Cool News
GANGS OF NEW YORK delayed' Harvey Scissorhands vs Scorsese' Oh My!
Harry here... I've been hearing rumors that GANGS OF NEW YORK wasn't going to be making its release date this summer, and frankly as much as I'm dying to see it, I have been afraid that Sam Mendes' ROAD TO PERDITION with Tom Hanks was set to demolish GANGS at the box office, though my feelings are that GANGS would be the superior of the two films... fingers crossed that they both kick my ass. I had heard about this 'fight' a long time ago, but dismissed it as idle gossip, but the story is appearing in the New York Times now, so I suppose the story may be true. 3hr and 40 minutes is an extremely long film, but for this story, the script that I read and being told by a storyteller of Scorsese's calibre.... Well, I believe he could hold my attention for as long as Marty wanted it. I just hope that through all of this, that Scorsese comes through this project with a finished project that he is happy with. Because it is a shame if your dream project turns into a nightmare. Here ya go...
Harry,
Don't know if anyone e-mailed you about this, but in yesterday's New York
Times (Sunday, April 7) there was an interesting article about the alleged
"fight" between Scorsese and Harvey Weinstein over Gangs of New York.
Apparently a 3hr. 40 minute cut was presented that was unsatisfactory to
Weinstein, who then showed up at Scorsese's townhouse and got into a
shouting match with Marty. There is now a 2 hr. 40 minute cut and Scorsese
is considering a reshoot that would be a confrontation between Leo
DiCaprio's character and Daniel Day-Lewis' Bill the Butcher. In the
meantime a 30 minute preview is being prepared to be screened at Cannes.
Looks like the eventual release date is still to be determined but seems
unlikely to be this summer. Lots of other interesting details about budgets
and who exactly is paying for the film are also included in the article.
-
+ Expand All
-
...what's all the fus about?
-
They haven't been able to release it at the times where it would get good business, and it would likely give Miramax the smash hit they've been hoping for for so long. And now, the only way it can be released is to put it against a potential Oscar contender. It's likely be crushed under the pressure, and Miramax will lose a helluva lot of money that was in the 103 million dollar budget. This could go down as one of the most expensive flops ever, like the Final Fantasy movie, and Monkeybone. Miramax could find themselves poorer than MGM. They must be kicking themselves for greenlighting this film now, huh?
-
Apr 08, 2002 3:22:08 PM CDT
Hasn't Scorssese earn the right to make a film as long as he
by herman snerd
-
that`s sad and nothing more. oh man! i`m looking forward to it..and i want to see it as soon as possible...and i wanted to see it since months...*sigh*
-
He was a manic depressant, and it wasn't 'till after his suicide that he became known. Sad, really. But point well taken.
-
casion was just perfect..... i've seen the trailer to GONY and it sucked......
-
First of all, to the person who made the Van Gough comparison that was simply inane. No matter how much paint that you put on a canvas, the size of the canvas is going to stay the same - it is not like you are going to add a thousand layers to the sides of the canvass to increase the length and the width. So, that analogy makes no sense.
Now, on to the topic at hand...let us all be real, no matter how much of a genius you may think Scoresse is, 3 hours and 40 minutes is ridiculous for a theatrical release, especially one with a budget of $103 million. You know what, if Scoresse can't make a logical, full narrative in a film under 3 hours, he should not be making that film. Who is he to actually believe that today's audience is going to sit through a film nearly 4 hours long and that enough of them will do so as to come close to the 103 million budget? Harvey is right on this one and if Harry actually looked at this topic objectivly, he wouldn't have labled this story with such a bias headline. They gave Scoresse 103 million to make his dream project and Scoresse should be thankful because his movies don't really light up the box office. At the very least, he should attempt to make a great film in under 3 hours and be happy with that time, because NO director, not Kubrick, not Ford, not Wells, no one, made a 3 hour and 40 minute movie. If he wants to put this cut on a DVD some day, I am all for it and I would love to watch it, but there is just no way to justify him wanting a 3 hour and 40 minute running time for a theatrical release in today's time. In fact, even back in the day when an audience would spend several hours in a theater, 3 hours and 40 minutes is RIDICULOUS. End of story, Harvey is right on this one - period. -
I hope this does not turn out to be an Ishtar/Cleopatra type flop. And to think that Lewis turned down Lord of the Rings for this. LOL. He must be kicking himself. Weinstein is a brave man to take on Jackson at the Christmas box office. Not a wise move. Frankly, I couldn't care less, I am more looking forward to Edward Burn's gangster film Ash Wednesday, than Gangs. Where is that movie, BTW?
-
They're going to put it head to head with 'The Two Towers'? Miramax either has a great deal of faith in this film, or else they're determined to destroy it. If Scorsese can get it down to 200 minutes, about the length of 'Titanic' that should be acceptable. It's true none of his films has ever approached the type of popularity that 'Gangs of New York' will need in order not to lose money. Still, when you're almost universally acknowledged as the greatest working American film maker, you shouldn't have a bunch of corporate chimps breathing down your neck. If the movie is a failure, he should be allowed an occasional failure, and to fail on his own terms. After all he's not Roger Christiansen or Barry Sonenfeld. He's Martin Scorsese. They knew they were taking a risk giving him that kind of a budget; they should trust he knows his work.
