Ben Hur (2016): Why?

[Kromm]

Vaguely knew this was being remade. Just saw a commercial for it during the Olympics and it reinforced my confusion as to WHY anyone would even try to remake it.

The name recognition factor/nostalgia is too distant. The original movie too good to improve on. The franchise/further sequel potential virtually zero.

[BatmanBeatles]

I have a mop that looks like Morgan Freeman's wig.

[Morrigan2575]

Yeah, i really don't get this remake at all. Seems pointless and totally unnecessary. 

[Ohwell]

Awful idea.  I sincerely hope it tanks.

[benteen]

Awful idea, I agree.

Plus, I can't take anything seriously with Morgan Freeman anymore.  Just hearing his voice takes me out of what I'm watching.

[MisterGlass]

Saw a video review for this.  Sounds like it isn't completely dreadful.  Going to stick with the 1959 version as well.

[magicdog]

I agree this remake was unnecessary.  Charleton Heston, et al bring it home for me!

However, the one made in 1925 starring Ramon Navarro is actually quite good and I found it compelling to watch.  

 

This guy suggested one day they'd make a sequel called "Ben-Hur 3000" which takes place in spaaaace... I'd rather have seen that then the current film!

[proserpina65]

Because Jesus.  At least judging by who produced it.

(Sign me up as "no way, no how".  Charlton Heston wasn't the greatest of actors, but he had presence.  This new guy?  Not so much.)

Edited August 19, 2016 by proserpina65

[IWantCandy71]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 2:33 PM, Kromm said:

Vaguely knew this was being remade. Just saw a commercial for it during the Olympics and it reinforced my confusion as to WHY anyone would even try to remake it.

The name recognition factor/nostalgia is too distant. The original movie too good to improve on. The franchise/further sequel potential virtually zero.

Which original movie are you referring to? The actual original, or the Heston one, which is a remake itself?

Downey already said it's a reinterpretation of the 1880 novel, not a remake of any (weren't there 3?) past versions.

Speaking as someone who saw it, it will take a miracle for the movie to make a profit-but it isn't bad.  It isn't great-but I'd give it a solid 7 out of ten. The sea battle and the chariot race alone are worth watching on the big screen. I never saw any of the previous versions-and Charleston Heston was a boring actor IMO-so I don't feel I'm missing anything by never seeing the supposed untouchable classic 1959 one. As a rule, I tend to think Hollywood/the Oscars almost *always* get it wrong, anyway-so the fact that it won so many awards doesn't sway my opinion one bit. In fact, it kind of makes me want to avoid the 1959 version  altogether.

Unfortunately, there are so many people out there who are sticklers and think "you don't mess with "classics"-and will not even give this movie a chance. There are also lots of people who are simply uninformed. Even the reviewer from EW referred to the 1959 version as "the original". I can't take your review seriously, if you can't take five minutes to do some research.

I also think so much of today's movie going audience is just dumbed down. They want garbage like the Sausage movie. *shrug* How sad is that?

As far as Jesus-he has a speaking part in this, but not a big part. I was kind of disappointed by the choice of actor-he doesn't stand out the way I'd hoped.

I do like Toby Kebbel, and I'm a sucker for brotherly love winning out in the end, so I liked it. I don't know if I'd buy a copy, but I'd watch it again. The chariot race and sea battle(I know I'm repeating myself) were breathtaking to watch.

But that 100 million budget? Oh Roma Downey. You should know by now the general movie going public doesn't want to go to a movie that makes you THINK.

Edited August 20, 2016 by IWantCandy71

[IWantCandy71]

On ‎8‎/‎17‎/‎2016 at 10:02 PM, MisterGlass said:

Saw a video review for this.  Sounds like it isn't completely dreadful.  Going to stick with the 1959 version as well.

Eh. I'd recommend a watch-but maybe a Saturday matinee.

[MisterGlass]

5 hours ago, IWantCandy71 said:

Speaking as someone who saw it, it will take a miracle for the movie to make a profit-but it isn't bad.  It isn't great-but I'd give it a solid 7 out of ten. The sea battle and the chariot race alone are worth watching on the big screen. I never saw any of the previous versions-and Charleston Heston was a boring actor IMO-so I don't feel I'm missing anything by never seeing the supposed untouchable classic 1959 one.

The 1959 version isn't untouchable.  The pace is very gradual, even slow.  How it plays to people not fond of film of the era, I don't know.  However, it is the pinnacle of the cast-of-thousands epic genre.  The practical stunt work in the chariot race scene is stunning and tense.  I can believe the new version has good visuals and it seems to have different subtexts.  I haven't heard any praise of it warm enough to make me think my interest in the Ben-Hur story is not fully met by the 1959 version.

