Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Mystery Science Theater 3000
Mystery Science Theater 3000[edit source]
I transformed this one from a bad attempt to mock the show to more of an affectionate parody. I want to VFH it, but I'd like a second opinion first. ~jcm 02:10, February 21, 2012 (UTC)
- I know absolutely nothing about this topic. Seriously - never heard of it before. So I'm going to review it based upon what I have here, and ignore all potential prior knowledge. Pup 10:22, March 11, 2012 (UTC)
| Humour: | 7.5 | Okay, I'm going to say stuff about the concept first. The reason being is that any article works from a basis of a good concept, and jokes are built around it. Otherwise you get a string of unrelated one liners. That can occasionally work, but more often not.
I also had to read what you'd written here about how this article came into being. This is not good. For me to be able to enjoy the article I need to know nothing about the topic or how it's written prior to the article coming into play. But this may also have something to do with the fact that I am completely ignorant of the show. The way you've introduced this does give me a better idea of what is about to happen, and the change in typeface and style also gives us a good idea of what is happening where. What I would prefer, though, is to have this as a split screen idea. Have a look at how an UnDebate is set out. It directly relates the left side to the right side, and technically the two of them don't directly relate. (Of course, the joke with the way we do debates here is that they do, but you get what I mean.) So the original text I'm going to predominantly ignore, except in that it relates to your new text. That part of the article is pretty terrible. What I'm going to focus on is the characters response(s) to the bad article. Which is really your input, and what completely changes the feel of the article. But for this concept to really work, I'd change the name of the article. Maybe something like MST3K review MST3K, although not the abbreviated version. Let me know before I get into this exactly what it is I'm reading. As for the jokes you have in there - they're done to character of the show. At least, that's my assumption. The problem is never having seen the show I can't say for certain, but they have a certain movie riff feel to them. One thing that you definitely need to keep in mod is that the character lines must be distinguishable on sight from the rest of the text. On the image caption jokes, this doesn't work. There are a few font format tricks that can be used to your advantage here. That image of muscle man Joel - I'm assuming it's completely inaccurate. That needs something different like MIKE So that's really all I can give on this bit. Most of what I can suggest would add to this is in the image section below. It's a kitsch idea, but it may work. |
| Concept: | 7.5 | |
| Prose and formatting: | 7 | Okay, I mentioned the side by side option before as another way to display this. That was my first thought. Having said that, keeping it as scrolling down allows you to do something a little more kooky.
Think about this article like you're watching the show. Imagine the text is like the closing credits on one of the b-movies they're watching. Normally you would have them at the bottom of the screen in silhouette style, and moving about a bit. Okay. Keep that in mind. Creating a black and transparent animated gif of the characters moving around would be difficult, but not impossible. Positioning them so the would be at the bottom of your monitor would actually be really easy. I just changed the way that final image displays so that it fits comfortably within the screen. (I also made a change to the {{line}} to fix up the long no at the start as well.) Having that there - even if it isn't animated - would give more of an impression of watching the show. This would also allow you to have another minor addition that once you've scrolled to the base of the screen you have one of the characters - whichever one it is - saying Thank God that's over, and then the Conservapedia comment. |
| Images: | 5 | Okay, I mentioned this in brief above. All of the images are from the original article, with the exception of the very last image. So there's not much that I can really judge this section on. You do need to do something with the commentary on the captions though. |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | The image I have in my head of how this could be is a minor change (in some ways) that makes a major change to the feel of the whole lot. I think that may be what you need to elevate this from good to featured status. |
| Final Score: | 33 | |
| Reviewer: | Pup 11:16, March 11, 2012 (UTC) | |