View Full Version : Gangs of New York

07-27-2003, 11:57 AM
Just want to apologize if it has a thread already but I couldnt find it.

So I rented the DVD the other night. pretty long movie. It is 2 dvds long. I thought it was a really good movie( I am from NYC originally and gave some good background on the whole immagrant thing in NYC). It had me going right up untiul the end. Was anyone else disappointed in the ending of this movie? I thought it would have been better given the way the whole movie built up to that one scene. After three hours of devoting time it could have been alot better.

hango fett
07-27-2003, 02:12 PM
was there any nudity in it? i need to knwo before i watch it..

07-27-2003, 03:58 PM
Yes there was some.

07-27-2003, 05:14 PM
was there any nudity in it? i need to knwo before i watch it..

It was pretty much all at the end of the first disc and the start of the second. :)

Darth Shifty
07-28-2003, 10:27 AM
was there any nudity in it? i need to knwo before i watch it..

I don't care if it was a good movie with a decent plot and fine acting... If there's no nudity, I'm not wasting my time! :stupid: :D

07-28-2003, 05:16 PM
Isn't it funny how he asked about nudity, as opposed to graphic violence?

I mean NOT to get on a tirade here, but Hango - you're a young fella, are you not? I would hope that the appearance of a breast or 2 (preferably 2 :D ) wouldn't upset you or your folks as much as the violent content Scorsese inevitably includes.....

Or were you asking about the nudity for another reason *lightbulb went on over JJ's head there*?

07-28-2003, 07:27 PM
The big question is....is Cameron Diaz nude in it???? :crazed:

07-28-2003, 08:11 PM
No she is not

07-28-2003, 11:01 PM

Terminator 3
9 1/2 Weeks
Gangs of New York
Revenge of the Nerds


07-28-2003, 11:28 PM
No she is not

Well, there went that rental. :crazed:

kool-aid killer
07-29-2003, 07:13 AM
When i first heard the title of this movie i was thinking it was going to be about the Bloods and the Crips. Major bummer when it turned out to be just abunch of old immigrant dudes. I think the title should of been changed.

Mandalorian Candidat
07-29-2003, 12:44 PM
When i first heard the title of this movie i was thinking it was going to be about the Bloods and the Crips. Major bummer when it turned out to be just abunch of old immigrant dudes. I think the title should of been changed.

Aw see now you're getting your east coast/west coast gang rivalries mixed up. Go back and watch Colors to get things straight. ;)

07-29-2003, 01:33 PM
When i first heard the title of this movie i was thinking it was going to be about the Bloods and the Crips. Major bummer when it turned out to be just abunch of old immigrant dudes. I think the title should of been changed.

On the whole it is really pretty interesting because the people are actually fighting the immigrants because they are taking over the whole city and they dont want to give it up. To me it just built up to an ending that never happened. It could of went a whole different way. It was really good up until the last 10 minutes.

kool-aid killer
07-29-2003, 08:42 PM
Mandalorian Candidat, in all honesty my knowledge of gang histories is limited but its not like im missing out on anything big. If i recall correctly (and please correct me if im wrong), those two gangs (or maybe its just the Crips) originated in California with all others who claim the name being offshoots. And its not unusually for two gangs who claim to be one or the other to fight among themselves. Ok now that ive gone completely off the topic of this thread i will say that i have considered watching this movie (mainly because of Daniel Day Lewis, he ruled in Last of the Mohicans) but im wary of its length. Some movies work being long, others dont. Oh well maybe one day when im at Blockbuster and nothing interesting sticks out.

07-30-2003, 01:23 AM
KAK - I think all he's saying is, the title "Gangs of New York" doesn't dredge up Crips and Bloods the same way "Gangs of South Central" would have. Im sure both gangs are national now, and have their trecherous claws sunk into the big apple, but there are much older "families" running big parts of the action back east, if Tony Soprano has anything to say about it. :D

09-14-2003, 12:07 AM
This was an awesome movie. I rented it today and saw it for my first time.

I'm fascinated by the Civil War era, but was deeply misled by Gettysberg.

All those heroes. So many fought for the greater cause of freeing the slaves, now you see how politics was so corrupt back then that I even mistrust Lincoln's motives. How can we ever really know?

The bankers and manufacturers in the North wanted so much to hold their dominance, they wouldn't let the South compete with them with the South's slave labor. Then the Irish came and would work cheaper than even freed blacks and threatened to take jobs away from "The Natives." Now they send them straight off the boats to die for the North's wealthy in front of the South's bayonets.

Meanwhile life amongst the gangs was even more chaotic and brutal than life on the battlefield.

I'm beginning to think that we had no heroes, and New York is a dirty place built up on the backs of those trampled by corruption. The promise of a New World and a new democracy "For the people" seems all a lie.

It's an ugly world and we haven't come far enough as I think back on recent history and the assasination of John F. Kennedy, and the vengeance and money desired that paved the way for our soldiers to die in Iraq.

I can't swear in these forums, nor do I in most days in life. But things I've thought of since watching this movie, makes me think we are living in Hell, and it's only a matter of time before the fire errupts again. We haven't seen it on our soil since the L.A. Riots in the '90's, but that may be nothing compared to what's coming.

You spoke of gangs like the Bloods and the Crips. Well drugs are their traffic and they are probably illegal mostly because they preserve the profits of those that make the laws or own these who pretend to. Today we mostly fight for drugs and their market territory, but no doubt we are lined up against immigrants and incensed by the migration from Mexico, legal and definitely otherwise.

We're most comfortable amongst our own language and culture, and we fight for it too. And those in power exploit both sides of it for their own purposes.
Tammany Hall never fell, and its equivalent is alive and well from the White House across the continent to California.

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately.

kool-aid killer
09-14-2003, 03:09 PM
I seen it a couple of days ago and i too was bothered at some points. Many did fight to free the slaves but i would have to say that the overwhelming majority of the people in the North didnt care too much about them. It was evident in how they went after them in their rioting and in the names they were called. I wish i could say attitudes today are different but i cant.

09-15-2003, 12:55 AM
Life's made up of competition for scarce resources (that could mean jobs, attractive mates, housing, etc.)

Prejudice is perfectly natural. The word means prejudgement - expecting people with certain characteristics to exhbit certain (usually undesirable traits).

What it really means is competitive selection (or non-competitive selection).

White Natives didn't want blacks to take away jobs from them. The economy couldn't always stay good. Business cycles are also natural. It was tough for a family that had earned their stay to lose it, as times got hard, and to watch a black family take (quite often complete different) jobs for lower wages, and perhaps wiht larger households working, earn enough to get a home in the white-person's neighborhood.

Think of a rvial from gradeschool getting an "A" on the day you didn't have your homework done. Now think of it in terms that send you packing and out onto the streets and into destitution. The last person people wanted to blame was themselves, and without understanding business cycles or that this could be no fault of their own, they blamed rival groups.

The immigrant Irish and the blacks. Blacks could ill-afford to attack Irish for taking away their jobs, racial power relations being what they were, but they appreciated their freedom in the North and understood the Irish's plight while the Natives hated it.

But meanwhile, if you wanted to distinguish yourself for a girl:

whites are socially advantaged, and stable income earners....
blacks are hip, can dance, more cool than honkies...
Mexicans gotta fight, get respect, are real men not drinking fools...

All these distinguishments come out to win a girl (of any race) - and it's just like the animals: male birds try and show the brightest colors, deer and bulls with the bigger horns win, the gorillas and the dominant male and the sodomites - well, you get the picture. WE DIDN'T FALL FAR FROM THE TREE.

So racism comes naturally as long as there is competition.

But people who judge by the race are fools. An individual is what he or she makes of themselves.

But it explains how Southerners in the Civil War times treated some slaves as well as family, and some freed blacks who they'd even defend if given a cause, while all night the same men would ride with the KKK and condemn all blacks (except their black friends).

So is a bigot with a black best friend, or Bill the Butcher with an immigrant for an adopted son, a hypocrite, or just what we could expect from one with low intellect and someone who can't take an objective look over themselves?

09-15-2003, 02:36 AM
So racism comes naturally as long as there is competition.