-
That fucker weinstein needs to keeps his hands off Gangs. MS has been dying to make this movie for like 25 years, and now he's got some asshole breathing down his neck because he wants to win Oscars or something. And pushing the date back to Xmas is all about money and positioning the film for awards. Which is shit. Jesus Christ this is depressing. Mirimax is the fucking devil.
-
Van Gogh paid for his own paint. Scorcese doesn't pay for the film stock, DiCaprio's salary, marketing, the craft table or even a roll of gaffer tape. As soon as Scorcese foots the whole bill I agree that he can make any length movie about anything he wants.
-
This is crap. I hate this. I hate it that the film is being cut. I hate it that Martin has to get it down to under 3 hours. I hate it that a visionary like Martin Scorsese has to wait and wait and wait while speculation continues to swallow it. I hate this. I just want to see it so bad. I just have a feeling it's going to be beautiful, but gosh, this waiting is terrible. It's excruciating and although I have films like "AotC," "The Importance of Being Earnest," "Minority Report," "Signs," "The Hours," "The Life of David Gayle," and "Road to Perdition" (cannot wait to see Jude!) to keep me until Christmas, how am I going to deal with the anticipation of both "The Two Towers" and "Gangs"?!! I don't think Miramax is worried about the box office so much as getting it positioned for awards season. "Gangs," although it was expensive, was never a box office type film anyway, so I don't think them going up against "TTT" is so much of a concern. I think both films will have their audiences and all will be well, but my gosh, what a long wait.
-
Screw Weinstein and every other scumbag probucer out there. I am sick of Miramax and their awful contributions to cinema.
I have been dying to see this film for so long now. What is it too long for some people now. Who cares. I'd rather sit for 8 hours to gather my opinion than watch a 2 hr 40 minute cut chosen by the man who brought us the Scream series. Please, this guy gets his name tacked on everything out there. Its a wonder what those movies could have been without him and his kind, worrying about their returns. -
I like that.
-
Sergio Leone
-
let him release it in two parts if you have too, but damn, let him have his way, he's earned it.
-
and Casino, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, Age of Innocence, Mean Streets, and Taxi Driver. Hell, I even liked Bringing Out the Dead. Don't mess with my boy, Wino, or you'll likely end up getting buried alive in the middle of a cornfield somewhere.
-
Its not how long your film is, its what you do with the time given you. You, know, at 3 hr 40 min, it would only be twenty minutes longer than the biggest moneymaker of all time, which also starred DiCaprio. There should be no debate about cutting the film (unless it's total crap, which I highly doubt), the only thing Miramax has to worry about is selling it. Scorsese is the greatest filmmaker alive, and if it means I have to sit through tons of commercials selling DiCaprio's character as Jack Dawson II to get Scorsese's cut in the theater, I'm willing to take it. Hell, even if the film doesn't make all the money it needs, you've still got tee shirt and calendar sales to look forward to. Release this film now!
-
Right....like Harvey is really going to release Gangs of New York up against The Two Towers, which let me remind everyone, HE HELPED PRODUCE!!! I think he has a legitimite point in being pissed at Marty. Also, I wouldn't put it past him to have a shouting match with Marty. Did anyone else read about the skit he did with Jeffrey Katzenberg at the Miramax Oscar party? If you read that, with the sarcasm and jabs, I don't think it's too far-fetched to believe they'd resort to yelling matches.
-
Let Marty cut it his way. The way I see it, Marty has a built in audience and he doesn't always appeal to the mainstream. It really doesn't matter the length of the film because the masses won't come to the film but the real fans will. At 2hrs 40 min or 3hrs 40 min it will gross the same.
-
think about who Harvey has to answer to: Michael Eisner. as powerful as he is, he still has to deal with a man with zero taste. i actually love long movies. i saw the 4 hour cut of Wim Wenders Till the End of the World at the Egyptian and loved it. it is difficult to sit through that long of a movie in one sitting, but there are other alternatives. why not release it with an intermission? as much as i hated bring out the dead, i still think scorcese has earned the right to final cut, but obviously the money men disagree and he doesn't have it in his contract. as for the comment about all the other directors that haven't made such a long movie, all i can say is bring it on! i'll sit through it. there should be more mini-series like band of brothers and roots. americans have the worst taste in films, not to mention - they lack patience.
-
Lina, Harvey had nothing to do with producing Fellowship. The project was originally at Miramax, but Harvey punted it and New Line picked up the rights- so Harvey gets to cash some checks, but he had absolutely no input into the finished product. As for dashboardsaint's idiotic, contradictory rant... brilliant trolling, dude, I'm sure you sucked a few people in with that one. No way to justify a 3 hr 40 min running time... you crack me up.
