Round 1. Skyfloating vs Rising Against: You should have seen it in Monotone

The topic for this debate is "On average, black and white movies are better than movies in color.”

Skyfloating will be arguing the "Pro" position and begin the debate.
Rising Against will be arguing the "Con" position.

The Debate Forum Bill of Rights shall govern any objection to the assigned topic. If such objection exists, please U2U the moderator who posted this thread. Time limits shall be suspended pending a ruling on any such objection.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

There is a 10,000 character limit per post- this includes all characters including punctuation and spaces, as counted when copied from their display in the thread (where BB code is hidden and thus does not count).

Any character count in excess of 10,000 will be deleted prior to the judging process.

Editing of posts is strictly forbidden. For reasons of time, mod edits should not be expected except in critical situations. Requests for critical edits (affecting visibility of post or function of links for example) should be U2U'd to the moderator who posted this debate thread.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images and must have no more than 3 references. Video and audio files are NOT allowed.

Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post. Each individual post may contain up to 10 sentences of external source material, totaled from all external sources. Be cognizant of what you quote as excess sentences will be removed prior to judging.

Links to multiple pages within a single domain count as 1 reference but there is a maximum of 3 individual links per reference, then further links from that domain count as a new reference. Excess quotes and excess links will be removed before judging.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.

When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

This Is The Time Limit Policy:
Opening statements shall not be forfeit as a result of time limits. If an opening statement is not posted within 24 hours, a minimum of 24 additional hours will be allowed and a reasonable effort will be made to contact the late poster and make arrangements before any substitution of competitors is undertaken.

Each debate must post within 24 hours of the timestamp on the last post. If your opponent is late, you may post immediately without waiting for an announcement of turn forfeiture. If you are late, you may post late, unless your opponent has already posted.

Each debater is entitled to one extension of 24 hours. The request for a 24 hour extension should be posted in this thread and is automatically granted- the 24 hour extension begins at the expiration of the previous deadline, not at the time of the extension request.

In the unlikely event that tardiness results in simultaneous posting by both debaters, the late post will be deleted unless it appears in its proper order in the thread.

If a participant misses 2 posts in a debate, it will be then declared a forfeiture. In the event where the debate continues, once a debate forum staff member is able to respond, the debate will be closed and awarded to the winning participant.

Judging will be done by a panel of anonymous judges. After each debate is completed it will be locked and the judges will begin making their decision. One of the debate forum moderators will then make a final post announcing the winner.

In the Tournament, winners will be awarded 2 points for each debate they win.

All AboveTopSecret.com Terms and Conditions Apply at all times in all debate formats.

Enter the Ethereal Dream

Have you noticed that there is a special mystique and feel to black/white movies that makes you stop switching TV channels and just linger there?

Why might that be?

Is it because colour represents "reality" to us and black/white takes us to an ethereal places outside of our daily life reality? (And wouldnt that be the reason we watch movies anyway...to be taken far away for an hour or two)

Is it because Imagination loves to fill in the gaps instead of having everything force-fed? Is that why we feel slightly more elated after watching a b/w movie?

Are b/w movies more artistically and aesthetically pleasing because the different shades of gray let us notice things such as sharpness, light, tone, depth, texture - things we would not notice if everything were splashed with colour?

Is it because they awaken nostalgic feelings of a supposedly better time or because more care was invested into making movies back then?

Frankly, my answers to these questions is "Yes". I will go into Detail on these and other points throughout the Debate. I will also be presenting pictorial samples of the wonderful world of bl/w movies.

To make it more worthwhile to the reader, I will also discuss how this topic touches on perception, reality, relative-value, aesthetics and art. My hope is that somewhere out there, a filmmaker will read this and get the idea to bring back the black and white film if even only for purposes of visual enjoyment.

I hereby dedicate this piece to the enjoyment of all involved...you, my respected opponent Rising Against, the Readers, the Debate Judges and TheVagabond who created the space in which we play.

Highest Regards,

Skyfloating

Well, first off, I just want to say thank you to all the Debate forum moderators who were kind enough to set up this debate tournament for us, something I’ve been looking forward to for a while now. Especially as the debate forum is/was somewhere I’ve always thought and wondered about venturing into up until now, but before today, never quite making it.

I also want to say good luck to my opponent Skyfloating, someone who’s seemingly no stranger at all to this part of ATS and a more than challenging competitor to face for my very first debate. And finally to all the readers, simply put, I hope you enjoy this debate.

I Thank you.



Now, the topic being set for myself and skyfloating today is “On Average, black and white movies are better than movies in color.” Arguing the con position shall be my aim and my opponent tackling the pro position.

I feel it's worth noting and taking into consideration a very key element in our chosen subject first of all which is: "On Average, black and white movies are better than movies in color." (Please note the underlined text), Now, I'll come to explain in a moment why I feel that is of the utmost important (the underlined text that is..) but for now I must stress instead something else which I feel is also a very key point worth making in the earliest stages of this debate which is, and It really must be made clear that, and admittedly, of course black and white movies do have certain elements and effects which perhaps could be more beneficial to our cinematic viewing or possibly add to our enjoyment of watching a film. And of course they can be better than our new, clean, fresh and in many ways, evolved modern day ones in some respects. Yes, I'm convinced they can be.

Maybe reasoning for this is simply down to what you yourself decided to mention in your opening post which is Black and white viewing gives the viewer more freedom so to speak and it places their imagination firmly in the driving seat rather than having "everything force-fed" to you as you yourself put it. Ones very own reality simply put on hold for the moment, making anything seem possible. A world reminiscence with nostalgia. Perhaps...

But, of course Black and white movies have their pro's and CAN be better in some respects, Yes, it's silly to think otherwise, but, they can also very much so have their cons and CAN be much worse. One such example of this being that they are, and yes, this is an opinion coming from someone who only knows a world of colour cinema/movie watching, simply put Incredibly dull to watch, boring and let's face facts, aren't giving a person looking for imaginative thrills much to work with at all. Or at the very least, as much as you brilliantly put it. In fact, color viewing simply brings it to life and in turn takes away the dullness to a certain degree making viewing more enjoyable for all involved.

Sure, you can claim that it opens up a new world making anything seem possible or it can let the imagination be completely free, summoning emotions of nostalgia but the simplest of truths is colour isn't a factor here at all. It really isn't. What's the primary factor in this argument of yours is the very film itself. Taking this away shall let the imagination free and bring your argument to life. And as long as the film itself is present, It seems as you don't have an argument to work with here as colour or no colour, It's the film which is being presented to us or if you prefer...Being "force-fed" to us which is the factor seen above all else, not the colour of said film. The colour of the presentation (The supposed "force-feeding" if you will) is nothing short of completely irrelevant..

If you truly want to "Enter the Ethereal Dream" my friend. Leave the movies alone.

Now, let me go back to my original point which was focusing on the topic of today once more. The very key element in our debate is On average a black and white movie is better than the opposed colour ones, myself arguing against this. Well, yes they both have their pro's and there con's as I've already mentioned, but we're not here to argue simple pro's and then simple con's at all, instead we're here to argue which is simply put, better. Overall. To find this out though, we must base our arguments on those same pro's and con's, something I have no doubt is heavily in favour of the always evolving cinematic world of colour viewing.

