Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Lunar Launch Saga (take 2)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

< Uncyclopedia:Pee Review
Revision as of 16:57, October 31, 2009 by Why do I need to provide this? (talk | contribs)

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

FAQ

edit Lunar Launch Saga

This is the edit from last Pee Review by Sir ChiefJustice. This is based on the seeming impossible nature of the subject. And combining a cast which is the most unlikely, and their diverse personalities in an impossible situation, that results from Nasa NOT training them for this because, quite frankly, Nasa never thought they would make this far... It's just a slice of script dealing with the subject, but without the movie ending.--Funnybony 21:55, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Funnybony 21:50, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

I'll dock with this article within 24 hours. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 15:57, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 3 Your reviewer here, over I'll depense with my usual who-am-I as you've suffered through being reviewed by me before. I will let you know I'm a big fan of Stanley Kubrick, Rod Serling, Twilight Zone, and like reading about the space program.

And you may remember I put Prose and Formatting comments and Humour together, but do score them separately.

The parts of this I found the best I really liked. But I believe it has a lot of weak areas, starting with your concept (you might want to read the concept section first).

Your introduction

You tell us this is a Wikipedia article--if so, why would we be reading it here?
“After the Apollo 15 Lunar...."--I like this lead-in, as it really made me wonder what the "it" was.
"This could make for the most exciting movie out-of-this-World!!"--I'd cut this. Ending with "...in outer (no hypen) space?" I think is much stronger. If you want to say it's a movie, tell us subtly.
"In the late 1970s Dave Scott and Jim Irwin wrote a book on the experience titled, "IF We Had Done It"."--if your article had an ending, this would have given it away.
"...52 (hypen) year (hypen) old...." "A script was created from the first draft...."--I don't think you need this. "...assembled by Kubrick to satisfy his British sense of humor, and add a touch of unrealism to the film."--I didn't find this funny. Also I didn't get the "first draft" part. Again, remember I'm nitpicky.

CAST: Proposed

Your cast could give an idea to the reader who's familiar with them that this is a comedy. For those who don't know all these people, you might give a link to them. Although your description as "hippie", "ganster," etc. I think is very helpful to give people the picture (but see Images).

SCENE 1: Opening

I don't think Twilight Zone by AC/DC is funny (if they really did do a version of this, ignore my comment). I like "Marsh of Decay" as the location.

SCENE 2: The Dream

Profanity--neither Twilight Zone episodes, Kubrick movies of the time, or Wikipedia articles about space flight are filled with profanity. Why is it here? "I gotta take a (censored shit) big (no hypen) time!"--that I liked, especially because because NASA comments on the language. But then there's a lot of uncensored "fucks" and the like throughout the article. Profanity can be very funny if used judiciously. For example, to me two of the funniest words in Monty Python and the Holy Grail is the twice-used word "shit." But it's in a very funny context. Here, to me this just takes away from the believability, and thus the humour, of your article. Personally, I think just one or two censored "shits" would be funnier here. And yes, I know, this is Pesci, but again I don't know if this meshes with your article. You might consider casting someone else--why not Cheech and Chong? Yes, it would change the tone, but then they'd be the screwups. If you don't want that, then I'd choose cast who would play it straight, and let NASA be the screwup, which is largely what you have here. I think that would be fine, but better without Pesci unless you can tone down his language (most Americans think of NASA dialog as what they hear on TV).
The parts I like here are your descriptions of how impossible docking seems. I think you've done very well there. "The Endeavor may be going around 110 kilometers-per-second, at 70,000." and "...slow down to 110 kilometers-per-second?" and "how are you going to line-up to dock with the module, specially, you're both going some 110 kilometers-per-second, inside a bloody vacuum!?" I like this, although even though the VO is British, bloody is considered to be worse than "damn" or "hell," but maybe that's all right.
I would recommend using your exclamation points very judiciously. Part of the mystic of NASA has been how calm everybody acts. "'Houston, we've had a problem" means "I think we're going to die." I realize NASA people don't act as calmly as they used to, but it's still there. Using them too much can become like "OMG! That is so cool! Really! OMG!"
"...then press the red button, only after flipping the 5 green switches."--there's a possible joke here, and you might want to use something like this late in your article, or if you use it here, make this what creates the problem. You might mention there's a slight time delay in space communcations because of the distance, although that's not strictly necessary. But I can imagine something like, "Listen very carefully. You'll need to press the red button." "Pressed." "But first, flip the 5 green switches." This could set up the whole disaster.
"NASA: No! Stop! You're going too fast, you'll fly into space."--maybe add a response "We're trying to fly into space" or some such.

IMITATION "ROD SERLING" VO:

Your article has no ending, just some guys who want to use the toilet and haven't gotten in there yet. I don't find this strong enough, and really think this could use an ending.
Concept: 3 This score is low because I'm not sure what your concept is. Is this a Wikipedia article, a Twilight Zone episode, or a movie by Stanley Kubrick? Frankly, I don't see any of those here. It does seem to be a potty joke, but I'm not sure that's enough to sustain an entire article. I would suggest figuring out what you want to do here, making it like a Twilight Zone episode, Kubrick movie, whatever. I'm also not sure if some guys wanting to use to toilet is strong enough to sustain the article.
Prose and formatting: 7 Your prose at it's best I'd rate higher. In general, I found it well done with those explanations under Humour above.
Images: 7.5 In general, I like your images and captions. I really like the caption "which one's the fuckin' Command module?" Other than minor grammar issues ("Cameraman" doesn't need to be capitalized), I think they're fine. The "I can see your house from here" I found the weakest, but it's OK. What I would like to see is a picture of Chong and Pesci. If this is a movie/TV show, we'll want to see the actors--if you had pics of them, your image score would be higher, as again I like what you've done here. As NASA is a voice over, I don't think you need a pic there. And I don't believe the pic of the planets and its caption really adds--I think you could cut this and put in a pic of your actors (but I'd put them near the top so we can see them before or when they first start speaking so we can picture them. I kept forgetting who the actors were).
Miscellaneous: 5.125 Average of above
Final Score: 25.625 Again, I think some parts of this are very good. But I think you could look at your concept, determine exactly what it is--Wikipedia take off, Twilight Zone episode, Kubrick movie, something--and build that and cut out the parts that don't fit.
Reviewer: WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 16:57, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects