Talk:Ben-Hur (1959 film)

FilmsWikiProject

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)

fullurl and other magic variables

* {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}
* {{FULLPAGENAMEE}}
* {{PAGENAMEE}}
* {{localurl:{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}

* Please never use:
: {{fullurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}}
: {{fullurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}}}
: {{localurl:{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}}}
: {{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAMEE}}}}

generates:‎

• //en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Ben-Hur_(1959_film)
• Talk:Ben-Hur_(1959_film)
• Ben-Hur_(1959_film)
• /wiki/Talk:Ben-Hur_(1959_film)

• Please never use:

//en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Ben-Hur_(1959_film)

//en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Ben-Hur_(1959_film)

/wiki/Talk:Ben-Hur_(1959_film)

/wiki/Talk:Ben-Hur_(1959_film)

comments

• It seems that {{FULLPAGENAMEE}} and {{PAGENAMEE}} render differently. Best regards Gangleri · Th · T 21:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Plot makes is sound like Judah wants to marry his daughter Esther:

"In AD 26, Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) is a wealthy prince and merchant in Jerusalem, who lives with his mother, Miriam (Martha Scott); his sister, Tirzah (Cathy O'Donnell); their loyal slave, Simonides (Sam Jaffe) and his daughter, Esther (Haya Harareet). Esther loves Judah but is betrothed to another. "

• Hardly so. The last sentence may be abrupt, but it is unambiguous. I get the impression that someone has modified the paragraph shown supra to remove any doubt. Moitraanak (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Fictional island? It's called a spina

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)

33 million today

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)

Don't use IMDB trivia page as a reliable source

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)

• In the same light, much of the text here has been lifted directly from the IMDB page on Ben-Hur.97.81.214.211 (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, having discovered for myself that both the IMDb "Trivia" page and "Goof" page can be inaccurate O Murr (talk) 00:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Hortator

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)

Hortator

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)Lucia

Ben-Hur and Messala... Lovers?

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)

I agree that Vidal's opinion can be kept. However, I advise to people to stop commenting on each other's opinions, per WP:TALK. Alientraveller (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does it seem like every single article that is even remotely related to stories in the Bible (especially Christ) has a section on a possible homosexual subtext? Is this really necessary since no sources are cited? 68.205.145.219 (talk) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

There is as of this moment no mention of the homosexual theory at all?? In this case, I AM going to comment on other people's opinions. Because William S. here seems opinionated. Saying "well this and this is clearly not so, in fact everyone knows it is such and such" doesn't make it a fact. It all sounds like a bunch made up arguments to me, collected to enforce a personal opinion. Wether one likes it or not, the story about the homosexual meaning is there, coming from someone who could have known. Personally it doesn't really bother me what people think they can discover in a movie made 50 years ago. We can't dismis the story as if it never happened. Anyway, there is no way to deny or verify it. But it is impossible to deny the rumour exists. The controversy is real, so this story should be mentioned, in a neutral way. Spiny Norman (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

The Crucifixion Scene

210.213.140.244 (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)I would like to know why the cross used for Ben-Hur's passion scene was shaped like capital T, instead of the usual Latin cross (used commonly for King of Kings, Passion of the Christ, etc).

Jesus's Face

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)

Answer: Lew Wallace was a conservative Christian who strongly believed that showing Jesus' face in the movie would violate the 2nd Commandment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.159.182 (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

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)

Why don't we have

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)

Inconsistency with Judah vs Judah Ben-Hur vs Ben-Hur

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)

Allmovie

• Ben-Hur (1959) at AllMovie ... plot synopsis, review, cast, production credits, awards

Reference available for citing in the article body. Erik (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blu-ray release

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)

Here are some links to the 50th anniversary Blu-Ray products: http://www.amazon.com/Anniversary-Ultimate-Collectors-Exclusive-Figurine/dp/B006ENQU10/ref=sr_1_fkmr1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1427481082&sr=1-1-fkmr1&keywords=ben-hur+50th+anniversary+ultimate+collector%27s+edition+blu-ray

http://www.amazon.com/Ben-Hur-Anniversary-2-Disc-Blu-ray-Combo/dp/B0074JOW5Y/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1427481082&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=ben-hur+50th+anniversary+ultimate+collector%27s+edition+blu-ray

Philiptheaccountingprof (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)(talk) 18:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Love, not mere attraction

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)

Sinden quote

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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ben-Hur (1959 film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ankitbhatt (talk · contribs) 15:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

An iconic Hollywood film, I was wondering when this would get a GA nomination. Sadly, one look at this article is giving me strong quick-fail vibes. Some broad problems (and I am usually very nit-picky) are :-

• For an article this big, the lead is very small. Besides, its incomplete, missing details regarding principal photography, box office, reviews etc.