And, In this debate I set out to prove that by discussing how cinema and movie watching has evolved from its earliest days to the present days landmark world of colour cinema, I shall focus on why we should no longer live in the past, how colour is what's really giving the viewer a much more realistic experience being rivalled only by reality itself as well as the ever more evolving world that we're moving into again focusing on the evolution aspect of cinema, and of course much MUCH more.

But, just like evolution in the animal kingdom might I add, where the weak no longer survive or the ones unsuited to their environments soon die out, the same effect occurs in cinema and movie watching. The one not suited to the environment soon dies out. In this case, the unfortunate one being Black and white viewing clearly shown through it no longer being able to keep up in today's world, simply being pushed aside all the while colour viewing moving into the number one viewer’s choice, should there be a choice. Black and white viewing is and always will be a thing of the past. Colour viewing on the other hand the already accepted victor in the modern world. This is what I set out to prove and more.


SOCRATIC QUESTIONS:

NO.1) Do you think the entertainment value of a film has increased over the years since the introduction of colour viewing from Black and white viewing?

NO.2) Do you agree that with such modern day films like the hugely popular and successful Avatar or the ever more presence of 3D film, Black and white viewing simply would not work?



I thank you once more skyfloating and to all involved in making these debates happen as well as of course the readers.

I look forward to continuing this debate with you. It'll be a blast I'm sure.

Sky, my esteemed opponent, the floor is yours.......

1. Over--Abundance vs. Creativity

Words like Repletion, Over-Exposure and Oversaturation remind us of the human quirk that the more "stuff" an artist has, the less creative he often becomes. Having an over-abundance of stuff generally does not help creativity but dulls it. This is the reason Hollywood is not what it used to be "in the golden Age". Yes, the age in which movies were black and white is referred to "The Golden Age" in which movie-making was better. What modern movies lack in creativity they try to make up in special-effects, tech, gimmicks, flashy colors. But that is no compensation for lack of depth, contrast, texture not only in the pictures shot but also in the acting and script.

It took a lot more creative work and thought to make b/w films. The directors and actors had to compensate for lack of technology and they did so by making many damn good movies. They even had to use certain colors to imply other colors. If, for example, someone wore grey it would look "blue" on b/w.

Isnt it strange that some of the movies of the "Golden Years" are remembered for many decades while movies you saw just a month ago are already forgotten? Why might that be? It might be because so many movies nowadays suck. When a director and producer have too much technology and effects at their disposal, they begin to become lazy and try to mask insufficient skill with "some fx and some tech".

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8397977d79a4.jpg[/atsimg]
From the Golden Age of Cinema

2. *Learn to Imagine and Think for Yourself*

Do you know why Generations of Parents and Educators recommend their kids do more reading than watching TV or playing Computer Games? It is, of course, because reading trains the childs Imagination, its inner landscape, creativity and ultimately productivity and mental-health. When everything is shown and done for you, you have no opportunity to think for yourself. Similar can be said of b/wmovies vs. color movies. B/W allows you to fill in the gaps, Color-Movies force you to accept someone elses version of reality. This is why so many protested the colorization of classics, such as "The Wizard of Oz" shown here before and after colorization:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/37373161c64c.jpg[/atsimg]

It is a little known fact that Imagination will fill in the gaps that are missing and this is why "Less is More" and why b/w movies are a more pleasurable experience for the sophisticated viewer. Do you know why, in Zen-Buddhism, Monks are asked to sit in front of an empty, white wall the all day? Simply put, It is to deprive the senses of input in order to increase the minds strength and output.

3. You can see more without the Distraction

Without the distraction of color you pay more attention to details you normally do not notice with both color movies and color photography. There are professional photographers who have actually dedicated their careers to black/white only because they say you only really appreciate the textures, shades of grey, lines, shadows if pictures are black and white. This is why, to many, b/w pictures seem more interesting. This is where they get their special "mystique".

I may only post 2 pictures per post so I will show examples of this in the third post.

Question 1: Why do most people prefer not to colorize "Citizen Kane", Woody Allens "Manhattan", "Casablanca", "Metropolis" or "Lost Horizon"?

Question 2: Do you agree that reading books leaves more up to the Imagination than watching movies?

Question 3: Do you agree that in rating good movies, script, acting, story are more important than special-effects, gimmicks and frills?

____________________________________________________________

To answer my opponents questions:

1. No, I do not think the entertainment value of movies has increased in comparison to the days of b/w movies. Instead I see an overall dumbing down in filmmaking over the decades. And with a few notable exceptions such as "The Matrix" and "Avatar", special-effects, tech and flashy colors dont make "a good movie". Its the story that counts.

2. Yes, with notable exceptions like "Avatar" or "The Matrix", b/w would not work. I am not arguing that color-movies should not be made or any such nonsense. Both color and b/w have their place. However, these days, its as if b/w has no place at all and it s my job to advertise the possible benefits of using b/w...and even if as only a tool of contrast, such as done in the Comic Adaption "Sin City".

____________________________________________________________

Experiment

If you, dear reader of this Debate, dont believe that b/w is more pleasurable I recommend you watch a black/white movie on one day and a color-movie on another day. In my next post I will outline stuff to pay attention to for conducting this Experiment in a fun and worthwhile way.

First Rebuttal

First off, If I may, I'd quickly like to address a couple of points from my opponents argument before continuing with this debate..

In reply to your reply of my Socratic questions...

1. No, I do not think the entertainment value of movies has increased in comparison to the days of b/w movies. Instead I see an overall dumbing down in filmmaking over the decades. And with a few notable exceptions such as "The Matrix" and "Avatar", special-effects, tech and flashy colours don’t make "a good movie". It’s the story that counts.

I feel you may have misunderstood slightly. Reason being you decide to talk about the nature of movie "dumbing down" (something I disagree with and will address in a moment) and then you seem to link it to the "special-effects, tech and flashy colours" used and how they are responsible for a movies failure as surely, any aspiration for a movie is to be as entertaining as is possible is it not? Well, that is something I'm not fully disagreeing with at all. But, my question was simply asking whether you yourself believe films have become more entertaining since the introduction of Colour viewing, not whether those introductions themselves make an actual good or bad movie..

But, anyway, in regards to what does make a good movie, well, I do very much so agree, as I've just mentioned, that technology, special effects, flashy colours and the like don't in anyway make a good movie. The story is what does indeed count in the long run, there's really no doubt about it, but surely even you can't deny that the differences between let's say, the exact same film with the exact same plot, same people, just everything the same for example would be vastly different when one of those films is in nothing but black and white. All the while the other is hosting a wide variety of special effects, brandishing beautiful, fluent, invigorating colours and literally bringing the story to life, giving it a whole new level of realism. Well, entertainment value more than certainly goes up, that much is clear..

