Ben Hur

[J-H]

I liked the book. Thoughts on whether the movie will be any good?

[Ruslan]

A big-budget epic from the director of Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter and the producer of Hardcore Henry. What can possibly go wrong?

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Skeptical. The original was a really incredible classic with epic narrative scope to go with the spectacle. This seems...overly weighted on the visual spectacle, less on the epic of the narrative.

[Rodin]

A big-budget epic from the director of Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter and the producer of Hardcore Henry. What can possibly go wrong?

Well, Hardcore Henry was fun. Biblical epic it ain't, though.

The fact that the trailers have been nothing but the Chariot Race and there's been absolutely no mention of Jesus...

Yeah.

Doubly damning: The run-time of the original movie is 212 minutes. The run-time of the re-make? 124. And how much do you want to bet that the chariot race in the new version is twice as long as the original?

If you're going to re-tell a 4-hour Epic movie known as one of the best movies of all time, they should at least have the good grace to cover the whole thing.

[J-H]

Wow, okay, thanks.

Need to find someplace to rent the original.

[Olinser]

I mean I really liked Hardcore Henry, but this movie is going to be an utterly unreal flop.

They seem intent on making this just some mindless action film, when the original was a very religious film (the opening of the movie was the birth of Christ, and the conclusion was Ben-Hur's mother and sister being cured of leprosy in the rainstorm following the Crucifixion). Absolutely zero mention of religion is present in any announcement or trailer about this film, leading me to believe they're trying to remove religion from the film. Which makes zero sense - why the **** would you remake a movie like Ben-Hur if that's what you want to do? There are plenty of other non-religious movies you could remake.

I mean every time they've tried to do that it has flopped because religious people would rather see an ACTUAL religious movie and are seriously turned off by a violent trailer, and a lot of people looking for an action movie aren't interested in being preached to. So you piss off both sides of your potential audience. If you want to make a religious movie, make a religious movie.

Add that to the fact that while it is relatively famous for its time, very few people from the younger generations have actually seen the movie. Which I can't imagine leads to much interest in the remake. Then obviously there is almost zero foreign base for this film as the movie was never released outside the US.

So, in summary, you have an old movie with not much of a current domestic fan base, zero foreign fan base, and add on the fact that they appear to be gutting the entire religious theme of the original and turning it into a mindless action film with some mild religious undertones.

And somebody thought this was a good idea to pour $100 million into WHY?

[Rodin]

It could have been a savvy venture if they were prepared to go all the way with it. As you say, the original is so old that most people haven't seen it. Heck, I only saw it as part of my father's "these are classic movies every person should see" course that he took me through in high school.

Get AAA Oscar-worthy actors, blow the bank on it, and do it up proper - take advantage of modern movie-making techniques and advances in culture and history to update the movie and make it relevant, but stick to the core plot and dialogue as much as possible because Ben Hur is a classic for a reason. Go the full 3 1/2 to 4 hours and make an epic - Lord of the Rings has shown that modern audiences are fully prepared to sit through a film of that length if the quality is good.

As for why do a remake at all? Name recognition - most people have heard of Ben Hur even if they haven't seen it. Get people in on the name recognition, then get word of mouth spreading about this awesome epic story. And with an existing movie to draw from, you know that you're drawing from solid source material.

Sadly, it looks like Hollywood only got to step 1. They decided to cash in on the name recognition with a tawdry summer action flick, which just will not end well.

I'm not sure if I'm happy or sad. Seeing classic movies remade with modern tech could be glorious. Given how terrible Hollywood has been lately though, it's probably for the best if they get turned off remaking the old classics entirely.

Still, it's probably only going to stick for a year or two before some bright spark decides to make Gone With The Wind - the summer action block-buster where Rhett Butler is a secret agent working for the Confederacy and Jason Bourne-ing his way into Ulysses S. Grant's tent to steal the plans for the Battle of Gettysburg.

[MLai]

Somebody basically decided to remake Gladiator with C-list actors, and then got the bright idea of calling it a remake of Ben Hur instead.

[JoshL]

Doubly damning: The run-time of the original movie is 212 minutes. The run-time of the re-make? 124. And how much do you want to bet that the chariot race in the new version is twice as long as the original?

