Enter now!

 

Archive for the ‘Unpleasant Crap’ Category

A tale of two caskets (full of doritos)

Posted by Dan on November 19th, 2009

FEBRUARY 8th, 2010 UPDATE: In the post below I explain that I suspect that my Casket-full-of-Doritos idea for the Crash the Superbowl contest might have been stolen by another team of filmmakers.  Well, the suspicious entry, “Casket” went on to score a spot in the finals and last night it aired during the Superbowl.  Since I first wrote this post I’ve learned a lot about the other entry and I am more convinced than ever that I was plagiarized.  For a more up to date version of this story, click here:  https://videocontestnews.com/2010/02/08/dueling-caskets-full-of-doritos/

———————-

Beardy is camping out to buy tickets for tonight’s 12:01AM screening of Twilight so while he’s away I thought I’d step in and do a little self-promotion. I also wanted to share my Doritos hard luck story. Like pretty much anybody reading this site, I submitted an entry for this year’s Crash the Superbowl contest. And here is that very entry now!


Be honest, it’s the greatest thing you’ve ever seen right? I’m super proud of my submission but I know that the competition out there is tough. And I was totally ok with the fact that with thousands of entries coming in, 6 teams of professional filmmakers with deep pockets and Red cameras and fancy dollies would probably come along and take all the finalist spots. And like I said, I was totally cool with that. But then….I saw this:

Ahhhhh! Some team of professional filmmakers with deep pockets and a Red camera and a fancy dolly came along and filmed an idea a whole lot like mine! Man, that’s a bummer. The coincidences between that spot and mine are just crazy, aren’t they? When 4000 people each try and come up with an idea for a commercial for the same product there’s obviously going to be some overlap, but damn, there’s a lot of overlap here. Of course, I’ve seen a lot of CTSB entries that have really similar ideas. (For instance, how many Doritos-as-a-paper-football and dorito-loving-zombies spots have you watched in the last few weeks?) But of the 2200 or so Crash entries I’ve watched, I don’t think there are two of them that share more common elements than these two casket-full-of-doritos entries. I mean, it’s not just that both videos are funeral scenes. It’s that both videos include:

1. A dead man’s last wish to be buried in a casket full of Doritos
2. A funeral for that guy that turns out to be fake
3. A big, framed photo of the “dead” guy enjoying a bag of Doritos next to the casket
4. Shots of that guy in his casket buried up to his face in chips
5. A climax in which the “dead” guy gets his comeuppance when the casket of chips is knocked over

That’s sort of a lot of similarities to squeeze into 30 seconds, isn’t it? I have to wonder, what the heck happened here? Is this just a case of really bad luck or is the CIA monitoring my brainwaves as part of some kind of scheme to control the masses via secret messages hidden in a superbowl commercial? There’s no chance that another team of filmmakers were somehow (gulp) inspired by my entry, is there?

My entry, Rest in Chips was uploaded on Friday, November 6th and the other video, The Casket, appeared online a few days later. I might be paranoid but I’m not crazy enough to think that the makers of the other entry saw Rest In Chips and then ran out the next day and rented a church so they could make their own version of my spot. So I was left with only one conclusion; this was just a giant coincidence…nothing more.

But then it finally hit me; I am an idiot. After I wrote my script I created and animated storyboard so I could see if I could fit my entire idea into 30 seconds. On October 6th, I . Then I sent the link to a few people and asked for ideas and feedback. During that time, the video was set to “public” and could be seen by anyone. One of my friends even said to me “why did you put that on youtube? What if someone steals your idea!?” And I laughed and laughed at that notion. And then I stopped laughing because I realized I had made a very stupid mistake. I named the video “Doritos Storyboard.” Because the word “Doritos” was in the title, any CTSB contestant who went to youtube to study last year’s winning entries or actual Doritos commercials could have found and watched my storyboard.

I’ve been burned by plagiarism before so I went back to youtube and deleted the storyboard. But by then it had already been up for like a week. A few days later, I changed some of the dialogue in my script and created a slightly tweaked version of the animated storyboard. On October 12th I uploaded that video to youtube except I named this one simply “dortest” so that it would be hidden from youtube’s search engine. . Here it is:

I hate to think the worst of people like this but if you think I’m going overboard, try a little experiment. Open The Casket in one window and video in the other. Then hit “Play” on them as fast as you can so you can watch them simultaneously. The shots line up better than Dark Side of the Moon and The Wizard of Oz. I can maybe understand that two separate filmmakers could come up with the same ideas, but what are the odds they’d use the same site gags at the same moments??

