Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/How the Grinch Stole Christmas!

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit How the Grinch Stole Christmas!

I still write stuff, apparently. Who knew? Ж Kalir totally not Wario at all 20:03, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Hells, I'ma review this. If it ain't done soonish (by around this time tomorrow, I guess), please give me a thwacking upside the head. ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101129 - 05:19 (UTC)

Okay, so that's the last time I give a definite timeframe... unless I forget again, anyway. ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101130 - 19:50 (UTC)

Concept: 7 Turning Dr. Suess's Grinch into a communist propaganda piece that later got adapted to effectively the opposite is a pretty silly idea, when you get right down to it... but then again, it is also precisely the sort of thing people tend to do. Got me wondering if that was what actually happened, in fact. Unfortunately, this lovely idea doesn't follow through as much as it could. Past the introduction, it doesn't even come up - it just lays the foundation for why the article is talking about a russian and english version.

So why not use it more? Play of the irony of converting things to their opposites, maybe even playing out the commercialism in the US one such that it comes across as good, directly contrasting with the original? You could make comparisons, references across each, etc, but I think if you keep to the idea you presented at the start and play it out thoroughout the piece, it would not only be even funnier than it is, but also seem a lot more unified.

Although it could all use some pulling together as it is, even if you don't do that. Just keep however much of that main idea you are using in mind.

Humour: 6 Sectional impressions of funniness:
  • Introduction - I didn't find much of this overly funny save for the Carrey link, but it does introduce the ideas fairly well. Could make a joke about Reagan-era United States; I was actually kind of surprised when those links went to where they said. Felt like there already was a joke there, for that matter.
  • Story (English version) - The 'heavily modified' mention in the introduction is a good foreshadowing for this part, well, both of these, really, but unfortunately you don't really follow through with it very well. You say what they are but do not really compare them. What about funnies in pointing out how they are different, or even just what was kept? This would probably work better if this section came after the russian, though.
I do like the bits about leaving things to the imagination of the viewer and the anatomy of the heart bits - poking holes can be a lovely way about things. Why not poke more holes in the other ones?
  • Story (Russian version) - So, er... why Canada, eh? As well written a summary as this is, though, it doesn't really come across as funny - just a summary, explaining the thing. Maybe you could emphasise propaganda aspects more, or make fun of something, or some such, but it's just too explainy as it is.
  • Story (Animated movie) - Now that they're starting to compare to each other, there's a lot more room for intrigue - the dog, for instance, as a connector between the versions... and the bit about voting rights was pretty funny. Wonder what rights a grinch would actually have.
  • Story (The one with Jim Carrey) - Each one a progression from the last, and everything... saying how to read the article directly (read: at all) just seems strange, though. As a whole it's encyclopedic and does not address the reader; could you not make this point in some other way?
And just how little purpose does Max serve? How much a role did Cindy Lou Who attain at this point? How far off did Jim Carrey actually throw the thing? This could be room for major hilarity, but as it is you are just telling us, yup, that's what happened, with a few jibs thrown in. Where's the detail that was in the first story section?
  • Reception - So vague... seems like you just got bored and wandered off instead of finishing it. What did each like about each, anyhow? What would have happened if they had crossed over? And what does eating at McDonald's have to do with lack of imagination? Although maybe it's just the length of the sentence here that's throwing me off... must mean it's time for the prose section.
Prose and formatting: 6 Eh, I'll just read through the thing again and ramble about everything I notice.

The parts seem to get shorter as it goes along... odd.

Make a new paragraph when talking about a new idea - In the introduction, for instance, the movies deserve their own paragraph, separate from the what it is stuff, even if that paragraph is just one sentence. You could add another sentence about it, though it might ruin the punchline, but since it's the introduction, length really doesn't matter that much anyway.

Saying things 'can be easily left to the imagination of the viewer' seems odd when talking about a translation of a story, as opposed to a play or movie. On the other hand, children often have stories read to them, so 'reader' wouldn't neccessarily work, either. Perhaps 'audience'?

Saying that the story 'opens up' is also an odd way to start the sections - are you not saying what the story is, as opposed to how the story progresses? Establishing the who and where before saying what happens would probably improve the flow, as these are merely cursory overviews. I mean, the wikipedia Grinch one, while insanely boring, seems to be a very effective plot summary, and that seems to be how it goes... though that is actually quite unusual for wikipedia. Usually theirs tend to be way too long and needless.