You see, black and white simply can't keep up not just with colour viewing, it simply can't keep up with the modern day advancements anymore, and again I ask, what's the true aspiration of any movie? It's to be entertaining, something black and white for the most part, is not. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if in the near future B/W viewing simply was left in the shadows never to be used again, seen as only something which represents the past. Really it wouldn't surprise me at all to see B/W just go.

Now, when it comes to your next point of dumbing down, well this time, I disagree. In fact, I pose to you that if anything, films on the whole are becoming more and more intelligent. Sure, of course you're not going to escape the grasp of such topics which fall into the category of "dumbing down", that's just unavoidable, but on the whole films more so than ever seem to be focusing on those important topics we discuss on this site for example, daily, not to forget focusing on hugely imaginatively based topics. Storylines are more and more advanced and knowledgeable also, something clearly not as present in B/W movies as the acting as well as the script writing is simply woeful.

Actually, I ask anyone reading here and now to take on Skyfloatings experiment and to then find me a B/W film which could compete in today’s market in terms of acting and script writing.

2. Yes, with notable exceptions like "Avatar" or "The Matrix", b/w would not work. I am not arguing that color-movies should not be made or any such nonsense. Both color and b/w have their place. However, these days, its as if b/w has no place at all and it s my job to advertise the possible benefits of using b/w...and even if as only a tool of contrast, such as done in the Comic Adaption "Sin City".

Again, I feel there has been a misunderstanding, my question was asking whether you, yourself, agree that with modern day films such as avatar and even 3D now coming into play more so than ever, could black and white, simply put, work? In other words, fit the requirements of a film, which is to be entertaining. Nowhere have I mentioned your suggestion that colour should not be used/made in today’s world of cinema and movie making. In fact in my opening post, I stated that I myself, think both Black and white and colour really do have their benefits, and of course there detrimentals. I'm not completely against any one of them and I realise the same goes for you.

And yes, you are to highlight the possible benefits etc. but remember once more the argument here is on average, B/W movies are better than colour. Sure it has its benefits but on Average, colour most certainly is the number one favourite of the viewer and the one making the film shown only by going to a cinema or going to buy a DVD in today’s world. B/W viewing simply is very much so second choice between the 2.

Anyway, let's carry on with this debate shall we?

"More is less" you say, I'm afraid more is more...

Now, my opponent is trying to convince you, the readers, that in this instance, more equals less in regards to those watching a colour movie end up getting less back in the long run as their very own imagination is seemingly stunted as noticing the finer details for example, simply isn't achieved or that reality is being forced upon you.

Well, as was mentioned in my opening posts, I have an issue with this theory. Now, I ask, take the colour away and what do you have? A B/W film, yes? Well let's swap it around. Add colour to the equation and take away the Black and white, now what do you have? You have a colour film? Ok, now take away the colour and also try to take away the black and white, now what do you have? You have no film. You see, the point I'm making here is this: The film is the true issue when discussing one’s own imagination or lack thereof, not the colour of said film. The colour is, unfortunately for my opponent, completely irrelevant.

I mean, it's not like today we have any lack of imagination, let me take you to the film avatar for example, a film which more than deserves to be discussed often in this debate as it and it alone seems proves that colour is better than those films of a B/W only nature.

Take this image below as an example...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/54f536127948.jpg[/atsimg]

Now, would you prefer to be watching this film in Black or white (as shown on the left), or the original (see the right side) with it's pure awesome special effects, fluidity, bright, awe-inspiring colours, something that more than takes realism and imagination to a whole new level? I certainly know which one I’d rather be watching and it certainly isn't the one taking away the true spirit of the film, the colour.

My opponent may once more argue that we're being force fed by having the colour of the film added for us, in turn, taking away our imagination, or that perhaps this film is an exception but that's simply not true. This film and the many like it is the world of movie watching we live in. There have been these films, and they will continue. Reason being, they are better.

I ask you skyfloating, my opponent. Can a B/W film capture the imagination of the many like a film of Avatars nature can? Or the matrix, or inception and the rest like them? Personally, I don't think so, reason being, without it, the film doesn't quite seem as real and without that, the film can, unfortunately, only go so far.

The importance of colour viewing and what it represents...

What could a colour of a film possibly represent you may ask? Well let me tell you, as was mentioned towards the end of my last point, having colour in any one film almost gives the film personally, it gives it meaning, it gives it that extra edge that's needed. Without it, a film almost completely lacks in it's vital entertainment value.

I mean, black and white is, and there's no denying it, dull and boring. Or that's exactly how I feel when I'm watching a B/W film, as has been mentioned by me already; this is not the intention of a film. You're supposed to enjoy it, be taken on a journey, be told a story. Something B/W Lacks. Colour on the other hand represents excitement and possibilities. Without it, a film could've succeeded in a world where colour is impossible, but in one where it is, colour succeeds every time. The B/W represents the past and that's what it will always represent, and that's why it has failed.

Take a look at this image using a similar technique to my previous image:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fcf8ac2d6210.jpg[/atsimg]

The left side of the image unarguably dull, boring and without life. The complete opposite for the right.

The same goes for B/W viewing also. Colour isn't just wanted, it's needed.


In reply to my opponents 3 questions:

Question 1: Why do most people prefer not to colorize "Citizen Kane", Woody Allens "Manhattan", "Casablanca", "Metropolis" or "Lost Horizon"?

Honestly, I don't know. I would assume some would think it would ruin the film as some (yes, less than average ) prefer B/W.

_______

Question 2: Do you agree that reading books leaves more up to the Imagination than watching movies?

Without the distraction of a movie, colour or not, of course books leave more to the imagination than simply watching a movie. It goes witout saying.
_______

Question 3: Do you agree that in rating good movies, script, acting, story are more important than special-effects, gimmicks and frills?

Yes. Does that mean the "Special-effects, gimmicks and frills" should be discarded/seen as by far less than important? No.



Skyfloating, I eagerly await your next post....

4. Directors and Photographers would prefer to make more black/white pictures, but...

We can make color movies since at least 1932 but we went on to make b/w movies until well into the 60s, when studios started pressuring directors into doing color. Today no other than big-studio-dependent directors have any choice or say in the matter. They are forced to do color movies otherwise shooting will not be approved.

But why do so many directors, photographers and art-lovers prefer black/white? It is, in my opinion, for the same reason the fastfood-generation prefers high-cal food of little nutritional value to salads and things that supposedly have "no taste". The instant-gratification crowd is so oversatiated they want to stuff themselves with fatburger and quick-easy entertainment rather than studying nuances and intricacies. As already mentioned, b/w adds depth, detail and dimensions that go unnoticed in color films. They are dreamlike and surreal. Can you imagine watching the 50s "Twilight Zone" in color? The 80s remake of the Series flopped because nobody wanted to see it in color. B/W takes us to a world of light and shadow, the two archetypal forces that govern everything. This is what makes b/w movies Timeless.

Please consider the sense of quality and detail on this one:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/681a0cee9f41.jpeg[/atsimg]

Would you have noticed the detail if it were in color? Probably not.

