New Spiderman movies better than old Spiderman movies.

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...