefit was raised, but I'm not convinced that there's some maximum limit of harm whereas the benefits are limitless. Pro assumes a lot on that end. I do buy that Disney's "slash and burn strategy" could create problems, and therefore that there is some increased probability that they will again engage in this type of policy and therefore put Lucasfilm movies at higher risk.

Now, how to use this information to evaluate the debate? We have a certainty of short term benefit, which sounds solid, but I don't hear why I should weigh that in the debate more importantly or at all by comparison to the long term harm. It seems to me that straight up losses to money, even those that are unquantifiable, are what we should mainly be concerned with, not when they happen. If the argument had been made by Pro that these are the only certainties in the debate and that any long term harm is nebulous and uncertain at best, I probably would have been swayed. As it is, I'm getting a lot of assurance that these are comparable and just as certain as the short term effects. So I base my decision on the long term outcomes, as these are the biggest dollar values. Therefore, due to the increased likelihood of harm versus benefit, however small, I vote Con.
Posted by Wylted 3 years ago
Wylted
You're welcome.
Posted by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
LMFAO! I love be quotes as a Star Wars expert...lol

This is perfection.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Krieg01 3 years ago
Krieg01
SeventhProfessorWylted
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that Wylted's arguments were convincing as when reading through both sides of the Debate I was being drawn to Wylted's side through the wording of his paragraphs. In the use of sources I believe that 7th has the upper hand in this section just because of the use of more sources to back up his arguments. This was a very good debate between 2 great debaters and I hope the best debater wins.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
SeventhProfessorWylted
Who won the debate:-Vote Checkmark
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by TN05 3 years ago
TN05
SeventhProfessorWylted
Who won the debate:Vote Checkmark-
Reasons for voting decision: I found SeventhProfessor's arguments to be far more convincing than Wylted's - Wylted was able to create a scenario where Disney might pump out Star Wars movies to make a quick buck, but I think SeventhProfessor had a killer app in terms of the Avengers argument. I'm surprised he didn't go over this more, but Disney purchased Marvel and the films aren't utter garbage. In comparison, Wylted never really gave an example of Disney pumping out bad films to make a quick buck. I narrowly give the victory to Pro, but very good debate on both ends.