Audio vs Visual Effects for Movies
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 2 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 4
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- 5,000
- Voting period
- Two months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
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.
Conclusion
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.
R1 - Pro starts out disappointingly apologising for having no time, but there is no reason for anyone to take this in to consideration. He does however put forth a good short argument for why visual effects are more important, and it mostly resonates.
Con - Con responds with a history lesson in to how a motion picture was developed first. And then provides an explanation in to why visual effects are more important and after reading his argument I am left with an idea in my head that you can have a film without music, but can't so well have a film without visuals. For me Con may have edged ahead at this point. Con also produces copious amounts of sources which suggest Con has pledged a lot of time and effort in to research, whilst Pro was too busy doing other things.
R2 - Pro opens up round 2 in much more determined fashion than round 1 and accuses Con of offering a red herring, and Pro continues to give a history lesson of his own, complete with research and sources. Pro continues to accuse Con of producing a fallacious argument and offering no support for his opinion, but so far all we have really is the opinion of Pro versus the opinion of Con. Pro does make a very good point though which I hope Con picks up on "However, realize that landscapes and settings cannot give expressions, and the sound is still important for establishing the theme and mood.". I personally am looking for Con to point out that before you can have music to describe the mood in a scene when no-one is present, you do still first require the visual effects of the countryside scenery.
Con - Con opens up the next round making a statement which I believe to be true. "III.a The “movies,” by name and definition, are primarily a visual experience, in spite of adding a synchronized audio track. To emphasize the crucial importance of vision, as opposed to hearing, the scientific application of our typical human five senses has determined that of all five senses, when all five senses are functional, vision conveys 80% of our total sensory perception,[1]. leaving merely 20% to be shared by hearing, and the other three.". Due to some research I done recently I did find from just a simple google search that it is believed that we remember visual effects most. Con then goes on to criticise and accuse Pro of shifting goalposts. But Pros argument is there in black and white for all to read and voters can see whether or not he is shifting goalposts or not, and it would appear Pro is simply expanding upon what he has already written. One cannot expect him to simply repeat over and over his round 1 argument. Having said all this, I think Con wins a key argument here by pointing out that Pro is wrong about a crucial fact, and perhaps even wrong about what his own source says " the source, itself, declares visual effects, as Pro re-defines them, to have begun in 1895, not the 1920s.". I will have to keep an eye on what Pro responds with in later rounds. I am not actually going to read the source as a debate has a certain amount of characters and what is written in the source is outside of the debate. Con really should have brought the quote to the table so that everything is on the debate table and not relying on external sources. But certainly, if this is not adequately challenged by Pro then this is a key argument.. Con then does go on to challenge Pros landscape example, and does not respond with the response I was looking for, he instead responds with the someone elses opinion, which is neither here nor there.
R3 - Pro opens round 3 with an admission that he has slightly misinterpreted con's argument, and at this point it seems to be slipping away ever so slightly. Though he does still insist that his argument holds. He does not rebute Cons accusations of getting crucial facts wrong, and for me, this is crucial. Instead he offers a lot of conjecture and then announces once again "Anyways, sorry about short round, little time little time.".
Con - Con opens round 3 pretty much repeating his earlier round 2 opening. "when all five senses are functional, vision conveys 80% of our total sensory perception.[2]"... Con then continues to just be going through the motions, and gives some examples regarding apes and I am left wondering exactly what type of movie we are referring to here "the scene is the first ape hurling his weapon, the bone, into the air, twisting and turning up, and up, then down,", but seriously, he gives an overall good analysis in to the importance of visual effects. I am suspecting this debate is now fizzling out, and Pro has still yet to respond to the "fact" he was accused of being wrong about.
R4 - And, on top of not responding to his alleged factual error, and two rounds of apologising for bad time keeping, Pro forfeits
Con - The only way now that Con can lose this debate is if he poops in his pie. And he plays safe not offering any new arguments and simply presenting why he thinks he has won. - Con
R1:
Pro concisely states that audio allows movies to evoke emotion, and calls for his side to claim all music, spoken words, and even silence (a bit of a stretch, as predictably con brings up silent films which were that way not by choice and therefore not as an act of mastery). He attacks one aspect of visual effects that of CGI for only being able to create scenery not characters. He provides a source showing how music can reshape scenes. And declares that music composers are more famous than anyone on the visual side of movies.
Con gives a history lesson, but makes a good point within it about the value in storytelling the visual side gives, and that silent films came before synchronized soundtracks. He does an appeal to the very name of movies (implicitly pointing out they are named for and draw an audience from the visuals, as opposed to soundies, or feelies if you've read Brave New World).
Con rebuts pro's evidence, as the visuals remain the primary focus in the altered scenes; before attacking the scenes for not being masterfully done on the visual side so as to allow quick changes to soundtracks to redefine them. He points out that non-verbal communication accounts for most communication, and masterful actors convey meaning even without words.
R2:
Pro calls cons argument just a red herring, and that since visual effects include CGI we should dismiss any visual effects innovated from before the 1980s (I could be misreading that, but I still don't care for the history lesson argument, particularly not this strange attempt at moving of the goalposts). He does however make a good point against con's appeal to tradition of first equalling more important (which I never bought anyways). And more talk of computer animation as if that was the only visual effect, when at this point con has already used facial expressions from actors which pre-refutes this idea that the only visual effects are computer generated. He then defends his previous evidence, while admitting they were badly acted, because "landscapes and settings cannot give expressions."
He finally ends with evidence of a Star Wars scene without music, but without the evidence of it with music I am left to wonder as to the desired impact.
Con repeats his appeal to the name movies, and repeats his data on sight being by far our primary sense.
