Talk:Jackass Number Two

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Comedy

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: American C‑class

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Starring

I thought that Raab himself was never one of the starring cast members anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.21.231 (talk • contribs)

Did you watch the first one? He was in it for a great deal of the movie. --Liface 23:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was not in the opening sequence though? And all of the other mentioned people were.

I've been looking through the soundtrack portion of this page and I cannot find the song used during the "Old Man's Balls" scene. Anyone know the artist or song?

Known stunts/skits

Bam gets branded by Ryan Dunn, while Johnny Knoxville holds him still.
Bam's crew jump on Rake Yohn’s head while not looking.
Bam sets Rake Yohn's hair on fire
Chris Pontius drinks horse semen.
Don Vito gets his tooth pulled out by Bam's Lamborghini.
Knoxville and Bam try out a “hornet's nest grenade”.
Knoxville gets rammed by a yak, blindfolded.
Knoxville rides a rocket, Wile E. Coyote style.
Ryan Dunn is locked in a car with a bee's nest.
Steve-O gets a leech put on his eyeball.
Wee Man and Preston do the "Human Bungee"
Cobra Kid "David Weathers" releases a cobra on Bam Margera and makes him cry.
A big dance intro.
Giving two random girls tattoos about signs they saw on the way to the tattoo parlor.

Please cite sources for these. Iola k ana•T 20:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following were not included in the actual movie, but may be added in the DVD release as a bonus feature:

Bam's crew jump on Rake Yohn’s head while not looking.
Bam sets Rake Yohn's hair on fire
Knoxville and Bam try out a “hornet's nest grenade”.
Don Vito gets his tooth pulled out by Bam's Lamborghini.
Giving two random girls tattoos about signs they saw on the way to the tattoo parlor.

And the "Big Dance Intro" is really a "Big Dance Outro". Moterola

Also not included

Rakepunzel - I assume this is when Bam sets Rake's hair on fire mentioned above
a bit with called Snapper Turtle and Lobster Claw(The latter may have been in the credits)
A stunt with Preston Lacy dressed as King King and Wee Man as Ann Darrow atop a Port-A-Potty as the rest of the crew flies electric air planes around and in to them (shown in the making of special and a picture on the official site)

Official Site(the first three are mentioned in the Wolfie Diaries)

a human pendulum stunt[1]
A mini bike race[2]
a segment with Wee Man dressed as baby[3]
An Obstacle Course - Mentioned in the DVD commentary and may have been shown briefly during the 'Making of' featuring Knoxville screaming in a pit of mud covered in barbed wire

--Dravenfrost 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second trailer

I added {{Fact}} to the part about the second trailer, as I have been unable to locate it. Cite a link for it if it is indeed out. - seinman 02:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yak

i am removing the 'yak' links [they're pranks] and wikifying the words.

Unless someone objects. Steamrunner 09:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Generation

I understand that some of the scenes (such as the intro) needed CG in order to really be done, however I got the feeling the editing room wanted to 'sex it up' to much. I think that the cg detracted from the movie, its supposed to be chaos after all. I'm not an expert in the field, but I can see when the lighting is just off. Scenes that I noticed CG in: Begining bull stampede Firehose Rodeo Bull Teeter-totter (the end where Knoxville is the last one and is running out, watch the legs Bungee Jump (the bungie pulling weeman into the water after Preston has fallen) Swamp Parachute Stunt

Thats all I can remember off my head.

If it's significant, like it really affected some of the skits or something, you should add it to the article. Just remember to find a source. SuperDT 18:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rake Yohn

Rake is not in this movie!!!Toasty! 01:03, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~you sure you were in the right theater buddy?

Stunt names

In the list describing the various stunts in the movie, should we include the name of every stunt? Or could that be a possible copyright violation? --Pixelface 19:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About: Grammar, punctuation, and all that good stuff

No offense to most of you, but some of you have extremely crappy formal English writing skills. I fixed around 30 or so typos that were caused from 3-5 users in the summary section alone! A rule of thumb: if it doesn't make sense to you,it probably won't make sense to other people.

Second, please refrain from using slang such as "ass," "piss," "poo," etc., unless it is from a quote, or ABSOLUTELY necessary.

Third, please stop using words like don't, can't, it's, etc. and instead use do not, cannot, it is, etc.

