The Instigator
MetaWarlord135
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Did The Amazing Spider-Man suck?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
imabench
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2013 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,887 times Debate No: 39960
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

MetaWarlord135

Pro

Please only accept the challenge for this round. I hope that we shall have a great debate.
imabench

Con

I accept and will argue that the Amazing Spider-Man did NOT suck
Debate Round No. 1
MetaWarlord135

Pro

This film did everything wrong within the Spider-Man franchise (by the way, I meant the movie released a few years ago). For a start, Tobey Maguire was the perfect actor for Peter Parker. Instead, for the Amazing Spider-Man, we get Andrew Garfield, who is the exact opposite of Peter Parker. He's shown as handsome and cool and an outcast at the same time. Is that even possible? Also, how many times do they have to use the same storyline? I'm sure everyone that hasn't been living under a rock for the past hundred years knows his origin story. Anyway, in my opinion, the series did not need a reboot (I actually think Spider-Man 3 was the best of the trilogy) and this film only exists so that Sony could maintain the rights to Spider-Man.
imabench

Con

"For a start, Tobey Maguire was the perfect actor for Peter Parker"

Opinion.... The studio that made the original Spider-Man movies were interested in the lead role going to Leonardo DiCaprio, Heath Ledger, or even James Franco, who landed a role in the movies anyways. All of them are arguably better actors then Tobey Maquire and would have been the 'perfect' Peter Parker.....




"He's shown as handsome and cool and an outcast at the same time. Is that even possible?"

Compared to other movies that have been shot out of Hollywood like Twilight, Transformers, Pacific Rim, etc..... Yeah thats real and reasonable enough for me. Even when you look at comic-book movies alone, a reasonably handsome guy being an outcast is still way more possible then a guy from another planet becoming superman, or a billionaire from New York becoming Batman.....




"I'm sure everyone that hasn't been living under a rock for the past hundred years knows his origin story"

A full 5 years passed between the last of the original spiderman trilogy movies and the reboot, and the time between the first spiderman movie and the reboot was 10 YEARS....... 10 years is a pretty large gap for people to grow up and not know about Spiderman's origin story.



" in my opinion, the series did not need a reboot"

Well thats nothing more then an opinion......



=====================================================================================



Reasons why the Amazing Spider-Man did not suck:

1) It has a very reasonable approval rating compared to the other Spiderman films, and is 10% higher then the final movie from the original trilogy:

Spider-Man 1 = 89% http://en.wikipedia.org...(2002_film)#Critical_reception
Spider-Man 2 = 94% http://en.wikipedia.org...
Spider-Man 3 = 63% http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Amazing Spider-Man = 73% http://en.wikipedia.org...(2012_film)#Critical_reception



2) It has grossed a crap load of money like any other Spider-Man movie:

Spider-Man = $820,000,000 http://en.wikipedia.org...(2002_film)
Spider-Man 2 = $783,000,000 http://en.wikipedia.org...
Spider-Man 3 = $890,000,000 http://en.wikipedia.org...

The Amazing Spider-Man = $750,000,000 http://en.wikipedia.org...(2012_film)


3) The film already showed enough success for the studio to call for two additional sequels, making it a trilogy in the making as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org...(2012_film)#Sequels
Debate Round No. 2
MetaWarlord135

Pro

Points to counteract your counteractions against my points:

Regardless of who was originally considered, Tobey Maguire got the role and played it well. Also, check the reviews for Spider-Man. A lot of people share that belief (plus, isn't this whole debate based on opinions, and if so, why can't I use my own?)

Yes, the character type you talked about is reasonable and yes, I may have worded what I was actually trying to say wrong. What I meant to say was that the new personality did not fit Peter Parker, who, as we both know, was originally a nerdy outcast.

Your assumption about the 10 year gap does not prove a point at all. This would only be true if movies could only ever be seen in the year they were created. What you have not taken into account is that:
a) there was an origin story for Spider-Man outside of the movies
b) people do not need to have seen the movie to know this story
c) people may have seen the movie between the dates of the two movies

Points to counteract your points:

You say that the movie was successful financially. This does not mean anything about how good the movie was. What does make the movie good was the reception, and even though you got the statistics right, you interpreted them wrong. What should have been noticed was that The Amazing Spider-Man was the 2nd worst rated and worst grossing of the films. By the way, when I said it sucked, I meant in comparison with the other movies.

