man, i loved this movie too and it did bother me to read the first link there showing the central conflict in the story to be completely fabricated. alas, the story is more complicated. here is a new link from the author of the one you provided wherein he regrets ever writing that post. http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000580.html
it is incredibly long. he seems to back off some of his more strident assertions. it seems that the controversy of just who had the record when is ridiculously complicated and not as clean cut as he or walter day in his new twin galaxies postings makes it out to be.
it still seems that the filmmakers probably made billy out to be worse than he is for cinematic effect (i suspected this was the case when i first viewed the film), but overall from what i've read i'm not convinced that the whole thrust of the movie was a fabrication.
I didn't back off from my assertions. I chose two of the simpler ones to refute, and correlated them into my own work in documentaries, so that the whole thing didn't feel like a waste of my time.
Considering how many people seem more than fine for a documentary to chop up things to the point of tangential relation to reality, I am definitely of the opinion my time could have been better spent.
Feel free to read the links I have at the end of that entry to see discussion of many other inaccuracies.
perhaps i misunderstood your statement of regret in having undertaken to discuss the film. just personally, however, reading through the comments on your blog i found evidence that i felt was strong enough to make the subject cloudier than you put it, i.e. the validity of different scores, etc. i happen to be of the notion, though, that unless you want to make films like frederick wiseman (whom I love by the way) it is very much up to the director to shape the narrative, even when real events are involved. i didn't leave the movie really hating billy mitchell for instance, whose harsh portrayal in the film seems to be one of your main problems. i viewed him as kind of a villain that you root against although you know of course that its all more complicated than that. and to be honest it really seems like he's playing up this aspect of his personality in the film.
anyway thanks for your analysis.
Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
COMMENTS (12)
Okay, so it wasn't exactly a "documentary", I'm not sure there is such a thing these days.
But, the story continues, ala The Onion...
http://www.avclub.com/content/feature/the_king_of_kong_continued
Posted by: tom.a | February 15, 2008 1:12 AM
No webpage that consists of white text on a dark background deserves to be read.
Posted by: Quiddity | February 15, 2008 1:18 AM
On the contrary, Quiddity, it's all been downhill since computers talked in white on black.
Posted by: Christopher M | February 15, 2008 1:39 AM
It's sort of like how with "Pumping Iron" they had to persuade Arnold to compete again for Mr. Universe so they'd have a good movie.
This isn't a new problem for documentaries, is it?
Posted by: Pete | February 15, 2008 9:51 AM
Well, according to Mr. white-on-black, this particular movie slandered various people. Whether that problem is old or new, it's pretty sucky.
Posted by: kyle | February 15, 2008 11:56 AM
who fucking cares? a personal quest to be the reigning donkey kong champion. it'd be harder to come up with a more precise definition of "dork."
Posted by: dr. mabuse | February 15, 2008 12:41 PM
A more precise definition of "dork": someone who criticizes people for having harmless fun.
Posted by: Steven desJardins | February 15, 2008 1:04 PM
man, i loved this movie too and it did bother me to read the first link there showing the central conflict in the story to be completely fabricated. alas, the story is more complicated. here is a new link from the author of the one you provided wherein he regrets ever writing that post. http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000580.html
it is incredibly long. he seems to back off some of his more strident assertions. it seems that the controversy of just who had the record when is ridiculously complicated and not as clean cut as he or walter day in his new twin galaxies postings makes it out to be.
it still seems that the filmmakers probably made billy out to be worse than he is for cinematic effect (i suspected this was the case when i first viewed the film), but overall from what i've read i'm not convinced that the whole thrust of the movie was a fabrication.
Posted by: landon | February 15, 2008 1:07 PM
damn. that movie just arrived in my mailbox this morning from netflix. i can't decide if i'm glad i read this before seeing it or if i wish i hadn't.
Posted by: winer | February 15, 2008 3:50 PM
I didn't back off from my assertions. I chose two of the simpler ones to refute, and correlated them into my own work in documentaries, so that the whole thing didn't feel like a waste of my time.
Considering how many people seem more than fine for a documentary to chop up things to the point of tangential relation to reality, I am definitely of the opinion my time could have been better spent.
Feel free to read the links I have at the end of that entry to see discussion of many other inaccuracies.
Posted by: Jason Scott | February 15, 2008 5:48 PM
perhaps i misunderstood your statement of regret in having undertaken to discuss the film. just personally, however, reading through the comments on your blog i found evidence that i felt was strong enough to make the subject cloudier than you put it, i.e. the validity of different scores, etc. i happen to be of the notion, though, that unless you want to make films like frederick wiseman (whom I love by the way) it is very much up to the director to shape the narrative, even when real events are involved. i didn't leave the movie really hating billy mitchell for instance, whose harsh portrayal in the film seems to be one of your main problems. i viewed him as kind of a villain that you root against although you know of course that its all more complicated than that. and to be honest it really seems like he's playing up this aspect of his personality in the film.
anyway thanks for your analysis.
Posted by: landon | February 15, 2008 7:00 PM
I regret taking it up because I've had to swim upstream through a lot of stuff, taking time I could take for more personally fulfilling actions.
Glad you enjoy going to the movies.
Posted by: Jason Scott | February 15, 2008 8:01 PM