• The plot is big, certainly beyond any lenient norms for plot lengths.

• I can understand the amount of information regarding this film, but seriously? The script development section is gigantic; the size of it alone makes me afraid to read it.

• And that's hardly the worst. The chariot race sequence's length would make up half of any normal article. Same goes for the unwieldy Production design, Cinematography and editing - in short, practically everything.

• The article suffers from a lot of prose problems. Generally, the text is confusing, lengthy, stuffed and elaborately written so much so that reading it all is fatiguing.

Such wide-range problems will be very difficult to rectify. I am not in any way saying that information should be cut from Wikipedia, but some sections need to be moved out to separate daugther articles. Other than that, thorough copy-edits and a lot of referencing improvement is needed. While I feel a withdrawal is the best option, I'll AGF and see how much improvement can be made in a week. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Some observations:

1. I echo Ankitbhatt's sentiments in regards to the lede; the lede is not an introduction to the article, it is an abstract i.e. it should summarise the article, but it skirts production and completely omits Reception.
2. As for the plot length, the word count stands at 798 words, and WP:FILMPLOT recommends 400–700 words; if it could be brought within those limits that would be great, but those guidelines are written in respect to a film of typical length i.e. a couple of hours. This film is nearly twice as long so in view of that I think we can cut a bit of slack since it is only 100 words over the limit (by comparison Titanic (1997 film) is a similar length and the plot summary stands at 850 words).
3. I don't really see much point to the cast list. I know many film articles have them but in this case it is just repeating the parenthesised names in the plot summary. It's redundant. The closest FA example to this article is Witchfinder General (film) which offers the actors names in the plot summary and has a dedicated 'casting' section, similar to this article, but omits a cast list.
4. I don't think the script development section should be trimmed by much, if at all; the writing process seems like it was pretty integral to the entire direction of the film. I found it absorbing rather exhausting.
5. The Differences between novel and film needs to go too since it does not comply with MOS:FILM#Adaptation_from_source_material.
6. I have mixed feelings about the Chariot Race section. It could be transported to a sub-article since it is pretty self-contained, but even then it would still only bring the article down to about 100k, and pretty much isolate the aspect the film is most famous for. I think a better approach may be to break this section and the scrip development section into sub-headings, and then it will be in a more digestible form for readers.
7. There is also some inconsistent date formatting in the references section that needs to be addressed. Betty Logan (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Betty! I thought you had left Wikipedia, but anyways, glad you're here :) By splitting, I had not referred to completely removing the sections. As per WP:FORK, the original article must summarize the split parts in a thorough manner. Under the present circumstances, summarizing would be the best option but I don't know if it will be entirely possible. In addition, the Script development section is confusing or abrupt in places, which needs work. Same goes for the other sections as well. I'm sure we could all come to a compromise, so I would first suggest a complete copy-edit and re-writing so as to make the information more condensed. After that, we could take a call on splitting. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I still check in regularly; I can't quit permanently or the articles I've developed will just go to the wall, but I don't develop articles anymore. I still do a bit of assessing for the Film Project when I'm bored. I don't think 100k is an unreasonable size for an article about such a classic film, I think the problems can be addressed through some structural changes, so I will see if I can do anything later. I won't be overhauling the article though but I honestly don't think it needs it. We'll see what I can do anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 14:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Quite the contrary, this film deserves much more than just 100k, seeing its stature and fame (a much less acclaimed film on which I worked upon is 142k). The problem lies in the readability, which is poor, and the prose, which is definitely not up to the mark. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you should probably close the review. It has fantastic coverage and is well sourced, but there are so many other aspects that need to be addressed. I wouldn't even say it qualifies as B class at the moment. I've made a few changes to the structure, but we need to look at that more closely and it needs a good copy-edit too. I don't think it can be sorted out in a week, so I think it should be made ship shape and then re-submitted. Betty Logan (talk) 20:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

DeMille DeMille

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

Influence of Chariot Race

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)

Studio/Distributor parameters

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)

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)

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)

Alexander von Wagner's 1882 painting as inspiration for Chariot Race Scene (via Fred Niblo's 1925 movie)

{{WikiProject Biography|living=no|class=|listas=Wagner, Alexander von}}

"Chariot Race" - I saw this painting in Manchester Art Gallery yesterday and it is a very important piece as it obviously forms the basis of the set design/cinematography for the 'Ben-Hur' films by Fred Niblo (1925) and then the re-make by Wyler in 1959.

1. The art gallery records claim that it was painted in 1882, two years after the book 'Ben Hur' was published.

2. Niblo seems to have used Wagner's composition for the race scene - see www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpnW2Pz-61U&t=3m56s

3. The wide aspect ratio of Wagner's work was adopted in the 1959 film remake.

4. The idea of the intact wheel spinning off intact to one side was adopted in the movie, despite the fact that in the original book "he caught Messala's wheel with the iron-shod point of his axle, and crushed it" http://www.gutenberg.org/files/2145/2145-h/2145-h.htm

5. Lew Wallace, author of Ben-Hur, provided the introductory text for the Columbian Exposition (Chicago Fair) book of engravings of 1893 at which the painting is claimed to have been shown. http://www.abebooks.com/Centennial-Exposition-Engravings-Introduction-Lew-Wallace/1077221778/bd

6. Wagner's massive painting was donated to Mancheter Art Gallery in 1898. http://www.manchestergalleries.org/the-collections/search-the-collection/display.php?EMUSESSID=0dce7f1f54356e42439299f17bf659b3&overview=1&r=837735145

Brian London

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ben-Hur (1959 film)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Krimuk90 (talk · contribs) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well-spotted haha! Thanks for taking on the review! Look forward to seeing your comments :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:45, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• I spot several instances when the name of the film has not been italicized.

Well-spotted!

• Would be good to wikilink 'widescreen' for those unfamiliar with aspect ratios.

Done.

• The score was influential 'for more than 15 years'? This kind of gives an impression that it isn't influential today.

It isn't really. That sort of film score you don't really see anymore. Things changed in the 1980s.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough.

• The fact that the marketing budget has been mentioned, the production cost should also be mentioned.

Added.

• Due to the massive size of the article, I understand that it is impossible to summarize its key contents, but I feel that some more information on its production should be mentioned here, especially because there is so much information in the body.

I don't agree, if anything I thought I'd overcooked the production info. What's really needed is condensing the article as you mention below! I suppose another sentence or two wouldn't hurt though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup! -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Plot

• Surely this section can be trimmed a bit to keep it under 700 words.

I'm not sure I agree on that, given the length of the film. I think it summarises it pretty well and doesn't look too long for such a film at all. I will try to trim if I can though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Production

• The first line doesn't mention which film it is a remake of!

Added

• "Best Picture-nominated". Best Picture at what ceremony? Wikilinks please.

Can't find this, what part is this in?

"Zimbalist was chosen because he had produced MGM's Best Picture-nominated Christians-and-lions epic Quo Vadis in 1951." -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Any reason why this paragraph is not under the development sub-section?

Because it's at least half part of the overview really, the filming is mentioned again in a lower section. Don't worry I should be able to sort that out when I condense it.

Development

• "Lew Wallace's novel ran to about 550 pages." Which novel? There is no previous mention of it.

Yeah it was linked in lead not in main section! Done.

• ".. who had been one of 30 Assistant Directors on the 1925 film". Please correct this sentence.

You mean capitalization? Lower casing now.

• "It lacked good characterization, the dramatic structure was poor, and the leads were uninteresting (just "villains and heroes")". I think this was Wyler's point-of-view. Why not merge with the previous sentence?
• "..that he wished to "out DeMille DeMille". Repeated word.

Duh!

Writing

• The note should be before the ref here: "..reported in June 1957 that Anderson was at work on the script.[30][c][36]"

Done.

• "preproduction". Hyphen missing.

Done.

• No in-line citation for "Vidal further claimed that Wyler took his advice."

I'll remove that in the cutting.

Casting

• "Largely speaking". Not a very encyclopaedic phrase. Please re-word.

Agreed, changed to Wyler typically.

• "The exotically beautiful Israeli actress..". Falls under WP:PEACOCK

Quite right!

