Talk:Ben-Hur (1959 film)

message: Does anyone have a citation for the "largest film set ever" statement? I have seen plenty of conflicting reports over this claim. Shipguy 04:43, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FilmsWikiProject

message: * 
* 
* 
* 
* Please never use:
: 
: 
: 
: 
generates:‎
* 
* 
* 
* 
* Please never use:
: 
: 
: 
: 
===comments===
* It seems that  and  render differently. Best regards Gangleri · Th · T 21:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: fullurl and other magic variables

message: * It seems that  and  render differently. Best regards Gangleri · Th · T 21:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: comments

message: I corrected and softened the language regarding the 'island,' since the spina is well-known as a feature of most circi.--TjoeC (talk) 17:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fictional island? It's called a ''spina''

message: I removed the "33 million today" bit because what's "today" mean in an undated encyclopedia? And where was this information from.. a 10 year old source maybe? It's at best meaningless without context, at worst misleading. A cited source and date for this trivia would make it worthwhile. -- Stbalbach 14:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 33 million today

message: This page had a few citations to the Internet Movie Database's trivia page as a source for information. However, these pages are not trustworthy: they are made the same way as Wikipedia, through contributions by anon users, and are often inaccurate and half-remembered, or even untrue. DVD commentaries, documentaries and books are much better sources. Cop 633 18:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Don't use IMDB trivia page as a reliable source

message: Currently the article says of the word hortator, "(Curiously, the word hortatator, although known to everyone who has seen this movie, and actually defined in the eponymous book, does not appear in either the American Heritage Dictionary or the Random House Dictionary." It may be in the Oxford English Dictionary.""
It is sort of in the OED. It is not in my fourth edition (1993) Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, although it is possible that it was included in the fifth, I suppose. It is in the
electronic OED, where the only reference given is to the book of Ben Hur. I can't think how to reword the article at the moment. The OED definition is not "drum-banger" or "speed-setter" or anything you might guess from the film, btw, but "one who exhorts". Skimming over the chapter "At the oar", the definition seems to be "chief of the rowers". 
Telsa (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hortator

message: If you check a Latin dictionary, you'll find that the word hortator means inciter; encourager, exhorter; urger which is completely in keeping as a descriptive title for the person who gives the time for rowers.  The Latin stem is: hortator, hortatoris  N (3rd) M.
See the online Latin lexicon Words by William Whitaker 
URL is http://www.archives.nd.edu/cgi-bin/words.exe?Hortator
4.153.248.63 16:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hortator

message: I've seen Ben-Hur several times. It's quite a good film -- if you can ignore Charlton Heston's wretchedly stiff performance. It's hard to understand how anyone as self-deprecatory as Heston can be such a bad actor.
Anyhow, the story given here that Gore Vidal posited an earlier affair to motivate Messala's hatred of Ben-Hur is not only unlikely (given the Romans' discomfort with homosexual behavior, and the Jews' detestation of it), but psychologically implausible. As strictly heterosexual men can and do have intense emotional relationships with each other, it's perfectly natural for Messala to be upset -- even outraged to the point of hatred -- when his close childhood friend refuses to do as he asks. There's no need for sex.
And this story is almost certainly untrue -- we have Gore Vidal's word on the matter! In a interview in the supplementary material for the multi-disk edition of Ben Hur he says that the story is a misrepresentation -- that what he really suggested was that Stephen Boyd play the part as if Ben-Hur and Messala were lovers or spouses who'd had a falling out. This is hardly the same thing as them actually having been sexual lovers.
As for whether this is visible in the film... I don't see it, and I'm looking for it! Stephen Boyd was an actor of minimal talent; I doubt he had the skill to convey anything so subtle.
Regardless, someone should review the DVD interview and update the material accordingly. I don't have the time, and I don't really like to make such substantial changes to someone else's work.
WilliamSommerwerck 17:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does cite sources: the book and film of The Celluloid Closet. And I recall the DVD liner notes on CC provides most of this stuff verbatim; unfortunately I don't have a copy on me. As to all Christ articles having stuff about gay subtexts, I think you're exaggerating. Cop 663 (talk) 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ben-Hur and Messala... Lovers?

