The Instigator
dan564891
Pro (for)
Winning
2 Points
The Contender
Untitled123
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

There Will Be Blood is a better film than No Country For Old Men

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 2 votes the winner is...
dan564891
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/27/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,440 times Debate No: 23227
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

dan564891

Pro

I'm of the opinion that Paul Thomas Anderson's 2007 epic, There Will Be Blood is a better movie than No Country For Old Men by the Coen Brothers, which was released the same year.

The first round is for acceptance and for con to make their argument.
Untitled123

Con

I will accept this argument.

Please clarify on how we will be arguing the definition of 'better', since it is very subjective. If you do not wish to define it, I propose that we let the term 'better' encompass everything, so that we have an accurate perspective on both sides and there will be more information to be presented. If you do not accept that definition, please keep it reasonable?
Debate Round No. 1
dan564891

Pro

I agree with you that any argument like this would be based on opinion and so would be very hard to win. I proposed the debate as a bit of fun really.

But for the sake of this debate, lets try to compare writing, directing, music, acting, and perhaps each movie's critical reaction.

I also propose beginning the debate again.
Untitled123

Con

I agree with my opponent that this will be a very subjective debate. However, since my opponent seems to agree that we should not put personal views into this and rather compare the two, I'm going to start some basic definitions.


There will be Blood

2007 Drama produced by Paul Thomas Anderson.
Obtained 91% positive on Rotten Tomatoes

The film was released on December 26, 2007, in New York and Los Angeles where it grossed US$190,739 on its opening weekend. The film then opened in 885 theaters in selected markets on January 25, 2008, grossing $4.8 million on its opening weekend. The film went on to make $40.2 million in North America and $35.9 million in the rest of the world, with a worldwide total of $76.1 million, well above its $25 million budget.[1] But the prints and advertising cost for the film's United States release was about $40 million.[61]

So... at a cost of 25 million and 40 millions of hype, this film has just earned around 11.6 million.


No Country for Old Men

2007 American crime thriller, based on novel of same name
Obtained 95% positive on Rotten Tomatoes.

As of February 13, 2009, the film has grossed $74,283,000 in the US.

The cost of the film was also around 25 million, but it spent far less on advertising.


Since No Country for Old Men earned in the US the amount earned by There will be Blood worldwide, I think it's safe to say that it was more of a box office success. Logically, we can concur that more people wanted to watch No Country for Old Men in theatres and thus it earned more money.


This is the conclusion of my first argument, that being that No Country for Old Men was a box office success, and more crictically acclamied by critics than There Will be Blood.

Since my opponent has yet to present any arguments, I do not believe it to be fair to present my other two. On to you now.


Sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org...(film)
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
dan564891

Pro

All debates, especially those about entertainment are opinionated, but I’ll try my best to keep opinion out of this one.

I agree with my opponent that No Country For Old Men earned more money at the box office. I also agree with him that at the time of their release, both 2007, No Country For Old Men more the more critically acclaimed of the two.

I will even do my opponent the favour of mentioning that No Country For Old Men won the three of the “big five” Academy Awards, for Best Film, Best Directing and Best Writing (adapted). Although, I hope my opponent agrees with me when I say that the Oscars very rarely rewards the greatest films (ie. Citizen Kane).

But as time has passed, I think that There Will Be Blood has widely become recognised as the greater of the two films... indeed it appeared on more critics’ lists of “Best Film Of The Decade” than any other film. Films which include other masterpieces such as Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind and The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. According to my source (link below), you can see that There Will Be Blood topped lists 5 times, where No Country.. had exactly 0 picks.

Turning to the films themselves, I’m sure that all of you reading this will agree with me when I say that Daniel Day Lewis, as Daniel Plainview gives one of, if not the greatest performance ever committed to film.

Apart from Day Lewis, the other star of the film was the soundtrack. It was created by Jonny Greenwood, of Radiohead fame and is thoroughly unique among movie soundtracks. It compliments the movie perfectly, in contrast to No Country.. which barely has any soundtrack to speak about... which is not a bad thing, I might add.

I also feel that No Country.. was ever so slightly a repetition of the Coen Brothers’ previous films, such as Miller’s Crossing and Fargo. It has the same crime thriller feel to it, with moments of dark comedy. There Will Be Blood though, was thoroughly original.

