I'm enjoying the irony of complaining about remakes

i think the problem itself is not that it's just a remake but rather it's more of an "unnecessary" remake.

IMO, i like remakes when someone takes a bad movie and tries to make it better. Hence the need to "remake"/redo it. But Ben Hur was already perfectly done. It's considered a timeless classic and a masterpiece. What part of that needs a "redo"? None. Sadly, the trend in Hollywood today is to remake good movies which end up a worse product than the already perfect version and i hate that because it taints the name and it's an obvious lazy cash grab scheme.

Wait. Wait. The 1959 film is a remake itself? Woah! I never knew this. I bet no one did until you came along to relay the fruits of your deep, extensive and original research into the matter. How did you ever discover this previously undiscovered, mind blowing fact?

I can certainly see how you think it's ironic that people consider this "remake" of the 11 Oscar-winning 1959 film - made in color cinemascope with 6-channel surround sound - as pointless as it was remaking the 1925 4:3 black and white silent version in 1959.

I am always laughing at people complaining about remakes as they've been remaking movies ever since they began making movies. Crying about it isn't going to stop them from remaking movies.

I agree that the 1959 was such a classic that a remake was totally uncalled for.

However, esoteric that I am, I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts as to whether 1959 or 2016 is closer to the original novel?

I don't see the problem. It's all about context. In other words: Why you think it was remade and if you think the remake can possibly improve on all previous versions. If you think this is a cash in on the name or a pointless attempt to replace an extravagant real world effects extravaganza with CGI (which is where I stand) then there is no irony in disliking it as a remake.

I think it's safe to assume that no one involved in this film was attempting to remake any of those other films than the Charlton Heston one. Let's be realistic here.

We'll get a similar situation when they remake Scarface again, but the movie is being made to cash in on the name generated by the 80s version. It actually stands a chance of still being good (if casting rumours are true at least), yet I still don't see the point in remaking it again. The 30s movie is my favourite of the two current versions, but it was never that well known outside of film schools due it's delayed release causing it to be overshadowed by Public Enemy and Little Caesar, so when the 80s movie was made I really couldn't see it as a cash in and of course they could improve upon the technical limitations of the time too (e.g. colour, blood). That was IMHO a remake decision based on the fact they thought it would make a good film, not because of name value translating into bums on seats before the quality of the movie even comes in to play as could well be the case for the re-re-make (and the movie is unlikely to reference the original except where referencing a reference from the previous remake).

IMHO once a movie has a well known and quality version then remakes become redundant because they have already gotten the story right. If it's not that famous or there hasn't been a really good version then it makes sense to do a remake. Of course this is from a viewers perspective not Hollywood's. Sometimes even when the definitive version has already been made a good remake can creep through and this often seems to be when the movie is chosen for reasons of artistic passion rather than potential profit. True Grit would be a good example there. However, had the Coen's not made a remake and just done an original western story with that cast I would likely have liked the film even more.

So yeah, people are still entitled to complain.




--
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.

Remakes are just a way for Studios to cash-in on an established and well known brand. Otherwise, there are many movies that recycle previously used synopsies or plot lines under a different Title.

Hollywood IMO is getting stale because Studios are afraid to take chances on original ideas...

A fifteen minute short in 1907 and a silent film in 1925 hardly qualifies. None the less THIS film follows the trend of making vastly inferior films using the successful name of better films. Ben Hur doesn't invoke the 1925 film, it only invokes the rightly critically acclaimed 1959 film. If this had been as awesome as the 1959 was compared to the 1925 one, then nobody would be complaining. Instead it is just another action blockbuster that was very much not needed.

Is it a remake or a new adaptation of the book??

If in 20 years somebody is making a LOTR movie, they are not remaking Peter's LOTR, they are adapting the LOTR books.