The film, which courted Christian viewers and abandoned the gay subtext of the 1959 classic, could lose up to $100 million.
Bye, Ben-Hur.
The film about betrayal in biblical times was an epic fail at the box office. Its opening weekend, it took in $11.2 million in domestic markets and $10.7 million in international ones, reports Variety, a dismal sum given to its production budget of over $100 million.
Ben-Hur ranked sixth at the box office, failing the cinematic chariot race to a top 5 position. It lost to films in their second and third weekend, including Suicide Squad ($20.9 million), Sausage Party ($15.5 million), and Pete’s Dragon ($11.3 million).
Prior to its release, Ben-Hurwas criticized by The Advocate and other outlets for not including the gay subtext present in the 1959 classic, a critical and commercial success that went on to win a slew of Oscars. In the 1995 documentary The Celluloid Closet, out screenwriter Gore Vidal revealed he had convinced the film’s director to incorporate this subtext in order to explain the tension between the film’s leads, a prince and a Roman soldier who betrays him.
Various excuses were offered as to why the gay subtext was not present in the story’s most recent iteration. At Ben-Hur‘s premiere, star Tony Kebbell (Messala, the soldier) said it wasn’t needed in the present day. In a conflicting report, screenwriter Keith Clarke claimed copyright law prevented him from incorporating it, as he could only adapt what was included in Lew Wallace’s 1880 book Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ.
As a result, the film placed more emphasis on the novel’s religious themes and fleshed out the character of Christ. It also marketed heavily to Christian audiences, holding special screenings and releasing promotional videos that featured reviews from religious leaders.
But not even Jesus could save Ben-Hur from bad reviews. The film currently has a score of 29 percent on the film aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. Critics called it “an amateurish effort,” “something soulless and empty,” “a compete snore-fest,” “gutless,” and a “digitalized eyesore hobbled in every department by staggering incompetence.”
“The filmmakers of this stagnant remake display all the technical tools needed to achieve greatness, but they lack that most basic of functions: a reason why this story needs to be retold,” wrote the Washington City Paper.
Wow. Those reviews are beyond scathing, those are brutal. I thought the whole hype of “Christian, Christian, Christian Ben Hur with Added Jesus!” was sheer silliness, but it turns out the film was much worse than the standard Christian silly. Ouch.
Via The Advocate.
Jesus movies are too easy, because there is no subtext. People like to be challenged; underestimating your audience can be a fatal mistake.
There is so much hilarious wrong here. Yes, Vidal’s script had elements that weren’t in the original and you can’t plagiarize, but Vidal doesn’t own the concept of homoerotic subtext. And that subtext was there in an earlier adaptation, too.
TMM:
Gods yes. I was gobsmacked that a writer was using copyright law as an excuse. You’re a writer, you know, one of those people who can use their imagination to write stories.
No, no, it’s magic sky faeries who do all the imagining; “writers” are merely the faeries’s pencils. Which is a easier job than it used to be, back when they were chisels.
Did they beat jesus to bloody chunks? You can’t make a jesus movie for the christians that’ll sell, unless it features beating jesus until the faith runs down his legs.
Marcus:
You’d think I’d know better than to have a big mouthful of tea prior to reading.
So, the xians were more interested in watching Sausage Party than Ben Hur without the Sausage Party subtext?
There’s a good joke in there somewhere….