Talk:West Side Story (2021 film): Difference between revisions

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: American C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. New York City C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Puerto Rico C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Romance C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Shakespeare C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Criticism section is overwritten. See WP:UNDUE. The point can be made far more concisely: "Some members of the Puerto Rican and latinx communities objected....". The section should be boiled down to an efficient paragraph. I think the critical reception section is also too long, but not as radically. BTW, the Ansel Elgort controversy should also be included, but briefly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ssilvers The Elgort thing should not be included. People having issues with casting because of things unrelated to the film is of undue weight. As far as the rest, I agree it's excessive. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the length of the criticism section, proportional to the article itself. Yes it could be shorter, but I think the specifics are worth pondering and fit within a broader pattern of critique for all kinds of artistic works. Barte (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-read this as of Dec. 15, 2021. The first half of the Criticism section is still repetitive and quotes writers who had not seen the film before they criticized it. So the first half of the section violates WP:UNDUE, or at least WP:BALASP and should be streamlined. The last half is more focused on the actual film, but it also could be tightened up without losing the essence of the quotes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to see a remake to question whether the earlier film should have been remade. And that, seems to me, is the crux of the section: not the quality of the work but the decision to make it in the first place. That said, the section continues to expand, while some of the critical praise it received was lopped off. I'd prefer to cover the controversy by restoring some or all of the latter. We're not cramped for space. Barte (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of amazing that the article is so long, with a massive "accolades" section, for a film that has only been out a few weeks and is already a bust and box office catastrophe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaino44 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was there similar outrage from Polish Americans for changing the ethnic composition of The Jets from a Polish gang to a generic white gang? ThreeRocks (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're called Polacks in the film, so, in short, no. Shoestringnomad (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to flip the "Ceremony" and "Year" columns on the Accolades chart? That way, the horizontal lines bridging the "Ceremony" and "Category" columns would be continuous. Barte (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Barte: Film accolades are not supposed to sort by year. I have made changes. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think that fixes the problem. Barte (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 cite a reliable source that discusses it. DonQuixote (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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]

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]

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 status quo did not include it. I welcome 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:MOSFILM guidelines. Instead these kinds of discussions consistently emphasize the importance of using the sources and avoiding our own interpretations, pointing back to the higher level principle of WP:Reliable sources. At this point people might try to find articles that did a review round-up or overview and see what words those sources used, and maybe find a suitable alternative wording there. Questions of WP:PUFF and WP:NPOV often come up, and articles end up with more plain statements like "critical acclaim" as we have now.

WP:AGG is all about the wording in the critical response section, not about how to briefly summarize that in the lead WP:FILMLEAD. (Editors frequently argue about how to summarize in the lead when there seems to be a disparity between the two major aggregators but there is no disparity in this case and both are highly positive indicating "critical acclaim" and we all seem to agree on that much at least.) Many film articles simply quote or paraphrase Metacritic in the lead, which is how we ended up with the paraphrase ~universal critical acclaim~ in this article. That was accurate enough for me and I would have left it as it was, but I'd sooner 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 WT:FILM, you will find a wide range of opinion on the use of "critical acclaim" or "universal acclaim", with many objecting on the basis that these phrases are a form of 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]

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:COMMONNAME and that there is a local consensus behind this approach. A few editors have sporadically made good faith edits to "fix" the capitalization and the article now includes footnotes to make it clear that the formatting is intentional. I would just like to a few editors to comment and make it clear for the record that there is actively 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 bell hooks is a good example we can look at. We should keep in mind that WP:COMMONNAME applies to article subject titles, not content within an article. However, I don't see any specific guidance at WP:BLP either, except for maybe 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 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 that should be enough to settle the matter I suppose. -- 109.79.177.125 (talk) 23:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]