Jump to content

Talk:Meg Ryan

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Old Donkey (talk | contribs) at 15:45, 17 April 2010 (→‎Michael Parkinson interview). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Who cares about what Richard Corliss said?

In 1995, critic Richard Corliss called her the "the current soul of romantic comedy." This is more like an advertisement to Richard Corliss. Don't get me wrong - I have nothing against him. But, in her career, so many critics have given many opinions of her best work - why is this particular statement singled out?

Personally, I would like it if this statement were removed from the article.

Does not reflect the impact of Meg Ryan

I feel that the introduction part of this article does a lot of injustice to her work - box-office is not a great criterion to measure the worth of an artist - think of a romantic comedy in the late 80s and 90s and the first name that comes to mind is Meg Ryan - I think this entire article does not do any justice to her popularity world-wide 209.184.240.68 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Mom's New Boyfriend

I think this movie went straight to DVD as they could not find distributors. I am not sure if the movie "The Deal" was taken up by any distributors either. Mahesh69a (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Photo (???)

I wonder what regularly happens about her photos in the article? They are posted - and removed... and those that are posted are certainly not the best and most characteristic photos of her, that would be good for such article. Can we find some really good, characteristic, "classic" photo of her for it?... She is a A-list star with probably thousands of photos available... or i don't understand something?... Old Donkey (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is EXTREMELY uptight about showing photos that are likely to be copyrighted (which means just about any photo of her taken by a professional photographer...movie stills, publicity photos, etc., etc.). That's why it's hard to get any decent photos of famous actors on Wikipedia. The result of their policy means that on those rare occasions when a photo of a famous person actually does appear in Wikipedia, it's usually a poor-quality amateur snapshot, typically taken at a public appearance or when a "regular" person with a camera happens to come across the celebrity while out in public. Personally, I think Wikipedia is being way over-cautious in this respect, but that's how they want to play it. Captain Quirk (talk) 07:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Shankbone, thank you very much - IMHO your new photo of Meg Ryan, that you used to replace the previous one in the article, is excellent and really much better then the previous one. So now, my question is: is it worth at all to keep the previous photo in the article? It certainly doesn't belong anyway to the "Hit Films" section (where it is now); and generally, IMHO, anyway it is simply not a very "characteristic" photo of Ryan, and not even a really good one. Maybe it is worth to replace it, or just to remove it at all? Certainly it would be my choice what to do. Any other opinions please? Old Donkey (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Mask (???)

Happy New Year to everybody! Sorry but i really can't remember Meg Ryan in any role in The Mask (1994)... Was she ever there???... I don't think so (?...) Wasn't there Amy Yasbeck (sp?) in that movie? If yes, should we remove The Mask from her (MR's) filmography?... Old Donkey (talk) 12:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC) UPDATE: since apparently nobody can confirm that MR was in The Mask - and i didn't find such confirmation myself - i removed it from the listing of her movies... Also, the newly added phrase about the Russel Crowe affair is removed as a duplication - since it is mentioned in next sentence in the text.Old Donkey (talk) 10:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

America's Sweetheart

From the article: "That same year, she appeared opposite Kevin Kline in Lawrence Kasdan's French Kiss, a romantic comedy that catered to her America's Sweetheart persona.". The link of America's Sweetheart actually points to a Courtney Love album. Would anyone like to fix this? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Date of Birth

I doubt her date of birth is 1961 i remember a few years ago reading article when Meg stated she was turning 50 that year or the following. This was a couple of years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miss-simworld (talk • contribs) 20:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but the date is correct, Nov 19 1961 Old Donkey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

City of Angels

The text mentions the earnings of five romantic comedies she starred in. In this list is City of Angels which I do not see as a comedy at all. Loyola (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I think the dollar count should be dropped from the lead, or at least the sentence has to be rephrased -- "her lead role" did not gross that money the films themselves did. RomaC (talk) 08:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Parkinson interview

No mention of this? Her behaviour was ridiculous, and revealed her to be a rather uncultured philistine. Fact that this negative incident is not mentioned in the article leads me to question the objectivity of it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWEdi4uf7Eo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blpq-Iwu25s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parkinson_(TV_series)#Notable_moments http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-381987/Parky-nut-says-Meg-Ryan.html There's a bunch of stuff all over the web about this, but not, er, here.

There are very different opinions about who must be blamed more about that interview - including the ones opposite to the one you proposed. Just for example, i personally tend to blame Parkinson much more then Ryan; it was his behavior that was prejudiced, arrogant, impolite, unprofessional and generally ridiculous. IMHO of course.

Actually this topic was already disputed here and not once (see the archive). It seems like after all a kind of consensus was developed between the co-editors of this article that this "Parkinson incident" was more "notorious" (in it's time...) then important. It was just another artificial scandal over nothing - exaggerated and exploited by tabloid media. By all reasonable standards there were and are many much more noticeable things then that ill-fated single interview to be mentioned in the serious encyclopedic article about the world famous actress with nearly 30-year career and almost 40 movies made. Old Donkey (talk)

Total ommission of it is unbalanced and wrong. It does not deserve its own section but it is fair that readers have the chance to see it. Airbrushing is imposition of a POV. They both found it difficult, strained and awkward. Not for us to guess why. Blame is unhelpful; the incident happened. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For sure "the incident happened" but the question is not about that . The question is: whether this "incident" was really enough principal, characterizing and significant to be specially mentioned in encyclopedic article about the actress with 30-year career - or it wasn't. I think it definitely wasn't, for all the reasons mentioned above and in the previous disputes (please see the Archieve section). Respectfully - Old Donkey (talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meg_Ryan&oldid=356613131"