Talk:Tromeo and Juliet

	Tromeo and Juliet was a Media and drama good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result February 7, 2009 Good article nominee Not listed

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: American 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 This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Shakespeare 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The film is popular among cinema verite fans,

I would have thought that a genre film laden with special effects and unrealistic situations would be the very antithesis of cinema verite. --Brion 21:51 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)

Saying that this film "was the first larger budgeted attempt at movie making" for Troma is incorrect. According to director Lloyd Kaufman the budget on this film was remarkably low, this he said in his book All I Needed To Know About Filmmaking I Learned From The Toxic Avenger. Tromatic 16:06, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck is "cinema gloritiso"? A Google search for "gloritiso" currently returns nothing but this particular article. --164.76.162.246 7 July 2005 01:11 (UTC)

--- Don't know why "cult films" was taken out. This movie played for over a year midnight screenings at the Sunset 5 in Los Angeles, and continues to play midnight shows around the world. It is far more a cult film than many other in that section.

Sensorium 00:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

"The movie makers attempted to use gore and sexuality to shock the viewer in much the same way as they believed actors might have done in Shakespeare's time (with proper adjustments to content to suit the times, updating the fashion and setting to contemporary needs, also in Shakespeare's tradition)."

I've found some cites... hahaha. (From the William Shakespeare article, both having citation:)

"Romeo and Juliet, the famous romantic tragedy of sexually charged adolescence, love, and death"

"In King Lear, the old king commits the tragic error of giving up his powers, triggering scenes which lead to the murder of his daughter and the torture and blinding of the Duke of Gloucester. According to the critic Frank Kermode, 'The play offers neither its good characters nor its audience any relief from its cruelty'"

And a page showing the filmakers intention can be seen here: http://www.troma.com/movies/tromeoandjuliet/

King Lear was actually banned from the English stage from 1788 to 1820 for sex, violence and obscene language.

User:99.235.201.181 01:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shakespeare's work was not more violent than his contemporaries, and none of the sources you cite claim that it was. If you want excessively violent sixteenth century drama, try The Spanish Tragedy, which is twice as bloody as anything Shakespeare ever put on the stage. His primary motivation was not to shock, and none of the sources you cite claim that it was. King Lear wasn't suppressed because it was violent, it was suppressed because its portrayal of a mentally unwell king was seen as reflecting badly on the reigning monarch, George III, and none of the sources you cite claim otherwise. None of the sources that you cite even claim that the film's creators believed that Shakespeare was unusually violent, or that they created this film in belief that they were being true to Shakespeare's vision of Romeo and Juliet. The source that you cited doesn't mention "Tromeo and Juliet", it doesn't mention "Romeo and Juliet," and it doesn't even mention violent content in Shakespeare. It isn't even an article; just a little opinion piece for Banned Books Week. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though you have some correct points, "Titus Andronicus" was a favorite of Shakespeare's at its release, and was known for being particularly bloody, featuring incest, rape, and excessive amounts of murder. Titus even murders every child a woman has, feeding her two of them as food at a banquet, before murdering his own daughter and everyone at the table. It is over the top, Shakespeare meant for it to be, and Shakespeare's audience loved it for being so. So before you go spouting absolutes and acting like an authority on all things Shakespeare, read! If you need sources leave a message here and I'll be glad to find them in my off time, because you, sir, were an a-hole, and very rude to that person above, so I would love to waste my time just to prove you wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.82.179 (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. 24.128.53.252 (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

.... and yet its still in the lead of the article! +|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SHAKESPEAREAN VERSE ? First off, it's blank verse, and if this "And all of our hearts free to let all things base go/As taught by Juliet and her Tromeo" is supposed to be an example of their, the authors at Troma, "Shakespearean verse" then they don't know how to write blank verse. The first line has 12 syllables with 5 stresses, an un-iambic rhythm, and is in fact poorly written prose, that is, the rhythm of it is non-existent and the writers obviously didn't know, or didn't care, about metre, and they didn't even avoiding clashing stresses like most good prose writers. The second line is possible as Iambic pentameter, but the two unstressed words "and her" side by side are not typical for Shakespeare's early blank verse, which followed closely Iambic Pentameter, having 10 syllables, 5 of which are stressed in a pattern of unstressed stress, whereas this last line has 11 syllables, 5 of which are stressed. I think this is a great example of the ignorance behind many articles on Wikipedia. If you don't know about a subject, don't write about it, especially something like verse, you're just adding further confusion to an already hopelessly confused subject.And if you need a "source"--though I would say this is common knowledge-- go to any, ANY, book on metre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.82.179 (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes are waaaay too positive.

I'm repairing the worst, being the removal of the only sourced content of the page, and the description of someone who gave a negative review as:

a relatively unknown man with little, if any, ties to the entertainment industry

...I mean, really!!!

I've let most of it stand, of course, but I really would like to see some sources. AndyJones (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the fact that a Google search for your 'Daniel Rosenthal' heralds NO result for any authors, film critics, or anyone in the entertainment industry, I question whether this man exists or if it's, in reality, yourself, someone who was pissed off by this flick and chose to express their hatred on WikiPedia. Either or, the 'reception' section needs a bad review (as they're rather hard to come by on this film), so I'll let it stand....even though the second, previously deleted part of his "review" merely states random scenes in the film rather than actually expressing some form of opinion. Cheers, SkippyFluffernutter.

• Doh. AndyJones (talk) 07:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but that's the UK Google. UK don't count. This is an AMERICAN film, buddy; in ENGLISH. Jeez. -SantaFlan

Linking the names of characters in this movie to their parallels in the Shakespeare original -- without any indication that the linked articles have nothing to do with this movie -- is misleading to the point of dishonesty. I think a more appropriate way of doing this -- if the links are necessary at all -- would be to add in parentheses that a character is a loose parody of the Shakespeare character, with the Shakespeare character's name then linked to the article about that character. As it stands now, casual readers are going to click a link expecting to find more about a Tromeo & Juliet character, only to be treated instead to a seemingly unrelated article with a completely different title. In some respects, this is browser hijacking. 71.200.140.35 (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Though I personally don't see it as that big an issue, and I doubt any casual reader would actually expect there to be entries on "Tromeo" characters, I created a newer, more detailed three-column chart that will hopefully make things go a bit smoother, yes?Skibz777 (talk) 18:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"New York Times", "Variety Magazine" and "USA Today" are quoted in the text but not cited. I hate to be accusatory, but it looks like the quotes might have been taken directly from the movie poster at face value. I did find the NYT review and it does, indeed, include the line "there is something goofily exhilarating in the spectacle of all the staple images of teen-age sex and slasher movies transformed into farce.":

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9B03E3DF1231F93BA15751C0A961958260

but I haven't found the other two. They should probably be removed until verified and cited.Originalname37 (Talk?) 15:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]