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.

[–] tabristhefallen 8 years ago

come to Malaysia, u will be able to enjoy the movie without Jesus at all. No I am not joking. The Malaysian version does
Not show any Jesus scene.

[–] jolejovanovic 8 years ago

Hahhaha, than the movie has no sence and some Ben Hur decisions also.

[–] vinsond21 8 years ago

Exactly.

[–] dalbrech 8 years ago

Well.this thread went in the crapper very quickly.

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

Is Ben Hur a story in the bible?? I honestly don't know, also what was the christian spin? like what was the message?

[–] vinidici 8 years ago

Is Ben Hur a story in the bible?? I honestly don't know, also what was the christian spin? like what was the message?

Ben Hur, Mesalla and immediate supporting characters are fictional characters, against the backdrop of First Century Judea during the life and ministry of Jesus Christ; other than Jesus and Pontius Pilate, I didn't find any other characters in this film who were historical figures.

The novel and, to a certain extent, all of the film adaptations, promote some elements of the Christian faith, as each movie version entails the struggles of the protagonist (Judah Ben Hur) and how, through his encounters with Jesus and converts (like his beloved Esther) change him and his family with both the Gospel message and acts of kindness (e.g. Jesus giving water to Judah; the miraculous healing of Judah's mother and sister.)

I'm in agreement with others who've noted in this discussion that none of the Ben Hur films were made by producers, directors, screen writers and actors who are / were necessarily professed Christians or, for that matter, even religious at all.

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

[–] oddjrgensen 8 years ago

"other than Jesus and Pontius Pilate, I didn't find any other characters in this film who were historical figures."

You can cross out (pun intended) Jesus from the list of historical figures, everything points to the character being an amalgamation of previous savior figures, and not an actual living person. Christs`/Messiahs` were a dime a dozen back then.

[–] rmcsharry-178-702888 8 years ago

There is historical evidence of a Jewish teacher/preacher called Jesus who was later claimed by the Gospel writers to be the Messiah/Son of God.

So there was an actual living person, but he got attributed with divine myths built from earlier myths.

Some of the key evidence comes from these 2:

1 Roman historian Tacitus writes about him in AD 64 (reign of Nero)
2 Letters of Pliny the Younger to Emperor Trajan refers to him (Pliny was the Roman governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor around 110 AD)

You can read more here: http://www.bethinking.org/jesus/ancient-evidence-for-jesus-from-non-christian-sources

All religions start with a personality cult around someone 'preaching' some new knowledge, and people who come along later embellish that person and the knowledge with new tales. Some of them last and grow and some don't.

Over 4,000 organised religions documented in the world to date.

Over 30,000 Christian sects currently worldwide. How many have come and gone in the past 2000 years?

It seems humankind is doomed to believe in magical myths for many centuries to come.

[–] leon_normand 8 years ago

Regardless of what anybody else tells you, Ben Hur is a documentary.

All movies are...

[–] LetThemEatCake01 8 years ago

???

[–] zoltan42 8 years ago

Yeah, but that's the reason Lew Wallace wrote the book. The official title is "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ".

As that great philosopher Bugs Bunny said, "Something tells me I shoulda stood in bed."

[–] tuula-1 8 years ago

Yes, the book is probably more Christian than the 1959 (almost wrote 'original', he he) film, which was made by a bunch of Jews and people who were likely not very interested in religion. Religion is hardly central to the film, except the end, which is the weakest part of it. Like the previous biggest-budget-ever film, the Ten Commandments, it's primarily a spectacle. Sure, both have religious message but the human drama, special effects and action comes first - which makes them more watchable than pure religious propaganda films.

34: I will not turn into a snake. It never helps.



[–] FirstBlood1982 8 years ago

The 1959 film shows the nativity before we even see Ben-Hur. Director William Wyler said that he felt Jesus Christ was/is the most important figure in all of history and felt the movie had to carefully depict Him with a great deal of reverance.

It's hardly some tacked on bit that wasn't very important in the eyes of those making the film.

+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++

[–] tuula-1 8 years ago

Saying Jesus was the 'most important figure in history' is not exactly the same as saying he is god, is it? After all, he IS a tremendously important historical figure, whatever the real Jesus did or said (or literally existed at all). Same way as Muhammad is an important historical figure. And as such, and also because many people think he was/is god, he should be treated with reverence to avoid insulting the movie goers. People would also be insulted by a movie where, say, Winston Churchill was shown drunk and naked or some such.

34: I will not turn into a snake. It never helps.



[–] lucid-stagger 8 years ago

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

The majority of the US audience is Christian ;) It's something like 70-75% of the populace identifies that way. Atheists such as myself make up a small percentage of the viewership. So, I don' think your notion is accurate. At least, not in the USA.

[–] toocoolmac 8 years ago

I'm also an atheist, but I recognize that Jesus and his message is the entire crux (ouch...sorry JC) of the story.

The world is one big sh#t show. An endless vicious cycle of revenge and brutality, due to selfish acts. The selfish lust for power and riches, at the expense of others. The only way out is through compassion and forgiveness. Step out of the cycle of hate, and "love your enemy" and "your neighbor as yourself". If we spent more time taking care of each other, rather than struggling to amass material comforts that mostly distract and isolate us...especially when doing so is done at the direct expense of others through war...or the indirect means of gobbling up an unfair portion of precious finite resources...there'd be few vicious cycles of revenge started in the first place.

