Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/The Room (film)
The Room (film)[edit source]
Had potential, so I rewrote it to the best of my ability. Was it in vain? — JCM 04:25, January 30, 2011 (UTC)
- I'll put some thoughts down in hypertext rather soonish, mon. ~
22:20, 4 February 2011
| Concept: | 6 | I said this before, but there seems to still be some fluff about it - little bits that I'm not sure why they're there at all, such as the aproval rating, as well as larger bits like pretty much the entire legacy section, and a lot of the plot stuff, although I realise you kept most of that from before - don't actually seem to me to help the point you're making. I figure what you really need to do is focus this - you have a decent point you're trying to make, but you need to really make it. Make it clearer, use it, really use it, and everything should come from there. You're using that it sucks to mock Wiseau's arrogance about it by saying effectively the opposite, so why not really say the opposite, really mock his arrogance? Instead of working in jabs at how bad it is, make it all about how bad it is under the guise of being good. Don't just work in jabs at his arrogance; make the entire thing a jab at it, if that makes any sense at all. Everything about it should be there for a reason. Is it? Each line, is it making a funny, leading up to a funny, supporting the overall joke/angle/satire-thing of the piece?
And what is the beginning building up to, however? Seems to be the plot, which is perfect, as that would be a great place to get into just how bad it really is, and some of it does quite well. There's just so much of it that it actually gets kind of boring, just plot. More plot. Tie it back into his ego, perhaps, and really undermine it? Don't be afraid to completely rewrite it if need be - a lot of this doesn't even fit the tone of the rest of it, and if you make the article entirely your own, you may be better able to make your joke. On the other hand, some of the individual jokes aren't so bad, either, so... eh. Trouble with rewrites, that. And I know, I know, you haven't even watched it yourself, but that might be a good idea. Rentals are cheap, and not only might you get a good laugh from the awful, details can be the icing that makes a cake, so to speak. Yes, I just made up an idiom. Unless that is an actual idiom, in which case nevermind, but that's not the point. If you really don't want to watch it, though, perhaps you might be able to recruit someone who has for ideas of particularly good bits to highlight for your point... surely there must be someone around here somewhere... But the more focussed the article and the better the specifics, not only should it become a fair bit funnier, but it'll also be more accessible to others who haven't seen or in some cases, even heard of the thing, before - mocking a notion of arrogance with amusing specifics will reach people, even if they don't know the bloke. They will after reading it. |
| Humour: | 6 | I have to admit, I loved the whole ape thing. A little too graphic at times for my tastes, but then again, it did serve to make the points rather well. And seriously, monkeys? It's completely ridiculous, but it just fits both the arrogance and the awfulness, so why don't you play with it more, especially in the plot section?
Also, the introductory quote, I just don't understand. His Oscars? Is the point that he hasn't gotten any? Or has he? Has that something specifically to do with this particular movie? Why does the rest of the article not mention two? Thing with quotes, they need to draw in a reader and/or be particularly funny. As the first things in the article, they should help introduce it, too, but this just leaves me confused from the start. Wiggling? Perhaps I really am missing something here, but then, I may not be the only one to do so. Also also, the labrador retriever, if it's such a prominant part of the love triangle according to the introduction, why does it show up so little in the plot, eh? And the monkeys, so difficult to control, how did that manifest, anything come up? How do the monkeys and the dog interract? Is a monkey playing the part of the dog? Also also also, his sexy corpse? Why was is sexy? Was it dramatically done up to be sexy, was it a horrible coincidence, or was it horribly not sexy and that's the whole point? Could be any one, and any one could make a nice touch to emphasise - like for in his arrogance, he has to have his character must always be sexy, even when dead, even when it makes the film even stupidder, or some such... but all these little things can help build the main point better. |
| Prose and formatting: | 6 | As I said on IRC and you may have figured by now, anyhow, sporking the formatting of the Wikipedia article of the same name isn't always such a good idea - they tend to have lots of boring stuff nobody cares about, be ridiculously long, go into inane detail, be horribly disorganised, that kind of thing. I mean, it can work, but it's not necessarily a good idea. Just work with your concept and write what supports that, more so. Typically it is a good idea to have the usual sections and abouts, as you indeed do here, but how much emphasis they get and what specifically and what else you mention should depend more on making your article get across its point than fulfilling the form.
Mind, overall format here is decent and it looks quite nice visually - could use another image or two toward the end to be more even, mind, but overall it looks good. The sections seem to be decent sizes, and the stuff in them tends to be on the section topics, too, which is always a plus. There be other issues mentioned already, but those be other issues. Spelling and grammar are decent, too, at least as far as I noticed. The tone, however, does falter a bit in places - overall it seems to be a serious , encyclopedic presentation, but there are times when that completely breaks, speaking directly to the reader such as in one of the image captions, self-reference in another, speaking as if from the perspective of the characters in the plot section - normally that's not bad, but after how the beginning presents, it's quite different from the overall. I'll say this often, but consistency is key - even the intentionally inconsistent things tend to be consistently inconsistent, if that makes any sense. Also, appending '(dare I say it?)' before a pun does not fit. First person, breaks the tone, doesn't even make the pun funnier... pelase remove that, at very least.
|
| Images: | 6 | Well, the images are fairly decent, but... where are the monkeys? Seriously, if the majority of the cast is comprised of the simian population of Africa, surely the images of the film itself would reflect this? You could probably do something as simple as add a picture or two of some monkeys interacting, then caption them as if they are important scenes in the film, or even get real screenshots and add in monkeys or swap out characters for monkeys (or get someone else to do it) - either way, taking the notion you present literally could be pretty funny. Not saying it actually needs it, but that's the first thing that came to mind for me. No monkeys?!
As for what is there, I'm somewhat at the loss as to why you added the first one - saying someone likes the article, someone not even entirely related (although the nameswap makes it more related, I'm still not sure how it's funny), at that, is just self-referential and hinders the encyclopedic style used in the rest of the piece. The others illustrate some of what goes on in the piece, at very least, although they aren't exactly that funny, either, and is the cover art trying to poke fun of some gay majority here, or something? I don't get it, whatever it's intending. Mind, images don't always have to make jokes, but they should have definite reasons for being there, and being where they are - a cover is a logical intro image, and you should probably just put that pack at the top instead of the Citizen Kane thing. After that tie them into each piece of the article, supporting and illustrating what is said or making additional jokes, like the other two, but perhaps add one or two more for the end? |
| Miscellaneous: | 6 | I like sixes. |
| Final Score: | 30 | I'd say the rewrite was a definite improvement. Still needs work, but you're on the right track. Also, please ignore the numbers; they may or may not fit the article, but the only thing for certain is that, indeed, I seem to like sixes. I did not do that on purpose, I swear. Anyhow, the comments are the important part, I hope they help, and don't hesitate to stop by for tea if you have any questions/comments/rebuttals/death threats or if I forgot to address something about this on which you really wanted input. |
| Reviewer: | ~  07:08, 6 February 2011
| |
