The Instigator
BillBonJovi
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
bluesteel
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Sylvester Stallone is an ideal choice to direct a remake of Death Wish

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 5 votes the winner is...
bluesteel
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/23/2010 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,085 times Debate No: 13458
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (5)

 

BillBonJovi

Pro

Ever since Charles Bronson's original "Death Wish" hit theatres in 1974, its tale of a man seeking revenge for the death of his family has become the basic template for an entire genre, rendering a remake almost inevitable.

Sly Stallone is currently attached as director and star; given the success of "The Expendables," "Death Wish" is likely to get the fast track treatment should Stallone sign the dotted line. Release Date/Year: 2011.

This information was learnt here: http://www.beyondhollywood.com...

After seeing the latest films directed by Sylvester Stallone (which are Rambo 4 and the Expendables) I feel that Sylvester Stallone is an ideal choice to make a remake of Death Wish.

Anyone disagree?
bluesteel

Con

I thank my opponent for crafting such an interesting topic.

Let's begin with some definitions:

==DEFINITIONS==

Princeton's Wordnet defines "ideal" as "conforming to an ultimate standard of perfection or excellence." [1]

Princeton's Wordnet defines "choice" as "option." [2]

==BURDEN OF PROOF==

My opponent as the instigator and affirmative has the burden to prove that Stallone is the best option for director of the remake for the action film "Death Wish." Or at the very least, he must prove that Stallone is one of multiple "perfect options."

==MY CASE==

1. Stallone is a bad director

Rambo

Sylvester Stallone singlehandedly ruined the Rambo series. Rambo I received a positive review from 86% of critics, according to Rotten Tomatoes. [3] During Rambo I, Stallone was a relative unknown. Although he got a writer's credit, most of the writing was done by a team of writers: Michael Kozoll, William Sackheim, and David Morrell. All 3 are accomplished writers; Sackheim recently won two Emmy's for his work. [4] Rambo I was directed by Ted Kotcheff, an accomplished director who also directed Weekend at Bernie's, the original Fun with Dick and Jane, and Law and Order: SVU. [5]

How did the other Rambo movies fair?

Only 30% of critics liked Rambo II, 36% liked Rambo III, and 36% liked Rambo IV. [6] [7] [8] Rotten Tomatoes thus considers all 3 films "rotten" because they failed to please a majority of critics.

What changed?

In Rambo II and Rambo III, Stallone took on most of the writing himself. In Rambo IV, Stallone took on the writing as well as the directing. Stallone is not a brilliant writer and is not a brilliant director. He is far from the "ultimate standard of perfection or excellence" that the word "ideal choice" implies.

The Expendables

The Expendables is still considered "rotten" by Rotten Tomatoes, but it is not as bad as the Rambo movies that Stallone ruined. [9]

If the Expendables is good it is because of the amazing acting and the all-star cast. If it is bad, it is because of Stallone's writing and directing.

Rene Rodriguez of McClatchy Newspapers explains in perfectly:

"Jason Statham gives the best performance. Dolph Lundgren gets the best character arc. Terry Crews gets the best gun. Jet Li gets the best kill (you'll know it when you see it). Arnold Schwarzenegger gets the best cameo.

And Sylvester Stallone? He gets the blame. During a bad career stretch in the late 1990s when he starred in one stinker after another . . . Stallone used to complain that critics unfairly held him accountable for the failure of his movies, even though he was just a hired actor doing what he was told.

But the auteur has no excuse with "The Expendables," which includes the irritating opening credit "A Film by Sylvester Stallone." The actor directed and wrote . . . this ensemble shoot-'em-up about a gang of likable mercenaries hired for jobs even the CIA won't touch . . .

"The Expendables" is simply a crummy, nonsensical picture made by a faded movie star trying to regain some box-office luster . . .

[Stallone has] cheesy CGI buildings collapsing, an obviously animated wall of fire, some muddled plotting ("Here's what I think is happening," Stallone says at mid-film before explaining everything that's transpired) and truly execrable characterizations [extremely bad and forgettable characters] . . .