If you're going to re-tell a 4-hour Epic movie known as one of the best movies of all time, they should at least have the good grace to cover the whole thing.

To play Devil's Advocate, the original was 143, restored to 151 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0016641/). Unless you count the original short at 15 minutes (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0000582/), but you really shouldn't.

Not saying this is going to be good, or even that I care all that much, but Ben-Hur (with Charlton Heston) is one of the cases for a remake not necessarily being a bad thing, just because it is a remake.

[Olinser]

It could have been a savvy venture if they were prepared to go all the way with it. As you say, the original is so old that most people haven't seen it. Heck, I only saw it as part of my father's "these are classic movies every person should see" course that he took me through in high school.

Get AAA Oscar-worthy actors, blow the bank on it, and do it up proper - take advantage of modern movie-making techniques and advances in culture and history to update the movie and make it relevant, but stick to the core plot and dialogue as much as possible because Ben Hur is a classic for a reason. Go the full 3 1/2 to 4 hours and make an epic - Lord of the Rings has shown that modern audiences are fully prepared to sit through a film of that length if the quality is good.

As for why do a remake at all? Name recognition - most people have heard of Ben Hur even if they haven't seen it. Get people in on the name recognition, then get word of mouth spreading about this awesome epic story. And with an existing movie to draw from, you know that you're drawing from solid source material.

Sadly, it looks like Hollywood only got to step 1. They decided to cash in on the name recognition with a tawdry summer action flick, which just will not end well.

I'm not sure if I'm happy or sad. Seeing classic movies remade with modern tech could be glorious. Given how terrible Hollywood has been lately though, it's probably for the best if they get turned off remaking the old classics entirely.

Still, it's probably only going to stick for a year or two before some bright spark decides to make Gone With The Wind - the summer action block-buster where Rhett Butler is a secret agent working for the Confederacy and Jason Bourne-ing his way into Ulysses S. Grant's tent to steal the plans for the Battle of Gettysburg.

Another big reason I forgot to mention that is tied into my previous post is the fact that this movie doesn't seem to HAVE a target audience.

Who is it marketed to? Religious people generally don't like the level of violence shown in the trailers and there is no mention of religion anyway. People that like story will probably just watch the original. People looking for an action movie will be turned off by the fact that its based on heavily religious source material.

So who the **** is this movie's core audience?

[Kitten Champion]

Another big reason I forgot to mention that is tied into my previous post is the fact that this movie doesn't seem to HAVE a target audience.

Who is it marketed to? Religious people generally don't like the level of violence shown in the trailers and there is no mention of religion anyway. People that like story will probably just watch the original. People looking for an action movie will be turned off by the fact that its based on heavily religious source material.

So who the **** is this movie's core audience?

People who've heard of Ben Hur? Honestly, having a name people have heard of is sufficient grounds to green-light anything it in 2016. People also have at least heard of the famous chariot scene, so that's pretty much 90% of what you see in the ads/trailers. Of course now you get it with modern digital effects and cinematography.

I wish studios would remake more movies like Pete's Dragon in stead, not classics of cinema that they think they can bank on because they're classics with that cache, but rather stuff with a good premise and poor execution which could be improved with effort, money,and hindsight. That's kind of how we got Alien, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones after all.

[Murk]

Another big reason I forgot to mention that is tied into my previous post is the fact that this movie doesn't seem to HAVE a target audience.

Who is it marketed to? Religious people generally don't like the level of violence shown in the trailers and there is no mention of religion anyway. People that like story will probably just watch the original. People looking for an action movie will be turned off by the fact that its based on heavily religious source material.

So who the **** is this movie's core audience?

I think you're overestimating the schism between "religious" and "not religious" people. I don't think not-religious people are turned off by something based on religious source material (or are even necessarily turned off by religion), and I think it is quite laughable to think religious people don't like violence.

So, yeah, your target audience here is plenty. First, there's the people who just like blockbusters: they see a lot of advertising, they see a few action scenes, they go. This is a very easy target audience if you have enough cash. Then there's people who liked/know the original and are willing to give it a shot. Throw in some people who specifically like the setting (say, the die-hard gladiator fans), and you've got enough people to make a few million profit.

