Talk:The King of Kong

Related article in EGM
This month's EGM has an article on KoK about some of the differences of the movie and real life - it's very interesting and if someone is really involved in this article, I'd highly recommend checking it out. TheUncleBob 18:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, "kok."Utils 02:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Once again movie makers decided to put the truth aside and create a fictional story because the true story didn't have the drama needed for an award winning dramatic movie. the writers and directors call this artistic license. The rest of us call it twisting the truth to make more money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.188.197 (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not to mention a better movie then it would have been otherwise. All good story telling is lying in some degree. As someone who (like most people) is not at all connected to the world of competitive arcade gaming, I really enjoyed the film. I now know that it is apparently less truthful then I had assumed it was while I was watching it. It made a damned fine movie though. In fact had I not watched it, not only would I have never learned the truth about the events- I would have been completely ignorant about this entire segment of geek culture. By lying, not only have the filmmakers managed to entertain me, but they have lead me to the truth.

24.47.151.201 (talk) 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

G4TV premiere
King of Kong is currently set for a June 1, 2008 premiere on G4TV. Just throwing it out there...Zendaddy621 (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Synopsis section
A small trifle, but a post-film development hardly belongs in the plot section. This is an article about the movie, not the record. I'm not saying this detail is irrelevant, but it should be moved. Savidan 02:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A Fistful of Dollars?
Is the subtitle of this movie a play on the title of the movie A Fistful of Dollars? Mjworthey (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Facts Section?
It comes off extremely vague, especially considering these things, if true, should be fairly easy to source besides the second point. It either needs sources or probably should be removed or at least turned into "Criticisms" as it currently comes off as "Fact" even though it does not have supporting sources. 68.3.15.201 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Kill screen merge
I'm suggesting a merge of kill screen based on the following: 1. Searching google seems to show no notability of this term outside of it being mentioned in relation to this movie 2. The only sources in the article are that of a blog of a programmer, of which there is no indication he is a recognized expert in the field which means his blog fails WP:V and WP:RS, youtube videos of roms are also not reliable sources (they were removed) Unless someone can show some significant coverage in reliable sources there is no reason for it to be its own article, and as it stands we have nothing other than the term being name dropped in the context of the movie on which to base an article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? I don't see the point. They are two completely different articles, and the kill screen is about more than Donkey Kong. Doshindude (talk) 02:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a tough one. I feel that Kill Screen should probably be merged with something, because it really is quite insignificant for an encyclopedia entry. And by merged I mean basically deleted with just a little information about it in another article. It could be mentioned in the Screens of death article. Belasted (talk) 02:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because the term seems to be solely associated with the movie, at least in reliable sources which is all we can base an article on. Its only coverage seems to be in the context of this movie and the articles in which its mentioned cover it only in passing "they had to race to the kill screen" occasionally they briefly describe what a kill screen is with a sentence or two. It doesn't remotely provide significant coverage of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the "kill screen" article should be merged with "The King Of Kong" article; however, I would be open to the idea of merging it with the "screens of death" page, which the user Belasted mentioned above. Although the content isn't exactly similar, I think it's close enough.  Plus, there is info related to video games on the "screens of death" page as well.  So, if a merge is to take place, I think merging the "kill screen" article with the "screens of death" article would be a better idea.  -- Luke4545 (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately none of those are sourced either. There is already a mention of killscreens there and all that would be needed would be another sentence briefly describing them and it would probably contain all the reliable information we have about killscreens.--Crossmr (talk) 02:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So, delete the Kill Screen article and maybe add some info to Screens of Death. And move this discussion to Kill screen or Screens of death. Belasted (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, redirect it to screens of death, grab one of the articles in the google news search as a source for the page and and add a brief mention about what they are.--Crossmr (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that a merge might be in order, but don't see what the film is the most likely choice. I've never seen it, and found this article from a link in a game article. BoosterBronze (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see why should they be merged, since one refers to a movie and the other one refers to a type of bug present only in video games (that's why I don't imagine it merged with the "screens of death" which applies mainly for operating systems. In any case; "Screens of death" seems to be more related to the original article than "The King of Kong", which is of a totally different scope. Zerluth —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC).


