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

RemakeThis 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: 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: 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. CharacterizationI concede. Wrath had better characterization. But this is only one part of what goes into a story. ReceptionHey, 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. ConclusionI 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!