Should Francis Coppola do a take on Romeo and Juliet?

Post by **OriginalGagBonkers** » July 4th, 2009, 9:29 am

This idea somehow popped into my head for the time being after I finished reading Romeo and Juliet in my English class. After watching the godfather when I finished reading the book and watching the movie of R&J...I wondered what would happen if Francis Coppola did a take of it.

Would you see if it happens? Now if Coppola could pull it off it would probably make a very good movie. I dont think this will ever happen but think how amazing it would be.

Your thoughts?

Post by **EricJ** » July 4th, 2009, 9:46 am

A) Coppola hasn't made a good, or even recognizably Coppola film in decades (and that's definitely not including "Jack" or "Peggy Sue Got Married"...Thinking more along the lines of "Bram Stoker's Dracula", and after that, all the way back to that Shelley Duvall Faerie Tale episode)--
And what's with the still waiting for him to direct another Godfather, even AFTER he gave us Godfather III??
B) We'll probably get defenders of that cheap gay attention-deficited Baz Luhrmann Leo DiCaprio version, but most heteros will still say that Franco Zeferelli retired the realistic-Montague-&-Capulet jersey in 1968, and
C) Okay, I'm not even going to ask why you posted it here, General Discussions or no... 0_0??

(The last time someone thought "Coppola should direct this!" was that school class who thought he should direct "The Outsiders", and to this day, nobody can still figure out why, either.)

Post by **eddievalient** » July 4th, 2009, 7:23 pm

Could you please not use "gay" as a negative adjective? Thanks.

Post by **Darkblade** » July 5th, 2009, 2:16 pm

I don't hate the idea of it, but I would like to see it happen.

Post by **EricJ** » July 6th, 2009, 10:52 am

eddievalient wrote:We'll probably get defenders of that cheap gay attention-deficited Baz Luhrmann Leo DiCaprio version, but most heteros will still say that Franco Zeferelli retired the realistic-Montague-&-Capulet jersey in 1968,

Could you please not use "gay" as a negative adjective? Thanks.

(You haven't seen the movie have you?
Did Shakespeare intend to write Mercutio as a black disco drag queen with a party drug addiction??

...Believe me, there are so many specific instances in which to use the word, I never bandy it about unless richly merited.)

Post by **Ben** » July 9th, 2009, 6:15 am

What was wrong with Phil Nibbelink's animated version?

R&J feels like Coppolla material, but I don't think he would have done much different to Lurhmann's 1996 DiCaprio edition, which took some bold chances and was rewarded in its contemporarty setting with some big and appreciative audiences.

Post by **Switchblade Sister** » July 12th, 2009, 2:27 pm

The nibbelink cartoon was a pile of bile, not worth mentioning. Some of the worst storytelling and characterizations ever put on film. And ugly and badly animated.

Coppola's "Tetro" is back to form for him. It's not perfect (but neither were any of his films, save "The Conversation"), but he's trying things and making big parts of them work.

Hated his "Redux" of "Apocalypse Now" and "One From the Heart." Neither perfect films, but made worse with the re-cuts.

But the directors cut of "The Outsiders" made a vast improvement to the original film.

Post by **Switchblade Sister** » July 12th, 2009, 2:29 pm

Oh, and luhrmann has only made one good film so far: Ballroom Dancing. Everything else is crap. The rollicking comedy "Australia" is ripe for Mystery Science Theater 2000, as it, along with Moulin Rouge and Showgirls is one of the worst films ever made.

Post by **eddievalient** » July 13th, 2009, 10:32 am

You, madam, are sorely mistaken. Australia is an excellent movie and many of the people I recommended it to came back later and said they enjoyed it too. I get the feeling that in years to come, it's going to be criminally underrated.

Post by **Ben** » July 14th, 2009, 5:47 am

Switchblade...gonna say it once: opinions are great, everybody has 'em, but there's a way to put them forward and arrogant rants are not the way to do it.

So...calm down the act a bit, or you'll find yourself unwelcome in these here parts.

And, by the way, this isn't about what points you were trying to get across, as I agree with more than a couple of them, but regarding Nibbelink's film, I'd love to see what you could do with the budgetary and people constraints he was up against. Considering he essentially put the whole film together himself, that's quite a feat he pulled off, whatever one thinks of the final result.

Post by **Switchblade Sister** » July 14th, 2009, 10:24 am

There are plenty of rants worse than the ones I've gone on. So no apologies needed there.

The Nibbelink thing had nothing to do with money or amount of people. The STORY was the biggest problem--no one cared. Least of all me. The animation was what it was--there's plenty of worse (bluth) and plenty of better (the Simpsons).

And the movie Australia was terrible, and will NEVER be considered a "classic." It was reviled by critics and audiences alike, and lost more money than any big budget film in nearly 20 years. No wonder, with a script that read like it was written by a monkey on acid, and performances that reminded me of Miss Gardiner's kindergarten class. But as a COMEDY, it worked. It was genuinely one of the FUNNIEST bad movies. And on that level (and I suggest anyone brave enough to waste 8 hours of their lives watching it), I recommend it.

Post by **eddievalient** » July 14th, 2009, 8:49 pm

Like I said, lots of people I talked to enjoyed it, so it must just be you sister. But hey, whatever trips your trigger. Everyone told me to see Harold and Kumar and when I finally did it was the worst movie I've ever seen in my life. Just because the critics hate something that doesn't make it bad and just because something is popular that doesn't make it good (oftentimes it's the exact opposite).

GeorgeC · Post by **GeorgeC** » July 16th, 2009, 1:37 am

Ben wrote:What was wrong with Phil Nibbelink's animated version?

There's also a Japanese animated TV series version that just started getting released in the US through Funimation....

http://www.amazon.com/Romeo-Juliet-Coll ... 483&sr=1-8

Advance word is that it's not a bad spin on the classic story, either.

Haven't taken the chance to look at my copy of the first set yet, though.