I Am Fortune's Fool

I just watched Romeo + Juliet again, and I'm always surprised at how angry it makes me every time. There are so many little moments where the tragedy can be averted but the timing is always off by seconds. The focal point of my rage is the messenger missing Romeo by mere seconds - Romeo passes the message telling him that Juliet is actually alive but never receives it! And yet, for all that, I never want it to actually change. I really do not think that Shakespeare's play would still be known if he had kept them alive in the end. How many times do people complain about movies needing to have happy endings? I know it makes me roll my eyes often (not every time). We all like happy endings, but sometimes the tragedy has more to say to life than the happy ending.
As for the version of the story I watched, specifically Baz Luhrmann's version starring DiCaprio and Claire Danes, I think it was a brilliant move. I have no problems with the classics and with staging it in the 1600s or whenever it was 'originally' set. But in many ways, updating the visuals made the story more accesible, made the ideas more sensible to a modern mind. To suggest that the only context in which it works is its original context is not a good suggestion because the world has changed. When Shakespeare wrote it, he wrote it in modern context for him. He did not write a story set in Roman times, but in a time that was current for him and his audience. So what is wrong with updating it so that it fits a current context for 'modern' audiences? I say nothing. If I saw DiCaprio running around in bloomers, holding a sword, I would probably spend my time laughing and/or rolling my eyes, and never watching again.
Kind of makes me wonder what the fascination with the King James Version of the Bible is.