Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Entertainment

Wikileaks Movie Coming To the Big Screen 181

Posted by samzenpus
from the what-took-so-long dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "First Facebook and now Wikileaks as the Guardian reports that studio executives have picked up the screen rights to the forthcoming Julian Assange biography 'The Most Dangerous Man in the World' by award-winning Australian writer Andrew Fowler. The book details Assange's life from his childhood on Magnetic Island in Queensland, Australia, all the way through to his founding of the whistleblower website in 2006 to publish classified material. Producers Barry Josephson and Michelle Krumm, who have optioned The Most Dangerous Man in the World, say they are planning a 'suspenseful drama' in the vein of All the President's Men and with the thrill of a Tom Clancy novel. 'As soon as I met Andrew and read a few chapters of his profound book, I knew that – with his incredibly extensive depth of knowledge – it would enable us to bring a thought-provoking thriller to the screen,' says Krumm."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Wikileaks Movie Coming To the Big Screen

Comments Filter:
  • by EmperorOfCanada (1332175) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @12:39PM (#34973646)
    I hope the script gets leaked.
    The contracts get leaked.
    An audio recording of one of the actors being a little bitch gets leaked.
    And the icing on the cake would be the film being leaked.
    Yet I still think WikiLeaks rules!!!
    • In other words, it will be available from torrents before the movie premiere. And how is that different from the way it usually is?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Moryath (553296)

      Interesting.

      I'm sure that this movie will have just about as much to do with real life as any "made for TV movie [snpp.com]" ever has.

      Of course, after the way Wikileaks shifted from simply releasing data, to massively editorializing and chopping things up to suit their own slant (especially that horribly butchered video), they basically have no credibility left anyways.

      • massively editorializing and chopping things up to suit their own slant (especially that horribly butchered video)

        Butchered? Civilians, children and reporters butchered with hollow point bullets, you're fine with that. Showing the world it's happening, you call that butchery.

        Sheeple.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by cold fjord (826450)

          Butchered? Civilians, children and reporters butchered with hollow point bullets, you're fine with that. Showing the world it's happening, you call that butchery.

          Let me guess.... "collateral murder" [weeklystandard.com]?

          The "civilians" were armed insurgents, apparently associated with running firefights and rocket attacks through the night. They were also probably in violation of curfew [washingtonpost.com], which would once again make them targets. (You noticed how empty the streets were, right?)

          The children should have been left behind by the i

          • That's neocon propaganda. That's not insightful.

          • Butchered? Civilians, children and reporters butchered with hollow point bullets, you're fine with that. Showing the world it's happening, you call that butchery.

            Let me guess.... "collateral murder" [weeklystandard.com]?

            The "civilians" were armed insurgents, apparently associated with running firefights and rocket attacks through the night. They were also probably in violation of curfew [washingtonpost.com], which would once again make them targets. (You noticed how empty the streets were, right?)

            The children should have been left behind by the insurgents attempting to rescue their comrades.

            No: Innocent bystanders and journalists. You don't get to just label anyone "insurgent" to justify shooting them.

            That car was there because he was bringing the children home from school, he saw people who were injured and stopped to help them, and he and the children were shot. By cowards hiding faraway, shooting armor-piercing explosive shells [wikimedia.org].

            Yeah, those are forbidden to use against people, making this a clear war crime.

      • Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
        Wikileaks can't win. If they release unedited source materials they get attacked, if they work with the major newspapers to edit the releases they get attacked. Not even honest attacks, the big ones lately have been easy to disprove but they continued to be promoted. The whole point of the military plot to undermine Wikileaks was to remove their credibility and likability; which they are doing whether or not their hands are directly involved in the things going on.

        Wiki

      • by Nazlfrag (1035012) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @11:04PM (#34977814) Journal

        Yeah, that butchered video they released at the exact same time as they released the full, unedited, uncut video really ruined their reputation by making them suddenly world famous instead of an obscure site that only nerds like us knew anything about. Get a grip.

    • by JamesP (688957) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @05:20PM (#34975838)

      The real question is: Who's going to play Julian Assange's hair?!

    • by vadim_t (324782)

      Wouldn't see the harm from that, or the benefit really.

      I've read scripts before. They're generally dreadfully boring to read and in no way a replacement for watching the movie, with a few exceptions. In the exceptional cases they're interesting but only after watching the movie.

      For the contracts and audio recording, who gives a damn? And the film will definitely get torrented one way or another.