-
Darth, CoolDan: Miramax DID NOT invest $103 million in GONY. Initial Entertainment Group bought the foreign distribution rights for $65 million. Miramax is responsible for $38 million. Considering that Kate & Leopold cost them $48 million, I'd say GONY was the better deal.
tibby: Harry's "scooper" turned an argument at Scorsese's office into a shouting match at Scorsese's townhouse.
amp236: Scorsese and DiCaprio are taking $7 million out of their own pockets to defray part of the budget overrun.
Bob_Ess: Scorsese has final cut and nobody should be held responsible for the 2 hour 40 minute version other than him. -
Why not offer a dual release? The Miramax quick-cut and the art houses can play the longer film. Throw in an intermission and who won't buy a hot-dog?
-
The theatrical version will be incomprehensible, the DVD version will be mind-blowing. They should just release the long version in the theaters. Anyone who would go see this movie in the first place would sit for the long version.
-
Apr 08, 2002 5:23:36 PM CDT
Harvey is just pissed that his shitty Talk Magazine BOMBED
by edward rooney
by the way: to all the fan boys trashing Bob and Harvey...they helped produce LOTR so chill out fools! Its kind of Marty's fault for being too ambitious. (he should have asked for final cut in his contract)
-
Plus, LAWRENCE OF ARABIA was 3:42, THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (1956) was 3:40, and THE GREATEST STORY EVER TOLD was 4:20. There's a reason these things were called epics. Point being, I am looking forward to sitting down for a 3:40 Scorsese film. Just please, please bring back the intermission!!!
-
'Gone With The Wind'. 3 hours, 47 minutes. // e.
-
Yup who wants to sit through a long Scorcese filum. For christ sake wasnt goodfellas boring? All that talk and method acting. ho needs it? Im up for cutting an hour or two off that. Perhaps we should limit Marty to doing adverts. Americans would appreciate him more then ( and more people would see his work). Seems like most people in the USA cant keep their attention for more then three mins. (only joking. Please dont send this to dubya or else i'll have to go and hide). ps. dashboardsaint. duh! it aint about the size of the canvas. Its about the quality of the artist. Vans stuff is brill. You should go check it out in amsterdam.
-
I heard 3h45 ... I dunno, cutting a Scorcese film is just ... so Freudian. Get a life !!!!!
-
Apr 08, 2002 5:53:32 PM CDT
Not only "Once upon a Time in America" but "Hamlet" (1996), and
by mgthedj
Say what you want about Costner's movie, the four hour version that runs on TV is more coherent, better paced, and gives the Native American actors more screen time with better dialogue. They wanted to cut "Hamlet" in '96 but finally released the 4 hour version. And while the 2000 version of "Hamlet" is good and came in at less than 3 hours, it still bombed. Hey, they have Leo AND Daniel Day Lewis. The women will show up in DROVES. Guys will come because it's Scorsese and it's a Mob movie. Disney, release it in September uncut.-----later-----m
-
The reason Weinstein found it unsatsfactory was not because of the time but because it was
shite. After Marty took out an hour of the movie, Weinstein still thought it was shite. Now he wants to delay release till christmas(at this point) as other companies hold back releases (due to The Two Towers). Weinstein knows that most people will watch more then one movie at christmas, TTT and in his thinking hopefully GONY even though he knows it SHITE. -
Apr 08, 2002 6:33:56 PM CDT
Q: How do you tell the difference between Bob and Harvey?
by chilli kramer
A: One's worse. I notice that many of the talkbackers defending Harvey Weinstein have unfamiliar user names. Almost like plants... What Marty needs to do is lock Harvey in a room in his 'townhouse' with Joe Pesci: "Do you know who you're fuckin' wit here Wein - Stein? You ain't no Einstein Wein - Stein, are ya? Oh, you're laffin', so that's funny is it? Do I amuse you? Do I fuckin' AMUSE you?" *Cut to 5 minutes later* "Okay, I got your head in a vice now Harv..." React to THAT Miramax lovers.
-
Someone who was involved with The Burning (just seen it on video, terrible early Miramax slasher movie) has some cheek telling Scorsese what to do. Anyway, if GONY is good enough it won't matter how long it is. I don't think a long running time damaged DiCaprio's biggest hit, did it?
-
there is no bigger fan of scorsese than myself, but i think he owes it to the audience to bring the film in at a more managable time. i'm not doubting that there is 3 hours and 40 minutes of material worth seeing, but i doubt that it is all 'a' material. he owes it to himself to be more selective in what he includes, because as great an artist as he is, he still got $103 million of other people's money (that van gogh analogy is so childish) to make this movie. i'm all for the 3 hour 40 min director's cut on dvd, but come on, make some decisions, take action, kill your darlings. i think it's in his best interest to try to make gony as commercially viable as possible so that we can all stop bitching about him never having a box office hit. and also so that he could have a shot at winning something other than the inevitable lifetime achievement oscar he's going to get before the end of his career. pretty boy actors dabbling at directing have beaten him twice when he deserved an oscar for best director, and if he wants to reverse that trend, he's gotta play ball with the guys who put up the bucks. although, he probably doesn't give a shit about any of that, which is why he's the world's greatest living director. ahh, whao am i kidding, 3 hours 40 min or 92 minutes, i don't care, i'm going anyway.
