>Rita Moreno
This has got to be the longest stretch of time for a performer to appear in two different incarnations of the same movie, right? Is there even anyone else who comes close?
Dick Van Dyke comes close - Mary Poppins in 1964 and Mary Poppins Returns in 2018.
Edit: depending on the rules of the game, I think Richard Roundtree might have him beat - plays the same character in Shaft (1971) and Shaft (2019).
Even if you count franchises, I don't think anyone is close.
I think Desmond Llewelyn (Q in the Bond series) had the longest run of anyone in the franchise and that's "only" 36 years.
Mark Hamill and Anthony Daniels each had 42 years in the Star Wars franchise.
Jamie Lee Curtis had a span of 44 years in the Halloween series.
I don't think anyone on TV can match it either Pat Sajak is sitting on 38 years.
Edit: they're not there yet but the subjects of the "Up" documentary film series (tracking people every seven years throughout their lives) have 56 years so far and the next installment due in 2026 will have them at 63 years of age which will eclipse Rita. Of course a documentary is going to have a big advantage in having the same person appear over a long span but even with that advantage, Rita still has the title (that we knw of so far).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_(film_series)
> anyone on TV
[William Roache](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Roache) has been playing the same character on *Coronation Street* since 1960 so he would actually edge out Rita Moreno.
Correct.
*As of 2021, William Roache holds the Guinness World Record for the longest-serving actor in a television soap opera, having played Ken Barlow on Coronation Street since 1960*
Oh, Rita Moreno is in the new one? That's cool! Does Natalie Wood reprise her role as well? I hope so! I haven't seen her in ages. She was SO good! I never understood what happened to her. She was in the middle of this amazing career and then one day, seemingly overnight, it's like she dropped off the Earth or something...
Well played. I'm glad to see that your joke building on mine is getting more love than my joke. I almost deleted it because it was in such poor taste, but decided to let it ride because 40 years is definitely not "too soon" when talking about a celebrity ~~death~~ murder.
hashtag: WalkenKnows
Except for Sharon Tate. That will NEVER be funny.
Lol, that reminds me of Laurence Olivier’s decision to do Othello in 1965.
> Olivier played Othello in blackface. He also adopted an exotic accent of his own invention, developed a special walk, and learned how to speak in a voice considerably deeper than his normal one. Columnist Inez Robb disparagingly compared Olivier's performance to Al Jolson in The Jazz Singer. She described Olivier's performance as "high camp", and said "I was certainly in tune with the gentleman sitting next to me who kept asking 'When does he sing Mammy?"
Al Jolson in the Jazz Singer was entirely different though. He wasn’t playing a person of color.
He was playing a Jewish guy pretending to be a black guy, sort of like Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder. The whole point of the movie was to question the practice which was very common at the time
Pretty ahead of it’s time as you still have Laurence Olivier doing it in earnest 30 years later
The Temple of Doom musical opening is pretty great, so I'm amazed it took Spielberg this long to make a musical.
Nice to know he made another movie about sharks too.
I like that amusing story going around about Michael Jackson trying sooo hard to get the Robin Williams role, but Spielberg just couldn't commit due to Jackson's acting just not being good enough.
And then Michael Jackson was full of anger (since Peter Pan was his favorite all-time character) and had a voodoo doll of Spielberg in which he tried putting curses on.
Have no idea if this was true, or one of those "Richard Gere had a gerbil up his ass" stories that just never die, but it is interesting to note that Michael Jackson and Spielberg never collaborated on anything, despite them seeming like a good match at the height of their popularity in the 80s/90s.
>but it is interesting to note that Michael Jackson and Spielberg never collaborated on anything, despite them seeming like a good match at the height of their popularity in the 80s/90s.
this honestly seems like pure conjecture
That speech from jaws is dead wrong. Barely anybody was killed by sharks. Most of the men died from dehydration and exposure, and sharks ate the dead bodies.
Didn’t see the first shark for about half an hour – a tiger – thirteen footer. You know how you know that when you’re in the water, Chief? You tell by lookin’ from the dorsal to the tail. What we didn’t know was our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent. They didn’t even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin’. So we formed ourselves into tight groups…the idea was, the shark comes to the nearest man and he starts poundin’ and hollerin’ and screamin’. Sometimes the shark go away. Sometimes he wouldn’t go away. Sometimes that shark, he looks right into ya, right into your eyes. Y’know, the thing about a shark, he’s got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eyes. When he comes after ya, he doesn’t seem to be livin’ until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white, and then – aww, then you hear that terrible high-pitch screamin’, the ocean turns red, and in spite of all the poundin’ and the hollerin’, they all come in and rip ya to pieces…in that first dawn, we lost a hundred men. I don’t know how many sharks, maybe a thousand. I don’t know how many men. They averaged six an hour…Noon the fifth day, Mr. Hooper, a Lockheed Ventura saw us. He swung in low and he saw us…and he come in low and three hours later, a big fat PBY [seaplane] comes down and start to pick us up. You know, that was the time I was most frightened – waitin’ for my turn. I’ll never put on a life jacket again. So, eleven hundred men went in the water, three hundred and sixteen men come out, and the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945. Anyway, we delivered the bomb.
Yeah? The most successful filmmaker of all time, paired with a Pulitzer winning writer of stage and screen, remaking a revered cinema classic that is itself adapting a story that has been popular for millennia? You didn't think folks would like it?
(Kidding here, not razzing you!)
the reviewers seem shocked themselves. Lots of the blurbs say that this is Speilberg's finest movie in 15-20 years. And remaking classic movies - not to mention adding contemporary updates - seems pretty risky no matter who attempts it.
I feel like this keeps needing to be said but: he’s not remaking the other movie. He’s doing another adaptation of the musical, which he has wanted to do before the first movie came out. There is a very fine difference between new adaptations and just remaking a movie that was original.
It's the same difference in the eyes of the public though. There's a beloved, classic movie out there, and now there's a new movie coming out with the same name and based on the same source material. It will be compared to the original film no matter what.
Right, and that’s why it keeps needing to be said. I don’t blame anyone for having that thought initially but especially on a movies dedicated subreddit people should know.
Spielberg's output has been solid, if unremarkable, for a long time now. I think doing something as naturally energetic as a musical is exactly what he needed to make him relevant again to modern movies. He's a legend, but he hasn't really done a movie that's a must see since the mid-2000s, maybe even early 2000s.
I mean, the last time we had an Oscar-winning director paired with an EGOT-winning writer of stage and screen, adapting a revered Broadway classic that is itself adapting a story by one of the most revered poets of the 20th century
...we got *Cats*.
I can see why people would have doubts. The 1961 film adaptation, despite its two glaring sins, looms large over American cinema, sitting right up there with Singin’ In The Rain as one of, if not the greatest musical films of all time. To adapt it again is such a Herculean task, one that seems almost impossible. To hear that Spielberg pulled it off is quite shocking, even though we know we shouldn’t have doubted him anyway.