I really have no idea what to think about this. I know it’s just speculation on my part but I think I might have declare shenanigans on the makers of The Casket. At the very least, I think it’s plausible that somewhere out there, another filmmaker who was planning on entering the CTSB contest went on to youtube and searched for “Dortios” related videos. If they “Sorted by date,” my storyboard would have been right up in their face. The storyboard seems too crazy to ever shoot (seriously, what kind of a nut would get a real casket and have a real grave dug?) so maybe they assumed it would never really be filmed and so the concept was fair game.

Or maybe it was the CIA. I dunno. At this point I’m pretty open to any possibilities.

1/6/2010 UPDATE: Well, Doritos announced their Top 6 finalists on Monday and I was extremely disappointed to see that “The Casket” made the cut. For making the top 6 they receive $25,000, a trip to the superbowl and a chance to see their ad air during the game. If their ad does air, they could win a bonus of up to 2 million dollars.

After writing this blog post I contacted Doritos and informed them of my plagiarism concerns and explained the situation. I received a response saying that the Doritos legal team would look into the matter.

So even though the company’s lawyers knew there might be a chance the idea was stolen the judges decided to choose it anyway. Since 40% of a video’s score was based on “originality” I cannot understand how “The Casket” could have gotten a high enough score to make the Top 6. There were 4000 entries. Common sense tells you that a fair judging system would yield many videos that were just fractions of a point away from making the top 6. So a serious deduction in any category should theoretically sink any videos chances.

Now that Doritos has chosen “Casket” as a finalist, a new and even bigger problem has presented itself. Even if the idea was not stolen from me, “Casket” should have been disqualified because it infringes on my copyright. Copyright infringement can happen on accident but that does not give the infringer a free pass to benefit from their actions. Unintentional copyright infringement is still copyright infringement. My storyboard animation for “Rest in Chips” was first posted to the web the first week in October. The version that is on youtube now was uploaded October 12th. On October 29th I posted the first rough cut of my entry to my youtube channel. It, and several other rough cuts are still there. That first rough cut was on line 4 days before “Casket” was even filmed. And finally, my entry was uploaded to the contest site well before “Casket” was.

This all means that I am the owner and creator of the “Dead man has his last wish to be buried in chips fulfilled but during the funeral he is revealed to be alive inside the casket full of chips that gets knocked over” story idea. If a commercial was running on TV right now that was as similar to “Casket” as my entry, storyboard and rough cuts are, the judges would never have been able to select “Casket” as a finalist because Doritos would be sued for IP theft and copyright infringement regardless of whether or not the concept was intentionally stolen. My rights as an independent filmmaker are the same as a multi-million dollar corporation. Just because my storyboard or entry have not aired on TV, it does not mean my Intellectual Property rights don’t count.

Since Doritos knew that I was concerned about plagiarism and since they knew that I have proof that I was the first person to publicly release this idea, I feel personally offended that they chose to ignore my rights and concerns. Back in the newspaper days, they used to say “never pick a fight with a guy who buys ink buy the barrel.” Let’s update that statement for the modern age and say that you should “never pick a fight with a filmmaker who has a blog and nothing to lose.”

More details about these new developments here: https://videocontestnews.com/2010/01/04/one-of-the-crash-the-superbowl-finalists-revealed-early/ and here: https://videocontestnews.com/2010/01/05/doritos-2010-crash-the-superbowl-finalists/

Read More »

Cheaters CAN prosper!

Posted by Beardy on October 8th, 2009

twirl

Temptation, thy name is TwirlTV. For the last few days I have been wrestling with an ethical dilemma. To force myself to do the right thing I’ll blog about my mildly-evil plan rather than carry it out.

I don’t know what Twirl TV is. Some type of Hulu thing maybe? Who cares? Point is they’re holding a that seems designed to reward cheaters. The idea is that you make a 15 or 30 second promo for, or a 3 minute parody of, your favorite TV show. Then you upload the thing to youtube and forward the link to Twirl TV within 6 hours of the upload time so they can keep track of it.

Now, here’s the BS part: Whichever video has the highest VIEW COUNT by October 16th wins $1,000.

