Talk:Office Space

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

edit Skinfan13's Ludicrous Judging of your article...

Humour: 3 I'll be blunt and upfront: I haven't seen Office Space. But then again, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, mostly because you'll be getting readers who haven't seen the movie also, and the article needs to be readable and funny for them too. With that said, I really didn't know what was going on or where the 'funny' was supposed to be in the article. I'm sure this article would be funnier to someone who's seen the movie, but the fact of the matter is there wasn't a whole lot here in terms of humor for those of us who haven't seen the film, so I can't really give a good score here on principle, since I really didn't find the article to be that funny. Again, this probably isn't because you aren't funny, I just don't a have the prerequisites necessary to enjoy the article. An article should have at least a little to entertain a variety of people. I could just be talking out of my ass though, so its a good thing that I'm not the only judge.
Concept: 6 This is probably a good approach for people who have seen the movie, you're obviously narrating from a characters point of view. However, there are two distinct problems with this approach; one is that people who haven't seen the movie are going to be extra confused since you're narrowing the focus of the piece, and second, the approach is no longer novel. This concept style has been done over and over again on Uncyc and unless you can get it down just right, it feels a bite trite. However, once again, this is the view of someone who hasn't seen the film, so once again, take it with a grain of salt.
Prose and formatting: 6 You don't have any spelling mistakes, which of course is a huge plus, but again, going back to the concept comments I made, the approach you take requires mimicking a character's spoken prose, which sometimes doesn't translate well to text. However, I'm not sure exactly how well your prose matches up to the character you are parodying, because [you guessed it], I haven't seen the film.
Images: 8 Best part of the article. The pictures are pretty good (I'm assuming they're screen captions from the movie)and they provide a bit of entertainment for the reader who hasn't seen the film as they are visually entertaining. Your caption for the shrimp picture repeats the word "the" twice, I don't know if that was intentional or not.
Miscellaneous: 3 Sorry to do this to you, nothing personal, but the article was pretty bland to me. I don't really have much more to say...
Final Score: 26 Overall, I'd say that you need a few jokes that appeal to people who haven't seen the film. I'm sure its a great article for those who have a base of knowledge about the source material.
Reviewer: -- Sf13 Upsilonsigmasigmacrest 1703 EST 6 FEB 2011

What's with the proliferation of apologies? If you don't get it, you don't get it; not something to be sorry about. Perhaps I can fix it later, but that would be a major issue with the piece, so... eh. I'm somewhat confused. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 22:27, 6 February 2011
I like the film, and I think this is pretty good. But is there any reasoning behind the all caps? Also, are these reviews going on Cajek/Pee like Puppy's did? --Black Flamingo 21:31, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
Since he put them on the talkpages directly, naw... not in the official space. Which is a little ironic, but anyhow, question is, just how do I make it properly accessible to the clueless? This may require some actual thinking. Crap. And I'm sure there was a reason for the caps... it was there before. I must have had a reason, right? *shifty eyes* 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 21:47, 8 February 2011
I know, the problem is I want to count these too, because they're proper reviews and everything and just as good as the ones Puppy did. The only difference is that they're not in the Pee space. But then again, it will be too much hassle to put these on Pee. It's a conundrum and I'm going to stop worrying about it now. --Black Flamingo 22:34, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
Not the only difference... Skinfan's are less ugly because he used the default template, but also get a lot worse the further he got into the mess because for some reason the crazy nutter also decided to do them all... ruddy amazing, but utterly mad at the same time. Feggle. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 22:42, 8 February 2011
Ah, you weren't here when he used to review regularly were you? The man was a peeing saint. With a golden halo of urine. By the way I'm checking your review now, because you shouldn't have to wait for Commissioner Gordon to get around to it. --Black Flamingo 22:50, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
I saw the latter end of that... funny, everything just sort of clonkered when I showed up, though. I wonder why?
Awesome. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 23:01, 8 February 2011
It's odd; a lot of people vanished around that time. Fortunately you did a good job of replacing pretty much all of them by yourself. --Black Flamingo 23:07, February 8, 2011 (UTC)
I thought you were in on that... *suspicious look* 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 23:59, 8 February 2011
Nah, if anything I became less helpful than ever. --Black Flamingo 10:02, February 9, 2011 (UTC)
You mean you were more helpful before? Astounding... 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 17:17, 9 February 2011

My two cents:

I disagree with one of Skinfan's main claims: How many people are going to come to this article without having seen (or at least heard of) the movie? While I agree that an article should have some redeeming value to a clueless reader, oftentimes that's too much to ask of satire - I think that satire can assume a knowledgeable reader, and this article is doing just that.

That said, about the article...

  • Your decision to put this in Milton's voice is a good move. He's probably the most memorable character in the movie, and you do a good job writing past the film's end, adding details and plot about Milton that the movie doesn't provide. However, I'm confused. Why is Milton looking for a job again? It's been awhile since I saw the movie, but I remember that Milton is pretty old, and that the check he picks up is worth a lot. With that kind of money, would he need a new job? I think it would follow more logically for Milton to be retired in Aruba (or wherever he is at the film's end), living off the check he picked up. He wouldn't need another job. You could keep the Milton perspective, but he doesn't have to be having this conversation - he could be... I don't know... flirting with a girl in a bar or something equally awkward for him.
  • It took me a little while to get the fact that this was coming from Milton's perspective. He has a very distinct voice, but not many unique catchphrases that would immediately clue me in. The object that Milton is most associated with in the movie is, naturally, his stapler, so that might be a good place to start. Right now, the first mentioning of the stapler is the last word in the leading section. I would recommend bringing this in earlier, maybe even opening with him talking about it, maybe even with a line ripped from the movie itself. This would be a big step to making sure that the reader knows what you're doing, which is clutch because without it, he won't get a lot of the humour. Also, leading with a picture of Milton instead of Mr. Lundberg would go a long way there, too.
  • Lastly, I think that changing the font of the article would further bring out the 1st person nature of the piece. There's precedent in the Steve Reich, Drill sergeant and e e cummings articles, though I wouldn't go as far with this one. Just change the font to something that visually resembles Milton. He's a push over. He's uncertain. He's pathetic. I'd suggest something small, with thin strokes. Something that just looks weak. A quick look through MS Word 07 and I'd say something like marlett or raavi (neither of which seem to come through on the wiki) but it's up to you.

I distinctly remember having something else to add, but I can't remember it. Hope this helps. ~ Humbuck Talk 22:23, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thanks, man. Should indeed help. 1234 ~ 16px-Pointy 23:50, 12 March 2011
Personal tools