Talk:Suspicious

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Revision as of 04:55, May 22, 2008 by 71.220.219.115 (talk)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
link score /50 user lowest score date comment
Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Suspicious42RazorflameHumor: 511/7Person reviewed it less than 30 seconds after I put it up. He gave me extra points for "good information"??? WTF!!
Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Suspicious37.5Under userHumor: 611/12
Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Suspicious47RazorflameHumor: 8.811/15Razorflame again but this time went into more detail. His score is outrageously high, tho.
avg = 42.2 --- lowest = 6.6
Humour: 5 Not my kind of funny. You might get different results if you use a different reviewer.
Concept: 9 Good content, though I thought it was dry.
Prose and formatting: 9 Good formatting.
Images: 10 Very good images. Really spice up the humor there.
Miscellaneous: 9 Good miscellaneous information. OMG! I spelt miscellaneous right for once!
Final Score: 42 Humor in article doesn't suit me. Other than that, good information.
Reviewer: Razorflame
OK, big mug o' tea... check. Biscuits (cookies for our transatlantic chums)... check. A little while until the missus comes back... check. Nothing on TV... check. Looks like it's time for a patented UU review! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 20:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh man.... this one's a tough one to call. Why didn't I pick a nice easy review like one of those IP ones I saw? Oh well, here goes...

Humour: 6 Oh man, this is the toughie. I like it, sure, but I could stand to like it more. Great idea, some really nice lines, but maybe gets bogged down in repetition in the middle, perhaps the old problem of trying to fit too much in. Er, what score to give? Oh, I'll go for 6, above average, but more to do to really shine. See comments below.
Concept: 7 I think my favourite bit is the concept. I like the idea of a self-aware narrator in a clichéd horror film setting where everything's building up to the big shock, nice touch. However, I think the fact that I took so long deciding on a humour score shows that it needs handling a little better.
Prose and formatting: 8 Well, there's no doubting this is one of yours, Cajek, but it's got a bit more of a slow burn to it than some, and I like it. There are a couple of minor spelling issues in there, but I'll nip through in a minute with my big spelling broom and sort that.
Images: 9 Several images, in the main well used, including your fondness for the ol' multiple choice option. Not sure about the pet rock one. Love the fiddler on the bike.
Miscellaneous: 7.507 Averaged and then .007 added, as the James Bond theme just came on my MP3 player, and I want to be slightly different...
Final Score: 37.507 As I may have mentioned above, this is a tough one to call. I like it, but I think it could be a lot better, and I want it to be dammit! I think I may have scored this slightly higher than I might because I wanted it to be really good, and almost persuaded myself it was. Give it some more love, I know you can make this shine!
Reviewer: --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


Right, those comments then:

First thought, I don't like the last two sentences of the intro. I think you're doing a good enough job throughout of implying the Horror Movie-ishness without explicitly stating it. And that last line? Are you in some way trying to refer to the name picked out from your random Southern name template? It don't work dude, the sentence feels very clumsy. How about a different toy with convention, such as "Just for god's sake don't ask 'what's the worst that can happen' or anything like that, OK?" or something similar. Keep toying with the genre conventions, god knows there are enough.

I also think my favourite bit is the reference to the music - I wonder if you could extend this device throughout? referring to gentle, almost soothing music at the start, just a shame the rhythm's slightly too abrupt? Slowly build it up in references throughout? I don't know, maybe that would be overkill, (particularly if handled badly), but it could be worth a try. The music plays such a part in these scenes it is good to reflect it (have you tried watching a horror film with no sound? OK, there's the occasional jump, but it's so much less tense! Even better, mute it and put on something ridiculous, like the Chipmunks. Actually, I may have to try that. But I digress.)

Repetition. OK, much like my own HowTo:Fuck Off, this relies on repetition to an extent, but you have to be careful not to overdo it, and I think you do. Grab that Thesaurus and replace the word 'suspicious' a few times. Seriously, it's too much.

And while we're at it, yup, animals doing really odd things, fine. But not too much - maybe trim back that section a bit? a few well-chosen lines helping to keep the article running, rather than what almost feels like (bad word coming, prepare yourself) a disguised list of animals matched to inappropriate actions. Although the insect bit is good. None of these subtle portents, just a good solid "Fuck You"!

And the same with step 2, come to that. Chris McQuarrie, writer of my fave movie (The Usual Suspects, since you ask) says if he feels a scene is going too far, he backs up a line and cuts it there. You might wanna prune these back a little, try to keep the pace building, instead of getting bogged down in each section. I can tell you've got a load of ideas coming out, but some times less is more. Be ruthless, make these two sections leaner and meaner, keeps the flow a bit better. I think!

The ending is good. Yup, not too much to do here. Maybe consider the very end. I know it needs to be abrupt, but tailing off with dots or popping the good old splatter image in wouldn't hurt - someone's gonna think you haven't finished it otherwise, despite how well set up it is. I'm in favour of subtlety, as you know, but some punchlines need to be driven home.

/me looks at mug. Wow, what the fuck was in that tea? That's alomst an article's worth of writing there. If only it was funny. *sigh*.

Ah well, find a previous review of mine and read my traditional disclaimer bit at the end, I'm sure you know it by now. Hope I helped! --Sir Under User (Hi, How Are You?) VFH KUN 21:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Humour: 8.6 asdf
  • Intro(7)-Feels like it's lacking humour from my standpoint, but I know that you would rather hear that it is funny, which I think it is in one light, but not the other. I think you need to rework this intro to make it understandable to us normal users.
  • Step 1:Part 1(10)-This was actually funny! Kudos!
  • Step 1:Part 2(9)-Humour was there, but a little dry for my tastes. Maybe fix this up a little?
  • Step 1:Part 3(10)-Nothing needs to be changed here. Funny.
  • Step 2:Part 1(6)-This did not feel funny at all. Change this please and make it more funny. Maybe add some more word play?
  • Step 2:Part 2(7)-This did not feel funny at all. Change this please and make it more funny. Maybe add some more word play? Exact same as the last one.
  • Step 2:Part 3(10)-There you go! You finally did it right!
  • Step 3(9)-Funny up until the last bolded heading. Then, it gets a little unfunny. Otherwise, good part.
  • Step 4(9)-Funny in a WTF? kind of way. The last part, with the list, is funny, but I think you should revert the list into paragraph form. You should also move the template to the top of the article.
Concept: 10 Original concept that is fully fleshed out. Enough said.
Prose and formatting: 9 Near perfect grammar and formatting. Just a little typo here and there, otherwise, perfect.
Images: 10 Images that actually have humourous captions. Astounding!
Miscellaneous: 9.4 Average of the other 4 scores.
Final Score: 47 Fix what I've said above. Otherwise, good article!
Reviewer: -Razorflame Flame war (contributions) Talk 04:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


edit Random generated images

Personal tools
projects