Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Iwillkillyou333/UnScripts:The Badass Soldiers (Second Review)
UnScripts:The Badass Soldiers [edit source]
This is somehting I'm finishing up, but I want to know what I can approve on to make it better. Its actually one of my best works ever.
Link here 
Director
WILL
YOU 333 01:24, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
- I've started on this, per request. I'll let you know if I can't do it and maybe someone else can take over. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 19:10, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
- Right, should be finished tonight. --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 00:18, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
| Humour: | 5 | Ok, I can tell from reading this that your writing is improving. However, I feel there are quite a few things you could do if you really want to get this particular article into better shape. So let's begin.
The problem with articles like this is that they tend to rely on the over-used formula of exagerrated masculinity for humour. It's something we've all heard before, not just on Uncyclopedia but all over the internet (think of the whole Chuck Norris craze for instance). Sadly, this alone isn't enough. You have to come up with a more original spin on this if you want to make people laugh, find a few things to satirise and poke fun of, rather than just resorting to hyberbole and silliness. War is pretty much the most ripe subject for satire, but it's also something that's been done so many times before. I recommend having a think about what else you could extract humour from here, besides the ridiculous feats of "awesomeness". There are a few instances in here where you do tread into more interesting territory, and it would be nice to see you expand on this. For example, at times I get the impression that you're actually making fun of the soldiers - although they think they're "awesome", they're actually idiots. The "we'll do their mom's" joke made me chuckle because it seemed like you were exposing the stupidity of the war-mongering soldiers who see themselves as being inherently better than their enemies. Whether this was your intention I do not know, but it was one of the few examples of successful satire I found in here. Later you also poke fun at action movies, by referencing the "boring conversation" part of the film. For me, these were the strongest parts of your article, so have a go at doing more of this - satire of blind patriotism and insipid action films. For example, the whole "super duper uber Nazis" thing is too silly. Try a funny stereotype-blend like "commie muslims" or a jab at war films where they're German or Russian but played by English actors. Do you see why this would be more interesting? It mocks the subject matter rather than just being another riff on the Chuck Norris thing (oh, and I should also advise you to get rid of the Chuck Norris reference, for the same reasons). You do toy with this idea already I notice, but not as effectively as you could. The character of Stupid Soldier is a good example of this. Throughout the piece, you make fun of him for not being as "badass" as the others, and you portray him as being cartoonishly moronic. The problem is, just making him an idiot isn't all that funny. Have a read of UnScripts:Officers and Espionage, which mocks the militaristic mindset very well, but by using interesting satirical characters and not just your stock idiot type. Remember what I told you in your last review about exploiting every opportunity for jokes. What I try to do when I'm writing is every time I finish a setnence, I look over it and think how I can turn it on its head and go against the reader's expectations - basically squeezing a joke in whenever possible (sure my articles aren't the best in the world, but it has really helped me come up with jokes that I might have otherwise missed). Another thing I noticed is that you make a lot of jokes that I just didn't get, kind of like in the last article of yours I reviewed. I got the impression that you had an idea for a joke but weren't working hard enough to spell it out to the reader. For example, you say "who says helicopters can't fight" - this fails because I have no idea what you're talking about. Do people say this? I've certainly never heard it. Same with the joke about the guy being an amazing marksman because he's Russian. This isn't a cliche I've ever encountered. Perhaps it makes sense to you, perhaps you're thinking something like "while you Americans were all accusing each other of being communists, we were actually training for war" - if so, put this in. Remember, the reader doesn't have access to your thoughts (although sometimes I wonder about ChiefjusticeDS). Once you've sorted all this out, the other major problem you should work on is elimating the randomness in here. The whole Doritoes subplot for example has no place here. It isn't particularly funny nor does it even make sense. Same with the pepperoni pizza joke, which is fine the first time, but is nowhere near funny enough to be repeated so many times. To give you an example of what I'm saying, let's look at the bit with the enemy sniper. You list the people he killed (a private, a corporal etc), and then just shove the Kool-Aid man on the end (I assume this is an American thing, although I've heard of him I don't actually have any idea what he is - this is besides the point though). Just adding a silly name on the end of lists is over-done on this site. The problem with it is that it could just be anyone's name and it wouldn't make a difference. Try to change it to something steeped in the world of the article - maybe he could kill one of his own men or something (ok this isn't that funny, but you get the idea). HTBFANJS should be able to give you ideas on stuff like this. |
| Concept: | 6 | Your concept isn't hugely original and reminded me of several other things (Team America, for one). While this isn't really a problem, I would just advise you again to distance yourself from cliche and unoriginality. The suggestions I made above about satire are relevant again here. Just always be looking for ways to give it your own personal touch, and try to venture into as much undiscovered territory as you can. This shouldn't be too hard, there is a lot here you can work with, just remember to stay consistent to whatever angle you decide to take.
There is one area I noticed that is underdeveloped here, namely, exactly what medium is this supposed to be? Ie. is this a film script? A play? A TV drama? Establishing this will really help you refine things like stage directions, which are fairly weak throughout (however I will talk about this in prose). You can then get into finer details like fourth-wall breaking, and give your scene more grounding. As an extension of this, I really feel you need some kind of cast list, including a brief description of who evryone is and what they're like. There were a lot of characters in here, and often I felt lost as to who was who. As I've already said, I did enjoy some of the action-film-spoof parts, underdeveloped though they were. Give this a read for an idea of how to write like an obnoxious Hollywood movie, where the screenwriter can't be bothered with the boring conversation and just wants it to be all explosions and car chases. That is, if you want to do it like a film (I got the impression you did). As for your story, well... you need more. Be careful however as the article feels like it runs out of steam towards the end as it is, even without a proper ending. Perhaps if you trim some of the weaker parts the article won't drag on when you come to add bits. A revision of the existing plot couldn't help either. Some parts, like the Nazis just retreating, seem not to be very well thought out. Perhaps do some research into war films and pick up on some tropes you can parody. Just make sure it serves the jokes, this isn't a fiction wiki after all (however, nor can you just throw any old plot together). |
| Prose and formatting: | 4 | I'll be blunt, there are a lot of problems here. However, I trust you can fix them with a bit of work. There are simply too many spelling, grammar and prose errors to list properly, so I will simply advise you to give this a really thorough proofread, try reading it aloud and even just ask other to help you with it. One thing I will tell you is this - plurals don't need apostrophes. Try not to be insulted by this, sometimes it's hard to look at your own work with objective, proofreading eyes. I often find that simply not reading the article for a week or so, and then going back to it with fresh eyes helps. Apart from that, go back to the proofreading service because they clearly haven't done a very good job the first time.
Again there are awkward parts. One thing I had a major problem with was saying "SDUN" all the time. Another reason to rethink your antagonists, I suppose. Also, the stage directions are very rushed, most of them need completely redrafting I would say. Let me explain; instead of saying just "fires guns, kills guys", you should go into detail, describe the scene so the reader can picture it fully. Try; "the helicopter pilot fires the machine guns, obliterating the enemy gunners." Clarity is a major issue throughout the piece, and again I just think you need some more detail in the directions. If it helps, ignore the dialogue for a while and imagine you're just writing a story. The Hell from Below section in particular was a struggle to understand, even more specifically the banter between the soldiers, which didn't seem to follow any logical progression. People were just exclaiming things for no reason. For example, when the bird flies into the helicopter - does this cause a problem? What does the sergeant mean when he says "we're ready for anything... except that"? Like I said last time, you need to go into detail so the reader can tell what's going on. I would also suggest you try to refine your characters to improve the dialogue. Give your characters different voices, and maybe even get rid of a few. Too many of them are similar and all have pretty much the same style of talking. At the moment it kind of feels like one big blur where you can't tell who's saying what. This is particularly problematic because your scenes are also a bit jumbled. There are too many people talking at once, try to split conversations up into separate bits, and make sure your stage directions introduce each new character as they join in the banter. For example, when you suddenly say "scene switched to French Nazis talking" - this should really be a new section, not interrupting the flow of the scene it's in. A final note for writing style - there is lots of technical language (MG3s, blind-shooting etc) that I had to look up to understand. You don't have to spell out what they are - that wouldn't be in line with the dialogue, but again clearer stage directions could easily clear up stuff like this. |
| Images: | 5 | Your images are ok, but I feel like most of them are just there for the sake of having pictures, rather than adding any depth to the article or making jokes of their own. The images you have will obviously be affected by whatever medium you choose to make this, be it a film or a play, so make sure they're consistent with this. While the ones you have aren't terrible, I would definitely recommend looking for more. |
| Miscellaneous: | 5 | Averaged. Although I will point out at this point that the United Nations is not a country, you shouldn't lump them in with USA and Russia, especially since USA and Russia are both part of the UN. Couldn't think where else to put this. |
| Final Score: | 25 | Overall, I feel this is an article with excellent potential, which did ultimately raise a few smiles. If you feel I've been harsh, let me assure you that it's just because I've tried to enlighten you to every avenue I could think of to improve this. At the end of the day, all it really needs is some hard work from you. Anyway, good luck with it, and if there's anything I've missed or you want more help, let me know on my talk page. |
| Reviewer: | --Hugs and kisses, Black_Flamingo 02:20, March 21, 2010 (UTC) | |