Audio vs Visual Effects for Movies
Participant that receives the most points from the voters is declared a winner.
The voting will end in:
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Audio effects: music, generated sounds, voice acting, etc
Visual effects: CGI, animation, camera angle, etc
Burden of proof is shared
Pro: audio is more crucial to master in a movie than visual
Con: Visual is more crucial to master in a movie than audio
Framework: for entertainment, keeping audience engaged, establishing mood/themes, etc.
Since Pro has no opportunity to present any rebuttal to any new argument I might present in R4, even though Pro has not forbidden it [a tactical error, I believe], not to mention that Pro has forfeited R4 [I regret], I will not offer new argument, but will only present rebuttal, defense, and conclusion.
X Defense: My [Con] R1, R2, R3 Arguments
X.a R1 saw argument that the movie industry chronology was clearly visually-oriented. The first movies were silent. We still call then “silent movies,” retaining the full impact of “movies” meaning: Moving pictures.
X.b R2 saw argument that physiologically, vision is the most crucial-to-master skill among our five human senses. We learned that, of all five human senses, humans depend largely on vision, with 80% of our sensory input coming from our eyes, alone, and, that of the entire structure of the human brain, the visual cortex, takes up the greatest quantity of brain tissue.
X.c R3 further expanded on R2’s argument, and introduced the final argument, the “pas de deux” of the 2001: A Space Odyssey Clip
X.c.1 Let’s look at the clip again [link above]; this time, with the audio engaged. What distinguishes the two combative ape groups? The aggressor group wields bones as weapons. Not many animals use fabricated, or as-found tools, and the few that do use them primarily as utensils; food-related. These apes display an entirely different category of tool use: a weapon.
X.c.2 The point of this review is that even with the audio track, the audio, alone will not convey the visual impact of either using tools, nor their use as weapons. Only the visual effect gives you that information. The tool use is clearly effective; the weaponless group withdraws. The audio track does not help convey this outcome. In fact, the audio track is merely ape vocalizing; not even a human language. Further, the audio track [of the clip’s truncation] is void of music. Strauss is not heard until the scene shift to thepas de deux.
XI Defense: My R1, R2, R3 Rebuttals
XI.a R1, Pro: Audio adds versatility. This was effectively rebutted in my R1, II.
XI.b R2, Pro: Defense of my R1 Chronology. This was effectively rebutted in my R2, IV.
XI.c R3, Pro: “eye candy.” This was effectively rebutted in my 3, VII.
XI.c.1 My rebuttal against Pro highlighted that, indeed, CGI amounts to “eye candy.” However, since Pro included CGI as an element of visual effects by definition, the use of eye candy, far from a negation as Pro attempted to make it, CGI is a valid, if effect-enhancing medium that is difficult to match by any other visual effect, or, frankly, an audio effect. Not to mention that audio, as well, in our modern age, has ear candy that is not produced by microphone nor audio tape. Pro was anxious to shy away from this fact.
XII Rebuttal: Pro R4
XII.a As there was no Pro R4 by forfeit, there is no further Pro argument to rebut.
Does sound effect really have a point of view? If it really did, shouldn’t PoV be called something else? Do you see how visually oriented we really are?
Con has successfully rebutted Pro’s arguments, and has demonstrated sufficient evidence by R1, I movie industry chronology, R2, III vision physiology, R3, V vision mastery and VIII “pas de deux”to convince that the Resolution is false; that visual effects are the more critical mastery in movies. So, vote for Con, and let’s go see a movie Friday night.