Remakes and re-imaginings of great films can work, but I've seen enough clunkers to justify doubt.  The 2001 Planet of the Apes (another Charlton Heston movie remake) had stunning make-up, but was deeply muddled and boring.  The 2005 King Kong had good visuals and a decent cast, but again, muddled and overblown.  The Stepford Wives (2004) is aimed in a completely different direction from the chilling original, and I don't think it's that good at it.  I didn't see the shot-for-shot remake of Psycho - that one genuinely seemed pointless.

[Kromm]

5 hours ago, IWantCandy71 said:

Which original movie are you referring to? The actual original, or the Heston one, which is a remake itself?

Point taken. Although that's akin to taking that same position on people who don't want The Wizard of Oz remade again based off of the power of the 1939 version, but not the 1925 and 1910 versions.

[Amethyst]

On 8/20/2016 at 8:20 PM, MisterGlass said:

The Stepford Wives (2004) is aimed in a completely different direction from the chilling original, and I don't think it's that good at it.  

I'll be blunt; that remake was garbage.  Even Frank Oz (the director) admitted that it was a huge mistake.  Changing the disturbing tone of the original is only one of the problems it had.  It was saddled with a lousy script, huge plot holes, and stereotypes galore.  Plus the actors and Oz didn't get along.  Just a mess all around.

[GreekGeek]

Since I teach Latin, I generally seek out anything to do with Ancient Rome, so I'll probably have a look at this. I may have a hard time taking it seriously after seeing the sendup of "Romans and Christians epics" in Hail, Caesar!, though. My guilty secret is that I'm not a huge fan of the 1959 movie (too long and slow and preachy) apart from the famous chariot race. 

According to the plot summary I've read, Ben-Hur and Messala are "brothers." Does this mean that the gay subtext is omitted? According to screen legend, everyone knew about the latter except Charlton Heston.

[IWantCandy71]

On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2016 at 8:20 PM, MisterGlass said:

The 1959 version isn't untouchable.  The pace is very gradual, even slow.  How it plays to people not fond of film of the era, I don't know.  However, it is the pinnacle of the cast-of-thousands epic genre.  The practical stunt work in the chariot race scene is stunning and tense.  I can believe the new version has good visuals and it seems to have different subtexts.  I haven't heard any praise of it warm enough to make me think my interest in the Ben-Hur story is not fully met by the 1959 version.

I think a lot of people, especially critics, ARE saying it's untouchable.

Quote

Point taken. Although that's akin to taking that same position on people who don't want The Wizard of Oz remade again based off of the power of the 1939 version, but not the 1925 and 1910 versions.

Just pointing out, that I think many people don't know the history of the story in cinema-and that there were not only two versions before Heston's, but that it came from a novel. Yet they are yammering on about disrespecting "the original"-which Heston's version is not. I think if you're going to throw in to the debate, you should know the basic facts-I can't count the number of people on IMDB, Twitter and other places mocking the new one because "the original" was so much better. It's annoying, TBH. And when I saw that reviewer at EW calling Heston's "the original"-well, that pretty much ended his credibility. There's no excuse for that kind of ignorance when it only takes two minutes on the internet to find out otherwise.

 

3 hours ago, GreekGeek said:

Since I teach Latin, I generally seek out anything to do with Ancient Rome, so I'll probably have a look at this. I may have a hard time taking it seriously after seeing the sendup of "Romans and Christians epics" in Hail, Caesar!, though. My guilty secret is that I'm not a huge fan of the 1959 movie (too long and slow and preachy) apart from the famous chariot race. 

According to the plot summary I've read, Ben-Hur and Messala are "brothers." Does this mean that the gay subtext is omitted? According to screen legend, everyone knew about the latter except Charlton Heston.

You might like this one, then. It does have preachy moments-but I didn't care. However-it's half the length of Heston's version. I actually think the ending was rushed and the reconciliation between the brothers needed more justification-and yeah the ending is TOO pat and cutesy and doesn't really fit, IMO. But overall, I liked the movie. I did think there was something online-didn't read it-where it talked about Gore Vidal and Heston fighting over the supposed gay subtext. In this version, they are adopted brothers, so if you wanted to see two men "in love", well...people see what they want to see.  I saw two men who loved each other, but were "in" love with a woman. I really do hate that these days,  you cannot have two men who are close without making it sexual or "romantic". I will say though, that even this version makes it obvious that  Messala and Judah are the most important person in each other's lives.

[galax-arena]

Changing the disturbing tone of the original is only one of the problems it had.

It's been ages since I've read the book, but IIRC the novel itself had a fairly comedic, breezy tone. I wouldn't have had a problem with the tone switch for the 2004 remake, it's just.... everything else that was an issue. 

On topic? I don't trust anything touched by Roma Downey. 

[Kromm]

2 hours ago, galax-arena said:

On topic? I don't trust anything touched by Roma Downey. 

Heh. I see what you did there.