No one goes to "The Expendables" expecting Shakespeare, but the film's script is so thin and flimsy the entire enterprise feels as if it's built out of hype and marketing. Worse, Stallone is a terrible director, who constantly shoots scenes in close-up – so much so that you feel as if you're watching the movie through binoculars." [10]

There have to be better director choices than Stallone to direct a re-make of a very popular movie. 70% of critics enjoyed the original Death Wish. [11] Stallone would only ruin it.

2. Other potential directors:

1) Michael Winner

He is the original director of Death Wish and is still alive. [12] I'm sure he can make an equally great movie with all the technological advances that have happened since 1974.

2) Steven Spielberg

Spielberg is rated the best action film director of all time. [13] He directed the original Indiana Jones movies, Saving Private Ryan, Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, Minority Report, and Catch Me If You Can. Many of these movies are acknowledges as the greatest action films of all time.

3) James Cameron

Cameron is also rated one of the greatest action film directors of all time. [14] Among other things, he directed the original Terminator movies, Aliens, and Avatar.

4) Quentin Tarantino

Tarantino has a quirky and interesting style. He would be perfect for a remake, since he would have such a fresh take on Death Wish. Among others, he directed Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, and the Kill Bill series.

5) Martin Campbell

Billed as one of the greatest action directors of all time. [15] He directed Casino Royale, the Mask of Zorro, and GoldenEye.

6) Christopher Nolan

Nolan is the genius writer/director of Memento, Batman Begins, The Prestige, and The Dark Knight. Nolan always has intriguing underlying themes to his movies and amazing innovations, such as having Memento's scenes play backwards in time, since the main character has memory loss.

Any of these directors, as well as hundreds of others, could produce a superior film to Sylvester Stallone. The transition from actor to director is difficult enough, and Stallone wasn't even the most versatile actor to begin with. It's unreasonable to expect him to be a versatile director.

Thus, Stallone is far from the "ideal choice" to direct any action movie. His star power as an actor has more to do with any of his film's relative success, not his directing prowess.

I thus urge a Con vote.

==CITATIONS==

[1] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[2] http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
[3] http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
[4] http://articles.latimes.com...
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
[7] http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
[8] http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
[9] http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
[10] http://www.encorebuzz.com...
[11] http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
[12] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[13] http://movies.toptenreviews.com...
[14] Ibid
[15] Ibid
Debate Round No. 1
BillBonJovi

Pro

After reading my opponent's response I must admit I found his argument quite snobby and I think he has misunderstood what my argument is about.

In the first round CON argued that the negative reviews of the last 3 Rambo films and the negative reviews of The Expendables were ruined because of Stallone's involvement.

CON said: "In Rambo II and Rambo III, Stallone took on most of the writing himself. In Rambo IV, Stallone took on the writing as well as the directing. Stallone is not a brilliant writer and is not a brilliant director."

REBUTTAL:
THIS DEBATE IS NOTHING TO DO WITH STALLONE'S WRITING SKILLS… IT IS ENTIRELY ABOUT HIS DIRECTING.

My argument is that Stallone will be good to DIRECT a remake of Death Wish. Furthermore the title of this debate is "Sylvester Stallone is an ideal choice to direct a remake of Death Wish" and the key word in that title was "DIRECT".

In the website source provided in the first round which was:
http://www.beyondhollywood.com...

You will see that there is a sentence that says "he'll be working from a screenplay by Michael Ferris and John Brancato". I think it clearly states that Stallone will really only be Directing and Starring in the film, NOT writing it!

Now if you think logically, what makes a film a ‘Good' film is normally a good storyline for a film. A film can have a bad storyline to follow and end up being disliked by audiences, but it can have brilliant directing.

*************************************************************************************

CONCLUSION OF CON'S ROUND 1 RESPONSE:

Now in the first section of Con's round which Con titled "1. Stallone is a bad director" all of the film reviews information that Con wrote is IRRELEVANT in this debate because as far as I could tell it was about Stallone's writing involvement.

The only information I saw that opposed Stallone's directing was the bit that said "[Stallone has] cheesy CGI buildings collapsing, an obviously animated wall of fire". Anyway I think it very unlikely a remake of Death wish will feature things like this, so things like that should of no concern.

