MovieChat Forums > Ben-Hur (2016) Discussion > Benhur 2016, the Atheist's cut

Benhur 2016, the Atheist's cut

posted 8 years ago by constantinochicago
45 replies | jump to latest

This post is not meant to attack any religion. You can believe whatever you want. So please... Thanks. And also, do not complain about my english, I'm an import.

My main point is that without all the 'Christian' components BenHur would have been a better movie. Everytime he showed up in the movie was an unnecesary distraction and brought nothing to the film, specially the scenes after the race.

This movie could have reached a 7 on IMDB if:

- Jesus doesn't show up
- There is no miracle with the sick sister and mom and they die as they were supposed to.
- Messala dies after the race. Quick conversation with Ben-Hur to wrap up and boom.. dies being still BenHur's enemy..

This would have made the movie way more bad-a$$ and appealing to a broader audience.

Regarding the people that don't like it just because of being a remake, I'm personally in favor of remakes. Many people have a hard time dealing with the 'deep', 'classic theaterish' dialogues of older movies.

I'm also ok with BenHur becoming Chris Martin from Coldplay at the final race, although I needed a few seconds to digest.

[–] angmc43 8 years ago

- Messala dies after the race. Quick conversation with Ben-Hur to wrap up and boom.. dies being still BenHur's enemy..

Actually, for maybe the first 100 years of BEN-HUR, any filmed adapted narrative made no forgiveness resolution. The novel had the ruined Messala make a failed attempt on Judah's life and later try to discreetly get money from him (Judah's view of his ex-friend post-race is rather indifferent: kinda like 'Messala is now a poor cripple; I find myself not caring.'). The 1959 version's end to the relationship is similar to your wish. Judah comes to the mangled and dying Messala with no malice ("I see no enemy"), but the unredeemed Messala with his last breaths throws one more twist of the knife by revealing that his family- whom Judah thought were dead- are actually lepers. "The race goes on..." It wasn't until a 1990s animated special BEN-HUR: A RACE FOR GLORY do we get a redeemed-and-forgiven Messala for the first time.

[–] peggygeordie 8 years ago

Without the spiritual component you simply gut the heart from this story and are left with an action movie that ends with a chariot race. It would not have survived for well over 100 years if this were all it is.

You don't even have to be a Christian to be moved by the power of the 1959 version, but it does help to believe in something "beyond this world."

With a dead family and a mere physical victory, how would it be different than a hundred other "wronged man seeks revenge" movies and TV shows that are briefly popular and soon forgotten?

[–] dalbrech 8 years ago

What the 1959 version did, brilliantly, was to be very nuanced about how they portrayed Christ.The emphasis was upon Jesus as a moral teacher;whether or not he was divine was very vague...and that was a very deliberate decision by MGM. It is indicative that the final scene with Ben Hur does not have him accepting Jesus as his Savior,but saying how seeing Christ on the cross took the sword out of his hand...a huge difference. MGM had gambled the fate of the studio on the film.if it failed MGM would go under. They could not afford to alientate anybody.They had to please CHristians and Non Christians. Being "Ecumencial" in their approach to Jesus was a no brainer. They had to appeal to everybody. (Notice how many shout outs to the Jewish audience there is in the film?The Bit with the Muzuzah is one of the cleverist things about the film).
One of the many mistakes the 2016 version was being so in your face with it's Christian Proseltyzing. I expected that when Roma Downey got involved. That it was done so clumsily did not help matters.

[–] GateKeeper13 8 years ago

MGM is actually owned by Jews and Jews do not accept Jesus as the savior.

[–] KarmaSmith 8 years ago

I like the idea of a Jesus-free Ben-Hur.
Who is to say that Judah could not still have forgiven Messala, even without Jesus there to lecture and miracle-ize all over the film?

People the world over are capable of forgiveness without needing some deity to tell them they need to do it. Forgiveness is better in that you can let go and not waste your emotions hating, or waste your life trying to wreak vengeance.

That's not to say that Judah should have taken Messala in and sang "Kumbaya" with him at the end, as he did in this movie. As I have commented before, taking in a man who tried to kill you and your entire family is not "divine". It is just stupid, as you are setting yourself up for more abuse in the future.

[–] Edren 8 years ago

"People the world over are capable of forgiveness without needing some deity to tell them they need to do it. "

I guess you've had to forgive someone who destroyed your family and had you sold into slavery.

[–] JasonRebourne 8 years ago

THIS

You could take Jesus out of the film and it wouldn't effect the story.

I don't give a f*@K about a troll who doesn't pay for his opinion telling me how to review movies.

[–] dalbrech 8 years ago

Ben Hur is not about being "Bad Ass and appealing".
Actually Messala dying a enemy of Ben Hur was used in the 1959 film.
I am amazed how many idiots think of Ben Hur as a action movie.

