Jump to content

Talk:Brett Ratner

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cbsteven (talk | contribs) at 11:16, 12 June 2024 (→Lack of "Personal Life" section: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vague sentence

"He was also linked to young actress, Lindsay Lohan."

First, a punctuation point: s.b. no comma after "actress".

Second, what does "linked to" mean that makes it different from "dated" as in the previous sentence? Third, there's no citation.

And fourth, does anyone besides me doubt the encyclopedic value of who he, or anyone, dates? -- Tenebrae 02:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you start discriminating against the reporting of which relationships one constitutes as being "encyclopedic", you just run into a really huge area of arbitrarity.

It's been reported all over the place he either dated or "mentored" Lindsay Lohan, let it be posted.

Cuban?

The article asserts that:Brett Ratner was born in Miami Beach to Marcia Ratner, a Cuban-born Jewish socialite. This, however, does not mean that he is of Spanish or Mestizo descent. Many Jewish people migrated to Cuba, especially when it was the center of a large gaming industry in the 1940s and 1950s. Some Latinized their names, and others retained their Germanic Jewish surname.72.73.214.37 18:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]

Isn't it nice when you can find a single source that answers all the questions? I wish all research was this easy: [1] "My grandparents now live with me in L.A. They're originally from Eastern Europe and ended up in Cuba as they couldn't get into the States, before finally moving to Miami. My whole family is Cuban-Jewish -- very passionate, hard-working, highly educated people. I feel that Cuban blood running in my veins and I love Cuban food." Mad Jack 20:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess he must mean imaginary Cuban blood...unless his father is actually Cuban. Is "Ratner" his mother's name?
What is "Cuban blood"? My Cuban relatives are descended from English and Scottish immigrants to Cuba, as well as from Spaniards. There have been Jews in Cuba for centuries. Cuba is as ethnically mixed as anywhere else in the Americas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.65.9 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Screen Appearances

None of these seem to have any importance to the details of his life. It might as well be a trivia section, in which case it is against the wikipedia rules. L.cash.m (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Hour 3

the paragraph about oral sex is not very relevant (trivia). it cited an interview [2] where ratner might have been joking around. as worded, it implied he is gay; if he is, it is certainly not citeable (he dates women). could i get justification why it was reverted? should it be removed or reworded? Substatique (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I look at this article I delete that part. It's just totally irrelevant. Maybe if there was a trivia section on Ratner that'd be sensible to include, but theres no reason to have this placed in his personal life section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killz0ner (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that this should be removed due to its irrelevance. However, I see that one of the recent "reverts" was by an administrator. curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erin0027 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this text - not only is it entirely irrelevant to the article, it's untrue and misleading. The quote in the reference provided says, "My first blow job was from a man, but I didn't know it was a man." It does not say that Ratner is gay himself, and as far as I can tell, he isn't.
I've also removed the following text: 'X3 was panned by critics and fans alike, validating Brett's nickname as "Hackner." ' There's no reference provided for the nickname, other than Answers.com's article on Brett Ratner, which is copied from this article - and even it was referenced, it's not encyclopaedic. It's also a little exaggerated to say 'X3 was panned' - it has 57% on Rotten Tomatoes and 58% on Metacritic, which means reviews were weak, but not terrible. 'Panned' suggests something more like Batman and Robin (14% on Rotten Tomatoes).
Please do not re-insert these sections without discussing it on this talk page first. Terraxos (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On examining the history, it seems this text has repeatedly been re-added by various anonymous editors, who I can only assume are angry fans trying to smear Ratner. Because of the issues this causes with our biographies of living persons policy, I'm going to request that this page be semi-protected. Terraxos (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this article were longer, the detail in that paragraph would be fine; it would add some flair. However, the article isn't long, so focusing on one quote from an interview is pretty much undue weight. Furthermore, people insist on adding links within the quote, which draws more attention to them. This paragraph has been toeing the line of WP:BLP for a while. I've removed some of it to give it less weight. I don't necessarily object to removing the paragraph until or unless the article is more substantial, too. Gimmetrow 19:25, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it doesn't belong here anyway and would (maybe) be mentioned in the Rush Hour 3 article? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Losing Virginity

