Skip

"So find humor in that, and go ahead and put it in your review."
February 9, 2008 1:35 PM   Subscribe

The King of Kong, continued. If you enjoyed "The King of Kong," check out the Onion AV Club's recent, impromptu, and insightful interview with Billy Mitchell. Also featured are responses by filmmakers Ed Cunningham and Seth Gordon.
posted by Monster_Zero (49 comments total) 11 users marked this as a favorite

 
Oh snap! I loved the movie. Cool stuff.
posted by patr1ck at 1:38 PM on February 9, 2008




I enjoyed this film. And I'm trying to give Billy Mitchell the benefit of the doubt here, but he still comes across as an ass to me. The fact that there may have been more friendly interactions between him and Steve Wiebe than were portrayed in the documentary doesn't change the other fact that he seems like an egomaniac. I do like hotsauce a lot though. Maybe a taste would change my mind.
posted by inconsequentialist at 1:59 PM on February 9, 2008


flatluigi's link is very interesting, but I think Jason Scott will regret getting involved As he says, "I also have known Walter personally for a good amount of time and trust his word. " Walter is Walter Day, the head of Twin Galaxies, who comes off very badly in the film.
posted by smackfu at 2:28 PM on February 9, 2008


Walter Day, the founder of Twin Galaxies, has posted extensively on the Twin Galaxies forum on this subject, here. I haven't read nearly all of it. All of this does raise interesting questions about just how much manipulation goes into crafting an entertaining documentary. (I loved King of Kong, btw.)
posted by freem at 2:30 PM on February 9, 2008


Mitchell could be pompous but still not be as dishonest as he is presented in the movie.
posted by LobsterMitten at 2:49 PM on February 9, 2008


My wife, who couldn't give two shits for video games, watched King of Kong with me last week and got violently angry at Billy Mitchell during the film. Even now, a week later, she stomps around the house and shakes her head and when I ask her what the problem is, she says, "I mean, Billy's all about scores set in real world situations, not the tape BUT THEN HE GOES AND..."

It's really pretty funny to me. I'm fairly certain that if I send her this article, she'll physically "Hulk Out" and destroy my iMac. In fact, I'm counting on it.
posted by ColdChef at 3:07 PM on February 9, 2008 [4 favorites]


I regret nothing.
posted by jscott at 3:38 PM on February 9, 2008 [2 favorites]


"It's really pretty funny to me. I'm fairly certain that if I send her this article, she'll physically 'Hulk Out' and destroy my iMac. In fact, I'm counting on it."

Pics Video (without glitches) or it didn't happen.
posted by Eideteker at 3:39 PM on February 9, 2008 [2 favorites]


(on profile snoop)

Hey, jscott, according to your profile you're the closest mefite to me. We should hang out sometime! I would love to hear more about this film and your coming project (plus I love meeting mefites).
posted by Eideteker at 3:42 PM on February 9, 2008


NortonDC and I watched King of Kong two weekends ago and I had pretty much the same reaction as ColdChef's wife. I was appalled by Mitchell and burned with the fury of a thousand suns. Looking for more info on the horror that had transpired I went to the Twin Galaxies message board and it really does look like the filmmakers took a large number of liberties, so that it became sort of an Oliver Stone version of Donkey Kong rivalries. I don't really know what to think now, but I can't recommend the movie in the same way I would have before I read the message boards.
posted by onlyconnect at 4:09 PM on February 9, 2008


Thanks, we just watched this last night. Great movie, and I was hoping to find a little extra background info.
posted by notmydesk at 4:31 PM on February 9, 2008


Hey, jscott, have people said to you "after King of Kong, I really don't want to be part of documentaries, since you'll just make me look bad/make shit up?"
posted by LobsterMitten at 5:05 PM on February 9, 2008


Walter is Walter Day, the head of Twin Galaxies, who comes off very badly in the film.

That doesn't necessarily make the content of the film true. I'm sure people could follow you around with a camera for a couple of weeks and chop things up to make you look pretty much however they want. I mean, imagine if they took two or three week's worth of the time you spend in the bathroom and made a movie of it. "There's that guy shitting again! He must shit all the time! Shitter!"

That's what happens when you have complete control over context.

To me, Walter Day comes off as a guy who has devoted his life to keeping track of arcade records for modest or no financial reward. That doesn't make him a bad person.

