Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Star Wars (2010)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

FAQ

edit UnScripts:Star Wars (2010)

I tried to make a parody of both remakes (like the new Star Trek movie) and Star Wars. I obviously failed at both. Help me Reviewer. You're my only hope. MacManiasig.png MacManiasig-cheerios.png MacManiasig-holmes.png MacManiasig-starwars.png MacManiasig-firefly.png MacManiasig-pixar.png MacManiasig-oregon.png MacManiasig-lesmiz.png MacManiasig-doctor.png 16px-HalLogo.png Portal16px.png UncycLensFlare16px.pngDalek16px.png 16px-ChekhovSig.png16px-JapanSig.png Sir MacMania GUN 02:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The link isn't the article you are looking for. I think this is the correct one UnScripts:Star Wars (2010). --ChiefjusticeDS 17:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is the second one, I'll take it--El Sid, the lazy oneparlez-vous franglais? 18:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the second one. Thanks for fixing it. What, does the Review system automatically take out stuff in parentheses? (Although not having the UnScripts prefix was entirely my fault.) MacManiasig.png MacManiasig-cheerios.png MacManiasig-holmes.png MacManiasig-starwars.png MacManiasig-firefly.png MacManiasig-pixar.png MacManiasig-oregon.png MacManiasig-lesmiz.png MacManiasig-doctor.png 16px-HalLogo.png Portal16px.png UncycLensFlare16px.pngDalek16px.png 16px-ChekhovSig.png16px-JapanSig.png Sir MacMania GUN 19:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Alright, I'm starting the review now, but since I aim to go to bed in an hour or so, you probably won't get the written review til tomorrow. You can rest assured that progress will be taking place in my head though :)--El Sid, the lazy oneparlez-vous franglais? 21:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Well hello thar! Time for reviewing methinks:
Humour: 9 Seriously funny all the way through. Good attention to detail throughout really pays off, from choice of actors to minute cinematographic details. It might not be consistently funny throughout, there are some sections for example that didn't make me laugh (and perhaps weren't intended to) but obviously it's far funnier to set up jokes after a pure narrative section, the impact is greater, and you do this very well. Seriously, the comedy seems very professional (part the humour itself, part your writing style) - the links are great, the dialogue is witty, the self-reference - much of it made me laugh out loud.
Concept: 8 My only suggestion for the intro is perhaps you could set up what the point of the article's existence is in one sentence. I mean I know you say "a 2010 remake" but since your concept is satirising remake culture and the tastes of cinema-goers nowadays for big budget bonanzas, maybe you need to emphasize this in the introduction. Imagine that this is the thread that weaves it all together, you need to make sure that the point of the article remains fairly clear throughout, otherwise - although whatever section you're looking at may appear very good - the article as a whole will lose its completeness. Or perhaps you're being more subtle? I don't know, perhaps I'm an idiot, but I feel you must take three main points and apply them absolutely to the script (and intro). The most obvious one (satirising Star Wars in general) is more obvious, and doesn't need to be introduced, but I was slightly confused at some points about what the point was, despite finding sections hilarious. Clearing this up could really just be as easy as putting "new cast" as "new cast" and by doing so emphasising novelty and the need for it in mainstream cinema tastes, but ironically still being constant recycling. Just emphasise why this is being remade, and then satirise that too. I have no edits to make to the actual script, I like this very much, although sometimes it might be a little unclear exactly what is going on, but it works as a kind of Star Wars montage (I'm not a massive Star Wars fan btw, I might be missing something). Without actually knowing which parts to edit, I would also suggest you cut it down a little (but then, I prefer shorter, more concise articles, I start freaking out as soon as I start wondering "why is that in there?). I assume it is written more for a fan of Star Wars and therefore assume much of what I don't understand would be understood better by a proper fan.
Prose and formatting: 10 Excellent. Absolutely first-class. Though there is a spelling mistake (or two) in there (I found them yesterday but can't remember where they were), your writing style in general is superb. It suits the purpose well, mimics screenplay and is generally very articulate. The formatting is as good as it needs to be too.
Images: 5 I'm an image-freak so I need MOAR PICS! Indeed I may suggest one pic per scene, or per every other scene. I know this is difficult, given that your whole concept revolves around a movie that doesn't exist, so... I don't know, ask someone for some pointers here, I can't think how you'd do it. The first pic (the movie poster) is brilliant though, so I feel harsh giving such a low score overall, but for an article about a movie, there must be MOAR PICS! Sorry :(
Miscellaneous: 8 Average, no further comments.
Final Score: 40 In general, I really like the concept but I feel it should act as a vehicle that satirises something in particular not just existing for the sake of existing. For this you don't actually have to change much, just emphasise the angle in the introduction more. Your humour and writing style doesn't need any working on, but I would strongly suggest sending this to someone who is generally more experienced with reviews and more knowledgable of Star Wars than myself, before considering it being VFHed. Ignore my comments about length btw, I've had another look and it's pretty much perfect length for a featured script, I'd just recommend letting a Star Wars/UnScripts guru go through it next because I'm well aware I haven't actually contributed much to what you wanted to be criticised (sorry!)
Reviewer: --El Sid, the lazy oneparlez-vous franglais? 23:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
projects