While a lot of audiences like the plays for the plots and only understand and enjoy some of the dialogue

You cannot just get rid of Shakespeare's language. It's literally a poetry (it has rhythmic structure of the verses). And that's one of the main qualities of his work, apart from the themes and characters he explores (plots themselves are rather mediocre).
70s - the time when even Stallone had to make a decent film

So you reject the entire genre of Shakespeare in a modern setting with the original language intact?
There are quite a lot of these movies and stage productions. Of course, that doesn't mean you have to like it, but the concept is pretty respectable by now.
It can work (this movie was overall good, though mostly because of the acting of DiCaprio and Danes) but I think doing that reduces the ability to suspend disbelief. Sure people spoke and acted differently in a story set in the past but if they speak in non-contemporary English in a contemporary setting it feels too much like admitting it's just a high concept movie rather than one really relatable and applicable today.

High-five, Suzume-san!

Shakespeare did Shakespeare in modern dress.

So you reject the entire genre of Shakespeare in a modern setting with the original language intact?
There are quite a lot of these movies and stage productions. Of course, that doesn't mean you have to like it, but the concept is pretty respectable by now.

I gave up on it. I guess they call it high-concept. To me it's unbearable pretentious and lazy. I gave it on it and I bear with many films because I hate not knowing the ending (or the plot).

As a sub-note, I think you'd have a hard time convincing most students that Romeo & Juliet isn't a corny love ode regardless of the version presented. Most people have that preconception about R+J, I think.

I'd like to respectfully disagree with you on that one. I think that Zefferelli's version highlights the conflict between the two families incredibly well, showing the bloody riot at the beginning and the escalation of the duel between Mercutio and Tybalt acting as a microcosm of the families' feuds. A lot of versions omit Romeo killing Paris.
Even if Zefferelli's film focuses on the romance more, I find it hard to think of Shakespeare's work as corny, even when it is trimmed.

And yet Zefferelli's version still manages to gut the play of it's most interesting momentsJuliet's "gallop apace" speech and her "dashing my brains out" speech, and Romeo killing Paris. It turns the story into the corny love ode that I spend the entire unit trying to convince the students that it's not.

Doesn't surprise me much. Zefferelli's version is head and shoulders better than this one. I find it comforting to know that students can recognise the quality.

Actually Zefferelli's version is closer to Shakespeare's original play. That is the one we show after reading the play in my class. I show clips of this one and, surprisingly, the students prefer the older one.

I liked it and I find it ironic that Baz Luhrmann's version of Romeo and Juliet has the closest dialogue to Shakespeare's play than any other Romeo and Juliet film, yet it's set in a modern setting.

Shakespeare's Language and Hawaiian shirts worked rather well.
Its that man again!!

You'd have it changed to 20th century dialogue? Would you still keep their Shakespearean names such as Romeo, Mercutio, Juliet, etc? If yes, why?

It's not that pedantic. I have 90 high school freshmen students who know that Shakespeare isn't Old English.
Besides, gutting this movie of its language? What would even be left, except for a lot of headache inducing cinematography and bad acting?

Touch. I'm a schmuck.

Boopee doopee doop boop
SEX

MBC, of course you're technically right, but I think you're being a bit hard on the OP - and I'm a pedant! The historical development of English in that sort of detail is pretty arcane and academic, and I for one am prepared to overlook her lack of specialized knowledge.
The truth is we both know exactly what she meant (even if we profoundly disagree with it) - and besides, her use of
modern
English was relatively good by IMDB poster standards, so I think the use of an upper-case 'O' instead of a lower (which is all it boils down to) is forgiveable.

Romeo and Juliet is not Old English, which died out in the 12th century. It's not even Middle English. It's early Modern English.
Here's an example of Old English:
a cydde man me, t us mara hearm to fundode, onne us wel licode: and a for ic me sylf mid am mannum e me mid foron into Denmearcon, e eow mst hearm of com: and t hbbe mid godes fultume forene forfangen, t eow nfre heonon for anon nan unfri to ne cym, a hwile e ge me rihtlice healda and min lif by.
For another example, see Beowulf.

Boopee doopee doop boop
SEX

When I first saw the commentator on TV who does the Prologue, my reaction was a sad, "We don't speak like that any more."

Well put!

I thought it was cool. He modernised the story, made it contemporary so that teens and younguns could relate to it and understand it more, but at the same time stayed classy by staying true to the words of Shakespeare. In keeping the original dialogue he made it so that younguns would still be getting to know the original dialogue of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, but would find the story more appealing, exciting and relatable to them.
I think it was brilliant what he achieved with this film. It still felt like Romeo and Juliet, only set in the funky 90s. If he updated the dialogue too, then it would barely feel like Romeo and Juliet.
"Isn't the sheriff supposed to be courageous, loyal and honest? ..you need a new sheriff."