We all know why they remake everything - (a) the public lines up around the corner for Hollywood to shit down their throats and (b) market research shows what will sell in Asia. The problem here is that Ben Hur doesn't check any of the boxes for either of those. The demographics are all wrong. Teenage boys aren't going to care about this. Joe Sixpack in Flyover, KY isn't going to care about this. Women aren't going to care about this. The Chinese aren't going to care about this. This is going to be a bomb.
And there was a line of people waiting for a sneak peak of Ben Hur. We found out by asking someone on line what they were waiting to see. I couldn't actually believe people were waiting on line for this.
We all know why they remake everything - (a) the public lines up around the corner for Hollywood to shit down their throats and (b) market research shows what will sell in Asia. The problem here is that Ben Hur doesn't check any of the boxes for either of those. The demographics are all wrong. Teenage boys aren't going to care about this. Joe Sixpack in Flyover, KY isn't going to care about this. Women aren't going to care about this. The Chinese aren't going to care about this. This is going to be a bomb.
This is why I don't get remakes in general...most of us won't see it because..."how can they do better than the original?" It's such a classic movie that people likely hold very strong feelings about touching it, particularly if they change or even "update" it. And for the rest, likely the majority of people nowadays, they will likely be "Ben Who"? They play to to the familiarity for audiences who don't want it, and the rest cannot relate.
My mental state for 80% of the film is basically "can we get to the 'trampling people' part, already?" Sure, some of the scenes are impressive as hell, and the orchestral score is great, but, wow, that movie is long.
(That said, I'm way outside the target audience for the preachy parts.)
I don't think many "classic" hold up well. Ben-Hur included. I know that ruffles the feathers of a lot of movie buffs who seem to think every movie made before 1980 is something brilliant.
I'll bet they thought the chariot race w/2016 special effects
My mental state for 80% of the film is basically "can we get to the 'trampling people' part, already?" Sure, some of the scenes are impressive as hell, and the orchestral score is great, but, wow, that movie is long.
(That said, I'm way outside the target audience for the preachy parts.)
I love the original, but then I also love long movies which take time to better develop a scene or tell a story. Dr Zhivago is one of my all time favorites.
No director today would likley ever cut a scene as "slow" and long as the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where Omar Shariff is introduced in the movie. But it was fantastic in it's entirety.
I don't think many "classic" hold up well. Ben-Hur included. I know that ruffles the feathers of a lot of movie buffs who seem to think every movie made before 1980 is something brilliant.
I know a lot of people think the original movie's about the chariot race and perhaps the galley slaves, but it's really about Jesus and its very venerable towards him. Not sure that sort of story would take with today's audiences (just not what people go to the movies for) - so either they cut that bit of it, which is really the point of the original movie, or they didn't in which case its impact is probably much more muted.
I know a lot of people think the original movie's about the chariot race and perhaps the galley slaves, but it's really about Jesus and its very venerable towards him. Not sure that sort of story would take with today's audiences (just not what people go to the movies for) - so either they cut that bit of it, which is really the point of the original movie, or they didn't in which case its impact is probably much more muted.
I think they kept it to try and tap that Passion audience. They are saying it did do better in the Bible Belt and Texas...
I don't think many "classic" hold up well. Ben-Hur included. I know that ruffles the feathers of a lot of movie buffs who seem to think every movie made before 1980 is something brilliant.
Who thinks every pre 1980 movie is a classic?
a lot of classics suffer because they were the novel originator
of a technique which is now ubiquitous, like say dutch angles in the Third Man.
The biggest knock old pre-60s movies should get is the hamhanded way they emote or outline the plot because audiences weren't trusted to follow subtlety. There's still plenty of worthy films from the era, but that's the most common thing I notice when watching.
I know a lot of people think the original movie's about the chariot race and perhaps the galley slaves, but it's really about Jesus and its very venerable towards him. Not sure that sort of story would take with today's audiences (just not what people go to the movies for) - so either they cut that bit of it, which is really the point of the original movie, or they didn't in which case its impact is probably much more muted.
I think they kept it to try and tap that Passion audience. They are saying it did do better in the Bible Belt and Texas...
Yeah I just watched the trailer and it seems to be mostly still in there. It may recoup if the evangelicals see it (or latin/South America) but it hasn't got the press that Passion did.
