Sylvester Stallone is an ideal choice to direct a remake of Death Wish

Responding to his most recent arguments: "After reading my opponent's response I must admit I found his argument quite snobby" This is an unnecessary ad hominem attack. My opponent clearly likes Sylvester Stallone a lot; he clearly didn't want anyone to actually debate him on this topic. Anyone who accepted would argue that Stallone is not a good actor, writer, or director. This is the essence of the Con position. "THIS DEBATE IS NOTHING TO DO WITH STALLONE'S WRITING SKILLS… IT IS ENTIRELY ABOUT HIS DIRECTING. " My opponent should calm down or make sure his Cap Lock key is not accidentally on. My argument is just that: an argument. There's no reason to get so worked up about it. But: 1) My opponent has no response to the fact that both of Stallone's directing debuts, Rambo IV and the Expendables, were both rated "rotten" by Rotten Tomatoes' meta-analysis, which combines all the reviews on the internet. 2) Writing and directing are related in two ways. Firstly, if someone is a terrible screenwriter, it shows they are not a very intelligent person. Intelligence is also required for directing. Secondly, directors are in charge of cutting the film (deciding which scenes and takes to include and which to exclude); directors must ensure that the film has sufficient character development; directors must re-write portions of the script that do not jive with their vision of the film, and director's must get the best performance out of their actors. Writing is related to knowing which scenes are necessary and which are unnecessary (cutting); writing is related to having good character development, and writing is necessary if the director must re-write portions of the script. Also, I don't think Stallone being the main character of Death Wish is a plus. For one, he's a lot older than the original actor was when he starred in the film. It's hard to believe that Stallone is a father; a grandfather would be more likely. Stallone also cannot get the best performance out of his actors if he is the main character because his face has absolutely no expressiveness. He is unable to portray any depth of character in his acting. Also, films work a lot better when the director is not also the main character. It is hard to judge your own performance when you're not watching it in real time. Directors don't just take a script, point a camera, and shoot a bunch of film. That's the cameraman's job, and it takes no skill at all. Director's achieve a complex vision for their film and add depth and character development – they need to make a screenplay come alive. Stallone lacks this vision. Refuting my opponent's rebuttal to my case: He attacks the Rene Rodriguez review by saying: "The only information I saw that opposed Stallone's directing was the bit that said ‘[Stallone has] cheesy CGI buildings collapsing, an obviously animated wall of fire'. Anyway I think it very unlikely a remake of Death wish will feature things like this, so things like that should of no concern. " This Rene Rodriguez line is supposed to show that Stallone has poor choice when choosing special effects and cutting. My opponent also ignores the Rodriguez critique that Stallone has absolutely no character development in The Expendables. Character development is important because, as my opponent's own description of the plot points out, Death Wish is heavily dependent on character development. We need to see a character who is torn apart by his family's death and the injustice and ugliness of the world and who is thus driven toward vigilantism. Stallone is the last director and actor you want if you need character development. The Expendables had such a great all-star cast that it was impossible to screw up. Yet somehow, Stallone managed to do so. My opponent says: "I am not arguing that Stallone is the best director for the remake of Death Wish, but an IDEAL one" My opponent should have looked up the definition of ideal before using it in this debate. Remember, ideal means "conforming to an ultimate standard of perfection. " That is a high burden of proof. An ideal choice is usually the best option or a near-best option. If I gave you 50 local restaurants you could eat at, your ideal choices would usually be your #1 and maybe your #2 or #3 choice. Your #20 choice would usually not be your ideal choice. My opponent says: "I'm sure Sylvester Stallone is certainly in the top 20 of the ideal list. " This is uncited. Stallone is certainly not on my top 20 directors list. He is not on the "top 10 best action directors" list I already cited. He is not on this "top 40 directors" list from The Guardian. . http://film.guardian.co.uk... My opponent says: "There may indeed be a lot more directors to choose from, but they would need to be WILLING to direct the film as well be nominated for it. " This is the is-ought fallacy: just because Stallone is the only person to be nominated as director thus far doesn't mean he OUGHT to be director. Anyone on my list of directors, the top 40 list of the directors (The Guardian), or the top 10 best action directors list (. http://movies.toptenreviews.com...) would be a far superior choice to Stallone. At least one of them must be available to work on this project; directors can usually work on a few projects simultaneously. Even if they were all unavailable, delaying the shooting of Death Wish would be a better option than letting Stallone mangle it. Moving on to my opponent's case The plot of Death Wish does not make Stallone a good director. Another director could take the same plot and make it seem "more real" than Stallone could. My opponent's only evidence that Stallone is a good director are two scenes from Rambo 4. The first video actually shows what a ridiculously bad director Stallone is. The epic music at the end of the mass murder scene is completely out-of-place. The music doesn't match the scene to such an extent that it is almost comical. Any director could have contracted good special effects – the cutting (where to put the musical score) is where Stallone really screwed this scene up. The second video has nothing to do with directing. The easiest special effect to achieve in a movie is shooting people. Any director or special effects artist with half a brain could achieve the scene my opponent describes in Death Wish, where the main character shoots a bunch of criminals with a revolver. Summary: Stallone's first two attempts as a director were stinkers. Stallone is the anti-King Midas. Everything King Midas touched turned to gold. Everything Stallone touches turns to cr@p. All the directors I named would be ideal choices. They have all achieved above a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes: Steven Spielberg – Saving Private Ryan (91%), Catch Me If You Can (96%), Minority Report (91%), Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Arc (94%), Schindler's List (97%) James Cameron – Terminator (100%), Terminator 2 (98%), Aliens (100%) Quentin Tarantino – Pulp Fiction (94%), Reservoir Dogs (96%) Martin Campbell – Casino Royale (96%) Christopher Nolan – Memento (93%), The Dark Knight (93%) Sylvester Stallone, in contrast, has yet to break 40% (a rating of rotten). Even if Stallone were in a room with the 500 best directors of all time, he would still be completely out of place. Death Wish needs a director more like King Midas – where everything he or she touches turns to gold. Death Wish does not need Stallone's touch of death.