Brett Ratner lost his virginity to a parapalegic who was hanging from a tree. It's actually true, would be interesting to add a bit to the article about it. Here's a reference: [3] 75.127.214.162 (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

question

Has he done any pornography? 180.180.162.52 (talk) 09:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

Where did the controversies section go? He has made headlines a lot doing dumb things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.215.39 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brett Ratner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:38, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Brett Ratner. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual allegations section

The section should be removed, which I will do with reference to similar issues noted here first, then here, and and once again, here. In those very similar edits, the users were new editors who apparently were unfamiliar with the guidelines explained. --Light show (talk) 17:00, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Underrated?

Underrated or overrated, this article doesn't discuss it. The career part of this article is so neutral it is like water, pH 7. It feels like there's a lot missing. What defines the directing style of Brett Ratner? Does have any recurring motifs? I think it is fair to say he has been commercially successful but not well liked critically, but the article doesn't address any of that.

In 2017 Peter Bogdonavich said Ratner was underrated, which got me thinking. Has his commercial success caused him to be underrated as a director or is it an unrelated separate thing? Maybe that and more could be included in the article, but at the moment the article tries so hard to be neutral that instead of striking a balance between different opinions it says almost nothing at all. -- 109.79.176.69 (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image caption

I reduced "Ratner at the 2012 Tribeca Film Festival" to "Ratner in 2012", with the edit summary "caption trimmed, see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE". FMSky reverted this with the edit summary "Doesnt mention captions at all". MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE states "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." There are many film festivals, and they are our main source of film/television people images. Including the actual event adds nothing of value, and is simply infobox clutter, and contrary to the MOS. I have removed such extraneous detail from numerous other infoboxes - any good reason why this one should be an exception? Edwardx (talk)

him having appeared at notable film festivals isnt completely irrelevant --FMSky (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine Ratner has appeared at just about every major English language film festival, and I suspect our readers will be aware of such things. It is not relevant content for an infobox where brevity is required. Any policy based objections for my changing the caption to "Ratner in 2012"? Edwardx (talk) 11:40, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the absence of any policy based objection, I will revert it back to "Ratner in 2012". Edwardx (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Assault Allegations

An editor has recently objected to the sexual assault allegations having their own section, citing WP:CRIT, and suggesting those allegations should be moved to the "personal life" section. WP:CRIT is an essay, of course, and not policy. I'd also argue that the allegations fit after the career section, both chronologically and logically. For the latter, all of the allegations involve his behavior in his capacity as a producer/director, and are directly tied to women's experiences while collaborating with him professionally. Additionally, the allegations effectively ended his career (at least thus far), making them a more logical fit after discussion of his career projects.