5. You can choose the flavor you like

When something is black/white something interesting happens to the mind. It subtly pretends its color. So if shown a carpet, the mind can choose whether this carpet is blue or violet or orange or red. But the minute a director imposes color, that choice and the subtle joys that go along with it, are lost.

Please evaluate which of the following left more to your Imagination:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1da78f31615c.jpg[/atsimg]

Do you want to be told what reality is, or do you want to participate in its making?

Experiment

In the previous post I mentioned an Experiment. These are a few of the questions you can ask yourself regarding the movies:

1. During which movie did I feel more relaxed?

2. Which movie will more likely stick to memory for years and years?

3. Which movie had me feeling better about myself and the world?

4. In which movie was I more prone to "get lost in it" (rather than getting easily distracted)?

The answers may surprise you.

___________________________________________________

Responses

Dear Esteemed RisingAgainst, to address the points you raised:

But, my question was simply asking whether you yourself believe films have become more entertaining since the introduction of Colour viewing, not whether those introductions themselves make an actual good or bad movie..

The answer remains the same since many of us cinema-lovers equate entertainment with good, enjoyable, high-quality acting and scripting.

what's the true aspiration of any movie? It's to be entertaining, something black and white for the most part, is not.

See answer above.

Sure it has its benefits but on Average, colour most certainly is the number one favourite of the viewer and the one making the film shown only by going to a cinema or going to buy a DVD in today’s world.

Both have their place. Viewing one as "better" than the other discounts artistic viewpoints and considerations in favor of purely commercial or perceived-commercial tastes. In other words:

"Just because McDonalds sells more, doesnt mean the food is better".

let me take you to the film avatar for example, a film which more than deserves to be discussed often in this debate

As a Rebuttal to my ideas you choose a movie of which I have already conceded that it represents a notable exception? I have already agreed that there are notable exceptions to the rule, exceptions in which color is absolutely central to the movie. Avatar is such a movie.

But you will also note that in other aspects Avatar is not much of a movie. When you remove the color...what is left of the experience? A shallow and predictable story and mediocre acting. It would have been better if all three, the color, the effects and the story were great. When you remove the color and effects and there is still a good movie left you know you have a truly good movie.

Also, not all people enjoy the oversaturation of color as shown here. It can have a "too-muchness" to it that becomes annoying after awhile.

I saw Avatar and I was impressed by it the day I saw it. But now, months later, I hardly remember it. "Village of the Damned", a 50s cheap-budget sci-fi flick on the other hand, I will remember for the rest of my life.

But Why?

Because Avatar was overkill. Like having so many women, you dont remember any of them. Or having so many burgers you dont enjoy them anymore. Again, more is less.

black and white is, and there's no denying it, dull and boring.

That view is shared by many of this generation. I predict that this unappreciative attitude will not serve you well in life. We need more people who are not looking for a quick fix of entertainment but who take the time and patience to appreciate art, to appreciate craftsmanship, to appreciate good filmmaking. "Boring" is a label assigned by you in order not to have to take a closer look and find the magic within something.

of course books leave more to the imagination than simply watching a movie. It goes witout saying.

Precisely. I thank you for this concession this early in the Debate. "Less is more" because it leaves the rest up to the Imagination!

(Do you agree that in rating good movies, script, acting, story are more important than special-effects, gimmicks and frills?)

Yes.

Thanks again for the concession. We`re getting somewhere
Less is indeed more.

Question 1: Would you prefer choosing your carpet or bedsheet color for your home or having a ready-made one delivered to you?

Second Rebuttal

Again, I’d like to begin my next post of this debate by discussing a couple of my opponents most interesting points if I may?:

Precisely. I thank you for this concession this early in the Debate. "Less is more" because it leaves the rest up to the Imagination!

Now, this was in your reply to your question of "Do you agree that reading books leaves more up to the Imagination than watching movies? ", and again, of course it does. But, whether you're watching a movie in B/W or Colour, you're always having the story told to you rather than telling it yourself like you do upon reading a book. Your proclamation that my response to your question meant I was agreeing with your main point of less is more (I'm assuming in regards to film watching as this is what the debate is about) is a simple misunderstanding. My reply merely stated that reading a book leaves more to the imagination than watching a movie. Something that is surely common knowledge is it not?..

So when your reply states that 'less is more because more is left up to the imagination', you don't seem to be making much sense as we're debating whether watching B/W movies are, on average, better than watching colour and your reply was in reply to my statement that imagination is ever more present when reading a book instead of watching a simple movie.

So, in regards to book reading, my answer is again yes. In regards to movie watching, no, sorry, but more is most certainly not less. More is quite obviously..More.

Your next point:

Your original question, in quotes, and some of my reply:

(Do you agree that in rating good movies, script, acting, story are more important than special-effects, gimmicks and frills?)

Yes.

Your reply to the above:

Thanks again for the concession. We`re getting somewhere

Less is indeed more.

Skyfloating, I'm afraid to say you may have made a mistake once more....You "accidentally" left out the rest of what I said in your quoted text.

Don't worry, here it is....

Yes. Does that mean the "Special-effects, gimmicks and frills" should be discarded/seen as by far less than important? No.

You see, the point I'm trying to make is yes, I agree with you when you ask, do I agree that when rating "good movies, script, acting, story are more important than special-effects, gimmicks and frills", but that in no way means that those same special effects, gimmicks and frills as you put them are much less important or shouldn't be considered at all. The truth is, they are massively important and even you yourself must agree with this as you say this in your post (in reply to avatar)......

When you remove the color...what is left of the experience? A shallow and predictable story and mediocre acting.

But you also go onto say this...

I saw Avatar and I was impressed by it the day I saw it.

So, what did it for you upon watching if it wasn't the colour, the "predictable story" or the "mediocre acting?" It seems as though not much is left other than those special effects, gimmicks and frills from where I am but if I've misunderstood, please do enlighten me but it certainly seems as though this is what you're saying..

Now, upon continuing with the debate, I have to admit, reading your first point of your most recent post, it seems to beautifully tie in and link with my next point also.


The Evolution of movie colour...

You see, I agree with you that B/W works, I really do, and of course some are going to continue to use B/W from its first appearance to this day. You can't expect as of right now, everyone to blindly pick either B/W or colour as both have their benefits (see my opening post).

But right now, I'm not here to discuss those benefits anymore, it would be pointless instead I'm going to explain why, how, it's sparsely used, and might I add, rightly so.

You see, I have to go back to a previous point once more which discussing what the colour of any one film actually represents, and again, once more, I have to tell you that B/W represents nothing but the past, a time where technology could only take you so far, a time where things were simple, yes, but a time we no longer live in. It's a time we have evolved away from, thankfully.

So skyfloating, I say to you, The times have changed and you must change with them.

That being so, and contrary to what you say, B/W IS still a choice, you even showed this as an example in your previous post citing sin city, a modern day B/W movie, but you see, the reason we have rarities like sin city for example, and it is a rarity, is because after all and once more I state, the true point of any movie is entertainment. If a movie is no longer entertaining it simply won't be watched which is clearly the opposite of what the one making the film would want. More viewers equals more money after all.