So, yeah...I can see the beauty of the belief system, and how sweet it would be...if only it were true. Still...the compassion and forgiveness part could help out a lot, even without the complete lack of evidence for the supernatural part of it :p

That's the epiphany Ben-Hur has when at last his blood lust is slaked by his victory. But, seeing his once beloved brother's body tossed about and mocked, he's flooded with remorse at the loss of his closest friend. Instead of jubilant, he despairs, and finally gets it when he falls to his knees watching Jesus expire on the cross.

[–] boggie4758 8 years ago

I read all the comments and yours made the most sense to me. I always say I am a spiritual person. I do not believe in organized religion but, I do believe there is something greater and more than myself. What you said really is the bottom line if you believe in Jesus or some other God head or not one at all that is ok...but if we could just put all of that aside and just care for one another and forgive one another and ask ourselves what can I do for my fellow man and yes even love one another as much as we say we love Him then there would be no bother of it...I feel that we have lost our way and we have sealed our own fate and by that we have killed ourselves and our planet...

[–] sethman-50117 8 years ago

The ending was the best part you goose. It proved to show the greatest person to ever live and the effect he had on the first christians. I feel that Jesus needed to be in it more. .

[–] Edren 8 years ago

" You can believe whatever you want" Thanks OP, your permission is greatly appreciated.

[–] Falconeer 8 years ago

Ummm, the title of the novel this is based on is "Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ." It would kind of silly to remove "The Christ," when making this film. The presence of Jesus doesn't really harm this movie, as he is barely seen. It might have played better without the "miracle angle" but then they would have done better to change the title; "Ben-Hur" will forever be synonymous with Christ, as the story takes place during the time of Jesus. Also, the water scene is iconic; it is just such a large part of the story. By the way, I'm not Christian/Catholic; I just think the movie works as it is.

Fabio Testi is GOD

[–] iceman88869 8 years ago

It's a made for TV action movie without the religious elements. Not even half as good as the original IMO, but take the religious elements out and it would be a mindless action movie with sub-par acting.

[–] mjr1114 8 years ago

Have you seen the original? It's from 1907, it is a little over 15 minutes long, do you believe it is the best of all the proceeding versions?
Personally, I prefer the 1925 version to all of them, it kept the title of the the novel (so at least in that aspect it has the edge not to confuse what the actual story was meant to be about), the chariot race is a better 'ride' in this film and its 1959 remake is only better in terms of being filmed in Technicolor (and for many, being a 'talkike'), other than that, it's at times equally as good an others not as good as its predecessor. The remake's chariot scene is a scene for scene replica of the 1925 scene, which is the part so many refer to as the go to scene in the 1959 version. William Wyler, the director of the 59 version, worked on the 25 version, too. Even with many of the similarities between those two films, I still give the edge to the 1925 predecessor. But not everyone will give a silent movie the chance, so they will disagree that a silent film could ever be the better film and I get that. But not everyone realizes that a lot of the movies they believe are the 'originals' are truly remakes, themselves. It's why I won't give a newer remake too hard of time, because I realize some of my favorite movies (new and old) are sometimes a remake of a remake of a remake...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016641/reference

Credo ergo sum

[–] angmc43 8 years ago

it kept the title of the the novel (so at least in that aspect it has the edge not to confuse what the actual story was meant to be about),

Although the 1959 version is referred to as BEN-HUR, the title sequence follows the title with 'A TALE OF THE CHRIST' Still, I agree with you that in reference to the 1925 version, I refer to the full title.

other than that, it's at times equally as good an others not as good as its predecessor.

I somewhat agree. Sometimes equal, sometimes better, sometimes not. The 1925 version is probably the most faithful adaptation keeping parts from the novel (dialogue and titles, Simonidies' present status, the Antioch setting, Judah building an army, the leper women's star-crossed reunion with the sleeping Judah) the other versions omit.

The remake's chariot scene is a scene for scene replica of the 1925 scene

Not exactly. Judah keeps his helmet and whips the horses. Messala doesn't have a Greek chariot (although he wrecks one). Judah bears no remorse about Messala's fate. The silent version is supposed to have music (Carl Davis) and portrays bottom camera shots the 1959 version lacks.

But not everyone will give a silent movie the chance, so they will disagree that a silent film could ever be the better film

Sigh. Once upon a time, people would compare the 1925 and 1959 versions, but now everyone will probably compare the newer models and write-off the 1925 version.

[–] rbbrittain 8 years ago

The silent version is supposed to have music (Carl Davis) and portrays bottom camera shots the 1959 version lacks.

Davis' score was added to the film many years later, after Turner rediscovered and restored the two-strip Technicolor sequences. That restoration, originally aired by Thames Television in the UK, is the basis for all current home video versions of the 1925 film.

[–] angmc43 8 years ago

I've known that for a long time. I noted Carl Davis in my comment as a regard for his work for the Thames Silents print of the film.

[–] GateKeeper13 8 years ago

Ben Hur, both the original and the remake, have a deep, christian message in their core cause they are based on a christian book. So saying it would have been better without christian references is the least ABSURD and I dont get why the hell you would take the time to make such an idi@tic thread, if not for trolling reasons.