Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Julian Assange Should Embrace 'The Fifth Estate'

timothy posted 1 year,13 days | from the smear-jobs-are-delicious dept.

Movies 194

Nerval's Lobster writes "It's no secret that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has a low opinion of the new film, "The Fifth Estate," in which he's portrayed by Benedict Cumberbatch. He's railed against it several times, culminating in a lengthy statement (posted Oct. 9) in which he called it 'a geriatric snoozefest that only the US government could love.' That's in addition to a letter in which he refused to meet with Cumberbatch, saying that the script would force the actor to give a 'talented, but debauched, performance.' WikiLeaks and Assange are clearly attempting a bit of damage control ahead of the film's Oct. 11 release in the U.K. (followed by its U.S. debut on Oct. 18). But what if that pushback is the wrong reaction? That's not to say that Assange should gleefully embrace the film —the script portrays him as something of a hustler who freely lies about his past. Whatever its qualities, however, the film could get people talking about WikiLeaks' role in the broader geopolitical context, and that's ultimately a good thing for the organization: It's been quite some time since Assange and company have provided the world with an explosive, game-changing revelation. If nothing else, Assange can take some cold comfort from the case of Mark Zuckerberg, who faced similar issues when the David Fincher-directed 'The Social Network' made its debut in 2010; Facebook's PR team was probably preparing for the worst as the release date approached, but the film — despite its impressive box office, and the awards it won — ultimately did little to harm either the real-life Zuckerberg's reputation or Facebook's continuing growth."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Being portrayed as a liar... (2)

Anathem (1983388) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093393)

...cannot be a good thing for his credibility, no matter what geopolitical issues it brings to the fore.

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093563)

Actually lying and being caught lying didn't stop Congress or Grand Dictator-for-life Baraq Hussein Sotero from being re-elected. I also don't see Clapper or any of Big Intelligence being forced to step down for repeatedly lying to the people or the leadership.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093693)

Grand Dictator-for-life Baraq Hussein Sotero

Get over yourself. People said the exact same thing about George W Bush.

The President is nothing but a figurehead to distract you from the real source of problems.

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45095609)

Grand Dictator-for-life Baraq Hussein Sotero

Get over yourself. People said the exact same thing about George W Bush.

The President is nothing but a figurehead to distract you from the real source of problems.

But when peoples said such thing of Bush, he was liking the guy. Big difference!

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (3, Interesting)

TWiTfan (2887093) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093847)

Being portrayed as a liar...by Daniel Domscheit-Berg

FTFY. Daniel Domscheit-Berg is behind this movie, as he was the book [amazon.com] on which it's based. And it's my strong suspicion that Berg was either a CIA or FBI plant at WikiLeaks. He began sabotaging the operation almost from day one, attempted (successfully) to destroy many of its documents, and has actively participated in the concerted effort to discredit Assange ever since he got canned.

I would call him a "traitor," but that would imply that he was ever an actual ally.

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (3, Informative)

TWiTfan (2887093) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093967)

Oh, and I should also mention that he tried to set up a leaks site of his own after he left that looked suspiciously like a honeypot operation. Just send your documents and identities to our secretive and closed-source system and trust us to pass it on to the press (yeah, right). Fortunately, it failed [slashdot.org] , hopefully because no one was stupid enough to trust Daniel Domscheit-Berg.

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (4, Funny)

guru42101 (851700) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094001)

Well who's going to trust someone whose last name looks like 'dumb shit berg'.

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094039)

Just send your documents and identities to our secretive and closed-source system and trust us to pass it on to the press (yeah, right).

Pretty much exactly what Wikileaks tells people...

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094069)

Except WikiLeaks actually published their documents for the world to see, and made it crystal clear by their actions that they were the real deal and not just a honeypot.

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (0, Troll)

HornWumpus (783565) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094431)

The 'real deal' has been cryptome sense before wikileaks was started.

Wikileaks is cryptome plus a self promoting douche. Wikileaks was like MS, showing up late and declaring themselves the center of the universe.

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45095127)

The 'real deal' has been cryptome sense before wikileaks was started.

Wikileaks is cryptome plus a self promoting douche. Wikileaks was like MS, showing up late and declaring themselves the center of the universe.

Im Sure You Mean Apple Inc.

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (1)

Uberbah (647458) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094485)

And WikiLeaks hasn't outed their sources. Manning wasn't betrayed by Asange, but by Lamo, who looks like a drugged up informant if there ever was one.

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094897)

Lamo turned in Manning before Assange leaked anything other than the "Collateral Murder" video. Assange leaked the rest of the documents knowing full well what it would mean for Manning.

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (1)

I'm New Around Here (1154723) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094879)

I'm still waiting for the Russian information that they promised a few years ago. Whatever became of that story?

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094545)

So, how long have you been sucking Assange's dick before he rapes a woman?

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094591)

How is he supposed to suck Assange's dick with your ass in the way?

Re:Being portrayed as a liar... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45095373)

Hear hear! Assange wouldn't want anyone gettign the right idea...

