Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Pixar (2nd review)
Pixar [edit source]
I've mostly fixed up formatting since the last one. Mostly I'm resubmitting so soon because I'd like an in-depth analysis of where humour could be developed further, since I'm often rather unskilled at spotting such opportunities. 
Sir MacMania GUN—[03:31 12 Aug 2009]
User:POTR/Template:PEEing
I'll be finished tomorrow Pup - oh, and [ is shorter than [
Nearly there- just have to get back home and onto my computer - check back in about 6 hours. Pup
| Concept, which must be the basis of your article if I'm using this template: |
7 | I have to admit that this doesn't seem to have the same zip and sizzle of the last couple of things of yours that I have read. Now this may be just that the last couple of things were fantastic and this is merely good, or it may be just that I'm becoming accustomed to the way that you write.
Having said that, I would not call this bad - in fact if it was a piece put up by an average contributor here I'd probably be raving over how good it is. But I just feel that there hasn't been as much energy put into this as some of your other works. I think the main thing that bothers me with this overall is the format/concept. This is really a script for a self-referential Pixar movie, but it's advertised as an encyclopedia article. (Typing this on my phone that has us dictionary and an over-excited predictive text. Encyclopaedic. Hah, got it!) So the writing in the style of, which worked for Sherlock Holmes as that is predominantly a text-based medium - simply falls flat here. Simple solution - call it an "Unscript training for Pixar writers" or something of that ilk. Complex solution - you've captured the inherit comedy/tragedy aspect of Pixar (and as a side product the seven basic plots - there's my intellectual reference for the day) but the format it has been communicated by is an issue. Keep the basis, change the writing style, and start again. Other option - I don't know what this is, but I'm happy to admit that my advice is not definitive. |
| Humor, without a second u, because I'm American: |
8 | I'm going to go through a quick look at the "jokes"within the article itself.
There is a significant self-reference at the start of the article that "feels" wrong. I would suggest setting this up differently. Maybe the characters are watching a documentary, or watching a movie. Something that you would imagine a 10 year old boy to be doing. As an aside, Pixar appears to aim it's movies at 10 - 13 year old American boys. This means that the concepts and topics are things that American pre-teen boys can relate to (toys, monsters, bugs, cars, rats, blah blah) As a corollary to this, the characters all have the emotional and intellectual maturity of a child. this means that if you are truly to stick to "in the style of" most of your writing and humour has to have the same audience to be authentic style-wise. The argument about "cars" is a good set-up for a repetition based joke. It also sets up the "character conflict" well. For it to work well it needs to have at least two reps. Now there is a good rep in the movie listing, but a weak one in the human speech. I'd putin one more strong reference in here somewhere toward the end - it's a running joke that needs at least one more for the kick. "Mismatched Buddies" seems to be the only section where the topic is immediately supported by an example. I was waiting for the "I'm a little bit country/I'm a little bit rock 'n' roll" moment that should be there. "Fish out of Water" also seems a little light on similar reference. Again, 10 year old - make it blunt. John Ratzenburger - the least successful character from Cheers... even the annoying psychiatrist had his own show... There's something there that can be exploited. "Up" - The "I haven't seen this" bugs me. I'd rather you add in spoilers here, as it wouldn't take sidekick get the plot synopsis for this. Which leads me smoothly to my next section. I'd love to see a "create your own movie" section that shows how easy it is to follow this formula. One thing that is missing is "the odyssey" - the sidekick travels to get the hero while the hero is trying to get back. Not essential for the purposes of your article, but you might be able to use it. |
| Your spelling and grammar, which probably sucks: |
8 | See all my comments in the previous sections relating to writing style.
In regards to spelling and grammar, I didn't come across any glaring errors.It's not professional standard grammar, maybe, but it fits in with the chosen voice. (Yes, I will sacrifice grammatical correctness and spelling for artistic merit.) Layout and appearance is not exciting, but it's not bad. I'd like to see a bit more of a focus on this to have a more cohesive, flowing article, but there's nothing in particular that I can say "this should be this way." Personally I have a tendency to play with this as the last changes that I make to an article, and just keep tweaking it until it gets to what I want. Possibly using cquote template, or smart quotes. |
| Images, or lack of: | 7 | I like the first image in that it makes me feel like I'm about to watch a Pixar movie - which is of course the effect you're trying to have. The other images are good stills from movies, emphasising the point that you're trying to make, but the lack of captions (subtitles) lets them down.
What I would love to see is an animated gif for the first image if you can get it. The classic lamp coming in and jumping on the I, and then fade out. If you can get the potato gag in there as well would be fantastic. |
| Miscellaneous, not averaged, despite what some would have you believe: |
9 | People tend to look at the length of my reviews and make assumptions about my feelings toward an article - the truth is that I put a lot into these because there are always a million different things that can be done with any piece of writing. I will never say that my suggestions are the right way or the only way to go, just an alternate option. In the long run this is your baby - feel free to do with as you will.
So having said that, I like this, same as I like much of what you do on here. But this still a couple of revisions before it gets to the level that Holmes got to... Of course I didn't vote on Holmes, so what would I know? |
| Final Score, totaled, as most would have you believe: |
39 | This latest review is on Pixar. A writer, a character familiar with his environment, forms a tense relationship with a reviewer, when they get banned . They behave like fish out of water until, by a very lucky series of events, they escape certain death, and return to warm welcomes. |
| Me: | Pup | |