  • by RDW (41497) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @12:40PM (#34973656)
  • astounding ! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dolphinzilla (199489) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @12:41PM (#34973676) Journal

    And you guys thought Julian had a big ego before - honestly, the only way I'd ever waste a dime on this movie would be if Jim Carey played the lead role, and they did it as a comedy

    • so ? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by unity100 (970058)
      a lot of people in history had big egos, yet you still are using what breakthroughs and changes they have brought to this civilization without any issues.

      or, you though that all the prominent historical figures that have provided anything of value to the society took after mother theresa ...

      are you sure that, its not someone else's ego, but your own, getting irritated with someone else's ?
      • by Haedrian (1676506)

        Yeah, but celebrate their breakthroughs and changes, not the person. They should make a movie on the leaks themselves, not some inspirational film about J's life.

      • Re:so ? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Darkness404 (1287218) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @01:11PM (#34973960)
        Except for the fact that Assange isn't some great revolutionary. Yes, we can admire the fact that he started it, but that was it. He started it. He didn't leak documents. While Assange is important and is to be commended for starting such a site, he seems to get all the credit which he doesn't deserve. The real revolutionaries are those who leaked things like the Iraq War documents, the "collateral murder" video, the diplomatic cables, etc. all Assange did was host them, which, while noble, doesn't make him a revolutionary.
        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward

          revolutionary - A revolutionary is a person who either actively participates in, or advocates revolution. Also, when used as an adjective, the term revolutionary refers to something that has a major, sudden impact on society or on some aspect of human endeavour.

          So not only is Assange a revolutionary person, he allowed other revolutionary people (who possibly wouldn't have been courageous enough to do it without him) when he started wikileaks...which is also revolutionary.

        • Except for the fact that Assange isn't some great revolutionary.

          at their time, a lot of the revolutionaries were being dubbed with adjectives which wouldnt even compare to this 'ego' business. not to mention that, a minority of them were considered revolutionaries until a few centuries later, when history was written.

          moreover, the 'real revolutionaries' are the ones which leaked those videos, right. then answer me, why there were no such real revolutionaries, up till wikileaks, until someone provided those revolutionaries with the means to be a revolutionary ?

        • People brought up on the idea of the lone hero being responsible for everything really miss the point of an organisation actually carrying things out. It's the mindset where they think Edison actually invented the Edison light bulb when it was really one of his many technicians. They are the sort of people that really do think Al Gore invented the internet because he made money available for it to be done. Those are the sort of idiots that are blaming Assange for leaks in the US military, Kenyan governme
        • In a time of universal deceit - telling the truth is a revolutionary act
          George Orwell

        • That's like saying, it wasn't Lenin that was the great revolutionary, it was all the little Bolshevik soldiers and members who rose up and struck down Kerensky's provisional government.

          Yes, those people who did the actual leaks are significant figures, but you need someone to start it. That's what Assange did - he created a medium to release leaks, encouraged more and more whistleblowers and released in the information in a way to gain maximum publicity and exposure. There's a level of leadership involved i

        • I'm glad you see this. Sadly the U.S. government doesn't, or do but not admit it. They would rather use him as a scapegoat.

    • Assange'e ego (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FrankHS (835148) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @01:51PM (#34974294)

      I have heard a lot of people say that Assange has a big ego, is a narcissist etc. But when I actually listen to him speak he strikes me as a level headed guy.

      Why do so many people think he has a big ego?

      • Re:Assange'e ego (Score:5, Insightful)

        by countertrolling (1585477) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @02:45PM (#34974752) Journal

        Why do so many people think he has a big ego?

        That's the press talking. If he doesn't grant an interview, they get all pissed off and start making shit up to try to make him come out and deny, or whatever. Old trick.

      • by ewe2 (47163)

        He won't play their game. Not playing the game is bad, mkay.

      • Re:Assange'e ego (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ScentCone (795499) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @07:30PM (#34976640)
        But when I actually listen to him speak he strikes me as a level headed guy.

        Don't listen to what he says (or how he says it). Watch what he does (and doesn't do). Note the number of former associates/co-workers who've shared his stated purpose but found themselves highly annoyed by his condescending behavior towards them. Note his comments about how the papers he's giving the stolen documents to have to release them according to his plans, because "he owns them." He's all about him.
        • But when I actually listen to him speak he strikes me as a level headed guy. Don't listen to what he says (or how he says it). Watch what he does (and doesn't do). Note the number of former associates/co-workers who've shared his stated purpose but found themselves highly annoyed by his condescending behavior towards them. Note his comments about how the papers he's giving the stolen documents to have to release them according to his plans, because "he owns them." He's all about him.

          [citations needed]

      • by shiftless (410350)

        "Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." -- Albert Einstein

      • I have heard a lot of people say that Assange has a big ego, is a narcissist etc. But when I actually listen to him speak he strikes me as a level headed guy.