Some incredible scenes. The chariot race. The slave ship. The scene he sees his mother and sister for the first time in years. But in general, I find it a bore.
Laurence of Arabia, otoh, is about as perfect a film as I've ever seen.
I think studios should occasionally re-release old classics
There are some movies I have only seen on a television screen that I would pay to see on a large screen.
Other than the advertising budget they would have zero cost in doing this so it has the potential to be a solid money maker. At least for the right movies, ones that would pull enough of an audience to make it work.
There are some movies I have only seen on a television screen that I would pay to see on a large screen.
Other than the advertising budget they would have zero cost in doing this so it has the potential to be a solid money maker. At least for the right movies, ones that would pull enough of an audience to make it work.
Advertising budget and residuals...
RE: RE: I think studios should occasionally re-release old classics
There are some movies I have only seen on a television screen that I would pay to see on a large screen.
Other than the advertising budget they would have zero cost in doing this so it has the potential to be a solid money maker. At least for the right movies, ones that would pull enough of an audience to make it work.
Advertising budget and residuals...
I doubt many older movies offered residuals to most of the cast. But for some movies yes that also.
RE: I think studios should occasionally re-release old classics
There are some movies I have only seen on a television screen that I would pay to see on a large screen.
Other than the advertising budget they would have zero cost in doing this so it has the potential to be a solid money maker. At least for the right movies, ones that would pull enough of an audience to make it work.
Some studios already do that...
RE: RE: I think studios should occasionally re-release old classics
There are some movies I have only seen on a television screen that I would pay to see on a large screen.
Other than the advertising budget they would have zero cost in doing this so it has the potential to be a solid money maker. At least for the right movies, ones that would pull enough of an audience to make it work.
Some studios already do that...
I know occasionally a few old blockbuster have been, especially those geared towards children or holidays but in general it doesn't happen much.
It was more common when I was a boy. I remember seeing almost of if not all of the James Bond Movies locally in a theater.
RE: RE: RE: I think studios should occasionally re-release old classics
There are some movies I have only seen on a television screen that I would pay to see on a large screen.
Other than the advertising budget they would have zero cost in doing this so it has the potential to be a solid money maker. At least for the right movies, ones that would pull enough of an audience to make it work.
Some studios already do that...
I know occasionally a few old blockbuster have been, especially those geared towards children or holidays but in general it doesn't happen much.
It was more common when I was a boy. I remember seeing almost of if not all of the James Bond Movies locally in a theater.
That was before home video. And cable. And on demand. And Netflix. Disney used to re-release all their movies every 7 years. Its one of the reasons they were able to be so successful all those years. Now everybody can buy/rent/download/steal anything they want whenever they want it.
And as much as I have always loved going to theaters and seeing things on the big screen with the big sound and the snacks, now people have big screens and surround sound in their living rooms. People are not even going to bother going to the theater anymore, where what was once unique isn't anymore and the annoyances often outweigh the positives.
Funny other than occasionally taking my children to see movies I rarely ever go anymore for the reasons you mention. But I could see myself going to see some great old ones. But I'm probably the minority in that.
usually suck ass. I have a decent-sized screen at home, a 50 inch plasma. It's still not "the big screen".
The local Bow Tie Cinema shows classics once or twice a month on the weekend. This month is Gone With The Wind. There's also a historic theater in town, the Byrd, which shows classics on Saturday mornings along with old WB cartoons and music on the old vintage Wurlitzer organ.. Next Saturday is The King and I. Only $1.99 too!
to alter the experience to make a "normal" movie a luxury event. All the seats at the theatres where I live are soft recliners. They can't compete with home theatres unless they do something special.
I can't stand that it just takes one asshole, esp. one who can't control their kids to ruin the experience for everyone. Happened to us recently when we took our kids to see Finding Dori.
to alter the experience to make a "normal" movie a luxury event. All the seats at the theatres where I live are soft recliners. They can't compete with home theatres unless they do something special.
I can't stand that it just takes one asshole, esp. one who can't control their kids to ruin the experience for everyone. Happened to us recently when we took our kids to see Finding Dori.
Yeah, but when you go to see a kids movie you have to expect some nuisances. I am prepared going in that it won't quiet and people will be getting up and going to the John or get snacks or whatever. It's when you go to see "grown up" movies that it gets really annoying. I remember I saw some serious movie and these idiots brought a crying one-year old baby. Wtf?
