Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Mr. Keating Goes To Paris

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit Mr. Keating Goes To Paris

This started out as a clean up, then I changed the title from Mr. Keating Goes to France to what we have here. The article as it was was crap, and I envisioned too much of a connection to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington so I couldn't resist the rewrite. I kept the original concept of a fake sequel to Dead Poets Society. Any suggestions for making this better would be appreciated. --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 23:56 EST 4 Mar, 2010

I'd review this but would you mind posting all the movies that I need to read up on to get this article? If you don't want someone who has never seen any of the films to review this, that's ok too. I was lucky that when I was in school I was never made to watch the Dead Poet's Society. ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig 05:45, Mar 6, 2010
Yeah it's just "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" with Jimmy Stewart and the Dead Poets Society with Robin Williams. Thanks HH --Sir Skinfan13 Talk {< CUN RotM FBotM VFH ΥΣΣ Maj. SK >} 07:37 EST 6 Mar, 2010
Doing it tomorrow. ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig 16:53, Mar 6, 2010
Humour: 5.5 General Comments

First of all, you're completely welcome to get a second opinion because I have never seen the films and I don't know what I was thinking yesterday when I booked this review, but breaking your promise to review an article is even worse so I'll go ahead. I don't think it's a very good sign that someone who has never seen the films can't understand your article, but even after reading up on them I was a bit like "Wha..?" This is one of those "mash-up" articles where you mix together two unlikely subjects, and yours feels like, if I may put it this way, a wikipedia plot summary of Mr. Smith goes to Washington with "Mr. Smith" replaced by "Mr. Keating", "Washington" replaced by "Paris", names of American politicians replaced by French ones, American government departments replaced by French ones, etc. It left me with a feeling of "where am I supposed to laugh?" Usually the funny "mash-up" articles have subject matters that are related in some way, or the "mash-up" reveals some truth about the subject matter, or the quirky combination presents a strange-ish situation. I don't think yours does any of the above, or if it did, I'm probably missing it.

Lead-in

  • Not that bad and like a normal film article's lead, but I didn't find it that funny.
  • I didn't like the "science-fiction" bit, and some other bits that sound a bit uncharacteristic of you, like "silly high voices" and "under the influence of questionable substances". Note that "silly high voices" was mentioned once here as a device in the film, but never came up again, which made it seemed like a phrase inserted just to get a one-time laugh.
  • This section tells me about your concept and your style, which are two things that are not very solid and it shows here.

Plot

  • Well, to me this section seemed like a spork of the wikipedian plot summary, where you just replaced all the words. What I would recommend is to find something to satirise, such as the two films, English classes, French people, etc, etc, and then apply this.
  • Sometimes I can see where the jokes are supposed to be, like, "poetry and boys", Weir's "mistakes" and "because they wished to escape from being read poetry for hours on end.", but these moments are few and far between and even when present, I didn't laugh.
  • I think "stealing all of the money for the poetry center and killing Senator Montpelier" is quite bad and sounds like something an IP would write, because it is a bit inconsistent and out of character for the Keating that you described.
  • For some reason I liked the spoiler template.
  • Suggestion: Your main problem might be that you have a concept, but you jokes don't revolve around it, and end up being sloppy and all over the place. So, try to get a clear article idea in your head, preferably one that satirises something, and make it more original and less sporky.

Cast

  • Also didn't find this very funny, but the best one is probably Robert De Niro's method acting.
  • "French Senate slut extraordinaire" - that's almost juvenile. There are also a lot of other jokes like this that seemed not very well thought out and I suggest you go through the article to remove or change them.

Reception

  • This section also didn't end up satirising anything, and just sort of affirmed the low quality of the film in slightly absurd ways. I couldn't help thinking that this section should be treated differently, so maybe you could quote some English class-like film analysis. Or something.
  • The Ring wasn't that bad. I'd prefer it many times over mindless gore fests like the various numbered Saws. But I understand that this is just related to the warning on the label joke, which seems to be a bit of a digression, by the way.
Concept: 4 I remember in one of Chief's (or somebody elses?) reviews he said something about it being hard to write about something that is deliberately bad and the only way that the reader would find it funny is to be embarrassed by the badness and laugh awkwardly (major paraphrasing here). So I don't think the recurring joke that basically stated, in different ways, that "this is an incredibly bad film" works. Plus, your plot summary did not make it sound that bad, which defeats your own purpose, and here I think this is an example of an inconsistency in concept.

I'll give you an example of the three types of "mash-up" articles that I identified. It would be good to look at how these article's concepts and execution are different from your own. Stereotype is an example of an article with two subject matters that are unlikely, but "related". If the author had said "black people like to make a lot of noise with what little they have.", and continued in such a way, it would be less funny, even though both ways are essentially the same thing. British Moon-landing is an example of a combination that satirises the subject matter. It uses the stereotypes of the various types of Europeans very well and I think adopting such a way is more hopeful for your article. I think that you should find aspects of the two films to satirise, incorporating things like "how would it be different if this is Mr. Keating instead of Mr. Smith, and Paris instead of Washington? (Obviously the names, but what else?) And how does it relate back to Dead Poet's Society?" The third type is like Opeth - a bit quirky, and I don't think it's suitable for this article but it's there for comparison.

Prose and formatting: 10 As usual, good grammar and spelling, and no mistakes that I can spot. The length and structure of the sentences make them flow very well and the tone is about right. You can proofread it again yourself if you want.
Images: 5 Not that good. There are only two and they're not that funny. While I can see that your article length only allows you about one more, or none at all, what you have now are just the kind of pics that didn't stood out to me. I don't know what you can do about this because wikipedia film articles don't have many pics, but the usual advice - funny captions for related pics - still stands.
Miscellaneous: 6.1 Averaged.
Final Score: 30.6 As I said, I didn't really understand this article and proceeded to give advice based on me not understanding it. I hope I didn't completely miss the point or something and for follow-up and further stuff contact me on my talk page.
Reviewer: ~Scriptsiggy.JPGTelephonesig Star Starsig Kidneysig 07:42, Mar 7, 2010
Personal tools
projects