• "Both Zimbalist and Wyler were excited about her looks and acting" Is this necessary to include?

Removed.

Cinematography

• "..who had filmed many of the most successful epics of the 1950s". Can be toned down a bit, maybe replace "many of the most" by "several".

I don't think the tone is overcooked here. It is true that he worked on the most successful epics, it's not like I say greatest. Agreed on several of though.

• The last sentence of this section is jarring due to it's placement.

I think I'll remove that during the cutting, agreed.

Principal photography

• Too much info on The Big Country in the opening paragraph, can be trimmed to one sentence.

Will trim during the cutting.

Production design

• "the largest Cinecittà soundstage was not used for filming at all, but rather converted into a vast costume warehouse." Why "at all"?
• ".. manufacturing the wardrobe a year before the cameras rolled." Please re-word.
• "One of the most sumptuous sets". Why that description?
• "Among them were the Countess Nona Medici, Count Marigliano del Monte, Count Mario Rivoltella, Prince Emanuele Ruspoli and Prince Raimondo Ruspoli of Italy, the Princess Carmen de Hohenlohe, Prince Cristian Hohenlohe and Count Santiago Oneto of Spain, Baroness Lillian de Balzo of Hungary, and Princess Irina Wassilchikoff (Russia)". Are they notable enough to be individually mentioned?

Editing

• "All told, there were 1,100,000 feet (340,000 m) of film shot". Very informal start.

Reworded and moved down a bit.

Chariot race sequence

• I suggest that you should start a new article for this section, provide a brief summary and merge it with the previous section. Due to the article's length, it deserves a bit of trimming.

I think it can go in the article Production of Ben-Hur. Will trim.

Release

• This section is well-written.
• "Years later, the film went to cable, and now turns up fairly regularly on Turner Classic Movies." No citation provided.

I don't think any citation would aptly support it, it just does!

Hmm.-- KRIMUK90 ✉ 12:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I say that because it would require a TV guide and countless citations to prove it which would be pretty pointless. this source says once scene is frequently cited but it doesn't say the film appears on Turner countless times.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the "Broadcast and home video releases" sub-section is also unsourced.

Added ref.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: I have to say that the article is gigantic. I really feel that the 'writing' and 'production design' sections can be trimmed. If not, there is no harm in starting a new article on it's production. I have written this above, and I repeat that the "Chariot race sequence" section definitely deserves a new article. Also, Blofeld, other than the comments that I have mentioned above, the prose tends to be quite excessive and informal at times, and it needs a nice, long look from you. I am sure that when you read through, you will realise that you can trim out some excess info. It's impossible for me to list all such instances, due to the sheer size of the article, and I will place this on hold with the good faith that you can help improve it. -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 07:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. Yeah I think you're right that it would be best to split production and then condense. My feeling though was that for GA length wasn't a major concern and that if at some point it was going for FA then it would be seriously cut. May take a few days responding to this. @Tim1965: on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I've addressed most of your points and spent the last few hours trimming down to just below 100kb and removing some of the less encyclopedic words and phrases. It could still be more polished of course but I think it's adequate for GA.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Very well done Blofeld. That was fabulous work in such little time. I have made some other minor changes myself, and this version definitely meets the GA-criteria. Of course, with some further tweaks it will be ready for FA, and the film deserves it! Happy to pass.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 16:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Krimuk, and that was a great and much needed review which has considerably improved it since earlier!! The prose could still use a polish in parts but the article should be OK for GA now. Further copyedits by anybody are welcome of course! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Source for the idea of only one Leitmotif in the score?

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)

Eight or nine months?

„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)

Budget/gross figures

• There seems to be an ongoing dispute over the financials. Up to the start of August we had the the following information:

1. Budget – $15.2 million (sourced to Sheldon Hall, Epics, Spectacles, and Blockbusters p.162 and the Eddie Mannix Ledger)
2. 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 TropicAces changed this information to the following (sourced to Box Office Mojo):

1. Budget – $15.2 million
2. Gross – $74 million

• A week later, El Matador 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)

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)tropicAces

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)

Adventure film

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)

Producer Zimbalist's Death During Filming

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)

Cast list

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)

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)

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)

No Informations about the intro "Overture" and "Entr'Acte"?

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)

Positive portrayal of Christianity?

