I'm enjoying the irony of complaining about remakes - Ben-Hur (2016) Discussion

[–] angmc43 9 years ago

It appears the 1925 silent version is getting forgotten.

reply

[–] larosat 9 years ago

Or the 1907 short.

reply

[–] angmc43 9 years ago

Well, the 1907 one-reeler was just a bunch of scenes quickly filmed and edited around some real chariot race event at a charity picnic. The 1925 film version was a more professional affair, technically one of the peaks of the silent film era. I feel the film shouldn't be neglected.

reply

[–] larosat 9 years ago

Angmac:
I was being facetious. I know its only 15 minutes long.

reply

[–] rbbrittain 8 years ago

The 1907 version was unauthorized; the lawsuit that resulted from it was one of the first successful copyright lawsuits against a film. The 1925 film was its first AUTHORIZED film adaptation; the 1959 film was a remake of that. (William Wyler, the 1959 film's director, also worked on the chariot scene in the 1925 film.)

reply

[–] denis-38 9 years ago

Or the stage version. (Not kidding!)

reply

[–] Kobebucsfan 9 years ago

well one of silent film, the other is not. so that remake was valid. the new one is the same with crappy cgi that wont win oscars, so it didnt really improve on the previous film = FAIL

Last movie seen -
WAZIR: 6/10
Finding Dory: 8/10
Iraivi: 10/10

reply

[–] residentevil6901 9 years ago

Yeah but who cares about Oscars? As long as films entertain people, the awards are just a dick measuring contest.

reply

[–] ragusa11 9 years ago

There is one small problem. The 1959 film is considered a classic. It isn't like the remake of True Grit. Decent movie but would you would be crazy to remake movies like Star Wars, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, etc...

Look at how many times people have tried to remake Captain's Courageous and they have been total crap. When you get a version that is almost perfect or perfect that it has staying power it is a waste of time.

The other big factor is Hollywood has been churning out remakes that have been crap to mediocre. The pubic has gotten weary.

reply

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 9 years ago

In 30 years I will remake Star Wars.

reply

[–] Gromel 9 years ago

JJ Abrams did it already and everyone loved it.

reply

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin33 9 years ago

My version will return to Lucas original outline where the Deathstar isn't blown up till the third film.

reply

[–] booya83 9 years ago

Don't speak for everyone! TFA was one of the biggest let downs I have ever witnessed. The script was no better than a monkey throwing feces. Please a rehash named a sequel with a lead that was pure fanfiction and a laughable villain. JJ is the most vile unoriginal director in the history of film.

reply

[–] moviemasochism 9 years ago

Oh, God bless you! It was a normal *beep* Monday until I read this and now I'm hopeful.



reply

[–] Gromel 9 years ago

That was sarcasm. I wasn't impressed either, especially with the excuse for a villain.

Its success makes me regret, even renounce being a Star Wars fan.

reply

[–] movie_nazi 9 years ago

In 30 years I will remake Star Wars.

Star Wars already got remade. It's called The Force Awakens.

My Vote history: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1914996/ratings

reply

[–] jagooch 8 years ago

Somebody gets it. MaRey Sue is a new take on Luke Skywalker.

reply

[–] movie_nazi 8 years ago

Somebody gets it. MaRey Sue is a new take on Luke Skywalker.

Totally. It's quite frustrating when the majority of the sheeple just lap it up.

My Vote history: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1914996/ratings

reply

[–] cfwiceman 8 years ago

@Movie_nazi are you real? you sure dont know your star wars to save your life lol...

reply

[–] movie_nazi 8 years ago

@Movie_nazi are you real? you sure dont know your star wars to save your life lol...

Why do you direct your rebuttal at me? I was simply agreeing with what someone else said.

My Vote history: http://www.imdb.com/user/ur1914996/ratings

reply

[–] thegrayvenwarlock 9 years ago

Yes, it would be insane to remake Star Wars, Casablanca, The Godfather... and many other films.

But some characters get their stories told over and over. For example, the 1938 Robin Hood with Errol Flynn is still the definitive one. But people keep making new ones. Ben-Hur is also a character that has a lot of appeal.

"I'm not arguing that with you. I know he can get the job, but can he do the job?"

reply

[–] ReelReviews14 9 years ago

The 1959 film is considered a classic. It isn't like the remake of True Grit.