In the second section of Con's round which Con titled "2. Other potential directors" that entire section is IRRELEVANT in this debate. I am not arguing that Stallone is the best director for the remake of Death Wish, but an IDEAL one.

There may indeed be a lot more directors to choose from, but they would need to be WILLING to direct the film as well be nominated for it. Sylvester Stallone seems to be the only person so far who is willing to make a Death Wish Remake. I'm sure Sylvester Stallone is certainly in the top 20 of the ideal list.

Voters please judge this debate on the information that is relevant.

*************************************************************************************

WHY WOULD STALLONE BE A GOOD DIRECTOR?

Now finally I will explain why I think Stallone will be a good director for the Death wish remake…

Death Wish is a classic morality tale, where you take a civilised man and take away everything that matters to him so he becomes primitive again. In the film these thugs follow the Protagonist's family to their apartment, burst in and trash the apartment. They search for money but find only a few dollars and then hooligans then rape the Protagonist's daughter and kill the Protagonist's wife.

Later on when the Protagonist's learns of what happened to his family he is Devastated and he is told by police that the likelihood of catching the criminals is small.

And so the Protagonist develops a Death Wish against thugs and criminals.

Now making a film like this with Sylvester Stallone's style of directing will be ideal. It will need to require a disturbing and revengeful atmosphere, kind of like the disturbing and revengeful atmosphere Sylvester Stallone made in Rambo 4. Watch the first video (that I provided above) to see Stallone's skill...

In the video clip we see poor innocent people being raped, pillaged and killed for unnecessary causes and this scene delivers a powerful atmosphere that feels very disturbing and revengeful. Sylvester Stallone did a good job directing this scene and it adds weight to why he is an ideal choice to direct the Death Wish plot (I explained earlier) into a film…

*************************************************************************************

In continuation of the Death wish plot… later on the Protagonist obtains a nickel-plated revolver. He pockets the gun and goes out on strolls. He encounters muggers, and ex-convicts that attempt to rob him at gunpoint. And so instead of surrendering his money to thugs, he instead pulls out his gun and shoots them dead.

Now directing of scenes like this will likely require fast-paced gun withdrawing and shooting and again Sylvester Stallone has this directing skill. I will once again use a clip from Rambo 4 to show Sylvester Stallone's directing skill. Now please watch the second video (that I provided above) …

In this video you will see Rambo killing four villains super fast on a boat before they can hurt Rambo's people. The directing skill seen in the video will be ideal for directing the continuation Death Wish plot I explained earlier. I don't think the Death Wish scenes should be filmed exactly the same way as seen in that scene from Rambo 4, but with a similar atmosphere to it which Stallone can amend to suit the film.

Source for Death Wish Plot: http://en.wikipedia.org...
bluesteel

Con

I thank my opponent for his prompt response.

Responding to his most recent arguments:

"After reading my opponent's response I must admit I found his argument quite snobby"

This is an unnecessary ad hominem attack. My opponent clearly likes Sylvester Stallone a lot; he clearly didn't want anyone to actually debate him on this topic. Anyone who accepted would argue that Stallone is not a good actor, writer, or director. This is the essence of the Con position.

"THIS DEBATE IS NOTHING TO DO WITH STALLONE'S WRITING SKILLS… IT IS ENTIRELY ABOUT HIS DIRECTING."

My opponent should calm down or make sure his Cap Lock key is not accidentally on. My argument is just that: an argument. There's no reason to get so worked up about it.

But:

1) My opponent has no response to the fact that both of Stallone's directing debuts, Rambo IV and the Expendables, were both rated "rotten" by Rotten Tomatoes' meta-analysis, which combines all the reviews on the internet.

2) Writing and directing are related in two ways. Firstly, if someone is a terrible screenwriter, it shows they are not a very intelligent person. Intelligence is also required for directing. Secondly, directors are in charge of cutting the film (deciding which scenes and takes to include and which to exclude); directors must ensure that the film has sufficient character development; directors must re-write portions of the script that do not jive with their vision of the film, and director's must get the best performance out of their actors. Writing is related to knowing which scenes are necessary and which are unnecessary (cutting); writing is related to having good character development, and writing is necessary if the director must re-write portions of the script.