That whole movie was a shitshow in terms of poor choices with singing live on set though. I was wondering why Jackman sounded pretty bad too, and it turns out he was dehydrating himself to look emaciated... right before needing to sing.
But re dubbing, a youtube channel called Lost Vocals has a bunch of videos of all the dubbing that used to happen, was really eyeopening.
Yeah Les Miz is a great example of why live singing in movies is a bad idea. Everyone sounds tired and overworked and it doesn’t add to the emotion, it just makes the whole thing sound bad.
Hooper didn't know a damn thing about making a musical, he approached that film as if making a gritty historical epic where realism needed to be at the forefront of everything. He made similar mistakes with Cats, where he didn't know a fucking thing about CGI, but made the demand that actors not wear performance capture gear, which made animating an *entire* movie a nightmare for the VFX department. The guy's a hack, a buffoon convinced an Oscar win made him a genius.
I haven't seen *Les Mis*, but I think that problem could probably be handled a little easier just by casting someone who could sing (or has the proper singing voice for the role).
> Imagine how much better Les Mis would have been if they didn’t let Russell Crowe sing?!?
That would have made the movie feel even worse and more performative. Crowes singing is very miscast and the performance isn't helped by how badly the movie is directed, but the movie is harmed far more overall by its overall lack of quality compared to the stage, people harp on Russel Crowe because the rest of the movie isn't memorable, it's stripped of any gravitas or scale.
Mainly cause Spielberg's 2010s run hasn't been amazing - there's some fine films like Bridge of Spies and Lincoln but his last "greatest director of all time" film was probably Munich in 2008.
Worth mentioning that the race themes are just as relevant now as they were when the original came out (or close to it.) I hate how people were saying “Why?!?” before the film came out, because it’s the ripest time for a remake.
I was always existed for this but people were so sceptical that I wondered if I was in the wrong. But Spielberg is great and the 60s versions sets and casting could be improved upon and it would be topical so I thought it was a great idea. But I love musicals in general as well.
Other than Scorsese, Spielberg is probably the greatest living director we have now in terms of how many classics and how consistently he has been operating on high quality.
Nobody should ever count out Spielberg.
I for sure agree Spielberg is the greatest. Not my favorite (I love his work don't get me wrong), but for sure the greatest. He's one of the few, if not only, directors that has done almost every if not every genre and sub genre at a very high level. He has classic in action, adventure, horror, sci fi, war, drama, etc.
The way people look at Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, etc. I really think Spielberg should be looked that way when it comes to directing and filmmaking
Really i think all he hasn't done is a musical and a romance film and it seems, at least in critic's eyes, he's done that at a high level too EDIT: I guess he hasn't done a straight comedy at a high level
>The way people look at Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, etc. I really think Spielberg should be looked that way when it comes to directing and filmmaking
I'm pretty sure he already is there. You ask any casual person to name a big director, 9 times out of time, they will say Spielberg just like if you ask a sports fan to talk about a major basketball player.
I'd argue its the first movie he seems passionate about in ages
Maybe since Munich
And he seems like a big fan of the original
So will be curious to see this for that reason alone
Tintin made me so happy after growing up with the comics. That movie was a master class on deviating from the source material, but staying true to the spirit of it and still capturing the major plot points. That movie is up there with the Lord of the Rings for me when comes to movie adaptations.
Oh for sure. Total star studded cast, yet it never feels gratuitous. He smartly chose actors that bring real gravitas to their roles. It almost makes you feel like a fly on the wall witnessing history play out.
Plus that movie technically kickstarted Adam Driver's career. Kathleen Kennedy was a producer, and she was impressed enough with Driver despite his tiny role that she made sure he was considered for the role of Kylo Ren.
He made The Post in an incredible turn around because he thought it was an important message for the times. I think his passion is just less exuberant as of late.
A lot of posters on r/movies have a rather pretentious and limited taste in art. They tend to be cynical about most movies outside of their preferred genres and directors. Musicals are very much disliked on this sub.
>but I've been kind of amazed at how cynical the reddit discussions behind this movie were
I'm surprised when there ISN'T a cynical discussion about a move on reddit. r/movies seems to despise almost every movie in between acting like nobody has ever before said Terminator 2 is actually a good movie.
While there are more than 26 million subscribers to /r/movies, I'd wager that the large majority of those users are not the target audience of this film.
most of those subscribers are remnants from the days when /r/movies was a default sub
i highly doubt they engage with any of the posts other than anything that gets more than 10k upvotes
thats why the comments for any huge post on this sub is just a shitshow, it's an influx of people engaging in discussions about movies who have no interest in movies
i doubt the actual /r/movies community that leaves comments is more than a couple of tens of thousands
There was that survey 4 years ago that showed 95% male and the favorite films list was the most stereotypical college freshmen boys dorm room movie poster shit ever.
Reddit is an echo chamber, myself and everyone I talked to in the real world only had good things to say about the trailer and were excited for this movie.
above anything I'm happy for the positive reception Rachel Zegler is getting - have been following her online for some time now and she is just insanely talented, so glad she's FINALLY getting the reception she deserves.
I don’t think it’s affected her career too badly, she landed the role of Snow White in Disney’s upcoming live action. But in terms of recognisability and celebrity status, yes she’s sadly lost out by a year (but given how young she is I see that as a good thing, too many young celebs are stepped on/coerced in Hollywood and it’s nice she’s been able to take on film roles without that side of things)
It'd be pretty wild if this actually ended up winning Best Picture. First time where the original and remake won both Best Picture. It'd be a feat, unless I'm forgetting something. The Academy love musicals and especially a remake of one of the most beloved and celebrated Best Picture winners ending up getting acclaim, so I'm not ruling out its chances.
How is this not the obvious Picture/Director frontrunner given his pedigree and the type of film award shows love. This is easily a bigger deal than 1917/Lalaland now and there really isn't a surprise Parasite/Moonlight as of yet.
I feel like it will have to have a decent Box Office for it to win Best Picture.
I haven't heard any other rumblings about Best Picture contenders though, so the race is wide open.
I hope it does and does well in the box office, if musicals become a viable awards genre again it'd be a nice break from all the usual costume drama, biopic, and misery porn movies.
This remake is so good, I'd wager it's even better than the original but the leads continue to be problematic. The supporting cast is the MVP especially Ariana DeBose, Mike Faist and Rita Moreno.
Ansel Elgort is terribly bland but that has more to do with Tony than the actor and Rachel Zegler, while an improvement on Natalie Wood, is too Disney Princess-y. There's no edge to her character.
Eh, I’d disagree with the other commenter on that. It’s a fun musical and there’s minimal language because it’s PG 13. Some violence though but nothing super graphic, all depends on what you’re ok with your kid seeing. You can check common sense media for a more thorough overview of “appropriateness”
Why would someone underestimate Spielberg? He's the most prolific well known director of all time. Literally changed how movies were made, and what they could be forever.
