Dear lord why another remake... - Romeo & Juliet Discussion

[–] robocat893 11 years ago

This movie is not a remake but yet another film based on a play written by Shakespeare.

You shouldn't have touched anything from that basement.

reply

[–] acaciajules 11 years ago

Exactly, and it looks pretty good. Not a modern version, and it has to be better than that 60s piece of crap they shoved down our throats in school.

Chase: Wow. Yeah, I get it. House is adorable. I just want to hold him and never let go.

reply

[–] murad23 10 years ago

remake? Same movie? Does the cretin OP of this thread even realize this is Shakespeare and the original they think taw in the first place was a remake, as has every one of thousands of productions of Romeo and Juliet after the first production in the 17th century?

reply

[–] jacowium 10 years ago

Wouldn't be surprised if some "buffs" think Romeo and Juliet was only ever a movie!

Please click on "reply" at the post you're responding to. Thanks.

reply

[–] pix-e 9 years ago

Seriously, "taw"? At least proofread your work before you go insulting someone else's intelligence.

reply

[–] lishol7-1 10 years ago

Listen, youngster, that 1969 version provided the foundation for many of our teen years. It came along at a time when we had the "generation gap" and to not trust anyone over 30. We were exploring each others'cultures and examined the "us vs. them" scenarios. All of this was captured beautifully in Zefferelli's version. So, perhaps it was "shoved down your throats" I find it interesting that you were interested enough to take another look and perhaps get another director's take on it.

reply

[–] CartlinK 10 years ago

Actually, I had loved Shakespeare prior to that, but that movie made me avoid him for yeeeaaarrrss due to my disgust.

"If anyone boos you off stage, that is simply applause from ghosts." ~Sharon Needles

reply

[–] GonTrollin 11 years ago

I think you answered your own question. Of course they have no ideas, because the only people who get any recognition are sons, daughters, cousins, and step siblings of people in the industry. There are ideas out there, but good luck to those dreamers getting anyone to pay attention. Occasionally a newcomer will slip through the cracks of the family ties and make something good, but even when they do the studio immediately asks, "Can you sequelize it?" SURE!!! A 10 part franchise even!!!! With spinoffs and t-shirts and bed sheets too!!!! Grab a wheelbarrow for all the sucking blood money you little shills!!!!!

reply

[–] jschillig 11 years ago

Exactly. I mean, why do we like to see different stage productions of the same Shakespeare play? Because each new director, each new actor, each new production will (ideally) bring some new perspective to the play. A simple bit of stage business or the reading of a single line can shed a whole new light on a character we thought we knew.

For example, Magneto's version of Macbeth is a different interpretation than Professor X's. (I'm not being facetious. Ian Mckellen did a stage version of Macbeth with Judi Dench as his Lady Macbeth, and Patrick Stewart filmed a version for PBS some years back. They're both available on DVD.)

Anyway, that's my .02 and that's why I'm looking forward to this movie.

reply

[–] teenymaureeny 11 years ago

I think it's great and something new and exciting for the 'Next' generations to celebrate classic work. I think people today will appreciate all versions of Shakespeare. They recreate the play in so many schools and regional theaters, why not for film, especially if producers are investing in it - they believe it will do well serves a purpose.

2 cute 2 listen!

reply

[–] CoraJack 11 years ago

It's ridiculous already. And if anyone thinks this will help youngsters in "school" it's absolutely crazy. If a school child wants to understand R & J using modern-day symbolism then stick with Leo and Claire (although she was horribly cast). There is no need to keep beating a dead horse here.

It's like Wuthering Heights....over and over and over again. All we need is the Olivier one and that's it. That's the story. If you can't read it and use Cliff notes and then watch one movie then you might as well forget it.

Waste

of

time.

But of course it will take a lot of peoples money....and that's what it's all about.

reply

[–] jschillig 11 years ago

With all due respect...as much as I love the 1939 Wuthering Heights, it was only HALF the story.

The 1992 Ralph Fiennes version wasn't perfect, but it was a lot closer to the original, adapting the entire book, and not giving into the temptation to sugar-coat Heathcliff. Fiennes' Heathcliff was every bit as vicious as in the book.

reply

[–] Super-Sanity 11 years ago

I hope this movie fails so bad the people involved are indicted.

"I'm sitting here completely surrounded by no beer!"

reply

[–] jjuergen 11 years ago

Shakespeare is spinning in his grave!

I know where I've been shot, dammit, I'm a doctor!

reply

[–] SKillian89 11 years ago

The 90s one sucked. They pretty much butchered the whole movie by putting it in modern times. The one in 1968 was by far the best one...and i'm 24 and love the Franco Zeffirelli version. It stayed true to the actual play and the actors actually brought Romeo and Juliet to life! It made you think that you were in that time. I have no interest in seeing the new one or any other remake version.

reply

[–] phyl_lil 11 years ago

I will always think of Len Whiting and Olivia Hussey as Romeo and Juliet..

reply

[–] acaciajules 11 years ago

Ugh, I HATED that version! I want one that doesn't look like it was filmed on a stage.

Chase: Wow. Yeah, I get it. House is adorable. I just want to hold him and never let go.

reply

[–] cold_sky 11 years ago

tbh the story is boring anyway.

i.imgur.com/wfqHbFL.jpg

reply

[–] 11 years ago

[deleted]

[–] shopgirl1293 10 years ago

I think they have run out of ideas. I mean come on, this is the third Romeo and Juliet. I don't see why there needs to be remakes in the first place. Especially if it's a 3rd time.

reply

[–] howdy2525 10 years ago

I like some re-makes, but casting a teenage American girl as Juliet and a young English man 4-5 years older than her (who clearly didn't have much chemistry together) was a big mistake I think - Claire danes, 34, and leo dicaprio, 38, had a lot more chemistry together I think (and they both were americans playing americans in the u.s. in the 1990s, which makes sense (lol), even if it is Shakespeare, hehe) - and of course, english actors olivia hussey, 62, and leonard whiting, 63, were the classic romeo and Juliet of 1968 with their traditional version of the play in the movie - i'd like to see different races/nationalities portrayed as romeo and Juliet, like, oh I don't know, maybe Italians in "fair Verona" (hehe - northern/central Italy) - i'd like to see a green-eyed romeo and Juliet pairing, a brown-eyed romeo and Juliet pairing, a natural-redhead romeo and Juliet pairing, etc. (and heck, why not a green-brownish & blue-eyed/heterochromia romeo and Juliet like kate Bosworth, 30, and tim mcilrath, 34, lead singer of punk band "rise against" :)) - we've had movies with blue-eyed romeos and Juliets (leonard/Olivia, leo/Claire, douglas) - let's get some more eye-color and cultural diversity in movies I say ;)

reply

[–] panayboy 10 years ago

Olivia Hussey is by far the most beautiful and perfect Juliet. All other Juliets will pale in comparison to Olivia.

reply

[–] Nonobstant26 10 years ago

Olivia Hussey was stunning as Juliet but I didn't like the 1968 version at all. Claire Danes was so much more charming and sweet in the 1996 one! I find her so endearing and perfect as Juliet. So in my mind she beats Hussey.

reply

[–] lost_dream 10 years ago

worst remake ever

reply