Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Classic Games (Games) Movies Games

Steve Wiebe is the King of Kong Again 127

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the cue-the-queen dept.
Anyone who watched 'The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters' knows the epic struggle for global Kong dominance waged by Steve Wiebe and Billy Mitchell. Wiebe took back the crown by scoring 1,064,500-points which was officially verified. And if you haven't seen the movie, go watch it. You won't be sorry.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Steve Wiebe is the King of Kong Again

Comments Filter:
  • Is he still married? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by digitalderbs (718388) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:24PM (#33651788)
    I'm very happy that he won, but is he still married? From the documentary, it looked like his playing was tough on his family life. I couldn't imagine how much more dedication would be needed to beat Mitchell's top score--probably a lot more than what we saw in the movie.
  • Re:Worth watching (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:26PM (#33651836)

    The filmmaker did a fabulous job of creating a compelling story with interesting characters, where there was no story, and nothing but boring people. All the scripted 'reality' directors on TV these days should take note of this film, it should be their Citizen Kane.

    However, I wouldn't infer too much about what people are really like based on it.

    Think of the editting of Homer's TV NewsZine interview when he was accused of sexual harassment.

  • Re:Worth watching (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Hatta (162192) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:29PM (#33651876) Journal

    Even as much as I love classic arcade games, I haven't seen the movie. Everything I've read about the movie casts it as over-edited to the point of being fictionalized. Here's just one such review [textfiles.com].

  • Re:Worth watching (Score:4, Interesting)

    by rotide (1015173) on Tuesday September 21, 2010 @12:39PM (#33652042)
    That review was written by "Jason Scott". Scroll down that review to post 41 to see what kind of person he is. I'm not saying he's factually incorrect (since I can't verify his claims), but he certainly does _not_ have an unbiased and objective view of the subject.

    -------

    Jason Scott wrote:

    Salutations, Ignorant Fuck.

    A number of weblogs recently linked to this page from out of the blue, leading me to believe you jostled among them and found yourself reading this entry. This might explain your commentary on a page written in February, with multiple clarifying followups, that has otherwise been superceded elsewhere in the five months hence.

    As I sincerely doubt that your filmmaking and film watching career harkens back to the exact moment your choking, bloodied infant form issued forth from your screaming mother, I will assume that you are one of those folks who takes a number of liberties when he constructs his scribbled opinions in the heat of emotion and ignorance. Therefore let me say the following, in an easy to understand list:

    1. This movie and my movie are not the same movie; they did not steal my idea and I did not steal theirs and they do not overlap in subject matter.

    2. I am making several movies.

    3. While movies are, by their nature, edited products, out and out lies and misrepresentation opposite to reality are generally not what people should find “at the finish line” when they assemble their footage.

    Enjoy your filmmaking career and die, slowly and alone, forgotten but for your distant-faced caretakers.

    Posted on 23-Jul-08 at 11:34 pm

The unfacts, did we have them, are too imprecisely few to warrant our certitude.

Working...