Talk:The Fast and the Furious (film series)

fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuucccccckkkkkkk!!!!!!! --Major'GUN' Ggarfield, Le Marquis de Nofu .Complex! 03:16, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

A fair comment, my friend. --Matfen 11:03, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Pee Review

Humour:	6.5	The humour is ok, but I think it is not as funny as that script you wrote for FF. What I don't like: You are just stating facts sometimes. Everyone knows that FF is shallow and badly-written, so just stating it repeatedly but in different ways in varying degrees of sarcasm, doesn't make it funnier. If I were you I'd give examples. Sometimes stating the facts is needed to build up the punch line, so I don't suggest doing away with them altogether. The recurring joke of "it's a copy of Point Break" - I did not find that very funny. Many instances I was left thinking, "was that meant to be funny?" like "inbred hillbilly redneck", "starving kids in ghetto", "Rob Cohen is a supervillian" - I feel that you don't need to insult everybody you mention, or you should be more subtle. Link humour a bit over the top. But it's ok, and it's the least of your problems. What I liked: Alliterative subheadings - I'm crazy about alliteration. Some jokes, like checking on Wikipedia, "unique subtleties and nuances", are quite good Observation on the relationship between sales and reviews is good The sections don't have big problems. I know that it seems I have a lot to criticise, but if I don't mention some parts its because they're adequate or ok.
Concept:	7	Nothing wrong with how you're doing it now but I feel it could it better. The main joke of the article seems to be "Robert Cohen and FF are crap", which could use more originality. To me personally, Robert Cohen feels like a man finely tuned to the "tastes" of the viewing public. Instead of saying "it's Robert Cohen's fault for bringing us FF", which is basically what you have done, maybe you can adopt a view of "it's our fault for watching it".
Prose and formatting:	7.5	Prose is fine with no obvious errors. I always tell my reviewees that I can't spell and can't see grammar mistakes. I use mozilla, however, and its spellcheck spotted 2 mistakes which I have corrected. You should get it proofread.
Images:	7	Ok and adequate. A bit bland. Mildly amusing. Definitely have room for improvement.
Miscellaneous:	7	My scoring is very arbitrary, don't place too much importance on them.
Final Score:	35	Hello. What happened to my sig?
Reviewer:	~ 10:06, Nov 28, 2009

Time for more in-depth stuff, because I love the smell of my own farts

You have wording problems:

• improvised by actors reading cue cards
• Leon chooses to take Vince literally, as though he truly believes that Brian was obsessed with the sub-par tuna sandwiches. Leon then steps in to correct his friend(')s deduction with a very blunt, but ultimately accurate, assessment of the situation.

Dialogue problems:

• You might have too many of them. I think some dialogue you inserted are not very funny. Like the one about "you never had me" and the one about "coronas". It took me a while to get the first one, maybe it's because I'm a bit retarded.
• Sometimes if you explain a joke, it becomes less funny. What I mean is your explanations after the dialogues, which sort of ruins the thing. However, it would be weird to just end it like that too. What we have here is a very tricky dilemma, which I have no solution for. To further complicate matters, some dialogues do need explanations. What I mean is evaluate everything in a case by case basis.
• The humour in some dialogue are not very obvious to me, may I suggest you bold or italicise the offending words. Like:

  *Vince: What's up with this fool? What is he, sandwich crazy? 
  *Leon: Nah, V. He ain't here for the food, dog.

I think it also looks better boxed, although it was an accident, and that also prevents you from adding too many dialogues. Doesn't have to be this way. This is just a way to distinguish dialogue from continuous prose, might also make your transition problem less painful.

• Oh yeah, forgot to mention the transition problem. It's very awkward how the transition from expository sentences to dialogue goes. You can't just go "for example". It doesn't feel right to me. There is no one transition I can suggest for you, as they're different in different cases. For example, in some cases (not all) you solve the problem by placing the dialogue before the text, this also allows you to do away with the explanations. You have to reword the text after you have done this, or else everything looks out of place. You don't have to do this. There might be other ways to solve this problem, I just couldn't come up with them.

Tone:

• You didn't make major changes to the jokes you originally had, but you somehow became less ranty. I commend you on this. When I said that "was that meant to be funny?" comment, I think my problem was with how ranty you sounded, like you were out to insult everybody, you know?
• I cringed when I saw that sentence about blaming ourselves instead of Robert Cohen. Totally not what I meant, looking back I should have explained it better. It looked totally out of place. I place it under concept for a reason. What I meant was, that you could maybe insert hints all around of the audience's stupidity. Very, very subtle hints. I suggested this because I thought you lacked truly funny jokes. You don't have to do this. If something doesn't feel right, you don't have to do it.
• Be honest with yourself. Ask yourself if you really like that sentence. If the answer is no, take it out.

Images:

• I really liked the bald and the blonde.
• I don't like the last one. I don't get it. It's also badly photoshopped and makes the whole article look unprofessional.

Final words:

• I am honest in pointing out what I perceive are your problems. You don't have to follow my suggestions though. If you can come up with a better way to solve those problems, use that way. Reword stuff to make them fit with the changes you made.Exercise your own good judgment. If something feels wrong or out of place, don't do it.

Sorry for being such an anal retentive perfectionist. I felt a bit harsh after saying all that. I just woke up and stuff. Now I bet you are convinced that you should have bothered POTR. ~ 06:13, Dec 3, 2009

Hey I noticed that you nommed it. You still had that second wording error. I didn't mean you used Leon twice, I meant that when Leon wrongly commented on the the food, he(Leon) cant "step in to correct his friend" as he would be correcting himself. It should be "Leon corrected himself". ~ 11:27, Dec 4, 2009

Also, you can't improvise when you read cue cards can you? It's a contradiction in terms. Ah, I'm such an ass. I will vote for it if it gets more than 8 fors. ~ 11:43, Dec 4, 2009

Yeah you were right about the Leon thing, but now the sentence should read that Leon corrects Vince, not himself, even if you think my replacing with the "He" still means Leon.

When I said "improvise from cue-cards", I meant as in a cue card stating a situation or event, and the actors just make up dialogue to fit it. Take this immature and incestuous example:

Cue Card: Vin Diesel is pissed at Brian for sleeping with his sister.

Vin Diesel: Oh man, I can't believe you slept with my sister when she was sleeping with me as well. I will crush you. ARGH!

I guess you're thinking you shouldn't have taken back the perverted and narcissistic remark after all. Hope that clears things up. I hope to see your vote in approx 5 Fors time, if no negatives. --Matfen 12:14, December 4, 2009 (UTC)

Needs more comedy

I don't know where really, but the article just...feels like it. Maybe we should bash it a little bit more. Don't get me wrong, I love the FnF series and have all the movies on DVD (plus a bunch of little FnF diecast cars). But this is Uncyclopedia, where things can be twisted anyway you want. --Speedyexpress48 08:23, November 21, 2010 (UTC)

If you say so... --Matfen 10:12, November 21, 2010 (UTC)