I liked King of Kong well enough, but the guys who made it to me seem like manipulativors at least the equal of how Billy Mitchell comes off in their film, based solely on them deliberately ignoring things like Wiebe already having the high score by the time the film started, ignoring the third guy who beat Billy Mitchell's score in 2000... it all adds up to an extremely factually inaccurate movie.

Of course, it wouldn't be as entertaining, but if you want to make fiction, make fiction!
posted by MegoSteve at 5:39 PM on February 9, 2008 [5 favorites]


...I can't recommend the movie in the same way I would have before I read the message boards.

Sums it up for me too. I actually reviewed the film for a local paper a few months ago, and even then it was fairly obvious to me that the film had been edited to play up the good guy/bad guy angle, which of course is nearly always far too simplistic for real life, but I couldn't believe at the time that they'd take the liberties that they did. Makes me wish I could re-review it.
posted by middleclasstool at 5:53 PM on February 9, 2008


You can always re-review it.
posted by jscott at 5:57 PM on February 9, 2008


I'm sure people could follow you around with a camera for a couple of weeks and chop things up to make you look pretty much however they want.

True, and then you would say "they lied" and people would say "prove it". The only safe answer is to say no when they ask to follow you around.
posted by smackfu at 6:03 PM on February 9, 2008


Lobstermitten:

I've not had anyone specifically say to me, so far, "I don't like documentaries after whatever and you're part of that mess and I want nothing to do with you."

Then again, I tend to do films on generally obscure or at least unusual topics, such as Bulletin Board Systems or Text Adventures or, in the future, Arcades. (The arcade one is more on the places than the specific people or games, so it's actually more obscure than might seem.)

That said, I've had my share of people telling me to get out of their house, or telling me they want nothing to do with me, or otherwise not being interested. The reasons range. Here's some:
  • Subject had gone to prison for years because of the subject and didn't want to "bring that up again".
  • Subject had facial damage and didn't want to be on camera (was fine with audio/recording).
  • Subject goddamn hated all those bastards and never wanted to talk of that shit again. (A year later he was fine with it.)
  • Subject didn't want to be in the same room as the person they were identified with as a team. (This happened a lot.)
Just to be clear, I was thrown out of a house because while the subject was fine with the interview, he hadn't asked his wife and she was livid. And in what I hope indicates how I go about these, even though I had a signed release I handed him the tapes we'd recorded so far and walked away. He wanted me to have them but I told him flat out, "You only get to know me for a day. You have to live with your wife for the rest of your life." Did I miss out? No, I found 3 other people with similar stories to tell and had them do it.

When Borat came out I had people pretty cranked about releases and the sorts of shit they allow you to get away with; my releases are intentially short. In some cases I have people who I have made a deal with not to get a release from them until I show them how they end up in the movie. These are people who have been deeply hurt by previous films or have sour memories of those times and I am promising I'm not going to be more of that. I intentionally interview way too many people so that I don't have to sit there making hard choices of screwing an interviewee over to make my films more punchy.

Nobody has cited King of Kong specifically as a reason not to talk to me, yet. But I think I'm going to have to go through many hoops to spend time with Walter, who I'd talked to on and off for years about being in my arcade documentary, and not have him feel he's going to be screwed over again.
posted by jscott at 6:11 PM on February 9, 2008 [2 favorites]


Mitchell could be pompous but still not be as dishonest as he is presented in the movie.

The Mitchell portrayed in the Onion interview is entirely consistent with the Mitchell portrayed in the movie. I don't think he was portrayed as dishonest in the movie -- just as a bit of an asshole -- although it did raise a question of whether the taped breaking of Weibe's record, with its glitches and missing tapes was all that it could have been. However, that seemed to me to be more about the highlighting of the hypocrisy of holding Mitchell to a different standard, given the way the establishment seemed to be bending over backwards to deny Weibe his record.

Also, I hate to break it to you people, but the idea that there's such a thing as a 'fly on the wall' documentary, where truth just unfolds before the camera. Documentaries are stories, constructed by the film maker in exactly the same way as fictional narratives are. Sometimes it's constructed before the shoot. Other times, its constructed in the editing suite. But its always a construction in which the director will select the facts that he chooses to tell the story he wishes to tell. Another film maker might wish to tell a different story. That's fine too. The techniques that the film makers use to enhance the tension and drama in this film are exactly what made it as successful as it was, and the quibbles about whether Weibe already had the record (something I thought the film acknowledged, but suggested there were those who regarded it as somehow questionable or dubious) or the issue of whether there was a third record breaker are really all minor points that actually detract from, rather than add to the story.

