Miramax thinks Gangs of New York too long? (1 Viewer)

[Jason Hughes]

Link Removed
I hope Miramax lets Scorsese release HIS version of the movie and not a watered down version. I was looking forward to this more than any other movie this year (except maybe the first Lord of the Rings).

 

[ChristopherS]

I would have thought that Scorsese would have had enough power and influence to only do movies that he had complete control of. Hopefully Miramax wants it cut down 30 minutes because of the pacing (or something like that) and not simply because it is "too long".
Chris

 

[Tom-G]

I'm much more excited about Gangs of New York than I am about Lord of the Rings.
Miramax should just shut the hell up and leave Martin Scorsese edit the film as he and Thelma Schoonmaker deem appropriate. Judging from their previous collaborations, I see no reason why anyone should give their input as to how the film should be edited.
Miramax always pretends to be the studio where filmmakers have artistic freedom. Everyone should know that is a farce. They are controlled by the mouse and as long as it is that way, they will never be the studio where filmmakers have artistic liberties.
------------------
As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day. --Roger Ebert on The Phantom Menace
AIM: Aureus91 / DVDs / ICQ: 58566493

 

[Jason Seaver]

Miramax thinks everything is too long. I mean, that hour they took out of Colin MacKenzie's Salome...
I think the most extreme example has to be All The Pretty Horses; they made Thornton gut an hour plus from that, after acquiring the movie from Columbia because Columbia didn't think they could market a 3+ hour movie properly. And M/D's record with Hong Kong films is pretty well known.

 

[Brian Lawrence]

What the hell is the deal with Miramax anyhow. Seems like they are always quick to pull out the scissors and start chopping away. The most recent example I can think of is MALENA.

 

[Carlo_M]

If they do edit Gangs of New York for the theatrical release, I do hope they let Scorsese get final cut for the DVD release.
And yes, I'm hoping for the uncut Malena as well. I may just have to buy the region 2 and mod my HTPC for region free playback.

 

[TerryRL]

The problem is that, while Scorsese is well respected in the industry, his films don't make a lot of money. If Scorsese had a list of mega-hits under his belt, than Miramax would be more than willing to let him have final cut of the movie. "Cape Fear" is Scorsese's biggest hit film, which earned $79.1 million in 1991.
Miramax needs "Gangs of New York" to be a big hit because of it's cost. The movie cost them close to $100 million to make and they don't think a film with a 3 hour run time ("Titanic" notwithstanding) about Irish gangs will make a lot of coin at the box office.
I would love for Miramax to just back off and let Scorsese release the version of the film he feels is the best, but the cold reality of the "biz" is rearing it's ugly head right now. In all honesty, what would you do? If you gave someone $90-$100 million to make a movie, you're gonna want to get your money back after the movie's release.
Even if the cuts are ordered, we'll (hopefully) see the definitive version of the movie on DVD later next year.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

All I can say is, Harvey Weinstein isn't known as Harvey Scissorhands for nothing.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Again, this is the downfall of many a great movie. When they start applying non-artistic requirements to artistic movies...it's a bad sign. That is not to say pacing and length are not very important. They are extremely critical. But that is a director's decision, and should stay there. Some movies benefit from studio input, b/c they are put together solely to appease audiences, not to tell a story. Ther are test-marketed and analyzed by statisticians. And there is a market for those films. I've even liked some of those films. But somehow, I don't think that Scorcese is making that type of film. Anyways, I also am looking forward to this movie. Which is rare b/c I do typically care for Miramax or their films.
Sincerely,
Chuck Mayer

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I meant to say I DON'T TYPICALLY CARE for Miramax...
Sorry,
Chuck

 

[Marc Colella]

If Gangs of New York is as boring as the trailer makes it look, maybe it's best to shorten the films length.