message: 210.213.140.244 (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The Crucifixion Scene

message: The "Casting" paragrpah states (last line) "Out of respect, and consistent with Lew Wallace's stated preference, the face of Jesus is never shown. He was played by opera singer Claude Heater, who received no credit for his only film role."
However, Lew Wallace (the author) died in 1905 according to his Wiki bio. How or why would Wallace stipulate that Jesus's face not be shown, given that Wallace died some time before the proliferation of movies? Was he talking about plays? And what is the source for his having stated this? Engr105th (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Lew Wallace died in 1905...even assuming he worked until his death, it seems unlikely he'd have seen the advent of the widely distributed film industry as we know it. He was a politician in the mid-West USA..The history of film seems to indicate 'films' were mostly under development in France in the late 1890s... would Wallace really have had the knowledge or film experience to see that Ben Hur as a movie might show Jesus's face and thereby object to it? (just asking; food for thought). Something doesn't jibe here... If he did make such a condition, there ought to be documentation of it before its included in Wikipedia. Engr105th (talk) 07:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He did not want to have an actor portray Christ in a play on stage - he allowed a stage adaptation when a director suggested using light to indicate Christ. This preference was known, and carried forward in making the film. (It's documented in the article on the book.) Parkwells (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Jesus's Face

message: Judah Ben-Hur as article on wikipedia (I didn't know where to put it). I was surprised the character wasnt mentioned here and underlined (like a hyperlink)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.249.55 (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Why don't we have 

message: There is an inconsistency, at least in the plot section, as to how the main character is referred to.  Sometimes it is written Judah, and sometimes Ben-Hur.  This makes it difficult to read.  It would be much better to just stick to a single reference or write the whole name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.61.208 (talk) 03:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistency with Judah vs Judah Ben-Hur vs Ben-Hur

message: *  ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards
Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Allmovie

message: Any info on this? Amazon still invites you to "Sign up to be notified when this item becomes available" after almost 2 years (http://www.amazon.com/Ben-Hur-Blu-ray-Charlton-Heston/dp/B0013MYB9K/ref=sr_1_9?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1263591970&sr=8-9). Other sources such as www.Blu-ray.com don't give more details other: http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ben-Hur-Blu-ray/756/. Can anybody find a more up-to-date source stating when it will be released? I know this is not supposed to be a forum, but I can't believed MGM missed the 50th anniversary of such a title... 81.96.125.246 (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Blu-ray release

message: The scene between Esther and Judah is meant to depict their realisation that they are in love with each other, not simply attracted to each other. The tenderness shown between them in the seen clearly demonstrates more than mere attraction, and it is the basis for the growth of their relationship throughout the film.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.212.57 (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Love, not mere attraction 

message: There is a quote from Donald Sinden's memoirs congratulating Charlton Heston on the chariot race.  It's a direct quote from the book. While a source was given, no page number was given.  I tried to find this book in Google Books, but it is not online.  If this were a fact but not a quote, I think we could leave it in and wait until someone added a page number.  But since this is a direct quotation, I think it needs to come out of the article until a page number can be found.  I hope someone can do that!  (I think the quote should also be moved from where it was added to the paragraph that talks about Heston training for the chariot race.  It belongs there, rather than hanging out bare where it was.) - Tim1965 (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sinden quote 

message: Did Wyler really wish to "out DeMille DeMille"? --Regression Tester (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  DeMille DeMille 

message: Surely the remark attributed to Kevin Brownlow referred to the 1926 version? Brownlow's book is about the Silent Era.Rozsaphile1 (talk) 23:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence of Chariot Race 