The movie can then be dumped on the "reboots that were meh" stack, everyone can forget about it, and we can all move on.

[Olinser]

I think you're overestimating the schism between "religious" and "not religious" people. I don't think not-religious people are turned off by something based on religious source material (or are even necessarily turned off by religion), and I think it is quite laughable to think religious people don't like violence.

So, yeah, your target audience here is plenty. First, there's the people who just like blockbusters: they see a lot of advertising, they see a few action scenes, they go. This is a very easy target audience if you have enough cash. Then there's people who liked/know the original and are willing to give it a shot. Throw in some people who specifically like the setting (say, the die-hard gladiator fans), and you've got enough people to make a few million profit.

The movie can then be dumped on the "reboots that were meh" stack, everyone can forget about it, and we can all move on.

Please exercise reading comprehension. I said they will be turned off by the LEVEL of violence. Over half of both trailers is combat sequences. Heck they open the first trailer with a dude tied to the prow of a ship ramming into another ship. Violence itself isn't necessarily a turnoff (see Passion of the Christ), but when its just random generic action violence its definitely not useful if you're trying to capture the religious audience.

And that's the point. There doesn't seem to be a targeted audience they're trying to capture. They're trying to appeal to everybody with a generic blockbuster, throwing in a couple scenes trying to appeal to the religious audience, and by all metrics have ended up not really capturing anybody.

It's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point that this movie is not going to make money. It can't scrape a few million and call it a win. They poured $100 million into the production budget alone. With that kind of budget it's going to need $250+ million to break even, and right now the studio's own estimates have it only making $20 million on opening week (outside estimates put it in the $10-15 mil range), and early reviews are NOT favorable to the movie.

Right now all signs point to this being a complete disaster.

[Murk]

Please exercise reading comprehension. I said they will be turned off by the LEVEL of violence. Over half of both trailers is combat sequences. Heck they open the first trailer with a dude tied to the prow of a ship ramming into another ship. Violence itself isn't necessarily a turnoff (see Passion of the Christ), but when its just random generic action violence its definitely not useful if you're trying to capture the religious audience.

Well, I'm not an expert on the statistics, but I think the percentages of people loving high-action high-violence movies is about the same between religious people and non-religious people - because whether or not you're religious has nothing to do with your taste in movies. Some people just love movies where the only content is people whacking each other, no matter their religious views.
If you have any data or recent statistics on it, though, I'd love to hear.

On the other hand,

Right now all signs point to this being a complete disaster.
this I will agree with.

[tomandtish]

It's pretty much a foregone conclusion at this point that this movie is not going to make money. It can't scrape a few million and call it a win. They poured $100 million into the production budget alone. With that kind of budget it's going to need $250+ million to break even, and right now the studio's own estimates have it only making $20 million on opening week (outside estimates put it in the $10-15 mil range), and early reviews are NOT favorable to the movie.

Right now all signs point to this being a complete disaster.


On the other hand,

this I will agree with.

Arguably one of the biggest signs that even the studio has given up on this movie is a simple one: I've seen 10-11 movies this year, including 5 this summer. This thread is the first I've heard of the Ben Hur remake. Haven't seen a single trailer in front of any films (including paramount releases) this summer. So it appears they've tossed most of the advertising budget to other films.

[TripleD]

Arguably one of the biggest signs that even the studio has given up on this movie is a simple one: I've seen 10-11 movies this year, including 5 this summer. This thread is the first I've heard of the Ben Hur remake. Haven't seen a single trailer in front of any films (including paramount releases) this summer. So it appears they've tossed most of the advertising budget to other films.

Bingo. Late August, like February, is traditionally a dumping ground for movies that you have no confidence in.


Well, I'm not an expert on the statistics, but I think the percentages of people loving high-action high-violence movies is about the same between religious people and non-religious people no matter their religious views.

I'm no statician either, but I do know that the highest grossing R-rated movie of all time is "The Passion of the Christ" (a.k.a. Jesus gets tortured for two hours) so I think your assessment of capacity for violence in entertainment is reasonable.

