"Ben Hur Again." Topic

Given that Hollywood has been out of new ideas for several years, they have now come out with a remake of Ben Hur. Now, not all remakes are bad. Just the vast majority of them. So has anyone heard anything about, or seen, or otherwise have an opinion of the new Ben Hur?

Apparently, it is flopping at the box office.

Not sure if it is any good, or not.

I suspect the CGI would be good, but I'd much prefer a new story over one done decades ago.

The retread movies are getting rather old.

An exception would be a new Battle of Britain movie. I could go for that, with a lot more dogfighting to cover the whole campaign.

I've heard it is bad.

Hollywood has been doing remakes longer than you think though – this is at least the second remake of Ben Hur, Charlie's version was a remake too.

Plan on seeing the movie tomorrow but don't expect anything to be that different from Ben Hur (remake 2). After all, the slaves are still rowing on the warships which is one thing the Romans were smart enough never to do.

In case you want to read previous discussions:

TMP link

The fundamental mistake Hollywood makes in remaking an old classic is in attempting to tell the story in a modern idiom with modern sensibilities. We the audience don't want to see people in a historic setting acting like they just came out of the 21st century; we want to see people in a historic setting acting like people from that historic setting. The historic setting is much more than costumes and CGI effects. We want characters who are real, not 2 dimensional cookie cutter stereotypes of good and evil.

It would almost be worth going just see if the chariot race starts with someone saying "Let's do this".

Almost.

My wife liked it. I was meh. Some CGI was good (sea battles) , other not so much. Chariot race was particularly bad

Mark Burnett and Roma Downey are executive producers of this remake. They are successful producers of Christian religious movies.
So if anything, this remake is NOT catering to modern sensibilities. Jesus is very much part of the plot. After all, the novel is called "Ben Hur. A Tale of the Christ". And that is perhaps why it's flopping.

> So if anything, this remake is NOT catering to modern sensibilities. Jesus is very much part of the plot.

That in itself does not mean the movie is not catering to modern sensibilities.

Ben Hur, Done That.

The Charley version was good and had a perfectly good message in regards to Jesus.
This is just looking for extra $s and especially from the Christian folk who will support such a project even if its mediocre. These guys are Horrywood theaves nothing more shame on them. And nowadays Horrywood couldn't make a decent remake of Steamboat Willy without bungling it up.

I saw it with the wife and we both generally liked it. It is not the same movie as the other in the same way True Grit with Beau Bridges is not the same as the John Wayne one. We were surprised to find the lead actor was also in Boardwalk Empire. As I have never read the book, I have no idea as to which movie stays nearer to the original story line.

Not fair, giving a review on TMP after actually seeing the film.

So I saw this special about all the remake of movies in Hollywood a few weeks ago, and here what it apparently comes down to…the overseas market. The U.S. sales in movies is way low as say to China. Why, well of all the million people over there and the government limiting only a select few movies to be show, yes, the movie theaters are pack. This is why all of sudden we have Ghostbusters 2, Ben Hur, Pan, and so forth. So take it for what is worth, the U.S. is not the target marketing audience.

P.

China is simply another market, a large one to be sure but just another market. Movies make a lot there but the studios do not see as much of it due to the licensing agreements. Total worldwide box office can easily double the US box office and in a number of cases save a film that otherwise bombed terribly in the US.

The Jesus bit was the let down in the first movie. Better mum and sister die walled up and for more revenge Hur gets involved in an unsuccessful revolt and dies trying to takes down Rome (the establishment). Whoops, that's Braveheart.

We've been shipping zillions of dollars to China for decades now…can't they make their own crappy movies yet, to ship back over to pander to OUR nitwits?

There has been a market for "faith based films", the difference here is that Ben Hur had a large budget (over 100 million) and when you add in Marketing and Distribution costs as well as the alternative costs of funding you have to make a lot of money overseas to make your money back. Many "Faith based films" have had a nice return on their money but bigger budget films, like "Ben Hur" and "Noah" have had a significant problem attracting non-Faith Based audiences which they need to do to cover their larger budgets.

As for remakes, this is, IIRC the 4th version of Ben Hur that has been released, there were two silent, including a big budget Irving Thalberg production starring Ramon Navarro,and of course the Charleton Heston Classic. I have to say that in my opinion it takes guts to try to remake a film that contains what many believe to be the greatest live action sequence (the Chariot Race that, when seen in widescreen is really something)ever filmed. To do it with a Rastafarian looking Morgan Freeman was, shall we say, and interesting wardrobe choice.

There is a lot of speculation on what has happened to the Movie Business. Sequels and reboots abound, it seems like every few years we get a Batman or other Super Hero reboot. Mel Gibson is said to be working on (I am not kidding here) a sequel to "Passion of the Christ". We're going to see another attempt at a "King Arthur" movie, this time Arthur is a "hustler" who I guess grew up on the mean streets of Camelot. For me it seems more and more that outfits like HBO are producing more of what I want to see, in large part because they can dedicate the time necessary. Imagine what a movie company would have done to "Band of Brothers" or even "Game of Thrones"?

I have to say that in my opinion it takes guts to try to remake a film that contains what many believe to be the greatest live action sequence (the Chariot Race that, when seen in widescreen is really something)ever filmed.

And Scott (ostensibly) remade the Ten Commandments. You don't need guts if you've got a dumptruck full of hubris.

What a long, dreary, muddled mess that was.

> Mel Gibson is said to be working on (I am not kidding here) a sequel to "Passion of the Christ".

I don't see why that would be a joke – that part of the Bible has rarely if ever been put to film. I don't know of any theatrical telling of it, though I am sure there is a version done by a Christian film group somewhere.

The real problem is that movies should be an art form not a business transaction. Let the people with the talent and passion to make really great films be unhindered by studio marketing executives who only care about money. I understand that the film needs to be profitable, but too many marketing executives thinking they know what the audience wants to see can really screw up a script.

> Let the people with the talent and passion to make really great films be unhindered by studio marketing executives who only care about money.

They (artists) can do that any time they want, if they want a budget however…

> Mel Gibson is said to be working on (I am not kidding here) a sequel to "Passion of the Christ".

I saw "Risen" twice, and it seemed to me a very excellent sequel to the "Passion of the Christ", albeit from the POV of a fictional character (a Roman officer present at the crucifixion who later encounters the risen Christ). Joseph Fiennes did an amazing job.

I've been putting of the risen but still may see it now. Thx