Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Red Dwarf
Red Dwarf[edit source]
Well, here's the worst body of text I've ever written, mildly rewritten into the second worst body of text I've ever written. Any suggestions, comments, concerns—any words, in fact (Pee Review's been a bit slow lately)—are welcome. Thanks in advance—
Sir MacMania GUN—[23:01 18 Jul 2010]
|
For a bumming session with Noel Fielding |
| Humour: | 7 | Decent throughout, I have to say however that it often feels more factual than parody. This is problem when tackling comedies. I would counteract this by having more of the rimmer insults, which make the show what it is. I particularly like the sputum themed insults that were rife in seasons 4-5. You could have more reference to these, which would make it funnier. I think more could be expanded on the topic in the first sections before the fan apology bits at the bottom. Red Dwarf is an immense beast; you don't mention so many motifs or parody them. Things like the Skutters, or the recurring plot lines of alternate realties and time travel. 'No aliens' is a major point that isn't even mentioned, this s vital to the show, which avoids aliens, in favor of a more existential and social critique. Very much like Blade Runner or other harder science fiction.
I don't really get that it’s a planet or astronomical phenomenon, though I like the picture. I always felt that Red was symbolic of the proles and that the crew were in isolation and in dire straights thanks to a flawed and arrogant chain of command in the 1980s and 90s. The list of characters is well, listy. I would write an expanded list for the four protagonists (with Bullitt points), and then a paragraph or two about supporting charcaters/lifeforms. I would also parody them more, rather than simply state there roles in the show. Your synopsis is flawed as it says 'monsters' - there are o monsters on Red Dwarf, they are all manifest by humans - therefore the monsters reflect our demons, rather than external sources of evil. The hostile forces may be 'pastiche, but parodying them as being ripped off is simply wrong, they are parodying science fiction, especially many of the films. Often the mundane and very British life is juxtaposed with these attempts to navel gaze beyond the final frontier. That’s why the robots are Neurotic cleaners and the human are not the well-educated better heroic selves that are often portrayed; they are just like you and me. As for upping the synopsis, you might want to have gone at making fun of the recurring plot lines, poor effects (how many times can you see Starbugs strings?) or the way the characters are often artificially foisted upon one another in the massive ship. Anything goes though. |
| Concept: | 10 | One the best sitcoms of all time, if not the best. It’s nice to see a decent article on the show on Uncylopedia. I think the angle you've come from could be improved in many areas. Similalry the largeish sections about devout fans being angered by the article is not as accesible in terms of understanding the show and parodying it |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | Looks fine to me. I dislike the first sections listyness; this is made a lot better by expanding each entry with a full paragraph and having bullets. Also making the list s a lot shorter, especially for less prominent characters (just a thought, but am I the only one that finds Holly really sexy?). The synopsis looks fine. It’s the content, which I mentioned which is the problem. This is where to work on I think. The fan support boxes are good, but as Clint Eastwood would say, fuckin' ugly. I would make just one larger one instead of several smaller ones. But again I would not remove these, as I like them, but they are very blocky and intrusive. In popular culture looks out of place. As I mentioned in the synopsis as similar issue with the idea of the show 'stealing' sci fi themes rather than making fun of them is not present. Its would be a better route to say perhaps where some of these parodies drift more into slapstick silliness and often seem to lose relevance in some shows which are very preoccupied what the mental states of each of the highly dysfunctional characters.
Overall well formatted, no complaints about the prose etc. |
| Images: | 8 | No complaints, well formatted and relevant. I would no change these |
| Miscellaneous: | 9 | I like the show, and this article is a major improvement on the last article. Again, I think the angel you've come from is too superficial, especially for a show that has a lot going on within it. I agree with you, that the reboot in 2009 was a big mistake however as the cast are simply too old for the shoes of those characters. There is no or little character arc for the four protagonists - every show they proceed to deal with there problems exactly the same as in the first show. |
| Final Score: | 42 | Hope this help, if you have any query’s or any other thoughts, just leave a message:-) |
| Reviewer: | --Sycamore (Talk) 10:53, July 19, 2010 (UTC) | |