Are remakes and reboots ruining entertainment?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Are remakes and reboots ruining entertainment?". Your opponent's style: Devil's advocate

Of course they are not. Look at the word used in the question. "Entertainment". That is what we are talking about. To properly answer the question we need to see the effect that remakes and reboots have on entertainment. The question is being asked because nowadays we are seeing more remakes and reboots than ever before. More sequels too. And how does the entertainment business look? It is bigger and more successful than ever before. To argue in defence of this motion, would require an argument that shows the entertainment business dying. Because even if remakes and reboots are bad, if the wider entertainment business is booming which it is, you cannot claim that the effect and influence that they have are in any way strong enough to quote on quote "ruin entertainment."

You're confusing correlation with causation. Yes, entertainment revenue is up, but that's inflation and global population growth talking, not proof remakes are good for art. The real metric you're dodging: original IP. Disney's originals bomb constantly while their franchises carry them. The business is booming *despite* remakes cannibalizing creativity, not because of them. A cash cow isn't a healthy industry, it's a dying one milking what worked yesterday. If remakes truly drive quality, why do audiences increasingly abandon them mid-franchise?

Well, let us go through your argument. The first thing you said was and I quote "not proof remakes are good for art." If your argument rests on this point at all, you have misunderstood what the question is asking. The question does not care about what you or I may consider art or how "True" or "real" art is doing in the entertainment industry. It is simply asking about whether or not the industry is being ruined. You also said that entertainment revenue being up is about population growth. If that is true then that means that more and more people are being born and they are all running to the entertainment industry. It can't be more ruined if your saying tons of people being born love it and throw their money at it. You also are deploying a false dichotomy. You idea that remakes and reboots are cannibalising creativity is incorrect. Their is plenty of creativity, in fact, recently the original movie obsession just became one of the most successful horror movies ever. There is a place in the entertainment industry for original IP's, and a place for reboots and remake.

You're right that I overreached on "art," but you're now arguing remakes aren't *ruining* entertainment, just that they coexist with originals. That's completely different from your opening claim that they're "not ruining" it. If remakes and originals can both thrive simultaneously, then they're not ruining anything—they're just part of the mix. You've already conceded the point. The industry adapts, audiences have choices, revenue climbs. So what exactly are we debating here?

What point are you making? My opening claim was that they are not ruining it. Which they are not and I then further explained my point that they co-exist with original material. That all works together. You also have just lost the argument. You said and I quote "If Remake and originals can both thrive simultaneously, then they're not ruining anything." I already have proved that original movies can thrive with the example of Obsession, but I can add Get out, Sinners etc. And when it comes to reboots and remakes, "Jurassic World" was a monstrous success, so they can both evidently thrive

You've won on the facts but you're arguing the wrong motion. The question is "Are remakes ruining entertainment?" You've proven they coexist with originals and the industry thrives. That's not a defense of remakes—that's proof they're *not* ruining it. You've already won. But now you're just listing successes instead of explaining *why* remakes matter or add value. Coexistence isn't the same as contribution. Can you actually defend remakes as necessary, or just that they don't kill the industry?

So let me go through what you said bit by bit. First "You've won on the facts but your arguing the wrong motion". Stating I won on the facts means that I have won and you concede the debate. No need to say anything further. Then following up with I was arguing the wrong motion is incorrect. If I was correct with the facts then they must prove the right thing. Then you said "You've proven they coexist with originals and the industry thrives." Once again you concede. When you concede you no longer need to talk. You finish the debate. I won. "That's not a defence of remakes - that's proof they're not ruining it." The question is not about a debate on defending remakes, it is about whether or not they are ruining the industry. Which you immediately admit they are not. So you concede for a third straight time. No need to further say anything. "You've already won". A fourth sentence, and a fourth straight consecutive time you have conceded. No need to say anything further. "But now you you're just listing successes instead of explaining why remakes matter or add value." I am not listing successes, I am listing examples that prove my point, something you have failed to do. You then say I fail to argue why they add value. The question does not ask about remakes adding value, you are simply asking a completely separate question. "Coexistence isn't the same as contribution." Once again, not the question. "Can you actually defend remakes as necessary, or just they they don't kill the industry?" The question is "Are remakes and reboots ruining entertainment?" Nothing about defending remakes as necessary.

You're playing rhetoric games. I conceded the factual case—that's not the same as conceding the debate. The motion is "ruining entertainment," not "killing it." Remakes flooding the market, crushing original pitches, and turning studios into nostalgia factories *is* ruining it, even if the industry makes money. A casino makes money too. You've proven remakes exist alongside originals and audiences spend money. That doesn't prove remakes aren't ruining the *quality* and *diversity* of what gets made. Why do studios greenlight remakes over new stories if not because it's safer and cheaper?