[Joran]

Arguably one of the biggest signs that even the studio has given up on this movie is a simple one: I've seen 10-11 movies this year, including 5 this summer. This thread is the first I've heard of the Ben Hur remake. Haven't seen a single trailer in front of any films (including paramount releases) this summer. So it appears they've tossed most of the advertising budget to other films.

I've been watching a lot of Olympics coverage and so I've seen a few of the ads for this movie. My reaction is to turn to my wife and say, "They're remaking Ben-Hur?!"

[hamishspence]

It wouldn't be the first Ben Hur movie since 1959 - there was a 2003 animated movie as well.

And a 2010 TV miniseries.

[Rodin]

Arguably one of the biggest signs that even the studio has given up on this movie is a simple one: I've seen 10-11 movies this year, including 5 this summer. This thread is the first I've heard of the Ben Hur remake. Haven't seen a single trailer in front of any films (including paramount releases) this summer. So it appears they've tossed most of the advertising budget to other films.

Huh, I saw it in front of both Ghostbusters and Star Trek: Beyond, and I think I saw one in front of Warcraft as well but that's long enough ago I'm not sure.

Then again, I do live in the South, so possibly they're focusing their advertising dollars?

[tomandtish]

Huh, I saw it in front of both Ghostbusters and Star Trek: Beyond, and I think I saw one in front of Warcraft as well but that's long enough ago I'm not sure.

Then again, I do live in the South, so possibly they're focusing their advertising dollars?

Saw Star Trek: Beyond, Suicide Squad, and Warcraft, among others, and I live in Texas. Haven't seen one trailer. Been watching some Olympics (and my wife a lot more). Haven't seen one there either. Saw it on IMDB today after seeing this thread.

[Olinser]

Well, I'm not an expert on the statistics, but I think the percentages of people loving high-action high-violence movies is about the same between religious people and non-religious people - because whether or not you're religious has nothing to do with your taste in movies. Some people just love movies where the only content is people whacking each other, no matter their religious views.
If you have any data or recent statistics on it, though, I'd love to hear.

On the other hand,

this I will agree with.

The level of violence IN a religious movie is the metric here. Sure, plenty of moderately religious people enjoy violent movies. But generally when you see a religious movie you want the story and the message to be front and center.

Passion of the Christ was certainly violent. But go watch the trailers and the advertising for it. They didn't make 1/2 the trailer scenes from the actual torture - the advertising was all about the story.

Ben Hur has a muddled mess of a trailer that gives you pretty much no clue what the story is if you don't already know, and a whole bunch of mindless action shots.

They seem to have no idea what audience they are trying to capture.

[Aedilred]

As with JoshL's apparently overlooked post, I feel it's worth pointing out that the "original" wasn't actually the original. In fact it was, strictly speaking, the second remake. The original silent film was 15 minutes long (so much for not being able to fit the story in 124!), the first feature-length version was 143 minutes. There was also an animated version a few years ago. I also wouldn't be surprised if the 1959 version running time includes the lengthy opening credits and intermission overture, the omission of which would shave the film down to closer to the three-hour mark if not below it. I do also think there's an argument to be made that the 1959 film is a little bloated in places and could be tightened up.

While the original is a classic, there is room for improvement. The chariot race may be a masterpiece of cinematography, but it's also a nearly shot-by-shot remake of the 1925 scene, and enough improvements in film technology have been made in the last 89 years that it should be possible to create an even better version of it. The galley battle now seems embarrassingly low-energy and low-tech, and, again, with sympathetic CGI that could be vastly improved. But there is no point fixing up these scenes if we don't care about the characters and the story and that's where the film will ultimately rise or fall.

I don't place any stock in the trailers. Of course the trailers are going to show the chariot race to the exclusion of almost all else, because if you mention Ben-Hur to people that's what about 99% of them will immediately think of. And given the way that trailers and promotions in general work, the bits most likely to make it in are the action sequences: given that most of the rest of the original was dialogue reliant on context, or silent angsting to the camera, the chariot race and galley battle are the only parts of the film likely to be really trailer-worthy.

