Talk:Gangs of New York/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Gangs of New York. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Comments

"resonates with a depth and intricacy is so profound that it is literally impossible to fully grasp it on a first viewing." This is POV.

I think the article just needs a few more headings to separate the large blocks of text. Also, an increase of paragraphs will make the readability better.

Maybe another picture or the film? User:Tim_teddybear on March 6 2006

You guys just put U2 in there, for "the hands that built America"

Comment-- I think that Benjamin Justice's criticism is meritless. There are clear depictions of black people being lynched. There's also a voice over that states that black people are being attacked all over the city.

Distribution

Why can't Buena Vista Pictures/Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures get a distribution credit on many Miramax/Dimension movies made between 1993-2010? I mean Disney owned Miramax at the time so Disney must have at least some role in Distribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.173.185.43 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Length

What happened to all the info in this article?161.181.53.10 19:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

They used to be much more, not all of it irrelevant or unverified so I guess someone deleted it all? Does Wikipedia have a page backup or something?

"Edit"

Removal of the Edit button needs to be achieved.

I tried, but now we have two 'edit' links by the picture of Leo and others.

User:Tim_teddybear

I found "_NOEDITSECTION_" (it's actually 2 underscores on each side), which does what you want... but across the whole page. Not sure this is really a good idea though, as it's handy for editors, especially on a long article such as this one. I'd recommend removing the Leo, Cameron and Mike picture actually, as it's not much to do with the film. Maybe a film still a little further down the page? --Estarriol 18:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the point of the removal? What is the point of the cleanup tag when the article has been improved to adequate standards? --Antrophica 01:29, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The point of the removal of the Edit links was that the links looked very "messed up" due to the positioning of the images and sections. A better solution would be to rearrange the images to fix the problem and remove the NOEDITSECTION. As for the cleanup tag... not sure it's still necessary. --Estarriol ^talk 18:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll get rid of the cleanup tag and attempt to have everything laid out properly with the edit buttons still intact. --Antrophica 04:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No information on the various law enforcement problems/offcials.

Mention was made of the Municipal Police, the state legislated Metropolitan Police, the elected Sheriff and the Constables, and even Marshals were mentioned throughout the movie. There is little in the way of history of those offices in New York City, save the police department that became today's NYPD. Does anyone have any information of the role of those offices in that time period, both by the movie and how it played out vs. the actual history?

One-eyed knife thrower?

I heard a radio review at the time that criticised the idea of someone with only one eye being able to accurately throw knives. Anyone know anything definite that could be added in the criticism section? Amo 22:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A person with one eye would have no binocular depth perception. I don't know much about knife throwing, but it may be that the accuracy of the line of the throw is more important than judging the distance of the throw. IJB 11:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

To be more precise, a person with one eye would have no stereoscopic vision, the "pop-up" effect of depth perception that comes from binocular fusion. There are other means of achieving depth perception, the simplest of which is simply relying on the relative size of objects. Turning the head (and moving in general) can also provide depth perception through parallax-- this is why pigeons bob their heads. I have no idea at all of whether Bill could actually have managed as difficult a task as knife-throwing with the other (more limited) sorts of depth perception, especially having been born with two eyes. Another issue with this scene is that most knives are thrown end-over-end rather than straight ahead, although some knife throwers do use this (much more difficult) technique for show. Nitpicks aside, I loved the movie. Daniel Day Lewis is a genius. Kajerm

：：　A common knife throwing trick is to cover one eye while performing a throw - As we know, "real" knife throwers actually do use real, sharp knives, so it's safe to assume that throwing with one eye is not prohibitively difficult or dangerous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.179.6 (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Image in the plot synopsis

Does that image of the actors and directors really belong there? It really takes away from the synopsis.

Racism

"The film has been criticized for playing down the explicitly racist nature of the Draft Riots"

I don't think this really captures the issue. The racism is shown, with scenes of lynching, equation of the Civil War with black people, the symbolic burning of the picture of Frederick Douglass etc, but it is treated sympathetically because the oppression of blacks is ignored, the issue of the draft is foregrounded, the "city fathers" are depicted as corrupt or insensitive, and fundamentally the perspective of the movie is that of the poor whites who rioted.--Jack Upland 09:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The way the movie did it was much better because the racism, while present, was less important than the fact that they were being forced to fight in a war they didn't care about.Iwanttobeasleep 00:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, but a very significant reason that they "didn't care about the war" in the first place was out-and-out racism towards those poised to benefit, and the percieved indignity of dying for not just the rich, not just politicians, but for a race of people who were commonly deemed little better than animals at the time and could possibly, if freed, present a direct economic threat to already desperate and impoverished white immigrants. While the racism was addressed in the movie, it's definitely framed in a manner (for instance -- in addition to the sympathetic tone mentioned by someone else -- making the protagonists less racist than the villains, when in reality, odds are they both would've been thoroughly racist by modern standards) that would be less threatening & discomforting to modern American audiences than authenticity would allow. 129.119.187.242 (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Downplayed? Shown pretty graphically, and more than once. Well if you prefer to view it that way, but I couldn't even find mention (I think I got it from Draft Riots) that the black people were not subject to the draft due to some silly loophole. --88.74.144.118 (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If someone has some reference to racism by the inhabitants of Five Points it should be in the historical accuracy section. The racial geography of New York at the time I have read was heavily segregated, and even contact between poor white Europeans, Protestant vs Catholics as depicted in the film, was violent. In the impoverished communities there was a lot of violent warfare in competition for survival. Although some of the organized lines of competition did occur on racial lines that does not make it intrinsically racist. There were a lot of lines on which competition occurs. The fact that competition was the primary motivation of animosity belies the definition of racism. Racism is irrational. Competition is not. Rationality of violence can only be argued on local (time, and place) values. Since the time and place in the film was routinely violent it can't be cited as irrational to support a claim of racism.

