Talk:West Side Story (2021 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleWest Side Story (2021 film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 15, 2022Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 3, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the 2021 film West Side Story was banned in the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain, likely due to the transgender character Anybodys?

Discussion of the criticism of the film as "woke"?

Sorry, I am not experienced enough in Wikipedia article writing to do it justice, but if there are some hardier souls out there who could, I think it might be worthwhile, following the discussion of the criticism made by Puerto Ricans of the film's portrayal of them, to address the "opposite" criticism that has been voiced by many: namely that the film is too "woke"/politically correct. This usually revolves around the untitled Spanish-speaking dialogue, the portrayal of Anybody's as transgender, and the underlying framework that both the Jets and the Sharks are victims of the upcoming gentrification of the area in which they live in order to favor WASPs.

Could anyone do that theme justice? Partnerfrance (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a helpful start if you could
discusses it. DonQuixote (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Box office bomb?

I think it's too early to call this movie a bomb. It might eventually end up as one but I feel like we should wait before throwing it out there. Oscar bait musicals that release in December usually leg out over the beginning of the year with help from awards buzz and word of mouth. Les Miserables and Mary Poppins Returns legged out to 5.45 and 7.32 multiples respectively, of their opening weekend at the domestic box office. Which means that WSS could potentially leg out to a $57.2 million or $76.9 million domestic total. And it is makes over $150 million internationally which most if not all these December awards musicals do. That would give it a worldwide gross of $200 million plus meaning it breaks even and is not a bomb.

I do think that whoever decided to open WSS wide so early in December should be fired. WSS didn't have a Hugh Jackman or an Emily Blunt to sell the film and prior to it's opening, awards fare had not been doing well at the box office. If anyone had any initiative at 20th / Disney, they would have opened WSS in limited release in late December and gradually increased theater count as it sweeps awards season starting with the Globes in early January and keep it in theaters until at least late April. So it can make all the money possible. Like Chicago and La La Land did. And those two movies even had big name leads unlike WSS.

I might be biased in favor of WSS but I'm also a realist and there is still a chance this movie breaks even and is somewhat profitable. So I think it is premature to call it a bomb.

Rant over. 105.112.123.28 (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to take it up with the cited reputable sources that refer to WSS this way. Wikipedia uses these sources and shouldn't make decisions for itself. If it later is no longer considered a bomb, there will be references indicating as much. Shoestringnomad (talk) 22:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Industry analysts who understand box office trends should be relied upon here, and if they are saying it bombed, then we should not shield the article from that allegation. If it changes by some slim miracle, we can always update the article then. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with 105.112.123.28 that some editors were premature in calling it a bomb. The news media were also quick to call it a bomb[1][2] or a disappointment[3] so at least Wikipedia editors were able to say the film was a bomb based on reliable sources already saying it and it wouldn't be the first time a film has been judged harshly based on its opening weekend. This is a Stephen Spielberg film and it did have some potential to slowly and gradually make more money but the huge $100 million budget was always going to be a hurdle to profitability (not to mention marketing costs). Having said that it will soon be available on Disney plus, the 45 day theatrical release window is nearly over,[4] and at this point we can either accept that it was a "bomb" or discuss if there is any justification more neutral language and maybe call it a disappointment or some other description (because if you throw the term "bomb" around it loses meaning when a film like The 355 flops even more severely[5] only a few weeks later).
I think, at this point it is fair to call it a bomb. -- 109.76.209.28 (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, yeah. Shoestringnomad (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

I don't think I agree with a lot of the unsourced things in the plot description. I could well be wrong, but that's why we need sources. For example, "Valentina condemns the Jets, who disband in shame." Says who? One of them says "we're finished", and walks out the door. Is there commentary? Outtakes? Something to document that they disband? Similarly, do we see them carrying the body to Doc's? Or is that in a script, a commentary, etc? Or does someone say something I missed? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 04:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok to miss things. That's why this is crowdsourced. Shoestringnomad (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For plots, the film itself is the implied source. Barte (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll remove stuff _I_ didn't see, since it seems to work that way. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:PLOT: "Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." Barte (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Indeed, so if I disagree with what I see, I'll change it to my own interpretation. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 21:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. But others may disagree and revert your changes. Shoestringnomad (talk) 01:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also: it says "basic descriptions". Reading someone walking out the door and saying "we're finished" as "the Jets disband" is not a basic description, it's either original research or something that can be cited. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 04:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal acclaim