Also, I don't think Stallone being the main character of Death Wish is a plus. For one, he's a lot older than the original actor was when he starred in the film. It's hard to believe that Stallone is a father; a grandfather would be more likely.

Stallone also cannot get the best performance out of his actors if he is the main character because his face has absolutely no expressiveness. He is unable to portray any depth of character in his acting. Also, films work a lot better when the director is not also the main character. It is hard to judge your own performance when you're not watching it in real time.

Directors don't just take a script, point a camera, and shoot a bunch of film. That's the cameraman's job, and it takes no skill at all. Director's achieve a complex vision for their film and add depth and character development – they need to make a screenplay come alive. Stallone lacks this vision.

Refuting my opponent's rebuttal to my case:

He attacks the Rene Rodriguez review by saying: "The only information I saw that opposed Stallone's directing was the bit that said ‘[Stallone has] cheesy CGI buildings collapsing, an obviously animated wall of fire'. Anyway I think it very unlikely a remake of Death wish will feature things like this, so things like that should of no concern."

This Rene Rodriguez line is supposed to show that Stallone has poor choice when choosing special effects and cutting. My opponent also ignores the Rodriguez critique that Stallone has absolutely no character development in The Expendables. Character development is important because, as my opponent's own description of the plot points out, Death Wish is heavily dependent on character development. We need to see a character who is torn apart by his family's death and the injustice and ugliness of the world and who is thus driven toward vigilantism. Stallone is the last director and actor you want if you need character development.

The Expendables had such a great all-star cast that it was impossible to screw up. Yet somehow, Stallone managed to do so.

My opponent says: "I am not arguing that Stallone is the best director for the remake of Death Wish, but an IDEAL one"

My opponent should have looked up the definition of ideal before using it in this debate. Remember, ideal means "conforming to an ultimate standard of perfection." That is a high burden of proof. An ideal choice is usually the best option or a near-best option. If I gave you 50 local restaurants you could eat at, your ideal choices would usually be your #1 and maybe your #2 or #3 choice. Your #20 choice would usually not be your ideal choice.

My opponent says: "I'm sure Sylvester Stallone is certainly in the top 20 of the ideal list."

This is uncited. Stallone is certainly not on my top 20 directors list. He is not on the "top 10 best action directors" list I already cited. He is not on this "top 40 directors" list from The Guardian. http://film.guardian.co.uk...

My opponent says: "There may indeed be a lot more directors to choose from, but they would need to be WILLING to direct the film as well be nominated for it."

This is the is-ought fallacy: just because Stallone is the only person to be nominated as director thus far doesn't mean he OUGHT to be director. Anyone on my list of directors, the top 40 list of the directors (The Guardian), or the top 10 best action directors list (http://movies.toptenreviews.com...) would be a far superior choice to Stallone. At least one of them must be available to work on this project; directors can usually work on a few projects simultaneously. Even if they were all unavailable, delaying the shooting of Death Wish would be a better option than letting Stallone mangle it.

Moving on to my opponent's case

The plot of Death Wish does not make Stallone a good director. Another director could take the same plot and make it seem "more real" than Stallone could.

My opponent's only evidence that Stallone is a good director are two scenes from Rambo 4. The first video actually shows what a ridiculously bad director Stallone is. The epic music at the end of the mass murder scene is completely out-of-place. The music doesn't match the scene to such an extent that it is almost comical. Any director could have contracted good special effects – the cutting (where to put the musical score) is where Stallone really screwed this scene up.

The second video has nothing to do with directing. The easiest special effect to achieve in a movie is shooting people. Any director or special effects artist with half a brain could achieve the scene my opponent describes in Death Wish, where the main character shoots a bunch of criminals with a revolver.

Summary:

Stallone's first two attempts as a director were stinkers. Stallone is the anti-King Midas. Everything King Midas touched turned to gold. Everything Stallone touches turns to cr@p.