-
Sorry folks.. don't care if you've read the script or seen the film, it's going to tank at the Box Office. Even if it's a masterpeice. The public mood isn't into this subject and it'll get ignored. Expect to see some real heavy spin control from the marketing department. The TV commercials will be desperate and they'll flash a ton of reviewer quotes... full indication that a movie sucks.
-
In an industry where Interesting is usually all we can hope for, Scorsese has never made an uninteresting movie. Leave him alone.
-
Remember Once Upon a Time in America, a dream project finally relized by the Dollar Trilogy Sergio Leone? There are two versions: the longer version that's better and the shorter version that's amazingly inferior compared to the director's cut as Leone preferred (there are at least *three* versions of the longer cut - one of them have very explicit rape scene by Robert De Niro. If Martin Scorsese wants to realize achieving his true vision of an epic, like Stanley Kubrick and James Cameron fought tooth and nail with the studios over Spartacus and Titanic budget and final cut respectively before him, then HE MUST FIGHT FOR IT to bring the film to the screen as he see fit rather than the Weinsteins' bullying, griping that they're blowing millions of dollars on Scorsese's grand epic worthy of comparision to Kurosawa's Seven Samurai, Leone's the Good, the Bad & the Ugly and Lean's Doctor Zhivago. Don't make the mistake of complaining too ludly like the disgrunted American History X director Tony Kaye did by taking out his complaint of losing creative control in Variety and subsequently denied director credit change from the DGA. I know Terrence Malick lost the fight with the studio over the editing of The Thin Red Line due to intensely pressuring theatrical release deadline, and evidently the final third of the theatrical cut was a mess, hence TTRL is a flawed masterpiece which Scorsese himself praised and declares the second best film of the nineties decade on Roger Ebert Ten Best Films of 90's program. I love strikingly visual epics with tour-de-force performances and plot, and longer films can be wonderful to behold when they're really good and riveting. Let Martin Scorsese do what he can do and he will finally earn his long overdue Academy awards that he lost for Taxi Driver, Raging Bull and Goodfellas. That's what James Cameron fought hard with the studio execs to protect his vision of Titanic on budget overruns and look what happened after release in theatres. And it starred Leonardo DiCaprio. It made shitloads of money despite tabloid thrashing of JC's ego and some (somewhat justified) trashing of the movie for its occasionally shitty dialogues, instances of laughable acting and adolescent novel romantic cheese. Still, how did it work? Jim Cameron's seal of quality and Leonardo DiCaprio, which helps repeat viewing business for young adult females (not to mention Kate Winset's tits for horny male viewers). Were Titanic shorter had the film been snatched away from Jim and his editors by the studio executives and chopped the film to run at two hours comprising of being short on character development, emotion, the essentials with razzle-dazzle CGI shit thrown in, it would be a huge flop and JC's career dashed. Thankfully there's something called test screening that saved Jim's pet project from being severely edited to death. The point is that the longer cut should stay as the director see it, provided that the film doesn't drag on too long without the sense of dramatic dynamics and purpose while the shorter version may leave the viewers frustrated at insufficient character development and potential aspiration of a great film because of hasty editing trying to condense in as many details as possible within the given running time insisted upon by the studio, leaving them wanting for more. I really do think the word "Intermission" needs to make a major comeback, something I haven't seen since Barry Lyndon 27 years ago. No one wants to dare sitting through the filma daption of War & Peace in one sitting without a goddamned break. Though hopefully Gangs of New York is not the next Heaven's Gates.
-
I hope we get a good DVD with the original cut in there. I Love long movies.
-
People like gangsters and violence and Leo and Cameron, and in Scorsese's hands the movie should have more energy than Jerry Bruckheimer could ever dream of. Given the film's scale, I assume Scorsese's aiming for his big hit here. If it was well promoted and opened in a dead period, say late August, it would probably have a $30-50 million opening weekend and go on to top $100 million. But that's not going to happen Christmas week, not with 'The Two Towers' and 'Harry Potter' and 'Catch Me If You Can' and whatever else all playing. They'll only get us Scorsese fans, and that's not enough. I hope I'm wrong. As I said, even if it is a disaster I hope that it's Marty's disaster. My guess? We get a two and a half hour mess in the theatres, followed by a four hour masterpiece on DVD.
-
Cutting this film is really like shooting yourself in the foot. Scorcese fans go to see Scorcese movies. Due to the internet everyone will know if it's had an hour or so lopped off. Mainstream audiences won't like it anyway (although with Leo in it they might I suppose) and all the fans will wait for the directors cut to come out on DVD. On another note I once saw Godfather 2 with no interval. Such an utterly absorbing film can hold 109 million dollars worth of audiences no matter how long it is. Admittedly the interval in Lawrence of Arabia was a welcome break no matter how wonderful the film is. Yeah, bring back the Interval (intermission) along with the ice cream lady.