RE: RE: You can see that Movie Theatres are trying
to alter the experience to make a "normal" movie a luxury event. All the seats at the theatres where I live are soft recliners. They can't compete with home theatres unless they do something special.
I can't stand that it just takes one asshole, esp. one who can't control their kids to ruin the experience for everyone. Happened to us recently when we took our kids to see Finding Dori.
Yeah, but when you go to see a kids movie you have to expect some nuisances. I am prepared going in that it won't quiet and people will be getting up and going to the John or get snacks or whatever. It's when you go to see "grown up" movies that it gets really annoying. I remember I saw some serious movie and these idiots brought a crying one-year old baby. Wtf?
One of the perks of home schooling our children. I always pick the the most off times in the middle of the day, in the middle of a school week to take them to the movies. We are often the only ones in there, or maybe just a few scattered people at most. Summer time though I am like the rest of us. A few weeks ago we went and I had some little kid kicking the back of my seat all movie long. The mother was either clueless to my "look" or was so beaten down to the point of not caring.
with a 1 year old I have far less time to do so, but I really enjoy it still. I actually have a small theater by my house, just 2 screens, but they get blockbusters right down to Indy films. The theater isn't as nice, but you get that old school feel and can support a local business at the same time.
They remade it to play to the ultra conservative demographic they thought they might attract by inserting Jesus into a big role in the story and promoting it on FOX. I am not anti-their view, just stating why the movie was remade. I was not remade thinking it would make $300M - it was a personal project by some very wealthy conservative Christians.
We all know why they remake everything - (a) the public lines up around the corner for Hollywood to shit down their throats and (b) market research shows what will sell in Asia. The problem here is that Ben Hur doesn't check any of the boxes for either of those. The demographics are all wrong. Teenage boys aren't going to care about this. Joe Sixpack in Flyover, KY isn't going to care about this. Women aren't going to care about this. The Chinese aren't going to care about this. This is going to be a bomb.
No need for the Best Actor nominations at the Oscars, just give Ben the damn trophy!
was that the one with Sasha Grey?
I didn't realize it even opened yet. Yeah, colossal bomb.
This is what I was thinking, too. It's flopping bad financially... maybe if they put a damn commercial on (or anything!) that wouldn't have happened.
I haven't see so much as a banner on a website to date.
(That said, I'm way outside the target audience for the preachy parts.)
Ben-Hur Official Trailer #1
Ben Hur Official Trailer #2
(That said, I'm way outside the target audience for the preachy parts.)
I love the original, but then I also love long movies which take time to better develop a scene or tell a story. Dr Zhivago is one of my all time favorites.
No director today would likley ever cut a scene as "slow" and long as the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where Omar Shariff is introduced in the movie. But it was fantastic in it's entirety.
Omar Sharif scene - ( New Window )
That's a stupid generalization.
I think they kept it to try and tap that Passion audience. They are saying it did do better in the Bible Belt and Texas...
Who thinks every pre 1980 movie is a classic?
The biggest knock old pre-60s movies should get is the hamhanded way they emote or outline the plot because audiences weren't trusted to follow subtlety. There's still plenty of worthy films from the era, but that's the most common thing I notice when watching.
Quote:
I know a lot of people think the original movie's about the chariot race and perhaps the galley slaves, but it's really about Jesus and its very venerable towards him. Not sure that sort of story would take with today's audiences (just not what people go to the movies for) - so either they cut that bit of it, which is really the point of the original movie, or they didn't in which case its impact is probably much more muted.
I think they kept it to try and tap that Passion audience. They are saying it did do better in the Bible Belt and Texas...
Yeah I just watched the trailer and it seems to be mostly still in there. It may recoup if the evangelicals see it (or latin/South America) but it hasn't got the press that Passion did.
Laurence of Arabia, otoh, is about as perfect a film as I've ever seen.
Other than the advertising budget they would have zero cost in doing this so it has the potential to be a solid money maker. At least for the right movies, ones that would pull enough of an audience to make it work.
Other than the advertising budget they would have zero cost in doing this so it has the potential to be a solid money maker. At least for the right movies, ones that would pull enough of an audience to make it work.
Advertising budget and residuals...