98.164.64.98 (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Circular Reference Needs to be Corrected

In the opening paragraph, the reference to the book that this film was based on (The Gangs of New York) is linked back to this article. Therefore this article should be re-named "Gangs of New York (film)", which would automatically repair the reference. A disambiguation introduction should then be added.--Jstreutker 14:35Z 2007-02-23

Added explicit link to the book. Nerdcorenet (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Page Title

Why isn't this page titled "The Gangs of New York (film)" as per usual practice? "The Gangs of New York" should be allocated to the (not yet existant) article on the original book —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.70.247.160 (talk) 12:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Agreed, that's how I came across this article, looking for the book's article for more information on the beginning of organised crime.

I see I'm replying to a six year old thread here, but I went ahead and changed the hatnote to at least make it easy to find both the book and the disambig page. I do think this page should be renamed. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Errors in Awards section

The Awards section contained a couple of errors I've now corrected. First, Lord of the Rings did not overshadow Gangs... at the Oscars for 2002 (the only two awards that year's Lord... movie won were in categories where Gangs... was not nominated); though Chicago did. Second, it is not the movie with most nominations without a win; that "honour" is shared by The Turning Point (1977) and The Color Purple (1985), with 11 nominations. Information taken from List of films receiving ten or more Academy Award nominations, double-checked with www.oscars.com. -- OMHalck 22:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Historical Accuracy Section

I'm not seeing a legit argument here (other than it being POV). There are some that argue that the movie was very accurate and that gangs of that time were very brutal, and there are some that argue otherwise. This should be cleaned up (with citations from reputable sources added) or removed. user:kageskull 164.214.1.55 14:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that the section talks only about the praise given to Scorsese is given by Tyler Anbinder and it does not really list any criticisms made on the movie's historical accuracy. I think new sources need to be added about the gangs since the majority of the section is based on Anbinder's book. --Zepolj (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Priest Vallon

Is Priest Vallon supposed to be a priest or is it just a nickname? --Error 20:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Error - It's just a nickname. On his memorial picture, you can see "Priest" is in quotes. There are also other references to it being a nickname. It's discreet, but it's there. There's no indication as to a real name; in real life, the Dead Rabbits were led by Barry Sanders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.46.148 (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Coppola

Why is Coppola referenced twice in this article, in place of what is presumably meant to be Scorsese? Francis Ford Coppola (nor any other Coppolas) seem to have anything to do with this film, nor do the citations linked for these statements contain Coppola. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riph (talk • contribs) 05:06, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Because I had a headache and typed the wrong name. Thanks. Wildhartlivie 06:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Gangs NY.jpg

Image:Gangs NY.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Dead rabbit origin

On this page it says that the dead rabbits wouldve translated into very hulking men, but on the dead rabbits page it says it means to be feared. which one is it? --Steinfeld7 (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Steinfeld7: I came to this page to write something that concerns that... this is from the page: "In his book How The Irish Invented Slang, Daniel Cassidy claims that the film misrepresents the true meaning of the gangs name "the dead rabbits". He claims this name has nothing to do with the deceased animal at all, as repeated images in the film implies, but that the word "rabbit" is an English speakers misinterpretation of the Irish word "ráibéad", meaning "a hulking person, a big man". Adding the English slang word "dead" which was used as an intensifier (like very) the translation of "Dead Ráibéad" would've meant "very hulking men"." Apparently, Daniel Cassidy is either misrepresented here, or didn't do very good research, because the Dead Rabbits, whose name does come from the Irish word "ráibéad", meaning a very strong man, or a man to be feared (yeah, it's the same word), did adopt the practice of carrying dead rabbits on stakes as their symbol in riots. The movie isn't wrong about this in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.46.148 (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

historical accuracy

In a street scene showing a fashionable area of New York we see, briefly but clearly, a well-dressed lady carrying what appears to be a Chihuahua dog. This is an historical inaccuracy: the Chihuahua was unknown in USA until the 1880s. The novelist Owen Wister is sometimes credited with introducing the breed to the USA, where it was originally variously known as the Mexican Texas or Arizona Terrier. The breed was not registered with the American Kennel Club until 1904, and in 1915 there were still only 30 Chihuahuas in the USA. Major source for this information is Chihuahua by Barbara J. Andrews (PetLove, undated but certainly 1990s), but any standard book on the breed will bear it out. --Bendigo37 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Trivia list

Concerning this:

All of this is certainly can certainly be put back, as long as it's incorporated into other sections of the article and not in the article as a "trivia" list. I only removed it entirely because each entry lacked a citation. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Young Amsterdam.

