MovieChat Forums > Ben-Hur (2016) Discussion > There was NEVER a reason to make this mo...

There was NEVER a reason to make this movie again...

posted 9 years ago by broncobilly1960
28 replies | jump to latest

I think some studio exec's are yearning for past when the studio's made great films.
Like, Gone with the Wind, Bridge on the River Kwai, From Here to Eternity and Casablanca
to name a few. This was a colossal waste of $100 million. Certain movies are what they are because of the actors that made that movie.

Heston was perfectly cast for the 59 version. Just like Henry Fonda in Mister Robert's.
Bogie in Casablanca and Maltese Falcon. George C Scott in Patton and Brando in Godfather and On the Waterfront. Some movies cry out for a part 2 or a sequel.

This is not one of them...!!!!

[–] pd78w 9 years ago

Funny, the original Ben-Hur had a $15 million production budget. They'll be lucky to make $15 million on this waste of a remake.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] rick-220 9 years ago

1959's version is not the original BEN-HUR.

I'd say the 1925 version is the first full fledged BEN-HUR feature, and it's just as good and in parts better (the sea battle) than the 1959 version. Highly recommended.

On Twitter https://twitter.com/RickAtTheMovies

[–] pp312 9 years ago

Funny the number of people who say the silent version was as good or better than the '59 version. I tried to watch it once and didn't get further than 20 minutes in--I found it ridiculous even by hammy silent movie standards. It has none of the depth of feeling Wyler brought to the later version, instead substituting genuine emotion for empty posturing. Indeed, it only betters the later version, as you suggest, in using full scale ships for the sea battle, but that's only one scene.

[–] rick-220 9 years ago

I tried to watch it once and didn't get further than 20 minutes in

Well, try again and base your opinion on seeing the whole film. You know the critical scenes which require depth and emotion are a bit further into the movie. One of the best things about this one is Navarro's Ben-Hur, who - unlike Heston's version - starts out like a boy and really goes through a maturing process.

And yes, I understand your criticism. The acting is typical of the silent movie era spectacles and can be off-putting. And therefore it can be distracting from the story line, and in this case especially the visuals.

At the same time, that is probably the same objection many current viewers have against the '59 version, which als has a typical 50's presentation in plot, dialogue and acting style.

On Twitter https://twitter.com/RickAtTheMovies

[–] AckbartheHutt 9 years ago

Actually the 1925 version is a remake of the 1907 version. The 1959 version might not be the original but it is still considered to be the best of all of them.

[–] aaronhusar 8 years ago

That's why he said "the 1925 version is the first FULL FLEDGED Ben-Hur feature." By the way, I hope to find the 1925 version one day.

[–] Branais (73) 8 years ago

> "By the way, I hope to find the 1925 version one day."

My Blu-ray set of the '59 version came with the full '25 version on a third disc, though only in DVD resolution. It's the "Ultimate Collector's Edition" from Amazon UK (currently only £8), and it's completely region-free.

[–] rcostabile 8 years ago

Considered by who?, The 1959 is in many lists of the greatest movies of all time, including AFI, the original silent is never listed.

I have seen both and by far the 1959 version is the best, without diminishing any of the acomplishments made by the original, that was a great technical archievement for its time.

[–] parbon84 8 years ago

Actually ancient cave paintings tell the original Ben Hur story, before he even existed in reality.

FFS earlier doesn't mean better people.

[–] diddymuck 8 years ago

the 59 version was a success because it had something the 25 version didn't have...SOUND.

What does this modern version have that the 59 does not have? Nil.

[–] ElRaisuli 8 years ago

the 59 version was a success because it had something the 25 version didn't have...SOUND.

...SOUND ...and COLOR(Technicolor) ...and 65mm WIDESCREEN ...and 6-Track STEREO ...and a 60% greater budget (adjusted for inflation) ...and an HOUR more story...

[–] gowland85 9 years ago

Move along. Nothing to see here

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] gowland85 9 years ago

D'oh! Silly me. I was thinking of The Ten Commandments.

[–] wildpeace10 9 years ago

Gone with the wind,Bridge on the River Kwai,From Here to Eternity and Casablanca
will be remade if Mark And Roma can find a big enough part for Jesus in them.

[–] diddymuck 9 years ago

number one rule of film making...if its been made before and everyone remembers every scene, actor, and line of the old version...DON'T REMAKE IT!!! Why pay 12 bucks for a theater seat to watch a flick so familiar that you can see it in your mind's eye?

[–] yihdzelonh 8 years ago

You know that a society is at its end when EVERY facet of society sucks beyond all comprehension and belief -including movies: Nearly every movie that has come out since 2000 has been a one-star or less movie.

A 'washed-up' talentless and unintelligent society feels the need and desire to do "re-makes" of countless movies and not surprisingly they choose the wrong era (1980s movies, are you kidding?!) and the wrong kinds of movies to remake -almost no exceptions. Not surprisingly, virtually every remake is an utter 'mockery' of the original in every way; much worse than even a parody.

You know a society is washed up when they have NO PROPENSITY to learn: No one in Hollywood...no actors or directors see how badly about all remakes suck....and continue in this trend somehow not consciously-aware that they are destroying the movie they think they are 'honoring.' Ludicrously-pathetic.

[–] KarmaSmith 8 years ago

Hollywood's target market seems to be 15-25 year old boys/men. They are the ones dishing out money for films, apparently, so they are being pandered to.

For the rest of us, there are plenty of other outlets for good, intelligent entertainment, so society is not quite dead as of yet.

The small screen seems to have stepped in to pick up the slack. There are more intelligent TV shows now than at any time in the past.

Also, there ARE good films being made. They are just not making it into mass market outlets.

[–] Kingsbridger 8 years ago

I was skeptical at first but wound up liking it even though it started out really slow.

[–] ronniehaenson_tynset 8 years ago

yes there was. they need money :P

[–] razor323 8 years ago

Sure there was. The 1959 version was a BIG, plodding, thunderous BORE!!

[–] broncobilly1960 8 years ago

You certainly don't know what is good and bad. 95% of Hollywood movies are made because someone came up with story they think will work. Hence a remake of Ghost Busters, My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2, and most of the Marvel comic book movies that they keep putting out every few months.

Hell and High Water and Eye in the Sky, and Lobster are the best movies so far this year.Fall looks to be some decent movies coming out..

[–] razor323 8 years ago

Don't speak fo me, please.

[–] diddymuck 8 years ago

the chariot race, Jesus' cameo providing the hero with water, the sea battle, and the rowers put through their paces until all are exhausted...all boring?

[–] Branais (73) 8 years ago

Oh razor, I can't agree. You're entitled to personal opinion, of course, but while it might have bored you, it isn't boring for everyone.

Maybe you meant the religious bits, and to be honest I find them pretty tedious as well -- mostly because they feel tacked onto the story and not a part of its core. They add nothing to Judah's search for vengeance on Messala, and don't help resolve it at all; the only place for Jesus in the story really is as a literal deus ex machina to resolve the question of Judah's mother and sister being lepers. But the subtitle of the original novel is "A Tale of the Christ", something which Wallace did, no doubt, to make his story socially acceptable at a time when Christianity and the Christian God were seen as the sole source of morality and principle. I always ignore those bits, because Judah's anger and vengeance seem totally justified without them and nothing of substance comes from his being pressured to forgive the man who's already destroyed himself anyway.

Even so, I don't find the film a bore. ;-)