Big things are happening on TV Tropes! New admins, new designs, fewer ads, mobile versions, beta testing opportunities, thematic discovery engine, fun trope tools and toys, and much more - Learn how to help here and discuss here.
Why in god's name did the Capulet sympathisers think it was good idea to leave the sole remaining heir completely completely oblivious about her heritage for fourteen years? They honestly expect her to lead a revolution against the Montagues, but they're upset that Juliet is, shockingly, a naive and unprepared girl who isn't prepared to drop her entire life for their cause and doesn't react with perfect grace. What the hell did they expect? And let's not forget that even if they succeed, she's completely unprepared to rule an entire country. The only possible reason why the Capulets have their hands wielded to the Idiot Ball is so there's a reason for Juliet to meet Romeo, but if you have to write your revolutionaries as being ridiculously short-sighted to make that happen, that's plain bad writing.
You're right. It was completely unnecessary and downright idiotic of them to do that and just expect her to be this great revolutionary leader that would lead Neo Verona into some Golden Age (not to mention the psychological effects that level of stress would cause). The only reason it happened was so she had an excuse to meet Romeo. Which again falls apart if you think about. If they had raised her as they should have (grooming her to be a great warrior princess that would reclaim her father's throne), then it would still be possible for her to fall in love with Romeo. It would just take an episode or two longer.
For example; while knowing who the Montagues are, nothing says that Juliet knows what the only son and heir looks like (having been disguised as a boy and allowed no where near the palace her entire life). After Romeo saves her life the first time, she's wary, but interested in who this kindhearted nobleman could be. After learning his first name (which, in this scenario, would mean she immediately realizes that he's a Montague), she becomes extremely wary, with her entire being telling her to bail out on him. But she just can't do it. He's nothing like what she's ever been told, and as time goes on and they continue to meet, she learns that the Montague family isn't filled with only evil usurping murderers. BOOM. Forbidden love. It wouldn't have been that hard to do, writers. -_-
Original OP here, and I totally agree. I really loved the series initial premise, since it looked like both Romeo and Juliet would have legitimate reasons to distrust/fear/scorn one another which could have been overcome with good character development and drama. Instead they utterly waste that and instead focus the drama on Juliet being unprepared, which was a wallbanger in the first place. Hell, this would have been a great chance to add in more Shakespeare wackiness - maybe she didn't recognise Romeo because he was dressing as an alter-ego, so she loves him and hates 'Romeo' and could have added more wrinkles to the story. But no.
IMHO, it makes a little sense to hide her heritage- they're still on the run from the Montague, so a young girl (or boy, as the case was) claiming to be the lost heir of Capulets would surely jeopardize their lives. And even if she didn't go around boasting it, you can't really trust a kid to hold onto such sensitive information perfectly, especially if she has no idea of the whole danger, which little kids usually don't have. That said, they still did pretty badly, rushing her into a revolution as soon as she finds her heritage, with no time to adjust and stuff...
Oh, keeping it a secret when she was little, sure - telling a toddler about her heritage wouldn't be wise or practical. But children in harsher, pre-modern societies grow up much quicker, meaning that she should have known by at least the age of ten. That way they could actually start prepping her for the revolution.
Episode 11, Romeo and Juliet are out in the countryside, getting away from it all. They fly out to a forest over the mountains that Romeo admits he's never been past and neither has Juliet. They find a wild Dragonsteed mare that Cielo the wonder-horse has the hots for who is also of the same color motif as Juliet and injured. Looks like halfways through the season the main heroine is finally going to get her own flying horse dragon right? WRONG... instead three dragonsteed poachers try and capture the two dragonsteeds and Romeo and Juliet kick their asses. And the Romeo lets Cielo go free into the wild to be with his mate. Juliet says nothing and they spend the rest of the episode and part of the next trying to get home. At one point they find a boat and Romeo says "We'll be able to travel faster by boat." to which the logical reply is "You Could Have Traveled Even Faster By Freakin Dragonsteed!" If he wanted Cielo to get it on with his new girlfriend, Juliet could take care of it. Instead he left his best friend, who he just said was one of his only sources of comfort, in a poacher infested forest. They didn't kill the poachers, they even said they'd be back, and if that wasn't any more proof Juliet didn't have what it took to be a rebel leader, she turned down a Flying Horse! Did she not see the inherent tactical advantage of having one? It even trusted her because she healed its wounds. And the worst part is the rest of the episode involved to two leads wandering around, staring into each others eyes and finding even more bloody iris fields... Your friends may be dead woman! Grab the flying horse and stealth bomb the castle already!
