In This Section
TV Guide Spotlight
Also on TVGuide.com
|
« Today's News: Our Take
Chariot Afire: Ben-Hur Miniseries in the Works
David Wyler, the son of Ben-Hur director William Wyler, is producing a miniseries version of the saga, it was announced just days after Charlton Heston passed away. The $30 million project, which starts lensing this year, has already been sold to outlets in Spain, Germany and Canada, and is currently being shopped in the U.S. to two networks and a cable channel. "This is dedicated to my dad and Chuck," Wyler tells Variety. "It's a great way to keep his memory alive."
Versus previous takes (including the 1959 film), the mini will adhere more closely to the 1880 Lew Wallace novel... yet skew the lead role younger (placing Ben-Hur in his mid-twenties) and downplay the story's religious aspects. — MWM
|
TVGuide Links:
|
|
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 8:59 AM
|
|
A way to honor his father and Chuck? I rather doubt that will end up being the case. The original is so engrained in popular culture that his version will be little more than a blip on the radar. I wonder if the network will have sense enough to air it in letterbox format. Not much point in watching the chariot race otherwise.
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 9:10 AM
|
|
It was indeed a fabulous movie that I saw when I was 14 in 1959 on a school trip to Manhattan. I hope they produce it in High Def for my new LCD tv. I always thought that the movie Ben-Hur was one with a Jewish theme relating to history but as I got much older saw it in a different light due to its ending. It seemed to me to be more of a positive look on the beginnings of Christianity and the belief in Jesus as a Savior. I guess I was taken back by this revelation but still loved the movie and the great Charlton Heston.
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 10:36 AM
|
WHY do these idiot producers continue rehashing old classics instead of coming up with original fare. It's one thing to do a re-imagining update of a bad or semi-bad flick. But you don't do it with an undeniable classic. This is one of my favorite movies of all time and I'm saddened by this decision that will, imho, cheapen the original. Also, i'm sick of tv producers thinking they have to skew everything so young (especially when a lot of young actors- the american ones they tend to cast at least- aren't talented enough to take on truly weighty material and tend to ruin historical pieces by sounding like they live in Malibu. Judah Ben-Hur will always be Charlton Heston in my book. Boo on you, Mr. Wyler.
On another note, trombone i have no idea how you missed the christian aspect of this movie. Although the struggle of the Jewish nation under Roman tyranny was an obvious theme, the advent of Christianity runs throughout.
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 11:06 AM
|
I agree... remake all the bad movies you want. Leave the good ones alone.
Downplay the religious aspects? The whole movie has a religious aspect.
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 11:17 AM
|
|
Let the body go cold before you start promoting your ventures... jeez.
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 12:00 PM
|
> Versus previous takes (including the 1959 film), the
> mini will adhere more closely to the 1880 Lew Wallace
> novel... yet skew the lead role younger (placing
> Ben-Hur in his mid-twenties) and downplay the story's
> religious aspects. — MWM
What!!??? You have GOT to be kidding me. The whole book is ABOUT religion. How can you "adhere more closely" to the book and "downplay the story's religious aspects"? To do that is to NOT do "Ben Hur".
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 1:54 PM
|
|
It takes some nerve to mess with such a classic. And then to first claim to "adhere more closely to the...novel", yet skew the age and downplay the religion: that's a contradiction! You are either staying close to the novel or you aren't. PLEASE leave it alone!! The religious aspects ARE the story!
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 1:55 PM
|
|
This is a really stupid idea - next thing you know, they'll remake Planet of the Apes, or Psycho, or The Manchurian Candidate . . . Oh, wait. Nevermind.
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 2:38 PM
|
Well, that'll be one mini-series that I won't be watching.
Has this world become so jaded that producers have to downplay any and all religious aspects in films? Ben-Hur is a classic with religious aspects through out the movie. To down play that is to create a whole new storyline. One that would not even resemble the original novel. And all for the sake of someone's ego. So that they can make a better film with a younger cast and less religious connotations. I can't think of any young actor who could do this role with the same caliber of acting that CH brought to the role.
CH is probably rolling in his grave. Shame on you Mr. Wyler. You shouldn't mess with the best!
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 4:07 PM
|
I recently saw a documentary on Logo about homosexuality in Hollywood and how homosexual themes were played down and skewed in a way to get around censors. There was a segment about Ben-Hur, how Wyler couldn't figure out where Masala's hate for Ben-Hur came from when they had been such close childhood friends, that the political angle wasn't convincing enough. So he asked Stephen Boyd to play Masala as homosexual, and the hate came from unrequited love for Judah.
Having seen the movie since (by the way, they kept Charlton Heston in the dark about it so he could play off the situation as clueless as Judah was) it does add depth to it. But if this is what they are referring to as "adhering more closely to the book" -- I just don't know about reading something into it just to be controversial.
And by the way, why don't we go ahead and remake The Wizard of Oz, Gone with the Wind, Citizen Kane, West Side Story, Gandhi while we're at it. 
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 4:21 PM
|
ctheslayer:
I get what you're saying at the end there. But they have remade The Wizard of Oz several times. The best is the 1939 remake with Judy Garland. 
And West Side Story was remade as, well, West Side Story. There were lots of Romeo and Juliet movies before the 1961 musical version.
Sorry... couldn't resist!
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 4:55 PM
|
Acheyfakey...there was a version of Ben-Hur, too, before 1959. I THINK the point I and the other posters are making is that there are some films that are so popular, so brilliant, so masterful for their time and beyond, there is no reason to remake them.
And WEST SIDE STORY was not a remake. The 1961 version is the film adaptation of the stage musical. There has not been another film entitled West Side Story set in 1960's NY featuring lead characters Tony and Maria. That would also make it a reinvention or reimagining of Romeo and Juliet, not remake. Just as if they made Ben-Hur but called in Joe-Bob and set it in Nashville in the 1950's and had them race cars, that would be a reinvention or reimagining, not a remake.
So, I guess you didn't get the point.
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 5:13 PM
|
Ditto on all the comments.
Why mess with a good thing and then say they'll downplay the religious aspects? That would be like making The Ten Commandments (another great Heston film) but leave out ... you guessed it ... The Ten Commandments!
It seems few people have original ideas any more.
Let the classics alone ... and the Ben Hur the junior Wyler is speaking of IS a classic ... and come up with something different ... say, a docudrama on the making of Ben Hur.
I won't be seeing "Ben Hur ... the Miniseries" even if another strike comes about.
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 6:01 PM
|
|
Play down the religious theme? I've read the book (twice). How do you play down the religious theme?
|
|
Apr 10, 2008 6:52 PM
|
|
|
