Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies The Media United States Entertainment Politics

Julian Assange Pans WikiLeaks Movie 118

Posted by timothy
from the his-hair-looks-nothing-like-that dept.
As reported by news.com.au, Julian Assange has seen leaked copies of the script of an upcoming film depicting WikiLeaks, and blasts it as inaccurate propaganda. He says, among other things, "They tried to frame Iran as having an active nuclear weapons program. Then they try to frame WikiLeaks as the reason why that's not known to the public now." Says the article: "Assange declined to say where he got the script, although he hinted that he had been supplied with several copies of it over time. He also declined to say whether the script would be posted to the WikiLeaks website, saying only that "we are examining options closely.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Julian Assange Pans WikiLeaks Movie

Comments Filter:
  • blasts an (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nimbius (983462) on Saturday January 26, 2013 @12:35PM (#42700881) Homepage

    upcoming film depicting wikileaks

    I have bad news, but films are designed to sell advertising, tickets, and concessions food in that order. you dont achieve all these things by making an accurate depiction of a subject matter, you sensationalize it. among other things patently false in several other films:
    1. Abraham lincoln, neither vampire hunter nor martial arts expert
    2. transformers: cars do not in fact transform into killer robots.
    3. Jurrasic park: while UNIX is in fact quite useful in the administration of automated SCADA systems, no such systems have been constructed to date for the express purpose of housing genetically cloned dinosaurs, which also do not exist.
    4. zero dark thirty: "terror" is in fact not something a nation can declare war on or successfully claimed to have emerged the victor from.

    • Re:blasts an (Score:5, Insightful)

      by _KiTA_ (241027) on Saturday January 26, 2013 @01:00PM (#42700981) Homepage

      upcoming film depicting wikileaks

      I have bad news, but films are designed to sell advertising, tickets, and concessions food in that order. you dont achieve all these things by making an accurate depiction of a subject matter, you sensationalize it. among other things patently false in several other films:

      1. Abraham lincoln, neither vampire hunter nor martial arts expert

      2. transformers: cars do not in fact transform into killer robots.

      3. Jurrasic park: while UNIX is in fact quite useful in the administration of automated SCADA systems, no such systems have been constructed to date for the express purpose of housing genetically cloned dinosaurs, which also do not exist.

      4. zero dark thirty: "terror" is in fact not something a nation can declare war on or successfully claimed to have emerged the victor from.

      Ya know, I think I'd watch a parody movie about Wikileaks. One where Assange is a Cyborg Ninja from the 45th century, sent back to save the world from what the United States will become. But not while he's still alive. I guess I'm saying that my descendants would probably enjoy that movie.

      But 1, 2, 3 -- those are obviously based on fantasy. Not reality. This movie is ostensibly based on real people, real events. That puts it in a different light. It is held in a higher standard.

      Imagine a movie about Linus Torvalds, where he's portrayed as actively attempting to destroy America's economy by being a socialist communist pink fascist obsessed with "stealing" from American programmers, who put up a valiant and noble fight against him. Would suck, wouldn't it?

      As for #4, having not seen the latest "Rah Rah War is Awesome" movie there, nor do I really intend to. (I try to not support political assassination whenever possible.) I can only say that your comment on Zero Dark Thirty seems like more of a statement of fact about a real life policy enacted by the Bush Administration and continued by the Obama administration.

      Don't get me wrong, Zero Dark Thirty is probably the closest thing in that list to being relevant, but you miss a bigger point -- 0DT takes a very disgusting pro-torture stance, which is pure propaganda bordering on outright fantasy.

      We caught Bin Laden DESPITE using torture, not BECAUSE of it.

      • by Maudib (223520)

        Did you really call killing Osama a political assassination?

        " 0DT takes a very disgusting pro-torture stance, which is pure propaganda bordering on outright fantasy."

        How the hell do you know that if you haven't seen it?

      • When notable conservative warhawks like Nancy Pelosi bitch about Zero Dark Thirty's exaggerated US-handled torture scenes, you have to wonder.

      • by cffrost (885375)

        Don't get me wrong, Zero Dark Thirty is probably the closest thing in that list to being relevant, but you miss a bigger point -- 0DT takes a very disgusting pro-torture stance, which is pure propaganda bordering on outright fantasy.

        I didn't get that impression. Further, on The Colbert Report on 2013-01-22, the director called torture "reprehensible," and indicated that the depictions were included in order to avoid whitewashing history.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      This appears to be a propoganda film. So is Zero Dark Thirty.