Did the film receive "universal acclaim"? Metacritic claims it did. Metacritic uses the label "universal acclaim" for any film with a score from 81% to 100%, so if editors are going to object to using the label for anything less than 100% that could be a problem, and something they might want to discuss with Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. It is consistent with many other Wikipedia film articles to use the reliable sources as the basis of a reasonable summary of the high scores from both review aggregators. Editors should not be trying to "correct" the wording that comes from the reliable sources, by equivocating or adding modifiers such as "near universal" (what next, "very unique"?). I object to this this messing and pedantic muddling of the words from the reliable source, and it being terrible writing style. I would not object to putting the text "universal acclaim" in quote marks if people prefer that (but others might think that was

MOS:SCAREQUOTES
.) If editors insist on objecting to the wording "universal" (other editors have done before in past discussions, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film/Archive_15#Original_research_about_box_office_and_reception then) the wording should be removed, not awkwardly modified, and instead simply state the film received "acclaim" from critics. -- 109.76.133.188 (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are several ways this could be dealt with, but the phrase "near universal" is unlikely to be the answer. Almost the same arguments have been made before, discussions about removing contested wording or using more neutral wording come up again and again. Harry Potter is one such example ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AHarry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows_%E2%80%93_Part_2%2FArchive_2#Critical_Acclaim_vs._Postitive_Reviews? ... I expect more discussions will happen again in future. -- 109.76.133.188 (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with "near universal", unless you would also disagree with something "nearing completion"? This is not poor writing. If you want to adjust the language, please do, but "universal acclaim" as a descriptor makes more sense in the body, in quotes, and with an explanation that it is from Metacritic, as is currently the case. For now, I'm changing back to "near universal". Shoestringnomad (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The recent insertion of a qualifier is new only this week[6] the
WP:GOODFAITH alternatives to solve this perceived problem, remove the word "universal" if you must, but I actively object to inserting the awkward "near" qualifier. Look at the past discussions which resulted in the text being removed, not the insertion of an awkward qualifier. -- 109.76.133.188 (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
User:Barte and User:Shoestringnomad say "universal" is inaccurate, so I went ahead and removed it. That's where we are most likely to end up with this discussion anyway based on past experiences. -- 109.76.133.188 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. More perspectives welcomed. Shoestringnomad (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: User:Shoestringnomad made a further delete[7] also removing the words "critical acclaim" saying that language was contested, but to be clear that delete is unnecessary in my opinion and those two words are not contested by me. I contest only the recent addition of the qualifier word "near" and while I understand (but disagree with) the objection raised by User:Barte to the word "universal", it is simply a summary/paraphrase of what the reliable sources already say. -- 109.76.133.188 (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had already reverted my edit by the time you posted here about it. K, thanks again. Shoestringnomad (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given that we're relying on Metacritic as our main source, it feels appropriate to keep the wording as it is there. Finding a few negative reviews and changing it to "near universal" feels perhaps to stray close to
WP:OR. I would be happy with an attribution in the vein of "According to Metacritic..." DeputyBeagle (talk) 01:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Explicitly attributing "universal acclaim" to Metacritic works for me. Or if "near universal acclaim" offends, I think we can all agree that the film received "critical acclaim", plain and simple. But claiming "universal acclaim" without any context fails at the most basic task of a lede: accurately summarizing the article. If there's some MOS guidance that carves out an exception, I'd like to see it.
WP:AGG, an essay discussing review aggregators, gives this example for using Metacritic's metascore description to illustrate critical response: "At Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average rating, the film has received an average score of 49 out of 100, based on 37 critics, indicating 'mixed or average reviews.'" That's a lot of context. Barte (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
There have been various past discussions (such as the Harry Potter discussion linked above) but no, these have not bubbled back up to more specific recommendations or changes directly in the
WP:NPOV
often come up, and articles end up with more plain statements like "critical acclaim" as we have now.
lose the superlative entirely than modify it with the qualifier "near". The plain wording we have at present is adequate, and clearer simple language seems more appropriate for an encyclopedia than indirect language, hedging or equivocating with qualifiers. I would keep it as is now if there are no further objections. -- 109.79.172.39 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