The previous version of True Grit is considered a classic as well. It's considered one of the greatest roles in John Wayne's later career and it was nominated for (and won) Oscars at the time of its release. I'd argue that several scenes in John Wayne's True Grit were superior to similar scenes in the Coen Brother's remake. Robert Duvall's role in the 1969 film is also considered iconic and couldn't be topped in the remake.

reply

[–] peggygeordie 9 years ago

It isn't so much the idea of a remake as the idea of remaking a classic that was beloved by audiences AND has never been surpassed in number of Oscars awarded.

reply

[–] Creasy47 9 years ago

Which still doesn't negate the fact that the 1959 movie IS a remake, which is what the author of the thread was getting at. Is the 1959 movie a classic? One of the greatest films of all time? Absolutely; but, is it original? No, it's still a remake.

Thus, the irony is hilarious, in that people bitch about 'remaking the original,' when the "original" to them (the 1959 movie) IS, in fact, a remake.

reply

[–] bjorkwrist 9 years ago

It's not ironic at all.

The changes in technology allowing for the 1959 to be made were substantial.

The trailer for the new one looks WORSE than the 1959 version. There's no aspirations for film greatness with this new film, it's a cynical and clinical John Hollywood remake.

reply

[–] JoeKarlosi 9 years ago

No "irony" here. The 1959 version made sense to be redone with color and sound. The 1925 Silent is considered good, but it was still limited. And moreover, it was not really commonplace to catch either the 1907 or 1925 films anywhere (this was before home video and the Internet). But this needless 2016 crap is nothing more than a montage of fake-looking CGI craziness. I don't buy into the notion that "movies need to be remade for today's CGI effects, just as we might say the 1959 remake was done for Color and Sound" -- NOT the same reasoning at all.

And then there is the fact that the 1959 version became the DEFINITIVE one that won so many awards, and rightly so.

Meh, it doesn't matter, really. This 2016 pile of nuthin' will be forgotten in no time, while the Charlton Heston version will remain the #1 go-to masterpiece it has always been.

reply

[–] bjorkwrist 9 years ago

You're a gentleman and a scholar Joe Karlosi. 5 stars.

reply

[–] Blue_Eyes_James 9 years ago

I agree with Joe, though many film fans may or may not know about earlier versions ("Ten Commandments", "Wizard of Oz", "Star is Born", etc.) there comes a time when we're simply talking about MODERN cinema. And/or DEFINITIVE versions as Joe said.

As an Oz collector I have all of the silent versions but I don't really consider the 1938 musical to be a remake. And actually, I would LIKE to see a new version of Oz, but not a remake of the musical, a proper telling of the actual, original first book with all of the many characters and adventures they left out. I wouldn't consider that a remake.

reply

[–] Creasy47 9 years ago

You're missing the point. This recent one does look like hot garbage, but it doesn't alter the fact that the 1959 version is still a remake.

reply

[–] bjorkwrist 9 years ago

Yeah, but that's not really the point is it? The point is trying to say that it's okay that this IS a remake because it's a remake of a remake.

The reality is that the one it's a remake OF is nothing like the Heston version. The Charlton Heston version was a landmark film, a modern masterpiece. This new film is a remake of THAT specific film in a way that the other one wasn't.

This new Ben Hur is not a creative opportunity to use new technology to re-tell an old tale. It's a cheap cash-in on a known commodity.

So where's the enjoyment in that raw and tender irony? Where's the enjoyment in knowing that human artistic culture is but a pawn for the corporations to manipulate to control the unwashed masses?

I think you're missing the point. This isn't about dictionary definitions of irony.

reply

[–] marcedwards73 8 years ago

I'm one of those people who doesn't agree with remaking films ( I am aware of the previous versions of Ben Hur etc). I personally try to avoid watching the remade versions as they often prove to be awful, Stallone's "Get Carter" for example. The vast majority of remakes aren't worth the film they printed on......

I dread to think of people wanting to remake my favourite film ever "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly....." If it ever comes to pass I will hunt down these people & beat them to within an inch of their life.........

reply

[–] Smokey_T 9 years ago

I guess if the remake were something more meaty that the obvious rubbish it is.

They gave it to the guy that Directed Night Watch, and cast it with nobodies.

Why not give it to Uwe Boll and have done with it.

reply

[–] MidnightThud 9 years ago

I think its more about it being 100% unnecessary..... like the remake of the Magnificent 7.