Just look at the 1970's when blood and gore started featuring more and more, you see, people enjoyed it, they wanted to continue watching as morbid as it may sound, they wanted to see it. That being so, now look at today's world. It’s more than prominent with films such as the SAW series (and evolving still with) or various other films which adopt this nature. Reason this has happened is blatantly obvious, it's the viewer’s choice. That's why B/W has failed as such, the viewers just don't want to go and see one anymore, that's not to say there's anything wrong with it, but it's a representation of the past. Can you just imagine going to a cinema today and walking into a packed seating area all for nothing but a B/W movie, I can't..

Colour is what is wanted, and colour is what the viewer now has. I mean, in all honesty, can you ever imagine a world without colour viewing now? No, simply no. It’s revolutionary; it's a representation of modern times, it’s the present and it's the future. B/W very much so fills in the "past" slot and the past it is.

Realistics...

Very much so like my above argument, I've touched ever so slightly on this one, but up until now, not discussed it as much as I would have liked, but again, very much like the above argument, your comments from your post gave me motivation to do so..

As a Rebuttal to my ideas you choose a movie of which I have already conceded that it represents a notable exception? I have already agreed that there are notable exceptions to the rule, exceptions in which color is absolutely central to the movie. Avatar is such a movie.

Now, that's a very fair point indeed, the reason I cited avatar in the first place was because It was a blistering sea of vast colours and seemingly fitting in with my points beautifully, but to adhere to what you say above, I'm more than happy to chose something else my for next point, actually, instead, why not look at not just a single movie, why not a whole type of movies. Maybe the ‘war genre’ perhaps?

You see, this is a perfect example of what I want to say as you can go and watch any war movie in B/W, and there are many of them, and in today's colourful world also they are still prominent, most notably Saving Private Ryan. Now, it's no word of a lie that if you take away the colour of said film you've now taken away a vital part of what makes the film what it really was, reasoning for this is because taking the colour away is like taking away the suspense or taking away the shock value that makes a film of this type so successful. Even taking away the spirit and life of the film...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/3b57cc830aca.jpg[/atsimg]

Sure, you can still have a good B/W war movie, but nothing captivates the attention of the viewer like one in colour. Seeing the flames and explosions in all their glory, the gore which is so essential to the shock value, the true expression of fear on ones face. The B/W is simply lifeless, boring, the impact of the film is no longer so great, it's bland and also unattractive. It just doesn't suit. Colour makes it real which in turn makes it by far more entertaining for all.

Can B/W work anymore at all?...

Yes. Will it be prominently featured in the future, No.

Listen, I'm really not going to sit here and try to convince you that B/W can't work at all anymore because we all know that to be false, but can it work better than colour in most instances, No.

Action is one such example for this, for an action film to succeed, colour is a vital key, without it, again I proclaim the film becomes more boring and associated with the seriousness of the past. Like I said in my previous argument, with the colour comes a sea of realism that's essential to success. Without it, blandness ensues.

Again though, that's not to say it can't work at all, horror being a good example of this, maybe even crime drama also. But as I must keep stating, it doesn't matter if you can find a couple of examples of it working, in the long run and on average, colour is in the criteria of what one wants from a movie. Times have changed with movies, and public preferences have also changed to suit as such.


In reply to your Socratic question:

Question 1: Would you prefer choosing your carpet or bedsheet color for your home or having a ready-made one delivered to you?

Of course I would rather choose it myself.

SOCRATIC QUESTIONS:

What would be the greatest B/W and colour movie you've had the privilege to see? (To clarify, please state what is, in your opinion, the best film of B/W and the best film in colour)

_____________________


What would be your best method of literally "rating" a movie on how good or bad it is??



Again Skyfloating, I await your next post in excitement..

6. Directors Pick

Despite having made color films or having the option of making color films, these are some brilliant directors of past Generations who chose to make black/white movies for artistic reasons:

Alfred Hitchcock
Ingmar Bergman
David Lynch
Federico Fellini
Billy Wilder
Akira Kurosawa
Woody Allen
Steven Spielberg
The Cohen Brothers

(among hundreds of others).

If, as my Debate opponent says, b/w is so dull and uninspiring, many of the most brilliant directors of all time would not have chosen it over easily available color.

The Beatles "A Hard Days Night" was a huge success, forever remembered, whereas the Beatles movie "Help" which was full of color and effects, kind of flopped and is almost forgotten today. If it were true what my Debate Opponent says, this would not have been the case.

In TIME Magazines ALL-TIME-100-MOVIES there are a disproportionate amount of b/w movies athough many million more color movies have been made. That is no coincidence! If they were as boring and dull as my opponent says, why did so many make the ALL-TIME Top 100?

In fact, as you can see on the ranking-pages, the Top 10 feature 7 black and white movies, some of them shot in color-decades (70s, 80s)!

Regardless of whether the casual viewer wants their cinematic fast-food, the film-experts and critics have spoken. And they say black/white is better.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/46451bd4ac28.jpg[/atsimg]

Since my opponent spent his entire last post and parts of the post before last arguing that b/w movies are boring I asked that this section be considered a rebuttal of that.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Responses

But, whether you're watching a movie in B/W or Colour, you're always having the story told to you rather than telling it yourself like you do upon reading a book.

When reading a book you are not telling yourself a story. The author is telling the story. Only when you write the book yourself, are you telling the story. Thats where Imagination is trained the most. Thats the least lazy position. Here's a scale from active and wakeful to inactive and untrained Imagination:

Writing "The Wizard of Oz"
Reading "The Wizard of Oz"
Watching "The Wizard of Oz" in Black/White
Watching "The Wizard of Oz" in Color

With each consecuitve step on the scale, less Imagination is required from you. Too much of tis obviously dulls the mind. A dull mind then things "black and white films are dull". As we are, so we see the world.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/01cd1cfc7315.jpg[/atsimg]

It seems as though not much is left other than those special effects, gimmicks and frills from where I am but if I've misunderstood, please do enlighten me but it certainly seems as though this is what you're saying..

Yes. If you want to know whether a movie is really good or not, strip it off special fx and color. If its STILL good, then add the color back and you have a great movie. Without color you see a movie unmasked, you see the script and the acting for what it is.

Let me explain: Back before Television, in Shaekespears day, some performances lived from the awesome presence, charisma and personality of the actors. And some performances had to be spiced up with better lighting, better dress, better color - in order to mask mediocre performance. The same applies to color and special effects. If something is good it doesnt matter whether there are effects or not. If something is good it doesnt matter what it cost or didnt cost to make it. It is certainly true that low-budget movies require more effort, better acting, better scripts because nothing can be masked by effects and mega-filmsets.

More viewers equals more money after all.

