The Instigator
Samsoknite
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Nur-Ab-Sal
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The 2012 movie, Wrath Of The Titans, is better than its predecessor, Clash of the Titans 2010

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...
Nur-Ab-Sal
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/2/2012 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,604 times Debate No: 22522
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

Samsoknite

Pro

Today, I would like to debate that the 2012 film Wrath Of The Titans is better than the movie that preceded it, Clash of The Titans 2012.

Before we begin I would to set a few definitions:

better= of superior quality and or/make
predecessor= a certain thing, which is then followed/replaced

In this debate, you can take into account pretty much anything involved with the film; eg. critical reception, box-office etc.

I would prefer not to have any trollers join. I'd prefer this debate to be legitimate. Am looking for a good fight. Hope someone accepts. Thank you.
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I accept this challenge. I will be arguing that the 2012 movie Wrath of the Titans was better than the 2010 movie Clash of the Titans. I assume the Burden of Proof is shared, as we will both try to prove why our film is better and refute the other's claims.

I look forward to a good debate.

Good luck!
Debate Round No. 1
Samsoknite

Pro

THANK YOU, Nur-Ab-Sal for accepting my debate. I look forward to a fun clash :D

I, as PRO (refer to comments, Nur-Ab-Sal) would like to present my arguments supporting my claim that:
"WRATH OF THE TITANS is better than its predecessor CLASH OF THE TITANS",

1. WRATH OF THE TITANS is better than CLASH OF THE TITANS because it has more complex characters.
This statement is true. If you compare W.O.T.T to C.O.T.T, most of the characters in W.O.T.T have a quest in which they have to fulfil, and a reason as to why they're on this quest, a passion/driving force that makes them do what they do and a character arc, a shift in the characters, which changes their views and opinions.

Perseus is on his quest, so that he can save his biological father, from dying at the hands of Cronos. The reason why he is on this quest, is so that he can prevent Cronos - the father of Zeus, Hades and Poseidon - from destroying the world. What drives him into succeeding, is the well-being of his son, Helios, whom he fears for, to the extent of not allowing him to wield a sword. This later changes (character arc) when, at the end, Perseus decides to train his son, after almost dying at the hands of Ares.

Zeus is on his quest to keep Cronos imprisoned. The reason why he is on this quest, it is so that the existence of the human race will not go extinct. His passion, is to unite his broken family, although his relationship with Hades is strained and Perseus is indifferent towards his cause. This changes (character arc) when, Zeus forgives Hades for betraying him and their relationship is mended, and Perseus at the end, expresses sadness, after Zeus dies.

And not only do the heroes (the good guys) have their complexities, but 2 of the main villains have theirs as well.

Hades is on a quest for immortality. The reason is so that he can live and rule as a GOD forever. What drives him into committing to this quest, is his hatred for Zeus and his fear of death. This all changes (character arc) when, Hades forgives Zeus for damning him to rule the Underworld (which in term, causes the two of them to team up), and his fear of death is subdued at the end when he is made human.
HADES: "...maybe it's for the better."

Ares is on a quest to free Cronos and gain immortality. The reason for this is so that he has the power to live like a GOD. What drives him into doing this quest, is his hatred to Zeus for showing more affection to Perseus than him. While he does not have a character arc, he does have a quest, a reason why he is on this quest, and a driving force which is definite throughout the movie.

NOW COMPARE ALL THAT TO C.O.T.T:

Perseus is on a quest to prevent the Kraken from destroying Argos. Why he is on the quest? You could say because he was asked to by Cepheus, but there's not much depth to that. It's the equivalent of asking any ordinary man to "kill this really big badass that's threatening my neighborhood." His driving force/passion? His hatred for the Gods (specifically Hades, who killed Perseus' family). Is there a character arc to him? Kind of, sort of. In the end of the movie, he refuses a place as a GOD and opts to stay on Earth as a human. He doesn't express hate for Zeus anymore. But he doesn't express love either.
(IN AN ALTERNATE ENDING OF C.O.T.T there is ABSOLUTELY NO ARC, with PERSEUS ACTUALLY GOING UP TO MT. OLYMPUS AND EXPRESSING HATE TOWARDS ZEUS)

and the villain?