I love how you use links, and the repetition of 'left to the imagination of the viewer' and how you use links with that, for that matter. Some of them are pretty funny.

Calling the sections 'Story (verson) is needlessly repetetive, or at least could look better - why not just 'English version', 'Russian version', 'Animated movie', 'Jim Carrey movie', especially since you don't have any other specific sections for each... and this way, you could go more into stuff besides plot if you want.

Something else, though - why have the english version first if it's a rewrite of the russian? Besides that, it's in chronological order, and if you put it all in chronological order, not only could you discuss the differences with each new version more, but it would probably help the flow - note how much more easily the Animated movie section transits to the Jim Carrey section, unlike the English to the Russian section...

The conclusion, the reception section, is just kind of weak - the article just sort of ends. It needs more umph, needs some kind of twist, final joke, maybe just pull it all together as the mass of Grinch stuff, and how it has affected the lot of society - both societies, or how the propaganda ultimately failed or didn't or... you know. Conclusiony stuff. And make it something funny, of course, but you shouldn't have too much trouble with that once you sort out what to put.

And lastly, the obligatory comment about tone grammar and whatnot - seems decent, no issues, so I'm just adding this as an afterthought, really. Good encyclopedic approach, didn't notice any typos. Sentences flow well and whatnot. Good job, really.

Images: 0 As you probably noticed, you don't have any images, so I'll say this - get some. You know how, and whatnot. But perhaps cover and/or page art from either version, examples of the movies, maybe even a picture of someone reading it to their kid or something. Something. Then again, you could probably make abstract shapes work using clever captioning if you felt like it and/or tried... not that I'm advising it, but... you know?
Miscellaneous: 6 I'll just put an arbitrary evaluation of finishedness here.
Final Score: 25 Yeah, so... there you have it. Basically, what I think you need is to go through and finish it, especially the ending. Hopefully this will help, and you can have an inkling of what to do with it whenever you get around to it, and whatnot...

If you have any questions, feel free to pop by and ask, and best of luck to you, Kalir.

Reviewer: ~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101130 - 19:50 (UTC)
7
Bloink
Concept
The idea, the angle, the grand funny of the article...
Turning Dr. Suess's Grinch into a communist propaganda piece that later got adapted to effectively the opposite is a pretty silly idea, when you get right down to it... but then again, it is also precisely the sort of thing people tend to do. Got me wondering if that was what actually happened, in fact. Unfortunately, this lovely idea doesn't follow through as much as it could. Past the introduction, it doesn't even come up - it just lays the foundation for why the article is talking about a russian and english version.

So why not use it more? Play of the irony of converting things to their opposites, maybe even playing out the commercialism in the US one such that it comes across as good, directly contrasting with the original? You could make comparisons, references across each, etc, but I think if you keep to the idea you presented at the start and play it out thoroughout the piece, it would not only be even funnier than it is, but also seem a lot more unified.

Although it could all use some pulling together as it is, even if you don't do that. Just keep however much of that main idea you are using in mind.

6
Bloink
Humour
The implementation, how funny the article comes out...
Sectional impressions of funniness:
  • Introduction - I didn't find much of this overly funny save for the Carrey link, but it does introduce the ideas fairly well. Could make a joke about Reagan-era United States; I was actually kind of surprised when those links went to where they said. Felt like there already was a joke there, for that matter.
  • Story (English version) - The 'heavily modified' mention in the introduction is a good foreshadowing for this part, well, both of these, really, but unfortunately you don't really follow through with it very well. You say what they are but do not really compare them. What about funnies in pointing out how they are different, or even just what was kept? This would probably work better if this section came after the russian, though.
I do like the bits about leaving things to the imagination of the viewer and the anatomy of the heart bits - poking holes can be a lovely way about things. Why not poke more holes in the other ones?
  • Story (Russian version) - So, er... why Canada, eh? As well written a summary as this is, though, it doesn't really come across as funny - just a summary, explaining the thing. Maybe you could emphasise propaganda aspects more, or make fun of something, or some such, but it's just too explainy as it is.
  • Story (Animated movie) - Now that they're starting to compare to each other, there's a lot more room for intrigue - the dog, for instance, as a connector between the versions... and the bit about voting rights was pretty funny. Wonder what rights a grinch would actually have.
  • Story (The one with Jim Carrey) - Each one a progression from the last, and everything... saying how to read the article directly (read: at all) just seems strange, though. As a whole it's encyclopedic and does not address the reader; could you not make this point in some other way?
And just how little purpose does Max serve? How much a role did Cindy Lou Who attain at this point? How far off did Jim Carrey actually throw the thing? This could be room for major hilarity, but as it is you are just telling us, yup, that's what happened, with a few jibs thrown in. Where's the detail that was in the first story section?
  • Reception - So vague... seems like you just got bored and wandered off instead of finishing it. What did each like about each, anyhow? What would have happened if they had crossed over? And what does eating at McDonald's have to do with lack of imagination? Although maybe it's just the length of the sentence here that's throwing me off... must mean it's time for the prose section.
6
Bloink
Prose and formatting
Appearance, flow, overall presentation...
Eh, I'll just read through the thing again and ramble about everything I notice.