        Why do so many people think he has a big ego?

        From the picture that emerges in the media, Assange is generally good before a camera (not always [dailymail.co.uk]), and can charm people. However, people who know him, even his friends, generally recognize that he can be dismissive, abrasive, and is encumbered with an ego at least equal to his substantial programming talen

    • by Kenja (541830)
      Make up your mind! Do you want Jim Carey in the movie or do you want it to be a comedy?
    • by vadim_t (324782)

      What's his ego got to do with the movie? One's huge ego doesn't automatically result in a movie getting made, you know.

      If it does, I'm still waiting for mine!

  • Wow... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Haedrian (1676506)

    If his ego gets any bigger, his head will burst out of any cell they try to put him in.

    • If his ego gets any bigger, his head will burst out of any cell they try to put him in.

      He wears one of THESE [handcuffwarehouse.com] to prevent his head from separating from his body and floating away... But seriously, I hope the rape allegation finds a quick conclusion so we can regain some focus on the leaks rather than the leaker...

    • If his ego gets any bigger

      A producer made a deal with a writer, you parse that as "the subject the author chose has a big ego".

      Damn, people suck.

      • by Haedrian (1676506)

        We already knew that fact. This is just more proof for the giant pile.

        • We already knew that fact. This is just more proof for the giant pile.

          This isn't proof of anything you dumb sheep! HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS, you idiot.

  • I'll be interested if The Onion are doing the production.
  • Watching cash-in movies always makes you feel like a dirty whore.

    • by gmhowell (26755)

      Watching cash-in movies always makes you feel like a dirty whore.

      That's the closest most slashdotters will ever come to feeling like they've had sex.

  • by a Flatbed Darkly (1964478) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @12:54PM (#34973778)
    They're claiming the film rights from an unofficial biographer who, as far as I have heard, did not pay Assange or Wikileaks royalties, and only according to rumour paid them a one-time payment - in short, a biographer who may have paid Assange nothing. They're not claiming the film rights from Assange, or from Wikileaks, or from the Sunshine Press, or from any associated organization or person. Unless Assange or Wikileaks step in, they won't be making a penny and we'll have one more shitty current-events movie.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      In addition, as Assange's lawyer earlier condemned the biographies [twitter.com], and no one has their lawyer condemn things that they'll be profiting from, we have it near enough confirmed that, like Wikileaks or Assange or not, no money from this is going anywhere near them.
  • I'm surprised at how quickly movies about people's lives and current events make it to the big screen. Biographies out when a person is only 25...soon they will start releasing movies before they're even done...reminds me of Spaceballs.

    [Watching "Spaceballs: The Movie". They reach "now" in the movie.]
    Dark Helmet: What the hell am I looking at? When does this happen in the movie?
    Colonel Sandurz: You're looking at now, sir. Everything that happens now is happening now.
    Dark Helmet: What happened to then?
    Colone

  • by PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @01:03PM (#34973874)

    'The Most Dangerous Man in the World' ?

    "My name is Assange. Julian Assange. I have a license to leak."

    In the film he gets not one, but two Bond, oh, I mean two Assange girls. But then they accuse him of rape, and the film's plot goes downhill from there.

    • Wasn't "leaking" part of the problem with said Assange girls ?

      • by fluffy99 (870997)

        Wasn't "leaking" part of the problem with said Assange girls ?

        Wish I had to points to mod this funny. It's still ludicrous that consensual sex without a condom is considered rape in some countries. The rest of the world considers rape to be non-consensual sex (statutory rape is due to the believe that some people are incapable of consenting)

    • Except the title is already used for a documentary on The Pentagon Papers [mostdangerousman.org].

      It's a very dry documentary* but very interesting. Very scary how it parallels what is happening now. Except it happened in a time when the papers stood up to the federal government.

      *Compared to other stuff like: Food Inc, The Union, Super Size Me, Beer Wars, The Smartest Guys in the Room, etc

  • Instead of a movie about a wealthy kid making absurd amounts of money by selling snake oil. I love that the MSM became so enamored with facebook that Time magazine named facebook kid "person of the year" in spite of the fact that Julian Assange had 10 times the number of votes.
    • Well, do you really want to be in a list with Hitler, Stalin, Nixon, Kissinger, Khomeini, Bush and Putin?

      There are certain "honors" I can well do without.

      • Well, do you really want to be in a list with Hitler, Stalin, Nixon, Kissinger, Khomeini, Bush and Putin?

        There are other figures on the list who are also Nobel Peace Prize Recipients - Gandhi, MLK, Carter, and Lech Wasa, to name a few.

        There are certain "honors" I can well do without.

        Well, regardless, you have already been selected [wikipedia.org].