I eliminated the phrase about the 1959 film's portrayal of "early Christianity" for the simple reason that Christianity did not exist at the time. The film ends with the death of Jesus and the reunion of the Hur family. Christianity emerged only years later, when the followers of Jesus embraced gentile converts and separated from the synagogue. This is uncontested history, as you can see from the Wiki article on Christianity. Since the careless phrase came from a quoted reference, I thought it best to simply eliminate the reference. Why bother to debate that topic in an article on the movie? How would Betty Logan address the matter? Rozsaphile1 (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have strong views on the issue, but my main reason for the revert is that you deleted a citation (seemingly because you disagreed with it) that left the final paragraph unsourced. I don't have a problem with paraphrasing the source text along the lines you suggest provided it is consistent with the point the source is making, but if you don't have it at hand then you risk potentially misrepresenting the author's views. BTW, the History of Christianity actually states "Early Christianity is generally reckoned by church historians to begin with the ministry of Jesus (c. 27–30)", so it's probably not as clear cut as you suggest, although as you say it's not terribly important to a film article. Betty Logan (talk) 05:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The real issue, not explicit in the article, is the contrast between the film and the Wallace novel. The latter has an epilogue placing the hero in Italy years later and explicitly identifying him as a Christian. For obvious reasons (the need to appeal to a wide modern audience) the film left his "conversion" implicit: "I felt his voice take the sword out of my hands." From Google Books preview the Hezsen article (in a collection of Jewish Scripture studies) appears to be a serious treatment. Maybe I'll try to track it down. It's certainly a useful reference, though I don't think it's needed as a footnote here, since the real issue is film text vs. novel text. Rozsaphile1 (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Whether the information stays in the article is completely an editorial decision (I am happy to defer to you on that issue), but if the section is still going to point out differences between the original script and the film they still need to be cited to a secondary source. Betty Logan (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

The para. in question does not address the question of script vs. film. That issue dominates the "Writing" section because of the notorious credit controversy of Tunberg/Vidal/Fry/etc. But the final para. simply describes the differences between novel and finished film. It could almost be a separate subsection. In any case, I've added a sentence that hopefully does not violate sourcing rules.

There's another issue here, namely, the documentation of plot points in a film vs. the source novel or play. You don't footnote the film "text" because there's no easy way to do so. And footnoting a classic novel is of questionable use, since there are multiple editions with different pagination. Therefore I wonder about the need for a secondary source in such cases. Rozsaphile1 (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't be noting differences between the film and the "text" just for the sake of it per MOS:FILMDIFF. If an important difference is noted and discussed by a secondary source then it is acceptable to include that and cite that source. In other words Wikipedia editors should not be analyzing the film themselves. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

4k UHD + Blu-ray release

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)

Apparently part of the reason the article is so bereft of images

The offending image and edit

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)

Production standalone article

I'm surprised to see that Production of Ben-Hur (1959 film) was "split off" in 2014 by Dr. Blofeld, but the section here was never summarized. I saw that Ozzycode proposed the sub-article for deletion, but it was declined. The sub-article has existed for 10 years, so I think we need to come to a consensus to either complete the splitting-off and leave a summary section here or to remerge the sub-article. Either approach will require some comparison and merging. Also pinging Betty Logan since she appears to have been involved in a lot of discussions here in the past. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The article stands at ~9,000 words of readable prose, which is borderline "probably should be trimmed" per WP:SIZERULE. I think the article is unlikely to grow much more, so my preference would be to keep the production info in the main article and redirect the other article here. I think it would undermine the article to gut it of the production information, so I would only support such an action if it were well over the 9,000 word threshold. Betty Logan (talk) 00:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

The article was split in response to a GA review in 2014. The idea was to split production and then condense. I thought it was condensed in the main article. I have to agree that I don't think the length is problematic for such a big film, and we're fine having the full length here as it is unlikely to get any bigger.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't even realize that some condensing happened! I was only eyeballing the production content and assumed they were both about the same.

A split-off article should be leaving about two paragraphs, per WP:CORRECTSPLIT. Right now, we have the split-off article having 9,000 words and this main article having about 5,700 words. Geez! I feel now like we should be cleaning up the "Production" summary section here to be two paragraphs, maybe one or two more? I do see that WP:DETAIL refers to MOS:LEADLENGTH. But we definitely need to go from 5,700 words to however many 2-4 paragraphs are worth. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)