You also said that two more sequels are being made. Does that remind you of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace? If it does, then the statement you made does not help your argument.
imabench

Con

"Regardless of who was originally considered, Tobey Maguire got the role and played it well"

Yes, and Andrew Garfield played the role just as well in the reboot.




"isn't this whole debate based on opinions, and if so, why can't I use my own?"

Opinions are only valid arguments that can be used in a debate if they are strongly reinforced with evidence and facts. There needs to be a tool of measurement when weighing the truth behind opinions for them to be used as arguments, in this case ratings of the movies and how much they grossed, for an opinion to be justified, which you havent done.




"What I meant to say was that the new personality did not fit Peter Parker, who, as we both know, was originally a nerdy outcast."

Movies arent obligated to strictly adhere to the portrayal of comic book characters in their comic book form..... Iron man 3 took the Mandarin and made him a figurehead while Superman films made Super-Man someone who never ever kills, yet in the comic-books Superman kills Zod and others multiple times.

Just because the Amazing Spiderman doesnt cast Peter Parker as he was portrayed in comic-books, that doesnt make the Amazing Spiderman a sucky movie.




"Your assumption about the 10 year gap does not prove a point at all. This would only be true if movies could only ever be seen in the year they were created"

Many of them often are only seen in the year they were created..... Theres a reason why Hollywood doesnt re-release the same movies year after year over and over, its because a vast majority of people who would be interested in seeing the movie would see it when it originally came out..... Thats literally how movies work.




"a) there was an origin story for Spider-Man outside of the movies"

That many people do not care to read about....

" b) people do not need to have seen the movie to know this story"

Except many of them do since its the only option they would consider.

"c) people may have seen the movie between the dates of the two movies"

But not all of them have, as evidenced by the fact that the reboot made $750 MILLION





"You say that the movie was successful financially. This does not mean anything about how good the movie was."

It kinda does since good movies tend to make a killing in the box office, which the Amazing Spiderman did.




"What should have been noticed was that The Amazing Spider-Man was the 2nd worst rated and worst grossing of the films."

But youre only comparing it to the other Spider-man movies when you make that claim..... The Amazing Spiderman was the 7th highest grossing film of 2012 and received more then enough critical acclaim from critics to be considered a good movie.





"By the way, when I said it sucked, I meant in comparison with the other movies."

No you didnt. Read the title of the debate and the first round, all you claimed to prove was that the Amazing Spider-Man sucked as a movie.... Not that it sucked in comparison to the other Spider-Man movies, and even if you made that claim you would still be losing the debate since the Amazing Spiderman both financially and critically are just about the same as all the other Spider-Man movies.





"You also said that two more sequels are being made. Does that remind you of Star Wars: The Phantom Menace? If it does, then the statement you made does not help your argument."

The Phantom Menace was a great movie. Hell, Roger Ebert gave the film 3 out of 4 stars and he was the most famous and well known movie critic of his time.

http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
MetaWarlord135

Pro

I agree that movies don't have to follow the character entirely, but if the character was changed drastically from the original character, then it does mean that the character hasn't been done right in most cases. Take Iron Man 3, for example. People often complain about the lack of Stark wearing the Iron Man suit.

You also say that 'many of them often are only seen in the year they were created'. The whole point of iTunes, Blockbusters, HMV and other shops that sell or rent movies is that people can see them whenever they want. Yes, more people would see it when it came out, but what about those too young to watch it at that point? Do they have to completely rule out ever watching that movie?

Anyway, people don't watch superhero movies for the story. They watch it for the action. Whilst the story may be important in Spider-Man, most people who had watched it at any point had already known the story (whether they read about it, heard it from others etc.).

You also said that 'it (box office money) kinda does (matter) since good movies tend to make a killing at the box office'. While this is a valid point, some bad movies also tend to do this, especially movies that are well advertised. This means that while good movies do well at the box office, so do bad movies that are well advertised and even some good movies make barely any money.

