Talk:Guy Ritchie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Revolver[edit]

"Revolver" is not about four soldiers stealing gold, but about 6 billion people serving Sam Gold (or whatever this guy may be called by them) and identifying this false person with themselves. To my opinion, to understand this, you definitely have to watch the film. It's far stronger that Fight Club and other stuff. - Anastasia Kurdina

This is a VERY redundant POV for an encyclopedia. The "message" of the film has no place here, especially as it can (and is) so wifely interpreted. As for the film being "far stronger that Fight Club...." what the fuck are you on? 82.19.66.37 23:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I’m sorry, but you just are too dumb for this film. That’s a straight out fact, proven by your reaction, and the silly ad hominem style pseudo-arguments. You could not understand this film, even if you wanted. And that is not meant in a bad way. It’s just how it is. (Of course, being dumb, you will think so anyway.) — 88.77.184.75 (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Your arguments were ad hominen. Not his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.245.47 (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with Revolver was that, frankly, pretty much everyone in the US and UK was simply too dumb to understand it. Including the critics. That’s why it was panned.
Here in Germany, I have yet so see a single person who not loves this film and thinks it’s one of the best that was ever made!
Yes’s it’s a complicated film. But if you god a brain, that is a good thing.
It’s just that there is this weird social convention, that it’s OK to insult a intelligent person, but it’s not OK to say that someone is dumb, even when he clearly is. This is because dumb people are by definition unable to realize their dumbness, and also by definition are loud and think they are great, right, etc.
Fact is: You have to be intelligent to like the film. But if you are, it really is one of the best films ever made. It’s by far his best film.
I hate that he dumbed it down again, with Rocknrolla, which was a pretty weak film. But of course, the ’tards liked it.
Anastasia is completely right with her interpretation of the big picture of what the film is about.
88.77.184.75 (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Photo[edit]

the photo is messed up. im not sure how to fix it though —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.141.232.27 (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Homes[edit]

Don't they have a house in Scotland? KILO-LIMA 23:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking drugs[edit]

Oh!Was Guy Ritchie expelled from the school for taking drugs! Plese give me this sources.--211.123.225.23 10:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Inconcistencies[edit]

The Directing Career section say's that the Revolver was a commercial success, but the Filmography section say's it was a flop, who is right?

Tagged this article self-contradictory for this reason (146.87.193.4 20:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC))

Expelled[edit]

it's written two times it was expelled from school. fine. reason? it's dumb to write such an info without writing it completely, and the reason is crucial. --Lo'oris 12:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection[edit]

To stop this vandal from continuing to add his mockney nonsense from a a variety of near-similar IPs MrMarmite (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately he's spread to a wider range of articles and is leaving nastier vandalism than before (see 87.102.0.109 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • edit filter log • block user • block log) earlier, for example). The range is too big to block, and I think if we semied this one he'd just move onto a range of different targets. At least this one is getting pretty well watched, so it's acting as a tripwire - meaning at least we're blocking and tidying up in fairly short order. There's more of us than him, so we'll wear him down eventually. Other than someone complaining to his ISP (does that ever work for silly stuff like this) I don't know of a technical solution. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

At least mentioning the whole Mockney thing is fair enough, given that its a popular accusation levelled at him. Instead, the entry reads like a puff piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.84.104.153 (talk) 22:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The homophobia section[edit]