 * Can you please provide the link to that article? Thanks.  -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No merge. Based on comments above and my own opinion, whatever is decided for the Kill Screen article, it clearly should not be merged here. Therefore, removing the tag. You may wish to take further discussion to Talk:Kill screen. 65.87.26.125 (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Other Facts
This section was horribly referenced. Reading the article of the source cited, nothing indicates that timelines were skewed. The wording in this section seems to paint Mitchell as not being as bad, but the interview concretely proves that the director left out scenes which would portray Billy in a much more negative light. I reworded that section to reflect what the source actually says. 74.248.89.30 (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is fairly short, however. The "darker" scenes that Gordon alludes to are not verifiable.  All we know is Seth Gordon says he has the footage.  Ergo, I propose that we remove this source entirely.  That being said, the 52nd issue of Retro Gamer involves an interview with Day, Mitchell, and Wiebe regarding the King of Kong.  Citations are needed for it, but mention of the Retro Gamer article doesn't have to be entirely disregarded.  If somebody could post the contents of the Retro Gamer interview to provide some much-needed content, that would be a big help.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.70.11 (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

There is currently no existing (legal) copy of the Retro Gamer Article concerning King of Kong, on-line. I have the issue myself and do feel that it is completely relevant to the Wiki page and it does alter the prospective offered by the Director's interpenetration.

That said, what would be the best way to "offer" the article for viewing? Perhaps posting excerpts of the article within the page will have to suffice.

I will try to get the excerpts posted this week.

There is also an existing Retro-Gamer pod-cast transcript of Weibe and Mitchell in an interview together before the movie was made. I'm not sure where that could fit in, but I think it's something useful to add and cite since most people believe that the two never met prior to the movie's events. Within the community of "retro games", it was common knowledge that the two attend conventions together as guest speakers for their respective records.

Again, I think that would be neat to add into the page too if properly cited and sourced, but not sure how to integrate it into the page over all. Perhaps place it into the disputed facts page?

-M.C. 12:57 pm, 09.21.09

Latest record taped or live?
Is Billy's last record taped or live, or both? I can't find a video of either the tape or the live performance anywhere.

Btw there's no need to remove this, i genuinely just want to see it, im not here to debate anything Megapeen (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the final moments of Billy's latest high score, although it has been beaten by Hank Chien. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbRN549NYuU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.188.22.51 (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

All of Billy Mittchell's records over a million have been proven to be done on an emulator (MAME). As a result, the "records" have been removed from the donkeykongforum's high score list. -> http://donkeykongforum.com/index.php?topic=2055.0 ClassA42 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

On 2011 list of 50 Documentaries...
Just saw it tonight promoted on FMCas one of the "50 Documentaries to See Before You Die" (it's number 41). Maybe this fact could be incorporated into the article somehow. -Anon98.92.. 98.92.188.232 (talk) 04:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The Film was based on a lie. It was Timothy Sczerby of Auburn N.Y. who was the first to officially beat Billy Mitchells 1982 Donkey Kong score NOT Steve Webie as falsely  stated in the film and reported in the wikipedia artical. This is common knowledge and well documented in the classic gamming community reguardless of what the film states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.217.101 (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Summary
Guys, I still think the synopsis contains excessive detail and unnecessary words. Examples:


 * Twin Galaxies accepts Mitchell's score and proclaims him the record holder once again. -> Twin Galaxies proclaims Mitchell the record holder.


 * to make a high score attempt -> to attempt a high score


 * To prove his skills, Wiebe travels to a tournament -> Wiebe travels to a tournament (we know it's to prove his skills because we say in the same sentence that he's going to attempt a high score)


 * We dwell on the history of Twin Galaxies when it isn't really important - it's not really what the documentary is about.

We also still have some stuff that sounds like personal interpretation/bias:


 * Since then, Shildt has been looking for a way to exact clandestine revenge on Mitchell. Does Shildt state this in the documentary? Or is it just what some people in the documentary believe?

Popcornduff (talk) 04:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)