Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/G Rated Talking Animal Movie

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 05:48, April 27, 2011 by Fnoodle (talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit G Rated Talking Animal Movie

An article I whipped up after having a flash of inspiration. As always, do a thorough review please. As double always, thank you!   Le Cejak <Mar 29, 2008 [23:56]>

Hmm, that's not really an "in depth" review down there, is it? OK, as promised, here's the template:
UUtea A big mug o' reviewin' strength tea? Why, that must mean this article
is being reviewed by:
UU - natter UU Manhole
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider helping someone else instead).
(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing, feel free to remove it or clout UU athwart the ear'ole).
Review to follow soon, when I get time. Hopefully before my foreign bedtime... --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 09:57, Mar 31

Nopee PrIP'd!
Pee Review In Progress
Checkit bitches, this review is as good as peed on. I'm marking my effing territory. Said article is being reviewed by:
~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF 

LOL OWNED!! Actually, do you mind if I review this as well, Cajek? No disrespect to UU, I just really would like to review this. Lemme go shower and I'll get to it. ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 16:58 Mar 31
Uhh, I... Uhh? Why not review the other article Cajek's got queued up? Still, if you must, you must. But so most I - I don't back out on a promise! --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 20:25, Mar 31
Oh, he's got another in the queue? I'm on it. Gahh, sorry. Jet lag, ya know? ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 21:06 Mar 31
Go ahead and review it, SysRq, I don't mind.   Le Cejak <Mar 31, 2008 [23:35]>
I may, after I review this other article of yours as soon as I find it. (or as soon as I bother to start looking for it) ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 00:05 Apr 1
Nah, do this one. Do it now. Now. Do it now!!   Le Cejak <Apr 01, 2008 [0:17]>
GRAAH!! FINE!! ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 00:28 Apr 1
HURRY! HURRY HURRY HURRY!!! GO GO GO!! :D   Le Cejak <Apr 01, 2008 [0:31]>
Humour: 9 OK, and we kick off with a darn good score. I have to say, this is pretty much classic Cajek, although I think you've reined in some of your tendency to go over the top, and focussed on your knack for the absurd, which I think stands this article in good stead. The first three acts do pretty much sum up almost every creature feature ever made, and do so in an affectionate, amusing fashion. And the mixing of different animals/characteristics/habitats/whatnot works quite well too, after a line or two where the reader has to get used to it. That of itself would have been a good article, but then we have the final act...

You do like to throw these curveballs in, don't you? I really should have been expecting this from you, given Normal and Object Permanence and the like, but nooo, I was a bit thrown. But I like it, in the main. I'm still not sure about the penultimate two bits, about taking Eric and the cold night at the zoo. That seems slightly oblique set against the rest. But yeah, good finish. I don't hand out nines lightly, as I'm sure you're aware, so good job!

One point though (it wouldn't be me otherwise, right?):

In Act 2, second bit, Jerald's thinking of the humans as the worst of all things ever. Then the last bit has him having dreamed of being a human's pet all his life. That inconsistency grates me a bit. Can his dream have been to be something else, that the human may be able to help him with? Just a thought.

Concept: 9 Again, good work. As I said above, the first three acts would have worked well enough as an article on their own, but that final bit for me gives it a twist into something else. I suspect it may not work for everyone, and you'll get someone somewhere who accuses it of "trying too hard" or whatever, but fuck 'em - it works for me!
Prose and formatting: 7 A typo here ("pollin"), a redundant word there ("If he couldn't find something to photosynthesize something"), a missing apostrophe elsewhere ("rat-who-thinks-its-a-cook" - that's "who-thinks-it's-a-cook"), and inconsistent capitalization thereabouts ("Queen/queen"). Nothing major, but just a few things to clean up. If you like, I can have a tiny sweep when you're done - it won't take long, and I promise faithfully not to UK-ize your spellings.
Images: 9 I hummed and hawed about this a little, but I think on balance, you have the right number, and they're spread out nicely, and captioned well, and don't overshadow the prose, as I think one or two you've used have done in the past.
Miscellaneous: 8.5 It's that pesky pee template again. Who invented that anyway?
Final Score: 42.5 Yeah, really good stuff Cajek, it's good to have you back and firing on all cylinders again. I'll leave it for sysRq's third opinion now, and any changes you want to make as a result of the reviews, but I'd be happy to nom this once you're done with it. Even if I don't, I suspect it'll end up on VFH sooner or later. Thanks for a good read mate!
Reviewer: --SirU.U.Esq. VFH | GUN | Natter | Uh oh | Pee 20:25, Mar 31


Humour: 9 FOR STARTERS, I AM GOING TO STATE THAT THIS UNPRECEDENTED ALL-CAPS REVIEW HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE ALMIGHTY BENSON, NOR DOES IT HAVE HIS SEAL OF APPROVAL ANYWHERE ON IT. I'M JUST UNDER A LOT OF PRESSURE FROM A MISTER CAJEK HERE BECAUSE AS MUCH AS I WANT TO IMPRESS HIM WITH WHAT I THINK MAY BE MY FIRST REVIEW FOR HIM, HE'S CURRENTLY GOT ME STRAPPED TO A CHAIR WITH A BABY RHINO JOSTLING MY BALLS AROUND IN HIS MOUTH IN ORDER TO MAKE ME TYPE FASTER. BUT HERE I GO WITH THE ACTUAL REVIEW BEFORE CAJEK GETS MAD AT ME FOR THIS SILLINESS. OH YEAH, AND I ALSO HAVE NOT READ THE ABOVE REVIEW FROM UU. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT SCORES HE GAVE YOU SO AS TO STAY UNBIASED BY HIS EXPERT OPINION.