What they can't do though, is make people say stuff that they didn't say. Or behave in ways that they didn't behave in. Billy Mitchell might have gone to the dinner the night before the competition, but the movie made it pretty clear that Weibe and his party weren't welcome. They certainly weren't sat with the rest of the party, and if he *did* buy dinner for Weibe and his group, well, that strikes me as yet another example of what an asshole he is -- you can't sit and eat with us, I won't acknowledge your existance the following day, but I'm so rich, I'll happily pay for your dinner, even though you were an uninvited intruder to our party.

I think Jason Scott will regret getting involved

I thought that the comments underneath Jason Scott's piece were a fairly convincing rebuttal of his arguments.

Disclaimer: I don't play videogames. I have no relationship to this world. I'm simply someone who watched and enjoyed the movie.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 6:39 PM on February 9, 2008 [2 favorites]


jscott, thanks. I've been wondering that since I read your entry on textfiles a few days ago, whether people have been citing KoK specifically. I definitely think Walter got the short end of it; though it does come across very clearly that he's invested in being careful and impartial in these things, even if the movie later shows him [seeming to be] partial. I hope you do get to work with him, he seemed like he would be a fascinating subject on his own.



From the Onion interview:
Seth Gordon: Yeah, [different people have been vocal about publishing their own recollections of what happened during the King of Kong filming]. What's fascinating is how high the stakes are for such a thing. They put so much effort into something that to most of us seems relatively inconsequential. What's worth getting upset about, really?

Wow, Gordon sounds like a huge asshole there. "Why are these people so invested in defending themselves, when they're portrayed as dupes on film, when they're supposed to be authoritative and impartial in the video game world? Why can't they just laugh it off?"
posted by LobsterMitten at 6:42 PM on February 9, 2008


PeterMcDermott, I agree that the movie probably gives a reasonably accurate sense of Mitchell's personality - but there are a couple of moments in it that take him from "wow, full of himself" to "holy crap, is this guy a made-up Disney villain?". (snubbing Steve overtly, sending in a tape that the movie pretty clearly suggests is faked.) If those moments are faked or exaggerated, that's pretty seriously dishonest and doesn't belong in a documentary, even if it does make the movie more "entertaining." I realize documentary filmmakers make choices about what to show etc, but come on - if there's some legit explanation of the tape, or if he didn't really snub Steve like that, these are just a step too far.
posted by LobsterMitten at 6:48 PM on February 9, 2008


That said, I've had my share of people telling me to get out of their house, or telling me they want nothing to do with me, or otherwise not being interested.

Welcome to the world of documentary film making. Some people will bend over backwards and do anything to get their face on television or on film, regardless of how badly it may potentially hurt their interests. Other people won't talk to you for love nor money, regardless of the fact that doing so may well advance their interests.

The reasons for this are many and varied, and you have no control over them whatsoever. The more contentious the subject you're dealing with, the more people you'll find that are unwilling to talk to you. You just have to find another source. That's the nature of the job. You get it with any subject. Blaming other filmmakers for somehow 'ruining' your potential sources is just silly.

Without wishing to be too unkind, you're giving the impression that your petty complaints are rooted in a degree of envy over the success of The King of Kong. e.g. "You won't see a more gripping or compelling flick in a theatre this year -- Kevin Smith." I know if I was looking to make a documentary on a subject, and the competition got that sort of acclaim, I'd be feeling pretty gutted as well.

If those moments are faked or exaggerated, that's pretty seriously dishonest and doesn't belong in a documentary.

I agree, lobstermitten. However, the filmmakers deny that completely. They claim that those things are portrayed exactly as they happened. Personally, I believe them. If you're serious about working in an industry like documentary film in which you have to persuade people to invest fairly significant sums of money before you can do what it is that you do, you really only have to blow it once before you've fucked up something you've worked hard at for many years, for the rest of your life. And given that you don't actually need to do that to tell the story that you want to tell, why would you bother? You don't need to make things up. The construction is all in the selection. Whether you choose to show the clip of someone behaving like an asshole, or whether you bury it.