Throughout this Debate you have based your entire argumentation on "more viewers = better on average". However, more viewers does not equal better. Just because the majority of people prefer blood and guts to romance and drama it does not make blood and guts "better". Just because the majority prefers McDonalds to French Cuisine, it does not make McDonalds "better". More convenient, yes. More for the lazy, yes. But by no means better. If you prefer to get High with Cocaine instead of working out in the Gym, does that mean that Cocaine is "better" for you than working out? I dare say it isnt.

why not a whole type of movies. Maybe the ‘war genre’ perhaps?

Seeing the flames and explosions in all their glory, the gore which is so essential to the shock value, the true expression of fear on ones face.

You also said that taking away the color in a war movie takes away the "shock effect" and the "blood and gore". To which I ask: Why does a war movie need "shock effect" and gore? What about characterization, dialogue, drama, romance, adventure, action?

From this Debate I get the sense that for you entertainment is everything that is shocking, bloody or flashing. But there are other forms of entertainment. And many of us actually enjoy b/w war movies. Especially the ones that show WWII.

In reply to my question whether you would rather choose a color yourself, you answered:

Of course I would rather choose it myself.

I will take this as the third concession of the Debate. If you prefer to choose color yourself rather than having it forced upon you, you agree with fans of b/w movies who would rather imagine what color things are themselves.

What would be the greatest B/W and colour movie you've had the privilege to see? (To clarify, please state what is, in your opinion, the best film of B/W and the best film in colour)

Best film in b/w is Casablanca, best film in color is Groundhog Day.

Best sci-fi b/w is Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Best sci-fi color is The Matrix.

In no way do I consider one "better" than the other, just different. B/W only becomes better in a perceptual and artistic context because it requires more imagination and sophistication of the viewer.

Question 1: Do you agree that in terms of pictures and movies , what is "better" is a matter of taste?

Question 2: Which horror movie do you think was more shocking: "Night of the Living Dead" (the 60s version) or either "The Fog" (recent version)? (If you havent seen one or either, which one do you suspect to be better in shock-value)

Question 3: What is generally more important to you in life, quality or quantity?

Question 4: Do all Asians pretty much look the same to you, or do you tend to notice the differences between say Japanese, Koreans and Chinese faces? (is your way of seeing more generalized or do you notice details)

Question 5: Would you say boredom is a subjective inner state, or something caused by an outside thing?

Looking forward to your response...

Third Rebuttal

Once more, addressing some of my opponents most interesting points is my choice for opening:

When reading a book you are not telling yourself a story. The author is telling the story. Only when you write the book yourself, are you telling the story. Thats where Imagination is trained the most. Thats the least lazy position.

Yes, the author is the one originally telling the story to you; my original point was in regards to imagination. You see, yes, the author can give you the story, the tools to work with so to speak, but the one telling it is..you! And you are the one re-enacting out the story in your mind. Yes, you may be given the colours of any one "thing" in that story, but you are the one who is deciding what it looks like, the tone of it, everything. You are the one whom chooses what’s going on (to a degree admittedly) but in terms of a movie, B/W or colour, the story is always being given to you.

Throughout this Debate you have based your entire argumentation on "more viewers = better on average". However, more viewers does not equal better. Just because the majority of people prefer blood and guts to romance and drama it does not make blood and guts "better". Just because the majority prefers McDonalds to French Cuisine, it does not make McDonalds "better". More convenient, yes. More for the lazy, yes. But by no means better. If you prefer to get High with Cocaine instead of working out in the Gym, does that mean that Cocaine is "better" for you than working out? I dare say it isnt.

I disagree. This will be my main next point however, but I've not tried to base my entire argument on a single truth - more viewers = viewer’s choice why? = favourite = Why is it favoured? Because it's simply better. My whole argument throughout this debate has not been on this at all. It's a plausible argument but not my sooe, deciding one

When mentioned, It's always for a very good reason.

Since my opponent spent his entire last post and parts of the post before last arguing that b/w movies are boring I asked that this section be considered a rebuttal of that.

Yes, but Sky, you spend the majority of your last post, simply trying to pick mine apart and the one before that primarily on imagination (something I showed to be untrue). I feel that I should also heavily address a key point worth making here once more, which is the entertainment value of B/W is and always has lacked which is a contradiction of a films purpose, again, this is why you are seeing it mentioned, because it's simple truths. Not that all B/W films are boring, but on average, they most certainly are boring, dull and lacking in life especially when being compared to it's superior colourful version.

In reply to my question whether you would rather choose a color yourself, you answered:

Of course I would rather choose it myself.

Yes, but here was your question: Question 1: "Would you prefer choosing your carpet or bed sheet colour for your home or having a ready-made one delivered to you?" Again, you seem to ask an unrelated question and claim it's very much related to the argument, and once again, this is not the case. I know you seem to be doing this because you said this after my response: "I will take this as the third concession of the Debate. If you prefer to choose colour yourself rather than having it forced upon you, you agree with fans of b/w movies who would rather imagine what colour things are themselves. "

But no, you seem to be forgetting something here, the differences between the 2 are incredibly vast and contrasting. If you dislike the colour of a movie, I doubt one would be disheartened by it, in fact, it's what it is and you move on. Simple. If you disagree with or dislike a bed sheet or carpet colour for example, who reading here wouldn't complain/show discontent about it? Reason being, the colour of said film is showing those real life qualities I agued previously. The latter is on the contrary.

The viewer decides...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/7b32c6bc90e2.gif[/atsimg]


For this point of my argument I'm not simply going to talk about why colour viewing is better or anything like that (I've said it all before already), instead, I'm going to refer to something which says it for me it seems. Simply put, here's a list of movies, as voted for by millions, showcasing the best movies ever made. This is a sort of "marker" in pursuit of proving the viewer’s choice (the viewer’s choice again equalling favourites and again why are they favoured you ask? Because they are simply better) and also proving that colour is certainly the way forward meaning B/W to be a firm step backwards.

Please see this link of the top movies as voted for by movie fans everywhere*originally brought to my attention by a good friend..*

Now, do you wish to have a guess how many B/W movies were in the top 20 for example (this being a list of 250 but 20 seems a fair marker for now)? The answer is a mere 3, obviously meaning 17 were in colour which as most will note, is quite a bit higher than mere average.

The reason it's so high (and there's no denying that the viewer’s choice is colour as it's everywhere for you, me and the readers of this debate to see) is because it's favoured heavily, sure you can state that B/W is still used and I agree it is and should be as it has it's benefits, but on the whole it's not favoured by the common watcher of a movie in today's world. In the past yes, but not anymore - as I said to you previously in this debate, the times have changed and we must change with them. Movies have certainly changed, people’s views and preferences have also.

Now, which movies are voted to be not the best, but the most successful, in other words, most viewed of all time as well as most money out of curiosity?

Please see this link of the most successful movies of all time

Not a single B/W here and something else you'll notice, the more modern day films are nearer the top (the ones in the year 2000+ at least), something I mentioned in a previous argument which is the evolution of cinema, something that's more than certainly occurring and clearly shown for all to see. Because of this evolution, the "olden films", the ones in B/W, are no longer seen as being as "good" as they once were, or as entertaining etc., instead the modern films replace them and in turn replace them in the category of what is seen as a "good film."

