Summarize the given text.

THP a world in which film & television media were not dominated by franchises (Star Wars, MCU, LOTR, Harry Potter)


Opposition.


Characterisation:


Burden: Side Proposition has 
Stakeholders
Audience
Want high-quality and cheap movies
2 tiers
Creativity- Plotlines
Technicality- Camerawork, greenscreen, CGI
Want to watch their favourite actors
Young, emerging actors
Older, more famous actors
Production companies

1st Speaker:
Im going to win this debate from LO by doing 2 things:
Setup
I’ll show you why continuity is important, hence why we get better overall quality of movies. 

Setup:
We think movie franchises will not exist. 
Why? 
Oligopoly: Why good?



A. Ref point 2
B. High startup costs of making a movie
C. 

Why is art important
Art is a reflection of society
This is why art looks forward into the future
It serves as escapism, we want to feel good about us

Side Opposition told us that there is this positive cycle of people watching more and more franchise movies, and smaller films have weaker ability to break in, and there is lesser diversity of movies. However, we say that we get that as well. Within franchises, there is still diversity to some degree as well, producers often produce spin offs sequels prequels and other branching stories from such movies as well, and it does contribute to the diversity. But even if you are naive enough to believe that diversity is better on your side, we think that it is precisely

Side Opposition argued that films are not receptive because they are so big they dont need it. That is not true. It is very unintuitive to say that a company is big enough to afford to do so. Your sales still depend on consumer reception anyways



Substantive 1: Worldbuilding.- 
Why is worldbuilding important
Allows for multithreading of stories, which makes for a more immersive experience
Expands possibilities for other stories, like prequels and sequels  that contribute to a greater diversity in movies
Deeper characters
More fleshed out, 3-dimensional characters that contribute to a more realistic and interesting characters that can function for relatability


Why do we get that better in our world
Franchise movies are based on a continual story arc with an ever expanding cast and story
Franchise movies have more time and space to build their fictional world
Impact of better worldbuilding
Escapism is better when you have more films within a franchise that you can watch.
Catharsis is better when you have spent more hours watching the character, growing with the character and so on. Deeper emotional connections are formed as you follow a character which is generally better. 










2nd Speaker: Isaac

2 strategic things - 
Contradiction - 1st say no prequels, no sequels. 2nd said they are ok with some franchises existing. We want to know from 3rd whos wrong and why
Flagrantly uncomparative in every sub, as will show later.
 

Issue:
Rebuttal:
These movies are very pervasive 
Aggressive Marketing
Cinemas are incentivised to show these movies
Impact:
More diversity
Franchises no need to improve, lack of healthy competition


Big Film companies still exist on their side, some trends and types of movies will still dominate. 
High barriers to entry still exist for indie movies.
Diversity is not an a priori good. Ppl want to watch these movies because they r good. 
We think companies still want to make money so they are likely to improve. Marvel movies do flop, its a blatant lie.
Empirically untrue small shows do not break thru. 
Social Impacts
Films become microcosms for current social issues
Minorities
symmetric. Never showed why that cant happen on our side. We think movies and films on social commentary can still be made. 
Not clear why social issues is as impt as making ppl feel good. There are other modems of advocacy, whereas entertainment is q integral part to utility generation rn. 
We get more black ppl (wait for sub)
Catharsis does not exist? (e.g. harry potter) because unrealistic
Lack of realism is glibly smth ppl like. Escapism gd.
Unrealistic physics compensated for by realistic characters which ppl can connect to. See parts of themselves in characters when they go thru hardship
Miss nuance. Nostalgia is irrational but gd. 
Length =/= worldbuilding



Cliche
If these characters are so good, wouldn't people want to watch them more and wouldn't this demand drive supply which will result in a franchise

If they like these cliches why not. But furthermore, if these cliches are so popular, I would want to be safe by going for the safe cliches in their world too
Their world incentivises small films to do better and rake in
It is symmetric, small films have to do well in our world to be popular too. 
C.f. earlier rebuttal on domination being symmetric. 
Flip is can leverage off existing and established characters/tropes (e.g. into the spiderverse)


Sub 2: black ppl (and other non white colours)
Mech - 
If majority racist, franchises have space to experiment more cus got way to hedge against racism (addiction to franchise)
Minorities more willing to take up roles in big famous movie than rando
Capitalist pigs want more money. More money by unlocking more (non white) consumers. 
Significance - 
More black. Trivially good. 
EI same amnt or slightly less black, we win cus
Direct redress to prev disenfranchisement from holywood
Principle win 
More buy-in to movie systems
Greater exposure (and by extension role model effect, perceived re-enfrenchisement) when 1 minority stars in big thing, than many minority star in smol things. 
Literally look at black pantha / shang chi / ms marvel 




































3rd Speaker:
Panel, I believe it is very evident that side opposition has taken today’s debate. Through the contradictions in their case, the lack of engagement specifically with my second speaker and the analysis and counter arguments provided by my previous speakers, the Opposition has taken this debate. To illustrate this point further and to seal the deal, I will go over the main clashes in this debate, and prove to you how opposition has taken these clashes. 