      IANAL. When companies create movies about people who are alive, and events that are still being ajudicated, they are interfering with due process. Who knows what fallacy will be used against Julian Assange as a result.

      Note that Kevin Mitnick was imprisoned in solitary confinement after a judge was convinced that he could just whistle into a phone and launch nulcear weapons. The idea that was pitched to the judge was based on the movie "War Gam

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by gmuslera (3436)
      I have worse news. That movie comes from the propaganda factory of the powers that be, exactly the ones that want to imprint into public opinion that Wikileaks is something evil that only spread lies. Not exactly surprised about what Assagne said about it.
    • by sheetsda (230887) <doug.sheets@gmai l . c om> on Saturday January 26, 2013 @01:55PM (#42701379)

      1. Abraham lincoln, neither vampire hunter nor martial arts expert

      [citation needed]

  • So there's probably a tie-in to the US government. I'm just not certain who is calling the shots.

  • Lies vs Truth (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ohnocitizen (1951674) on Saturday January 26, 2013 @12:39PM (#42700899)
    A film based on the actual events surrounding Wikileaks could have been compelling material. They could touch on Manning's plight in jail, on the embassy drama, the fights within the organization, etc. By choosing to fabricate key elements of the plot to push an agenda that is anti-wikileaks and pro war with Iran, Dreamworks is passing up a massive opportunity as a studio, and opening themselves up to a PR nightmare.
    • Re:Lies vs Truth (Score:5, Insightful)

      by hsmith (818216) on Saturday January 26, 2013 @01:07PM (#42701021)

      a PR nightmare

      By whom? Almost all Americans don't care about Julian Assange or Bradley Manning - they probably don't even know who the two are if you didn't mention Wikileaks in the same sentence.

      Now, back to the news - what is important, did Beyonce lipsync?

      • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Saturday January 26, 2013 @01:43PM (#42701275) Homepage Journal

        WTF is Beyonce?

      • The above comment is more true than funny.

        I can't watch Mobster movies with the same verve of "gotta get those guys" now that I know how our banking system guarantees winners.

        I can't watch some show about people with bad accents and -- ooh, shudder, they are "terrorists" because these WMDs and improvised explosive devices are no match for Nukes and white phosphorous bombs.

        The CIA is just corporate espionage, the FBI is after MP3s rather than CEOs who do more damage, the FDA covers for drug companies and I'm

      • Sherlock homes is in wikileaks movie lol.
    • A film based on the actual events surrounding Wikileaks could have been compelling material.

      And the unedited helicopter gunship video that brought wikileaks mainstream attention would have been compelling material too. Unfortunately wikileaks saw an opportunity to get the press attention that they desired and to further the political agenda that they desired. So they edited out the scenes where guys could be seen holding weapons. The journalists walking around with armed insurgents was an inconvenient truth for their narrative. An inaccurate portrayal of wikileaks is fitting since they were are al

      • by ScentCone (795499)
        This
      • by jez9999 (618189)

        So they edited out the scenes where guys could be seen holding weapons.

        Weapons that could take down a helicopter gunship?

        • by drnb (2434720)

          So they edited out the scenes where guys could be seen holding weapons.

          Weapons that could take down a helicopter gunship?

          Actually, yes. One guy had an RPG.

          However that does not really matter. The helicopter was out there to protect ground troops. There had just been a firefight between insurgents and US troops in that area.

  • by Dan East (318230)

    They tried to frame Iran as having an active nuclear weapons program

    Apparently Assange sat down with Ayatollah Khamenei and got his assurances that Iran is not seeking a nuclear weapon? Or perhaps he snuck in and examined their facilities? Shew, that's a relief. I think we can all rest easier now now the Jules has settled this matter for us.

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by cold fjord (826450)

      Shew, that's a relief. I think we can all rest easier now now the Jules has settled this matter for us.

      I'll say.

      IAEA Releases New Report on Iran’s Nuclear Program [fas.org]
      Iran’s Top Atomic Official Says Nation Issued False Nuclear Data to Fool Spies [nytimes.com]
      China Leader Warns Iran Not to Make Nuclear Arms [nytimes.com]

      • That post is offtopic? Hardly.

        From the fine story post:

        "They tried to frame Iran as having an active nuclear weapons program. Then they try to frame WikiLeaks as the reason why that's not known to the public now."

