Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Modusoperandi/UnScripts: Star Trek (film, 2009 reboot)
User:Modusoperandi/UnScripts: Star Trek (film, 2009 reboot)[edit source]
| Prose | Concept | Humour | Images | Misc | Score | Summary |
Reviewer details:[edit source]
A little bit about the reviewer before we start.
Umm... Me judge, you competitor.
Prose and Formatting:[edit source]
How good does it look and how well does it read? 8.5
Writing style
So on to the writing style - convoluted, contrived, confusing, and many other con words. Much like watching a prequel created to an otherwise long established series which neglects so many parts of the original series in order to create a commercial success that modernises it to appeal to the kiddies who have grown up expecting CGI in their movies. In other words it matches the tone of the original prequel perfectly. Maybe it goes a little too far at times, but given I haven't gotten around to watching the source material yet and I was still able to follow it.
Well thought out and executed. Reads like a script but also reads like a parody.
Spelling
Didn't notice any, but have a few reviews to do so may have missed the odd one or two. I think you missed a few backwards Rs in the Russian though.
Grammar
Grammar issues are intentional as they are dialogue fitting to the characters.
Layout
It takes a bit to get through it in one sitting, and possibly could be broken up a little more, but I actually enjoyed going through it the way it was.
Yeah, ignore that last bit.
Overall appearance
I can't really fault it. I didn't fall off my chair and say Wow at it, but I also couldn't find an issue with it. Cleverly composed.
Concept[edit source]
How good an idea is behind the article? 8
A movie parody. Very simple, but layers underneath that poke fun at the genre and the idea of prequels as well.
Humour[edit source]
How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier? 7.5
While I was grinning like a loon throughout, there were very few laugh out loud moments. This may be due to the fact that it is an oft parodied area and many of the jokes in there I had either heard before or very close variants to them. They were put together well but there were a few running threads in there and starts of concepts that I felt were building up to something that they never quite delivered on.
I was waiting for Kirk at some stage to refer to his lineage as "Am I not the son of the father of Captain Kirk who was definitely going to survive but instead made the ultimate sacrifice in a moment of great pathos and the woman who is the wife of the father of Captain Kirk who is heavily in labour while on a battle cruiser but managed to get away at the last minute before I was born but somehow appears to have neglected me as a child and allowed me to be put in numerous life threatening situations that appear to be nothing mire than the cries for help of a neglected brat who has been brought up with no male influence so compensates by doing overly macho things?" or something along those lines.
Images[edit source]
How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting? 8.5
Nothing beyond stills from the movie, but cleverly captioned and sitting in well with the text. I rarely rate highly images that are not chopped by the author but in this case there was no chopping required, and I would find it hard to think of any alternative imagery that would suit.
The exception to that is MacMania's intro image to his Pixar script. He took a very well known animation and recreated it in a very Uncyclopedian way. I have on my mind an image of a ringed planet and the camera slowly panning across as a ship that looks like a cross between the enterprise and a potato swans into view.
Of course my love of animated gifs is showing, but how often do you get the chance of writing any sentence that contains the words "potato swans"?
Miscellaneous[edit source]
The article's overall quality - that indefinable something. 8.8
Very hard to fault, and as a one-man piece done within strict timeframes that is extremely impressive. I would put this as huge contender for top 3 of the month, and an indication of what PLS was designed to achieve.
Final score[edit source]
| Prose 8.5 |
Concept 8 |
Humour 7.5 |
Images 8.5 |
Misc 8.8 |
Final Score 41.3 |
|---|
Summary[edit source]
An overall summation of the article.
Needs more complicated coding that nobody else can understand.