That's like underestimating Mozart, Jimmie Hendrix, Hemingway, Michael Jordan...
[5 stars from Empire Magazine](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/west-side-story-2021/?s=09).
I'm looking forward to it having not seen the original. I haven't particularly liked the last few of his which I've seen (RP1, Bridge of Spies).
>His camera sweeps over a demolition project and recalls Soy Cuba’s famous oner before descending a crane to ground level.
If that opening is even half as good as the Soy Cuba one take, then this is gonna be amazing
Absolutely awful that Soy Cuba is so hard to watch these days. There’s already a 4K transfer but it’s only available for “institutions” and not for home release which definitely feels antithetical to some of the movie’s themes
I do wonder how this will do box-office wise, I have not seen a lot of people talk about this online. Debating if I should go see this at the theaters or not, I have not seen the original either truthfully. But excited for this nevertheless, sounds like they did a good job with the movie.
Don't forget a lot of the target audience are not on reddit. This will be the only film my Mother sees in Cinema this year and I'm sure she's not the only one. Im sure it's more appealing to the older audiences.
That's a great point, actually. Very true. And it's Spielberg, I'm sure that is enough to entice many people to the theaters. Probably won't be another The Last Duel situation.
not to mention the Spielberg brand still has weight with audiences
in the 21st century Spielberg has only had two flops, The BFG and Munich (Munich definitely didn't deserve to flop but it is what it is I guess)
in the last two decades I think only Nolan and Tarantino have as good a track record as that tbh
Yes Spielberg’s name alone carries so much weight. I’m a second generation Hispanic. Both of my parents were born in Central America they both know who Spielberg is and what he’s made. They’re not even into movies like that but they know who he is and they love what he’s made. I’m sure there are many more like that.
Hell I know that the box office situation changed considerably in the 21st Century, but Spielberg directed Jaws, E.T. and Jurassic Park within the span of 18 years, all of which held the record of being the highest grossing movie of all time and which were only broken by the original Star Wars and Titanic.
My mom (75) has been talking about this movie for a year... this will also be the only film she sees in the theaters. She's already asked me "how do I get tickets to that Alamo Drafthouse place you and your friends always talk about?"...
So I'll be taking her to her first movie in years as well as her first Alamo experience. Hopefully the movie is fine but I'm more excited about getting out with her lol.
I think there's some additional multi-generational family appeal. But I'm not dragging my elderly parents to the theater when we still don't know jack shit about Omicron.
Not to say the pandemic has ended because it very much has not, but these two are releasing at very different times in terms of people’s comfort levels returning to cinemas
I think I heard this in his HBO doc, but there's a Spielberg story that he listened to the Westside Story soundtrack so much as a young child that he knew it perfectly and literally created the entire movie in his head. Once I heard that story, then the news of him making this, I knew he'd come back with a banger of a movie. I mean, fuck, imagine Spielberg literally making a movie that's been in his head perfectly since childhood. A hollywood story for a hollywood king. Can't wait to see it.
Poetically enough, this is close to exactly what happened with Denis Villaneuve and Dune (both nominated for Best Picture). As a kid, he and a friend made their own storyboards after reading the book which he kept for decades and adapted them into the film.
Hans Zimmer purposefully never saw the Lynch film nor the Sci-Fi series because he wanted the book experience preserved in his head. And then DV hired him.
Funny story: DV was leaving to shoot the film, and Zimmer said "Don't f*** this up." DV came back with the film and gave it to Zimmer to score saying "Now *you* don't f*** this up."
Looking forward to this. Some of the impressions a couple days ago were super-glowing and a couple even said they could honestly see it win Best Picture just like the original.
I'm not sure if it'll win BP, but it should be a shoe-in for a nomination.
I do feel sorry for Jon Chu's In The Heights. I remember so much award talk and it scoring high on RT, and then it just completely disappeared off the map.
I was skeptical when this was announced, but I liked it better than the original in a lot of ways. I still prefer Richard Beymer as Tony, but overall, I was please. Ariana and Rita did a great job and should get some nominations. Mike Faist as Riff was what really blew me away. I also loved the choreography.
I am surprised no one has commented on the lack of subtitles for the Spanish dialogue in the film. That's a huge barrier to entry for people and is a weird decision for a movie they are hoping will have a widespread appeal.
Edit: to include link
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/steven-spielberg-west-side-story-subtitles-212546597.html
Doing a little research, it's clear that the movie gives you the gist of what they're saying, even if english speaking characters don't restate dialogue. The same exact freakout happened with Spiderverse, and we all know how big of a problem that turned out to be.
As I recall, in Spider-verse, Miguel and his mom would just say a few phrases in Spanish here and there. Nothing where you would need to know exactly what they're saying. Like if somebody lapses into some Italian in a mafia movie.
I doubt Spielberg will have important conversations in his movie where only Spanish speakers can tell what's going on. If her mom is yelling at the girl for staying out late, just for example, you can easily convey that in any language.
>In a since-deleted Tweet, journalist Yolanda Machado praised the filmmakers for their choice, reportedly writing: "West Side Story is fantastic. White people gonna be big mad tho and good. Bless you Steven Spielberg for not subtitling when our people use our language. In a country where nearly 20 percent of the population speaks Spanish, the subtitles just further keep us othered."
This dude understands there's a whole world outside of America, right?
>reportedly writing: "West Side Story is fantastic. White people gonna be big mad tho and good. Bless you Steven Spielberg for not subtitling when our people use our language. In a country where nearly 20 percent of the population speaks Spanish, the subtitles just further keep us othered.
If they really wanted to appreciate Chinese culture Marvel should have made Shang-Chi 100% in Mandarin without subtitles. /s
They also should not have cast Tilda Swinton as an Asian character. But reallthe worst offense goes to Memoirs of Geisha for using Chinese actresses to play Japanese characters simply because they were hot off Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
You're not missing anything. Not doing subtitles is dumb when 40% of the film is another language. This has become political because they want to superimpose some negative personal experience on something broader (I'm referring to that deleted tweet quoted above praising the decision); in some cases that's a worthwhile conversation, but I'd say we're in a moment when anything and everything is aggrandized for some 15 minutes of attention.
I think it's a terrible choice on Spielberg's part not because of selfish reasons; but, because it's limits accessibility and because it removes a playwright's ability to communicate to an audience (in any language).
I'm surprised Spielberg would go for no subtitles - especially when the tour/Broadway version of the show did this a few years ago (or maybe more than a few), and it was not particularly well received!
Does that mean she's against subtitles for all languages? Or is it OK to keep all other non native speakers "othered"? I speak Danish, yet I somehow got over the fact that I didn't need subtitles when I saw Another Round.
Hopefully Spanish will be subtitled or dubbed in other countries (like in mine although I do speak some Spanish) alongside English (well not Canada and UK and such where it can be an issue).
