Talk:Meg Ryan

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Grammar problem with last section

"In 2010, Ryan sent an appologized letter for not coming to Jersualem Film Festival over the Israeli attack on the Freedom Flotilla. "

Is "appologized" even a word? If it is, is that the correct usage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.34 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

I think it's not very important by itself and I would prefer that it be removed. If it was part of a discussion of Ryan's interraction with media, it could be an example but it's not presented that way. Looking at the interview, I don't see that Parkinson asked any inappropriate questions, especially considering that Ryan was promoting a film that was pushing the envelope a little in terms of its sexual themes. She should have expected it to draw comment and that an interview would require her to answer some questions. Ryan seemed irritated throughout. Is she usually difficult in interviews? Parkinson later described her as a diva. Is she? He said she was rude to the other two guests sitting next her. Was she? She described him as rude and arrogant. Is he? There are two sides to the story, and we're reflecting only one and deciding Ryan was more at fault based on Parkinson's assessment of her. That seems inappropriate to me. Ryan objected to Parkinson's manner but this is not mentioned. I would like to see it removed as lacking context and relevance but if it must be included, at least we should rewrite it so that it doesn't put blame on one party. It should either be totally neutral or it should very briefly convey both sides of the disagreement. Old Donkey, you say above you blame Parkinson more, and I blame Ryan more. My attitude is that an actress with her degree of experience should be able to handle herself in an interview and if she can't answer a few challenging questions, perhaps she should stop offering herself to interviewers. I see no disrespect from Parkinson, only an attempt to raise the interview into something resembling an intelligent conversation, but even if the interviewer is out of line, she should be able to handle it. Clearly different people react differently to the interview so we must be careful not to fall into that trap as it is not our role. Like you, I question whether it's significant enough to become part of an encyclopedia entry such as this. I think it's not. Rossrs (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Rossrs, thanks for your points... so you obviously see it in somewhat different way then i do. Actually i can't see there any moment that would display Ryan being really "rude" or something like that. "Uncooperative" - maybe yes, in some degree, but nothing more... and generally, all the "incident" looks to me like a "storm in a glass of water". Well, i think it just confirms again that it was a sort of incident that is seen differently by different people - maybe depending on views, tastes, opinion and estimation of situation, etc. Anyway, i certainly agree that it was not significant enough to be included in encyclopedic article like this one. Such "incidents" happens dozens per week and means nothing significant actually; it was just a particular perverted "luck" of this one - that it attracted some special media attention and some tabloid media exaggerated it's significance to unreasonable and undeserved degree (well, after all isn't this just what a tabloid media exists for and does all the time? :) ) Anyway, during 20+ years of her "celebrity status" Ryan gave dozens of interviews to many different journalists, and apparently that Parkinson appearance was only that one that caused such media reaction and "controversy", so it certainly can't be reasonably considered as "representative" and deserving such special attention. Kind regards, Old Donkey (talk)

Jerusalem Film Festival controversy

Accordingly to this report: http://www.jewishjournal.com/rob_eshman/article/agent_questions_20100720/ , the information about Meg Ryan refusing to attend the Jerusalem Film Festival because of political reasons may be incorrect. It seems to me maybe it would be better to wait until full clarification (maybe some next interview of Ryan - in which she would clarify this story completely; it seems certain that this question will be asked), before including this story into the Article. Any other opinions? Old Donkey (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC).

Neogeolegend, you restored again the episode about the Jerusalem Film Festival that was previously removed and wrote as explanation that "It's obvious clear that she cancelled due to an attack over Freedom Flotilla". Sorry, but with all respect it is not "obvious" at all. Meg Ryan herself never made any claim that she refused to attend for any political reason. This was just a version is what was claimed in the article that appeared in media and was extensively quoted. However there was also anoither article - that denied the claim (please see the link cited above). And I can't see any reason why the second link must be considered as more credible then the first one? At these conditions, the whole issue remains controversial and not fully clear. So why to place it into the article right now? Why not to wait until a complete clarification from Ryan herself? It seems inevitable that it will follow, most probably such a question will be asked in one of the future interviews of Ryan. And then we will be able to put this story into the article being sure about its credibility and accuracy of description. Best regards, Old Donkey (talk)