everybody likes to argue about their FAVORITE MOVIE!!!!

The Pro states that most of my arguments are invalid because most of my argument is based on my own opinion of the movie, and I can understand why that could make my arguments invalid.However, the difficulty with judging movies partly comes from the fact that judging their greatness partially comes from a person's individual viewpoint of the movie, so I apologize and i will try to make my argument less structured around my own opinions.....As for my Pro's second argument I again apologize because it does appear that I have contradicted myself concerning the plot of the movie. The Pro states that the resistance movement IS the plot of the movie, which is true. In my original argument I should have clarified that it was the background of the movie/subplot of the movie that was hard to comprehend, not the main plot itself. However in the rest of the Pro's second argument he criticizes my belief of how absurd i feel the movie is by comparing it to The Lord of the Rings, a movie that did win Best Picture in 2003.... I again see what the Pro is trying to say but the Lord of the Rings is an entirely fictional fantasy movie whereas Red Dawn is based on a possible realistic communist invasion of America. What I meant to say was that the reason that Red Dawn should not have won Best Picture was that the main plot of the film is based on what could theoretically happen in a real life scenario regarding a communist invasion of America, however the background events that the movie is based on is unrealistic in many ways and that is what I was trying to state in my original argument. To summarize I did not believe that Red Dawn didn't deserve best picture because i believed that a communist invasion of America was (back then) unrealistic. It was because the sequence of events that took place in the background of the movie were to unrealistic to be considered plausible. Such background events included a communist revolution in Mexico, the breakdown of NATO, and the use of commercial airplanes as Russian paratrooper transports....In the Pro's third argument he debunks my opinion of how its not too hard to impersonate a high school student as an actor, and then he mentions a scene of how the characters develop through the film. I respect his view but I feel that my original opinion of how it is easy to impersonate a high school student as an actor was very biased and opinionated and I apologize for that. However If me and the Pro were to continue to try to reinforce our position on the talents of the actors, then we would both be doing so by generating our own opinions of their skills, not by using actual facts because any judgement of how well (or poor) they performed in the film would be based purely on opinion. In the third argument though the Pro does mention about how in the collection edition it shows how actors trained for 8 weeks to prepare for filming the movie. Now I find that admirable but does devotion always translate into quality performance? If for example someone trains for a basketball season by doing drills for three hours every day all summer that does not necessarily mean that they would have a good season if they stink at basketball...... I want to clarify that i do not believe that the actors are so bad that 8 weeks of training were futile, what i am trying to say is that devotion does not always directly translate into quality performance....In the next argument the Pro again attacks my use of my opinions of the director. I again apologize because he is correct, this argument is about why I believe this movie should not have won Best Picture. In my original argument I was simply trying to attack the Pro's belief of why the director is not as skilled as he originally claimed. I see now that the argument over the skill of the director does NOT relate to why the movie shouldn't have won best picture. However, in his opening argument the Pro listed the directors successes as a reason for why Red Dawn should have won best picture. I am indeed guilty of trying to use my own opinions of why the movie should not have won Best Picture, however the Pro has also used his favorable opinion of the director to reinforce his argument as well.... So we are both guilty of trying to reinforce our arguments with our own opinions. The Pro's next argument analyzes how the process of nominating films for awards itself may be flawed, and I do agree with him, I believe that the process of receiving nominations may be flawed. One of the reasons he stated why it may be flawed is because those who are nominating the movies may chose movies because of the stars in the cast. I think though that could be a reason why the Pro has a favorable view of the movie. In his original argument though the Pro listed the cast of actors in the film and their later fame as one of the reasons he favored the film, and I believe that as the Pro stated, films should be judged on their quality of acting NOT the stars in the film........The Con also mentions how gross profits do not determine if a film is nominated, and that certainly makes sense. I certainly am not trying to say that Red Dawn should have lost because it did not make enough money, I am merely stating that, using gross profits as a tool of measuring the popularity of movies, Red Dawn was not as popular or as successful as other movies of its time. One of the reasons a film may not have been as popular or successful as other movies may be that a majority of people believed that one movie, such as Red Dawn, may not have had such a good performance compared to a more popular movie of that year, such as Amadeus, based on the amount of profit each movie generated in the same year.....I admit that my previous argument in round 2 was very opinionated. So was my opponents but to be fair mine was far more opinionated, again I apologize. So if we remove opinions from this argument and stick purely to facts then lets go back to round one and re-analyze why my opponent feels Red Dawn should have won..... In his first argument he states how the success of the actors and their stardom were one reason why the film should have won. But we both agreed that films should not be nominated or win awards based on how famous their casts were, so the Pro's first argument is invalid. He then mentions how those actors performed very well in other films based on actual reviews by well respected journalists, newspapers, critics, etc. But again we are trying to focus on their performances only in the film Re Dawn, so that argument is invalid as well....In his second opening argument he lists the many successes of the film's director as another reason why the film should have won. However that argument too uses the director's successes in other films and his popularity to justify why Red Dawn should have won best picture, but we both agreed that the film that won best picture should not be based on popularity of those who are in the film It should be based on the quality of the film, so his second original argument is invalid as well....The Pro used his entire second argument to attack why my analysis of the movie was opinionated, however his original argument itself was also very opinionated. "They have also been accused of voting on movies based on star favorites rather than overall quality of the film..."That was, word for word, what the Pro said when criticizing the nomination process for academy awards, and it is very true. But the Pro's entire opening argument goes completely against this statement because the reason he believes the film should have won has been based on the stardom and success for the actors in the film and the director who directed it, not on their performance within the film itself.....Sorry that this argument was so long :P