All the directors I named would be ideal choices. They have all achieved above a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes:

Steven Spielberg – Saving Private Ryan (91%), Catch Me If You Can (96%), Minority Report (91%), Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc (94%), Schindler's List (97%)

James Cameron – Terminator (100%), Terminator 2 (98%), Aliens (100%)

Quentin Tarantino – Pulp Fiction (94%), Reservoir Dogs (96%)

Martin Campbell – Casino Royale (96%)

Christopher Nolan – Memento (93%), The Dark Knight (93%)

Sylvester Stallone, in contrast, has yet to break 40% (a rating of rotten).

Even if Stallone were in a room with the 500 best directors of all time, he would still be completely out of place.

Death Wish needs a director more like King Midas – where everything he or she touches turns to gold. Death Wish does not need Stallone's touch of death.
Debate Round No. 2
BillBonJovi

Pro

"1) My opponent has no response to the fact that both of Stallone's directing debuts, Rambo IV and the Expendables, were both rated "rotten" by Rotten Tomatoes' meta-analysis, which combines all the reviews on the internet."

REBUTTAL:
My opponent is relying on critical response evidence from the website Rotten Tomatoes to argue his case.
I am going to use a better website for critical response evidence for Stallone's recent directed films, and the website I am going to use is The Internet Movie database. The reason I consider The Internet Movie database to be better is because it has the thoughts of normal everyday film loving people as well as professionals too.

1.A positive review from IMDB means that most people in general will enjoy the film and of course films are not made for the critics they are made for public people who like to be enjoy watching films (even though it's a public domain, there are still many professionals as well)
2.IMDB has been active longer than rotten tomatoes (nine years more) meaning IMDB is more experienced than rotten tomatoes.
3.Each film on IMDB usually has many more reviews than rotten tomatoes making IMDB more believable.
Now let's see what reviews IMDB gave to Stallone's recent directed films:

Rambo (2008): http://www.imdb.com...
Result: 7.3 stars out of 10… giving the film a positive review
Out of 656 reviews from users and 256 reviews from Critics

The Expendables (2010): http://www.imdb.com...
Result: 7.0 stars out of 10… giving the film a positive review
Out of 492 reviews from users and 286 reviews from Critics

Also there is a recent directed film by Sylvester Stallone that I have forgotten to speak about which is Rocky Balboa (2006). And what I think will really interest CON is the fact that Rotten tomatoes gave that film a positive review.
Let's see how well received that film was from IMDB and rotten tomatoes…

Rocky Balboa (2006): http://www.imdb.com...
Result: 7.4 stars out of 10… giving the film a positive review
Out of 927 reviews from users and 258 reviews from Critics

Rocky Balboa (2006): http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
76% gave it a positive review

I think it's now clear that out of stallone's three recent directed films (Rocky Balboa, Rambo and The Expendables) show that he CAN indeed make a ‘good' film.

Also in the second round CON said "Sylvester Stallone, in contrast, has yet to break 40% (a rating of rotten)" well I have just proved that Sylvester Stallone did break the 40% mark, so it appears CON has not fully analysed his information.

*****
CON then went on to say:
"2) Writing and directing are related in two ways. Firstly, if someone is a terrible screenwriter, it shows they are not a very intelligent person. Intelligence is also required for directing. Secondly, directors are in charge of cutting the film (deciding which scenes and takes to include and which to exclude); directors must ensure that the film has sufficient character development; directors must re-write portions of the script that do not jive with their vision of the film, and director's must get the best performance out of their actors. Writing is related to knowing which scenes are necessary and which are unnecessary (cutting); writing is related to having good character development, and writing is necessary if the director must re-write portions of the script."
(I'm not sure but I think when CON said "jive" I think that was a misspelling, I think he meant to say "live", I'm just being sure all information is actuate).

REBUTTAL:
As I said in the first round Sylvester Stallone will be working from a screenplay by Michael Ferris and John Brancato, it is likely he will be rewriting portions of the script but I strongly believe Stallone's rewriting will not ruin the film.

