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

REBUTTALS: ARGUMENT 1You 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: 6.2CLASH OF THE TITANS auudience score: 5.8http://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)