        Both of Assange's assertions are false as shown above. Iran isn't being framed, they do have an actual active nuclear weapons program, including design and testing of implosion based warhead components. What they have yet to do, so far as is publicly known, is to actually produce a real warhead. Anyone reading the papers, as shown in the parent post, or other sources [foxnews.com], knows this. If fact, Iran may be making a move to surge their efforts [foxnews.com]. This isn'

      • by wmac1 (2478314)

        1- CIA and other intelligence agencies have expressed several times that Iran does NOT have an active nuclear weapons program. No one has ever proved them to have such an active program.

        2- All nuclear material in Iran is under 24hours IAEA supervision and accounted for. IAEA has never complained about considerable (more than a few grams) of material missing.

        3- Iran has not enriched Uranium at military levels (i.e. more than 24%). There has been one occasion in which an slightly higher enriched trace was fou

        • I'm afraid you've got some bad data. Allow me to refer you to this document from the IAEA which lists a number of activities connected with the design, fabrication, and testing of nuclear weapons, and developing nuclear materials. That 24 hour IAEA supervision you refer to isn't consistent with what is in the document - they are concerned about the growing number of hidden Iranian nuclear facilities. I suggest you read the Annex, from which I've extracted some relevant information. Sections C4 and forwa

          • by wmac1 (2478314)

            I still don't find any reference to unsupervised "nuclear material" (i.e. what NPT is about) except those very small amounts mentioned here "late 1970s and early 1980s, and continuing into the 1990s and 2000s" which is referring to a decade ago. Currently all the fissile material is under supervision.

            Conducting tests with highly explosives (non-nuclear material) and missiles is not covered by NPT agreements.

      • undoing moderation.
  • by whoever57 (658626) on Saturday January 26, 2013 @01:13PM (#42701061) Journal
    For a complete discussion, just read this story [slashdot.org]
    • by LuSiDe (755770)

      One major difference is Steve Jobs (the main subject) has passed away whereas Julian Assange isn't only very well alive, his story (pun intended) isn't over yet. With a story based heavily on (controversial) history, the story is too fresh. The dust should settle in first.

  • UN Security Council (Score:4, Informative)

    by Enderandrew (866215) <enderandrew@noSPam.gmail.com> on Saturday January 26, 2013 @01:13PM (#42701063) Homepage Journal

    7 times the UN security council has unanimously voted that they have evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons and ordered them to stop. If they're being framed, they're being framed in such a way that every single member of the security council has it confirmed by their own intelligence agencies.

    And yet Assange individually knows better than all of these intelligence agencies. If he had actual proof of that, that would be a fantastic thing to leak. I don't believe he does.

    • by wmac1 (2478314)

      Stop there.

      "UN security council has unanimously voted that they have evidence that Iran is enriching uranium for weapons and ordered them to stop"

      Is that a joke?

      UN voted that they have enriched Uranium for weapons? Iran has never enriched above 20% level. Show me your proof or I call a huge bullshit.

  • by Max_W (812974) on Saturday January 26, 2013 @02:10PM (#42701497)
    The Soviet bureaucrats learned hard way that keeping such phenomenons as Andrei Sakharov, Anatoly Sharansky, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in prison is like trying to kill a mockingbird.

    The US and UK bureaucrats should cut losses, learn lessons and leave Julian and Bradley alone. Let them go wherever they wish while still there is time. They are just too big to be kept down like this. Not good to attract attention to them any longer.

    It the USA and UK go berserk the whole world will turn into a zoo.
  • by Greyfox (87712) on Saturday January 26, 2013 @03:00PM (#42702031) Homepage Journal
    He's just holding out for Brad Pitt to be cast as the role of Julian. Then I bet he'll change his tune. The final cut of the movie will be 5 minutes of explosions followed by 90 minutes of Brad Pitt crashing on a couch in an embassy somewhere.
  • On one flight I had the misfortune to watch the atrocious remake of The Italian Job. Paramount spent a significant amount of that film bashing Napster and Shawn Fanning.
  • So, he gets a leak about his site that's made of leaked material, but won't post the script of the movie about it FRONT PAGE as soon as received? What an hypocritical imbecile.

  • by Martin Spamer (244245) on Sunday January 27, 2013 @06:47PM (#42710565) Homepage Journal

    This will cost me karma but when will his fanbois finally understand his ego knows no bounds.

    He fell out with with Daniel Domscheit-Berg and other co-founders of Wikileaks.

    He fell out with his Alan Smithee his autobiographer.

    He fell out with the Guardian Newspaper.

    And now he's fallen out with Dreamworks.

God made machine language; all the rest is the work of man.

Working...