"New "Ben Hur" Trailer" Topic

Can't wait to see it…

YouTube link

Amicalement
Armand

I dunno. I think some movie are simply iconic and shouldn't be tampered with. Ben Hur, for me at least, is one of those.

The music for that trailer is dreadful.

Computer generated special effects may not be as good as the practical effects of the previous version of Ben Hur.

The music is terrible.

Morgan Freeman narrates? Is that necessary?

Maybe when in comes out on DVD.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

If the music in the preview is any indication of what is in the movie I'll pass.

Hard to re-do this one. Sort of like re-doing "Gone with the Wind". The Romans look more authentic, but the chariot scene is so obviously CGI as to be painful.

Tough to re-do but it looks like it has promise

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Ben-There-Done-That-Hur…a ploy to make money on a classic that is best left original.

Hollywood is bereft of ideas…

John T

Other writers have viewed Ben-Hur within the context of Lew Wallace's own life. Historian Victor Davis Hanson argues that the novel drew from Wallace's experiences as a division commander during the American Civil War under General Ulysses S. Grant. Hanson compares Wallace's real-life experience in battle, battle tactics, combat leadership, and jealousies among American Civil War military commanders to those of Wallace's fictional character of Judah, whose unintentional injury to a high-ranking military commander leads to further tragedy and suffering for the Ben-Hur family. Wallace made some controversial command decisions, and he delayed in arriving on the battlefield during the first day of the battle of Shiloh, when Grant's Union army sustained heavy casualties. This created a furore in the North, damaged Wallace's military reputation, and drew accusations of incompetence.
John Swansburg, deputy editor of Slate, suggests that the chariot race between the characters of Judah and Messala may have been based on a horse race which Wallace reportedly ran and won against Grant some time after the battle of Shiloh.
The Judah character's superior horsemanship helped him beat Messala in a chariot race that earned Judah great wealth. F. Farrand Tuttle Jr., a Wallace family friend, reported the story of the horse race between Grant and Wallace in the Denver News on February 19, 1905, but Wallace never wrote about it. The event may have been a Wallace family legend, but the novel which includes the action-packed chariot race made Wallace a wealthy man and established his reputation as a famous author and sought-after speaker.

Other than the jumping sword attack ala "300" it looked pretty good.

Well, I'm looking forward to seeing it!

Indeed, the music sucked.

The music is not suited at all for the context of this period.
The movie itself looks ok.
Shouldn't the Romans be in White or Brown? :)

I'm not a fan of Charleton Heston, but like others here, I think the original movie pretty much nailed the story. I'm guessing it is only being done again because of what we can do now with CGI.

That said, I'll at least have a look at it.

It's only being done again because H-wood needs $$$ and is out of good, original ideas.

I'll pass.

There is a generation (perhaps only in the USA) that believes that if it did not happen since they were born it is unimportant or did not exist. They will watch the remake because they are willfully ignorant of the original movie.

As far as Wallace beating Grant in a horserace, I would like to see more info. Grant was a superb horseman, considered the best horseman at West Point during his career at the point.

I'm with mildbill; this generation today--willfully ignorant. I like the original too:

youtu.be/SmXkN8VNTnc

Oops,sorry! Guess I was being willfully ignorant too:

youtu.be/X-udwhV4mIA

Movie idea: "Willfully Ignorant Two".

As mildbill said, a lot of the movie going public has no idea that the remakes are remakes.

This thread is a remake:

TMP link

> There is a generation (perhaps only in the USA) that believes that if it did not happen since they were born it is unimportant or did not exist.

Not just "A" generation, at least a couple of them. A lot of the movies WE consider originals were remakes of Silent Movies or older Black and White ones. The recent talk of a Scarface remake had a bunch of negative comments about it being a remake of the Pacino movie – even after I pointed out that it was a remake of the one about Al Capone.

Thass what I said…

Cumon China, buy out Horrywood please I'm begging you.

Oh, Morgan Rastaman will be in it too… :)

Heh, will they also duplicate the wristwatch n the big race scene?

I dunno, while I liked the chariot races and battle scenes I didn't find the first two versions the be-all and end-all. As for the music, I see a lot of modern pop music used in period stuff. Don't like it, but at least it wasn't heavy metal screeching or hip-hop garble.

Lew Wallace, as a Civil War general was a pretty good author. Not as good as Grant.

The "first two versions" were silent(see above),so you can add music of your choice.

Not just "A" generation, at least a couple of them. A lot of the movies WE consider originals were remakes of Silent Movies or older Black and White ones. The recent talk of a Scarface remake had a bunch of negative comments about it being a remake of the Pacino movie – even after I pointed out that it was a remake of the one about Al Capone.

Yup – even in the case of Ben Hur (as mentioned above!) – the Charlton Heston version was in itself a remake.

I did spot at least one place in the trailer where the new Ben Hur has infinitely more historical accuracy than Gladiator.

In the shot of the prison bars they are properly split and drifted to form the grid. In Gladiator they were obviously arc welded, a technology the Romans did not posses.

Being a sometime blacksmith I tend to spot these things.

The chariot race has less impact when you know it's CGI.

My imediate reaction was "Why?" aren't there any original ideas left?

All the above comments once again give well earned credence to the OFM's oft repeated statement, "It is a good thing war gamers do not make movies." Or something to that effect. Folks it is called show-BUSINESS, yes emphasis on that second word. While you are entitled to decry the alleged lack of Hollywood having new ideas (something I would challenge) the people who bankroll these movies are in it to make a quick return on their investment. So basic business and money making 101.

The investors care little if at all for your nit-picking. The film was pitched most likely noting how much money the version with Chuck Heston made plus a bit of comparison to some other recent successful sword and sandal films or other block buster. They have brought in A-List actors, spent a king's ransom on effects and the like and know in their dark little hearts that many will go to see the movie because it looks like Spartacus Blood and Sand on steroids or 300 and it will make money. Also films with a Christian theme are big right now, although the story of Jesus was a small part of the previous movie and assume it will be the same here if not less so.

Few sitting in the theater eating their popcorn and over sugared sodas will care if the Roman's are in accurate armor. Same goes for probably the majority of things that war gamers would care or think they know about. Me, I'll go see it because I enjoy the big screen experience. I have long ago gotten past ruining the enjoyment of watching a film because they got something wrong. If I want accuracy I will watch a documentary (even then that will be a toss up) or a BBC series on the topic.