I'm sorry if I sound mean, but it makes me so mad and disturbed that some people can barely understand formal writing skills. That is all. SuperDT 05:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...you're an idiot. Wait, sorry, what I meant was, you ARE an idiot. (76.68.13.241 (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Feel free to correct your typo. Dravenfrost 23:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page ettiquite

It's not proper to edit a talk page and remove someone's post because you don't agree with it or it annoys you. What SuperDT said was accurate and necessary. The article needs gramaticall cleanup so that it doesn't appear to be written by a 10 year old. I realize that 10 year olds are drawn to this article, but come on, we're writing for an encyclopedia here. -seinman 23:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is ettiquite? Dravenfrost 15:21, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that there is no plot in the movie. It does not cite any sources for that matter. How can I agree upon it.There has to be a script or something. The events in the movie are completely random but that does not mean there is no plot.Mohit Kanwal 03:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the article

That was pretty smart, making a seperate article for the stunts. I think we should put about 5 or so notable stunts, such as the Milking the Horse one, into the main article, and add the ending and credits. SuperDT 20:30, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article was spiralling out of control. What ones do you feel are notable enough. Iola k ana•T 18:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the Milking the horse and the terrorist one were notable because of the content of them. SuperDT 06:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stunts page has been nominated for deletion by someone else Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stunts_performed_in_Jackass_Number_Two.

I suggest the stunts be re-included on this article (or at least the stunt names).

You can vote '''Keep''' or '''Delete''' on the AFD page. --Pixelface 11:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The film grossed $29 during its opening weekend, taking the number one spot at the box office. [2] The film grossed an additional $14 in its second week. As of October 26, 2006, the film had made $71.5, more than the previous film made in its entire run."

A whole $71.5? Is that US dollars or AUD? :) I have serious doubts it made JUST $71.5..

Is it millions or otherwise?

I was wondering that too ;-) PureLegend 21:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ryan dunns nuts

On Radio bam ryan dunn mentioned that in the ending sequence that his pants split and his nuts were hanging out has anyone seen any instance of it

No, this was niether in the Movie nor Special Features. ClayteX 19:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you look closely while Dunn is dancing you can see his pants split a little. You can't really make out anything, buy you can see flesh. Mwutz 04:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bold text Do we have bam radio in aussie i love bam he is my hero and all u guys lay off him id like 2 c us do some of that stuff == The song in the beginning? ==

Which song is it, that are played in the beginning of the movie? It is played, when they run away from the bulls.

Does anyone know the song that had three six mafia singing in it at the end of the movie during the credits?

It's called doing a little work and reading the "Soundtrack" subject on the main article. ClayteX 19:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there's something called being a little bit more courteous to new people. Instead of biting their head off, give them a push in the right direction; after all, we don't want to scare them off.

Anyways, to the person who asked about that song, while we would love to help you, the talk page is for discussing changes to the article, not a forum for the subject. Please refer to the main article or the possibly many other sites out there that have this information. Thank you. SuperDT 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The song is "Gettin' ****ed Up". I used the asteriks because I wasn't sure if they spelled as that like that or not, but I know that's the song. Navex 14:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don Vito

I think it should be revelant to notate how Don Vito's scene's were pulled from the movie. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.41.14.138 (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

And he isn't on the DVD release, even though he was supposed to. also a mistake on his entry. - n7bor of the german wikipedia (just registered here, N7bor 00:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

He's not on the DVD most likely because Parmount wants nothing to do with him. I have not seen any official reports that the scene were suppose to be on the DVD other than Rake Yohn's statement (but i saw that on wiki) --01:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)~

Vito was pulled from the film becuase of his Arrest for Sexual Assault, you can read about it and see a picture of his mugshot on his page (Vincent Margera). ClayteX 19:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was the "Big Tire Race" faked?

I'm asking this question because the first time I was watched it, I felt the bouncing of the tires going down hill was a bit strange, un-natural, does anyone also see what I am talking about or have an explaination? - RVDDP2501 00:19, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Their body weights and masses are necessarily spread unevenly through the tire, creating an "elliptical orbit" effect. If you were in the tire, when do you think you would bounce higher - when the part of the tire braced by your spine hit the ground, or when the part of the tire which had the least body against it and therefore more flex in the rubber did.. the exact piece of dirt the tire bounces off and the undulating nature of the slope also affect it. Deiz talk 12:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jn2soundtrackcover.jpg

Image:Jn2soundtrackcover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rake Yohn