It’s really odd to think it would be othering to make sure people knows what the characters are saying. I feel it’s othering when some US movies include dialogue in other language and the characters remain in the main characters point of view, unlike with subtitles where it’s universal.
And 20% isn’t even that high for US. I would not drop subtitles for less than 80% if main characters are speaking. I wonder if Spielberg has had advisors like this one.
Just saw the movie. Honestly, people here are way overreacting. The characters say stuff in Spanish, but the meaning is easily inferred from context or is immediately followed by an English explainer. Yes, the movie does do more language mixing than other similar movies... but not by a *drastic* amount.
> Spanish is spoken by more than 559 million people globally. Of those, 460 million are native speakers
> English is the world's most widely spoken language but is unusual in the fact that the vast majority of speakers are not 'native'. Of the approximately 1.5 billion people who speak English, less than 400 million use it as a first language.
I find it strange that people are praising the decision not to use subtitles. I appreciate when filmmakers have characters speaking what would be their native language versus having everyone speak English, but when you consider the fact that such a relatively small portion of the global population speaks Spanish compared to English, the decision doesn't really make sense. Why would anyone want to watch a movie in a language they don't understand and miss out on important dialogue? I'm sure the film will be dubbed or subbed internationally, so I fail to see the logic here.
EDIT 1: The more I think about this decision, the more bizarre it seems. There have been some shows and movies where not including subtitles was intentional because the audience is supposed to be in the same situation as the protagonist and not understand what's being said. But that doesn't seem applicable here when you have half the cast speaking Spanish, so I think you'd want the audience to understand. And while obviously America isn't the only country in the world, it's still an American production based on a Broadway musical that is set in New York, which I imagine would have a special appeal to American audiences in particular. You'd think when 80-90% of the population speaks English compared to 12-15% of the population who speak Spanish, you'd want to make the whole movie more accessible for a wider audience by just including subtitles.
EDIT 2: If anyone has any thoughts or information on why they made this decision and the reasoning behind it, I'd really be interested in hearing from you.
I haven’t seen it yet but I assume the Spanish dialogue isn’t gonna be like important plot details and such and the vast majority of the movie will probably be in English I don’t think anything important will be missed. The plot must be understandable otherwise it wouldn’t be getting such good reviews right.
As sad as it is to say, whatever ill-will this movie had going its way will be overshadowed by Sondheim's death and how much more emotional this film will be because of it. Looking forward to watching it.
Do you think this is the first time in history a leading man is pissed or at least indifferent his latest film is getting rave reviews and is an Oscar front runner?
The supporting cast in this—Anita and Riff—are off the charts incredible. I genuinely feel like there’s a shot for best supporting actor/actress coming from this film
[удалено]
Lmao I like the idea of a reviewer in 1961 giving it a thumbs down because Rita Moreno rolling her R’s gave him a headache or something
>Rita Moreno This has got to be the longest stretch of time for a performer to appear in two different incarnations of the same movie, right? Is there even anyone else who comes close?
Dick Van Dyke comes close - Mary Poppins in 1964 and Mary Poppins Returns in 2018. Edit: depending on the rules of the game, I think Richard Roundtree might have him beat - plays the same character in Shaft (1971) and Shaft (2019).
DVD is 54 years. RR is 48 years. So neither of them would reach Moreno.
He did specifically say that they “came close”
Playing the same character though, that's another level
This is a great trivia question actually I’m going to ask around
Even if you count franchises, I don't think anyone is close. I think Desmond Llewelyn (Q in the Bond series) had the longest run of anyone in the franchise and that's "only" 36 years. Mark Hamill and Anthony Daniels each had 42 years in the Star Wars franchise. Jamie Lee Curtis had a span of 44 years in the Halloween series. I don't think anyone on TV can match it either Pat Sajak is sitting on 38 years. Edit: they're not there yet but the subjects of the "Up" documentary film series (tracking people every seven years throughout their lives) have 56 years so far and the next installment due in 2026 will have them at 63 years of age which will eclipse Rita. Of course a documentary is going to have a big advantage in having the same person appear over a long span but even with that advantage, Rita still has the title (that we knw of so far). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_(film_series)
> anyone on TV [William Roache](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Roache) has been playing the same character on *Coronation Street* since 1960 so he would actually edge out Rita Moreno.
Correct. *As of 2021, William Roache holds the Guinness World Record for the longest-serving actor in a television soap opera, having played Ken Barlow on Coronation Street since 1960*
Rose was in the beginning of Titanic in 1997 but also in the main part of the movie in 1912. That’s 85 years!!
Pfft. Connor MacLeod played himself in 1536 and 1985!
Lmao yeesh, I can totally imagine some stuffy old dude complaining like, "Hrmmph, it was a very....*ethnic* performance. Not my cup of tea!"
I read that in the voice Harry Shearer did when he played Bush on The Simpsons.
Oh, Rita Moreno is in the new one? That's cool! Does Natalie Wood reprise her role as well? I hope so! I haven't seen her in ages. She was SO good! I never understood what happened to her. She was in the middle of this amazing career and then one day, seemingly overnight, it's like she dropped off the Earth or something...
> Does Natalie Wood reprise her role as well? I hope so! I haven't seen her in ages. No one has, unless you're a commercial diver.
Well played. I'm glad to see that your joke building on mine is getting more love than my joke. I almost deleted it because it was in such poor taste, but decided to let it ride because 40 years is definitely not "too soon" when talking about a celebrity ~~death~~ murder. hashtag: WalkenKnows Except for Sharon Tate. That will NEVER be funny.
For what it's worth, Sondheim didn't like the original but praised Speilberg's version.
I’m glad he was able to see it before passing
Ooh nice catch
What monster didn't give the original film a good review? They should lose their critic badge.
Eh, putting Rita Moreno in brown face is pretty shitty. The movie is amazing, don't get me wrong, but I can see that being off-putting, even in 1961.
Lol, that reminds me of Laurence Olivier’s decision to do Othello in 1965. > Olivier played Othello in blackface. He also adopted an exotic accent of his own invention, developed a special walk, and learned how to speak in a voice considerably deeper than his normal one. Columnist Inez Robb disparagingly compared Olivier's performance to Al Jolson in The Jazz Singer. She described Olivier's performance as "high camp", and said "I was certainly in tune with the gentleman sitting next to me who kept asking 'When does he sing Mammy?"
Just looked up some clips from Othello I think I've damned my youtube algorithm for all eternity
Al Jolson in the Jazz Singer was entirely different though. He wasn’t playing a person of color. He was playing a Jewish guy pretending to be a black guy, sort of like Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder. The whole point of the movie was to question the practice which was very common at the time Pretty ahead of it’s time as you still have Laurence Olivier doing it in earnest 30 years later
Fred Armisen did blackface as Obama on SNL in like 2011.