-
All the 15-year-old gangbangers with shaved heads and goatees will take your seats when you get up. I don't know about where most people live, but in L.A. it takes the typical idiot audience a good 25 minutes into the movie to stop chattering and showing up late (despite 10 minutes of trailers, which means they're filing in 35 minutes after the announced showtime!) And since the average Angeleno (whether it's an old Beverly Hills facelift matron, a "Seinfeld" parent from Encino, a latino teen from the Valley, or the wannabe Hollywood crowd) has the attention span of a gnat and the manners of a wild boar, there's still a shitload of ruckus thru the rest of the movie. But an intermission would mean you'd have to go thru the annoyance of the tardiness, chatting, giggling, and loud popcorn munching TWICE during the same movie, since the same deadbeats will no doubt start that routine all over again coming back from the intermission and require another 20 minutes before they stop climbing over you to find their now-taken seats.
-
Talk about feeding prime rib to the dogs. Alot of people here are not even worthy enough to comment on Marty's work. "Episode 2 will rawk, Gangs of New York Will suck because Leo is in it!" Jeeezus christ on a pogo stick. Russman, Marty is a brilliant man, this is his dream project. It is because we have been hacked and sliced into marketing ratios that film making will never be as ambitious as it once was. If a movie is four hours long, so what? If thats the time needed to tell the story well, then do it. 2001, apacalypse now, gone with the wind, the ten comandments, giant, folks, these are films that were made when giants of film making ruled the earth. Our generation is being robbed of having its own films of a grand scope. Marty seemed ready to take us to a place we havent been to before, and I do think the climate is right, because it is a story about New York, as well as a story about irish americans who stand true to their heritage even when they are only 1/16 Irish. if anyone important is reading this, please, let the movie stand as is. Let it be said in ten or twenty years that you had the balls to allow someone to try and make something great happen.
-
Does anyone really thinks this looks good?
It looks like the parody of a Christmas Carol in the film Scrooged. With Daniel Day Lewis filling in for Jamie Farr.
And Leonardo playing Mary Lou Rettons role.
The sets look like sets.
Leonardo looks like one of the
banjo players in Deliverance with a goatee. Either way he looks like a teenager still.
No matter how many month's
he goes without bathing.
I think he and Daniel Day Lewis are great actors. But Jesus how many more of these Costume snoozers do we have to suffer through? Is there a rule that say's there has to be x-number of these per year?
103 million dollars!!!
Now remember that they screwed with that Project Green Light guy over 2-million. Guess
which film will realize a profit?
Scorsese is not David Lean.
He keeps trying. He is a great filmaker. He is better than David Lean(my opinion) His resume is much more impressive. His films much more realistic and about the human condition. Sometimes I get the impression he is ashamed of his stuff. He wants to prove himself to those old fuckers in AMPAS. Marty fuck them they do not get you and they never will. Just like the EMMY'S will never get the Sopranos. Be yourself don't limbo down to their level.
Your modern stuff say's alot about our world. About the USA.
I don't know if the Story in Gangs can make it past the Top Hats and Sets. You are too damned talented to pander to those Iron Lung bound fools.
We need you in the 21'st century shining a light on our world now. We really do.
Please come back!! -
The link to the article that Harry posted said that the original cut was NEARLY 3 hours long and was trimmed down to 2hrs 40 min. maybe folks should read the whole story before commenting.
-
because Marty played Van Gogh in Kurosawa's DREAMS. And it was fucking bizarre.
-
I would rather watch the best and definitive version of the movie at the initial release no matter how long it is. I just saw the Director's Cut of Amadeus and wondered why this was not initial version. I also watched the alternative version of Almost Famous on DVD and clearly it was a superior version. I have seen Once Upon a Time in America on different version, and the poorest one was the shortest version. I just want to see the best version and I dont want to wait for the DVD to see it.
-
Yep..you won't be seeing this baby til late November...trust me on this one folks..I have an inside source.
-
Perhaps they are worried about "Gangs" because several films could be released with a 2 1/2 hour or more running time at the same time-"Harry Potter", "The Two Towers", "Gods And Generals", "Gangs Of New York"... Get Marty have his cut-he deserves it!
-
What will keep me going: 'AOTC', 'Spiderman' (love a good superhero story) and 'SIGNS'!!! (man that looks good, despite Mel). Not much, is it? Have I forgotten something? Oh yeah, 'Ausin Powers', but that could let us down. When's 'Buffolo Soldiers' coming out?? Someone mentioned 'Ash Wednesday'. I don't think that'll be out till next year. I wan't to see Elijah Wood act with a New York accent too but Ed Burns sucks hard core. Finally, I'm going to defend DiCaprio. That guy can act. I remember seeing 'Gilbert Grape' and thinking they'd got a real retarded kid to be in it. 3rd best disability character ever (1st Day-Lewis, 2nd Rush, Hoffman did nothing for me). He was one of the few good things about 'Titanic', perhaps the only good thing. And I've never had his poster on my wall either. I like him cos he can act. Can't wait till Christmas!!! Really can't.
-
Fuck him up his stupid ass.
If he thinks he can second guess a director of Scorsese's calibre then forget him
The ghost of Kubrick is rolling in his grave. -
I still can't believe how long we're still gonna' have to wait for this film to finally grace the screen!