The end credits clearly say that the actor playing Amsterdam as a child is Cian McCormack, so why does someone keep changing it to Dylan Sherwood?94.196.95.223 (talk) 13:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Bill's Death.

The article currently states that, during the final battle scene after the cannons have fired on the square, Bill finds himself impaled by a large piece of shrapnel. I beleive the object he pulls from his stomach is clearly Priest Vallon's old razor, given to Amsterdam by Monk. 144.183.31.2 (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect, it is a squarish piece of blackened shrapnel approximately 2 inches wide at the tip, it looks nothing like a razor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.7.56 (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Cast list

The cast section is entirely too long, with a lot of minor roles listed. This should be trimmed down to only the most important cast members. People wanting a complete list can check IMDB. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Superficially throws?

"where he targets her and superficially throws the knife to leave a cut on her throat"?

Shouldn't it rather be:

"where he targets her and throws the knife, leaving a superficial cut on her throat" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dislocated (talk • contribs) 10:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Initial Attempts

I removed the following, which was added without explanation by an anon. user back in February, and bring it here for discussion.

While house-sitting for a Long Island friend on New Year's Eve 1974, Martin Scorsese discovered Herbert Asbury's historical non-fiction book The Gangs of New York and decided to adapt it into a film.^[1] With Jay Cocks, he completed a first draft in 1976. Impressed with A Clockwork Orange and O Lucky Man!, Scorsese intended to cast Malcolm McDowell as Amsterdam. However, this planned adaptation never advanced into pre-production stage, because Scorsese was working on Taxi Driver. Later, Robert De Niro was considered for either Amsterdam and Bill Cutting, and the film was planned to be produced in 1980 or 1981. However, the poor response to Heaven's Gate made the studios wary about historical period dramas. Instead, Scorsese and De Niro went on to film Raging Bull.

Scorsese later tried to get Gangs of New York into production in the mid-1980s with Mel Gibson as Amsterdam and Willem Dafoe as Bill Cutting, but this never came to pass after The Last Temptation of Christ began production in 1987. In 1999, Scorsese and Cocks completed a revised draft of the script, and the film went into production in 2000. Having worked with Leonardo DiCaprio in This Boy's Life, De Niro recommended the young actor for the part of Amsterdam.

This might be interesting if it were rewritten, properly formatted, edited, and referenced. As it is, it has one ref., which is the audio commentary, with no further information. In this state, it should not remain in the article. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

References

^ Gangs of New York audio commentary

Blockquoting

Hey, everybody. Since I know a lot of people are passionate about this page, I just wanted to explain that I happened to notice that a blockquoted segment of text had been inaccurately expanded with text that did not fit and seemed to be from another part of the article, perhaps by accident. Anyway, I fixed it but then I had to fix the blockquoting. But I didn't remove anything, so it should be OK. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Languages in infobox

Chinese, Irish, and Latin are all listed as languages in the infobox, despite the fact that none of them are spoken, to any significant degree, in the film. 99% of the film is in English, and a few background languages are not necessary. ---RepublicanJacobite_TheFortyFive 17:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Irish even a language? Wasn't that Celtic? And Chinese is either Mandarin or Kantonese. While they are written with the same symbols, they are totally different in the spoken version. We watched that movie a bit and found it quite good but switched off when one was beaten into a pulp. It would have sufficed to show the beginning of the fight, a small middle, and the end result. We found it off putting to watch what one could describe as a mauling. Just saying. 2001:8003:AC60:1400:5135:536E:6A5F:7606 (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Quote in lede

The unsourced quote in the lede about "the birth of Manhattan," etc., needs to be removed. The film depicts no such thing, and such a vague and unreferenced quote does not serve to explain the subject of the film. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 23:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Citations for use

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gangs of New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/43543p-41030c.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030206095847/http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/pages/awards/2002awards to http://ofcs.rottentomatoes.com/pages/awards/2002awards

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Gangs of New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gangs of New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gangs of New York. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Slow edit war over minor plot detail

For some odd reason, there seems to be some controversy in the plot section over whether Bill sends to Mulraney (played by John C. Reilly) or McGloin (played by Gary Lewis "to investigate, but Amsterdam kills him and hangs his body in the square.". Here's a link to the actual scene that will hopefully put the silly edit war to rest. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

When a series of IP editors repeatedly change the plot, with no explanation, my assumption is vandalism. If, in this case, I was incorrect, that does not invalidate the hundreds of times I was correct. Thank you for clearing it up with actual facts. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 17:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

[1] Gangs of New York audio commentary

[1]