If you search through the archives at

WP:PUFFERY. The problem with attributing directly to one of the aggregators, such as Metacritic (MC), is that the average rating may not be taken into account. We know a vast majority were positive, but without an average rating (which MC neglects to provide), we don't know the extent of how positive the reviews were. For example, let's say that a review assessed by MC is counted positive if 70% of the review was positive. Now imagine a scenario where 100% of the positive reviews are all barely hitting this threshold of 70%. Does that mean it was truly critically acclaimed? No, it doesn't. In that imaginary scenario, it would mean that every review leaned positive, but there was plenty they didn't like about the film; the average rating would only be 70%.

I'm not saying that's the case here, as 8.3/10 on Rotten Tomatoes is pretty strong, but the point is that it becomes subjective, which is why some editors view this as PUFFERY (especially when placed in the lead). It would be best to find a non-aggregator source (i.e., NYT, LAT, etc.) that goes out of their way to label "critical acclaim" among critics. Then we can attribute the language properly to that source. Otherwise, stick with simple language like "positively received" or "well received". My 2¢ anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

@GoneIn60: I think your 2¢ is spot on. Barte (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMCAST
lowercase

Editors changed the name of "iris menas" in the cast to use lowercase, as this person has said they prefer not to use uppercase in their name[8] (author bell hooks does this too).

WP:FILMCAST
says "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source."

I checked the actual credits in the film. The end credits refer to the actor as "IRIS MENAS" in all caps, same as everyone else (twice, in the first bit of end credits, and in the full list of Cast aka the "tombstone" credits). I do not want to assume but I would guess that editors are deliberately choosing not to follow the credits and writing the name as all lowercase on the basis of

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to DELIBERATELY USE LOWERCASE. (A few "Agree" statements should be enough to confirm what already seems to be the defacto consensus.) -- 109.79.177.125 (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment – I think
WP:BLPPRIVACY which suggests following reliable sources. When I searched, seems like a mixture of capitalization and lowercase getting published, although Mashable and Variety are two big names that have published iris menas in lowercase. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:NAMECHANGES seems to be the most applicable guideline (found it when looking into discussions related to Thandiwe Newton), though it relates to article titles. I agree with GoneIn60 that it seems like there is a mix of different writings of their name (Slate is another one that specifically mentions lowercase), though I doubt the sources capitalizing the name are willfully overriding the person's preference. This seems like a gray area where reliable sources are not clearly weighed in favor of using lowercase, and the person's relative lack of notability limits detailed coverage. I can see a pedantic argument for capitalization based on that incidentally-occurring weight, but to me, it seems easy to go with the preference since as list of people with lower case names and pseudonyms shows, numerous others have preferred lowercase. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:19, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment So basically, per
WP:FILMCAST we should be using either an all-caps listing or a commonname/changedname listing. I prefer the latter.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:FILMCAST does not specific ALL CAPS but does leave open an exception to how precisely/consistently cast are credited, and I wanted editors to make it clear that they do actually want to make that exception here and firmly settle any doubts. This is a relatively simple and frankly trivial case, not an Orwellian attempts to rewrite the past, so I was hoping editors would be able to decide to give a clear direct answer. Those three comments look like very weak statements of agreement, that should be enough to settle the matter I suppose. -- 109.79.177.125 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"West Side Story (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect West Side Story (upcoming film) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#West Side Story (upcoming film) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:West_Side_Story_(2021_film)&oldid=1209716050"