Quote

Just pointing out, that I think many people don't know the history of the story in cinema-and that there were not only two versions before Heston's, but that it came from a novel. Yet they are yammering on about disrespecting "the original"-which Heston's version is not. I think if you're going to throw in to the debate, you should know the basic facts-I can't count the number of people on IMDB, Twitter and other places mocking the new one because "the original" was so much better. It's annoying, TBH. And when I saw that reviewer at EW calling Heston's "the original"-well, that pretty much ended his credibility. There's no excuse for that kind of ignorance when it only takes two minutes on the internet to find out otherwise.

I agree there's no excuse for someone paid to write about it to get this wrong (at worst an editor should have spotted it).  That said, I do think that as I did myself, and as people do with The Wizard of Oz (one I definitely remembered there'd been multiple versions of), that it's a case of something seeming definitive, and that doesn't really require it being the original in the end, I think. Of course as has also been pointed out, the book is quite different, but then we enter a debate on if there's really a demand for the story as told in the book. Another question might be about even doing a Sword & Sandals type movie in the first place. Other than 300 and Gladiator, is there really any indication of success (or demand) for them in the past few decades?  I do think anyone who makes a case about "disrespect" to an older version is starting with a weak argument, by the way.  It's less about "respect" and more about if there's actually a compelling reason to remake something (as well as actual artistic and commercial viability). 

[Morrigan2575]

13 hours ago, GreekGeek said:

 According to the plot summary I've read, Ben-Hur and Messala are "brothers." Does this mean that the gay subtext is omitted? According to screen legend, everyone knew about the latter except Charlton Heston.

 

9 hours ago, IWantCandy71 said:

I did think there was something online-didn't read it-where it talked about Gore Vidal and Heston fighting over the supposed gay subtext.

I just read about this a few days ago.  I always thought there was some gay subtext going on but, wondered if it was intentional or just something about the actor (not Heston).

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/charlton-heston-may-unknowingly-played-000000306.html

Pretty fun read.

[Raja]

The shorter running time made it much more enjoyable for me. Epics tend to be a slog. About the epic length movies I watch are The Great Escape, West Side Story and Exodus. And I often break those into multiple days of watching 

[IWantCandy71]

 I do think  Roma felt she wanted to remake BH for this reason: the first version is supposedly mostly about revenge. She wanted to tell the story from the angle of forgiveness. She would have been better off just having the scriptwriter make an original story set in the same time frame-but the most anal critics would have still made the Ben Hur comparisions, I think. Or better yet, tell the story with a modern twist. Truly re-imagine it by having the two brothers be, I don't know-race car drivers, or with the Olympics this year-perhaps both athletes? Class/social stature/success/race/religion/wealth/politics/etc, any of those could have taken the place of the Jew/Roman conflict in the film.  The budget would have been a lot less, and with a good script, people would turn out and it wouldn't have to scramble to make up any financial losses. 

I rewatched the film and  I've decided that I will buy a copy when it comes out. It may just be one of those that grows on you upon rewatch. I have even decided I like the ending-though it is  flawed. After just typing out my idea for a more modern version though, I kinda wish they'd gone with that-because they could have had a brand new film and still paid tribute to the spirit of what RD wanted to do. I do absolutely adore the chemistry with TK and JH-the film lives and breathes on whether or not we buy the brotherly bond-and they totally sold it. Chemistry so good, now I really want them to do something else together.

Agree with the above comment about the running time, one of the things they did right was cut the length almost in half.  I think the film needed a little more time devoted to Messala and Judah forgiving one another-because again, it seems to happen too quickly after the race. I realize some time actually passes for the characters between the end of the race and the time they reconcile, but in screen time it happens in less than ten minutes, and nothing is really done to project the passage of a few weeks or whatever it was, for the characters. 

Gore Vidal, he has always struck me as a gay man who saw gay subtext everywhere-usually wrongly.  I've already said-two men, two women-they can love each other and be close, to the point of dying for each other-without it being the least bit "romantic" or sexual. To fail to see that because you don't WANT to see it, is annoying.  Vidal also made the claim in his "novel" about Aaron Burr, that the slanderous comment Alexander Hamilton made about Burr that caused Burr to hate him enough to challenge him to that fatal duel, was that Burr was molesting his daughter.  Gore Vidal was a pot stirrer, that's for sure.

[Rinaldo]

On August 20, 2016 at 9:47 PM, Kromm said:

Point taken. Although that's akin to taking that same position on people who don't want The Wizard of Oz remade again based off of the power of the 1939 version, but not the 1925 and 1910 versions.

How about the original Baum novel? And I do take that position on a new film Wizard of Oz -- I wouldn't at all mind seeing it happen, because nobody has seriously tried to adapt what Baum wrote (not even Baum himself, when he saw it adapted into a stage musical in 1902, or a silent movie).

I don't believe in any movie being "definitive," if it derives from another medium. There's always room for someone else to do better with another aspect. And I actually read the Lew Wallace novel before the 1959 movie existed, so to me that is "the original." There's no gay subtext in it, by the way -- that's one of Vidal's inventions (to be fair, he never claimed otherwise; he saw it as a way of adding tension to the scene).