Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Letter to You in Rateme.com 2
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
Ok, I added a bit more content, so it looks longer now (almost 5000 bytes), so lets get another review under way how about?20:20, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
PEE REVIEW IN PROGRESS
of giving you his opinion and pretending you care.
Well, this is a tough one. As tagstit said before, this is a concept that's been done before: "grossly insensitive asshole says grossly insensitive things." See, e.g., Break Up Letter. Another similar article: Long walks on the beach. It's even pretty close to the joke in I lost your pet ferret and the rest of Category:Oh shit, dude, I'm sorry.
And, to be perfectly honest with you, the three that I mentioned (which are all features) execute the concept better than this article does. One big problem is that there are almost no *other* jokes in the article. The way it plays, sentence-by-sentence, doesn't deliver anything really surprising. And surprising people is usually how you get them to laugh. But there's another big problem, and I'll talk about that in a minute.
Taking it section-by-section:
Lede: Okay, you're establishing the subject of the article, and introducing the main character. Interestingly, not only is he an insensitive asshole, but he's also a fat, ugly moron. You've made him just about as thoroughly pathetic as you can. And the thing is, I don't think that's going to work. The joke in the other articles is partly "This guy is obviously smart; how can be so oblivious?" But the joke in this article is "Here are some words written by an incredible douchebag loser." And it just doesn't work as well - partly because I have read words by actual douchebag losers before, and didn't laugh at them. I think for this to be funny, this guy will have to have some redeeming qualities.
I did get a small smile out of "It took me three hours to fill out the registration form," though. That's a good line.
Its not that your ugly...: The grammar in this section is awful, with all the run-on sentences and comma splices and double negatives. I'm going to guess that's intentional, and all part of this douchebag's many character flaws. But here's the fundamental problem. In those other articles, the joke is: "This guy thinks he's saying something nice but it's really incredibly insulting." In this article, the guy obviously knows he's being insulting. He's saying things like "I mean, you are pretty ugly. Hehe..."
That's just a blatant insult. See, the guy thinks he's being insulting, and he's being insulting. And that's not funny. It would be funny if the guy thought he was being sensitive but was being insulting, or if the guy thought he was being insulting but was being pathetic (which is really the underlying joke in Mr winkler is GAY - but if his intention is the same as the result, then you're just reading some words by a guy.
I've never given anyone a 1/10...: Same problem. If the guy goes out and calls the girl "incredibly ugly", then the bottom line of the article is "I gave you a 1/10 because you deserved a 1/10." And that's not really a joke at all.
Maybe a joke will make you feel better?: And here, it's uneven. The title of the section suggests the guy wants to make the girl feel better. But the "joke" is just a blatant insult that no one could possibly mistake for an attempt to cheer her up. So again, the bottom line here is "Dear girl: fuck you." Which isn't very funny.
You know what...?: Well, here you just drop the curtain and let the guy's true colors shine. The only problem: this really never was an apology letter to begin with. There's nothing in the letter that resembles an apology. So is it funny that the guy calls it an "apology letter"? It's probably only funny if you can get the reader to believe he actually thinks it was an apology letter, and I just don't buy that. If the guy says "you are ugly" in the letter, then it's going to be impossible to convince me that he ever thought it was an apology.
Okay, maybe that was a little harsh...: I wouldn't backtrack like this. When you do that, instead of an article having a beginning, middle, and end, it has a beginning, middle, and beginning, and we end up feeling like it didn't go anywhere. If he's going to go from "fake apology" to "fuck you", have him end on "fuck you," not retreat back to "fake apology."
In conclusion...: If you're going to introduce the picture here, you should put the picture here, not in the lede. However... I don't think you should introduce that particular picture. More on that later.
|Concept:||4.5||Same score as "humor," because the whole failure of the article is a failure in concept.
"Guy thinks he's apologizing but isn't": funny.
"Idiot says mean things": not really.
|Prose and formatting:||7||Like I said, the prose is pretty bad. But I think you did that on purpose. And it effectively communicates your character, but doesn't add a lot of humor value to the article. It's hard to give this a number. I'll default to 7.|
|Images:||3||Okay, I hate the top picture of this article.
There are two very different ways people react to pictures. Some people see something they don't like and laugh at it. Like, you know that picture of the incredibly fat girl that shows up on a zillion pages? The one over on the right? Some people think that's funny.
But some people, if they see something they don't like, it puts them in a bad mood and they can't laugh. If an article has a picture of a fat guy, or a fat girl, or someone taking a dump, or someone puking on someone else, I just don't want to read the article. I want to navigate to another page.
So, out of consideration to people who feel the same way I do (or: to suck up to us and get us to VFH your articles), you might not want to stick a fat shirtless guy at the top of this or any article.
As for the "jean pool" picture, it's kind of funny in its context, but it would be much funnier if the joke he tried to cheer her up with was an equally lame pun.
|Miscellaneous:||11||I'm going to give you an 11 because I hate the way that low picture scores drag down the whole average. I mean, they're such a quick fix that it seems dumb that an article would get a low score based on them. Anyway, I think the overall score on this article should be 30. And now it is.|
|Final Score:||30||Eh, I don't need a final comment. I've said it all. And then some. I just realized that my pee review is 2,000 bytes longer than the article.
Anyway, I hope this was helpful at all. Best of luck to you!
|Reviewer:||08:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)|