Hades is on a quest to overthrow Zeus, and claim the throne for himself. Reason: so that all humanity will praise him and not Zeus. Driving force: his hatred for Zeus. Character Arc: Nothing. He just gets defeated. No character arc, no change and nothing is resolved on his part. And you can argue that Ares had no character arc either, but at least he had more dimension than Hades did.
HADES HATES ZEUS BECAUSE OF HIS BANISHMENT TO UNDERWORLD.
ARES HATES ZEUS BECAUSE HE SHOWS MORE AFFECTION TO PERSEUS THEN HE DOES TO ARES HIMSELF.
Compare the two: which one has more depth? Which one is more personal, and affects more characters on an EMOTIONAL level.

2. The characters in W.O.T.T all serve a purpose. We have the hero PERSEUS, the romantic interest Andromeda, the ally Agenor, the obstacle Ares, the main villain Cronos, the messenger Zeus.
As mentioned in argument 1, the characters in W.O.T.T are more complex.
Their is more to them than just:
"My family was killed. I'm going to avenge them and kill Hades by killing the Kraken." -paraphrasing, Perseus
or
"I'm going to take revenge on my brother, and steal his throne by making people pray to me, and not him." -paraphraing, Hades

INSTEAD, in W.O.T.T there is:
"I'm going to go on a quest to kill Cronos because if I don't, my son will most likely die and Zeus, my father will die as well." paraphrasing, Perseus
or
"I'm going to double-cross Zeus and drain him of his energy, and give it to Cronos, who in return, will keep me immortal, because I'm afraid of death and do not want to die." paraphrasing, Hades

There's more vulnerability to the character.

Also, W.O.T.T, more characters mean something.

C.O.T.T's ANDROMEDA was just a damsel in distress. She was portrayed by Alexa Davalos, and all she did was disagree, or play damsel. She was not the love interest, she was not one of the people on the quest, she wasn't a bad-guy. She was just there to be saved.
W.O.T.T's ANDROMEDA is more than just a damsel. She's portrayed this time aroudn by Rosamund Pike, and she is now a love interest, and one of the people helping in the quest. She's also a soldier, and she can be seen HELPING Perseus in his quest. (moreso than the previous Andromeda)

In C.O.T.T, on MT. OLYMPUS (besides, Zeus and Hades) you see a group of Gods standing in a circle facing inwards. For the most part, these Gods are all played by pretty successful actors.
There's Danny Huston as Poseidon, Izabella Miko as Athena, Tamer Hassan as Ares (expanded upon in W.O.T.T), Luke Evans as Apollo, Nathalie Cox as Arthemis, etc.. These characters in the movie do nothing but stand in the background of the scene, looking God-like and impressive. They don't matter. They're just there. They don't advance the story in anyway, they don't give it any sort of depth, they just stand there. What's their purpose? To decrease the budget of the film?

In W.O.T.T the amount of Gods that are shown in the film is substantially decreased.
There's Danny Huston as Poseidon once again.
There's Edgar Ramirez as Ares.
And reprising their roles from the previous film is Ralph Fiennes and Liam Neeson as Hades and Zeus respectively.

While it is a substantially decreased group of Gods, they all MEAN something.
Poseidon's role is more involved this time-around, as he is actually given dialogue, and propels the story forward (he gives information to Perseus)
Ares serves as the obstacle, keeping Perseus away from freeing Zeus.
Zeus serves as the catalyst of this entire movie, the reason as to why Perseus is on his quest.
Hades, the most complex character out of the GODS, serves as the anti-hero type character. Without him, the resolution to this movie would not be possible.