[–] jolejovanovic 8 years ago

Man, the story is the same like in 1959 Ben Hur movie, and that movie have 8.1 I think and 11 Oscars.
The film has a purpose, but I see that you just only saw a action movie without any point.

[–] vinsond21 8 years ago

You are absolutely right!

[–] staceypokorney 8 years ago

Dude, seriously? The story is the SAME as 1959 version?

Judah and Esther do not marry before his imprisonment in the 1959 version.

The wandering horse gambler in the desert was an Arab, not an African, in the 1959 version.

Quintus Arias was rescued from Judah's slave ship during a Roman sea battle in the 1959 version, by Judah, and upon arriving in Rome, they begin a familial bond which leads to Judah being adopted by Arias, and learning the skills of the circus. Quintas is just a cameo in the 2016 version, and is not rescued by anyone, and doesn't adopt Judah.

Esther, the slave girl, and her father, Judah's traveling merchant, are questioned and imprisoned and eventually manage the Ben-Hur property in the family's absence in the 1959 version. Esther's father is reduced to a blink-and-you'll-miss-him cameo in the 2016 show.

There are many more differences between these two versions. Esther is the one who knows the fate of Judah's family and hides it from him in the 1959 version. You don't actually hear any of the words of Jesus in the 1959 version. There is no overarching "forgiveness" sermon beaten into the audience. Masala and Tirzah never have a romance in the 1959 version, it is unrequited love on her part. Bottom line, without listing every difference, is that the 1959 version and the 2016 version are in no way the same movie at all!! [And don't get me started on trying to fill the shoes of Charles Heston and Vincent Price.]

The 2016 version left out one of the very most poignant moments from the 1959 version, yet confusingly left its mirror scene in. The scene where Judah has been sent to work on slave ships, and is in a chain gang going through the desert, shows him running into Jesus of Nazareth, who gives him "living water" against the orders of the Roman guards. No words are spoken. No proselytizing occurs. Judah does not understand this kindness but later claims it gave him the will to live. Later, after the circus, when Jesus is being led to His crucifixion, Judah attempts to return the favor, again, against Roman guard orders, and again, with no words passing between them. However, it is an incredibly powerful scene. The 2016 version cut the first half of this story line and kept the second half, and threw in some unnecessary dialogue for good measure.

And, BTW, for those that want to take Jesus out of the movie, there's this contraption on the remote called "Fast Forward." Use it if you want, but stop trying to change elements of the original story just because you don't agree with them religiously. I can watch "Sound of Music" without being Catholic, and "Fiddler on the Roof" without being Jewish. Heck, I can even watch "Aladdin" without being Muslim. Get over yourselves, people!

[–] TrevorAclea 8 years ago

Curiously the film as it stands pretty much plays like it was made by atheists - very bored atheists- who needed to pay the rent. Jesus has no genuine impact on the plot or the character in this version, just briefly popping up in arbitrary scenes completely devoid of anything approaching spirituality, just a couple of really badly modernised bits of direlogue about loving enemies. It's clear that the director has no interest in any of these scenes, the actor is clueless and the writers are just rushing through them as quickly and perfunctorily as possible. If Jesus were as boring and inconsequential as the film makes out, Christianity would never have got off the ground.

It certainly gives the impression that, despite being brought onboard to attract the faith crowd, Mark and Roma Burnett might well be atheists out to make a fast buck from the faithful with minimal effort.

"Security - release the badgers."

[–] vinsond21 8 years ago

For all the ignoramuses out there, Ben-Hur is actually ABOUT Jesus Christ and how HE impacted the life of a Jewish nobleman and his family. The whole point of this story is about the work of Christ and its redemptive effect on humanity. So whoever asked for a Ben-Hur without Christ, maybe just see Spartacus or something else similar.

[–] Snaggelpuss 8 years ago

The whole point of this story is about the work of Christ and its redemptive effect on humanity

You claim that but how can that be when your jewsus jew messiah cant be the jew messiah of your jewish belief as the bible proves he doesnt meet all the requirements and fails on many, so the bible jewsus cant be your jew messiah from your jew belief.

[–] vinidici 8 years ago

You claim that but how can that be when your jewsus jew messiah cant be the jew messiah of your jewish belief as the bible proves he doesnt meet all the requirements and fails on many, so the bible jewsus cant be your jew messiah from your jew belief.

Could you restate the question, please? I honestly cannot make head or tail of it.

Secret Message, HERE!--->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!

[–] pp31246 8 years ago

This whole debate reminds me of a story Peter Ustinov told about when he was making Billy Budd. Studio heads objected to the downbeat ending. Ustinov asked rhetorically, "Would Ben-Hur have been better if Christ hadn't been crucified?" As he tells it, several eyes lit up until convinced of the absurdity of the idea. This seems somewhat similar in that some people here are completely missing the point, which is contained in the subtitle, "A tale of the Christ." Taking Jesus out of the story would indeed make it a different story and a different film.