-
Enough with these insipid abbreviations. It is completely annoying and breaks the train of any coherent thought. Have you stood back and read it? GONY? It sounds and looks stupid as does ANH AOTC ESB ROTJ TPM LOTR and the rest. Are you too lazy to cut and paste? I would guess since most don't even bother to spell check. Why don't you just say 'Gangs' if you don't want to type the whole phrase. It is only one more letter and three less shifts. As for the Van Gogh analogy, it is right on. Directors need to be recognized as true artists as film is the valid artistic medium since painting lost its voice. If you have a problem with the money issue, then replace Vincent Van Gogh with Michelangelo. When he painted the Sistine Chapel ceiling, Michelangelo was using the money of Pope Julius II. The two fought over the depictions and the manner of the painting for years. The struggle between patron and artist is as old as art itself.
-
You know, this film has all the earmarks of another Crapamax hit : THE SHIPPING NEWS. That film had all the buzz, oscar written all over it, and a easy 100 million in the bank for Crapamax...Well.... It grossed a measly 12 million and was quickly forgotten. History does repat it self...
-
Most, if not all, of the time, Van Gogh did not buy his own paints and supplies. He attempted a few jobs, but for most of his life was barely able to support himself. His brother Theo supported his artwork his entire life. He's also the only one who ever bought any of Vincent's paintings while he was alive. And to the other idiot who criticized the analogy because the amount of paint doesn't make the canvas bigger. It may not make it wider or higher, but it does add thickness and weight to the thing. Just like Scorsese wants to do with his film. Add impact and weight to it. Depth, ever heard of it? Some of Van Gogh's paintings were known to have up to three or four inches of paint jutting out from the canvas. If you know anything about painting, that's unheard of. And, with the price of today's oils, damn expensive. The analogy was a very good one, I think. So brother Theo and friends like Gaugin did spend a lot of money and time and effort supporting Van Gogh and NEVER saw any return on the investment. Which is quite different from Scorsese who's a legend in his own time. Cut the guy some f--king slack. He deserves this. It's funny that they can lose tons of money on a 'sure thing' like endless Scream and Scary Movie sequels or 'The Shipping News' but when it's something like this, they're nervous. It's probably because all those other lame ass projects were initiated by Weinsteins or their ilk, and they get a lot of credit, but with this project it's all Scorsese. If it sinks, it'll be Scorsese, if it swims, you'll see those fat bastards all over it trying to take credit like they do with everything else. It reminds me of what Suge Knight said about Puff Daddy being a producer that's 'all up in the videos... all up on the records.' Now THAT'S a bad analogy. Sometimes, I think the executives get jealous, because while they're often forgotten, the artist is not.
-
Apr 09, 2002 1:01:47 AM CDT
We get two DiCaprio movies on the same day? Christmas indeed! (Y
by gristle
No way are they going to release this against "Catch Me If You Can". You just can't do something like that. Remeber when Travolta's name was taken off of the "Thin Red Line" poster because his "A Civil Action" was opening at the same time? People love their stars, but in moderation. This one's headed for the fall (I mean autumn).
-
Confirmation here:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/arts/entertainment-leisure-miramax.html
The delay gave Scorsese, an Oscar winner and filmmaking legend whose works include ``Taxi Driver'' (1976) and ``Raging Bull'' (1980), more time to cut as much as an hour from the original three-hour and 40-minute version, according to a story in The New York Times on Sunday. -
Let me be clear about something: I like DiCaprio a great deal. But no Hollywood mogul in their right mind should be scheduling TWO fucking movies with DiCaprio in them in the same quarter. Remember "Man In The Iron Mask" or "Celebrity"? Neither does anyone else who saw "Titanic". 'Nuff said. -
Only 3:40? I got Bollywood musical dvds that are longer than that! ;) Bring GOY on! Oh, I will boycott the shorter version and save my $$$ for the director's cut DVD. preferably from a non region 1 market so the mouse house gets as little of my $$$ as possible.
-
...unwittingly paraphrases form "Amadeus": "It has too many notes!" This is why Hollywood can't seem to produce anything that doesn't, well, suck!
-
david lean did it, asshole.
-
doesn't mean he answers to noone. He needs the commercial success as well to ensure a Golden Child status.
-
All reports I've read say that the 2h 40m cut is done and done, and even if Marty gets his re-shoots, the basic edit is locked. The script I (and many others) read on-line is gritty and violent, and will (a) be a difficult sell during the Christmas season and more importantly (b)does not lend itself to multiple viewings by the masses. So - the crystal ball says that GONY will be beautifully shot and exciting, but because of the stiff competition this Christmas, will end it's run in the $50-$60 mil range. Mirimax will release a theatrical cut 2-disk DVD with decent but normal extras, and let sales of that determine if the "Director's Cut" sees the light of day during this decade. I, for one, have been looking forward to this film for a long time. The geek in me hates that Harvey W. is able to stick his nose in this, but the realist in me completely understands why. This is a strong movie year, and even though he will be giving away a few bucks by not releasing GONY in the summer (but not anywhere near the millions needed to earn back its cost), he's hoping for some Oscars to increase home video sales.