Con defends his history lesson, and specifically points out pro's attempt to move the goalposts to all visual effects as CGI. He points to the agreed definitions, and source steals from pro's own Jack Pierce video that CGI was not used but primarily visual effects from the actors themselves (with everything being fixed between repetitions).
Con goes a little far with semantics by calling the very act of rapid pictures as visual effects (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/hes-out-of-line-but-hes-right). This is built upon earlier things, which I took to be opening rhetoric rather than intended as sound arguments. He also shows CGI characters, disproving pro's claim that CGI cannot give expressions.
At this point the debate could easily be called as a con victory. We need a reason that the audio portion triumphs over the visual portion, rather than being a slave to it.
R3:
Pro restates that sound mastery is harder (which does nothing to prove it's the more important one), and outright insists "the Visual merely adds extra eye candy" and further that it's not "truly necessary." Oh songs have won awards, unlike movies. He does point out a couple movies that the audio was more important than the visuals. And mentions that CGI movies still include sound. And he closes by insisting he only meant to argue CGI effects as opposed to things like "camera angle, etc." from the description.
Con digs into that movies are primarily a visual experience (I seem to have missed any challenge to this from pro). Brings up the Oscars, instantly disproving the implicit claim from pro that movies only win awards for the audio (to be fair, there's a few of those awards for the sound side). And cites Stanley Kubrick to show the visual mastery as more important, via having us watch a clip muted and further describing choreography (as opposed to just saying a certain movie exists and was better by X standard).
R4:
Pro offers a wholly silent argument, perhaps to show the importance of words? Sadly it drops everything, especially the clearly presented visual proof of the greater importance of visuals over audio, and visuals being our primary sense.
Con extends.
Additional details may be round at:
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3021-audio-vs-visual-effects-for-movies?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=13
https://www.debateart.com/debates/3021-audio-vs-visual-effects-for-movies?open_tab=comments&comments_page=1&comment_number=11
Thank you for voting
Thank you re-voting.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: Ragnar // Mod action: Removed (borderline)
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: Winner to con.
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Written with feedback from MisterChris.
The vote was borderline. By default, borderline votes are ruled to be sufficient. As the voter is a moderator, a little more is expected.
While the vote mentioned some highlights, it didn't truly weigh the majority of the arguments against each other in any meaningful manner.
Arguments must always be reviewed even if left a tie (in which case less detail is required, but some reason for said tie based on the debate content must still be comprehensible within the vote).
Arguments go to the side that, within the context of the debate rounds, successfully affirms (vote pro) or negates (vote con) the resolution. Ties are possible, particularly with pre-agreed competing claims, but in most cases failing to affirm the resolution means pro loses by default.
Weighing entails analyzing the relative strength of one argument or set of arguments and their impacts against another argument or set of arguments. Weighing requires analyzing and situating arguments and counterarguments within the context of the debate as a whole.
**************************************************
Ragnar
Added: 1 day ago
#1
Reason:
The two things are so interconnected, but with our greater dependence on visuals con was able to coast to victory. With how open ended the definitions were, it is really hard to say definitely if any moving part of the movie is considered outside the scope (much like how pro was fast to claim silence for his side of the debate).
One thing I disliked about con's case was how much of it was a history lesson (pro did well on defense here), instead of analysis of scenes which he got into later. Con's later use of Stanley Kubrick removed all doubt from giving him the victory; as great scenes like that can be watched muted, but are just confusing to try to listen to without watching.
Pro's biggest weakness I believe would be relying on how sound can reshape scenes, instead of focus on scenes made by the sound.
The vote against your argument placed by Ragnar has been submitted for review. For obvious reasons I cannot review it. When another moderator is less busy, they'll probably get around to it.
I made my vote short, but I read the debate. That I added commentary about one being truly critical and the other not, based on evidence offered during the debate doesn't change that. I do not think this debate was on the subject of banning either of them, rather just which aspect it more important to movies; to which con by asking the audience to watch a short clip muted, was able to powerfully demonstrate we are dependant on one and not the other.
I reviewed a sampling of the sources. Notably your Jack Pierce piece and Force Awakens clip, along with the one singled out in my vote (no, I was not going to read through the full 20 or however many sources con had).
Thanks fore voting. Yeah, the history bit was a questionable feature, but, I had 3 rounds to fill in what could have been a 2-round debate, and, you know me; I'm going to fill them. Being challenged to a 500 word debate per round would, indeed, be a challenge. I simply don't take them, but it should be a good exercise. Someday. Anyway, good analysis. Thanks.
did you read the description and the sources offered? "Basic visual effects" doesn't mean "no watching at all". Your vote seemed to give the impression you didn't read that we were talking about the best of the best rather than whichever one should be kept.
In my R2, I erroneously referred to Jack Pierce as David Pierce. An error. My apologies. There are three David Pierces with whom I am more familiar than Jack, an actor, a songwriter, and a former CEO of Atari, Inc.
As I replied to your pm two days ago (4/25), no. Your choices, as instigator, are continue, concede, or forfeit. The time to make concessions is. Before the debate is accepted. I do not agree to do-overs. That is child’s play
wanna tie this debate instead? I accidentally forgot to extend debating period and nearly ran out of time. Two days seems too short.
I'll note, coincidentally, that as we begin this debate, you and I are virtually tied in debate rating. I'll admit it was one reason I chose to engage it. Just to add some friendly competition. Good luck, my friend. It is truly a great subject. As you say, deviation.
You're on. Good luck. I look forward to a good debate.
I agree
Shit's pretty 50/50 if your audience is neither deaf nor blind and is seeking to fully immerse.
The visual does have an edge if the audience is NOT trying to fully immerse but if they are, audio matters a lot without a doubt so idk which can even win. I would not want to be on either side of this debate, it's extremely difficult for both.
Neither of us are movie buffs (AFAIK). Are you willing to go completely out of our comfort zones?