I think it's clear Stallone made Rambo 4 and The Expendables to be more fun-filled films, but Death Wish is meant to be a revenge thriller film. Stallone will take note of that and he will know that the Death Wish remake cannot have fun-filled action.

What I think he can do is remake Death Wish with the atmosphere of Rambo 4 and not the fun-filled action of Rambo 4. I fully believe Stallone has the ability to be an ideal choice to direct the film. In the first video source I provided in the second round I wanted people to pick up the atmosphere of the scene.

Stallone didn't make Rocky Balboa to be a fun-filled film because the Rocky films are meant to be strong dramas about the life of a champion boxer and Stallone succeeded. To prove this many critics hailed Stallone's directing. In a review for Rocky Balboa, David Edelstein of the New York Magazine said:

"Stallone might be a pathetic figure, but he sure is cunning when it comes to using that pathos to generate sympathy. Actually, he's better at it now. The first Rocky worked because the director, John Avildsen, made the hero small in the frame—a shambling stumblebum whose improbable rise never seemed predestined. But when Stallone became a star and took over the Rocky reins, he moved the camera way up close to give himself he-man stature".
So it appears Stallone's directing skills in this film were good.

Then he said:
"Does Rocky Balboa deliver? Weirdly enough, it does: I was jumping out of my seat during Rocky's bout. If you close your eyes and try to halve your IQ—aim for something between a baboon and a lemur—you might even think it's a masterpiece".
This adds more to the fact that after 5 Rocky films Stallone was able to redevelop a worn out franchise for a new film very well, so Stallone could very well redevelop a worn out franchise like Death Wish too. This final quote shows that Stallone indeed make a good film.

Source of review: http://nymag.com...
*****
Also in the second round my opponent's summery he suggested alternative directors to direct the film, for example CON suggested James Cameron. However the film genre James Cameron is more associated with is Science fiction. The genres of Death Wish are action and thriller and they just happen to be genres that Sylvester Stallone is very associated with.

Out of the directors CON suggested I think Martin Campbell is the only one (best associated with the film genres of action and thriller) that would even be willing to make a remake of Death Wish. With the knowledge we know today of the other directors they would more likely be interested in their own projects or non-remakes instead of a remake of Death Wish.

I think it's also appropriate to mention that from the "top 40 directors" list from The Guardian reference CON provided in round 2, Sylvester Stallone is not primarily known as a film director. He is really more known as a film star. So I feel that CON's website reference in this case is illogical.
*****
CONCLUSION:

1.Based on the film reviews evidence I provided from IMDB all of Sylvester Stallone's three direction debuts (Rocky Balboa, Rambo and The Expendables) resulted in being films that were mainly liked by audiences. So Sylvester Stallone can indeed be a good choice to direct Death Wish.

2.Out of all directors that specialise with the genres of action and thriller, Sylvester Stallone is one of the best people associated with those genres. Along with the fact that other directors would more likely be interested in their own projects or non-remakes instead of a remake of Death Wish, Stallone stands very high up in the possible choices list to direct.

3.After five Rocky films, Stallone was able to redevelop a worn out franchise for a new film very well, so Stallone could very well redevelop a worn out franchise like Death Wish too. VERY FEW film makers have been able to do something as hard as that and the fact that Stallone was able to with Rocky Balboa, makes him an ideal choice to make a Death wish remake. This is the ultimate fact.
bluesteel

Con

I thank my opponent for what has been a very interesting debate.

I'd like to point out that most of his proofs and examples that Stallone is a good director all come from the last round. In debate, it is typical that new arguments cannot be made in the very last round. Thus, my opponent's examples, like Rocky Balboa (2006), should be ignored. I will, however, answer them anyway since some judges here do not adhere to a strict competitive debate philosophy.

Rotten Tomatoes vs. IMDB

My opponent is just straight up misrepresenting how IMDB's rating system works. It does not use reviews to form its ratings – it relies solely on IMDB user votes.

Look at this link for Rambo: http://www.imdb.com...
If you click on the part that says "83,356 user votes" it will show you the breakdown of how the film got 7.3 stars. If you click "256 critic reviews," it will link you to the 256 articles IMDB has listed. These articles, however, are not used at all in the scoring of the movie.

