Talk:Guy Ritchie

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Your arguments were ad hominen. Not his. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.245.47 (talk) 06:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Homes[edit]

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

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Look what the Reliable source noticeboard replied to this. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in the section Indian links to, it loads perfectly fine for me. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Edit Request[edit]

Hi, my name is Michele Robertson and I work with Guy Ritchie as his personal publicist.

As a long time admired of the diligent work you all do, I wanted to bring to your attention two references -- along with the wording around them -- that required updating/editing to provide accurate details around the situations that are being referenced in Guy's Wikipedia page in the Personal Life section.

They are as follows:

(40) On 15 December 2008, Madonna's spokeswoman announced that the signer agreed to a divorce settlement with Ritchie, the terms of which grant him between 50 million and 60 million, an figure that includes the value of the couple's London pub and residence and Wiltshire estate in England.

This information was widely misreported at the time, and in a joint statement by Guy and Madonna the inaccurate report given to AP by her representative was retracted. A link to an accurate story with the official statement is below - thus Guy did not receive a 50 million - 60 million divorce settlement and the wording that is listed on his Wikipedia page needs to be updated to accurately reflect this.

Link to a credible source regarding the inaccurate report given to AP:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/3812501/Madonna-in-climbdown-over-claim-of-60m-divorce-payment-to-Guy-Ritchie.html

"We have tried to maintain a dignified silence regarding the details of our divorce for the last few months whilst accepting the obvious media interest. "A misleading and inaccurate statement, specifically in relation to the sums of money involved, was wrongly issued to AP this week. "The financial details of the settlement will remain private, save to say that both of us are happy with our agreement. Our primary concern, like any co-parents, is the care and well-being of our children."


(33) On 18 May 2000, Richie was arrested by the police after he assaulted a 20-year-old man outside the Keningston home he shared with the American entertainer Madonna, causing actually bodily harm.

As noted in the below referenced article, Guy was arrested but no charges were filed and the man in question was an overzealous fan/photographer who had been harassing the then couple and tried to open the door to access a then pregnant Madonna. The sentence as it now in on his page does not reflect the full scope of the situation, and needs to be updated to accurately reflect the scope of the incident.

http://www.eonline.com/news/40822/madonna-mansion-burgled

In June, an overzealous fan who had been harassing the couple for months showed up at the home Madonna was then renting in the posh Kensington disctrict and confronted the couple as they returned home from a night of clubbing. The man allegedly tried to open Madonna's car door before the chivalrous Ritchie stepped in and clobbered him (Ritchie was arrested, but the charges were eventually dropped). A few weeks later, thieves ransacked the place while Madonna and Ritchie were out at the premiere of her film The Next Best Thing.


Look forward to your swift response and care in addressing these.

Respectfully,

Michele Robertson — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicheleRobertson (talk • contribs) 23:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I updated both sections. However, I noticed that E! Online reported the assault had occurred in June 2000, whereas Yahoo! news on 18 May 2000. I assumed the discrepancy was just a mistake by E! Online writer. 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:35, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The McLaughlins have a pedigree going back to King Edward I of England."[edit]

This is not noteworthy. England had a population of 4,750,000 in 1290, today it's 55 million. Chances are that almost everyone except recent immigrants have a pedigree going back to Edward.

Also, if the pedigree goes back to Edward, it also goes back to William the Conqueror - what's special about Edward?----217.248.45.143 (talk) 00:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Guy Ritchie. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Guy Ritchie. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Guy Ritchie/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mccunicano (talk · contribs) 02:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be reviewing this article soon. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 02:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Overall the article seems ready to pass, though there is an issue with referencing detailed below.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    When a reference about the awards Swept Away received at 2002 Raspberry Awards is applied to the article it will be eligible to pass.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    A source for the awards should not be too hard to find, good work so far on this article. Please ping me when you have added that reference. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 23:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mccunicano, Thank you for the speedy review. I have added the references, as well as made some minor copyedits to the article. All in all, I'm happy with the article too! Thanks. L150 13:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for adding that. I have a couple of questions for the lead: Is his current marriage really notable enough to be included in the lead? Also, the word film is used a bit repetitively in the second paragraph, perhaps "his directorial debut in a feature film" could be rephrased as "his feature-length directorial debut"? I took care of another instance of "film" being repeated in regards to Ritchie's King Arthur film. ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 00:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mccunicano, I agree with the notability of the current marriage. I've added his marriage to Madonna in the second paragraph and removed any reference to the current marriage. Hopefully this looks better. I've also taken your suggestion and reworded several instances of "film". Thanks. L150 19:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for bearing with me during my first GA review process. All in all, I don't see any issues in the article after those adjustments you made. As such, this article has passed. Keep up your good work! ⑉⑉Mccunicano☕️ 00:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Movie writer[edit]

M writer How can i contact with you to talk about my Hollywood movie story Pardeep khattri (talk) 08:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other business ventures[edit]

I've just added a small section on his other business ventures - pubs he owns, his Gritchie Brewing Company, the Wild Kitchen company, plus his recently announced purchase of Compton Abbas Airfield. 109.152.244.12 (talk) 10:02, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revolver was only less popular in the US/UK![edit]

Here in Germany, France, BeNeLux & surrounding countries, it’s considered an insider tip and a masterpiece!

It just takes some brain and education power to understand it. We Germans generally concluded that some people and generally some countries are just too fuckin stupid for this movie. So Ritchie just was too ambitious for his moronic first audiemnce, and threw diamonds before pigs. Sad. But given the permanent puberty state of such people, I’m certain that they will get all ”offended“, like pubescents, too, be in denial inside their filter bubble of stupid, and delete fucking everything I said.

I’m just saying it should be described as a masterpiece panned by dumb people, instead of blaming the movie.

— 2A0A:A546:D81D:1:40ED:9B69:9B42:63C4 (talk) 23:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Guy_Ritchie&oldid=1210061451"