Guest the 1inch punch Report post Posted December 31, 2002 I mean, its only Number Five in the box office charts? What gives? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mr. Slim Citrus Report post Posted December 31, 2002 Having never seen the movie, this is just a guess: Women don't like "gang" movies. Men don't like Leonardo DiCaprio. i.e., flop. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest godthedog Report post Posted December 31, 2002 hasn't it made over $40 million already? a lot of people are going to see it, i'd hardly call it a true flop. the problem is it cost so much money to make in the first place. doesn't look like it will recoup the $100 million investment, but it should get some renewed interest when the inevitable oscar buzz comes. if it's lucky enough to actually WIN best picture, best director, best actor, et al, then i can definitely see miramax getting their money back. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ravenbomb Report post Posted December 31, 2002 oh, it should win best Actor, Director, and Picture. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest CoreyLazarus416 Report post Posted December 31, 2002 I heard that it was like Titanic in a way: The sets and costumes were dead-on for the time period, but the characters and story were both pretty lame, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mole Report post Posted December 31, 2002 The movie wasn't expected to do well. It is a Scorsese film, and they usually don't do that well. I talked about this in the box office thread, and I'm too lazy to re-type it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted December 31, 2002 doesn't look like it will recoup the $100 million investment, but it should get some renewed interest when the inevitable oscar buzz comes. if it's lucky enough to actually WIN best picture, best director, best actor, et al, then i can definitely see miramax getting their money back. Well the overseas market should get them closer to making a profit. Has it actually been released in Japan yet? The Japanese(girls at least) love Leonardo. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest razazteca Report post Posted December 31, 2002 going against Lord of the Rings will flop any big budget movie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Lethargic Report post Posted December 31, 2002 hasn't it made over $40 million already? Actually as of Monday it was 29 and some change. Probably will go over 30 today but not 40 yet. I'd call it a flop. You don't spend over 100 million on a movie and then be happy with a 5th place movie. I never personally expected it to be a hit so I guess I don't see it as a flop it's right where I expected. But to the people that put up that amount of money it's sure as hell a flop. Add in a what, a whole YEAR of Oscar buzz around it, and it STILL doesn't make a dollar? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest C.H.U.D. Report post Posted December 31, 2002 I'm not suprised, a large percentage of people who spend money on movies are the 16-25 crowd, and a movie like this just won't appeal to them, especially with a monster like The Two Towers playing. Hell, when I saw Gangs, the only teenagers I saw were a group of white homies who walked out 10 minutes into the movie when the realized it was about "Gangz in New York" with DMX and Ice Cube. No, I'm not joking, they were complaining when they walked out because they thought it was a "Hood" movie. I guess we won't know if Gangs is a financial failure until it finishes it's theatrical run in the U.S. and in international markets. Hell, Fellowship of the Ring made $313 million in the U.S., but with it's international grosses, it made close to $900 million. So if Gangs ends up with $60 million in the U.S., it could make $100-$200 million internationally. Who knows. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest godthedog Report post Posted December 31, 2002 I heard that it was like Titanic in a way: The sets and costumes were dead-on for the time period, but the characters and story were both pretty lame, i'll forgive this one for being the first to make the comparison, and for not actually having seen the movie, but anyone else who says that 'gangs' is like 'titanic' will be shot. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NYCTA Bus No. PA1767 Report post Posted December 31, 2002 Gangs of New York is alot like Titanic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest godthedog Report post Posted December 31, 2002 Gangs of New York is alot like Titanic. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Banky Report post Posted December 31, 2002 Gangs of New York is alot like Titanic. When you make comments like that, BACK IT UP! Thats nonsense. Because DiCaprio is in it? Because there was a love story? There was a very intriguing story going on between Dicaprio and Day-Lewis. Moreover, the general direction of the gangs, conscription, and frame of mind of the time were dead on. This wasn't a movie with gory fighting scenes and boundless love without any substance. This movie was intelligently written, crafted, and directed. So please, if any of you compare this to titanic, BACK IT UP! Don't say 'Well I've heard..." or "IMDB says...". GO SEE IT first before you critisize it. My opinion on the flick is that with its R rating many aren't able to go see it. The 13-18 year old crowd could bring in a fair haul for business. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest godthedog Report post Posted December 31, 2002 the thing that would make me shudder the most about a claim like that is that it's basically saying that martin scorsese is equivalent to james cameron. scorsese is almost the antithesis of cameron. he's a GOOD writer who works uncommonly well with actors, whose strengths are character studies & harsh realities, and has trouble with big-budget, spectacle-type movies. cameron is a horrible writer who could give two shits about his actors is very deft with technically proficient, special effects, BIG EVENT movies, and sucks at depicting real human drama. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest NYCTA Bus No. PA1767 Report post Posted January 1, 2003 Gangs of New York is alot like Titanic. When you make comments like that, BACK IT UP! Thats nonsense. Because DiCaprio is in it? Because there was a love story? There was a very intriguing story going on between Dicaprio and Day-Lewis. Moreover, the general direction of the gangs, conscription, and frame of mind of the time were dead on. This wasn't a movie with gory fighting scenes and boundless love without any substance. This movie was intelligently written, crafted, and directed. So please, if any of you compare this to titanic, BACK IT UP! Don't say 'Well I've heard..." or "IMDB says...". GO SEE IT first before you critisize it. My opinion on the flick is that with its R rating many aren't able to go see it. The 13-18 year old crowd could bring in a fair haul for business. It was a joke fool! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Ravenbomb Report post Posted January 1, 2003 It was a joke fool! Titanic or the comment? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Nevermortal Report post Posted January 1, 2003 Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gangs' revenue actually went up in its 2nd week. Its definitely not making as much as it should but hey, a raise is a raise. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest red_file Report post Posted January 1, 2003 Correct me if I'm wrong, but Gangs' revenue actually went up in its 2nd week. Its definitely not making as much as it should but hey, a raise is a raise. Correct. From $9.4mil to $10.9mil, but it also expanded to more theatres. I'm betting it'll do better when it gets re-released around Oscar season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RobJohnstone Report post Posted January 1, 2003 I was going to see it but, catch me if you can came out so I caught that instead. BTW cmiyc was very good. --Rob Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest WrestlingDeacon Report post Posted January 1, 2003 How many theaters is Gangs playing in compared to The Two Towers and other films above it in rankings? Also with it running three hours you can't show it as many times a day as you can a film running one and a half to two hours, something that hurt Pearl Harbor as well. You can say that this didn't hurt the four hour Titanic, but that was running on two sometimes three screens at the same time in the big multiplexes because the hype machine turned it into such a mass cultural event. The hype around Gangs of New York was that it was supposed to be one of the greatest movies ever and it's not so in that way it's a flop and I don't subject matter is something that appeals to the mass movie going audience at the holiday season. Even if it didn't have an R rating and younger movie goers could get in, I don't think they'd want to. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MarvinisaLunatic Report post Posted January 1, 2003 Wasnt this supposed to come out earlier in the year, but some bright studio exec wanted it to come out in late december so it could win some Awards. The idea to put it up against both Lord of the Rings and Dicaprio's other movie was just plain stupid.. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cawthon777 0 Report post Posted January 2, 2003 Saw it last night. LOVED IT. I actually like DiCaprio now (never thought I would say that), Martin MUST win Best Director, and I wouldn't be surprised if it won Best Picture either. This film and Twin Towers are the best I've seen in quite a while and, as far as the Oscars, I would give Gangs the edge merely because it's a stand-alone film and not part of a trilogy. Daniel Day Lewis carried the piece as far as the acting (with an awesome early stereotypical NY accent with a little bit of Rhea Pearlman from Cheers), the soundtrack was very moving and powerful...it was just a very good film. I'd liken it to Braveheart - only on a much smaller scale. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest subliminal_animal Report post Posted January 3, 2003 I'm not suprised, a large percentage of people who spend money on movies are the 16-25 crowd, and a movie like this just won't appeal to them, especially with a monster like The Two Towers playing. Hell, when I saw Gangs, the only teenagers I saw were a group of white homies who walked out 10 minutes into the movie when the realized it was about "Gangz in New York" with DMX and Ice Cube. No, I'm not joking, they were complaining when they walked out because they thought it was a "Hood" movie. I wish I was you for that moment. That sounds great. How were you not cracking up or not throwing things at them? I guess we won't know if Gangs is a financial failure until it finishes it's theatrical run in the U.S. and in international markets. Hell, Fellowship of the Ring made $313 million in the U.S., but with it's international grosses, it made close to $900 million. So if Gangs ends up with $60 million in the U.S., it could make $100-$200 million internationally. Who knows. Us Americans only care about American money, so if a movie costs 100 million to make and gets 90 million here and 67 kajabillion everywhere else, it is a flop. We're awful people. Add in a what, a whole YEAR of Oscar buzz around it, and it STILL doesn't make a dollar? It made almost 30 million! You said so yourself! HAhaha...I am so lame. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
