Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnNews:"You Are Dead" coming to cinema (quick)

Main

Current

Reviewed

Archive

Guidelines

FAQ

Committee

RotM

UnNews:"You Are Dead" coming to cinema

Scofield 07:14, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking this one. One thing I will point out here is that you've opted for a "quick" review, which suggests you have read the section on new requests. Unfortunately the queue doesn't always move as quickly as we would like, due to people who place multiple requests and don't review articles themselves, or place requests and then find feedback insulting and choose to not take it on board. I would suggest reading the guidelines around PEE review when you get the chance as they may help you get more out of reviews going forward. And I'd like you to take notice of It would be nice if you review someone else's article when you post yours. We do live in a civilized world after all, and Pee Review works best when people suck as well as blow. Nominally Humane! some time Monday, 22:26, Dec 27 2010 UTC

Reviewer details:

A little bit about the reviewer before we start.

Time for me to trot out this rarely used template for reviewing articles. I created this a little while back as I find it easier to give a more in depth review with more space to do it in and a somewhat more complex structure around which to do it. The prose section comes first, as if I can't read it without difficulty then I won't be able to enjoy the humor of it, and concept comes second, as without a good overarching concept you simply have a bundle of one-liners with no cohesiveness. 

This section is supposed to be an intro to your reviewer, so in short, I've been here for a year or so, had a few features, have a decent knowledge of wiki-fu, and have reviewed a fair number of articles. And while my sig is still in it's Christmas greetings mode, I'll also say I'm PuppyOnTheRadio. Nominally Humane! some time Tuesday, 01:03, Dec 28 2010 UTC

Prose and Formatting:

How good does it look and how well does it read? 7.3

{{{Pcomment}}}

Writing style

The voice of this article is exactly where it should be for a straight-man style UnNews. That doesn't mean that it's the only possible way to do an UnNews, of course, but it is worthwhile. Think of it like the voice of the documentary maker in Spinal Tap - he makes no jokes but allows the action to happen around him and uses selective editing to show the stupidity in reality. 

The drawback with this voice is that for it to work in a comedic fashion what the straight man is observing has to be ridiculous and, ideally, believable. Why Spinal Tap works as a movie is that it is a believable story for the most part. Why you don't get the same laughs out of A year and a half in the life of Metallica - another movie about a band recording an album with a black cover and going on tour with it - is that you don't get the same ridiculous nature. 

In short - good voice, but needs some hilarity to make it work as part of the overall. 1.6 points here (where 1.4 is average).

Spelling

Haven't gone through it with a fine tooth comb, but nothing glaringly bad. 1.4

Grammar

Ditto. 1.4

Layout

UnNews follows a fairly standard format which this follows as well, so only minor points. 

• Sources header - If there are no sources is this required? It seems out of place to me. 
• original template - Yes, this does right justify as a default, but I don't know that it should. (Given it's a default I'm not taking it on board for scoring, but left of centre justification may be better for future edits.)
• Fourth paragraph - I would usually go for the standard here of quote by a new individual becomes a new paragraph, otherwise it becomes too much of a run on. 

1.4 here. 

Overall appearance

It looks and reads as a Ned story, and flows fairly well. A little work on structure here and there would not go astray. This is a well written article from this aspect, so overall for prose and related areas I'd say it's above average. 1.5

Concept

How good an idea is behind the article? 3.5

Hmmm. Concept has a few issues that would hold it back from being a feature, and I'll start from the highest level here and work down. 

First thing is that this is an article about a movie. That would usually suggest to me a main space article or an UnReview, not an UnNews. By labeling this as UnNews you have the advantage of being able to keep it short and to the point, but you also limit yourself to a particular style and format. 

Second aspect is that this is a derivative piece - drawing from an existing article and trying to get more mileage out of it. That is in short either using an existing in-joke or trying to create a new one. Either way you are limiting the appeal of it to a smaller population than you should do. 

Think of it this way. Put yourself in the place of the audience that featured articles are trying to capture - the first time reader. You come across the main page and there's a news story about an article that was written about 3 years ago. It's not topical or current, and you have no idea what the writer is talking about. The writer also throws in something about sporks, which as far as you are aware is something you find in your kitchen drawer, and talks about featured articles, which means nothing to you. Would you be excited enough about this to want to read more?

Thirdly it's based upon nothing real. Okay, there are a few names dropped in here that are real people and known celebrities, but there is no real movie that it relates back to. So it's silly, but parody and satire are based upon real events and finding the humor in them. Could you imagine Stephen Colbert dedicating a segment to a news story that is completely fictional? Possibly, but why would he when there is so much else to use as inspiration.  

But the main thing I guess is the concept is not funny - or at least I didn't find it such. Usually I look at the concept as an overarching joke within which is a series of sub-jokes and one liners. A news story about a stupid movie doesn't make me laugh. A review of a stupid movie would be more likely to, and an article ripping to shreds the movie industry, or even just the work of an individual director, by going in depth into the implausibility and the ridiculous nature of his work - that would be cool. 

Humour

How funny is it? Why is it funny? How can it be funnier? 3.4

I didn't laugh once while reading this. There are potential points where a joke could be built into it, but none really eventuate. 

Take for example the following:

The much-disgraced and panned filmmaker said, "When I read the article, I simply laughed my pants off! But my film is going to be more than just comedy. It's gonna be darker, and deeper, and it will attempt to answer a fundamental question nobody knows the answer to - what happens to you, when you're dead?".

Could easily become the following:

The man referred to as the master of alternative to popular cinema said, "When I read the article, It was like a light bulb turning on in my brain! It drew me to fits of laughter, but inspired me to think on a more fundamental human level. My film will attempt to answer a fundamental question no film has ever asked before - what happens to you when you're dead? Well, no film except maybe Ghost. Or Beetlejuice. Or maybe that Bruce Willis one where the kid sees dead people".

Nothing much different in context, but actually throws real jokes in there. This article is crying out for something to make people laugh. 

Images

How are the images? Are they relevant, with good quality and formatting? 4.9

One image, right place and right size, but poorly captioned, and unoriginal. 

Miscellaneous

The article's overall quality - that indefinable something. 5.4

There are flaws in this from concept and humor, while at the same time being a well written article. 

Break outside the box though and push it further. When you think about a film what do you think about? Storyline, characters, writer, director, actors, critical review, inspiration. All if these are areas that are of interest and are places where the inherit stupidity in reality can be exposed and exploited. 

I have said it before, but I will repeat it - shelve this for the moment and go on to work in something else. Have a look at the articles up for rewrite, as there are a few there that need a guiding hand from someone who knows how to write. Spend some time going through and reviewing the work of others as it will help you to be more critical of your own work. Speak to some of the writers who have a higher than average number of featured articles and find out what they do to make an article great.

Once you've done a few of these things, come back to this with a metaphorical highlighted and work out what you feel is if value and what you feel brings it down. Then strip it back and rebuild it. There are points in this that show promise, but not without significant work. 

The other thing I would suggest is go over articles that you have read and said "I wish I had written that". Look at the history from the start of it and run through until the end. What has been added in to improve it and what has been taken out. 

Final score

Prose 7.3	Concept 3.5	Humour 3.4	Images 4.9	Misc 5.4	Final Score 24.5

Summary

An overall summation of the article.

{{{Fcomment}}}

This was a PEE review by Nominally Humane! some time Tuesday, 01:03, Dec 28 2010 UTC