I think the anon is right to remove this; I don't think it's appropriate, and it's quite possibly a downright BLP violation. To my mind the section contains two elements - an unsourced OR analysis of Richie's films - I've no idea how often "'poofs' and 'faggots'" is said in the films, and there's no source at all that supports either the claim that the films are "full of references", or that Richie's movies are substantively different in this regard than are similar films. Secondly there's the brother-in-law's "he's a homophobe" section. Frankly, for every reasonably famous person you can always find any number of people who say they're gay, or a homophobe, or both. We can't put every bitchy complaint someone makes in passing against someone else into their article. If Richie had been singled out for derision by a gay-rights organisation, if he'd said something on the record, if he'd been boycotted, if there was evidence that this was more than the opinion of one estranged relative, then we might have some cause to mention this. But even then we don't mention every person's religion or sexual orientation or politics - we need to have some reasonable cause to do so. Right now this is a rather grubby sneer which doesn't belong in this or any other article. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:53, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the two sections sections are conflated to imply an unevidenced conclusion based on a fanciful premise. There's no source that supports the theory that people who make movies that contain words pejorative about a given group are prejudiced against that group - by that daft metric Spike Lee and Richard Prior must really hate black people. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Training[edit]

There is no section discussing where he got his film training. Or, was he completely self taught? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.72.144 (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2009

According to IMDB: "He never attended film school, saying that the work of film school graduates was boring and unwatchable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.216.215 (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Updating article[edit]

This article needs to be updated with a new image and a couple of other things. Its just basically the top that needs to be updated. Im just here to get promission to update it and discuss about it apperantly I can't update unless I discuss about it. Anyways what image would you want me to put up there all you have to do is just give me a link of the image. And for two the top of the article is short what's up with that Sprite7868 | Talk 1:00, May 7, 2009 (UTC)

Missing years[edit]

What did Guy Ritchie do during the twelve years (!) from 1983 (when he struck out on his own) to 1995 (when he started his film career)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.37.216.215 (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Clean-up badly needed[edit]

eg "Most of Ritchie's family on the McLaughlin and Martineau lines were appointed Reverends, Barons or Knighted at some point. The peerage started with the Very Rev. Hubert McLaughlin (b. 1805), father of famous nurse Louisa McLaughlin, and ancestor of Patrick McLaughlin, who was the first in his direct family to be given the according title, as he was born into a blue collar family and worked hard to find nobility. "

This reads like and probably is tripe. Can someone who actually knows about Ritchie's family background and can find supporting references edit this into English. You don't get "appointed Reverend" - you become a member of the clergy; nor indeed can you be "appointed" Baron. It's most unlikely that "Most of Ritchie's family on the McLaughlin and Martineau lines" were clergymen, barons or knights - shear probability and the requirement to be male for two of those categories (and until recently three) is against it! As for "worked hard to find nobility", how would anyone know?

If this section in particular can't be cleaned up I suggest that it is removed.

--Dorset100 (talk) 17:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

User:Soulparadox[edit]

This user has been going on reverting valid additions to remove dead link from the article related to this link. When I have added archive links from Wayback machine, he/she goes on removing it saying that wayback does not show it which is a fabrication and a lie. The link has been archived 10 times, 8 of them valid. Here are the links from the oldest to the recent most. September 2007, October 2007, January 2008..... and the most recent being this one although that one is an incorrect archive. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I will wait till 24 hour from 05:20, December 18, 2013‎, to 05:20, December 19, 2013‎ and if the user does not change the blatant disruption, I will revert this and have to report any further lies like this. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Confusion regarding possible dead link[edit]

Can someone please verify the following inline citation, as I keep finding a dead link (an archive page of the MuchMusic site) rather than the supposed article: [1]. Any help will be appreciated.--Soulparadox (talk) 05:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Look what the Reliable source noticeboard replied to this. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
As I said in the section Indian links to, it loads perfectly fine for me. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
All three of the previous ones work, but the recent one that you identify as the faulty one was the one that was in the article. It is not a big deal. It should be sorted out now. Take it easy everyone and have a good week ... maybe?--Soulparadox (talk) 05:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I had added this link only to the article which loads just fine. It was your problem all along that led to this mess. Revert your edit and do not let a dead link stay in the article, which is already a mess I believe. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The stress associated with this recent edit has been off-putting for me, so I am just going to leave the Guy Ritchie page alone for a while if that is okay with you. Thanks anyway.--Soulparadox (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)