I want this to be featured. • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009Thursday, 13:12, Apr 29 2010 UTC
Below is a copy of the original ad (although I didn't have to deal with the German subtitles.) Anything that is different between that ad and this is what I have changed. Treat this similarly to the way you would UnTunes - ie, the PEE template is not really right, but I'm still looking for feedback on it. • Puppy's talk page • 00:40, June 5, 2009Friday, 11:59, Apr 30 2010 UTC
old request lol. I'll do it. Starting now. --Matfen 21:11, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
Once again you have presented a niche article which proves difficult to review and divisive in VFH. Again, I will be using arbitrary scores and probably repeat stuff you already know. Sorry if it sounds like I'm insulting your intelligence at certain parts during the review. First up, it's a bit of a one-joke article, possibly justifiable by its specific namespace, the Unformercial. If people did more of these, it might catch on to become quite popular. I'm fairly liberal when it comes to VFH, and would vote for, but others may find it to be innappropriate for feature material. I can appreciate that you've modified it yourself, and it's your own work. But it does raise a few questions concerning what is admissable as an article. One of my favorite types of videos on youtube are films cut to appear like a totally different genre. Such as , , and . If a user made one of these and uploaded it to youtube, it could seriously mess up a concept of what an article is supposed to be, if there is one. Is it encyclopedic? Uncyclopedic, maybe. Perhaps articles consisting of single videos have been featured before, and I've never noticed. I'm confused.
Like I said before, it's a one-note joke that gets a good lol out of it, but in my opinion there isn't very much replay value. Besides the internets, I wonder where the source of inspiration for this could have come from, besides the ridiculous advert itself. I can't think of much to improve really, and you obviously consider it to be at it's best condition, writing wise.
Prose and formatting:
Seeing as there's not too much in the way of prose about, I'm going to analyse this Modus at the Reefer Desk style. While it's been edited well, and the trojan lettering and background fit well, there are a few things that niggle me as a youtube video-editing dude myself. For a start, those dicks who made the original advert didn't have the playstation controller and the popcorn bucket in the same position when they return from teh buttsecks. Maybe the walls shook a bit, or something. Or maybe their special effects guys don't give a shit about continuity errors. Anyway, this difference causes a significant jump, like there's a few frames missing (well, there are). My recommendation is to fade out to black when they're leaving, and then fade in again. It should cover up the error, and positively, it'll make it seem like time has passed. With the original advert, we see them go to a mosque, while it may be unclear to some viewers as to how long they've been gone without. It can appear as though they've just walked off frame for a second and then turned around again. I'd recommend the fade i/o.
Next, on the trojan advert section, where the line "for buttsex" comes on, there's a bit of an unwanted transition between it appearing. At 36-37 seconds, you can see a faint outline for the words before they fully appear. It's quite noticable, and it can ruin the joke if the viewer is squinting to focus on what it says. Also, being super-duper nitpicky, I'm unsure about the phrasing of the line "There is always a time". I'm more partial to it being phrased "There is always time". You might consider the former to have more advertising grandeur, but to me, just the dropping of the vowel "a" communicates better that "There is always time to drop what you are doing and have buttsex", while the original seems to say to me, "There is always a particular time to have buttsex". Nitpicking I guess.
Averaged. Also, a conspicuous lack of Chuck Norris jokes.
Hope this helps, dude. I dunno whether this review can be of any use though, cause Youtube doesn't have an "update video" option, so you'd have to remove it and repost the new version, losing all of your mammoth 102 views :( Still, I once dropped a trailer of mine that received over 8000 views, just because all the comments were complaining about how bad it was, and that I should go die for making it in the first place. I'm sure you can give up 100 views. Or just ignore this review and feature it anyway, like you have with almost every other article I've reviewed of yours.