Can you believe that? What is the friggin’ point!? It is so easy to increase your view count on youtube it’s embarrassing. Obviously you can just sit at your computer hitting the play button over and over but with the help of a very basic add-on to your internet browser you can race to the top of any “highest view count wins” contest in no time at all. Because I couldn’t believe the rules of this contest I wrote the organizers. Here is the e-mail I sent them:

“I have a question about the Twirl TV video contest. I wanted to enter but I saw that the winning video will be the one with the highest view count on youtube. Getting a high view count on youtube is very, very easy. You just need to know a few super easy computer tricks and you can automatically rack up views. How are you guys going to ensure that a cheater doesn’t win the contest? I’d hate to spend my time shooting a video only to find out some guy with an auto-refresher won by a landslide.”

And here is the actual response I got from Twirl TV:

“Thank you for you interest in our contest. We understand the possible use of automatic refreshers and developed a judging prize that is equal in value. The judging panel will consist of a TV producer and two of our top two Twirl TV users. We look forward to seeing your video and i will gladly answer any additional questions.”

Translation: We know and we don’t care. The people behind this contest understand that this “view count” race is going to be won by a cheater. They’re also giving away a $1,000 video camera to the video they like best so who cares about the view count contest? I do, that’s who. This is just total and complete laziness on the part of the organizers of this contest. Oh, laziness and stupidity.  A “highest view count wins” contest could only be dreamed up by people who have no clue how the internet works these days. These type of people keep hearing about Twitter and yotube and Digg and facebook and they feel the need to jump on the viral video/social networking bandwagon even though they don’t know where the bandwagon is going or why.

At some point, the marketing people who came up with this contest had to explain it to the tech people who were supposed to set it up. I’m a tech guy and I’ve had to deal with marketing people before and some of them can be really thick-headed. They are “idea people” who get tunnel vision when they think they have an ingenious plan. Maybe some IT nerd tried to speak up and suggest how easy it would be for someone to get an artificially high view count. But the marketing people didn’t care. As long as it LOOKED like a lot of people had watched these promos then they could tell their bosses that the contest was a huge success. “We’re happy to report that the video contest entries had a combined view count of over 200,000!” they’ll say. “That means we exposed our brand to 200,000 people and only spent $2,000. Look how awesome at marking we are!”

After I got the e-mail back from Twirl TV I honestly thought good and hard about entering and then doing the things it would take for me to ensure a win. There are still 8 days to go in the contest and right now the most viewed video in the competition only has 1,700 views. Pffffft. I could shoot and upload a video today and have 1,700 “views” by midnight. But I’ve decided that $1,000 just isn’t worth the guilt I’d feel.

However….that guilt wouldn’t extend beyond my own head.  If I were to upload a video for this contest and then auto-refresh myself to a view count victory I would technically not be cheating.  BECAUSE THE RULES OF THE CONTEST DO NOT PROHIBIT SUCH ACTIVITY.  There’s no way that Twirl TV could ever track which IP addresses your video’s views came from but even if they could, replaying your own video over and over is not against the rules.  So if you’re in the mood to make an easy $1,000 go knock your self out.

Read More »

Justin Spence teaches me about the ugly side of video contests

Posted by Beardy on September 26th, 2009

Caution: Ding Dong talk ahead

I really enjoy entering video contests. Each contest I enter is a new creative challenge that requires a different solution. Thanks to the contests I’ve entered I’ve become a much sharper filmmaker so it’s a great way to improve your skills. And of course, I also really like winning and getting big checks in the mail for my work.

But there’s a lot about video contests that frustrate me.  Contest organizers sometimes don’t play by their own rules and sometimes contestants just flat out cheat in an effort to win. And that’s why I started this blog. My hope is that if someone shines a little light on the negative aspects of video contests, people will be forced to do better and play fair.

I think the thing that bothers me most about video contests is the lack of civility and good sportsmanship. Greed, jealousy and desperation can make people go a little crazy.  Throw in the anonymity that the internet provides and you’ve got a recipe for sabotage and trash talk.  For example, in a score-based competition, how many times have you seen your star rating drop mysteriously in a very short amount of time? How many times have you gotten ugly, anonymous comments about one of your videos? Do other contestants really think that the judges will see that youtube user “rudeboy742” thinks your entry “sucks goat ass” and then think to themselves, “yeah! This video does suck goat ass!?”

A few days ago I wrote about suspicious voting activity in the Butterfinger contest. The next day, someone going by the name “Douche Pumper” (yes, that’s what he called himself) left a very angry, very depressing comment on that blog post. Here it is:

Wow. Talk about someone who is bitter about being fat and having a small ding-dong. You think anyone really wants to listen to some fat, red-bearded turd ramble on about how disgruntled he is over video contests? They don’t. Loser.