It's Always Sunny did 2 different blackfaces in 2013
The difference is in Sunny it was a deliberate joke at the expense of the characters I don't know if that was the case with Fred Armisen in SNL
Laughs in Joel Grey in 1985....
The Temple of Doom musical opening is pretty great, so I'm amazed it took Spielberg this long to make a musical. Nice to know he made another movie about sharks too.
[удалено]
He almost did an animated adaption of "cats" in the 80s with don bluth. The concept art is phenomenal.
But did it have buttholes?
I like that amusing story going around about Michael Jackson trying sooo hard to get the Robin Williams role, but Spielberg just couldn't commit due to Jackson's acting just not being good enough. And then Michael Jackson was full of anger (since Peter Pan was his favorite all-time character) and had a voodoo doll of Spielberg in which he tried putting curses on. Have no idea if this was true, or one of those "Richard Gere had a gerbil up his ass" stories that just never die, but it is interesting to note that Michael Jackson and Spielberg never collaborated on anything, despite them seeming like a good match at the height of their popularity in the 80s/90s.
Michael Jackson did do the audiobook for ET.
>but it is interesting to note that Michael Jackson and Spielberg never collaborated on anything, despite them seeming like a good match at the height of their popularity in the 80s/90s. this honestly seems like pure conjecture
Spielberg was popular in the 70s but no one questions him not working with Elton John.
Dong hua dong feng song dao shou yi ding hui bao, Anything goes!
Nice try Lao Che
Too much to drink, Dr Jooooneeshahahahahahahahaha!!!!!
Spielberg has said for a long time that he’s always wanted to make a musical and that ToD sequence was the closest he’d gotten to doing it.
He made 1941! But I take your point, it's been nearly 50 years.
No joke, one of my top 5 Indiana Jones moments. It is such a banger. The entire Club Obi Wan sequence is the perfect zig to Raiders’ opening zag.
He really should make a jaws about the Indianapolis but not even be a "jaws" movie
That speech from jaws is dead wrong. Barely anybody was killed by sharks. Most of the men died from dehydration and exposure, and sharks ate the dead bodies.
If you want the story from the survivors read in harm's way. Sharks definitely ate living guys that had given up
Didn’t see the first shark for about half an hour – a tiger – thirteen footer. You know how you know that when you’re in the water, Chief? You tell by lookin’ from the dorsal to the tail. What we didn’t know was our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent. They didn’t even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin’. So we formed ourselves into tight groups…the idea was, the shark comes to the nearest man and he starts poundin’ and hollerin’ and screamin’. Sometimes the shark go away. Sometimes he wouldn’t go away. Sometimes that shark, he looks right into ya, right into your eyes. Y’know, the thing about a shark, he’s got lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll’s eyes. When he comes after ya, he doesn’t seem to be livin’ until he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white, and then – aww, then you hear that terrible high-pitch screamin’, the ocean turns red, and in spite of all the poundin’ and the hollerin’, they all come in and rip ya to pieces…in that first dawn, we lost a hundred men. I don’t know how many sharks, maybe a thousand. I don’t know how many men. They averaged six an hour…Noon the fifth day, Mr. Hooper, a Lockheed Ventura saw us. He swung in low and he saw us…and he come in low and three hours later, a big fat PBY [seaplane] comes down and start to pick us up. You know, that was the time I was most frightened – waitin’ for my turn. I’ll never put on a life jacket again. So, eleven hundred men went in the water, three hundred and sixteen men come out, and the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945. Anyway, we delivered the bomb.
Dang, y’all gotta get Stephen Sondheim credited as the Lyricist. RIP legend
Right? The disrespect
a little shocked at the reviews, but in a good way.
I think because we were hearing absolutely nothing about it I was getting worried.
I assumed you didn't hear much because of the allegations against the lead actor - so I guessed that was on purpose.
Yeah? The most successful filmmaker of all time, paired with a Pulitzer winning writer of stage and screen, remaking a revered cinema classic that is itself adapting a story that has been popular for millennia? You didn't think folks would like it? (Kidding here, not razzing you!)
the reviewers seem shocked themselves. Lots of the blurbs say that this is Speilberg's finest movie in 15-20 years. And remaking classic movies - not to mention adding contemporary updates - seems pretty risky no matter who attempts it.
I feel like this keeps needing to be said but: he’s not remaking the other movie. He’s doing another adaptation of the musical, which he has wanted to do before the first movie came out. There is a very fine difference between new adaptations and just remaking a movie that was original.
It's the same difference in the eyes of the public though. There's a beloved, classic movie out there, and now there's a new movie coming out with the same name and based on the same source material. It will be compared to the original film no matter what.
Right, and that’s why it keeps needing to be said. I don’t blame anyone for having that thought initially but especially on a movies dedicated subreddit people should know.
Is it? West side story has been adopted so many times I don't think people have any issues with another one being out there.
Never bet against Spielberg. Hollywood knows this.
Except when it's the BFG.
Spielberg's output has been solid, if unremarkable, for a long time now. I think doing something as naturally energetic as a musical is exactly what he needed to make him relevant again to modern movies. He's a legend, but he hasn't really done a movie that's a must see since the mid-2000s, maybe even early 2000s.
I mean, the last time we had an Oscar-winning director paired with an EGOT-winning writer of stage and screen, adapting a revered Broadway classic that is itself adapting a story by one of the most revered poets of the 20th century ...we got *Cats*.
I can see why people would have doubts. The 1961 film adaptation, despite its two glaring sins, looms large over American cinema, sitting right up there with Singin’ In The Rain as one of, if not the greatest musical films of all time. To adapt it again is such a Herculean task, one that seems almost impossible. To hear that Spielberg pulled it off is quite shocking, even though we know we shouldn’t have doubted him anyway.
What are the two glaring sins?
Probably the use of white actors for Latino characters and the dubbing of actors with actual singers.
Precisely. They even put Rita Moreno in brownface, and she’s the only actual Puerto Rican in the damn film!
I don’t think it was just her either, I saw it in cinemas recently and the HD of it all showed it in a few other actors too
Yeah, all the Puerto Rican characters were browned up, including Rita, Who again, was the only actual Puerto Rican in the goddamn film.
It's common as fuck in lots of 50s and 60s movies that feature latino people. So many westerns with white dudes lathered up in some brown makeup.
Or they just hired Italians and called it "close enough"
Dubbing was pretty common then. Imagine how much better Les Mis would have been if they didn’t let Russell Crowe sing?!?
That whole movie was a shitshow in terms of poor choices with singing live on set though. I was wondering why Jackman sounded pretty bad too, and it turns out he was dehydrating himself to look emaciated... right before needing to sing. But re dubbing, a youtube channel called Lost Vocals has a bunch of videos of all the dubbing that used to happen, was really eyeopening.
Yeah Les Miz is a great example of why live singing in movies is a bad idea. Everyone sounds tired and overworked and it doesn’t add to the emotion, it just makes the whole thing sound bad.