Before I start, I want to talk about the harry potter point that prop is trying to twist. Understand that these films can act as nostalgia because they can relate to the protagonist. Being ostracised by the people he lived with, having people trying to take him down, is the story on almost every asian family. 
Clash
Prop’s points
Opp’s points
Variety for the audience
We want more preferences and faster changes in trends
Producers won’t listen to their critiques
A changing variety won’t matter if people’s choices remain the same, essentially this is like forcing people to change their preferences. Note that the reasons that these franchises exist is because they deliver what people want. 
We disagree, because franchises are incentivised to listen to their audience to remain relevant and a franchise. People aren’t just going to flock to the cinemas because they come from a franchise
Promoting competition, ending monopolies, increases quality. repetitve
We want to promote competition in the film industry for better films, so writers are incentivised to churn out good stories. We want cinemas to screen all types of movies
Market dominance, using big money to bully their way through
The value of entertainment is compromised on opp
Wrong. Firstly, if a writer is putting in effort into his/her first film as prop likes to promote new players into the industry, they are taking a huge bet. If the movie fails they have very little economic resources to even make a second one. Secondly, my question to prop is, if you are promoting equality, then who do you succeed in your world? Essentially it still comes back to the huge firms with the resources to keep experimenting and churning out the scripts as their first speaker mentioned. In their second point of wanting cinemas to push out these movies. Understand that cinemas would only be incentivised to push out these movies if the audience wants to watch it, and no matter how much you promote variety, it’s all useless unless peoples’ preferences change, which is very unlikely, because that is what makes these dominating franchises.
Wrong, understand that these franchises have a huge incentive to want to give viewers what they want. No matter how much money they pump into the advertising, if they don’t deliver, people are not going to watch it. If the fast and furious franchise does not produce a quality sequel, they can burn as much money as they want in the marketing, it won’t matter, people aren’t gonna watch it. They can pull in every A rated hollywood star, they can take all the money into the world and put it into the budget. If they don’t deliver what the viewers want, it’s not gonna remain as a franchise for long if it turns out it viewers. You can take the example of the startup which wanted to use a rated hollywood stars to produce short films, raised millions of dollars in funding, but eventually failed because they failed to cater to what the audience wanted, which was to see their fvourite social media influencers on the platform. This is just to show that for a franchise to keep existing, it is necessary for them to cater to what the audience wants. 
I have one question. If these movies are so repetitive, why don’y people watch other movies. Not like others don’t exist. You pull out your phone and search up Golden Village, Marvel is not the only film you’ll see. 
One more thing, how do you lower the barries to entry. Making a film still costs the same. The franchises may not have a monopoly but they still will throw their resources at advertising. 
Reasons for staying relevant, and why it’s bad
Good marketing, hype and advertising, fan cult blah blah
We don’t have incentives to produce novel films


Wrong. Firstly, for any person to be able to have enough resources, understand that these films have to be pitched to producers. If the producers likes the story, then they throw money into it and even then these films can completely bomb their box offices. And the elaboration for this point remains the same like I’ve already mentioned. Understand that in this case, franchises are able to see what is the trend and what does the audience like, which allows them to better fine tune their films and entertainment to their audience’s preferences. 
Yes we do, understand that there are a lot of filmmakers 




One more clash in this debate is minorities. I think firstly this clash is completely irrelevant. In fact, our world supports these minorities better. On our side they have greater representation. If a franchise like black panther pushes a message of black lives matter, it would make a much greater impact on people, thus their point is invalid. 

Reply
If I were to describe the opp case using the food, it would be cheese because of how many holes there are.
Unrealistic and uncharitable
Uncomparative
Missing engagement

We think the most important actor in this debate is the viewers’. The debate is won based on whose world do viewers get more enjoyment and catharsis out of. There are 3 clashes

Quality of movies
Diversity 
Representation of minorities