THE HUMOR IN THIS ARTICLE WAS IMMACULATE THROUGHOUT. THE QUOTE AT THE BEGINNING WAS A RARE HIT, AS I FIND QUOTES TO BE RATHER ANNOYING. THIS ONE COULDN'T BE MORE APPROPRIATE. THE ONLY THING I MIGHT CHANGE ABOUT IT WOULD BE THE SPEAKER. MAKE UP SOME STUPID ANIMAL NAME OR SOMETHING. OR JUST SAY "STUPID ANIMAL NAME". AS FOR THE REST OF THE ARTICLE, THE HUMOR KIND OF SPEAKS FOR ITSELF IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. IT'S GREAT STUFF AND IS JUST THE RIGHT LENGTH SO AS TO NOT WEAR OUT ITS WELCOME. THE LAST SECTION OF THE ARTICLE REALLY HELPED TO HIT IT HOME BY SWITCHING UP THE HUMOR A BIT, WHICH I REALLY LIKED. YOU COULD HAVE EASILY LEFT THIS OFF AT ACT 3 AND THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A PRETTY AVERAGE ARTICLE. BUT NO, YOU WENT AND ADDED THAT LAST BIT IN THERE TO SEAL THE DEAL. BRILLIANT EXECUTION THERE.

Concept: 9 I LOVE THIS CONCEPT, A GREAT TIME TO TAKE DOWN THE EVIL CORPORATION OF DISNEY/PIXAR. ANY ARTICLE THAT ATTACKS THE WORLD OF ENTERTAINMENT IS SURE TO GET MY ATTENTION, AND THIS ARTICLE IS JUST CLEVER ENOUGH TO MERIT A GOOD YUK OR TWO TO SAY THE LEAST. IT'S ORIGINAL, CLEVER, AND OBVIOUS. GREAT JOB THERE.
Prose and formatting: 7 YEAH YEAH, YOUR WRITING IS SPOT ON. WE BOTH KNOW THAT. WHAT I WANT TO FOCUS ON IS YOUR HIGHLIGHTING OF THE CHANGING OF ANIMALS THROUGHOUT THE ARTICLE. PERHAPS HERE IT IS BEST TO REMAIN SUBTLE AND LET THE READER CATCH ON BY HIMSELF AFTER GETTING A GOOD PARAGRAPH IN SO THAT HE REALIZES WHAT'S GOING ON. THEN THEY MIGHT FIND IT EVEN FUNNIER. BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR THE WAY THAT YOU DID IT. IT MAKES THE ARTICLE LOOK MORE LIKE A FORMULA, WHICH I THINK IS THE ANGLE YOU'RE GOING FOR. EITHER WAY IS FINE, I JUST WANTED TO OFFER THIS OTHER IDEA.
Images: 7 I WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO PUT THIS DOWN AS A 5, SINCE I FELT THAT THE SECOND IMAGE DIDN'T REALLY BELONG. BUT I FEEL LIKE NOW IT'S FINE WHERE IT IS, NO NEED TO GET RID OF IT. OVERALL, THE IMAGES ARE PRETTY MUCH AVERAGE. THE 7 IS FOR ADEQUATE. WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IS A MOVIE POSTER. THAT AND THAT ALONE WOULD EARN MY 10 FOR IMAGES. BUT THIS COULD STILL BE IMPROVED WITH A SCREENSHOT FROM MADAGASCAR OR SOMETHING. AN ACTUAL ANIMATED ANIMAL WOULD MAKE THIS LOOK GREAT.
Miscellaneous: 8 AVERAGED.
Final Score: 40 OVERALL, I DON'T SEE TOO MUCH TO BE IMPROVED HERE. I WANT YOU TO GIVE MY SUGGESTION IN THE PROSE SECTION SOME THOUGHT, THOUGH. IT WON'T HURT MY FEELINGS IF YOU DECIDE TO LEAVE IT AS IT IS, EITHER WAY IT'S GOING UP ON VFH ASAP. BUT I THINK IT'S AT LEAST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. OTHER THAN THAT, I JUST HAVE TO APOLOGIZE FOR THIS ALL-CAPS REVIEW ONE MORE TIME. I HOPE IT HAS ENTERTAINED YOU AS MUCH AS IT HAS HURT MY PINKY ON THE SHIFT KEY. OH WAIT, THERE'S A CAPS LOCK BUTTON? SO THAT'S HOW PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO MAINTAIN ALL CAPS IN THE CHAT ROOMS ALL THE TIME! WHAT OTHER BUTTONS ON MY KEYBOARD HAVE I BEEN OVERLOOKING?
Reviewer: ~Minitrue Sir SysRq! Talk! Sex! =/ GUNWotMRotMAotMVFHSKPEEINGHPBFF @ 01:34 Apr 1


Humour: 9 Very funny, however some people do not have such a mentality to understand the jokes. I found the subtle jeers to be extremely funny. It's not humor. It's more like humour.
Concept: 10 It's completely random. And that's what makes it special, because not many people would have come up with such an idea, or excuted it as brilliantly, which brings me to...
Prose and formatting: 9 Brilliant, and completely focused. Not a full score, because one or two words were misspelled.
Images: 10 They really made the article. They were blatantly funny, whereas the article itself was a bit high browed, and might have gone over some people's heads. The images were perfect, and didn't have those 'white lines' from photoshop or anything. Very well done.
Miscellaneous: 9.5 N/A... except I do hope you make more articles!
Final Score: 47.5 9/10
Reviewer: India Illusory. www.myspace.com/india_illusory
Personal tools
projects