In terms of style and structure, There Will Be Blood is as good as it possibly gets. The opening 20 minutes are a perfect example of the golden rule in cinema.., show, don’t tell. The ending too, completely catches you by surprise. The tone completely changes and turns into a Hellish comedy of epic proportion. Day Lewis also has a line that has become something of an everyday catchphrase for many people, “I drink your milkshake!”. On the other hand, No Country... feels very second hand with it’s simple plot and structure.

Source--- http://www.metacritic.com...;
Untitled123

Con



For the benefit of my opponent, I'd like to point out that the line he provided does not actually work.

I'll start by addressing my opponent's points and then add to my own.


But as time has passed, I think that There Will Be Blood has widely become recognised as the greater of the two films... indeed it appeared on more critics’ lists of “Best Film Of The Decade” than any other film.


No Country for Old Men appeared on the top ten lists of 354 critics, the most of 2007 and was the most selected film as best of that year. I feel that if we are to compare the performances of actors in a film, it is very difficult to honestly say that one actor is superior to another.

I agree with my opponent in the fact that There will be Blood had a soundtrack that was superior to No Country for Old Men, but I believe that a great movie isn't determined by its soundtrack. In the case of No Country for Old Men, the directors and producers chose to have a very very limited soundtrack so that the movie's effect was greater in its lack of music. Despite this, the blip-blop in the movie has become just as famous as the Jaws theme of which I think most people are well acquainted with. I personally believe that the film was very suspenseful and that the lack of a proper soundtrack did not really detract from the movie itself.

The second point that I'd like to point out today is that No Country for Old Men covered a significantly higher amount of themes and generally portrayed and expressed themes and lessons better than that of There will be Blood.

The argument here is that since No Country for Old Men covers more themes and covers them better, as this is one of the ways something can last for centuries, No Country for Old Men will be looked at in the future and is the better film since its morals and lessons can apply at any time in the future. For example, Shakespeare covered a great deal of universal themes in his works, and they have survived to this day.

Let us list out some of the themes covered in No Country for Old Men:

I can explain any of them in depth if my opponent wishes for me to



Fate

Religious Values

The ethics of theft

Evil

Anxieties by the old

Greek tragedy

Nilhism

The hunter and the hunted

Role of Women

All and all, one of the best indicators on whether a film will last is that if it is truly beneficial and covers universal themes so that it can be enjoyed at any time and any place. Compared to There will be Blood, it'll be much more difficult for most people to relate to it compared to No Country for Old Men. Thus, it is the better movie.
Debate Round No. 3
dan564891

Pro

It seems my opponent would like to discuss the themes addressed in each movie. He has given a list of themes that he believes were in No Country For Old Men (NCFOM). I agree with only some of them. Now, let's compare -

"Fate".. in There Will Be Blood( TWBB)? Yes.

"Religious Values" In TWBB? Yes and covered better than in NCFOM.

"The ethics of theft" This one I don't understand. I wouldn't call it a theme... everyone knows that theft is wrong. I don't think you need a movie to tell you that.

"Evil"... Daniel Plainview is evil... there is no questioning that. His intentions are evil, his personality is evil and his final actions are evil.

"Anxieties by the old" Ok, my opponent may have a point with this one.

"Greek tragedy" Not really a theme. More of a genre.

"Nilhism" I think both films address this in equal measure.

"The hunter and the hunted" Daniel Plainview hunts for wealth. Eli Sunday is h

"Role of women" Women are not a big part of TWBB, which, I argue says more about their social standing at the time of the film than NCFOM does in the '80s.

More themes addressed in TWBB are - Greed, capitalism, father and son relationships, respect, domination and disability (H.W. is deaf)

Not only are there more underlying themes in TWBB, but they are better presented and shown with more subtlety.

With regards to the photography of each film, I'd like to note that TWBB's won an Oscar and would request that all readers go and watch the scene where the derrick is on fire. If there is a more impressive feat of cinematography, I'd like to see it.

I'd like to thank my opponent for a great debate.
Untitled123

Con

Untitled123 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Untitled123 5 years ago
Untitled123
really srry about forfeiting that
good debate though
conduct to pro.
Posted by Untitled123 5 years ago
Untitled123
Noooooooooooooooooooooooo
I missed it my argument post.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 5 years ago
1dustpelt
dan564891Untitled123Tied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: ff
Vote Placed by 16kadams 5 years ago
16kadams
dan564891Untitled123Tied
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:10 
Reasons for voting decision: FF