Why are user votes invalid as a rating?

Two words: "selection bias." If I put a poll online that asked "are you in favor of marijuana legalization," the people who are most likely to seek out such a poll to vote are people who are pro-legalization. My results will be very skewed. This is why Gallup and other polling companies randomly call people – to get a more accurate measure and avoid selection bias.

IMDB is the ultimate in selection bias: who is going to seek out a movie to vote for it – someone who already liked the movie. If I watch Titanic and think it's mediocre, my first thought isn't going to be to jump onto imdb.com and give the movie 4 stars out of 10. But if some hyped up DiCaprio-crazed teenage girl LOVES the film, the first thing she will do is create 5 imdb.com accounts and vote 10 stars to Titanic on each account. This seriously happens – I remember young girls, at the time the movie came out, who saw the movie multiple times in theatres to help Titanic set a box office record.

In contrast, Rotten Tomatoes uses only real reviews to rate a movie, which avoids selection bias. Rotten Tomatoes does, however, include user ratings so people can compare. I searched for "worst movies of all time" to show you how bad selection bias is.

Daddy Day Camp
1% of critics liked this movie, 49% of users voted that they liked this movie

Glitter (seriously WORST MOVIE EVER)
6% of critics liked this movie, 46% of users voted that they liked this movie

To see how Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB compared, I took the current worst rated movie off Rotten Tomatoes front page:

Wild Target
Rotten Tomatoes: 13%
IMDB: 6.8 out of 10 stars

Seriously, don't use IMDB to decide which movies are good and which are bad.

Why are Rotten Tomatoes high scores more accurate measures of a good movie than IMDB high scores?

Is a 6 or 7 star movie worth watching? Most IMDB movies get these ratings, which is about equivalent to a rating of "average." If I watched every "average" movie that exists, I'd finish on my 500th birthday. In contrast, a 70% on Rotten Tomatoes says that 7 out of 10 critics are saying this is a film worth watching. It is very unlikely you will be disappointed by said film.

So the evidence still stands that Stallone's two recent directing works, Rambo IV and the Expendables were bad movies.

Rocky Balboa

This is such a successful franchise it is hard to screw up. Yet Stallone managed to do so in Rocky V (Rotten Tomatoes score of 24%), mostly because Stallone was the only writer on the project. [1] Stallone even stated that he felt compelled to make another Rocky movie because he had let fans down so much with Rocky V. [2]

My opponent's own review of Rocky Balboa proves that the movie is a popular, feel-good Rocky franchise finale, but is far from a work of writing/directing genius.

I personally fell asleep while trying to suffer through Rocky Balboa. The dialogue between Stallone and the kids running around his town is just atrocious, and Stallone is too old (60+) to make him being able to fight believable.

My opponent's supposedly positive review shows that Stallone is obsessed with close up shots (the same thing the Expendables review I cite critiques him for). He has no complexity as a director. He is a one-trick pony.

Read the quote my opponent cites as proving that Rocky VI was a good movie: "If you close your eyes and try to halve your IQ—aim for something between a baboon and a lemur—you might even think it's a masterpiece." Only someone with half of a normal person's intelligence would believe Stallone is a great writer/director. He lacks any complexity. My opponent has already conceded that Death Wish requires a writer/director/actor who can deal with emotional complexity.

My opponent keeps citing that Michael Ferris and John Brancato being signed on to write the screenplay for Death Wish as a huge plus. Yet their most famous work has been Terminator: Salvation (32% on Rotten Tomatoes). Based on this score, they're even worse writers than Stallone.

My opponent keeps objecting that there is no guarantee another director would sign on. Again, this is the "is-ought fallacy." Just because your first 100 choices turned the film down, doesn't mean Stallone is the "ideal choice." That just means he is the only one left! Secondly, Death Wish is being developed by MGM, a major studio. They have cultivated relationships with many famous, talented, and far superior directors that they could convince to do a remake of Death Wish.