I've known a lot of people like Billy Mitchell in my time. Big fish in small ponds who have become far too used to getting their own way and consequently believe they possess a version of Steve Jobs Reality Distortion Field that allows them to impose their own view of reality on everyone. When such people venture out of their small pond (and you can see this in operation in his phone call to The Onion people) they still believe that the Reality Distortion Field is fully functioning and convincing people that black is white. The sad truth is, all too often the only person who is really under the sway of his Reality Distortion Field is the egomaniac themselves.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 7:08 PM on February 9, 2008


So how's your film coming along, Peter?
posted by jscott at 7:43 PM on February 9, 2008


King of Kong is next on my Netflix list. Woohoo!
posted by The Deej at 8:39 PM on February 9, 2008


Damn, I thought I'd queued it up on Netflix, but got something called "The King of Dong". I watched it, and am a little confused - which of the large African-American men is Billy Mitchell?
posted by newfers at 8:56 PM on February 9, 2008


Yeah, just to reiterate LobsterMitten's pull quote:

They put so much effort into something that to most of us seems relatively inconsequential. What's worth getting upset about, really?

That line really annoyed me, because it's comes off that he was more interested in shaping the truth and bending facts and shifting events around to serve his film, the folks in it be damned, because his film is more important and those little people should just be happy to be in it, no matter how it may damage them.

Personally, I believe them. If you're serious about working in an industry like documentary film in which you have to persuade people to invest fairly significant sums of money before you can do what it is that you do, you really only have to blow it once before you've fucked up something you've worked hard at for many years, for the rest of your life.

Quick question for you, though... aren't the people who invest in these films interested in seeing a return on their money? Would we even be talking about King of Kong if the story weren't so heavily edited to play up the rivalry between Billy and Steve by ignoring inconvenient facts like Tim Sczerby's 2000 record and Steve Wiebe's 2003 record?
posted by MegoSteve at 9:10 PM on February 9, 2008


King of Dong was excellent!!
posted by jscott at 9:33 PM on February 9, 2008 [2 favorites]


MegoSteve, people looking for return on investment do not put money in documentaries. People funding docs want a specific story explored, and generally with some degree of journalistic standards.
posted by mzurer at 10:50 PM on February 9, 2008


History is written by the victors liars.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:58 PM on February 9, 2008


What a coincidence, I just watched King of Kong a few hours ago, then ran to the internet to see what the word was.

It's a very interesting A.V. Club article. I get the impression, from this documentary and others, that documentarians try to present the movie as "truer than the facts," that is, with an interest in narrative first, although still trying to present a narrative that's accurate. Leaving out stuff that the filmmakers see as unimportant to the point so long as they don't directly refute it, for clarity's sake.

It seems evident that when they started making this they didn't originally set out to make a Billy Mitchell hit-piece, that the impression they got while making the movie (which includes stuff we the audience didn't see of course) caused then to make the movie this way.

Anyway, quick reactions:

1. I've read that the third score, the one by the unmentioned guy, was purposely left out by the filmmakers because it wasn't really creditable. I'd probably have left it out too if I were making the movie. Remember: truer than facts. Information that doesn't support the narrative confuses the story. Do we really need to know about a third score if it's severely questioned and not even taken seriously by TG themselves?

2. I agree it was wrong of the filmmakers to present Wiebe as having beaten Mitchell's record instead of his own. It is a bit misleading.

3. The snubbing scene at the end is a bit misleading if a small exchange between Mitchell and Wiebe was edited out, but it seems like it'd still be a fairly cold room around them. I think that was what the filmmakers was trying to get across.

4. Mitchell says some things on-camera that are rather obnoxious, or in the words of the A.V. Club piece, "almost amazingly self-centered." Several other people, including TG officials, said stuff on-camera that give a troubling impression of the guy. No one I've seen has claimed those things were taken out of context. No information that has come out later refutes this. The A.V. Club piece's quotes from Mitchell absolutely sounds like the same guy from the movie: a guy who'll try to turn his high score initials into an admirable point to use in selling himself. And he does seem like a guy who cares about a world record score as a selling point, perhaps for his opinion of himself, but more likely as something he can present to support his business.

5. The most egregious thing I think is the tape presented at Funspot right after Wiebe's public Donkey Kong record. That's calculated and cold, and presenting the tape as a "one view only" thing when it should be public record (and particularly not for viewing by Wiebe), is bad process on TG's part. No one has disputed this fact. If Wiebe had broken the score that the tape showed, then what would have happened to that tape? We wouldn't even know about it. The whole thing comes across as having been orchestrated by Mitchell to demoralize Wiebe, one of those mind games alluded to by the other interviewees, but with TG officials as his instrument. Maybe Mitchell was doing it because he thought that Wiebe was tainted by his contact with Roy Shildt? It does not seem as if that should matter to a record-keeping body.
posted by JHarris at 4:42 AM on February 10, 2008


Mitchell comes over very badly in the film... and even more so in the interview.

