The Instigator
WildTiger
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jzonda415
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

Star Wars VII - The Force Awakens is a bad movie

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
jzonda415
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/27/2015 Category: Movies
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 803 times Debate No: 84333
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)

 

WildTiger

Pro

It's a bad movie,with nothing new and original, that just copies the classic Star Wars movies. I knew this movie was gonna be bad when they picked JJ Abrams as director. He's terrible, his movies have no soul and no heart, like his weak Star Trek reboots. Abrams doesn't know what he is doing.
jzonda415

Con

I thank Pro for this debate.


Note: This debate will be probably filled with spoilers from the new movie, so beware.


While it is DDO Custom for the 1st round being for acceptance, considering that Pro has already made arguments, I will simply begin.


Quick Observation:


Pro has the sole BOP. He must prove that Star Wars: The Force Awakens (hereafter TFA) is a bad movie, while all I must do is debunk his arguments.


Without further adieu, let's begin.


Contentions:


1. Critical and Commercial Acclaim:


This is a simple point: TFA is being overwhelmingly acclaimed both from viewers across the world and critics. On IMDB, the movie has a aggregate score of 8.6 from 276,651 users, taking the 42nd spot on the Top 250 list (as of December 28th, 2015) [1]. On Metacritic, the film has a score of 81 out of 100, based on 51 critics, indicating "universal acclaim" [2]. On Rotten Tomatoes, it is "Certified Fresh" with a 94% approval rating, based on 305 reviews, with a rating average of 8.2 out of 10 [3]. Many critics of the Star Wars prequels have also given this film acclaim. The people behind the infamous Plinkett reviews [4], RedLetterMedia, have given the film great praise and strongly recommend it [5]. The YouTube reviewer Chris Stuckmann gave it an "A" rating, and also said it was his favorite film of the year [6]. The YouTube reviewer YMS gave the film 7/10, which is incredibly high praise from him specifically [7].


If this film truly was a, "bad movie,with nothing new and original, that just copies the classic Star Wars movies," it would have been recognized by now and not received any of the acclaim it did. Star Wars fans aren't people who are afraid to criticize something just because it has "Star Wars" on it; the prequel films were heavily scrutinized and attacked by many; if it was truly a bad film, it would have been recognized.


2. Nothing New/Original?:


Pro states, "[TFA is] a bad movie,with nothing new and original, that just copies the classic Star Wars movies." There are many issues with this claim:

  1. Pro extends no justification or evidence showing that it's stealing/copying and bringing nothing new. His entire assertion is irrelevant to his case.

  2. There are plenty of brand new, orginal characters: Rey, Finn, Poe, Kylo Ren, Supreme Leader Snoke, General Hux, Captain Phasma, and BB-8, just to name a few. Not to mention that there are many brand new plot lines made and to come from this movie. How can Proclaim there is nothing new or original when there clearly is?

  3. The basis for most of Pro's claims spawns from many claiming that TFA has too many similarities to A New Hope. However, it's important to note how different the plots actually are. As Mark Hamill explains:

    "I think [TFA] could be every bit as exciting for the audience, [but] it’s not going to be like it was then, when we’re rattling around in the Death Star, and exchanging quips, and jockeying for the affections of the princess. It’s going to be age appropriate. The story has moved on, and our purpose in the story is different than it was then" [8].

    Essentially, TFA is different from A New Hope in that it's passing the torch from the Original Trilogy to the new trilogy. It's more of an introduction of new characters and stories rather than a rehashing of the original movies.

  4. Paying Homage =/= Nothing New/Original. There is a significant difference between copying and paying homage. How can Pro justify his claim that TFA is stealing these ideas rather than paying homage to the Original Trilogy? Pro proposes no answer to this question apart from his own bare assertion, which fails.

  5. When Star Wars completely didn't copy from the original trilogy, audiences were treated to Episodes 1-3, which were wretched and generally devoid of quality [4] [9] [10]. Paying homage is not a crime.