-
As I said, TODAY's audience will not sit through a movie that long (okay TITANIC is the exception but that movie was a fluff love story that little girls sat through a dozen times each - GONY is NOT that movie)...all the other movies that you people listed that were close to that long that were actaully sucessful were films made during a time period when people spent several hours in the cinema (as I said in my first post) - that is just not the case today...as I said, I would watch it because I think Scoresse is a very good director (he is not one of the best ever though), so next time you are going to atack a post actually back it up with more than just on movie TITANIC...BTW, no one seemed to comment on the fact, that Scorsese's movies never make much money at the box office as it is no matter how great they may or may not be...if I had millions of dollars on the line, I wouldn't risk it on a 3 hour 40 minute Scorsese movie because it is doomed before it even hits theaters whether Leo is in the thing or not (it is not like the TITANIC fans flocked to see The Man In The Iron Mask, is it?)...bottom line, you all gave me movies from a different era as your examples with TITANIC as the lone exception, so save it, because as a business decesion goes, a 3 hour 40 minute Scoresse movie with a budget of $103 million is just plain stupid.
-
...but Scorsese is a has-been. He
hasn't made a truly GREAT film in
22 years. And his resum -
your michelangelo analogy makes no more sense then the van gogh analogy. julius II hired michelangelo primarily to celebrate god. a very close second was to associate his own name as the means by which that celebration was made possible. harvey makes movies for one reason only--to make money. they are an investment. julius II was not looking for a return. the filmmaking/painting analogy will never work for this and a bunch of other reasons like scale, the collaborative nature of filmmaking, the way the audience experiences the work, etc. besides, you can't equate harvey with julius II, he's jewish.
-
i can appreciate your distinction between da vinci-scale genius and scorsese, but come on. scorsese is undeniably the world's greatest living director, and the closest thing to a genius working in Hollywood. nothing exciting since raging bull? jesus, man, take a look at goodfellas again. there's not a frame of film, line of dialogue, or note of music out of place in that flick. it is truly a perfect accomplishment--the best film ever made, pure and simple, better than citizen kane.
-
Apr 09, 2002 1:52:16 PM CDT
Leonardo DiCaprio is actually a very underrated actor. no really
by a goonie
i know it may sound silly. i went through a whole anti-leo thing for a good few years, but now i'm finally seeing him in a different light. lately, i've been "revisiting" a lot of movies because my understanding of film and the filmmaking process and my movie critiquing skills are at an all-time high. i know sooooooo much more now about acting, direction, pacing, photography, editing, set design, effects work, screenwriting, etc. than i did four or five years ago. it helps that i AM a screenwriter and an aspiring director who pays attention to EVERYTHING i possibly can in a motion picture. anyhow, a few weeks back, i "revisited" Titanic (a movie i still love dearly) and discovered that Leo actually gives a great performance. i was also reminded of how bloody incredible Digital Domain's CG work is, but that's beside the point. my point is, Leo was actually a great choice for the role. i've been going around for a while now, trying to imagine how much better Billy Crudup (who Jim Cameron claims was his original choice) would be as Jack. but really, Leo works. from the first close-up shot of his eyes, something is working. what happened was that after Titanic, he was catapulted to stardom in a ridiculous way. he had all these girls screaming and freaking out, and he had critics and young men ready to point out that he really wasn't THAT GREAT. which is unfortunate, because Leo is not the greatest actor out there. he's not the greatest actor of his generation, but he IS very very good. he brings something different to the screen, and it's something worth paying attention to. also, i watched some of The Beach the other day, and discovered that all the big problems with the movie, the reason the movie falters so much near the end, are faults i blame on Danny Boyle, not Leo. hmmm. interesting. and on a slightly different note, as of right now, i'm looking more forward to Catch Me If You Can than Gangs. just for the record.
-
Apr 09, 2002 2:49:33 PM CDT
EliCash & kingbailey: the running times come from 2 different sc
by arnzilla
The 3 hour 40 minute version screened last October was "an assemblage of footage" according to Scorsese's spokesperson. The 3 hour version is the one test screened in New Jersey a little over 2 months ago and reviewed on this site.
-
Leo does have talent. The first
time I saw him was probably in
Gilbert Grape, and having grown
up with a mentally retarded kid
on my street, I thought that was
the most accurate depiction of mental
retardation by an actor I have
ever seen -- period. I thought
he was actually a retarded actor at first (yeah, I know, perfect setup for a lame joke, let's move on).
