Talk:Grease 2

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

citation Needed[edit]

A citation is needed for the quote "The film's one notable contribution was in shoring up what had been a flagging bowling interest in the US. Prior to the film's release, the past-time had been in considerable decline from it's noted "golden age" of 1840-1960 with hundreds of allies closing across the country. The number "Score Tonight" has been credited as almost singlehandedly reviving interest in the sport, leading, in part, to the second "golden age" of bowling of the late 1980's-present. It is largely unknown, even by bowling enthusiasts, that the the film is largely responsible for this renaissance the sport has enjoyed."

How can this be proven? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.13.113 (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned this part up a bit, making the history clearer without being as heavy-handed as it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.252.143 (talk) 07:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The clean-up makes it sound like original research. This is not a legitimate claim. DFS (talk) 07:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Raspberry Awards[edit]

What was criticized about this movie must be featured in the 1982 Golden Raspberry Awards.

I don't see GREASE 2 even nominated for a Raspberry Award. WHAT are you talking about?

Are You Kidding Me?[edit]

“ Grease 2 is still considered by a small following as better than the original. ” um who are these people? Do they not have eyes, ears or a central nervous system? Unless this can be substantiated somehow (which is highly doubtful) then this whole Cult Status section should be removed. Grave architecture 18:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It is correct, as I am one of those people that feels the sequel is much more entertaining than the original.It HAS attained cult status! Where have you been? What do you care if it has developed a following over the years? If it doesn't interest you, why are you here? Check out GREASE2.NET for proof that there are loyal fans out there.

GREASE 2 has a loyal fan base and those of you who dont get it NEVER WILL.

GREASE 2 is the word.

Um, no, the bird is the word.

RM: I agree. I am another HUGE Grease 2 fan. Have been since the movie was released 25 years ago. And yes, there are MANY of us, so the CULT FOLLOWING part to the article IS true. Just look at the Grease2.net website and you will see that. I work with 2 other Grease 2 fans who LOVE the 2nd one better than the original. Also, we should mention that some celebrities LOVE Grease 2 as well, such as Drew Barrymore (hell, there was a whole scene in DATE WITH DREW about Grease 2) and Noah Wyle. And let's not forget the BIGGEST compliment G2 can have was being featured on The Simpsons, of all shows.

To me, It's one of those so-bad-it's-actually-good movies! Conquistador2k6 5 June 2007 14:51 (UTC)

Any statement like this is going to be true, there are so many people on the earth. Jackaranga 17:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im one of those people. Portillo (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Michael and Sandy[edit]

MICHAEL IS FROM AUSTRAILIA OK AS OF HE BEING SANDY'S COUSIN!! In Grease 2 here is a line with proof!! "..she's an exchange student from Sydney,Austrailia... ~Frenchy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micsam77 (talk • contribs) 08:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael's from England! 71.111.238.7 (talk) 02:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


-Question: Why does it say he's Frenchy's cousin in the Cast header?

Frenchy calls him Sandy's cousin. Factchecker170 (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Factchecker170[reply]

A minor success?[edit]

No movie that makes back $15m on a $13m dollar budget is a minor success. It is, at best, a minor box office failure. The studio gets roughly have the ticket take...so they paid $13m to make the movie, and got $7.5m in revenue. In other words, they lost over $5m. And who knows whether that budget counts whatever it cost to market the film? If it didn't, then the studio is even further in the red. This must be corrected. --74.192.25.188 (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Almost a year later, and no one's fixed this. I just edited out the "minor success" line, and didn't call it a box office failure, or anything similar. It probably should be (based on the reasoning in the above comments), but I think it would just irritate people. 170.145.0.100 (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The length of the plot[edit]

Recently, Portillo has been trying to change the length of the plot to three lousy paragraphs and no mentions of the songs. Portillo, please stop. the plot is not too long. Remember what Dinah Manoff of the first Grease said in I Ought to Be in Pictures, the film, that is: No part is too big or too small. That goes for film plots too. The soundtrack is now in this artcile. I may as well make it an article itself myself. The plot now is too short, Portillo. I'm going to change it back again like it's supposed to be. And do me a favor, check out the article for I Ought to Be in Pictures (film) because that plot is too short. Remember: No plot is too big or too small. Let everybody at wikipedia know. Adios. --E2e3v6 (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMPLOT says "The plot summary is an overview of the film's main events, so avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns and technical detail." Portillo (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMPLOT recommends plot summaries be under 700 words. I chopped this down to under that, so I'm going to remove the tag. DFS (talk) 06:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1961[edit]

