Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/UnScripts:CKC2k Reviews the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic
UnScripts:CKC2k Reviews the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic[edit source]
Please review this piss. I wrote this because Uncyc doesn't have any good math articles, but it feels like I lost the funny halfway through. If you're offended by cock jokes, please don't review this. If you think cock jokes are the best thing in the world, well, that attitude is kind of creepy. --Pleb SYNDROME CUN medicate (butt poop!!!!) 05:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 |
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS of giving you his opinion and pretending you care. |
| Humour: | 4.5 | Hey Syndrome! So, a month has gone by... someone should probably get off their fucking ass and review this. Although, that might be a bad choice of words, since I am in fact sitting on my ass whilst I review this.
Section-by-section: Editor's note: 5/10. I'm a little confused by this. I assume this is going to be a parody of MST3K, but I'm only about 75% sure of that. My guess is that this is going to be like an MST3K for math theorems instead of movies. That's the concept I'm going in with, but, like I said, I'm uncertain, which is probably going to cause me to puzzle a bit where I should be laughing instead. You might want to lay this out a little more clearly. Cast: 4/10. So, it looks like you've sort of replaced the main character from MST3K with a Mexican, Tom Servo with Bender from Futurama, and Crow with some kind of Marilyn Monroebot, suggesting this was filmed in... the 1960s? Nothing in this section is really funny, so I assume this is setting us up for a joke later...? Introduction: 4/10. This isn't bad, but it's kind of all over the place. Jose talks sort of like the Bee Guy from The Simpsons. Barney is obviously an even dirtier Bender. Emilia talks... normally. And bends over a lot. And Snakes on a Plane is here for no reason. Any parody of MST3K is a little unclear (or missing), and the whole concept of the article - MST3K'ing math - isn't here yet. Problematic. Part One: 4/10. Big problems here. None of the commentary on the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic really has much at all to do with the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic. This is mostly Barney saying random, obnoxious, crude things. The only line that really comments on the Fundamental Theorem itself is when Jose rejects the axiom of choice - and when he does it, he completely breaks character, lapsing from Bee Guy into academic, formal English. The only real humor I'm seeing here is a minor chuckle at how the concept of CKC2k absolutely doesn't work at all, on any level. I feel like reading the article to this point is an awful lot of work for that minor chuckle. Intermission: 5/10. Yeah, cigarette ads in the '50s were kind of amusing. Of course, you don't explicitly set this in the '50s, but there have been a few clues. You'd probably do a lot better to talk about the Surgeon General here than the RIAA, since that just introduces a brand new topic into the mix. Part Two: 4/10. This is very similar to part one, except that the only time someone actually tries to comment on the Fundamental Theorem of Arithmetic, he's interrupted and encouraged to make cock jokes. The moral of the story, that girl (robots) can't hold their booze, is another very minor chuckle. |
| Concept: | 3 | The concept is where this article falls down. Really, the concept of the article is that an MST3K that reviewed math instead of movies would not be good or funny. To illustrate that concept, you give us an episode of CKC2K that is not good or funny and would not be entertaining to watch.
This is kind of a common problem in a lot of articles: the entire joke is contained in the concept, and it's almost impossible to make any secondary jokes within the framework of the concept. The idea of a CKC2k that sucks is something that would be best handled in a throwaway paragraph in an MST3K article - it doesn't stand up well on its own. |
| Prose and formatting: | 8 | Your prose is good, although Jose's voice, as I said, modulates in and out of character. The formatting is good: my only complaint is that when you start seeing blue text, you think "Oh, a link," and these aren't links. Another color, maybe? Overall, though, the prose here is good.
...which isn't entirely good news. The problem with the article isn't the prose. You can't fix the article by tightening the prose. I think this one may be broken from the very start. |
| Images: | 6 | I don't really know how to take the three pictures of not-Jose. They're kind of amusing in a frivolous way, but they don't really add a lot to the article. The lack of pictures of the robots is a problem. The cigarette ad is pretty funny. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5 | Five. |
| Final Score: | 26.5 | I honestly can't offer a lot of constructive feedback on this article, which is probably why it hasn't been reviewed before now. I'd say that you had an idea that didn't really work, and you did just about the best job possible on that idea. What we're left with is an article that's respectable, and has a place on the Uncyclopedia, but honestly just isn't all that funny - and I can't for the life of me see any way to improve it.
Honestly, I'd chalk this one up to practice and move on. You've got an article here that's crafted very nicely, but shows signs of not having spent enough time on the drawing board. Best of luck! Sorry if the review came off as a little harsh. I always try to be constructive, but this one just really has me stumped. |
| Reviewer: |  pillow talk 19:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
| |