I also thought he was quite good
in The Basketball Diaries, even though the film was just so-so. And as
far as Titanic goes, lots of
people have criticized the acting,
but if you listen to the atrocious
DIALOGUE they had to say, you will
see that they actually did quite
a remarkable job with what they
were given. (It's no mystery why
Titanic didn't get a screenwriting
nomination.) -
Apr 09, 2002 4:17:50 PM CDT
Weinstein also wanted a one-film, 2-hour Lord of the Rings
by pallando blue
Yep, THAT woulda really brought in the coin, eh, Harvey! Such vision! Such balls! Of course, the one-movie idea came up ONLY after 18 months of PJ and Weta preproduction development (and about $20 million spent) on the 2-movie (2.5-3 hours each) version. Suddenly, "NOPE! The whole story, one film, two hours! Don't like it, ya got a month to find a buyer, or we take it outta yer hands!" Anybody else see a pattern here? When's Harvey going to learn? Hell, he made fun of HIMSELF years ago, in PJ's "Forgotten Silver," talking fatuously about how "If Colin MacKenzie saw the three-hour version of Salome he'd understand completely why we took that hour out. I have no doubt that he'd love it." How does he still wield such power? (Well duh, he's got the $$. Screw art, film, or making history in either when you got the $$ and want more of it.) Who the hell else would ever go to Miramax with a bold, large-scale project ever again? MAN do I feel bad for Scorsese. If anyone deserves the utmost respect and complete hands-off approach from the suits, it's that man. If anyone deserves their crack at an epic, it's that man. He should be allowed to be David Lean at least once. So, I wonder in 25 years who's going to do the resoration of Gangs of New York, like Marty (and Speilberg) did for Lawrence of Arabia?
-
I mean, think about it. He hasn't had a hit in 5 years. (And now that I think of it, that hit I'm talking about was his ONLY hit). And during that 5 year hiatus his adolescent girl fan base who he relied on for success either aged and moved on to the adult world, to be replaced by a new fan base that worships new heartthrobs like 'N Sync, the Backstreet Boys, and Josh Hartnett. The rest have all aged. Right about now, talking about Leonardo DiCrapio among teens is about as awkward as saying "Wasn't Clark Gable hot?" Anyway, Leonardo's career is too damaged to have this movie save it, but the upcoming Spielberg movie with Tom Hanks he's shooting right now has the only chance of having some kind of an effect on his career. But I wouldn't get my hopes up..I mean, A.I. didn't do anything for Haley Joel Osment, did it?
-
When I said "...who he relied on for success either aged..." I meant to say " who he relied on for success had aged...". Sorry for the mixup.
-
Here is a novel idea. Look up the word analogy. It means SIMILAR not equal to. They are parallels. By your strictly literal approach, and your obtuse argument, you do nothing but celebrate yourself, much like Pope Julius II. Only Catholics consume the the grade A tripe that he was commissioning it to celebrate God. Julius II commissions were political in nature. He was striving to unify Italy, so yes he was looking for a return on his investment. And the painting of the Sistine Chapel was an interruption to his more elaborate commission, the building of a tomb to HIMSELF. And Michelangelo's painting was entirely collaborative. He had assistants mixing the paints, building the scaffolding, preparing the surface and a legion of theologians who guided every step. But that is besides the point. In the most basic of terms, artist + patron = struggle.
-
For all those saying Scorsese is washed up and hasn't had a great film since "Raging Bull" (did they see "Last Temptation of Christ" or "Goodfellas"?), i just want to note here that "Bringing Out the Dead" is going to be known as one of the great underrated movies of the last decade. I've seen it half a dozen times now, and it keeps getting better each time.
-
David Lean did what and, again, in what era did he do this Slap Nuts???
-
First, thank you for calling me (among others) an idiot. Such intellectual discourse is refreshing on a site where most people would have branded us "shitheads" for our dissenting views. It's refreshing to see that you didn't have to work blue to marginalize your argument. As far as I can recall this is the first time anyone has ever called me an idiot. However I'm sure that it won't be the last, since I've decided to get involved in an AICN talk back. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that all of the people "going on about Van Gogh" are idiots, but I'm sure you had your reasons. I suppose it was because we have an opinion that does not match yours. Or perhaps you are intellectually gifted far above every other human being and can comparatively call everyone you address as idiots. Or maybe it's because you couldn't come up with a more clever insult.
Secondly, thank you for clearing up who bought paint for Van Gogh. But comparing Theo's financial support of his brother (which I would do for my brother and he would do for me) to Miramax financing a film for $103,000,000 (I included all of the zeroes because I think some people lose the impact of just how much money that is when it's written $103M)is missing the mark. Miramax is a business. If Miramax is making a bad decision, so be it. It's their money, it's their decision. Enough bad decisions and there will be no more Miramax. That's how capitalism works.
If Scorsese wants to make a 3+ hour movie and have final cut, he should have that in his contract, or he should have found someone else to finance the film. He's been making movies longer than I've been alive. Based on his past experience he should be savvy enough in his dealings with studios to get this done up front. By the way, I am a fan of Scorsese and will go see Gangs of New York, regardless of length and regardless of release date. -
Yeah, I saw Goodfellas, and I
thought it was pretty good. But
it wasn't anywhere near the level of Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, or Raging Bull. I also liked
Casino and The King of Comedy,
but again, they weren't what I
would call "great" films. So that's three films that I liked, out of maybe a dozen.
*****
Last Temptation was a mess. I
have no idea what people see in
this film. Maybe religion clouds
their judgment... I've always
been puzzled by the popularity of The
Ten Commandments and Ben Hur
too (chariot races and Red Sea
partings aside).
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts