Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Garfield:The Movie
Garfield:The Movie[edit source]
What do you think of the page "Garfield:The Movie"? Should it be edited or should I start again from scratch?~~MrCleveland~~
MrCleveland 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
| Humour: | 2 | You've seen the tag, mate; it's not funny. Sorry, but the plot summary is really nothing more than a randomised collection of more-or-less unrelated sentences describing random events that vaguely relate to Garfield wouldn't be funny in any form or context. Come on man, that's funny to no one. And the fact that that's about all there is doesn't help either; there are so many things one can do with the critique of a film around here, but I'm afraid you haven't done any of them. And then the page lacks an introduction, pictures...there's nothing that provokes the slightest chuckle here, mate. Sorry. |
| Concept: | 3.5 | Naw. Sorry mate, but I don't like the concept either. There's already the Garfield article, and you can't do much more with Garfield-nor, to be frank, is there much you can do in any article that's devoted to a movie, making the essence of this concept the worst of all worlds. If I were you, considering you're a begginner at this, I'd look for a more solid concept. However, if you're really serious about rewriting it (which you can do if you're willing to make more of an effort), your best bet would probably be to write it in the form of an UnScript. That would lengthen it and leave much more opportunity for humour (though it will require a fair amount of foreplanning). |
| Prose and formatting: | 5 | Urgh. I mean really, how hard is it to maintain a proper prose and format? I'm sorry, mate, but for a start, the overly simplistic tone really gives no impression of any real effort having been made. Hey, a few more sophisticated words could have worked wonders. The spelling's all right, I suppose, but there's the constant misuse of punctuation, particularly the comma, that wrecks it. Come on mate, you can do better than that. |
| Images: | 0 | Seriously, what's with the total lack of images? There's got to be a thousand things anyone with photoshop can do with pictures of Garfield. Hell, even an untouched movie poster would be better than nothing at all. Seriously, mate, as it is, it's just an ugly block of text that has absolutely no appeal to the eye. |
| Miscellaneous: | 2.6 | Averaged, as usual. |
| Final Score: | 13.1 | It's bad, mate. There's no nice way of putting it. Don't think me harsh, or feel unwelcome; just doing my job. Look, if you're willing to follow my advice (which I don't pretend is prophetic, but I think it's fair enough), and are willing to make a bit more of an effort, I'm sure you can flourish here. Or you could just post this for a second opinion if you're really unhappy with my review. Anyway, good luck. |
| Reviewer: | BlueYonder 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC) | |
I think I'll have to add a comment here - I think an UnScript is a good way to go with this, so have a read of some featured UnScripts to get a few ideas from the best we have to offer - hopefully, that'll give you some inspiration. You may also want to take a good look at HTBFANJS, which - despite the name - is not an insult, it's a collection of useful comedy writing tips that may well help you add some crucial goodness to your article. Don't give up on it - the only way to improve as a writer is to write! So have a read as suggested, and then get stuck in! Good luck. --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 10:14, May 30