Get a life and get a job, you lazy f—. And, better yet, why don’t you make your own videos and actually compete in these contests. Then someone might actually care about what you have to say. Until then, have fun watching your website float off into the ether of Internet sites never visited.

It’s always the fat guys with little ding-dongs who start sites like this. Like Harry Knowles.

Anonymous Coward. <—That means you. Not my signature.
It’s obvious what has happened here, right?  One of the contestants in the Butterfinger contest saw that I was questioning the suspicious voting activity and are pissed that I suggested that they may have been doing something less than ethical to win that contest.

Except….that’s not what happened. Though the comment was left anonymously it was pretty easy to figure out where it came from.  I added a fancy piece of code to this wordpress blog that tells me where visitors are from and how they got here.  I checked the program logs and saw that the comment came from a visitor from Dallas, TX who arrived at the site via a google search for the name “Justin Spence.”

A few weeks ago I did a blog post about a Dallas filmmaker named Justin Spence who I believe flagrantly plagiarized the work of frequent video contest winner, Jared Cicon. Mr. Spence seemed to copy Jared’s 2008 winning Taxlsayer.com video for a contest held by ForRent.com. I feel that he not only plagiarized the concept he even copied the tone and pacing and locations of Jared’s video. I wouldn’t have even mentioned it on the site except that Mr. Spence’s apparent rip-off actually won first place and 10 grand from ForRent.com. Jared graciously said he didn’t mind the plagiarism but Spence never bothered to get his OK until other people called him out on his theft.  All around it was just a very uncool thing to do.  To read the blog post that got Mr. Spence so angry, click here. And just so you can see I’m not crazy, here is Jared’s original Taxslayer ad:
 

 
And here’s is Justin Spence’s winng ForRent.com ad:
 

 
So anyway, it looks like Mr. Spence found the post about him while googling himself. He got angry and needed to unleash his venom (he also unleashed in a rather ugly way on the people on the ForRent site who also accused him of plagiarism.) But if Mr. Spence left a comment on my post about him then everyone would realize it was he who was obsessed with the size of my “ding-dong.” So he left the comment on the Butterfinger post to make it look like someone from that contest was the anonymous jerk. And that’s the part that really bothers me. Not only did he say a bunch of ugly (and wildly incorrect BTW) stuff, he also tried to frame one of the butterfinger finalists.

If Mr. Spence thought that what I said about his ForRent.com winning video was incorrect or unfair, he could have just e-mailed me and said so. I would have even been happy to post some kind of rebuttal from him or maybe even take down the original post. But instead, her spewed out a bunch of weird bile.  Just for fun, I’ll address some of Justin’s points:

“Wow. Talk about someone who is bitter about being fat and having a small ding-dong. You think anyone really wants to listen to some fat, red-bearded turd ramble on about how disgruntled he is over video contests? They don’t. Loser.”

Not actually a photo. Not pictured, a cartoon ding-dong

Not actually a photo.

Do you see what’s going on in this guy’s head? He doesn’t seem to realize that the mascot of this website isn’t an actual photo of me. I don’t look anything like that guy. I just thought it was a funny piece of clip art so I picked “beardy” as The Video Contest News’ mascot. The thing that really speaks volume’s about this person’s maturity level is his obsession with “ding dong” size. Why is Justin Spence so hung up on penis size? I’m no psychiatrist but I’ve seen enough episodes of Frasier to make an educated guess.  Also, I am not disgruntled.  I am totally gruntled with video contests!  I don’t want to give an exact number but I have won A LOT of money thanks to video contests in the last two years.  Also, Beardy’s beard is really more brown than red, isn’t it?

“And, better yet, why don’t you make your own videos and actually compete in these contests. Then someone might actually care about what you have to say..”

Why would someone be into video contests enough to start a blog devoted to them and yet never shoot entries themselves? For the record, I shoot maybe 3 contest entries a month and as I said, I do win….a lot.

It’s always the fat guys with little ding-dongs who start sites like this. Like Harry Knowles.

How does Mr. Spence know how big Harry Knowles’ penis is?  I don’t know and I don’t want to know.  Wait a second, they are both from Texas.  Maybe…um, never mind.

At the end of Mr. Spence comment he slams me for writing this blog anonymously….and then signs off anonymously with the name “Douche Pumper.”  (Why would he call himself Douche Pumper??)