 

[Patrick Mirza]

I'm amazed they picked up the rights for APOCALYPSE NOW REDUX!
Left to his own devices, Harvey would have cut the SE down to 90 minutes!
------------------
webmaster davisdvd.com
International Exclusives

 

[Sean Oneil]

quote: I would love for Miramax to just back off and let Scorsese release the version of the film he feels is the best, but the cold reality of the "biz" is rearing it's ugly head right now. In all honesty, what would you do? If you gave someone $90-$100 million to make a movie, you're gonna want to get your money back after the movie's release.[/quote]
Yes, but who is to say that cutting 30 minutes out will not completely ruin the film and cause it to earn even less money in the end than it would were it left uncut?
If they do force Scorsese to cut 30 minutes of his film out, I hope that it does ruin the film and in turn is met with small box office numbers. Then maybe these people who sign the checks will learn not to play artist in the future.
Who is the film maker here after all? Who are you going to trust to make a good film? The artist, or the marketing suit?
[Edited last by Sean Oneil on October 04, 2001 at 11:22 PM]

 

[SteveGon]

Miramax, leave Gangs of New York alone! This is one of the few holiday films that I'm looking forward to, and I want to see it as Scorsese intended it to be seen.
------------------
He thought on homeland, the big timber, the air thin and chill all the year long. Tulip poplars so big through the trunk they put you in mind of locomotives set on end. He thought of getting home and building him a cabin on Cold Mountain so high that not a soul but the nighthawks passing across the clouds in autumn could hear his sad cry. Of living a life so quiet he would not need ears. And if Ada would go with him, there might be the hope, so far off in the distance he did not even really see it, that in time his despair might be honed off to a point so fine and thin that it would be nearly the same as vanishing.
-- Charles Frazier, Cold Mountain

 

[BrianKM]

If Gangs of New York is as boring as the trailer makes it look, maybe it's best to shorten the films length.

Amen, my brother. Is it the Scorcese mystique? Big-name actors? Big-budget period piece? I honestly do not know why this is being hyped so much or getting the attention that it is getting - is it really just a case of Tomb Raider theory?

 

[JasenP]

I can almost guarantee that Scorsese will have final cut. Unless there was some sort of loophole (must be under 2 1/2 hours etc.) It would most likely be a stipulation in his contract to have final cut.
Perhaps they will take the "Hamlet" route and release two cuts of the film.
------------------
THIS BAG IS NOT A TOY
Link Removed
375 Reasons why I drive A 1991 Cavalier.

 

[Matt_Stevens]

He's probably obligated to bring it in under 3 hours or 2 hours & 45 minutes.
But why they spent so much money on a film my Scorsese, with stars that are questionable at the box office, on subject matter that rarely lights a fire under an audience, is beyond me. if they lose money, I'll laugh, because they deserve to for throwing 100 million dollars at this film, when 40 should be enough.
------------------
www.deceptions.net/superman

 

[Anthony Thorne]

VANITY FAIR had an interesting article written during the GANGS shoot. A journalist visited the set and was struck by the epic scale of the film - hundreds of extras, giant sets, a really massive production. Scorsese wanted even more money - about $5 million or so - to construct a giant cathedral for the background of a few scenes. Weinstein initially blanched at this. Then Tom Cruise visited the set, spent some time talking to Weinstein about it, and Weinstein relented. Scorsese got the extra $5 million (and his cathedral) whilst Weinstein brooded on set and made some nervous jokes about how the film would really need to be a hit.
That's the story from VANITY FAIR verbatim. Hey, it could even be a PR gag for all I know (some stories about the philanthopy and deeds of various actors are complete b/s contructed simply to get their names in the paper) but it may well be true. I was interested in GANGS OF NEW YORK until I saw the trailer, which made the movie look slow, somewhat dull and reminiscent of Scorsese's AGE OF INNOCENCE with that arty costume-drama look, and I lost the immediate urge to see the film in a theater. (CASINO is one my favourite films of the 90's though). GANGS may well do okay but if the film is limited in its appeal then I can understand why Weinstein is getting nervous.
[Edited last by Anthony Thorne on October 06, 2001 at 08:23 PM]

 

[Matt_Stevens]

Leo is trashing his own film...
http://us.imdb.com/StudioBrief/#3
------------------
www.deceptions.net/superman

 

[Mitty]

So, release date confusion, studio interference, and a big star bad mouthing the film?
This film has an atmosphere of doom around it and no one has even seen it.
Nicely done Miramax.