Talk:Romeo and Juliet on screen

Shakespeare Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal 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.

Good work

Good work on this page. One quesiton - is it for Film AND tv, or just film?Smatprt 22:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely film and TV. AndyJones 07:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Significant parallels

under the above section on the page it states that "The Lion King I & II draws influence from the Romeo & Juliet: Sealed with a Kiss, with many characters bearing similar resemblances to the new characters." what in the heck was the person who wrote that tlaking about. since the lion king came before the movie romeo and juliet: sealed with a kiss and i do not see how this is a good parallel. what do you guys think? (october 2009)

WP:BARD rating

I rated the article Stub/Mid; mostly to avoid it being Unassessed. I rated it Stub rather then Start because it's very listy and it's not List of Romeo and Juliet on screen but Romeo and Juliet on screen. Converting the lists to prose would, IMO, automatically raise it to Start class.--Xover 13:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tromeo...

I was wondering if Tromeo and Juliet was really notable enough to be included in this article. I realize there are plenty of fans of Schlock Horror, but this entry sounds pretty disgusting and I was questioning whether we want to be elevating this particular movie's status by including it in the company of Zefferelli, and the like?Smatprt (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid so. It's one of the very few films mentioned on the page that I haven't seen, and it doesn't sound like the sort of thing I'd enjoy. However, most of my sources cover it - including academic sources - and we have to take our lead from there. I'll be adding more detail on it (from Daniel Rosenthal) before I consider this page complete. All in all, yes, I think it has to belong. AndyJones (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ah well. I've not seen it either, but I do think it a shame that our young readers will be introduced to this work when researching their papers. Must it be so descriptive of the various "acts" performed by the leading characters? I hate to be a prude, but the "dad" in me is coming out more and more these days.Smatprt (talk) 17:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, you could always just plop more of it on the Tromeo and Juliet article itself and cut some of it out here. -Malkinann (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, although I have now added all the material I want to, and it still only has three sentences and a text box. I sympathise with Smatprt's point, but there's the thing about Wikipedia not being censored, and I think maybe we're doing a service to those same kids by making it clear what kind of film we're talking about, rather than implying through silence that it's a legitimate/mainstream adaptation that they might like to check out before their GCSEs. AndyJones (talk) 13:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might be slightly biased since I enjoyed the film, but is there any actual reason for there to be a text box? Even if it was a *good* review, I don't quite see the film as being notable enough to warrant a whole text box that sets it apart from the other adaptations, especially since it's within the same section that mentions *'WEST SIDE STORY'*....or is a reviewer's opinion on 'Tromeo' more important to be highlighted than a reviewer's opinion on *that* ancient, little known, historically insignificant musical disaster? ;) Skibz777 (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-GA Stuff

To be honest, a lot of editors would say this already was a GA, but to be safe, I'll just point out a few things.

Expand the lead section a bit more

Fix the two citation tags.

Lots of GA editors will object to the long list at the bottom. It may be possible to ease their fears by making it a table, or by finding some other way to make it more professional looking. Most of the list is uncited as well. Wrad (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Just to pick up on the point about lists, it always gives me a problem because I don't share this list-aversion, so I'm never sure what other editors might look for. Do you think something more along the lines of Hamlet on screen#List of screen performances (but without any of the gaps it has, and without the pictures) would be looked on more favourably? AndyJones (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned about the images in amount and in their meaningfullness - there are a lot of them and I'm not sure that they really assist critical commentary about the adaptations. There are also a lot of them, which is a bit of a concern. The applicable guide is WP:NFCC. -Malkinann (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most all of them are perfectly fine in this article. The problem arises with non-free pictures associated with lists. Lists don't have critical commentary. Wrad (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be pretty relaxed about losing Saire and Seal. I think the others are justified by the content, though (although it was me who put them all up in the first place). AndyJones (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images will need a fair use rationale. Not having one is one of the quickest ways a GA nom can meet its end. Wrad (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't I given them a fair use rationale? How much more detail should I give? AndyJones (talk) 16:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't see it. Maybe put it under a new heading such as "fair use rationale". Putting it in the summary leaves it at risk of being missed. Wrad (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valley Girl (1983)?

Is Valley Girl worthy of inclusion? The story is set in the San Fernando Valley with Deborah Foreman as Julie (Juliet) and Nicholas Cage as Randy (Romeo). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.139.27 (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:PaltowBalcony.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PaltowBalcony.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must say

that this oppenning sentence is among the most amusing things on Wikipedia:

Cukor featured Norma Shearer and Leslie Howard, with a combined age over 75, as the teenage lovers. Zeffirelli populated his film with beautiful young people, and Baz Luhrmann produced a heavily-cut fast-paced version aimed at teenage audiences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.32.78 (talk) 01:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

R#J

I'd like to suggested adding R#J a 2021 Romeo and Juliet film to this article.[1] The title makes it practically unsearchable, I'm not sure how else to deal with it. -- 109.76.215.67 (talk) 13:48, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]