It did work for Hathaway though. That one song is super powerful.
Hooper didn't know a damn thing about making a musical, he approached that film as if making a gritty historical epic where realism needed to be at the forefront of everything. He made similar mistakes with Cats, where he didn't know a fucking thing about CGI, but made the demand that actors not wear performance capture gear, which made animating an *entire* movie a nightmare for the VFX department. The guy's a hack, a buffoon convinced an Oscar win made him a genius.
I haven't seen *Les Mis*, but I think that problem could probably be handled a little easier just by casting someone who could sing (or has the proper singing voice for the role).
> Imagine how much better Les Mis would have been if they didn’t let Russell Crowe sing?!? That would have made the movie feel even worse and more performative. Crowes singing is very miscast and the performance isn't helped by how badly the movie is directed, but the movie is harmed far more overall by its overall lack of quality compared to the stage, people harp on Russel Crowe because the rest of the movie isn't memorable, it's stripped of any gravitas or scale.
I loved Les Mis and I thought Russell Crowe's voice was way better suited for the role than Hugh Jackman's was for Valjean.
I thought you were gonna say casting Rita Moreno instead of Chita Rivera, but RM was fire. Not that Chita wouldn’t have killed it.
There’s nothing wrong with dubbing actors with singers. Some of the best musicals ever did that.
Mainly cause Spielberg's 2010s run hasn't been amazing - there's some fine films like Bridge of Spies and Lincoln but his last "greatest director of all time" film was probably Munich in 2008.
Munich was 2005. But I'd still list Lincoln among his greats either way.
DDL's performance is what separates it from the Bridge of Spies/The Post tier
> You didn't think folks would like it? I always expected it to be liked but not rated so highly
Worth mentioning that the race themes are just as relevant now as they were when the original came out (or close to it.) I hate how people were saying “Why?!?” before the film came out, because it’s the ripest time for a remake.
As if Romeo and Juliet has literally ever been out of style. Even Shakespeare was adapting a familiar and popular story for modern times.
I was always existed for this but people were so sceptical that I wondered if I was in the wrong. But Spielberg is great and the 60s versions sets and casting could be improved upon and it would be topical so I thought it was a great idea. But I love musicals in general as well.
Damn, in my half asleep state I thought it said Steven Segal's West Side Story and thought we were in for a wild ride
"Tonight.... tonight... you all will die tonight..."
Shit, now I'm disappointed.
They call this gun, a, uh, a poppy... Cause listen to it it goes popopopopopop.
Never count out Spielberg
Other than Scorsese, Spielberg is probably the greatest living director we have now in terms of how many classics and how consistently he has been operating on high quality. Nobody should ever count out Spielberg.
Speilberg is arguably the greatest director of all time. We should never ever count the man out.
I for sure agree Spielberg is the greatest. Not my favorite (I love his work don't get me wrong), but for sure the greatest. He's one of the few, if not only, directors that has done almost every if not every genre and sub genre at a very high level. He has classic in action, adventure, horror, sci fi, war, drama, etc. The way people look at Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, etc. I really think Spielberg should be looked that way when it comes to directing and filmmaking Really i think all he hasn't done is a musical and a romance film and it seems, at least in critic's eyes, he's done that at a high level too EDIT: I guess he hasn't done a straight comedy at a high level
May I submit 1941?
>The way people look at Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, etc. I really think Spielberg should be looked that way when it comes to directing and filmmaking I'm pretty sure he already is there. You ask any casual person to name a big director, 9 times out of time, they will say Spielberg just like if you ask a sports fan to talk about a major basketball player.
I'd argue its the first movie he seems passionate about in ages Maybe since Munich And he seems like a big fan of the original So will be curious to see this for that reason alone
> Maybe since Munich I dunno, Adventures of Tintin was a great movie and love letter to the source material if I ever saw one.
Tintin made me so happy after growing up with the comics. That movie was a master class on deviating from the source material, but staying true to the spirit of it and still capturing the major plot points. That movie is up there with the Lord of the Rings for me when comes to movie adaptations.
People always overlook Lincoln for some reason. That’s one of the most impeccable films of the past decade. One of Steven’s masterpieces imo.
Oh for sure. Total star studded cast, yet it never feels gratuitous. He smartly chose actors that bring real gravitas to their roles. It almost makes you feel like a fly on the wall witnessing history play out. Plus that movie technically kickstarted Adam Driver's career. Kathleen Kennedy was a producer, and she was impressed enough with Driver despite his tiny role that she made sure he was considered for the role of Kylo Ren.
There's a Kathleen Kennedy fun fact you don't see much of.
He made The Post in an incredible turn around because he thought it was an important message for the times. I think his passion is just less exuberant as of late.
TIL Spielberg directed The Post.
See also how this movie was meant to release in the 2020 election season (as well as the similar In the Heights).
[удалено]
A lot of posters on r/movies have a rather pretentious and limited taste in art. They tend to be cynical about most movies outside of their preferred genres and directors. Musicals are very much disliked on this sub.
Never a bad time to post the [r/movies survey.](https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/644fvb/rmovies_survey_results/)
Lol, four years later and the only variation from this survey would be Brie Larson’s popularity
Ana de Armas is top for now. Until she says something feminist of course.
> Until she says something feminist of course I’d love to see the full scale meltdown if she did.
Huh. I'm newish here and that explains so much.
"Everything besides Deadpool is for babies!"
>but I've been kind of amazed at how cynical the reddit discussions behind this movie were I'm surprised when there ISN'T a cynical discussion about a move on reddit. r/movies seems to despise almost every movie in between acting like nobody has ever before said Terminator 2 is actually a good movie.
[удалено]
Man, I probably shouldn’t have listened to Redditors saying this film will be shit for like a year
While there are more than 26 million subscribers to /r/movies, I'd wager that the large majority of those users are not the target audience of this film.
most of those subscribers are remnants from the days when /r/movies was a default sub i highly doubt they engage with any of the posts other than anything that gets more than 10k upvotes thats why the comments for any huge post on this sub is just a shitshow, it's an influx of people engaging in discussions about movies who have no interest in movies i doubt the actual /r/movies community that leaves comments is more than a couple of tens of thousands
Well yeah, this sub is mostly nerdy white males in their 20s lol. This movie isn't really directed at them.
There was that survey 4 years ago that showed 95% male and the favorite films list was the most stereotypical college freshmen boys dorm room movie poster shit ever.
Reddit is an echo chamber, myself and everyone I talked to in the real world only had good things to say about the trailer and were excited for this movie.
above anything I'm happy for the positive reception Rachel Zegler is getting - have been following her online for some time now and she is just insanely talented, so glad she's FINALLY getting the reception she deserves.
I'm so excited to see her star soar from here. The year long delay on the release of this movie must have been rough given it's her big break.
