I started this as a potential rewrite for the current 2001: A Space Odyssey article. I think it ended up being worse, but you can decide at the risk of suffering a hit-and-run at the hands of my homicidal AI here. I call it GLaDOS. SirMacManiaGUN—[03:04 11 Aug 2009]
Apologies for the amount of time taken, had to break off half-way through to prepare an ambitious dinner, anyway...
Your use of humorous dialogue to coincide with the introduction of dialogue in the movie is clever and informative in its self-reference. I would change the introductory sentence a little, just for rhythm, so that the fact that there is no dialogue in the beginning and towards the end is emphasised a little more, because it is quite a big deal. How about saying that "it is known for being an extremely rich meditation (something better) on man's relationship with nature and technology without actually containing any dialogue for the first 20 minutes (aside from some inane homonoid grunting) or the last half hour", or words to such effect. Since the film is an epic, perhaps you should exploit extremes a little more in your humour, it doesn't have to be absurd, just for effect. I would change the "utterly confusing" to apply to not just people who haven't read the book, but many of those that have too just for a minor comedic plus. Alternatively, you could take a more extreme view and say it is utterly confusing to everyone and yet, due to some mutual fear of exposing their ignorance, they all decide it's the best film ever (note: I don't actually think this, far from it, but I can't help but feel it is a good angle from which to satirise). I think weaving some opinions is important here, both from a fanboy and someone utterly bemused by it all, in order to ultimately lead to some kind of resolution in the climax. This would add more comedy potential, since at the moment the humour tends to be unrelated to the film. Perhaps this approach would allow the confused guy to voice more of the directly humorous visual observations (like the comments in the second monolith pic with the astronauts) while the fanboy takes the opposite role of ostentatiously explaining its significance (in a stoned stupor, perhaps). Or just combine the two voices (or ignore me completely), it's up to you, I just feel a dichotomy is needed here. The HAL section is very funny, particularly the excellent explanation of the main theme within this section of the film, however I find the end a bit too anti-climactic. It's a bit too subjective, I think you should introduce some of the (many) sublime and ridiculous theories about what the overall point of the movie is and use that for comic effect. The most comedy potential for me comes from the far-flung perceptions of the film and you really should reflect this (comically) in the final scenes, because there's a hell of a lot going on and the final joke is just a bit weak, it doesn't pay off.
Well I can't really think of a more suitable way of approaching an article a film that is essentially a famously subjective (and confusing) experience than writing it from the point of view of somone watching it, so the concept itself is very good. You also neatly pay homage to the key sections within the film; its epic scope, cinematography and music. However, it's not really completely clear what you're doing other than - at least for the first half - coming up with witty observations at the expense of more informative comments, that could ultimately be potential for more relevant humour. It is a concept with a helluva lot of potential though. I pretty much covered everything else relating to concept up in humour, damn I'm bad at structuring these reviews...
Prose and formatting:
Including the formatting and placing of pictures (but not the choice of pictures, I'll talk about that below) everything is very effective. It has a definite epic feel to it reflected in the sizing of pictures in certain sections as well as the positioning (particularly in the opening, where you can almost hear the timpany from 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' as the montage flies past, it's almost like you develop a stereo feel). I actually feel the "dun duns" could be slightly better formatted, a little more dramatic perhaps at points, more use of big, italic and bold, but I'm being pedantic (as I have to be to criticise your articles). The wording could be a little better sometimes, I do feel that occasionally you miss out on digging out a true comic gem just because your wording isn't quite as expressive as it usually is (mainly in that introductory sentence I mentioned before and the closing caption; again, this is just routine pedantry).
No complaints whatsoever. Well, none that aren't already covered in "Humour". Your choice of images is fantastic and really sets the ground for what should be very fruitful satirical pickings (and you're halfway there at least). The pics - their position, their size - are really important in portraying such an epic visual experience and you don't fall short of what is expected here at all. Although you use a lot of pics, every one is important in telling a part of the story to the reader and therefore completely necessary for the way you have chosen to approach this article. Did you capture these yourself? Nice work.
Approximate average, rounded down to suggest potential not quite reached and therefore complacency is not to be encouraged.
Well, as a big fan of the movie I am very impressed with the way you have executed this article so far, particularly visually. My only real problem is that you actually rush through it a little bit and don't squeeze it for its potential. Think about its fan base, the part it has played in cinema and influences upon culture in general, philosophical influences, Kubrick's visionary reputation, all the various theories about what it is about. Try to forget about your experience watching it and give a more generic response to it that encompasses everything about it, or as much as is necessary to really make the reader feel he has understood more about 2001 and it's satirical potential has been saturated. You have a decent length to the article at the moment (including images), but there could certainly be more text so that the epicness (<-lol made up word) of the visuals is reflected in the satire (which it definitely is in the HAL section, I feel, although more could be added, but there is still plenty of potential in other sections). Still, it's a hell of a lot better than most film articles.
Actually I've reconsidered that last sentence, I think you should consider it subjectively, like someone watching it for the first time, but make sure that you incorporate as many alternative perspectives as possible to make it a more rounded article. --El Sid,the lazy one • parlez-vous franglais? 20:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)