Even the Maltese Falcon was a remake.

reply

[–] dalbrech 9 years ago

I think it's more like the 2016 Ben Hur looked liked crap from day one. A director whose last film was that masterpiece of cinema "Abraham Lincoln:Vampire Hunter",and whose resume showed nothing that he was the right choice for a film like "Ben Hur"?

The problem with remakes is that nine times out of ten they are nowhere near as good as the originals.

reply

[–] !!!deleted!!! (67910402) 9 years ago

I think a great way to do a remake is to do one based on an awful film and fix the flaws.

reply

[–] Blue_Eyes_James 9 years ago

I think a great way to do a remake is to do one based on an awful film and fix the flaws.

Right? Like, why has no one re-made "Plan 8 from Outer Space"...???

reply

[–] theunopeneddoor-697-442391 9 years ago

There is no movie called Plan 8 From Outer Space...

Never Drumpf! Never Hillary!

reply

[–] Deluge69-663-991830 9 years ago

I always felt that certain 'interesting failures' could be improved as remakes. Wouldn't be "ruining a classic."

But don't expect Hollywood to get hip to that. They'd probably say "If the original was such a failure, then why remake it" DUH DUH DUH.

Movies will soon be a thing of the past. Nowhere left to go.

reply

[–] smoko 8 years ago

@anton19993 Exactly. You'd think that after the success of Ocean's 11 that they'd use that same strategy more often.

Instead they keep remaking great movies, which has proven to be a pointless exercise.

reply

[–] MidnightThud 9 years ago

Case in point.......... Carrie

reply

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] texastreasure517 9 years ago

I wonder how he got the funds to produce this film, based on his directing history. It couldn't have been cheap to make.

reply

[–] theunopeneddoor-697-442391 8 years ago

Because the producer is a billionaire (he also produced "The Bible" miniseries) and is a friend of his.

Never Drumpf! Never Hillary!

reply

[–] bjorkwrist 8 years ago

I think its more about it being 100% unnecessary..... like the remake of the Magnificent 7.

Artistically the new Magnificent 7 is unnecessary. But remaking it and not setting it in Mexico, that's the real reason it's being made.

reply

[–] drew1116 8 years ago

I know I'm going to eat it on this one, but the Magnificent 7 is really cheesy and flawed. That being said, I liked it quite a bit. However, a remake, in my opinion, is definitely in order.

reply

[–] bjorkwrist 8 years ago

I know I'm going to eat it on this one, but the Magnificent 7 is really cheesy and flawed. That being said, I liked it quite a bit. However, a remake, in my opinion, is definitely in order.

Which parts were cheesy, and what were the flaws?
Note: if you don't list them, then you're admitting they don't exist. So, have a think.

Why do you think a remake is definitely in order? What will the remake do that the original failed to do?

reply

[–] shatteredbluedreams 8 years ago

I know I'm going to eat it on this one, but the Magnificent 7 is really cheesy and flawed. That being said, I liked it quite a bit. However, a remake, in my opinion, is definitely in order.

Cheesy and flawed films should always be remade, so that a new generation can enjoy the cheesy flaws for themselves.

Cuz, you know, movies are like plays in that they are not preserved for future generations in a recorded medium like film or disc.

Makes perfect sense. Reshape an existing awful immortal thing into a newer existing awful immortal thing. Let's fill the world with garbage and lies.

Here's the truth, and you can eat it if you like: love is the most powerful driving force in the human world. It motivates everything we do. It's the foundation of loyalty, the engine of desire and the fuel of perseverance. Without love, there is no cohesion to human lives and societies.

Those in power need the love of the people. Beloved works of art inherently threaten love for powerful people. In this sophisticated age of propaganda, the only way to destroy beloved works of art is to bury them under mountains of bad copies.

Too much? What does the shill guide say to write in a situation like this?

================================
A couple I know are getting married...
...the fools

reply

[–] willjohn 9 years ago

Are they still trying to get it right?

reply

[–] willjohn 9 years ago

For real irony consider that the book the films were based on was written by General Lew Wallace who was blamed for the North losing the Battle of Shiloh by getting to the field too late.

Cynics in the Union Army claimed Wallace got lost on the way to the battlefield.

reply

[–] JdgMoonbox 9 years ago

General Grant did not lose at Shiloh. The first day's retreat was nearly enough to drive them from the battlefield, but they held enough at Pittsburg Landing to reinforce the army an win the next day.

This picture contains no physical depiction of the Godhead.

reply