Grease 2 is set in 1961, not 1962. I'm getting a little tired of this. Oh and by the way I need help on the I Ought to Be in Pictures (film) article.--E2e3v6 (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grease 2 is responsible for a bowling renaissance in US?[edit]

This claim is highly spurious. It is based upon one article with an anonymous author that claims Grease 2 was a "super hit" (it was not) and "changed the image of the sport which was regarded as an older person's or a gentleman's sport. The song, Score Tonight, in the movie spurred great interest in the sport among young people." This article was written in 2009 and sounds like revisionist history to me with nothing to back up the claim. Is there another claim, anywhere over the past 30 years, that Grease 2 was remotely responsible for making bowling popular in the 1980's? DFS (talk) 07:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I removed it. The source simply didn't pass the sniff test. DFS (talk) 18:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This was fairly common knowledge when I was growing up. I can't find a good reference on a quick net perusal, but maybe someone with more knowledge can. Certainly known in the bowling industry by insiders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.148.252.143 (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We cannot add the claim without reliable sources discussing the claim. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:33, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think Summer is the page's official editor. Didn't realize other fans had already put this in. Here's one source to assist. It's the official Grease wiki. http://grease.wikia.com/wiki/Grease_Wiki There's other sites that discuss it, but this should help. It's also cited on the Wikipedia page about bowling so that should back it up fairly well. Good luck! 162.219.202.54 (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "official editor" here or on any other page.
That said, we need a reliable source for this. Adding it to Bowling and mentioning that it's in this article (and vice-versa) doesn't help. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, so that just shows that someone added it to the other article (in this case, you). That leaves the Grease Wiki.
Blogs, sites with user submitted content and user edited sites are not reliable sources. We cannot use a wiki as a source for Wikipedia. I tried to find the claim on the Grease wiki, on the off-chance that it cites a reliable source there. I couldn't find it there -- they don't have an article for "Bowling" and their article for the song is nothing but the lyrics to the song (which is a copyright violation.
Maybe the scene in the movie did have an impact on bowling. It would be surprising, given the low ticket sales, but who knows. In any case, WP:IRS outlines what we're looking for in terms of sourcing.
Even with a reliable source, WP:WEIGHT is likely to be an issue. We obviously don't include everything that we can find about a subject. If we did, every article would be a tangled mess hundreds or thousands of pages long, packed full of trivia, from Richard Nixon's Social Security number to the specific frequency of a whistle included in Cap'n Crunch cereal. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, let's get this out in the open. The claim was first added December 10, 2009 by Dualrole. It was defended on this page by 98.148.252.143 on August 3, 2011. Now it's being defended by 162.219.202.54 who says they "Didn't realize other fans had already put this in."

No, Dualrole and both IPs are one editor. - SummerPhDv2.0 03:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Caulfield Quote Twice[edit]

There's a quote from Caulfield that's in the article twice (about the film damaging his career, and it feeling like a bucket of water was thrown in his face): it appears once in the cast section, and once in the reception section. Based on the overall length of the article, it's a little repetitive to have it in there twice. I won't delete one of them: I'll leave that decision up to someone who's more dedicated to the article. It's just really a rough read having it twice. 170.145.0.100 (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason of the $19.2 million Grease 2[edit]

I thought the budget of Grease 2 was $13 million. Why was it changed to $19 million? The movie made $15 milllion. It was a big failure, right? But John Travolta, Stockard Channing, and Dinah Manoff each had a bad year. Does anybody know the reason of the budget change or what?--E2e3v6 (talk) 10:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The updated reference shows a Domestic Total Gross of $15,171,476 but no source for the budget. Do you have a source for the figure in the budget field of the infobox? Sottolacqua (talk) 11:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. I take back what I said earlier; Paramount Pictures had a bad year in 1982.--E2e3v6 (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Grease 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Year[edit]

The original Grease is set from Summer 1958 to June 1959. Two years after the original Grease is June 1961. Yeah, this one starts in September so it is 2 years and three months, but close enough. September 1960, OTOH, is 1 year and three months, which is unlikely to be mistaken for "two years later". - SummerPhDv2.0 03:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We've had several attempts to change it to three years, all from once-and-done IPs without explanation/sources. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The original is set in the 1958 - 1959 school year (see Talk:Grease_(film)#Year). September 1961 is 2 years, three months later. That is closer to two years than three and is clearly not one year. - SummerPhDv2.0 04:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grease 2. 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) 21:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Grease_2&oldid=1195501954"