  6. Simply because something copies and steals from a original film does not make it a bad film. Many remakes and sequels do just that. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo from director David Fincher is a great film, even though it is the exact same film as the original Swedish film [11]. Simply because something is a remake of an original does not make it a bad film.


3. The Rest is Irrelevant:


The rest of Pro’s arguments is the following:


“I knew this movie was gonna be bad when they picked JJ Abrams as director. He's terrible, his movies have no soul and no heart, like his weak Star Trek reboots. Abrams doesn't know what he is doing.”


This is completely irrelevant to the quality of TFA. All Pro does here is bash the director, JJ Abrams. SImply because Pro seems to irrationally despise the director does not justify claiming TFA as a bad movie; Pro never talks about substance or anything even related to the content of the movie. Hence, this argument is completely irrelevant.


4. Characters:


This is, in part, my own argument; while I don’t have to make it, I will and I will push further back against Pro’s claims.


  1. Rey: As I see it, Rey is a combination of the Luke, Han, and Leia from the Original Trilogy. She has the independence and toughness of Leia, often not needing anyone but herself to handle most issues. She has the renegade and rebellious spirit of Han, not being afraid to fight against coercion and by despots and the First Order. She also has the origins and force of Luke, an average person with nothing behind their name who discovers their great powers throughout the movie. While some claim she is a “Mary Sue” [12], she clearly isn’t; she struggles with new things just as much as the characters of the Original Trilogy do. She has a hard time initially flying the Falcon, she struggles with the force at first, and she is still discovering all of her abilities. She is as much of a “Mary Sue” as Luke, Leia and Han are, or as much of one as Furiosa is in Mad Max: Fury Road. She is skilled and a fun, great character with much depth.

  2. Finn and Poe: Finn and Poe are incredibly fun characters; they are renegades and dissenters from the fascist First Order. They stand up and fight and work with their respective teams throughout the film. They are enjoyable, and certainly original and generally likable.

  3. Kylo Ren: Kylo Ren is the new villain, and carries a great amount of depth. He constantly feels a pull from the light side of the force, but knows that he can’t go back and betray Snoke. He is, in many way, spoiled and a rebellious kid, and strives to be as powerful as Vader once was. Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian sums it up well: "He is gorgeously cruel, spiteful and capricious – and unlike the Vader of old, he is given to petulant temper tantrums, with his lightsaber drawn."


Conclusion:


Pro has completely and utterly failed to show that TFA is a bad movie. All of his arguments are bare assertions and completely neglectful of the content and quality of the film. I have extended sourced and logically backed claims throughout my arguments, and debunked every word of Pro’s case.


The resolution is negated.


Vote Con.


Sources in comments.


Debate Round No. 1
WildTiger

Pro

WildTiger forfeited this round.
jzonda415

Con

Arguments extended.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2
WildTiger

Pro

I don't know where is the option to delete this debate but I wish to delete it. I don't want to debate anymore.

My opponent has cowardly ganged up with another debates.org buddy to bully me and harass me, it's not fair. 2 vs 1? They don't give arguments based on reason, as they know I'm right. They give arguments based on how much they like each other and how much they back up each others backs, in a coward way. Also, they insult me all the time, directly and beating around the bush, like low-life scumbags, thugs, weasels.

I never want to talk to both of them again and have already blocked them on here. I only wish to talk to decent human beings.
jzonda415

Con

Usually, I thank my opponent for there response. In this instance, however, I wish to thank the readers for stomaching such a childish and misinformed temper tantrum; I struggle to muster up the ability to even legitimize it as a “response.” Let me begin by informing all readers where exactly Pro is coming from, and while every word in this “response” is a childish lie.


About 2 or so days ago before typing this sentence, I voted on Pro’s only other debate, “JJ Abrams is a bad director”:


http://www.debate.org...


