Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Pet Goat
The Pet Goat[edit source]
I think of this as a slice of life in the mind of Dear Leader. I have no idea what other people will think of it. In-depth only, please. IronLung 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 |
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS of giving you his opinion and pretending you care. |
| Humour: | 5 | Hey, IronLung. Okay, this one is tough to review, which is probably why it's languished for three weeks on Pee Review.
I'll do a section-by-section like I always do: Lede: none. This isn't structured like an encyclopedia article at all, which makes me wonder if it should be an UnScripts or something. But it's fine the way it is. 8:58am: I've heard this joke before. I think, over the past eight years, I've heard this joke at least a thousand times. And the joke is: Bush is very, very stupid. He's so stupid he doesn't know what his job is. He's so stupid he doesn't know what a goat is. He's a drooling idiot. "Bush is stupid" jokes are just as overplayed as "Clinton is horny" jokes. How many years have I watched cartoonists depict Clinton sitting in the Oval Office with no pants? What's it been - twelve years, now? So, here's the bottom line. This section is going to be delightful to people who hated Bush so much that they'll gleefully laugh at "Bush is stupid" jokes until the end of time. There are some Republicans in this country who will never, ever get tired of seeing Clinton with his pants around his ankles, and there are some Democrats who will never, ever get tired of seeing Bush wearing a dunce cap. I'm not really in either category. To me, the bottom line is: you want to make me laugh, hit me with something original. The Pet Goat, Part 1: Of Goats and Eating Things: Same joke. Basically, it's the same thing. The phoenetic puntuation marks are pretty amusing, though, because Bush did have a reputation for using phoenetic marks on his teleprompter, and the idea that he'd need them in a children's book is pretty funny. That one's original: I'll give you that. 9:05am: Best part of the piece. I LOL'ed at the closed fist. That's just sick. Sick in two senses: sick in the "you're going to hell" sense and in "that's fucking clever" sense. It's technically not accurate - the towers collapsed at 9:59 and 10:28 - but who cares: it's still funny. The closing ceremony at the New Orleans Emergency Response Center is maybe a little bit too expected a joke, but it's not bad. It's borderline. The Pet Goat, Part 2: Filler. Really, it's filler. There's the expected reference to the Bush v. Gore case, and the expected Bush acting like a child reference, and... meh. Later: our Reluctant Hero goes to spread democracy: Cheap but effective. Chip's closing line is another cheap shot at Bush, but I've got to admit that the way you've phrased it makes me chuckle. It's a good way to end it. |
| Concept: | 5 | The problem with this concept is that it's just not very original. There have been dozens of reviews of The Pet Goat on Amazon (most of them eventually taken down by the company) that look very similar to this article. Will Ferrell does a piece very similar to this in his Broadway comedy act. There's stuff like this all over the Internet.
You've done a good job on this article, but it runs with exactly the same concept as all the other parodies: Bush is so dumb he found the book challenging and enlightening. And by running with that concept, the article just can't distinguish itself from everything else out there that's so similar to it. |
| Prose and formatting: | 10 | The prose and formatting of this article are outstanding. There's nothing to complain about. The phrasing of the sentences is pithy and gets the most laughs possible out of each joke. The formatting is almost perfect; the only thing I don't like about it is it looks a little plain-texty at the top. |
| Images: | 7 | They're serviceable. They're exactly what you'd expect: a picture from the book, Bush being dumb, Bush being dumb. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5 | Five. |
| Final Score: | 32 | Iron, I really wanted to like this more than I did. You're a very solid writer. Ultimately, I think this article does Uncyclopedia a lot more good than harm: at least we can say, "Okay, so everyone's telling the same joke, but we're telling it pretty damn well."
But in terms of something I'd vote for highlight, man, I've just got to be surprised a little more than this. Good luck! |
| Reviewer: |  pillow talk 01:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
| |