Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Robot Chicken
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
188.8.131.52 20:18, March 11, 2011 (UTC)
|Humour:||5||There are actually some decent ideas in here, Mr. Unregistered User. However I think the main thing hindering it right now is that you haven't really put much effort in... at least not yet, by submitting it to pee that shows you've at least got some intention to work on it further. I like you already Mr. IP, why don't you sign up for an account? I'm sure I can come up with a hilarious username for you, if you want.
Anyway, let's move on to the article at hand. First, I'll talk about the rushed nature of it. For me, nothing epitomises this better than opening quotes. Opening quotes generally don't work, in my opinion at least, because they tend to not get to grips with the humour in the subject matter. Take the one about Robot Chicken's comment on his own tortured existence, for instance - I can see the funny side of it, but didn't really laugh at the quote itself. It's not funny because it has no flow. You have to take your time with a joke, put some thought into the set up. For example, you could say something like "Robot Chicken would often do the voices when playing with his action figures, but unfortunately all he could ever say was "every moment I live is agony" in a weak, teary voice". Not an amazing joke I know, but I hope you can see why it's better than a canned quote. The problem with the quote by itself is that it's essentially a punchline without a set-up. I would personally recommend you get rid of all the quotes, because they don't really add anything and they don't look encyclopaedic at all (Wikipedia doesn't have them, by comparison). The feeling of it being rushed isn't just confined to the quotes either, the whole article is this way. Although brimming with potential, the way it's written right now is a bit underdeveloped. Look at the intro, for example, you state that Robot Chicken is an actual robotic foul and then loosely tie it into the real-life television programme by suggesting he watches crap on TV all day. That's about the only worthwhile thing you assert really. You need to go into a lot more detail, don't rush like this. The whole intro is barely three lines long. Introduce your character properly, take some time to explain what he is and why people want to read about him. Make jokes that are relevant too, rather than just stumbling along and adding any random words/numbers that spring to mind (I'm talking about words like "crazy crap" and meaningless birth dates). Is there a way you could poke fun at the show Robot Chicken while talking about this fictional character you invent? I'm not an expert on the show, although I know they use toys to re-enact stereotypically geeky things like the Star Wars films, so I'm a bit short of ideas here. And when I say "poke fun" I don't mean just say that it's crap or that it's made by morons, because again this is rushed and unfunny. Try using real satire. There's a guide we have here called How to be funny and not just stupid, which gives some tips on this. And I'd just like to mention that it is a guide rather than a rulebook, before that puts you off. But its tips can be really helpful when you need to know how to satirise something rather than just plainly insult it. I guess I'll give you an example: instead of just saying Robot Chicken is rubbish, say something like "Robot Chicken reproduces old science fiction movies, replacing the actors with toys and fondly-remembered scenes with coarse, poorly written penis jokes". I might be being a bit harsh there, I don't know given that I've only seen one or two sketches. But my point is that intelligent, creatively-written satire is better than bland insults. Humour is ultimately about surprising your reader, and there's nothing surprising about simply saying something is shit. The final thing I want to bring up here is the lists. If you do get around to reading HTBFANJS, you'll see it discourages lists. Again, this is simply because they have no flow, don't get to grips with the subject matter, and aren't funny. I also don't understand these ones specifically, because they seem to be a cast of characters - I thought that in this article, however, Robot Chicken was an animal, not a show? You'll need to work out inconsistencies like this too, and please, get rid of the lists. It may also be worth checking out some of our featured articles, If only to get a better idea of what passes for humour around here.
|Concept:||6||I really like the idea that Robot Chicken is a real creature, but for it to work you need more allusions to the real-life show, otherwise it's just too random. So instead of silly jokes like having the chicken get kicked in the balls, try to make jokes at the expense of the show. So if the other chickens are going to pick on him, why don't they pick on him for playing with Star Wars action figures instead? That's satire. Maybe they all preferred to play football? I'll leave that with you, have a think about it. The way you need to do it is so the reader actually learns something about the show as they read about this fictional mechanical bird character, much like our article on The Pirate Bay writes from the perspective of Pirate Bay being a real bay inhabited by pirates, but with references to illegal file sharing.|
|Prose and formatting:||5||Much like your humour, the tone is all over the place. It veers between being encyclopaedic and slangy. For instance, you use phrases like "ape-shit crazy" intermittently, which really ruin the voice. Stay consistent and subdued throughout, as I hint at above, swearing out of the blue isn't funny. In fact it just makes it look sloppy and noncommittal, and unless that's the joke (it isn't, by the way) it rarely works. Again, take time and effort with what you write. Be clear, and explain things slowly.
You don't really have any problems in the way of spelling and grammar, so obviously you do know how to write. I guess you just have to put a little more effort in, but that's ok, writing can take time, and often requires redrafting. Hey, I'm lazy too, I know where you're coming from. It's always important to proofread though, especially if you do any more edits.
The formatting is sort of messy too. I would recommend you just use one line spacing between paragraphs, as I'm doing with this review, otherwise you end up with too much white space.
|Images:||4||Well, you definitely need more, and what you have here isn't all that great. First off, you desperately need one in the intro. Something big and broad that establishes the mood of your article. This is very important. It would be great if you could have one that combines the idea of the TV show with your idea of there being a real robot chicken. That may of course require some photoshopping, which the people over at RadicalX's Corner will be happy to help with, assuming you have no photoshopping skills yourself, which you may well do. The chicken one is fine I guess, but the mad scientist one doesn't make much sense really, why will he operate on a pig next? Is there a joke I'm missing here? I don't get it. The only other thing to say here is that you need more in general, and try to keep them vaguely related to your concept, and of course to the subject matter itself. Is there any way you could work images of the actual TV show into this? Because that would be great.|
|Miscellaneous:||5.5||My score for your article as a whole. Sorry about all the yellowy numbers here, but don't worry about them; you've got a really good start here and I want to see you carry on.|
|Final Score:||25.5||Right, so overall some really good work here so far, I just want to see you work on it that little bit harder. Maybe you should even sign up for an account? That way you can get some small recognition for your contributions, and I can put a name to a face... or at least to a block of text. The main thing to work on as far as I can see is making this more relevant to the actual TV show, and trying to make it seem less rushed. It would be great to see some genuine satire in there. If there's anything I've said here that you want me to explain better, or if you want my opinion on anything I might have missed, please let me know on my talky page and I'll try to help. I hope the review is ok.|
|Reviewer:||--Black Flamingo 23:56, March 11, 2011 (UTC)|