Why do they need to keep her hair long this whole time? If she has been disguised as a boy this whole time, wouldn't it just be easier to cut her hair that short? If a soldier just tugged on her hair, the wig would come off and it would be well known that she is female. Cutting her hair short would also help her move around more easily. And there is just no reason to keep her hair longer other than for it to blow in the wind.
Cordelia says that it was the one thing Juliet had always insisted on keeping, even during the height of her cross-dressing, when Juliet is about to give herself an Important Haircut with the Capulet family sword. Juliet, for her part, reveals that she had done it because Cordelia had complimented it. Trivial, yes, especially compared to the risk to her life if her magic wig (how else does it conceal all that hair?) accidentally fell off, but likely it serves as an important sense of continuity to Juliet.
Why did they make Capulet the good Prince and Montague the evil Prince? It breaks one of the biggest themes in the original play; that both sides were in the wrong, caught up in their foolish pride and petty feuds, and too consumed with their mutual hatred to see the suffering and pain they were causing to the city and the families that followed them. It wouldn't even have been that difficult - Montague uses Capulet's petty tyrannies to win popular support in the nobility for his overthrow, then gradually adopts the same kinds of expediencies himself. Instead, you end up with the Capulet retainers and Juliet pursuing a classic Rightful King Returns against the evil tyrant through the first half, with no real ambiguity about it except for where it concerns Romeo (but that's OK too, because we can see his father is just as nasty to him anyways). Pfft.
Jesus christ, this right here. I loved the premise of this series because it seemed to take the Capulet/Montague conflict and drastically increase its scope. Romeo and Juliet would have far more hurdles to overcome, including being raised to hate one another and being the heirs of their clans, which would have made their love more beautiful and tragic. Romeo would have had to struggle between his family/royal duties/throne and his love, so his line of 'I am but Romeo, only Romeo' would have so much more weight. Can you imagine what this story would have been like if Romeo was such a sweet person because his father was a good and loving man who doted on him? Or that Juliet, after being raised to hate Montague all her life, saw how much her lover loved his father and family? The entire point of a tragedy is that there is never a perfect happy answer for everyone. But this hardly would have been the first time that a story skipped over possible conflict so that two lovers wouldn't have any negative feelings against each other, because true love can't have bitterness or resentment, right?
I understand Montegue's motivations for wiping out the Capulets, but why ravage the economy and screw over the common folk? What did that get him? What did that accomplish? Was it to add insult to injury, and to further sully the Capulet legacy?
Like mentioned above, it's to remove any moral ambiguity. Kind of hard to have romantic heroic revolutionaries remove a hereditary dictator just to replace him with another hereditary dictator who had been there first. By making him eeeeevil, it neatly skips over all the morally gray questions of killing Romeo's father, maintaining the class system, and screwing over the Montagues for revenge.
I need something straightened out- is Montague's name Laertes or Leontes?!
It can be a language differene. Both Leontes and Laertes are Shakespeare characters, though Laertes does make more sense with its' connection to Ophelia. In the hungarian dub, he's definitely Laertes.
Apparently, Lord Montague is the only one aware of the existence of Escalus (before anyone else does) and the tree needing positive emotions to ensure its health and keep Neo-Verona from being reduced to ruin. So why does he still behave like an irredeemable scumbag when he knows the kingdom he rules will fall to ruin if he continues behaving as he does?
If I remember right, I thought the tree needed the blood of Capulet women to keep it healthy. Except he kinda screwed the pooch on that one because he'd killed them all (except only one). A better question is, why didn't the Capulet's have a back-up plan just in case something like this happened? What if a plague hit, or a natural disaster, or something else that drastically thinned the numbers of Capulet women?
Or perhaps even better, why was Romeo making such a big deal of Juliet being sacrificed and trying to thwart it? Seemed a pointless sacrifice of his life to make if his reckless acts almost prevented Juliet from saving Neo-Verona.
Uh, because he's in love with her. Do you honestly expect a man to just willingly stand by and let the woman he loves sacrifice herself, even if he knew the consequences? Sure, it's selfish when you consider the thousands of lives in the balance, but humans aren't emotionless robots that function only on logic. (Besides, considering how this plot point came from nowhere at the 11th hour I'd be skeptical too.)
I get the love part. However, skepticism is hard to have when your kingdom is obviously about to fall from the sky and is clearly falling apart from Escalus dying. Any like-minded person would have shown some sort of moral dilemma about choosing between saving their lover or worrying about the populace of Neo-Verona instead of being a love-obsessed loon that almost jeopardized the lives of thousands.