3. W.O.T.T does not feature eye-gouging 3D.
C.O.T.T's 3D was post-converted. It was shot in 2D. Then, after AVATAR came out, the producers saw the potential in 3D and marketed the film as 3D to gain more money from the audience.
The end-result was an unenjoyable movie hindered by unenjoyable 3D, with scenes darkened by the 3D glasses.
W.O.T.T's 3D was also post-converted. But this time around it's more enjoyable to watch.
PROOF:
C.O.T.T's 3D reaction from critics:
http://www.cinemablend.com...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

W.O.T.T's 3D reaction from critics:
http://www.comicbookmovie.com...
http://twitchfilm.com...
Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I as Con will present my argument that Clash of the Titans was better than Wrath of the Titans. I mistyped as I wrote my R1 acceptance.

Argument 1: Remake
Clash of the Titans was a remake of the original 1981 film. Why is this important? Because the 1981 movie had a great story but was incredibly cheesy and overdramatic at times -- the special effects were great for the time but were still unrealistic. I mean look at this, the claymation Kraken from the 1981 film:



When the 2010 version came out, it vastly improved over the original 1981 film -- the CGI improved over the claymation, the acting was more precise and believable, all while still being faithful to the great story of the original. This improvement in and of itself makes Clash of the Titans noteworthy, and adds to its achievements. This is the CGI Kraken, a much more believable, computer-generated monster:



Wrath of the Titans was no remake, but was rather just a sequel to a remake. Wrath of the Titans had nothing to improve upon, so the directors and editors weren't trying to live up to anything. The Clash of the Titans crew, however, worked harder because they had a legacy to live up to -- and they did, as you can see in their finished product.

Argument 2: Characterization
While Wrath of the Titans may have everyone on a quest, this does not necessarily mean it is better characterization. For instance, while Andromeda is leading an army, she does not really have any motivation for doing so, or at least no on-screen in-depth motivation for doing so. It's less focused on the story of one character, which is what Clash of the Titans is. While Andromeda may be the archetypal damsel in distress, she has a reason, a purpose to serve to drive the story along to its conclusion. Clash is more focused on its story of Perseus and his arc.

Argument 3: Critical reception

Sure, Clash had worse 3D. I'll give you that.

However, Clash has a 29 on Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com...) while Wrath has a 23 (http://www.rottentomatoes.com...) -- that's right, a whole SIX points better. The description even says the film "fails to improve upon the stilted acting, wooden dialogue, and chaos-driven plot of the franchise's first installment."

Conclusion
Because Clash was a vast improvement over its 1981 original, because Clash was more focused on one character rather than being all over the place, and because it received better overall critical reception, Clash of the Titans was better than Wrath of the Titans.
Debate Round No. 2
Samsoknite

Pro

REBUTTALS:
ARGUMENT 1
You argued that Clash of The Titans is better than Wrath of The Titans because it is a remake of an old classic, unlike Wrath of The Titans, which is a sequel. You argued that the fact that Clash of The Titans is a remake is a strength. I respectfully disagree. The fact that Clash of The Titans is a remake (and a pretty poor one, mind you) is a weakness. In order for your argument to be valid ("C.O.T.T is better than W.O.T.T because it is a remake"), the said remake has to live up to the standards that the original set. The new C.O.T.T does not however.
Yeah, it was cheesy at times, I'll give that to you. The original 1981 Clash of The Titans was exciting for the entirety of the movie, adventurous and presented realistic special effects (for it's time). It presented Greek mythology with character and respect, and was endowed with being one of the most iconic fantasy films of all time. The 2010 Clash of The Titans does not live up to any of the above features, with the exception of the "adventure" which in all truth, is mostly due to the fact that it follows almost the same plot as the original. It was not exciting throughout the movie. The excitement level peaks at the scorpion fight, which is really early-on in the movie, before dropping, which in turn, affects the climax of the movie, which is weak and unimpressive. The special effects are not realistic. Yes, it is an improvement over the 1981 film, mostly because it uses TODAYS STANDARDS of special effects and not 1981's standards. But, if you compare Clash of The Titans 2010 to other CGI heavy movies like Transformers, the Incredible, or Avatar, or the countless other movies that use better CGI, it's so obvious that the CGI of Clash 2010 is just not up to scratch.