As far as WP:CRITS goes, reporting on well-publicized allegations (that were an integral and early part of the MeToo movement) in their own section makes sense and isn't undue in the way that the CRITS essay argues against controversy sections. In fact, I'd say that burying them in the personal life section minimizes them in an inappropriate manner. Thoughts from other editors? IP, you should discuss here rather than ignoring WP:STATUSQUO. Grandpallama (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your points, and I also thought the allegations could be under career. But I would like to make two points, according to his movie credits Ratner is still active and has been producing film, including one that was premiered at the Venice Film Festival and won three Cesar Awards according to its wikipedia page, thus is career was not ended by the allegations. The second point is that it’s been 5 years since the last allegation and no criminal or civil cases have been brought against him. I have read another editor citing Ryan Seacrest’s wiki as an example, where the allegations don’t have their own section and are under personal life. For these reasons, I think they should fall under personal life, but if you think they should be under career I understand your reason. 173.66.17.22 (talk) 01:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To what film are you referring? The only film I see post-allegations is Georgetown, which began filming before the allegations came to light and before Ratner was essentially ostracized by Hollywood. I do not see anything that premiered at Venice after 2018 for which he has a producer credit.
I'm not sure how comparable Seacrest is. Per our own WP page, he was accused by one unnamed woman of sexual harassment. Ratner was accused by multiple high-profile Hollywood stars of harassment and assault, which resulted not in a quiet settlement, but in a very public break with Warner Bros. and his being pushed out of Hollywood. For Ratner, discussion of these events is significantly more due, I would argue. That's not to belittle Seacrest's accuser, but to note the vast difference in media coverage and in consequence for the article subject. Grandpallama (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dustin Hoffman was accused by 7 woman of sexual misconduct or assault in 2017, including an underage girl to whom he apologized. The sexual misconduct allegations are under Personal Life, even though they were all related to his career. It looks like he didn't have any major roles from 2017 to 2022, but just because an actor or a producer are not credited it doesn't mean they're cancelled. Ryan Seacrest's accusation were solid and as a matter of fact he apologized publicly. The film in question is an Officer and a Spy. Allegations should be under the personal life section, Hoffman and Seacrest are renowned celebrities, Ratner wasn't even a public figure. 2600:4040:4776:F000:5D0F:285E:F0F1:334 (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brett Ratner is not a producer of An Officer and a Spy. He has not directed or produced a film since the accusations became public.
Your points about Seacrest call attention to how much he doesn't actually compare to Ratner; Seacrest continues to enjoy a career in Hollywood.
Dustin Hoffman's article may have placed the allegations under the Personal Life section, but they still maintain a separate subsection header; they aren't buried in the article. And again, the situation is different: Hoffman has, unlike Ratner, worked in Hollywood since the allegations; Hoffman didn't have any major studios announce they were severing ties with him; Hoffman didn't see the allegations end a half-billion deal he had with Warner Bros.; and other stuff exists. Grandpallama (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You just proved that you're biased. You fight to make a distinction between sexual allegations defending Dustin Hoffman and Ryan Seacrest while launching personal attacks against Ratner. Did you try to edit their page like you edited this one? No you didn't. WP:CSECTION this is prohibited by the neutral point-of-view policy Also he did produce that film and others since the allegations, he has not directed tho, just produced. 173.66.17.22 (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a RS (or any source) supporting the claim that Ratner produced An Officer and a Spy.
The sexual allegations section is not an indiscriminate controversies or criticisms section, so WP:CRITS (which is not a policy, by the way) doesn't really apply here. The article is meeting the standards of WP:NPOV in that it gives appropriate and due weight and space to the allegations, is written neutrally, and provides information regarding the end (thus far) of his career.
Accusing me of bias or falsely claiming that I have somehow launched personal attacks against the article subject (or that I defended other subjects against allegations) aren't going to get you very far. I have made absolutely no statement regarding the veracity or lack thereof about any allegations against any person.
In order to make the change you desire, you need to build a consensus, which you have thus far been unable to do. If you feel strongly about this, there are other venues you can pursue, or you can wait for other editors to chime in here and potentially support the change. Grandpallama (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The way you're trying to create a distinction between 3 people that received the same allegations (except for Hoffman as one was underage) is baffling. These are not complex and lengthy trials that understandably would require their own separate section, these are accusations that stopped 5 years ago. Your comment about him not working anymore is also unfounded, he owns several companies according to THR and Variety and he does work. Interestingly, Ratner is not a public figure, while Seacrest and Hoffman are known worldwide, so I wonder if your argument should have been on their talk page instead of this one. 2600:4040:4776:F000:384B:69D6:E4DD:8DD4 (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dustin Hoffman's article may have placed the allegations under the Personal Life section, but they still maintain a separate subsection header how about doing the same for this one? Divide the personal life section into two subsections, "early life" and "sexual misconduct allegations". M.Bitton (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ratner’s current carrer status

He hadn’t done any film and TV work after the sexual allegations came out and his last credit is in 2019 so I do not understand why his years active section didn’t go “1987-2019” and obviously I highly doubt he would be returning to film and TV work even if he moved to another country. His career is already over eons ago. RayKVega (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need a source saying he's retired in order to make such a claim. The fact that he's had no releases to his credit doesn't necessarily mean he hasn't been working on anything. We can only report what secondary sources tell us. Grandpallama (talk) 23:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of "Personal Life" section

I found it strange that there is zero mention of Rebecca Gayheart, with whom he had a long term relationship (I navigated to his page after reading a bit about her). Seems like there is plenty of content for at least a brief Personal Life section. Cbsteven (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brett_Ratner&oldid=1228646394"