Talk:Tromeo and Juliet

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Ouch. 24.128.53.252 (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  .... and yet its still in the lead of the article! +|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cinema verite

message: 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)
thread_title:  Positive spin 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Inappropriate links 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Reviews