Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Steven Spielberg Rewrite
From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia
I will probably add something more, but I don't know what to add. A filmography is a list, and... um? What I want to know is what I should change, add and keep. Give me exact pointers, not "metaphors" or stuff. --Sir General Minister G5 FIYC UPotM [Y] #21 F@H KUN 12:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
|The Rt Hon W Gladstone, MP, GOM is currently discharging the contents of his bladder in the vicinity of this particular contribution. You are cordially advised to stand well back, as decades of consorting with courtesans has left his aim somewhat lacking in containment!|
|Humour:||4||Does anyone else feel that, when they think of Spielberg, they can't help thinking of Dawson's Creek? It's such an apt link as well - a programme about a ridiculously self-aware and overly pretentious teenager, who idolises a film director who himself is ridiculously self-aware and overly pretentious?
Now to the article. I tend to subscribe to the idea that the funniest things tend to be those that are based in truth, particularly where you're trying to satirise something. Now we know a lot about Spielberg - he's Jewish, he tends to make schmalzy films which often lack artistic merit, he's obscenely rich... He's basically Woody Allen but without the wit. Or the daughter who is now his wife. Yet the article studiously fails to bring these things out.
Anyway. The article starts with what seems to me like a rather childish and puerile train of thought about his parentage. I know that wasn't something which the rewriter of the article included, but I'm not sure why it was kept either. Whatever - it doesn't strike me as funny or clever, and shows no insight into who the man is. I can't for the life of me make sense of what the "Cancer" section is about - and seriously, anyone, if you're going to do anti-semetic jokes thay have to be right on the money, otherwise they will always just come across as offensive. In this case, it's not on the money.
And then we get on to "Touched by a Nazi" - what can I say? Completely random, completely pointless, and completely unfunny is probably the most apt. I'd love for someone to explain where it came from, because I can't work it out - again, I appreciate that it's from before the rewrite, but still.
That's about it, and I'm struggling to find something useful to say. While it's been substantially edited, I'd suggest it's not enough and needs a proper rewrite. There's so much about Spielberg which is funny - the potential to create a false rivalry between him and Woody Allen, or the potential to make it like an episode of Dawson's Creek. In fact, if you want to insult him, do so - he always comes across as such a sanctimonious shit, so frankly, it'd be quite a funny article if it was all about how much of a sanctimonious shit he actually is.
This section does gain 1 extra point though for the very last sentence of the piece. That could, potentially, make a cracking punchline to the whole article, if used well and worked up to.
|Concept:||5||This should really be an average of t'other marks, I think. The subject matter is appropriate and necessary; the way it is handled really isn't. I watch a couple of articles just like this which, at some point, I'll get round to substantially rewriting, but really they need to be done systematically and I haven't the time to do that. This article is the same - it needs to go right back to basics, work out what it wants to say about the subject and what devices it's going to use to get there.|
|Prose and formatting:||4||Layout and formating
Having the photos on either side makes the whole thing a bit clumsy, I think. The filmmakers box looks out of place halfway down the page; I'd put it to the top. The use of headings seems a bit odd really; if it's just a bio piece then they should all really be level 2 headings. Also, having the quote alongside the text at "Touched by a Nazi" doesn't really work, especially if you're viewing it in slightly lower resolution.
It's a bit, well, stilted. If it's meant to be encyclopedic in style, the first paragraph should summarise the article; therefore it's a bit inappropriate to start the article proper with "As noted before...". It's difficult to comment too much further though, given that much of the prose actually makes little sense.
Spelling, Punctuation and Grammar
Full of errors - some (though by no means all):
|Images:||5||Three photos. From top to bottom - The top one is surely a badly 'MSPaint'ed one - adds little to the article, and the caption is somewhat irrelevant and a bit dry. Why would he be at a Photoshop convention - it should relate to something in the aticle surely? Then there's the photo of him going cross-eyed - a bit of a stock photo, and the caption is poor (see above about the badly-done anti-semetic humour). Finally the Swastika - I don't personally see how this contributes to the article; see previous comments.|
|Final Score:||22.5||I've tried to have a look at what was before, and what is now. While before was undoubtedly a bag o'shite, what is now is not hugely better. Fundamentally, the article needs a proper rewrite, as in, it needs a new concept behind it.|
|Reviewer:||Rt Hon W E Gladstone MP GOM | Converse | 23:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)|