AS OPPOSED TO

AND

I'll let you decide on which TWO looks real and which ONE looks fake.

AND IF YOU'RE THINKING I PICKED THESE 2 STILLS RANDOMLY TO PICK ON THE LACKING QUALITY OF THE CGI OF CLASH OF THE TITANS, AND THAT THE 2 STILLS ARE UNRELATED TO THE MEDUSA STILL, I DISAGREE:
- I picked the image of the Incredible Hulk because the director of the Incredible Hulk film is the same director for Clash of The Titans 2010, meaning that he has done better films with better CGI.

- I picked the image of the "prawn" from District 9 because the budget of District 9 was lower than Clash Of The Titans 2010 ($30 million dollars as opposed to $125 million dollars) and still managed to turn out better results.

(if you still think the CGI in CLASH 2010 is good, go here for other people's opinions: http://www.smh.com.au...

It does not present Greek mythology with character and respect, with the portrayal of Gods being nothing more than a group of bearded men in shiny overalls standing in a circle and discusing their OWN fates (SELFISH PIGS), and the "Titans" in the movie being reduced to nothing more than the creatures you would see in an average creature-feature. And Clash of The Titans 2010 is definitely not iconic. If Clash of The Titans 2010 is iconic for anything whatsoever, it's for presenting the public with one of the worst remakes ever, and for presenting it in really, really poor 3D. Clash of The Titans 2010 is NOT better than Wrath of The Titans because of it being a remake.

ARGUMENT 2
You argued that Wrath of The Titans does not have good characterization, and argued that Wrath's Andromeda does not have motivation to be leading an army into war. You continued by saying that Clash's Andromeda has purpose. What you've done is mix up the meanings of MOTIVATION and PURPOSE. You first said that Wrath's Andromeda had no real motivation in being in the story, consequently, insinuating that you were going to lead into another argument which states that Clash's Andromeda HAD a motivation for being in the story. However, instead of doing this, you change the subject stating that Andromeda has a PURPOSE for being in the story, So, changing the word back to MOTIVATION, what is Andromeda's (From Clash of The Titans) motivation for doing what she does? Does she have any motivation?
ANSWER: No. She has purpose, yes. But it's a very basic purpose. And that is: to be rescued. Very one-dimensional, very unoriginal as well.
You also argued that Clash Of The Titan 2010 focuses on one character: Perseus, unlike Wrath of The Titans. You said that the fact it focuses on one character is a strength to the film.
I again, disagree.
If a film is going to focus primarily on ONE character for the entirety of the movie, the character it is focused on has to be interesting, and quirky, with a set of weaknesses and strengths.
Perseus, of Clash of The Titans, is not remotely interesting. His family dies, he's a demi-god, he's pissed off, he's on a quest. Pfft. Interesting, I think not.
He does not have any quirks or idiosyncracies to his character, besides the one where he thinks he will be alienated by his family (which is early on in the movie, and is resolved straight away)
What's his weakness? Pain. Getting attacked.
What's his strength? He's half-god. He's noble. He's brave.
It's basic cardboard cut-out hero.
Wrath of The Titans focuses on multiple characters, and still manages to present an interesting protagonist (moreso than Clash of The Titans 2012)
INTERESTING FACTS: He has a son. He wants to try and live a quiet normal life. His wife died.
QUIRKS: He will not let his son wield a sword.
WEAKNESSES: His son. His father Zeus. Andromeda. Pain. Being attacked.
STRENGTHS: His son (see...serves as both a strength and weakness...interesting), demi-God, noble, brave.
The main character in Wrath is more interesting than the one in Clash, and Wrath focuses on MORE than one character, unlike Clash which focuses on ONE character.
Wrath of The Titans has better characterization.