The parts seem to get shorter as it goes along... odd.

Make a new paragraph when talking about a new idea - In the introduction, for instance, the movies deserve their own paragraph, separate from the what it is stuff, even if that paragraph is just one sentence. You could add another sentence about it, though it might ruin the punchline, but since it's the introduction, length really doesn't matter that much anyway.

Saying things 'can be easily left to the imagination of the viewer' seems odd when talking about a translation of a story, as opposed to a play or movie. On the other hand, children often have stories read to them, so 'reader' wouldn't neccessarily work, either. Perhaps 'audience'?

Saying that the story 'opens up' is also an odd way to start the sections - are you not saying what the story is, as opposed to how the story progresses? Establishing the who and where before saying what happens would probably improve the flow, as these are merely cursory overviews. I mean, the wikipedia Grinch one, while insanely boring, seems to be a very effective plot summary, and that seems to be how it goes... though that is actually quite unusual for wikipedia. Usually theirs tend to be way too long and needless.

I love how you use links, and the repetition of 'left to the imagination of the viewer' and how you use links with that, for that matter. Some of them are pretty funny.

Calling the sections 'Story (verson) is needlessly repetetive, or at least could look better - why not just 'English version', 'Russian version', 'Animated movie', 'Jim Carrey movie', especially since you don't have any other specific sections for each... and this way, you could go more into stuff besides plot if you want.

Something else, though - why have the english version first if it's a rewrite of the russian? Besides that, it's in chronological order, and if you put it all in chronological order, not only could you discuss the differences with each new version more, but it would probably help the flow - note how much more easily the Animated movie section transits to the Jim Carrey section, unlike the English to the Russian section...

The conclusion, the reception section, is just kind of weak - the article just sort of ends. It needs more umph, needs some kind of twist, final joke, maybe just pull it all together as the mass of Grinch stuff, and how it has affected the lot of society - both societies, or how the propaganda ultimately failed or didn't or... you know. Conclusiony stuff. And make it something funny, of course, but you shouldn't have too much trouble with that once you sort out what to put.

And lastly, the obligatory comment about tone grammar and whatnot - seems decent, no issues, so I'm just adding this as an afterthought, really. Good encyclopedic approach, didn't notice any typos. Sentences flow well and whatnot. Good job, really.

0
Bloink
Images
The graphics themselves, as well as their humour and relevance...
As you probably noticed, you don't have any images, so I'll say this - get some. You know how, and whatnot. But perhaps cover and/or page art from either version, examples of the movies, maybe even a picture of someone reading it to their kid or something. Something. Then again, you could probably make abstract shapes work using clever captioning if you felt like it and/or tried... not that I'm advising it, but... you know?
6
Bloink
Miscellaneous
Anything else... or not...
I'll just put an arbitrary evaluation of finishedness here.
25
Bloink
Final score
~ Pointy *shifty eyes* (talk) • (stalk) -- 20101130 - 19:50 (UTC)
Yeah, so... there you have it. Basically, what I think you need is to go through and finish it, especially the ending. Hopefully this will help, and you can have an inkling of what to do with it whenever you get around to it, and whatnot...

If you have any questions, feel free to pop by and ask, and best of luck to you, Kalir.

Personal tools
projects