The Instigator
LatinaGirl8894
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

New Spiderman movies better than old Spiderman movies.

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 3 votes the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/28/2014 Category: Movies
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 733 times Debate No: 64093
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

LatinaGirl8894

Pro

Round 1 is acceptance.
Round 2&3 are arguments and rebuttals
Round 4 is rebuttals and conclusion.
kasmic

Con

I Accept!!!!!
Debate Round No. 1
LatinaGirl8894

Pro

Uncle Ben moment

"Spider-Man" (2002): At the risk of not spoiling anything too much, let"s just say that something sad happens to Parker"s Uncle Ben.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" (2012): At the risk of spoiling the new movie a tad, let"s just say that more or less the same sad thing happens to Parker"s Uncle Ben.

Advantage: "The Amazing Spider-Man." Cliff Robertson was great in the first one, but Martin Sheen is simply magic. So when the, uh, something sad happens, it really hurts. (1)
I do have to admit that Martin Sheen was absolutely brilliant as Uncle Ben. Could not have picked a better person for that part, it was so believable and he made the scene where he died one that you wanted to cry. In the original Spiderman there was no moment there. It was just he died and that was it.

The swooping factor

"Spider-Man" (2002): At the time, Spidey"s ability to swing between the skyscrapers of Manhattan was pretty exciting.

"The Amazing Spider-Man" (2012): A decade has passed and our technology has enabled movie-makers to achieve even greater heights in the important field of superhero swooping. Especially in IMAX 3D, watching Spidey do his thing, gliding over the streets and from building to building, is one of the film"s most visceral thrills.

Advantage: "The Amazing Spider-Man" (1)

Spider-Man co-creator Stan Lee reckons Andrew Garfield - who played Peter Parker in 'The Amazing Spider-Man' - is an upgrade on previous incarnation Tobey Maguire.

Speaking to Fandomfest in Louisville, Kentucky, he said: "I think Andy Garfield is great as Spider-Man, absolutely great," he said. "In fact, I would have picked him for the first Spider-Man movie if he had volunteered." Take that Tobey! (2)
It"s pretty cool when the creator of Spiderman would have chosen Andrew Garfield for the first one if he has volunteered. That just proves that he was the better choice and that the new movies are better because of him. He brought the character of Spiderman to life.

Wisecracking

Spider-Man is obnoxious in battle. He distracts and frustrates his enemies with bad puns, incessant questioning, and whatever else it takes to gain the upper hand.

Having re-watched all of the Spider-Man movies (except for Spider-Man 3, because I don"t hate myself), I can remember exactly one instance of Tobey Maguire cracking a joke while fighting: he says "here"s your change" as he throws a bag of coins at Doc Ock. That"s about it.

Andrew Garfield"s Spider-Man is an irritating joke machine. Even audiences start thinking "enough already" because he rarely stops the wisecracking, and that"s just the way it should be.
Cracking jokes while you are taking down a robber or another bad person is just plain hilarious. They know they have been caught and it really funny how in the Amazing Spiderman he makes it known that they are in big trouble.

Winner: Andrew Garfield (3)

(1)http://www.washingtonpost.com...
(2)https://uk.movies.yahoo.com...
(3)http://www.audienceseverywhere.net...
kasmic

Con

Rebuttals:

1: Uncle Ben moment:

Pro says "Cliff Robertson was great in the first one, but Martin Sheen is simply magic. So when the, uh, something sad happens, it really hurts.”

Personally I prefer Cliffs performance. More importantly I prefer Tobey’s performance. Personal preference is not sufficient to win a debate.

2: The swooping factor: (technology)

Pro argues that the scenes of Spiderman swinging around New York is more impressive in the new films. I agree that the technology is impressive in the new Spiderman movies and is superior to the old Spiderman films. The questions then becomes, is technology enough to constitute better.

Watch any recent Michael Bay movie… great technology, poor plot. Technology does not a great movie make.

3: Stan Lee

Pro says “Spider-Man co-creator Stan Lee reckons Andrew Garfield - who played Peter Parker in 'The Amazing Spider-Man' - is an upgrade on previous incarnation Tobey Maguire.”

Stan lee also said “I think Andy Garfield is great as Spider-Man, absolutely great," he said. "In fact, I would have picked him for the first Spider-Man movie if he had volunteered."

From these statements Pro concludes “That just proves that he was the better choice and that the new movies are better because of him.”

Stan Lee has a history of praising the most recent of his comics made movies. That is an appeal to motive. However, it is not just about making money… it would be very unintelligent to down talk your own most recent product. As such, it is hard to take Stan Lee’s word seriously.

Concluding rebuttal:

Stan Lee is a smart enough guy not to choose an old Spiderman over a new one. This is true both financially and for the fan base. Due to these reasons, it is hard to take him at his word. Technology does not a great movie make. Personal preference over uncle Ben’s is not sufficient to win a debate. (along those same lines… Jamison is amazing in the older Spiderman’s.

Arguments:

Source: Pro’s first source contains the bulk of her arguments. However, the article itself endorses the old Spiderman over the new. Let me say again, Her source negates her argument as it endorses Toby Maguire over Andy Garfield. (1)

Financial success:

Tobey Maguire’s Spiderman movies made much more money. Suggesting greater approval from the fans and better movies overall. (2) They did this with a much lower budget as well.

Critics:

Critics liked the older Spiderman’s much more. Rotten tomatoes gives “Spiderman” a 89% while “The Amazing Spiderman” received a 73%. “Spiderman 2” received a 94% while “The Amazing Spiderman 2” a dismal 53%. (3)

Awards:

Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 were both nominated for an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects, which Spider-Man 2 won. Spider-Man was also nominated for the Academy Award for Best Sound Editing and Spider-Man 2 for the Academy Award for Best Sound.” (4)

“The Amazing Spiderman” received no such nomination or awards.