Why does the opening paragraph cite Rake Yohn did not return for this installment? He did in fact film stunts with the crew but they just didn't make the final cut. While it's ok to say he didn't show up in the movie, I think it's fair to at least mention he did return with the other supporting crew. He mentions all this on his official Myspace as well if it needs verification. Navex 00:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

documentary

The movie is non-fiction, and thus a documentary.[4] [5] [6] I'm restoring the category. THF 00:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't follow your point. The movie is a series of scripted stunts and set-ups. I appreciate the definition of documentary is vague, but imho the Jackass films do not exactly "document" non-fiction. I'm not going to revert you again because, eh, it's a category.. maybe the film project eds will have an opinion. Deiz talk 02:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sicko is also a series of scripted stunts and set-ups. Reliable sources call the Jackass movies documentaries. THF 03:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparing apples to oranges, and your edits are beginning to look like bad faith. Stop trying to make a WP:Point since the genesis of this came about because of your obsessive editing on Sicko (film) - reel it in, Ted, or this can become the subject of wider community discussion. --David Shankbone 04:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reliably sourced this. This movie is classified as a documentary on several film sites. WP:POINT is a disruptive edit, and these are productive ones. I've never contested that Sicko is a documentary. THF 04:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have found a few websites that throw in the category "documentary" for good measure. Produce one film critic who calls it a documentary, and not websites that try to "cover all bases" in their categorization. This is a disruptive edit to make a WP:Point - this only came up in the context of the Sicko "fourth highest-grossing documentary" discussion. Regardless, you'll need to do better than find websites who throw in every category, and find a credible critic who sees it as documentary. If you don't like that criteria, open it up for wider comment on Wikipedia. --David Shankbone 04:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boxofficemojo recognizes Jackass as a documentary, which is why it came up. I've already cited credible critics: A.O. Scott, who called the first Jackass movie "like a documentary of Fight Club", and Onion AV Club does also for the second. More: Deseret News film critic; Pajiba (Pajiba is cited in several other Wikipedia film articles); Blockbuster.com. This is a difficult google search, because there are also documentaries about the making of Jackass, but the critical point is that the movie fits well within the Wikipedia definition for documentary film. THF 04:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate there may have to be a wider debate about this, let's not forget that this page should be used to discuss the JN2 article, and is the best place to gain consensus among interested editors about the presentation of said article. Absent of a larger groundswell of opinion agreeing that JN2 is a documentary, I think we can safely leave out this somewhat controversial change until clear consensus / guidance to include it emerges. Also, "Like a documentary of Fight Club" is very different from a direct categorisation as a documentary. Deiz talk 05:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to edit-war. But not a single editor has given a reason why this is controversial.

More sources:

Philadelphia Weekly, 3 January 2007: Jackass Number Two (2006) (Shown on DVD): It might not have inspired the flurry of think pieces Borat did, but the year's best, most twisted cross-over documentary-and don't forget it is, in every definition of the word, a documentary-offers more of the versatile tomfoolery found in previous incarnations.
Village Voice, Nathan Lee (best of year list), 3 January 2007: 5. Jackass Number Two [Jeff Tremaine, U.S.A.] Braver than Borat, funnier than Talladega Nights, more cathartic than United 93, crazier than Apocalypto, and gayer than Another Gay Movie, the studio film of the year is also the best documentary and features the best ensemble performance.
Columbus Dispatch, Frank Gabrenya, 31 December 2006: Twenty documentaries had commercial runs in central Ohio, presenting a range of subjects as disparate as Dave Chappelle's Block Party, Who Killed the Electric Car? and The War Tapes to The U.S. vs. John Lennon, Jesus Camp and, yes, Jackass: Number Two. That's a wealth of choices.
Deseret Morning News, Jeff Vice (worst of year list), 31 December 2006: JACKASS: NUMBER TWO. Like the first film, this "extreme-prank" documentary exploited human and animal cruelty. Shame on anyone who paid money to see it. (Note that "extreme-prank" gets scare-quotes, but documentary does not.)

I can find many more (including a piece I'm about to publish in a reliable source). How many do we need for a consensus? How about the objectors find one film critic who says it is not a documentary? THF 12:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is taking place at WP:Film: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Films#Jackass:_The_Movie_and_Jackass_Number_Two_as_documentary_films.3F
--David Shankbone 14:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People don't tend to categorise things by what they're not, hence that's not really a fair challenge. The fact two editors have removed the cat and we have this healthy chat going shows this is controversial.. as far as the refs above go, PW, VV and DMN look OK, CD is a bit sweeping.. are you accessing lexisnexis? Would be nice to be able to cite/link the complete articles. In any case, this is far more convincing than "The movie is non-fiction, and thus a documentary". As I noted above, I'm also not into edit warring when possible and am not personally going to remove the cat again, I also appreciate your not readding the cat again before further discussion and would note that I was unaware that you were involved in something at Sicko. I think the thing to do would be create a few lines or section in the article noting that while it is generally classified as comedy, various reliable sources (reviews in serious media, OK / Blockbuster.com and blog-reviews, no) categorise the movie as a documentary. Then we'd have a show... However, other editors also have views on this and I might not be your hardest target to win over. Deiz talk 14:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is off a database, unfortunately, so the best I can do is cut-and-paste. I did find a hyperlink to the Deseret News and Village Voice, and a splog reprinted the Columbus Dispatch piece. The Phil. Weekly doesn't keep its archives online. THF 14:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proposed addition