My opponent says that Stallone didn't make a "top 40 directors" list because he is known primarily as an actor. He is correct – people don't know Stallone as a director because he isn't a particularly good one. He has, however, done well as an actor, for example in the Rocky franchise, which required very few facial expressions from him. You would at least expect him to make a top 200 list of "best male actors" wouldn't you? Yet I scrolled through all the names and he's not even there. [3] Stallone isn't good at anything he does. He does make a loveable expressionless punching bag though. It's fun to watch him bruise people's fists with his face.

Any of the following top 200 action directors would be preferable to Stallone (a continuation of the top ten list I cited before): [4]

Steven Spielberg, Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Sam Raimi, Richard Donner, John Carpenter, William Wellman, John McTiernan, Ridley Scott, Martin Campbell, Jonathan Mostow, John Woo, Tony Scott, Wolfgang Peterson, Fritz Lang, Clint Eastwood, Paul Greengrass, Michael Bay, George Lucas, Howard Hawks, George Romero, Michael Curtiz, Tim Burtin, Quentin Tarantino, Christopher Nolan, Oliver Stone

Okay, I'm running out of characters, but you get my point.

Stallone's acting (facial expressions, or lack thereof) leaves much to be desired. Stallone's writing leaves much to be desired (single-handedly ruined the Rambo franchise). And his directing record is far from stellar (2 out of 3 were flops).

I leave you with the definition of "ideal choice": the "option" that "conforms to an ultimate standard of perfection and excellence."

Stallone is far from ideal. If you were choosing your "ideal choice" for a presidential candidate, would you choose someone who had lost 2 out of 3 times when he ran before?

If I asked you what your ideal choice for a birthday present was, and you said "oh a BMW M3 or a 52 inch flat screen 1080p high definition television" and I instead gave you a $10 gift card to Barnes and Noble that would be similar to the studio (MGM) asking for Christopher Nolan or Steven Spielberg and instead getting stuck with Stallone.

Vote con

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...(film)
[3] http://movies.toptenreviews.com...
[4] http://movies.toptenreviews.com...
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
ok, I un-voted for myself.
Posted by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
bluesteel, I can't vote for myself :(

I'm from the UK, our cell phones have 11 numbers, instead of 10 numbers like american cell phones do. So it's impossible to confirm my identity in order for me to vote on these debates :(
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
BillBonJovi, please do the same...
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
fyi, i'm voting for myself so nothing hokey happens near the end of the voting period
Posted by Sobriquet 6 years ago
Sobriquet
Tarantino or Nolan would be great choices. Both are fantastic directors.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
@BillBonJovi

Just so you know, people will (and should) disregard this as part of the debate. There's a reason there's a character limit - to make both sides equal. It's the same reason there's a time limit in live debates.

Although I thank you kindly for your praise.
Posted by BillBonJovi 6 years ago
BillBonJovi
Seeing as I had a lack of space in my last round, i will detail the missing bits here:

In that paragraph my opponent said that I what I said was an "attack". No it was not an attack. I believe my opponent thinks I was accusing him of being a snobby person, all I said that I found it snobby as in that was the feeling I had at the time. I would never discriminate any of my opponents. I'm sorry for any discomfort and please keep in mind that I am still relatively new to debating on the website.

CON also made complaints about Stallone staring in the film, this debate is not about stallone's acting; it's possible Stallone could quit the idea of acting in the film and instead just direct the film. So CON's complaint is irrelevant.

I would just like to say that in the two video sources I provided in round 2, I really only wanted readers of this debate to get the feeling of the atmosphere Stallone produced in the creation of the film.
And Based on my conclusion of this debate I urge a Pro vote. I would thank CON for being part of this debate; I have enjoyed competing with him.

CON you are really really good and you have impressed me, keep up the good work :D
Posted by Mirza 6 years ago
Mirza
I might take this soon. I will wait though.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by gabe17 6 years ago
gabe17
BillBonJovibluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
BillBonJovibluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Sobriquet 6 years ago
Sobriquet
BillBonJovibluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Vote Placed by LaissezFaire 6 years ago
LaissezFaire
BillBonJovibluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by J.Kenyon 6 years ago
J.Kenyon
BillBonJovibluesteelTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03