For your penultimate point, you are not psychic. Yes, I wasn't exactly clear (and that's something I want to improve on), but that doesn't mean you know what I said better than I do. Also, check my first round again. I clearly said that it did 'everything wrong within the SPIDER-MAN franchise'. Does that mean every movie?

For your final point, a single critic makes no difference. It's the response of lots of critics and the general audience that would change anything. Also, The Phantom Menace is known to be the worst of the Star Wars movies and received a 57% from Rotten Tomatoes. Should that really be called a great movie?
imabench

Con

"I agree that movies don't have to follow the character entirely, but if the character was changed drastically from the original character, then it does mean that the character hasn't been done right in most cases. Take Iron Man 3, for example. People often complain about the lack of Stark wearing the Iron Man suit."

Yet Iron Man 3 is one of the best movies ever made in history, that alone shows that its not unethical or bad to change past interpretations of a character..... And the alteration of Peter Parker from nerdy outcast to slightly less nerdy outcast isnt that big of a change either.




" Yes, more people would see it when it came out, but what about those too young to watch it at that point? Do they have to completely rule out ever watching that movie?"

Most of them do since they know that sooner or later another one will be made......




"Anyway, people don't watch superhero movies for the story. They watch it for the action. Whilst the story may be important in Spider-Man, most people who had watched it at any point had already known the story "

Well the Amazing Spiderman had just as much action as any other Spiderman movie which only proves that it doesnt suck!





"This means that while good movies do well at the box office, so do bad movies that are well advertised and even some good movies make barely any money."

But thats not the case with the Amazing Spiderman because it got both good ratings and a killer box-office haul, indicating it does not suck.





" Also, check my first round again. I clearly said that it did 'everything wrong within the SPIDER-MAN franchise'."

1) The only thing you posted in the first round was 'Please only accept the challenge for this round. I hope that we shall have a great debate.'.......

2) Stating that a movie did everything wrong within the spiderman franchise isnt equivalent to saying that the movie sucks, which is what the resolution of the debate is......


=============================================================================================

In summary:

- 1 - Its fine for a movie to change how it a character is perceived from its past perceptions.... Heath Ledger Joker from Jack Nicholas Joker was a great change, Christian Bale Batman from George Clooney Batman was also a good change, New Bane from old Bane was a spectacular overhaul, and thats just from the Batman franchise alone..... New Superman compared to the older Supermans was also a massive improvement, and Im sure that new Daredevil will be WAAAAAAAY better then Ben Affleck Daredevil........

Its ok to change how characters, in this case Peter Parker, are and doing so doesnt make a movie sucky.... It could actually make a movie great

- 2 - The Amazing Spiderman had equal critical reception and box office haul not only on its own, but compared to the other Spiderman movies as well, which would not be the case if the movie sucked

- 3 - The new Spiderman movie was released ten years after the first Tobey McQuire Spiderman movie came out and 5 after the last spiderman movie, which is a LONG A** TIME for people who werent old enough to see the earlier movies when they were out in movie theaters...... Many saw them later in another form, but a sizeable number of people didnt.

- 4 - Even if you buy pro's claim that he always was referring to just the Spiderman franchise (which he wasnt, he was simply moving the goal posts to legitimize his arguments) the Amazing Spiderman was still a great movie and did not suck.....

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bjddfbvjbdjscbj 2 years ago
bjddfbvjbdjscbj
The Amazing Spider-Man obviously sucked. watch the first spider-man movie series and you will know.
Posted by MetaWarlord135 3 years ago
MetaWarlord135
Thank you for the debate, imabench. Even though I will probably lose, I have learnt a lot about debating as a whole and from now on, I shall not use opinion without any evidence. Once again, thank you.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
MetaWarlord135imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Toby did in fact suck both literally and metaphorically. He sucked marry janes lips when he was hanging from that web thingie, and as benchman has shown he sucked at the role he was given as well.
Vote Placed by SeventhProfessor 3 years ago
SeventhProfessor
MetaWarlord135imabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were poorly constructed and based solely on opinion.