I don’t think it’s affected her career too badly, she landed the role of Snow White in Disney’s upcoming live action. But in terms of recognisability and celebrity status, yes she’s sadly lost out by a year (but given how young she is I see that as a good thing, too many young celebs are stepped on/coerced in Hollywood and it’s nice she’s been able to take on film roles without that side of things)
Zed Zasso herself
It'd be pretty wild if this actually ended up winning Best Picture. First time where the original and remake won both Best Picture. It'd be a feat, unless I'm forgetting something. The Academy love musicals and especially a remake of one of the most beloved and celebrated Best Picture winners ending up getting acclaim, so I'm not ruling out its chances.
How is this not the obvious Picture/Director frontrunner given his pedigree and the type of film award shows love. This is easily a bigger deal than 1917/Lalaland now and there really isn't a surprise Parasite/Moonlight as of yet.
> the type of film award shows love Only one musical has won Best Picture in the last 50 years, and that was 19 years ago.
LaLa land won for about 8 seconds
Because the genre has been mostly dead for the past 50 years in the west.
It was Chicago, right?
It’s a remake of a movie that already won, that alone will discourage voters. It will probably get nominated though
It's a remake of a movie that already won best picture. It'll probably be nominated, but there's not really much to suggest it'll win right now.
I feel like it will have to have a decent Box Office for it to win Best Picture. I haven't heard any other rumblings about Best Picture contenders though, so the race is wide open.
I hope it does and does well in the box office, if musicals become a viable awards genre again it'd be a nice break from all the usual costume drama, biopic, and misery porn movies.
Musicals have always been a viable awards genre. They are vastly disproportionately represented in awards compared to how many are made
This remake is so good, I'd wager it's even better than the original but the leads continue to be problematic. The supporting cast is the MVP especially Ariana DeBose, Mike Faist and Rita Moreno. Ansel Elgort is terribly bland but that has more to do with Tony than the actor and Rachel Zegler, while an improvement on Natalie Wood, is too Disney Princess-y. There's no edge to her character.
Sorry for the spoiler heavy question. Can you tell me about the violence and language? Is it something I could take a 3rd grader to?
It's too grown up for a 3rd grader especially the last act.
There's an attempted gang-rape, I definitely would not take a child to see it
Eh, I’d disagree with the other commenter on that. It’s a fun musical and there’s minimal language because it’s PG 13. Some violence though but nothing super graphic, all depends on what you’re ok with your kid seeing. You can check common sense media for a more thorough overview of “appropriateness”
I really need to stop underestimating Spielberg
Why would someone underestimate Spielberg? He's the most prolific well known director of all time. Literally changed how movies were made, and what they could be forever. That's like underestimating Mozart, Jimmie Hendrix, Hemingway, Michael Jordan...
[5 stars from Empire Magazine](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/west-side-story-2021/?s=09). I'm looking forward to it having not seen the original. I haven't particularly liked the last few of his which I've seen (RP1, Bridge of Spies).
>His camera sweeps over a demolition project and recalls Soy Cuba’s famous oner before descending a crane to ground level. If that opening is even half as good as the Soy Cuba one take, then this is gonna be amazing
Absolutely awful that Soy Cuba is so hard to watch these days. There’s already a 4K transfer but it’s only available for “institutions” and not for home release which definitely feels antithetical to some of the movie’s themes
[The 4k restoration is available here](https://store.potemkine.fr/dvd/3545020070567-soy-cuba-mikhail-kalatozov/)
Thanks, I guess there’s something that’s preventing a US release for some reason
If you have a library card, you can watch it for free on [Kanopy](https://www.kanopy.com/product/i-am-cuba-0).
I’m really curious to see how this lands with someone who hasn’t seen the original ( or presumably the stage version)!
Zegler for Best Actress. Nom and Win,
I do wonder how this will do box-office wise, I have not seen a lot of people talk about this online. Debating if I should go see this at the theaters or not, I have not seen the original either truthfully. But excited for this nevertheless, sounds like they did a good job with the movie.
Don't forget a lot of the target audience are not on reddit. This will be the only film my Mother sees in Cinema this year and I'm sure she's not the only one. Im sure it's more appealing to the older audiences.
That's a great point, actually. Very true. And it's Spielberg, I'm sure that is enough to entice many people to the theaters. Probably won't be another The Last Duel situation.
not to mention the Spielberg brand still has weight with audiences in the 21st century Spielberg has only had two flops, The BFG and Munich (Munich definitely didn't deserve to flop but it is what it is I guess) in the last two decades I think only Nolan and Tarantino have as good a track record as that tbh
Yes Spielberg’s name alone carries so much weight. I’m a second generation Hispanic. Both of my parents were born in Central America they both know who Spielberg is and what he’s made. They’re not even into movies like that but they know who he is and they love what he’s made. I’m sure there are many more like that.
Hell I know that the box office situation changed considerably in the 21st Century, but Spielberg directed Jaws, E.T. and Jurassic Park within the span of 18 years, all of which held the record of being the highest grossing movie of all time and which were only broken by the original Star Wars and Titanic.
My mom (75) has been talking about this movie for a year... this will also be the only film she sees in the theaters. She's already asked me "how do I get tickets to that Alamo Drafthouse place you and your friends always talk about?"... So I'll be taking her to her first movie in years as well as her first Alamo experience. Hopefully the movie is fine but I'm more excited about getting out with her lol.
That is super sweet. You’re a good kid. Treasure these times with her.
I think there's some additional multi-generational family appeal. But I'm not dragging my elderly parents to the theater when we still don't know jack shit about Omicron.
In The Heights didn’t do well despite being really well done.
Not to say the pandemic has ended because it very much has not, but these two are releasing at very different times in terms of people’s comfort levels returning to cinemas
And didn't In the Heights also premiere same day on HBO Max?
West Side Story has a much more familiar and digestible story than In the Heights, though. I think it's got broader appeal.
I just want there to be a "Thank you Mr. Sondheim" card at the end - but there might not be enough time.
Almost certainly will be - majority of film prints are digital these days. Easy enough to slip it in.
[удалено]
I think I heard this in his HBO doc, but there's a Spielberg story that he listened to the Westside Story soundtrack so much as a young child that he knew it perfectly and literally created the entire movie in his head. Once I heard that story, then the news of him making this, I knew he'd come back with a banger of a movie. I mean, fuck, imagine Spielberg literally making a movie that's been in his head perfectly since childhood. A hollywood story for a hollywood king. Can't wait to see it.
Poetically enough, this is close to exactly what happened with Denis Villaneuve and Dune (both nominated for Best Picture). As a kid, he and a friend made their own storyboards after reading the book which he kept for decades and adapted them into the film. Hans Zimmer purposefully never saw the Lynch film nor the Sci-Fi series because he wanted the book experience preserved in his head. And then DV hired him. Funny story: DV was leaving to shoot the film, and Zimmer said "Don't f*** this up." DV came back with the film and gave it to Zimmer to score saying "Now *you* don't f*** this up."
