Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Madagascar (film)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Madagascar (film)

Pythonofdoom 22:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Humour: 2 I tried really hard to laugh but...no. Sorry. HTBFANJS may suggest that patent nonsense can be funny, but something that reads like a stoner version of part of the Wikipedia article doesn't work too well unless you're consistent about it. And perhaps renamed the article "Madagascar (film) after smoking an enormous doobie"
Concept: 2 As mentioned above, this was slightly like Madagascar using stoner-vision. Is that what you meant to do? If so, you need an introduction that sets the scene some elaborate way, then summarise the plot of the film. Otherwise, as it stands, it's just a list with some random abuse at the end.
Prose and formatting: 5 I'll give you some credit: the spelling is pretty much spot-on and your grammar works nicely too. Almost no errors. However, it's still just a list of the characters with random comments.
Images: 0 What images?
Miscellaneous: 2.5 Averaged, since there's not a lot else to say.
Final Score: 11.5 Let's be fair, this is far too early for piss.
Reviewer: Guybles CUN 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit: I notice that I have been somewhat unhelpful with my review, in comparison to the extensive feedback from SysRq and UU. Although they've pretty much hit the nail on the head and the same points apply. Look at it this way: you've clearly got the notion of mocking the film by going for the characters, but there does have to be a context to explain where you are coming from with this.

Meanwhile, writing parodies of a description of a film is always tricky - mostly because the films themselves are so ridiculous that they are practically parodies of themselves anyway. About the best you can hope for is spoofing a very earnest piece of cinematography or mashing two films together (i.e. Apocalypse, Take A Look At Me Now!!! or A Nightmare on Sesame Street). You may be a huge fan of Madagascar, but I'm not sure you can use that as a basis for spinning the characters off in random directions. In this case, all you've done is take a list of names (which, coincidentally, happen to be in a film) and made up some facts about them. There's nothing that ties your list to the film or explains why you're even talking about these names, other than presumption on the part of the reader. And readers are pretty stupid, by and large, so they need to be spoon-fed.

The other two reviews mention needing an angle to take the article forward. This is equally true here: I wondered if you were doing an impersonation of someone who is completely ripped to the tits, who has ended up trying to describe the movie to someone else who is equally wasted. If so, that's an idea you can play with. Personally, if I was trashed, I'd find it very hard to reason with the notion of sinister penguins and a flirtatious hippo.

One thing that you can do, straight away, is get some pictures in. Lad mags have been selling thousands of copies on the basis of an amusing photo with an out-of-context quote, so start there and work your way up. Not everyone is handy with Potatochop, so don't get hung up on grafting a lion's head onto Ben Stiller's body or giving a lemur a Borat-style thong.

I hope you find this more helpful than my comments above. You are clearly giving it a shot, and Uncyclopedia needs people like you to take seed, flourish and eventually turn into beautiful Pee reviewers. -- Guybles CUN 23:31, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal tools