Posted by Duffless at hide101.suffolk.edu on February 11, 2003 at 12:41:16:
In Reply to: So GANGS OF NEW YORK doesn't deserve a nomination? posted by Vincent on February 11, 2003 at 12:15:37:
it had its flaws for sure, but overall was well done and of huge scope, a very tough film to make, all films are difficult to make, but Gangs especially must have been very hard to make....and I have no problem with it being nominated, espeecially for Lewis, or for best director of that matter, I just don't see how Gangs of New York gets in there and Lord of the Rings doesn't for best director.....the only possible answer in my eyes is the politics of it.......people feel Scorsese was good and he's due, and people know that the final lord of the rings will most likely be outstanding....but I don't think this is a reason to nominate one film and not the other.....i think it should be clear cut case of each year what were the best directed films.....this isn't what happens....and it is what I think should happen.....if anything both films should get a best director nod, but if one has to go, it should be Gangs......
: GANGS OF NEW YORK is at least as huge a directorial achievement as THE TWO TOWERS- perhaps even bigger, since everything was actually BUILT and it didn't rely on massive amounts of miniatures and digital effects. I'm at a loss as to why you're singling out GANGS OF NEW YORK here as opposed to some of the other Best Director nominees.
: Vincent
: : think, Scorcese hasn't won, and Jackson will win best picture next year as a reward for all three movies, so we will nominate Gangs instead of Lord of the Rings....see I see this as politics...because its isn't the quality of the film and the direction that is leading the nominations....its about timing and make ups....