Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/User:Nikau/Independent cinema (construction)

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit User:Nikau/Independent film

This article is basically one day's work on an idea that was originally an UnNews, and probably a bad day at that.

Ok. You got to the cinema. Now imagine all those people who distract you while trying to watch a film. What of you went to watch them instead. What they do is "independent film".

I'm here because I do not really know if it works that idea clear enough. --Nikau 13:42, January 7, 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is my first pee. Yay. --Nikau 13:43, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
I got this. Necropaxx (T) {~} Thursday, 18:59, Jan 7 2010
I see what you mean by preconceptions, I just liked the comparison since most independent films I have seen are fairly uninteresting “candid” looks into people’s everyday lives or strange art films utilising bizarre techniques (strange lighting – as in a cinema, recurring motifs – the baby who is inevitably crying.) The black Skittles is really just a dig at those people who complain about nothing and the final paragraph is a carry-over from the original UnNews form. It was written in typo mostly, anyway. :) --Nikau 22:56, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
Also, Griffith was actually one of the founding members of United Artists, itself the first "independent" studio, so that just fitted well. From your helpful review it seems I should work more into the history (or histrory) sincc that is where more connections could be made most easily. --Nikau 00:54, January 8, 2010 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for using my advice! Necropaxx (T) {~} Friday, 04:57, Jan 8 2010
Necropaxx Hi there! This big ol' grin must mean this article
is being reviewed by:

Necropaxx (T) {~}
(While you're welcome to review it as well, you might like to consider

(Also, if the review hasn't been finished within 24 hours of this tag appearing
at 22:23, January 7, 2010 (UTC)
feel free to remove it and give Necropaxx a swift kick up the butt for being such a loser).

Humour: 8.5 Your introduction on this page really helped me get the jokes a lot quicker, but I'll address that in "Concept." All right, let's begin.

Intro: This is very good. You alternate between the straightforward narrative and slapstick to great effect. I like what you are doing with the movie titles; they really enhance your article's misinformation-ness. You make excellent use of the Rule of Three when you're listing things. All in all, this is how an introduction to an article should look. Good job.

Plot & Style: You cover every single annoying person who has ever invaded a moviegoer's good experience. You've got the head in the way, the loud spoiler, the loud eater, the make-out couple, the guy who blocks everyone while shuffling toward his seat, and the crying baby. You have put some thought into this. All of those stereotypes are seamlessly weaved into the narrative, and makes for lots of laughs. Most of your paragraphs are quite good; however, in this example, "apologies and curses about taps precision guided to spray on his groin", it's unclear what you are saying. It took me a while to figure it out, and that equals doom for comedy. You want your audience laughing constantly, not in confusion. To fix that, I would change it to something like "apologies and curses about tap water precision-guided to spray on his groin". As long as it is clear, you're fine.

Histrory or as you probably meant it, History: I like where you've gone with this. Instead of just limiting yourself to film, you extend the reach of your article to include classical theater and sports matches. This is good. The first three paragraphs in this section are fine and do not need much tweaking, but the last paragraph was kind of a let-down for me. I know Birth of a Nation was the first feature film, but it seems to me that you lose focus for a bit. This seems more preoccupied with bringing up Birth of a Nation than actually making anything funny from it. Make the connection between BoaN and independent film more obvious than what it is now.

Reception: This is another good section, but it doesn't really start out that way. In the latter half of your first paragraph, you try to make a connection between the original riots and parental outrage, but it doesn't seem to work. I recommend using fewer pronouns to avoid confusion. The rest of the section is pretty much spot on. I especially liked "1985 medical drama Fat Woman Who Breathes Really Really Loudly." The juxtaposition made me lol.

Future: The first paragraph is good, and addresses possibly the only stereotype you may have missed earlier. The second paragraph is not as good. The self-referencing of your own articles was fine, but please don't add a link to your own userpage. Firstly, it doesn't fit, and secondly, you are insinuating that you are Tom Cruise. You are not. (On the off-chance you are, Scientology is pure, unadulterated bull.)

Concept: 8 I really enjoy the concept you have here - who hasn't had a miserable theater experience? And you implement it very nicely. However, I have a big problem with your choice of title. "Independent film" for me conjures up those movies with bad cinematography, unknown actors, bad to zero special effects, and movies that only art students go to see to comment on how groundbreaking it was. Your "independent film" is about how idiots in the cinema ruin the experience. While you do write the article very well, there is that sort of mental lapse while I try to separate my preconceived notions from what the article is really about, and that is not good for humor. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only reader who will experience this. I think it would be in your best interests to change the title (which you use pretty extensively in the text, and for that I'm sorry) to something that better reflects the screaming-baby-ness of your article. I don't really have any ideas as far as titles go, but make sure it refers to the fact that it is filmed in the actual theater.
Prose and formatting: 8.5 Your formatting is very well done. You have paragraph breaks in all the right places and nothing ever feels "in the way."

Your prose is consistent, and it flows very well. However, sometimes you make a grammatical or spelling error that trips up your reader when going through it. For example, in your first picture's caption, you wrote: "The popularity of independent film is remains unmatched by all in cinema, except popcorn, eating all the popcorn before the titles begin." In the first bolded bit it's easy to see the mistake but it is minor and thus can be ignored, but because of the second bit's weird grammar I have no idea what joke the caption is making.

Some other mistakes that I noticed are not really very major individually, but repeated often enough it becomes a pretty big nuisance. You can submit your article to the proofreading service or just fix it yourself.

Images: 7 I gave your image score a 7, meaning an average score. The pictures are positioned nicely, work well with the article, and the captions are mildly amusing. If you want to move beyond that, however, I have a few suggestions. I would consider adding another picture inside the "Plot & Style" section to improve the pic-to-text ratio. It shouldn't be too large, and it should relate to what the writing is talking about.

I think that if you changed "...someone took all the black Skittles, armrest" to "someone took all the black Skittles and armrest" it would flow better. And there's no such thing as black skittles anyway. Also, you may want to consider moving down the last pic, as you don't really talk about competition until later on (This is a minor issue and did not affect your score).

Miscellaneous: 8 My average grade for this article, in accordance with PRG.
Final Score: 40 Glad to see you're hanging out here again, Nikau. :)
Reviewer: Necropaxx (T) {~} Thursday, 22:21, Jan 7 2010
Personal tools