There's no denying the modern, colourful and evolved ones are being seen by millions and millions of viewers. Reason: they are watching "good films"

Sure, an argument on your case could be that movie and TV watching wasn't as prominent during the generations of B/W as it is now or because now, business in the cinema world is massive compared to what it was then, but I say, that even if today, those same films were brought out for the first time, they would fail dramatically. Actually no, I don’t just say, I challenge this...

Also, I had a quick look at the link you provided to back up your argument and it seems to, if anything, agree with my side of the argument than yours also. Here is what I mean exactly..

please see this link. :wow

The comments made by those viewing the list, a list you used to back up your argument, massively disagree with it themselves. It seems as the viewer once more disagrees with your side of the argument.

In reply to your Socratic questions.

Question 1: Do you agree that in terms of pictures and movies , what is "better" is a matter of taste?

Yes I do, which is why I feel strongly about this debate as it's my personal opinion, the personal taste of the many (something I've purposefully kept bringing up) is in favour of the "colour viewing seeking" individual.

__________________

Question 2: Which horror movie do you think was more shocking: "Night of the Living Dead" (the 60s version) or either "The Fog" (recent version)? (If you havent seen one or either, which one do you suspect to be better in shock-value)

Well, sadly I haven't seen either (Unfortunately, I'm too young for them both. ) and in my aim of being completely honest, I'm assume the 60's version would certainly be better. Reason being, horror in the "olden days" was generally better and/or scarier I’ve always thought. Yes, imagination is why.

__________________

Question 3: What is generally more important to you in life, quality or quantity?

Quality..

__________________

Question 4: Do all Asians pretty much look the same to you, or do you tend to notice the differences between say Japanese, Koreans and Chinese faces? (is your way of seeing more generalized or do you notice details)

In all honesty, yes, but the same question can be asked with Europeans, Africans, the Americas....

__________________

Question 5: Would you say boredom is a subjective inner state, or something caused by an outside thing?

In my most honest opinion (and being vague really isn't my intention) but I'd have to say it's most certainly both.


SOCRATIC QUESTIONS

Do you honestly think a B/W film can compete in today’s modern world of movie watching and actually compete well? If so, why?

__________________

Can you explain to me how entertainment wise, a B/W film could compete with colour despite my statement B/W is lifeless and dull looking?

__________________

Can you honestly tell all those reading that B/W should be the main focus of cinema and movie watchers today?



I await your closing statement in excitement....

Final Rebuttal

but in terms of a movie, B/W or colour, the story is always being given to you.

Yes, yes. And I think all readers understand my point that in b/w the colors are not given and that that means you can choose yourself.

they most certainly are boring, dull and lacking in life especially when being compared to it's superior colourful version.

You keep repeating they are boring and I keep repeating that I see things more differentiated: For a story and acting b/w is good because you FOCUS MORE ON THOSE ASPECTS OF THE MOVIE. I think this has been made abundantly clear.

Now, which movies are voted to be not the best, but the most successful, in other words, most viewed of all time as well as most money out of curiosity?

You are repeating the same thing again "Success = Better". Ive already debunked that. McDonalds may be succesful, but its nutritional value is questionable.

The comments made by those viewing the list, a list you used to back up your argument, massively disagree with it themselves. It seems as the viewer once more disagrees with your side of the argument.

We`ve already been through this. The casual viewer sees it different than the critic or expert. Why? Because he views casually. The director and critic does not view casually, he VIEWS PROFESSIONALLY!. And thats why he chooses b/w over color. And since you have conceded that you indeed prefer QUALITY to Quantity, I recommend you view a few of the old b/w films. You are fairly young Im sure you havent seen too many. Watch them before passing Judgement.

You also said that Asians all look "pretty much the same" to you and that the same can be said for Europeans, Africans, etc. Allow me to explain why I bring this up:

If your eye is not trained at looking for something, you dont notice it. If you are distracted by color, you dont notice other aspects of a film. If you are not a director or film critic, there are many things you, as a casual viewer, dont notice.

Finally, your agreement that what is "better" is a matter of taste directly contradicts what you set out to argue namely that color is better.. I´ll take this as the final Debate Concession - thank you!

Do you honestly think a B/W film can compete in today’s modern world of movie watching and actually compete well? If so, why?

No I dont. We live in times where quick-gratification and frills are more important than depth and prolonged-attention-span. Its ADHD Culture all the way. Im reminded of the movie "Idiocracy".

Can you explain to me how entertainment wise, a B/W film could compete with colour despite my statement B/W is lifeless and dull looking?

Box office-wise it cant. But we`ve already mentioned how more popular does not mean of higher quality or better. Hitler was the most popular politician in the 1930s....but that didnt mean he is "good".

Can you honestly tell all those reading that B/W should be the main focus of cinema and movie watchers today?

No. And I never intended to say that. I only intended to outline how b/w movies have many benefits hidden to the casual viewer of today. And I believe I have succeeded in showing that.

In Closing...

In closing I would like to say that its been a fun experience. Prior to this debate I had never before considered the merits of b/w movies vs. colour movies. The topic forced me to take a look at things I had not been aware of. I must say that it was a difficult side to Debate but Im richer for it. My opponent also really kept me on my toes. Rising Against was a very tough draw for the 1st Round.

Lets look at the original statement:

On average, black and white movies are better than movies in color.

I think that if we look at this without BS, pretense and independent of the positions we were assigned, I think we can say that "better" in this sense is a completely subjective term and does not really apply.

"Better" in what sense? My opponent has shown that color is Better for $ales and Revenue. I have shown that b/w is better for noticing details such as the actors performance and textures, better for the Imagination, better for Relaxation, better for highlighting the script rather than frills, etc.

So what is "better" really is a matter of interpretation, "better for what?" being the main question.

I am pretty sure that most readers of today prefer color movies. But something nice happened during the Debate. I received a Private Message from someone who was following the Debate - because she was a real fan of b/w movies! And she did say that the points raised in this Debate were the reasons she loved b/w movies. She even went as far as suggesting a color movie that may have been better in b/w. It seems to me that color is good for action, adventure, cartoon, sci-fi, fantasy and b/w is good for story, crime, drama, dialog-movie, etc. That private message made my day because it showed me there are people out there who really care about this as an issue of Debate.

If this Debate inspired you to look at a few Classics of Golden Days, I am happy.

All the Best,

Skyfloating

My Closing Statement

My opponent’s previous points of interest:

You keep repeating they are boring and I keep repeating that I see things more differentiated: For a story and acting b/w is good because you FOCUS MORE ON THOSE ASPECTS OF THE MOVIE. I think this has been made abundantly clear.

Well, let me explain once more why I disagree with what you’re saying if I may....

Now, in most instances, the acting in black and white is as far as I have seen (and I have seen them and I’ll explain and discuss this more in a moment) is woeful and laughable. Today, it's much more improved and exciting as well as overall (which is in regards to the entire movie - not just acting) just better in terms of scrip writing and realistics. B/W is simply a bland and un-interesting experience, an affect not as often seen in colour. And that's a key point, It's not always better but on the whole, most certainly.