"Academic politics are vicious because the stakes are so low"
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 5:32 AM on February 10, 2008


Here's another good interview with Billy Mitchell.
posted by MegoSteve at 6:35 AM on February 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


You can always re-review it.

True, but not for the paper. They wouldn't be interested. I may just do it on my own, anyway.
posted by middleclasstool at 7:00 AM on February 10, 2008


I'd like to give a little bit of perspective on this.

I'm creating a documentary on New Zealand's Mixed Member Proportional representation system, (www.followingalexiswest.com) and as such, I am interviewing tons of VIPs. Most of whom are running for re-election. The movie is likely to be released shortly before New Zealand's election (That's just the nature of the film festival timing and such.)

I -know-, absolutely, that I will NOT be able to give an accurate impression of any of these guys. I've recorded hour-long interviews with 28 people, and when you compress that down into sound bytes suitable for a 90 minute documentary, you're absolutely going to get into a situation where someone is a chariacture or a distorted version of themselves. I know this. This will happen, no matter how I try to be objective, because I'm selecting the clips which best represent my point and tell the story in a concise manner.

That said, one of the things that I'm doing is taking all my raw footage of the interviews and putting it out on Google Video for anyone and everyone to see. I feel morally obligated, I don't want anyone to think that I'm not giving them a fair shake, and it's a useful educational tool for NZ's political science students, film students, and historians.

Ultimately, I have no doubt that King Of Kong is a distortion of Billy Mitchell's life. But so far as it goes, I think the story is fundamentally true.

Really, though, the best thing I think that Mitchell should do is ask for the filmmakers to release all the raw footage - and the second best, would be to get a camera, go out on YouTube, and explain his side of the story.
posted by BrianBoyko at 10:15 AM on February 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


I have to say, the more I read, the more I think Billy Mitchell is being piled on unfairly.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:48 AM on February 10, 2008


After reading this thread, I went out and rented the movie last night, and I also read the comments here, and elsewhere on the web responding to the accuracy/inaccuracy of the movie.

Although Mitchell came across as a bit self-absorbed in the movie, I feel compelled to add a few thoughts:

1. Regarding BM's snubbing of Steve: When I've been put on the spot in front of observers (say, a camera), and there are social expectations on me, at times I've come across as kind of a dork too, due to a combination of nervousness and worrying about how I'm being observed. Especially if I wasn't fully expected to be put on the spot. In hindsight, some of my actions have been inexplicable, and I wish I'd had a do-over, because the moment brought out something in me that wouldn't have been there if there hadn't been all these eyes watching in the moment with pressure to live up to a particular expectation (i.e., meet your opponent, be polite, we're all watching, oh yeah he's the guy we think might take something away from you that you hold dear, etc.).

2. I thought that Mitchell, if he came across poorly at times, it was because he was interested in waxing philosophically about things, rather than putting anyone down, and it sometimes came out untactfully. Most of my relationships in life have benefited from giving people the benefit of the doubt when their words come across awkwardly, rather than thinking it paints a picture of them in entirety. And frankly, some people just don't always come across well, and when you get to know them, you find out that they are just a bit socially/verbally awkward, with no real harm done.

3. I believe Walter's response regarding accepting the taped video record (per the Twin Galaxies website), and even so, I really didn't think that he came across badly in the movie. I think he came across as a stand up guy who cares about other people who care about this facet of culture. Regarding the video, I think that he got caught up in the excitement of a lot of what was going on, and if we were to trust his recounting of the event, he fixed it, and apologized. Again, I've been guilty of treading of people's feelings a bit while trying to manage events of this scale (and relative importance) and have had to backpeddle. I hardly hold that against him.

4. I think the "break in" was a huge exaggeration.

Even setting the question of the inaccuracies aside, I saw these characters as being more human than jerks. I didn't see anyone in this movie that I would have characterized as being evil; although I did get the sense, often, that they were being very narrowly represented.

Is Mitchell a bit self centered? Probably. But the way that the movie was cut at the end had so little obvious continuity (and so much room for contrived continuity), that with the other details added by jscott and others, I'm bound to believe that there was too much creativity going on here.
posted by SpacemanStix at 11:55 AM on February 10, 2008 [2 favorites]


Billy Mitchell: Does this fortune cookie have my name on it?
Film maker: What does it say?
Billy Mitchell: You yearn for perfection.


