the Percy Jackson movie sucks
Debate Rounds (3)
1) No innapropriate language
2)Don't bash, its not necessary, but a few snarky remarks are good here and there.
3) Note this is simply for entertainment and let's have some fun, otherwise there is no point.
To the opponent: Give me some solid reason why this is an enjoyable film. Please, I dare you. If your not a fan of the book, then I dont think you would understand, but to be honest, this debate is for people who know and love the series and still enjoyed the movie, whos best part was Steve Coogan as Hades admittingly.
Good luck to pro!
Okay, we begin the movie with What's-his-name who plays Poseidon and Sean Bean as Zeus, (I'll be honest, I like Sean Bean as Zeus), and they're are argueing about Zeus's stolen lightning bolt. Alright, not so bad-Wait a second, Zeus didn't know about Percy yet, why would they mention him?! Alright, I could get past that, as I am a reasonable man of entertainment and I accept not all adaptions are perfect. So Sean Bean makes a door explode and we come to our next scene, which introduces Logan Lerman, I remember him from Hoot, and-Wait a second...This kid looks older than sixth grade....WHAT IN GODS NA-They already destroyed one of the main plot points of the entire series and were not even five minutes in! I'm sure you know what I am talking abut, but I'll save that for another time.
Alright, so he can hold his breath longer than David Blaine, and we are introduced to Grover. Alright, I'll get this one out of the way, and I'm not trying to be racist but, Grover was supposed to be this White Kurt-Kobain lookin burnout with a rasta cap. This...is Alpo Chino from Tropic Thunder. He is simply to cool to be Grover.
Alright, and we move on and take a look at Percy's disability to read. We see miss Dodds, not a bad interpretation...but She was an English Teacher in this movie, when in the book she was math. Not a huge plot point but I still noticed it. So we see them go to the museum and we are introduced to Mr. Brunner, which I think is the best casting in this film. He talks all this mythical bull**** and Miss Dodds asks to see Percy alone. She transforms into one of the Bat beasts of Kent and attackes him. This is a good interpretation, but it goes wrong with Grover and Mr. Brunner immediatly coming in, saving the day, and talking about where they shoudl move him. There is another wrong with this scene. In the book, everyone acted like they didn't see a thing, in hopes of letting Percy still ahve a normal life. Instead, they screw that idea and bring him in. That will be all for now. Opponent respond if you dare. Good luck.
I thank my opponent for his round. My round shall be short and simple with two points, one of which counters his point of how the book and the movie were nothing alike. Without further wait I shall begin.
To begin with I'd like to point out a few key components of the context in the resolution so that we can have a proper debate.
Since the resolution is specific to "The percy jackson movie" we need only evaluate the competence of the movie, and not the book. Thusly, relations between the two of them isn't relevant to the debate because, obviously, the book is not the movie and the resolution asks us to only evaluate the movie.
Now onto my main points.
My first point is that even if the movie did not follow the plot of the book, that doesn't automatically mean the movie itself is a bad movie. Just saying that "the movie didn't follow the book, ergo bad movie" isn't exactly true because it's perfectly possible to completely pitch out the plot of the book and re-write it how you see fit in order to make a good movie (for example, the pale orc in The Hobbit didn't exist, yet it was added into the first part of the movie to have some sort of antagonist for the group to fight against. And, of course, an antagonist is important for a movie to have otherwise there is no actual conflict in the plot, thus making it pointless). In order to affirm the resolution, my opponent needs to provide some other calculus from us to decide that the movie itself is a bad movie.
My second and final point is that no movie can be objectively bad. This is because things like tastes, likes, dislikes, good, and bad are all subjective concepts. What is really really amazing to me might be absolutely awful to you. As such, it's impossible to say that a movie objectively sucked since no metric exists that we can declare a movie objectively good and bad. Since we cannot declare a movie objectively awful, it cannot "suck", but nor can it be objectively good either.
Too bad I don't have to prove it was good. I just have to prove it wasn't bad :P
Your move. Respond if you dare.
I agree. Sometimes it is necessary to give an antagonist for our heroes to fight...But it isn't necessary in this film. Have you read the book? Its chock full of antagonists to fight, and the actual character behind it all, Kronos, is never even mentioned. Ive heard of including extra villians in adaptions, but never taking out the main ones. That would be if the Hobbit would just have the Pale Orc and no Smaug. And the Hobbit does have antagonists, its just that Peter Jackson decided to milk the Hobbit into three movies.