Quote:
There are some movies I have only seen on a television screen that I would pay to see on a large screen.
Other than the advertising budget they would have zero cost in doing this so it has the potential to be a solid money maker. At least for the right movies, ones that would pull enough of an audience to make it work.
Advertising budget and residuals...
I doubt many older movies offered residuals to most of the cast. But for some movies yes that also.
Other than the advertising budget they would have zero cost in doing this so it has the potential to be a solid money maker. At least for the right movies, ones that would pull enough of an audience to make it work.
Some studios already do that...
Quote:
There are some movies I have only seen on a television screen that I would pay to see on a large screen.
Other than the advertising budget they would have zero cost in doing this so it has the potential to be a solid money maker. At least for the right movies, ones that would pull enough of an audience to make it work.
Some studios already do that...
I know occasionally a few old blockbuster have been, especially those geared towards children or holidays but in general it doesn't happen much.
It was more common when I was a boy. I remember seeing almost of if not all of the James Bond Movies locally in a theater.
Quote:
In comment 13081673 steve in ky said:
Quote:
There are some movies I have only seen on a television screen that I would pay to see on a large screen.
Other than the advertising budget they would have zero cost in doing this so it has the potential to be a solid money maker. At least for the right movies, ones that would pull enough of an audience to make it work.
Some studios already do that...
I know occasionally a few old blockbuster have been, especially those geared towards children or holidays but in general it doesn't happen much.
It was more common when I was a boy. I remember seeing almost of if not all of the James Bond Movies locally in a theater.
That was before home video. And cable. And on demand. And Netflix. Disney used to re-release all their movies every 7 years. Its one of the reasons they were able to be so successful all those years. Now everybody can buy/rent/download/steal anything they want whenever they want it.
And as much as I have always loved going to theaters and seeing things on the big screen with the big sound and the snacks, now people have big screens and surround sound in their living rooms. People are not even going to bother going to the theater anymore, where what was once unique isn't anymore and the annoyances often outweigh the positives.
Funny other than occasionally taking my children to see movies I rarely ever go anymore for the reasons you mention. But I could see myself going to see some great old ones. But I'm probably the minority in that.
The local Bow Tie Cinema shows classics once or twice a month on the weekend. This month is Gone With The Wind. There's also a historic theater in town, the Byrd, which shows classics on Saturday mornings along with old WB cartoons and music on the old vintage Wurlitzer organ.. Next Saturday is The King and I. Only $1.99 too!
I can't stand that it just takes one asshole, esp. one who can't control their kids to ruin the experience for everyone. Happened to us recently when we took our kids to see Finding Dori.
I can't stand that it just takes one asshole, esp. one who can't control their kids to ruin the experience for everyone. Happened to us recently when we took our kids to see Finding Dori.
Yeah, but when you go to see a kids movie you have to expect some nuisances. I am prepared going in that it won't quiet and people will be getting up and going to the John or get snacks or whatever. It's when you go to see "grown up" movies that it gets really annoying. I remember I saw some serious movie and these idiots brought a crying one-year old baby. Wtf?
Quote:
to alter the experience to make a "normal" movie a luxury event. All the seats at the theatres where I live are soft recliners. They can't compete with home theatres unless they do something special.
I can't stand that it just takes one asshole, esp. one who can't control their kids to ruin the experience for everyone. Happened to us recently when we took our kids to see Finding Dori.
Yeah, but when you go to see a kids movie you have to expect some nuisances. I am prepared going in that it won't quiet and people will be getting up and going to the John or get snacks or whatever. It's when you go to see "grown up" movies that it gets really annoying. I remember I saw some serious movie and these idiots brought a crying one-year old baby. Wtf?
One of the perks of home schooling our children. I always pick the the most off times in the middle of the day, in the middle of a school week to take them to the movies. We are often the only ones in there, or maybe just a few scattered people at most. Summer time though I am like the rest of us. A few weeks ago we went and I had some little kid kicking the back of my seat all movie long. The mother was either clueless to my "look" or was so beaten down to the point of not caring.
In comment 13081552 Chris in Philly said:
This 100%. That movie was a lot of fun and very well made.
Greg, did you ever see the Casablanca TV Series that starred David Soul?
That's right...David Soul.
Just what the hell is going on with Hollywood anyway.