(No editing needed.)
posted by Corduroy at 12:11 PM on February 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Having seen King of Kong (at a MeFi meet-up, no less) and found it thoroughly entertaining and thrilling, I admit that it never crossed my mind that some of the more confrontational or dramatic aspects of the story weren't represented in large part through editing choices and cuts.

Of course the documentarian has a responsibility not to misrepresent his or her subjects, but surely we have a (perhaps smaller) responsibility to recognize that every piece of filmmaking represents a series of choices made by the crew putting it together: it cannot be the complete and unaltered truth of the events, if only because those would be too cumbersome and sprawling to capture on film. Whenever I watch documentary footage, I wonder what was necessarily trimmed out and how the filmmaker defined the (both literal and metaphorical) frame.

I agree that the movie probably gives a reasonably accurate sense of Mitchell's personality - but there are a couple of moments in it that take him from "wow, full of himself" to "holy crap, is this guy a made-up Disney villain?"

Yeah, I agree, LobsterMitten --- and that was what first spurred me to wonder whether the editing choices transformed a blustery, smug fellow into "a made-up Disney villian" to heighten the drama. (Though... Billy Mitchell reminded me strikingly of an ex, and it would have been characteristic of my ex to behave exactly as the film portrayed Mitchell, partly through self-regard and partly through the social ineptitude that hinders us all from time to time. Make of that what you will. )
posted by Elsa at 12:22 PM on February 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Billy Mitchell: Does this fortune cookie have my name on it?
Film maker: What does it say?
Billy Mitchell: You yearn for perfection.


(No editing needed.)

See, I didn't think that too awful of him. More than one time in the movie he admitted that he had a pretty driven personality, and I think this was simply an extension of that discussion. To admit that you are driven isn't the same thing as admitting you are arrogant.

By the way, I don't know Billy Mitchell or anything. He just doesn't strike me as being that horrible, even if some of his self-centeredness isn't contrived. And self-centered people generally bother me a lot.
posted by SpacemanStix at 2:02 PM on February 10, 2008


I think Mitchell isn't horrible either. I mean, it is only Donkey Kong in the end. I question some of the things he did on-camera, but it's just a game. I don't think Twin Galaxies comes across as bad either, maybe a little misguided perhaps, maybe a little naive (it's probably a bad idea to employ a record-holder as a referee just on general principals).

Wow, Twin Galaxies. I remember reading their score charts in Joystik long, long ago. I once recorded a score in Dreamcast Crazy Taxi to send them. Don't think I ever mailed it though; there were several other people with higher scores by then (it was for a high score contest), and then they allowed a bug tactic that I felt made the game less interesting to play.
posted by JHarris at 2:44 PM on February 10, 2008


You're probably right, SpacemanStix. But there are ample quotes similar to that through out the movie. I don't think Mitchell is a bad person by any means, he just says some pretty ridiculous things, such as his line about how lucky he is and how that means there is some poor bastard out there getting "the screws put to him". I think his portrayal was very funny.
posted by Corduroy at 6:28 PM on February 10, 2008


Agreed, Corduroy. He definitely put his foot in his mouth a lot, and it was often pretty funny.
posted by SpacemanStix at 6:48 PM on February 10, 2008


I just watched King of Kong this weekend- thanks for the links.

Throughout the movie I thought the hotsauce looked pretty tasty, so I went to the website for Rickey's World Famous Sauces.

It was there I found what may be the most awful gif ever.
posted by Dr-Baa at 10:36 AM on February 11, 2008 [1 favorite]


This that supposed to be erotic? I don't even know what's so awful about it?
posted by robinw at 1:57 PM on February 11, 2008


The fried chicken wing is reaching out to get sauced.
posted by smackfu at 4:41 PM on February 11, 2008


I don't even know what's so awful about it?

I came to the decision that is was awful after watching it for 45 minutes. Maybe that has something to do with it.
posted by Dr-Baa at 7:18 AM on February 12, 2008


"is was" is the new "it was."
posted by Dr-Baa at 7:18 AM on February 12, 2008




Thank you for the addition, jscott. I look forward to reading it.
posted by Dr-Baa at 11:04 AM on February 12, 2008


« Older Bitlet: stream torrent music   |   InfraGard Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post