I admit, you have a point. I do need to give out some kind of credentials to say tha this in itself is a bad movie, even though that was never the arguement in the first place, but i'll humor you. The areguement is that its a bad adaption, not a bad movie in itself. Despite having the cliche, "Misunderstood Boy, Annoying friend, love interest that hates the main character at first, friend that is actually traitor, and its so painfully obvious what they are missing from the book," there are a few points that make it bad. The movie tries at humor, but when it fails, it really fails. Take this line. "Yeah, its high school, without the musical." K. Funny....No not really. Maybe a four year old would have laughed at that. It may just be me, but this movie didn't get a chuckle out of me. While I do like some of the casting, I have problems with the others, even when they are not even included. Percy, looks the part, but I guess screw the Big Prophecy because he looks like he is in college, Annabeth, near thirty-year old trying to be high school, already explained Grover, he is too cool for the role, Luke, while a good cast, his character takes all the credit for the work, Persephone didn't even appear until the demigod files, taking place in I think in between Battle of the Labrinth and Last Olympian, Where the heck is Ares, he was one of the main antagonists, Again, where is Kronos?! And worst of all, I could not forgive the film for this. WHERE THE **** IS MR. D?! My favortie character in the entire series, who provides a lot of the humor that could have possibly saved this movie, was booted aside!
On to your last point. Its all about taste...Even so, it has to be actually good to appeal to your tastes. Say you like fashion. You see a movie that has it...but its god awful. As a person of fantasy and action, I see a problem with this movie. I am going on the notion that you are a fan of these as well seeing you actually like this movie. It has to be a good movie to appeal to your tatses, unless you like crappy adaptions.
My final point is this. The arguement is about the adaption, not the movie itself. Ive explained i a million times, im sure you get it. Im argueing that the way they butchered the books story is bad, not the actual film. If I have never read Percy Jackson, my opinion would probably be different. But it isnt. I love these amazing books, I buy them whenever a new one comes out, and I am outraged that Rick Riordan even accepted this as his first movie. Im sure the next one will be alright, as the trailer looks actually like the story, but im telling you. The Lightning Thief is bad adaption. The plot differences are so numerous I could take a millenia explaining them all. All you need to know is that two of the main villains, including the ultimate mastermind of the plan, was thrown aside for this dweeb who never used the Master Bolt in the books and lookes like he died at the end, the main quest was thrown aside for this Pearl Nonsense, and one of my favorite A-holes of all time was booted out. I apologize if I am ranting, but I'm just trying to prove a point.
I turn i over to my opponent. Good luck.
It seems that instead of actually engaging in a discussion, my opponent has decided to shift the goalposts on me. Instead of debating about whether or not The Lightning Thief was a good movie, he decided that he wanted to debate whether or not it was a good film adaptation from the book to the movie instead. There's two problems with him taking this approach.
1. It directly conflicts with the wording of the resolution. The wording literally says "The Percy Jackson MOVIE sucks". This ties into the point I made about how the resolution talks specifically about the movie and not the book-to-movie relationship. If my opponent had wanted to debate how well the movie fit the plot of the book, he should've worded his resolution to fit accordingly. Combine this with the fact that he didn't respond to my point about how the resolution voids out this kind of discussion, and the entirety of his case is dropped right off the bat. With no way to uphold his burden of proof, it's an instant negative vote.
2. Even if the wording of the resolution was spot-on, he didn't bring this up before the debate actually began. The only place he ironed this out was in his actual case, and not in the rules and conditions where a nugget of information like this should've been. This makes it not an actual rule to follow, but an argument he is trying to make. Seeing as how I already refuted this idea via use of the wording of the resolution, it takes us back to the actual topic up for the debate.
The final nail in the coffin comes from what he posted in Round One, which is "So, the arguement is, is this a good film." You heard him right: not a good book adaptation, a good film. That's independent of the book ladies and gents.
As such, let's get back down to the substance of the debate. Extend my first point which is talking about how even if he's right and the book doesn't line up with the movie at all and vice versa, that doesn't automatically disqualify the movie from being good or automatically making it bad. He doesn't respond to it at all except to say "Oh hey, I probably should get something else to say that it's bad aside from it doesn't fit the book" before going on to rant how it doesn't follow the book a little more. This is a game-over mistake on my opponnent's part because with this unrefuted, his entire case gets dropped because even if it's true, it doesn't matter since it doesn't make it a bad movie.
Then you can extend my second point about how no movie can actually be a "bad" movie since the entire concepts of good and bad are subjective. He completely misinterprets this argument. He responds by saying that "Even so, it has to be actually good to appeal to your tastes." The problem with this response is that a) it completely misses what I'm actually talking about since if good and bad are subjective, there can be no "good" in an objective sense and b) something can be bad yet still appeal to your tastes. For example, the video game "Lollipop Chainsaw" is a really bad game, yet it appeals to my tastes because it's a zombie-fighting game and the main character is a hot blonde chick. It's bad, yet it appeals to my tastes.
This means that my second point goes virtually unrefuted, and the poor responses put against it have been refuted, This is the final nail in the coffin for my opponent because if good and bad are subjective, then there isn't an objective sense under which the movie can "suck", thus making it impossible to prove that it does. This is an automatic negative vote.
As such, I urge a vote for the con debater.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Nyx999 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: I really liked Con's point that you guys are debating the book, not the movie, that definitely shook Pro to his foundations.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.