ARGUMENT 3:
You said that Clash of The Titans had better critical reception than Wrath of The Titans, beating it by 6 points (29% > 23%). OK. I'll give you that.
Did you check the scores however?
Wrath of The Titans has an average score of 4.4/10.
Clash of The Titans has an average score of 4.3/10.
So, Clash of The Titans has higher percentage of critics liking it, but lower score?
It is true.
If you don't think that argument counts, I don't blame you.
They're critics. They're the people who are uptight, fancy and like to use professional words to review their films. In the end, it's the audience that matters. Critics get PAID to review films. Audiences don't. Critics know all the mojo about film: cinmatography, art direction, mise en scene, production values. etc. Audiences don't know anything about any of that. They just know whether they liked a film, or they didn't. And a higher percentage of the audience in Wrath of The Titans liked it.
WRATH OF THE TITANS audience reception: 51%
CLASH OF THE TITANS audience reception: 48%
http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
http://www.rottentomatoes.com...
They (the audience) even game Wrath of The Titans a better score than Clash of The Titans.
WRATH OF THE TITANS audience score: 6.2
CLASH OF THE TITANS auudience score: 5.8

http://www.imdb.com...
http://www.imdb.com...


In conclusion, I think Wrath of The Titans is a BETTER film than Clash Of The Titans 2010 because it has:
MORE COMPLEX CHARACTERS (not rebutted)
MORE CHARACTERS WHICH SERVE A PURPOSE (not really rebutted)
HAS BETTER 3D (opponent agreed)
HAS BETTER CHARACTERIZATION (not really rebutted)
HAS BETTER CRITICAL AND AUDIENCE RECEPTION (awaiting)


Nur-Ab-Sal

Con

I thank my opponent for his fantastic response and will now proceed with my last round of rebuttals.

Remake
This is really a subjective opinion but I will indeed argue that the 2010 Clash of the Titans was better than the 1981 Clash of the Titans. I hope everyone's ready for some more pictures ...here's Medusa from the 1981 Clash, so very unrealistic and not menacing at all:

Medusa from 1981 Clash
I mean can you even argue that that is better than a much better, CGI Medusa? Most people would argue that normal special effects are better than CGI effects, but with the exception of a few rare occasions such as Star Wars, I find CGI much more realistic. Here is Medusa from the 2010 Clash:
Medusa from 2010 Clash
So there you have it. While I can't prove acting with pictures, from personal opinion I can say that the acting was much more believable in the 2010 Clash than the 1981 Clash. My opponent agrees with me here, "Yeah, it was cheesy at times, I'll give that to you." However he says that the 1981 was more exciting and had realistic special effects for its time. While this may be true, that doesn't necessarily mean the special effects were good in the absolute just that they were good with respect to the norm at the time. I mean, you can't really argue that the dinosaurs from the 1925 The Lost World were better than the CGI dinosaurs from Jurassic Park, even if the dinsoaurs from The Lost World were groundbreaking at times.

My opponent goes on to state that the 2001 Clash is only adventurous because "[...] it follows almost the same plot as the original." I just want to say that this is the point of a remake. In fact, most fans like films better if they follow the same plot, instead of ruining it with some director's crappy interpretation of the original. With the exception of a few works, remakes which follow the same plot and keep the same ideas are enjoyed more by the fans. This is the case with a film such as Clash of the Titans.