By one calculation, Jackass Number Two is the sixth-highest grossing documentary in the U.S.[7]

As I wrote the source in question, per WP:COI, I suggest it on the talk page for editors to decide what to do with rather than adding it myself. The Village Voice review listed above is also notable. THF 23:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the addition, I just know others have voiced concerns.. Deiz talk 00:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this addition. Unnotable, partisan-inspired list in a non-film unnotable partisan magazine, that will never be updated. I think Box Office MoJo's list is sufficient, widely-accepted in the film community and doesn't cause confusion. The article is more anti-Michael Moore than it is about a film or tracking the box office receipts of films. --David Shankbone 03:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this in the right place? Deiz talk 03:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you click on the link that Ted supplied above. Or, here it is again: http://www.american.com/archive/2007/august-0807/more-fudged-michael-moore-numbers
--David Shankbone 03:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus: Not to use Ted Frank's list

Based on arguments over this list on Talk:Sicko, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, the consensus is that this list should in no way be used. --David Shankbone 15:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 19:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jackass 2.5

I seem to have been hearing conflicting reports, is Jackass 2.5 going to be Jackass 2 with new footage, or is it supposed to be a movie made entirely of footage not in 2? -Joltman (talk) 16:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it looks like new footage that was cut out of the original movie, like what would normally be included in special features. They are releasing it online, so they probably won't be including the original movie. — Ocatecir ^T 16:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ive seen it and its actually entirely new footage and only about 2 skits in it are extensions of ones form jackas 2, the description should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.80.39 (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I got Jackass 2.5 yesterday, and it's an entirely new movie. It is not just an extended version of Jackass Number 2, it is entirely new footage. 2.5 deserves it's own seperate page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.2.70.143 (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

The reception section is overly positive, there are no negative reviews mentioned. --Mika1h (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...since when is that a bad thing? ;D (76.68.13.241 (talk) 20:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Written by

I removed the "written by" section on the infobox becuase:

1. The movie was written by the entire cast and some crew, not just Cliver and Preston
2. The source says "Screenplay, Sean Cliver, Preston Lacy." which is inaccurate since there was no screenplay for Jackass Number Two.

I don't since there should be a "written by" section in the infobox because its not very suitable for this type of movie. You would have to list every single cast member and also the director, producers and everyone else who came up with ideas. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 00:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a source that proves this source inaccurate and not just your own personal opinion, I will take the word of variety over some anonymous wikipedia editor. Don't remove sourced material unless you can prove that it is incorrect. — Ocatecir ^T 01:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heres a screenshot from the from credits.[8] Ok so now can the "written by" section be removed....? -- Coasttocoast (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm inclined to agree with the removal.. it's disputed, and seems empirically clear that Lacy and Cliver didn't exactly "write" the film, certainly not on their own, and not the way this would usually be understood. I appreciate it's sourced, but I think it's fine to leave it out. Deiz talk 01:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preston's Myspace

On Preston Lacy's official Myspace (Link found on jackassworld.com)He wrote down that he is one of the writers for the jackass franchise, and he goes on to state, Jackass the show, The Movie, Number Two, Jackass 2.5, and Jackass 3. Wait he said Jackass 3, is that credible evidence?Onepiece226 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Onepiece226[reply]

Homosexuality?

The opening paragraph reveals that Jackass #2 is comprised of "Stunts, Gags and Skits," this is what I would label the first Jackass Movie.

I, personally, could not even stand watching this film as most of the "skits" contained blatantly homosexual material. Normally, a gag would open with "I'm Johny Knoxville, and I'm gonna..." normally something extremely funny such as "...light a cherry bomb in an old folks home, punch wee-man in the face with a hydraulic ram" is followed. Jackass Number Two, in contrast to all other Jackass films, opened with "I'm Johny Knoxville, and I'm gonna film wee man nude, do a shit on camera, fly a kite using anal beads shoved up my ass, ram a dildo up my ass on high speed using a 50kg weight" I would not EVER consider this a proper Jackass movie: blood and stupidity has been replaced with "putting a crocheted mouse on my penis and filming it" (This really happened!!!)

PS: I only watched about 10 minutes worth of REAL material (the tire race was AWESOME) on this film. After the opening line had become gay, I'd skipped to the next chapter; later came to the realization that Live Male-Male Dildoing was regularly featured i was disgusted!

PPS: Don't call me homophobic: I'm sure the equivalent of Gay Porn in a comedy show is appealing for some, but it ISN'T for the rest of us!!!

Wrong order

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’ the stunts and pranks listen in the wrong order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.67.148 (talk) 21:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]