My vote was completely legitimate, and I have yet to have been told otherwise. There is nothing the TOS that prevents members from voting on an opponent’s debate while they are also engaged in another debate with said person. I have the complete right to make that vote, and I exercised said right.


That being said, if Pro contacted me ever, and sent a message wishing for my vote to be removed, I would have obliged; I’m not impossible to work with. Instead, Pro sent me a message with the subject, “idiot” and, to paraphrase, said “Why would you defend your ‘gay’ pal [imabench]? I will block you. Idiot.” I issued no response, as I typically don’t entertain such harassing messages. Now, let’s look at Pro’s individual claims about me.


Contentions:


1. “I don't know where is the option to delete this debate but I wish to delete it. I don't want to debate anymore.”


a. I will oppose any and all efforts to delete this debate; debates are deleted for a multitude of reasons, but one side not liking the outcome is typically seen as invalid.


b. Not wanting to debate anymore in response to one’s valid vote and arguments is childish and melodramatic. There is no rational basis behind this desire.


2. “My opponent has cowardly ganged up with another debates.org buddy to bully me and harass me, it's not fair. 2 vs 1?”


a. Pro’s statement here is referring to the user, “imabench.” I have had zero correspondence with the user imabench for the 3 or so years I’ve been on this website. I talked with him once in fourms, where he insulted me (http://www.debate.org...) and I voted for his Vice Presidency in the DDO elections when he ran with the user Mikal. That’s the most I’ve ever engaged with this user; I have never conspired to “gang up” with him to attack new users.


b. Pro’s response paints him like a victim, when his behavior has made him anything but. Just later in the same paragraph Pro states this, he proceeds to call imabench and myself, “low-life scumbags, thugs, [and] weasels.” How is what I did an example of bullying but this isn’t?


c. Not to boast, but I’ve won 19 debates without help from any user on this site; why would this debate with Pro be any different?


3. “They don't give arguments based on reason, as they know I'm right. They give arguments based on how much they like each other and how much they back up each others backs, in a coward way.”


a. If Pro’s arguments were ever really truth, it would be quite the daunting challenge for me to argue against this resolution, correct? Every argument I’ve extended here is based upon reason, and Pro has the BOP to show otherwise. Instead, he decided to post a mere whine about how I was unfair to him. If Pro truly was “right,” then this matter wouldn’t even exist.


b. The second sentence of this point has no rational basis in any known reality. Honestly, is this a serious post? Where did I ever do this? Where did imabench ever do this? Where, in any of my correspondence with Pro did I ever do this? There only place I could entertain this occurring is with my vote, but I put forth a logical vote with which most other users would reach the same conclusion.


4. “Also, they insult me all the time, directly and beating around the bush, like low-life scumbags, thugs, weasels.”


a. I could probably write a book about the sheer amount of irony displayed in this one sentence right here.


b. When have I ever insulted Pro? Was it in the message where he called me an idiot and I didn’t respond? Was it in my vote, where all I talked about was the Abrams debate? Was it in this debate, where all I talked about was Star Wars? Honestly, I want to know.


5. “I never want to talk to both of them again and have already blocked them on here. I only wish to talk to decent human beings.”


a. There is nothing but an appeal to emotion here; almost nothing to which a response is worthwhile.


b. How is anything I’ve done justified calling me an indecent human being? This is an attack upon my entire existence, and it’s seems melodramatic and irrational. I’m sensing a motif here.


Conclusion:


Pro has conceded the entire debate, and I’m fully deserving of all 7 points being awarded to me. All Pro did was argue irrationally, become offended when I and other users noted that, sent me a harassing message, posted a childish temper tantrum, and expected to be considered a victim.


I don’t want to chase new users off of the site, but I want strong debaters to stay.


The resolution stands negated.


Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by tajshar2k 1 year ago
tajshar2k
WildTigerjzonda415Tied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con wins, because Pro forfeited, went on to Ad Hominems. Con only provided an argument backed with sources, so both of that go to him.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
WildTigerjzonda415Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.