As for the computer generated effects of the film, my opponent says: "[...] if you compare Clash of The Titans 2010 to other CGI heavy movies like Transformers, the Incredible, or Avatar, or the countless other movies that use better CGI, it's so obvious that the CGI of Clash 2010 is just not up to scratch." No, the CGI in Clash is not as good as that in Avatar or Transformers. But you have to remember they were working with a budget just as the creators of the 1981 Clash were. James Cameron's budget for Avatar was around $237 million (http://www.thewrap.com...) and the budget for the 2010 Clash of the Titans was around $125 million (http://www.movieinsider.com...), less than both. This means that Clash of the Titans had at least $112 million less than Avatar; to me, they did a fantastic job, even with less money (and Avatar was a rip off of Pocahontas anyway...)

And thus I repeat, Clash of the Titans was a great film, partially because it remade a classic into the same story, but with better special effects, which gives it better credit as a film.

Characterization
I concede. Wrath had better characterization. But this is only one part of what goes into a story.

Reception
Hey, 6 points is still better. My opponent agrees when he again says "O.K. I'll give you that." My opponent shows that Wrath's average beats Clash's average by literally .1 points, which is basically the same to me...

My opponent goes on to this whole tangent about how you shouldn't trust a critic because they're "uptight" and "fancy" whereas I say that critics are to be trusted more than audience because they actually look at the film as an art whereas the audience goes for entertainment. Thus, my opponent's argument that Wrath has 3 points better in the audience than Clash should not be taken seriously because the audience's opinion does not accurately reflect how good it is, just how entertaining it is. I highly doubt the audience that watches a movie like Transformers full of mindless action would rate a film like Citizen Kane very high. The audience's opinion should be considered irrelevant here.

Conclusion
I think Clash of the Titans is a better film than Wrath of the Titans because:
  • Clash was a remake of an older film and thus has extra value
  • Wrath was merely a sequel and had nothing to live up to
  • Clash remade a film with better effects on not too high of a budget
  • Clash receives better critic reception

I now turn it over to the voters to decide who wins this debate. I must say I really enjoyed it!

Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
The voting period is over.
Posted by Dik_Dawg 4 years ago
Dik_Dawg
Samsoknite's arguements are flawed and not well done. Vote Con!
Posted by Samsoknite 4 years ago
Samsoknite
lol thanks. Good debate! :D
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
I'll PM you how to put a picture in an argument later.
Posted by Samsoknite 4 years ago
Samsoknite
Gah crap...the images on my argument for Round 3 aren't working on my laptop. Here's hoping that it works on yours. Otherwise, just look it up or something. Sorry about that.
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
You're completely correct...my mistake. Can you correct that in your R2 argument? Thanks.
Posted by Samsoknite 4 years ago
Samsoknite
Hey I think you mean that you'll be arguing that "CLASH OF THE TITANS was better than WRATH OF THE TITANS",
not
"WRATH OF THE TITANS was better than CLASH OF THE TITANS."

Just pointing this out because the debate topic is:
"The 2012 movie, Wrath Of The Titans, is better than its predecessor, Clash of the Titans 2010"
and I am PRO, and you are CON.

I'm going to continue this debate as PRO (WRATH OF THE TITANS IS BETTER).
Anyway. GOOD LUCK!
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
You know what, I'll accept this.
Posted by Samsoknite 4 years ago
Samsoknite
Oh yes, I did. Sorry about that. :)
Posted by Nur-Ab-Sal 4 years ago
Nur-Ab-Sal
In the resolution you meant "Clash of the Titans 2010" I assume.

Anyway I liked them both, though on Clash I hated the 3D.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Multi_Pyrocytophage 4 years ago
Multi_Pyrocytophage
SamsokniteNur-Ab-SalTied
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: It seems Pro dropped some of Con's arguments. He never refuted that Clash, as a remake, is more valuable, and that Clash remade a film with better effects.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
SamsokniteNur-Ab-SalTied
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: Con proved that •Clash was a remake of an older film and thus has extra value •Wrath was merely a sequel and had nothing to live up to •Clash remade a film with better effects on not too high of a budget •Clash receives better critic reception Pro did not refute these.