That's why I repeat what I’m repeating... because B/W is boring, especially to someone who grew up on colour viewing. Ok, you may disagree but when it is compared to colour it most certainly is a boring experience and that’s to most people today, which is what this debate is about. If some like it, then they are to be sadly out done by the many who like the counterpart. Sad but true, but it’s a simple fact and a fact which seems to back up my claim in this debate.

You are repeating the same thing again "Success = Better". Ive already debunked that. McDonalds may be succesful, but its nutritional value is questionable.

Yes, my friend, and you continue to focus on the “imagination” argument, one which I have debunked also as it’s not the colour of a film which is affecting ones imagination, the problem lies in the hands of the film itself. Turning the movie off and perhaps reading a book shall be the solution to such a problem, but until that or a similar solution shall occur, the problem is very much so present..Not to forget un-deniable.

We`ve already been through this. The casual viewer sees it different than the critic or expert. Why? Because he views casually. The director and critic does not view casually, he VIEWS PROFESSIONALLY!. And thats why he chooses b/w over color. And since you have conceded that you indeed prefer QUALITY to Quantity, I recommend you view a few of the old b/w films. You are fairly young Im sure you havent seen too many. Watch them before passing Judgement.

Yes, I thank you for pointing this out because you are correct, the casual viewer doesn't view it in the professional sense, the casual viewer rightly views it.. Casually. Now, that's why we see the films of today in the format they're placed in, a viewer doesn't want to think about money when watching, he doesn't want to think about detail, he doesn't want to think at all. What one seeks from a simple movie is enjoyment and entertainment, those 2 things are of the utmost importance and what most would need to consider whether a movie is good or not. That's the bottom line and that's the debate we have also been given.

The odd professional may choose B/W over colour yes, this is undeniable, but the casual viewer does not. The casual viewer is what's important, and he chooses colour not B/W. Why does he choose them, because they are overall, much better than its counterpart as he gets what he seeks.

I thank you for pointing out as you have seemingly just proved my argument correct.

Now again, much like previous replies to my reply of your Socratic questions, you take it in the context of the debate when I have given it in it's true context of real life (not to forget you gave no indication it as asked in regards to watching a movie), this again, like the previous times, means it's being proposed as a fact or a confession of me in the debate when no such thing occurs.

After all, you simply asked, do I prefer Quality over Quantity, and I answered Quality. Now I ask (rhetorically of course, as this is a closing statement) who amongst us, my opponent, judges and readers alike, wouldn't choose quality when faced with such a question? I'd hazard a guess that it would be very few of you, if any of you at all.

Anyway, I won't dwell on this much, I shall move onto your next point and yes, you are correct, admittedly I am quite young, which could put me at somewhat of a disadvantage at seeing your point, I'm open to admit this. Whether it has actually hindered my thoughts on your side of the argument, well, here is where I start to disagree.

You see, age IS a factor, but the one bearing the age is whom truly decides how much of a factor it really is, so just because someone is young, that doesn't mean they couldn’t be able to understand your POV. It also doesn't mean I will blindly pass a false judgement. It doesn’t even mean I haven't had the privilege to see my fair share of B/W movies in the past, and if this is what you have assumed, I can assure you, this is incorrect.

You see, I have seen them myself, before participating in this debate, or even finding out the subject. BUT, and first off, I’m not debating people shouldn’t watch them here, I've actually shown otherwise. Instead, I'm debating they aren't as "good" as colour, something I feel I very much so have shown and also know this because like I've mentioned, I have had my experience of them to understand that they are in no way a better movie than the ones of today, or even the ones made shortly after the introduction of Colour and the reason I believe this is because of what I have shown in this debate, they lack realistics, they lack life, they lack the vital key of any film, the true entertainment value.

These reasons (and more) are why B/W is rightly second best today.

No. And I never intended to say that. I only intended to outline how b/w movies have many benefits hidden to the casual viewer of today. And I believe I have succeeded in showing that.

I agree, very much so in fact. Whether you have shown they are on average better than colour which was the topic for debate.. well, I'm not so sure at all. That's not to say, you haven't debated brilliantly, but I just strongly feel colour is in fact better and I feel I have shown this also. B/W simply can't come close to comparing.

Anyway, I won't spend/waste this entire post telling you something I’ve already told you, also in regards to the readers and my opponent, there's just no point to it, I already feel as I’ve given you everything you need to understand my POV and disagree with my opponents.

Already, I've given you what you need to see to believe that viewing colour over B/W is more beneficial to most people, why the imagination theory is heavily flawed as it's very clearly not the colour of a film which is the issue, why colour viewing is more realistic and adds to the excitement of film watching (which is the point of it after all), and why B/W is rightly seen as second best and a representation of the past.

Whether you agree with me or not, I feel I have shown this and whatever the outcome of this debate I have to admit, I had fun, I really have.

I thank you again the organisers of this debate, the readers and of course my opponent Skyfloating...

You fought brilliantly.

Whatever the outcome of the judges, I'm very grateful for all of you taking the time to read and this was a very enjoyable experience for me..

Skyfloating has won and will advance to Round 2.

Judges comments:

Both debaters showed a lot of skill, but made crucial mistakes as well. Both sides seemed to conceede too much and
made their disagreements a bit too nuanced. Both at times appeared to be contradicting themselves, evading issues,
and twisting eachother's arguments, to varying degrees- fair play but not very effective for either side this time.
I also felt like neither side actually said very much in all of that text.

The experiment I refused to do. I already know how I feel about the topic. The real issue is if either contender has
the rhetorical skill to make a dent in the things I already think I know. I mention that because...
The colored and decolored screen shots were almost all counter-productive to the side that presented them.
Wizard of Oz seemed like it had gained something from being altered, but not overwhelmingly so.
Saving Private Ryan at first looked like it had lost something, but after reading the passage below the photo and
taking a second look it did seem like the scene in that clip actually may have been better in Black and White, even
though I could see how color helped the movie overall.
The one from Avatar was the most counter-productive. It actually got me thinking that I had missed the importance
of several scenes that, in striking color, appear to have been included for no other reason than to show off what
the computer can do.

So not only were there parts of the debate where each participant failed to influence me, but there were parts
where they actually influenced be against their assigned positions.

This was a rare case when I wish there had been more unpacking of the topic rather than less. The two sides
basically separated instead of arguing their way to some middle ground on a standard of measurement and applying
that to their own positions and eachothers. Skyfloating seemed to do more work in that direction, while Rising
Against seemed to stay on his side of the line just talking in circles around his own statements.

Skyfloating seemed to have a slight edge in terms of control over the debate. He was on the offensive with his
rebuttals and Socratic Questions, he brought more of the topic out for examination, and his overall position seemed
clearer, but it wouldn't have taken much to snatch that away from him. This may be reaching a bit, but it kind of
felt like Skyfloating tried to coast through the first round and Rising Against was too nervous to hit hard and stop
him.

Winner: Skyfloating.