Ok….so, I understand that the irony here is getting pretty deep.  I write a blog under a pseudonym where I call out cheaters, bad sports and crappy contests and Justin criticizes me for doing that and then tries to make it look like some innocent contestant from the Butterfinger contest did it.

This is a good time for me to explain why I do things the way I do here on VCN.  I’m very, very proud of my video work and it’s been very tempting to post about my latest wins here. This site could also be a great tool for building a personal fan base and for getting votes for videos when I need them.  But I’ve decided that I should keep my work out of this blog, at least for now. The reason? I am worried about retribution from people like Justin Spence. Like I said, I want to see video contests cleaned up and so I’m going to be bringing attention to people who are making video contests less fun for the rest of us. Now imagine if my name and a list of my work was available on this site. Many video contests are basically popularity contests. If a guy like Mr. Spence is so bitter and angry that he has to make fun of a cartoon mascot’s beard and penis size then it’s not a giant leap to assume that he might also try and sabotage a stranger’s contest entries in retribution for them pointing out his inappropriate actions.  Long story short, if you act like a jerk I am going to call you out on it. But I refuse to give bad people the tools to wreck my chances in whatever contests I’m currently in.

Video contests are awesome but guys like Mr. Spence make them less awesome.  These are the guys that aren’t just satisfied with getting their friends to vote for their entries, they also have to get their friends to give bad scores to their competition.  These are the guys that create fake youtube accounts so they can make it look like “the people” all agree that your work sucks.  These are the guys start fights in the comments sections of a contest’s website.  These are the guys that make us all look bad and these are the guys that convince companies that video contests are just not worth all the hassle.  Guys like Mr. Spence are the ones that want to wreck a good thing.  But you don’t need to let these angry people get away with it.  If someone is harassing you in a contest, let us know and we’ll try and give them some of the attention they obviously crave so badly.

 

---- Posted by Beardy. Follow us on Twitter @ ----

 
Read More »

Conan’s car contest: Something is rotten in the state of California

Posted by Beardy on September 18th, 2009

I had planned to just do a short little post about this but the more I look into it the more suspicious this whole thing gets. Something shady seems to have happened with the “Conan, please blow up my car” video contest. Let me start from the beginning before I lay out the case….

Shortly after taking over the Tonight Show, Conan O’Brian decided that there had to be a more interesting way to dispose of a “clunker” than just trading it to the government for some cash. So he announced the “Conan, please blow up my car” video contest. If you had a really crappy car you were supposed to create an interesting, creative video explaining why your car sucked and why you deserved to have it blown up and replaced by Conan with a brand new Lexus.

Since this contest was promoted on the Tonight Show for a few weeks they got a flood of entries. In all, 951 videos were submitted. Earlier this month, this video was selected as the winner:

Grand Prize Winner. Prize: A new Lexus Hybrid

Sure that’s a really crappy car but the video is as simple as can be. The rules of the contest encouraged participants to create over the top videos though. Judging was supposed to break down the score like this: Originality (50%) and Creativity (50%).

So was that video original and creative? No…not one bit. It was just a guy talking about his suspiciously crappy car. Commenters on the Tonight Show’s website are pretty upset that this video was chosen as the winner. Some even charge that some kind of fix was in. And you know what, as much as I love Conan I have to admit that I think something shady did occur. Consider these points made by commenters on the Tonight Show web site:

1. One poster points out that the entry should have been ineligible because the video features a business’ logo (A “Pizza Pirates” logo on the hood of the car and on the guy’s shirt) and that was prohibited by the rules.

2. Another mentions that he car is also totally illegal to drive because the seat-belts don’t work and apparently the car had to be a drivable clunker.

3. Yet another poster asks a question so brilliant it would make Columbo proud: “If this guy drives with one lft arm holding the door (oh pity me, could of said you used bungies mr. wizard). Can you imagine the right arm making gear changes and turning the steering wheel at same time. People this whole thing was preplanned to appear as a clunker. Aha!!!” (While that move might be tough it would at the very least make the car illegal to drive.)

4. The most astute observation came from a poster that suggested that this particular car was chosen because it was so wrecked that its make and model are a complete mystery. In the video, the owner of the car refers to it only as a “1980.” So instead of blowing up a crappy Ford or Toyota or whatever, Conan got to keep the car companies happy by destroying a completely anonymous car.

