Ben Hur remake

adamlee19adamlee19 Posts: 632
Forum Member
✭✭
Do you think they should really remake Ben Hur.
There taking on a film that out of 3 has won 11 awards. The film was a classic the music the acting the sets. You would actually think u was in that Era.
I personaly don't think they need to a lot of it will be CGI.

Comments

  • David WaineDavid Waine Posts: 3,396
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Short answer, no. Why remake a classic? There may be an exception or two, but off the top of my head, the only remake of a classic that actually improved on the original, that I can think of, was Peter Jackson's King Kong, and that was almost entirely down to the fact that special effects had moved on so far since the early 1930s. The special effects in the 1959 film still look impressive today, so there is little to be gained there. As for everything else, why bother? It was fine to begin with. Most remakes of classics fall well short of the standard of the originals. Having written that, of course, William Wyler's Ben Hur was, itself, a remake - but since the original was a silent film, perhaps we can make an exception.

    Can anyone define a classic film? The nearest that I can get is when the various elements that make up the film combine so sublimely that the result is far, far beyond the sum of its parts. Those elements, of course, are missing in the remake, which is why they are so often disappointing.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The Ben Hur story itself (at least the 1959 film version) is quite attractive as stories go. Unlike some of these recent remakes.

    So a remake might just work.

    I think the 1959 film is a bit staid really and maybe could benefit from a remake.
  • Johnny ClayJohnny Clay Posts: 5,315
    Forum Member
    A BH remake is very much on the cards it seems:

    http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=123220
    the only remake of a classic that actually improved on the original, that I can think of, was Peter Jackson's King Kong, and that was almost entirely down to the fact that special effects had moved on so far since the early 1930s.
    Outside, now! >:(
  • adamlee19adamlee19 Posts: 632
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The thing is the 2 main things they have to get spot on is the music. That music in the 1959 version is just perfect in everyway from the start to the end. Plus of course the Christ figure. Again the 59 version got it spot on you never saw his face but we know its him by the way he walks the way people react to him and of course the music. Obviously everything else has to work but I think those 2 points are really important.
  • TakaeTakae Posts: 13,555
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Having written that, of course, William Wyler's Ben Hur was, itself, a remake - but since the original was a silent film, perhaps we can make an exception.

    None of the Ben Hur films - 1907, 1927, 1959, 2003 and 2010 - is a remake, though. All are adaptations of Lew Wallace's 1880 novel.

    According to the pending credits, the 2016 version will be an adaptation of Lew Wallace's novel as well.
  • Sick n SexifiedSick n Sexified Posts: 1,132
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I thought they did remake it. Wasn't Alex Kingston in it?
Sign In or Register to comment.