That said, I do have relatively little confidence that this version will improve on the 1959 version and I suspect the Biblical elements which created the context and underpinned the themes of the original story would be harder to play straight in this more secular, more cynical age, so I'll be interested to see how they are dealt with or if they are abandoned altogether. I'll probably wait for some reviews before deciding whether to see it.

[Legato Endless]

Considering the time period, I'm curious what exactly they'll do with Ben-Hur's relationship with Messala. The most famous adaption of the film has a very deliberate homoerotic subtext, albeit fairly one sided. Killing off Messala in the iconic race, versus letting him survive and keep trying to kill Judah as in the novel. If the film is to stand on it's merits, some kind of differentiation in the key rivalry would be the logical first step conceptually.

[Crow]

I expect the religious subtext to be played down in a "Here's the guy who people thought was Jesus" sort of way, if it is included at all; and the relationship between Judah Ben Hur and Messala to abandon all subtlety and be played up in a "Have I mentioned that I'm gay" sort of way.

Also, for completely unrelated reasons, this movie is going to suck.

[CozJa]

I concur with all the things you said but...


Then obviously there is almost zero foreign base for this film as the movie was never released outside the US.


Eh? :smallconfused:

[Kitten Champion]

I expect the religious subtext to be played down in a "Here's the guy who people thought was Jesus" sort of way, if it is included at all;

Apparently not, it hits you over the head with how much of a Christian morality tale it is and Jesus is a rather overt part of the movie.

[Crow]

Apparently not, it hits you over the head with how much of a Christian morality tale it is and Jesus is a rather overt part of the movie.

Wow, that's really surprising. Was it any good otherwise?

[Kitten Champion]

Wow, that's really surprising. Was it any good otherwise?

Haven't seen it to be honest, I received a diatribe by a friend who did with regards to its dramatic lack of subtlety. His review was that it was mostly a sub-par-to-mediocre movie on its own merits but far worse in the context of the '59 film existing. That might be snobbery, though.

[Olinser]

As with JoshL's apparently overlooked post, I feel it's worth pointing out that the "original" wasn't actually the original. In fact it was, strictly speaking, the second remake. The original silent film was 15 minutes long (so much for not being able to fit the story in 124!), the first feature-length version was 143 minutes. There was also an animated version a few years ago. I also wouldn't be surprised if the 1959 version running time includes the lengthy opening credits and intermission overture, the omission of which would shave the film down to closer to the three-hour mark if not below it. I do also think there's an argument to be made that the 1959 film is a little bloated in places and could be tightened up.

While the original is a classic, there is room for improvement. The chariot race may be a masterpiece of cinematography, but it's also a nearly shot-by-shot remake of the 1925 scene, and enough improvements in film technology have been made in the last 89 years that it should be possible to create an even better version of it. The galley battle now seems embarrassingly low-energy and low-tech, and, again, with sympathetic CGI that could be vastly improved. But there is no point fixing up these scenes if we don't care about the characters and the story and that's where the film will ultimately rise or fall.

I don't place any stock in the trailers. Of course the trailers are going to show the chariot race to the exclusion of almost all else, because if you mention Ben-Hur to people that's what about 99% of them will immediately think of. And given the way that trailers and promotions in general work, the bits most likely to make it in are the action sequences: given that most of the rest of the original was dialogue reliant on context, or silent angsting to the camera, the chariot race and galley battle are the only parts of the film likely to be really trailer-worthy.

That said, I do have relatively little confidence that this version will improve on the 1959 version and I suspect the Biblical elements which created the context and underpinned the themes of the original story would be harder to play straight in this more secular, more cynical age, so I'll be interested to see how they are dealt with or if they are abandoned altogether. I'll probably wait for some reviews before deciding whether to see it.

Yes and no.

The first one was a 'remake' in the sense that it made another movie from the same source material - the original 1880 book Then the original full-length movie was a silent picture, and the re-make was sound.

A transition from silent film to sound film is a pretty big deal, and adds a huge amount to the characters and drama to actually be able to hear them deliver the lines rather than reading them off the screen. So even telling the same story there was a HUGE improvement in the medium that added gravity to the story. What does the modern one add - shaky cam and some mediocre CGI?