        That said, the award is supposed to be for the most influential person of the year, good or bad. However I cannot think of anything of merit that facebook boy has influenced. For pretty well each individual person on the list, good or bad, I can think of at least one important event that happened directly as a result of a ch

        • Of course, Kissinger is also a Nobel Peace Prize Recipient, so the GP might not want to be in that group, either.

    • the MSM became so enamored with facebook that Time magazine named facebook kid "person of the year" in spite of the fact that Julian Assange had 10 times the number of votes.

      Meh, *I* was person of the year before that.

      • the MSM became so enamored with facebook that Time magazine named facebook kid "person of the year" in spite of the fact that Julian Assange had 10 times the number of votes.

        Meh, *I* was person of the year before that.

        Really? You're Ben Bernanke? [wikipedia.org] Because I know I won it back in 2006 [wikipedia.org] - but I'm generous enough to share it...

    • by mqduck (232646)

      I still can't believe they made that movie. When I saw previews for it, I was 100% positive it was a joke, one of those "generic dramatic trailer" parodies about a mundane and unexciting subject. When I saw comments along the lines of "I can't wait to see this movie!", I laughed at them for not getting the joke.

  • I really hope this film is fact-based and honest, but I have a feeling its just going to be Hollywood climbing onto his dick for 2 hours.

  • by houghi (78078) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @01:35PM (#34974174)
  • bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by initialE (758110) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @01:41PM (#34974220)

    Whatever happened to waiting until the story is over to tell the tale? History used to be written by the winners, not by the ones vested in getting their opinion turned into the "correct" one.

    • Whatever happened to waiting until the story is over to tell the tale? History used to be written by the winners, not by the ones vested in getting their opinion turned into the "correct" one.

      I already posted so I cant mod this up, but this is a excellent point. Its pretty clear that the filmmakers already know which side of the issue they're going to present, regardless of what happens in the long term. Hopefully at some point a filmmaker will really get embarrassed by reality and they will take a more cautious approach in the future.

    • by Rary (566291)

      Whatever happened to waiting until the story is over to tell the tale?

      When exactly is it "over"? This is a story that will live much longer than Julian Assange. The movie, however, is about him.

      History used to be written by the winners...

      Who said anything about writing history? It's just a movie.

      Movies can be about many things. This one is about the life of Assange up to the creation of WikiLeaks. You can bet there will be others later on.

  • Eerie physical similarities...

  • by PPH (736903) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @02:05PM (#34974422)
    ... is already up. Posted on the State department's web site.
  • No wonder the condom broke.
    Bom chiga bow wa chiga bom wow!
    • Given that he won't get a cent from the movie (the author of the book didn't pay him royalties, and neither, it is likely, will the movie based on the book), that seems obvious.
      • by NiceGeek (126629)

        Why do you think that he's condemning the movie? Seems to me that Mr. Transparency wouldn't have a problem with a movie being made about him, even if he wasn't getting any $$$ from it.

  • "The book details Assange's life from his childhood on Magnetic Island in Queensland, Australia,"

    Hey class-mates here's a copy of tomorrow's test!

  • by phobos13013 (813040) on Sunday January 23, 2011 @03:33PM (#34975130)
    Let be honest folks, this is just the next step in the information war. It has nothing to do with telling the "real" story or giving us any understanding of the issues wikileaks revealed. Instead it is just an attempt to make a circus sideshow out of a non-issue. Meanwhile the foot soldiers throw their potshots as evidenced on the replys at slashdot and around the web. Worse yet, if it becomes a box office bomb (which i easily envision) it becomes a "who cares about assange" issue. The free-market will have spoken on what is more important in the information war....
  • They should also feature this guy http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/the-most-dangerous-man-in-cyberspace-20100818 [rollingstone.com] in it; otherwise without the tech, it's only half the story.

    If you ever read one article this year, this should be it. (Apologies to /.)

  • If you thought he got a lot of pussy now, just wait until he's on the silver screen, running from the Department of Defense like Harrison Ford in Patriot Games; chasing leads and evading trained killers like Liam Neeson in Taken; his loose hair moving around his face like Johnny Depp!

  • "the whistleblower website [in 2006] to publish classified material."

    The site was set up to publish confidential and/ or suppressed material. Most people equate "classified" with "government or military secret". While I'm sure there was an expectation that such material would become available, the target was (and is) much broader than just governments and military.

    Remember the first big news concerning Wikileaks? The attempt by a Swiss bank to bring it down for publicising the bank's illegal and/ or immora

IF I HAD A MINE SHAFT, I don't think I would just abandon it. There's got to be a better way. -- Jack Handley, The New Mexican, 1988.

Working...