message: An editor keeps adding MGM as the distributor against the source. Loew's was the distribution arm for MGM who just produced the films, but originally did not distribute them. The AFI catalog clearly indicates that Loew's was the distributor in this case. 
From the AFI source we have:
:*Production Company:	Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Corp. (Loew's Inc.) 
:*Distribution Company:	Loew's Inc.
And also this quote:
:Ben-Hur's development began as early as the summer of 1953, when M-G-M production chief Dore Schary, studio general manager E. J. Mannix, Nicholas Schenck, president of M-G-M's parent company and distribution arm, Loew's Inc., and producer Sam Zimbalist came together to discuss the idea.
Furthermore, the United States Copyright Office confirm that Ben-Hur was submitted to them by Loew's and not MGM: Copyright catalog (Registration Number: RE0000331201)
If there is further evidence to the contrary can it be discussed here please rather than just editing against source. Betty Logan (talk) 11:39, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Loew's Inc. being identified as the distributor. If it really continues to be an issue, and the reverting editor actually engages in discussion, maybe we can have a note that would explain this relationship. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are sources that do identify MGM as the distributor, which was definitely the case with the reissue in 1969. MGM and Loew split in 1959, so it is possible that MGM was the distributor, but I think the AFI is correct here. According to the copyright catalog all MGM films up to 1959 (including Ben Hur) were submitted by Loews, and then in 1960 some were submitted by Loews and others by MGM, and Loews was gradually phased out from 1961. Since it was right on the cusp of the transition I'm open to being corrected, but not in the way the IP is doing it. Betty Logan (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Studio/Distributor parameters 

message: Right now, the article claims that the score has only a single leitmotif (the 5-4#-2-3-1), but in my review of the the film, it seems that the score makes use of several recurring leitmotifs. Does anybody have any source for this claim?
Thanks for all the fascinating information O Murr (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the idea of only one Leitmotif in the score? 

message: „Principal photography began in Rome on May 18, 1958. [...] Shooting took nine months, which included three months for the chariot race scene alone. Principal photography ended on January 7, 1959...”
The period between May 18, 1958 and January 7, 1959 isn't nine months, it is only seven and half months! 195.56.250.155 (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eight or nine months? 

message: *There seems to be an ongoing dispute over the financials. Up to the start of August we had the the following information:
# Budget – $15.2 million (sourced to Sheldon Hall, Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters p.162 and the Eddie Mannix Ledger)
# Gross – $146.9 million (initial release) (the citation for this figure is Block and Wilson, p. 324. and can be found in the "Box Office section")
*On August 17  changed this information to the following (sourced to Box Office Mojo):
# Budget – $15.2 million 
# Gross – $74 million
*A week later,  changed the gross back to $146.9 million and restored the original sources.
*Two days after that, TropicAces reverted to his preferred version with the summary "An actual site source should trump a page on an unlinked book".
*Earlier today, El Matador restored $146.9 million gross to the infobox.
The first thing I am going to do is request that you stop reverting each other and discuss the issue here. Now for the actual information, Template:Infobox_film states "Insert the worldwide gross revenue accrued by the film in its theatrical run (home media sales should instead be covered in the article body). This information is available for most pictures at Box Office Mojo and The Numbers. If worldwide gross is not available, then indicate which region has grossed that amount". Clearly this instructs us to only use the domestic amount if the worldwide figure is not available. Looking at Box Office Mojo page, it clearly only provides a domestic figure of $74 million. I happen to have the Block & Wilson book and can corroborate that it gives a global worldwide figure of $146.9 million (with a domestic figure of $74.7 million), so clearly in accordance with the guidelines, and unless we doubt the veracity of the book (written by a Hollywood Reporter writer) there is no reason to select the BOM figure over the Blockbusting figure. As for the budget, the Block & Wilson book puts it at $15.9 million, Box Office Mojo at $15 million (which to be fair doesn't contradict the $15.2 million figure), while the Sheldon Hall book along with the Mannix ledger put it at $15.2 million. Now, the Mannix ledger is actually created from the MGM accounts so will generally have the most accurate information, so in my opinion trumps any other source on the subject for MGM films. While I have neither of these available to me to check the information, I will presume they are cited accurately in a GA rated article. While I agree that it is more convenient if the source is available online, it is not actually a requirement for reliability per WP:SOURCEACCESS. If a book source provides more accurate or complete information than an online source then we should defer to it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with going against BOM, however I feel it should be with a genuine source, not a page on a book that isn't a genuine link that can't be checked. TropicAces (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A book is a genuine source. Many articles across Wikipedia use books as sources. A book is still verifiable since you can buy it or check it out of your library. Betty Logan (talk) 17:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Budget/gross figures 