Then also remember the context of technology here. In 1959 it was effectively impossible for a normal person to actually watch the silent film outside of a special showing, which also required somebody to have an actual physical reel of the movie. So if an average Joe in 1959 wanted to watch Ben-Hur, Heston's film was the only game in town. Re-makes made a lot more sense when people couldn't actually WATCH the original.

So mentioning that older movies were in fact re-makes of even older movies isn't a really relevant fact.

[dps]

As with JoshL's apparently overlooked post, I feel it's worth pointing out that the "original" wasn't actually the original. In fact it was, strictly speaking, the second remake. The original silent film was 15 minutes long (so much for not being able to fit the story in 124!), the first feature-length version was 143 minutes. There was also an animated version a few years ago. I also wouldn't be surprised if the 1959 version running time includes the lengthy opening credits and intermission overture, the omission of which would shave the film down to closer to the three-hour mark if not below it. I do also think there's an argument to be made that the 1959 film is a little bloated in places and could be tightened up.

While the original is a classic, there is room for improvement. The chariot race may be a masterpiece of cinematography, but it's also a nearly shot-by-shot remake of the 1925 scene, and enough improvements in film technology have been made in the last 89 years that it should be possible to create an even better version of it. The galley battle now seems embarrassingly low-energy and low-tech, and, again, with sympathetic CGI that could be vastly improved. But there is no point fixing up these scenes if we don't care about the characters and the story and that's where the film will ultimately rise or fall.

I don't place any stock in the trailers. Of course the trailers are going to show the chariot race to the exclusion of almost all else, because if you mention Ben-Hur to people that's what about 99% of them will immediately think of. And given the way that trailers and promotions in general work, the bits most likely to make it in are the action sequences: given that most of the rest of the original was dialogue reliant on context, or silent angsting to the camera, the chariot race and galley battle are the only parts of the film likely to be really trailer-worthy.

That said, I do have relatively little confidence that this version will improve on the 1959 version and I suspect the Biblical elements which created the context and underpinned the themes of the original story would be harder to play straight in this more secular, more cynical age, so I'll be interested to see how they are dealt with or if they are abandoned altogether. I'll probably wait for some reviews before deciding whether to see it.

I actually prefer the 1925 version to the 1959 re-make, possibly because the remake is a bit over-long. They're both very good movies, and anyone who is willing to give a silent film a chance should definitely check out both of them--otherwise, stick to the Charlton Heston version.

It is interesting that even the unrestored 1925 version is longer than the 2016 version.

I don't agree about there being anything that technology can add to the chariot race. The way it was filmed in the '25 and '59 versions was incredible, just right on the edge of what is possible with practical effects, and while you could do different things with CGI, I can't think of anything that CGI could add that wouldn't be stupid.

I don't know why the studio spent that much on the new remake and then didn't bother to sign up any A-List stars except getting Morgan Freeman in a supporting role. Heck, the rest of the cast isn't even B- or C-Listers--it's basically a bunch of unknowns. The 2 earlier features had people who were A-Listers at the time in the leads.

[Olinser]

Well, it's official, Ben-Hur is a disaster. $11 million on opening weekend and on Monday it dropped BELOW $1 million.

[Kitten Champion]

Well, it's official, Ben-Hur is a disaster. $11 million on opening weekend and on Monday it dropped BELOW $1 million.

I love Redlettermedia's reaction to this. Where they act with aghast surprise that a remake no one really wanted of a seminal classic, directed by the man who did Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, populated mostly with C-list actors, and pushed to August, somehow bombed.

[Ruslan]

Still a better box office than Hardcore Henry.

[The Glyphstone]

Still a better box office than Hardcore Henry.

Hardcore Henry also had 1/50th of the budget, and made back between four and seven times its cost.

[Kitten Champion]

Still a better box office than Hardcore Henry.

Hardcore Henry only cost 5 million and made 9. Had the studio used that money to finance 20 Hardcore Henry sequels I think it might've worked out better for them.

Edit: That's what he said.

[Ruslan]

I was being sarcastic.