I think racism's ignorance is clearly shown in this light. It comes from above and it can then come from within. Irish immigrants were at or near the bottom of the social structure so on one hand we could assume that an Irish person would "identify" and "understand" the plight of a freed Black person. Not necessarily though, because as low as the Irish were on the ladder, the Blacks were "beneath" them yet. Some Irish (in their quest for success) took full advantage of the caste system to improve themselves by being "better" than those below them. I think part of that comes from the top - the idea that if you keep enough people divided and squabbling amongst themselves, you can preserve your place of power. Look at the creation of the "Scots-Irish" -- the Irish immigrants who came by way of Scotland (since many immigration stories of the time actually went through at least 2 phases). The Scots didn't hold a very high place in society here but they were still "above" the Irish. Some Irish people who left Ireland for Scotland (and then subsequently America) eventually came to describe themselves as Scots-Irish . . . which in essence squeezed themselves in above the Irish on the social ladder.

People tended to live within their own ethnic groups. Of course, that part is natural since they emigrated from a place where they weren't very culturally diverse. They aren't familiar with people of different races / ethnicities so there is a seemingly natural discomfort there. And I guess some people (to this day, still) deal with their differences and fears by hating those who are different from them. And they also do it to artificially make themselves superior to those who are different. I think that ties in to the part of your post which I quoted.

Bill the Butcher hated the Irish . . . look at how silly that would seem today. The political term of "white" has been put in place so we don't really see much of this ethnic strife between Irish and Germans, etc. etc. etc. Hell, my background is Irish and German and back when my ancestors hooked up, I'm sure it caused quite a stir within both halves of my family tree.
Now, compare that with the issues that MANY people (TODAY IN 2003 for god's sake) have with interracial families as we know them today.

I'm white and in my time I've encountered several idiots with very real racial hatreds but they do it along the lines of Black, Asian (indiscriminate of specific Asian ethnicities), etc. etc. etc. But I think the joke is on these fools I've met, because they seem blissfully ignorant to the likely racial/ethnic strife which their own ancestors dealt with.
If these people I've dealt with would only realize that they wouldn't even be here if their ancestors weren't able to put aside their differences . . .

09-15-2003, 11:16 AM
Yup. Great post Caesar. I agree with all your assessment.

I don't think there are any easy answers.

1) Economic Development has to occur on a global scale, especially in Mexico and Latin America, in order to control competition for jobs and resources, especially so that doesn't all happen onlky within U.S. borders.

2) Maybe with prosperity, we ought to go back to arranged marriages with genetic breeding of clones or something, to eliminate struggles for the sake of love. Oh, I forgot, that would create the "betas and deltas" out of Brave New World and we'd have a whole new struggle against slavery again - this time of Clones. :rolleyes:

3) If competition is eliminated, and everyone has all they could want, population control must be in effect in order to preserve it. So at some point perhaps we'd only be legally allowed to reproduce from pre-approved Clones.

4) People would still isolate themselves into linguistic, cultural, and religious beliefs, but perhaps they might trust outside groups more in this new world.

5) But if comparative advantages were achieved in this economic development, then perhaps one world language and educational, and cultural sensitivity would be established. Right now that would likely be English, but we must always remain open-minded and likely be prepared to learn Chinese should that economy realize its potential.

Of course the Clones could be bred and programmed to be "less independent than their original hosts." However, if a popular model such as the Anna Kornikova clone was chosen in over-abundance, our genetic diversity as the single human race might be severely compromised should the "Kornikova Virus" evolve and wipe out a quarter of the world's population. But then again, should our economic prosperity be in place, a mechanism that erases population growth while it peacefully preserves our infrastructure occur, our society could recover to an even healthier state than the world has ever known.

But I think the Clone Rights movement would eventually result in scenes out of BladeRunner!

Ah, but replicant droids might be better for population control than Clones since they'd be non-reproductive!

Get ready for the An-droida Kornikova!

07-13-2006, 02:51 AM
i just watched this one again and in light of our anti-illegal immigration struggles these days, it's a particularly good movie. Like Caesar pointed out, whites used to fight amongst themselves for tribal hatreds, religious problems, etc. That's forgotten when he have people of darker skin to discriminate against...