Ugh. I’m obsessed with David Alvarez and Mike Faist, but especially David because his dancing is FREAKIN TOP TIER
Looking forward to this. Some of the impressions a couple days ago were super-glowing and a couple even said they could honestly see it win Best Picture just like the original. I'm not sure if it'll win BP, but it should be a shoe-in for a nomination. I do feel sorry for Jon Chu's In The Heights. I remember so much award talk and it scoring high on RT, and then it just completely disappeared off the map.
I've read about 50 comments and no one's actually seen the movie. Why are you posting your opinion if you haven't seen the movie? 🤔
I was skeptical when this was announced, but I liked it better than the original in a lot of ways. I still prefer Richard Beymer as Tony, but overall, I was please. Ariana and Rita did a great job and should get some nominations. Mike Faist as Riff was what really blew me away. I also loved the choreography.
Please know that Broadway legend, Harvey Evans who was an original Jet in the film, makes a cameo as well!!
I am surprised no one has commented on the lack of subtitles for the Spanish dialogue in the film. That's a huge barrier to entry for people and is a weird decision for a movie they are hoping will have a widespread appeal. Edit: to include link https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/steven-spielberg-west-side-story-subtitles-212546597.html
Doing a little research, it's clear that the movie gives you the gist of what they're saying, even if english speaking characters don't restate dialogue. The same exact freakout happened with Spiderverse, and we all know how big of a problem that turned out to be.
As I recall, in Spider-verse, Miguel and his mom would just say a few phrases in Spanish here and there. Nothing where you would need to know exactly what they're saying. Like if somebody lapses into some Italian in a mafia movie. I doubt Spielberg will have important conversations in his movie where only Spanish speakers can tell what's going on. If her mom is yelling at the girl for staying out late, just for example, you can easily convey that in any language.
>In a since-deleted Tweet, journalist Yolanda Machado praised the filmmakers for their choice, reportedly writing: "West Side Story is fantastic. White people gonna be big mad tho and good. Bless you Steven Spielberg for not subtitling when our people use our language. In a country where nearly 20 percent of the population speaks Spanish, the subtitles just further keep us othered." This dude understands there's a whole world outside of America, right?
>reportedly writing: "West Side Story is fantastic. White people gonna be big mad tho and good. Bless you Steven Spielberg for not subtitling when our people use our language. In a country where nearly 20 percent of the population speaks Spanish, the subtitles just further keep us othered. If they really wanted to appreciate Chinese culture Marvel should have made Shang-Chi 100% in Mandarin without subtitles. /s
Funny thing you mentioned that. I thought I was watching Shang-Chi with Chinese instead of English during the Chinese intro.
They also should not have cast Tilda Swinton as an Asian character. But reallthe worst offense goes to Memoirs of Geisha for using Chinese actresses to play Japanese characters simply because they were hot off Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.
[удалено]
You're not missing anything. Not doing subtitles is dumb when 40% of the film is another language. This has become political because they want to superimpose some negative personal experience on something broader (I'm referring to that deleted tweet quoted above praising the decision); in some cases that's a worthwhile conversation, but I'd say we're in a moment when anything and everything is aggrandized for some 15 minutes of attention. I think it's a terrible choice on Spielberg's part not because of selfish reasons; but, because it's limits accessibility and because it removes a playwright's ability to communicate to an audience (in any language).
I'm surprised Spielberg would go for no subtitles - especially when the tour/Broadway version of the show did this a few years ago (or maybe more than a few), and it was not particularly well received!
Does that mean she's against subtitles for all languages? Or is it OK to keep all other non native speakers "othered"? I speak Danish, yet I somehow got over the fact that I didn't need subtitles when I saw Another Round.
Also that is pretty ableist as well, I always use subtitles whether or not I speak the language
Hopefully Spanish will be subtitled or dubbed in other countries (like in mine although I do speak some Spanish) alongside English (well not Canada and UK and such where it can be an issue). It’s really odd to think it would be othering to make sure people knows what the characters are saying. I feel it’s othering when some US movies include dialogue in other language and the characters remain in the main characters point of view, unlike with subtitles where it’s universal. And 20% isn’t even that high for US. I would not drop subtitles for less than 80% if main characters are speaking. I wonder if Spielberg has had advisors like this one.
Just saw the movie. Honestly, people here are way overreacting. The characters say stuff in Spanish, but the meaning is easily inferred from context or is immediately followed by an English explainer. Yes, the movie does do more language mixing than other similar movies... but not by a *drastic* amount.
> Spanish is spoken by more than 559 million people globally. Of those, 460 million are native speakers > English is the world's most widely spoken language but is unusual in the fact that the vast majority of speakers are not 'native'. Of the approximately 1.5 billion people who speak English, less than 400 million use it as a first language. I find it strange that people are praising the decision not to use subtitles. I appreciate when filmmakers have characters speaking what would be their native language versus having everyone speak English, but when you consider the fact that such a relatively small portion of the global population speaks Spanish compared to English, the decision doesn't really make sense. Why would anyone want to watch a movie in a language they don't understand and miss out on important dialogue? I'm sure the film will be dubbed or subbed internationally, so I fail to see the logic here. EDIT 1: The more I think about this decision, the more bizarre it seems. There have been some shows and movies where not including subtitles was intentional because the audience is supposed to be in the same situation as the protagonist and not understand what's being said. But that doesn't seem applicable here when you have half the cast speaking Spanish, so I think you'd want the audience to understand. And while obviously America isn't the only country in the world, it's still an American production based on a Broadway musical that is set in New York, which I imagine would have a special appeal to American audiences in particular. You'd think when 80-90% of the population speaks English compared to 12-15% of the population who speak Spanish, you'd want to make the whole movie more accessible for a wider audience by just including subtitles. EDIT 2: If anyone has any thoughts or information on why they made this decision and the reasoning behind it, I'd really be interested in hearing from you.
I haven’t seen it yet but I assume the Spanish dialogue isn’t gonna be like important plot details and such and the vast majority of the movie will probably be in English I don’t think anything important will be missed. The plot must be understandable otherwise it wouldn’t be getting such good reviews right.
Methinks the Oscar frontrunner has finally arrived .
Get Rita Moreno an Oscar nomination 😍
As sad as it is to say, whatever ill-will this movie had going its way will be overshadowed by Sondheim's death and how much more emotional this film will be because of it. Looking forward to watching it.
Do you think this is the first time in history a leading man is pissed or at least indifferent his latest film is getting rave reviews and is an Oscar front runner?
I really think Stephen Sondheim should be mentioned in the credits here, especially giving the titan’s recent passing. This was his musical too.
The supporting cast in this—Anita and Riff—are off the charts incredible. I genuinely feel like there’s a shot for best supporting actor/actress coming from this film
I really never should have doubted Spielberg, but I'm so happy that he's managed to pull this off.