The damage to the car also seems kinda suspicious too. As the guy says, he intentionally cut the roof off because it would get hot while he was making his Pizza deliveries.  But who wants to eat a pizza that’s been wind-cooled by a ride in a homemade convertible?  Near the end of the video the guy shows of a bunch of mysterious dents in his driver’s side door. He said that one day at work someone threw eggs at his car and shot paintballs at it.  But look at those dents! Were those eggs shot out of a 44 Magnum? And listen, I have played paintball before and I don’t think they could do that to a car door. If paintballs really could dent metal, would it be legal to shoot them at fleshy human beings?  Most suspicious of all though is the guy’s front license plate.  It looks like someone took a hammer to that plate. And even if he didn’t, how can it be legal to drive around with a license plate that is so bent that it can’t be read?

But forget all that stuff. Here is the biggest red flag of all; The guy in the video says he delivers Pizzas for a place called Pizza Pirates. I googled Pizza pirates and guess what? They have several locations but the guy with the clunker works in Ontario, California…..a mere 52 minute drive from the Universal Studios lot where the car was blown up by Conan.  The winner lives in Chino, CA which is basically a suburb of Los Angeles.

Wow, how convienient

Wow, how convenient

I hate to do this but I officially call “shenanigans” on Conan O’brian. Can you imagine how much money NBC would have had to spend if the winner of this contest was from New York or Florida? By picking a guy who lived in the LA area they probably saved at least $10,000. Besides paying for a trip for two and a hotel room for the winner, NBC would have had to get the clunker to LA! NBC lawyers would never let someone drive the winning “clunker” to the west coast so the chosen vehicle would have had to have been shipped inside a big ass truck. That would have cost thousands of dollars if the winner was from the East coast. Oh! And then NBC would have had to get a new Lexus Hybrid to that guy! The actual car that the guy won was presented to him at the Universal Studios lot after his car was exploded. If the guy lived 2,000 miles from LA would he have had to drive the Lexus all the way home? Of course not. NBC probably got 1 free car in exchange for all the publicity and they again would have had to ship it to the guy’s house. After all, how many Lexus Hybrid dealerships do you think there are in the middle or Georgia or Montana? Not many I’m guessing so they couldn’t just make arrangements with a local dealer if the winner lived outside of the LA area.  Because the winner lives in Chino he would have been able to drive that car right home after the taping.

While googling I found the and they seem very proud of their employee and the death trap he drove while working for them. Several “fans” of Pizza Pirates have commented on the company’s wall that they have seen that beat up car driving around Ontario, CA many times. One girl says….

“haha dude that’s awsome. my school is like right by there and we use to walk by and see that car all the time,lol. so when we heard in was going to be blown up on tv we were like omg..haha.”

Kids say “dude,” “OMG” and “LOL” in every internet comment they make….right? That might be a little suspicious but like I said, a number of people on facebook have said that they will miss seeing that crappy car drive around town. So it probably was a real car at least.

So what’s the final verdict? After looking at all the evidence I believe that:

1. The car that won the contest was real and was a total mess.

2. The winner of the contest might have done a few things to the car to make it look even crappier.

3. The winning video should have been deemed ineligible to win because the car was not legally drivable and because it featured a company logo. (Pizza Pirates isn’t just one store, it’s a small chain with 3 locations.)

4. The judges of the contest that picked this clunker totally disregarded the judging (Originality/creativity) criteria outlined in the rules and picked this car as the winner because:

a. It was funny looking
b. No potential advertisers would be offended that one of their cars were being called a “clunker” since only an expert could decipher its make and model.
c. NBC would be able to save thousands in transport costs because the winner and his car were located just across town from the studio.

In conclusion, here’s what I think happened: The contest was announced and someone at the Tonight Show remembered seeing this beat up Pizza Pirates car driving around the LA suburbs. The car was easy to track down of course and someone contacted Pizza Pirates and the owner of the vehicle got a discreet call. Someone from the Tonight Show encouraged the owner of the car to create an entry so that they could pick a local winner with a really funny-looking car. Conclusion: Shenanigans abound!

To add insult to injury, the actual blowing up of the winning car was really lame! It didn’t EXPLODE at all. It just kid of popped and then was engulfed in flames. Here’s the video of the “Explosion:

For the record I should probably mention that I am not a disgruntled contest entrant. I did not enter a video into the Conan Contest and I have no stake in this unsavory affair.

Read More »
Newer Entries »
Designed by: Free Cell Phones | Thanks to Highest CD Rates, Domain Registration and Registry Software