Quoted from jonny_eh

And remember folks, we're talking about a movie about highly competitive Donkey Kong players, not the Iraq war.

...aaaaaaand just to tie the whole thing together, here's an interview with Roy Schildt (aka "Mr. Awesome" from The King of Kong) where he talks about the Iraq war and Missile Command in the same breath.

http://the-minusworld.com/2008/07/02/dont-get-chumpatized-missile-commander-roy-schildt-speaks-up

Holly Crap Batman - its a movie about a bunch of guys play Donkey Kong.  One guys a low-key guy, the other has a bit of flash..

Mitchell's pretty damn good - none of us could beat him, and sure he has a bit of attitude or "colour".  Cool!  Good for the business - move on folks.  

Gretzky never said anything wrong, after awhile he's kinda boring to listen to, don't you think?   Avery, or that dancing guy Jermey Roenick or Hull - these guys you listen to, 'cause they speak their mind more openly...

mess, Mitchel's pretty damn good - he deserves the right to boast.  Now if he could dance like Roenick...

...come 'on wouldn't you seriously have liked to have heard Gretzky once say:

"Sh*t, Holly Cow did I do that?  I'm good!".

The Michael Moore reference is a great example.  Have you seen Moore's Farenheit 911?  A lot of what is shown is a very strained look at Junior Bush.  I don't doubt for a second he's not as bad nor as dumb as that movie portrays.  Moore makes his documentary with a pre-conceived viewpoint and his work will confirm his opinion, it certainly won't change his mind.

... however I do think the movie got Bush mostly right, he's a private anyway, just not as bad as private as shown. .  I think Mitchell is probably like that. Not as bad, but an arrogant private.

All I know about Moore is that the way he portrayed Canada in Bowling For Columbine and Sicko was quite inaccurate. It's easy to see how sneaky he is when he hits a topic you actually know about. He is making an argument, and will do anything to convince you.

On the other hand, King of Kong is a pretty honest 'fly on the wall' linear style doc. Of course there can be bias in the editing, but what they show really happened.

And I agree with doug, if I was that good at DK, i'd act like an arrogant rockstar too. Mitchell seems to be the only one that has a problem with that image.

Quoted from jonny_eh

Also, he didn't come off that bad! They did not 'vilify' him. Watch the movie yourself before criticizing! Ugh.

Maybe you should take your own advice and read the article before criticizing it. Ugh!

Duane

You guys have to keep in mind that ALL documentaries (always, not just today) take the viewpoint that their director/editor wants them to. There isn't such a thing as an unbiased documentary.  If you think it's unbiased, it's because you happen to agree with the viewpoint of the filmmaker, that's all.   It's the nature of the media (and the medium is the message).  If you think a Jaques Cousteau documentary is "unbiased" then you should talk to his crew, or to the locals that he took advantage of, or the environmentalists that he pissed off because he rode roughshod over nature (ala Marlin Perkins) to "get the shot".

What I think is more interesting is that agressive, driven people defend other agressive driven people's behaviour, if they are portrayed as a villian. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, we need driven people.)

Quoted from jonny_eh

Now I haven't read the Gameroom article, was it written by a writer, or was it an interview with Mitchell? If it's a writer, I could have been written by a friend of Mitchell's (how else would he 'know' Mitchell is really a super sweet guy?). If it was an interview, then of course an a**hole would say he's really not an a**hole, it's called cognitive dissonance. Of course Mitchell isn't gonna come out and say "It's true, I'm an a**hole", he's gonna scream from the heavens that it was movie magic and special effects that made him say all those stupid, mean, and arrogant things.

The GameRoom articles (there were 3 of them) were written by a guy who had never met Billy before that series of interviews.

Personally, I believe that Billy is a bit of a private, but at the same time the movie suffered from some very creative editing regarding the realities of events, not the least of which is that Billy wasn't even the world record holder when Steve broke the record.

About the only thing that I believe 100% about KoK is that Brian Kuh is totally freaking annoying!

Quoted from TwilightZone

Maybe you should take your own advice and read the article before criticizing it. Ugh!

Duane

I'd love to, where can I read it? (BTW, I never criticized the magazine article, I just defended the movie)

One of the Gameroom magazine article is available on-line. Scroll to the bottom.
(some of us also subscribe to the magazine).

http://www.gameroommagazine.com/


Cheers,
- Sylvain.

Quoted from CheffoJeffo

About the only thing that I believe 100% about KoK is that Brian Kuh is totally freaking annoying!

Heh, I'm thinking we could all agree on that point!

Well watched King of Kong and I have to say my opinion still stands.  I enjoyed the movie but I enjoyed it for what it was a work of fiction rather then a documentary based on fact.  

I also went back and read threw the Gameroom magazine articles and I have to say the number one point that really drives home how squeued this movie is was the fact that at the time of filming the movie Billy Mitchell didn't even have the high score in Donkey Kong.  There was another player not even featured in the movie at all that held the world record when Steve was trying to beat it.  I'd be happy to scan in the 3 artilces for everyone if they want to take a look at them and formulate their own opinion.  

Yeah, of course the producers of the movie placed certain occurences in a certain order and probably edited certain scenes in order to make the whole thing more interesting, but you can't deny certain things actually happened:

- The two minions who travelled to Steve's place, and actually entered his garage without permission and proceed to take pics of it. Ever heard of trespassing? I would have personally shown them a killscreen had it been my house...

- The fact that Steve's scores were put aside due to him not doing them live... although no one has actually seen Billy play in the last 20 years, not denying at all his previous exploits, which should be mentioned. Billy was the best player at the time, but no one has seen him play since...

- Billy's attitude towards Steve at the last tournament in Florida, and seeing Walter Day's reaction because of it. I am not putting other reactions inito play because we don't see the whole story (all the Billy-ites could be idiots, like it could also be that strong words were previously exchanged without us seeing it, causing the animosity...).

Sure, it is a nice montage to give it some spice, but the actions and facts are all there. The basic story is unaltered... a new guy challenges an old record, beats it, and is constantly rejected by the people who are supposed to be unbiased. I believe what the film is trying to depict the most is not that Billy Mitchell is an idiot, but that in any competitive area, there are small cliques that form, and unbiased positions are often compromised. I believe that the realisation of this caused a lot of people to look at themselves... why do you think the head referee (I forget his name) quit shortly thereafter? Opinions started taking an upper hand over facts.

This being said, if I were to meet Billy Mitchell, I would gladly shake his hand. Yes, the movie makes him look like a moron, but then again, chances are he is not that bad of a guy. Like I said, his previous exploits were and still are a amazing.