Concluding arguments:

Pro’s source endorses “Spiderman” over “The Amazing Spiderman.” “Spiderman had much more financial success. Critics like it more, and it won more awards.

Tobey Maguire’s Spiderman is much better than Andy Garfield’s.

(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org...
(4) https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
LatinaGirl8894

Pro

Con does say that personal preference is not enough to win a debate, yet he prefers Cliff Robertson over Martin Sheen and that makes a point in his argument to say that as well.

Technology is absolutely what makes a great movie. Movies are getting better and better as the technology advances. They are able to do bigger and better things which is what makes a movie more interesting to watch.

Con states that "Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 were both nominated for an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects". So he is admitting that technology helped these movies get nominated for those awards, which further illustrates my point.

Con says that " Stan Lee has a history of praising his most recent of his comics made movies" but he does not provide a source to back that claim, so therefore my argument still stands.

Andrew Garfield and The Amazing Spiderman are better than Tobey Maguire and the orininal Spiderman.
kasmic

Con

Pro says “Technology is absolutely what makes a great movie. Movies are getting better and better as the technology advances. They are able to do bigger and better things which is what makes a movie more interesting to watch.”

Technology can be a benefit to movies. Technology by itself does not make a great movie. In fact the American Film institute put out a list of the 100 greatest movies. This list was released in 1998. Of the top 5 the newest was the Godfather. This movie came out in 1972. This suggests that despite 25 years of new technology has not helped any newer movie crack the top 5. I say again. Technology, does not a good movie make.

Pro comments on my statement that "Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 were both nominated for an Academy Award for Best Visual Effects." She concludes “So he is admitting that technology helped these movies get nominated for those awards, which further illustrates my point.”

Yes, I am. These movies won awards that the new Spiderman movies did not. Despite pro’s view that “A decade has passed and our technology has enabled movie-makers to achieve even greater heights…” Apparently not enough to win an award. If the main attraction of a movie is the technology and not the plot, there is a problem. As Pro stated about the new spiderman movies “watching Spidey do his thing, gliding over the streets and from building to building, is one of the film’s most visceral thrills.”

Technology is an appendage to great movies, not the main attraction. Much like popcorn at the movie theater. You go for the movie, not the popcorn. Movies are great because of Plot, character development, humor, emotion, etc. Not technology.

Pro asks for links as proof that Stan lee does not criticize comic adapted movies. I can no more prove this than proving that there is not a tea cup orbiting Pluto. I will say that after 20 mins of trying to find Stan Lee with a negative thing to say about any of his videos, I could not find any. It only makes sense for Stan Lee to endorse new movies as they come out…even if he did not like them. Why wouldn’t he?

I conclude with the same points I did last round. None of which have been refuted.

Pro’s source endorses “Spiderman” over “The Amazing Spiderman.” “Spiderman had much more financial success. Critics like it more, and it won more awards.

Tobey Maguire’s Spiderman is much better than Andy Garfield’s.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
LatinaGirl8894

Pro

We could not make movies without technology, so it absolutely makes a good movie. Every movie ever made was made using technology, so even though the movies that have one awards in the past were still made using technology.

Yes movies are great because of the plot, and I would argue that the plot of the Amazing Spider man is still a great one.

Of course Stan Lee would endorse the movie that just had come out, but that does not prove con's point. He still could not provide a quote that Stan Lee does this sort of thing all the time, therefore my point still stands.
kasmic

Con

Pro says “We could not make movies without technology, so it absolutely makes a good movie.”

Movies are made with technology… that is true about all movies. Great movies and bad movies are made with technology. If technology is present in both, it is reasonable to say that technology is inherent in movies, but not a defining feature of a good movie.

I conclude with the same points I did last round. None of which have been refuted.

Pro’s source endorses “Spiderman” over “The Amazing Spiderman.” “Spiderman had much more financial success. Critics like it more, and it won more awards.

Tobey Maguire’s Spiderman is much better than Andy Garfield’s.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Great_Dane2017 2 years ago
Great_Dane2017
terrible new movies wow just hate them
Posted by TheSymbiote 2 years ago
TheSymbiote
OMFG. I want to debate this sooooo badly! The new movies suuuuuuuuuuuuuuck!!!!

The first one was meh...

The second one was a pile of donkey poop

Spider-Man 3 was better than that shiiiiit
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
LatinaGirl8894kasmicTied
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: Con used more sources and thus wins the sources points. Many of Con's key arguments and most of Con's arguments went unrefuted by Pro and thus I have no choice but to give Con the debate.
Vote Placed by debate_power 2 years ago
debate_power
LatinaGirl8894kasmicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Just to clarify, I haven't seen ANY Spider-Man movies. The critics' scores are what sold it for me. Critics' careers are centered on the watching and evaluation of movies. As I am a person who advocates technocracy, it is intrinsic that I would respect the critics' word the most. Con also managed to convince me that technology did not play as a big a role in how "good" a film was by citing "The Godfather" and others. Generally, I found Con's argument more convincing.
Vote Placed by JayConar 2 years ago
JayConar
LatinaGirl8894kasmicTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro stated better utilisation of technology and better actors, neither of which were refuted by con other than to say that they do not constitute a 'better' movie. This is incorrect as 'better' can be used to refer to anything that is, in fact, 'better.' Therefore Pro's arguments are upheld. If Con had argued that Andy Garfield was not better than Tobey Maguire, he would have had a chance depending upon his argument.