message: An anonymous editor has been repeatedly adding this film to adventure categories, such as here. Ben-Hur is a biblical epic, as categorized by the American Film Institute. While it may contain elements of adventure is not an adventure film, at least in the principal sense. Likewise, we wouldn't classify it as an action film on the basis that it has some sword fighting and a chariot race. Categories must be verifiable and defining per WP:CATVER and WP:CATDEF. At the moment verifiable content in the article does not support the category, so please refrain from adding it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adventure film 

message: I was shocked after reading the bulk of the article under Ben Hur that the Producer died during its filming. It was only when I went to Zimbalist's page that I learned the date of his death, so I went back to Ben Hur's page to see whether perhaps I'd missed the mention of it. The only one I found, surprisingly, was a box on the lower right (next to "Accolades", I believe) listing the awards which the film eventually won. There it acknowledges that Zimbalist was awarded posthumously. There is, however, no other mention of his death in connection with the movie. That seems rather odd, especially when I'm sure that it must have had a notable impact on others. Could information on this be included? It should be mentioned somewhere and, I would venture, be a good subject for a little research - showing how it did (or did not) effect the film and those connected with it. To not mention it at all seems as odd and dated as not showing Jesus' face. :) Possibly a well-meant but misguided type of respect or, short of benign conspiracy, just an oversight! :) :) 98.118.94.222 (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Producer Zimbalist's Death During Filming 

message: I don't know who Betty Logan is and don't care. She doesn't seem to know the difference between necessary research and original research , and she seems to be savaging this page. She has undone all my recent work which I must now reconstruct. In the meantime I suggest that she takes a look at the original "Ben- Hur" brochure - does she even have a copy ? I do. Let her look at  the brochure cast list. Then compare it with mine. It includes numerous credits that are not in the film's on-screen credits. Can she see anything? Or is she blind? I hadn't finished my reconstruction of the cast list and didn't have time to source it - when she descended on it and destroyed it . Has anyone else had trouble with this harpy? What can we do about her?  I assume that Betty is female, but in an age of gender-reassignment I can't be sure. In any event - what's wrong with her/him/it?
 O Murr (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you acquaint yourself with Wikipedia:Verifiability which states that "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Cast credits in a film are easy to check but uncredited cast members should be accompanied by a full citation. Secondly, Wikipedia is not an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. It is not necessary to list the entire cast of a film, or even desirable in the case of films that have large casts. You added a multitude of cast members that are either non-notable or played insignificant roles in the film. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not IMDB. You can find further guidance at WP:CASTLIST. Betty Logan (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Betty. There are rules of thumb to follow to provide a reasonable list of names. Like Betty said, WP:CASTLIST has these guidelines. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cast list  

message: I really like to know why this movie has a 6:30 minutes long intro song showing only the word "Overture". Was this usual for this time?
:It was usual for films that had roadshow exhibitions. Music would often play as the audience took their seats and at the interval. The overture and entr'acte for Gone with the Wind added 17 minutes on to the runtime. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Informations about the intro "Overture" and "Entr'Acte"? 

message: 4k UHD + Blu-ray release seems to be due:  https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Ben-Hur-4K-Blu-ray/251140/. Errantios (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  4k UHD + Blu-ray release 

message: is that an editor here is reverting changes with the... unique... idea that 3 images for 5 paragraphs of 850 words of 5200 characters is "image overload" for a Wikipedia article on one of the most important motion pictures in American history, principally because of its spectacle. Specifically... the 5 paragraphs of 850 words of 5200 characters about the spectacle. (Sure, no one needs a montage of Gore Vidal or the producers.)
If this does end up becoming an edit war, someone please talk some sense into the editor (who is of course well meaning but entirely mistaken editor on the topic) and restore Chuck Heston's shoes and the link to the Roman footwear they accurately represented for those of us actually interested in learning more when we visit pages like this. — LlywelynII 14:39, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Apparently part of the reason the article is so bereft of images