What Assange REALLY needs (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093411)

What Assange should embrace is a better legal team to get him out of the embassy.

Re:What Assange REALLY needs (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093505)

What Assange should embrace is a better legal team to get him out of the embassy.

Do laws matter for governments anymore?

Sounds familiar (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093427)

That's in addition to a letter in which he refused to meet with Cumberbatch, saying that the script would force the actor to give a 'talented, but debauched, performance.'

That sounds vaguely like the changes against Assange in Sweden .... talented but debauched performance.

Re:Sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094287)

Hey, I thought it was funny... Us ACs have to stick together against mod point bigotry.

Re: Sounds familiar (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094477)

Burn in hell, rape enabler!

Re:Sounds familiar (-1)

HornWumpus (783565) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094467)

'Talented'? Perhaps for an Australian. Did you read what the women said about his 'performance'.

Well duh... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093453)

but the film — despite its impressive box office, and the awards it won — ultimately did little to harm either the real-life Zuckerberg's reputation or Facebook's continuing growth.

It's a movie, it's made for entertainment purposes.

It's not meant to be taken seriously, so as long as the party being fun of doesn't, neither will the audience.

But with Assange throwing a hissyfit over this one, people will start to wonder...

Re:Well duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093537)

Oh I see.

Richard the III was made as a play, for entertainment, and it's stained him as a villain for all of history.

Re:Well duh... (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093679)

How many plays have been forgotten to time compared to how many have actually influenced public opinion? Odds are this movie will be good to rake in a few million bucks over the next couple years and be forgotten within a decade outside of certain niche political history classes.

Re:Well duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093585)

It's not meant to be taken seriously, so as long as the party being fun of doesn't, neither will the audience.

You seem to have a remarkably high view of the moviegoing public.

Re:Well duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093689)

No, I just expect the moviegoing public to suffer from extreme ADD, and forget everything a day or two after they've watched the movie.

Unless someone provokes the memory, like this guy throwing a fit over it is bound to do.

Re:Well duh... (4, Insightful)

FreeUser (11483) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093793)

It's a movie, it's made for entertainment purposes.

It's not meant to be taken seriously, so as long as the party being fun of doesn't, neither will the audience.

History would indicate otherwise. The move "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson took terrible liberties with history, painting the British to be far worse than they ever were. One example, the movie contains a scene where locals were rounded up, herded into a church, and burned alive (with the church). This happened...in France, during world war II. So Mel Gibson and his writers took a Nazi atrocity perpetrated in France, and portrayed it as an atrocity committed by the British against Americans, when no such thing ever happened.

Similiar falsehoods were spread in another Mel Gibson movie, Braveheart, regarding the Scottish rising up against the English (true) in reaction to various English atrocities against the Scots portrayed in the movie that were demonstrably false and never happened.

The result in both cases: acts of intimidation, threats, and in some cases violence against the English by Americans (in the case of "The Patriot") and the Scots (in the case of "Braveheart"). These type of historical falsehoods are not rejected by audiences, and are in some cases taken very seriously. If similar falsehoods are being spread about Wikileaks and Julian Assange, then he is right to be pissed off, and right to push back.

Re:Well duh... (1, Flamebait)

HornWumpus (783565) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094531)

No. The burned church full of people happened in the USA during the revolutionary war.

It didn't involve 'what's his fuck', the villain in 'the Patriot' who is also the hero in much English fiction.

I'll trust the Scots before I ever trust the English regarding Scottish history.

Re:Well duh... (1)

David_Hart (1184661) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094669)

No. The burned church full of people happened in the USA during the revolutionary war.

It didn't involve 'what's his fuck', the villain in 'the Patriot' who is also the hero in much English fiction.

I'll trust the Scots before I ever trust the English regarding Scottish history.

I'll trust a history book or even a documentary before I trust a movie to get facts right.

Really... who the hell watches a movie to get the unvarnished truth or history? Whoever you are, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you....

Re:Well duh... (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45095227)

That's because, whether you like it or not, a lot of people are - get ready for it - 'sheep' and easily influenced. Why do you think those in power crave more? Because they know this. A quick look throughout history will confirm this.

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that a majority of people don't want to think critically - too much effort involved. Some might say that this is a human trait, but I disagree - it's the trait of a weak-willed and easily controlled mind. Alas, I don't see this changing anytime soon (well, at least in my lifetime).

Re:Well duh... (4, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094281)

But with Assange throwing a hissyfit over this one, people will start to wonder...

How would you feel if you had started a movement that you truly believed it, only to have some filmmaker come along and try to discredit that movement on the big screen by smearing your personal life with a cartoonish, exaggerated, and sometimes downright fictional portrayal (based on the work of a guy who had betrayed said moment, no less)? I can understand why he might be more than a little pissed at that.

Re:Well duh... (1)

thewolfkin (2790519) | 1 year,13 days | (#45095567)

It's a movie, it's made for entertainment purposes.

It's not meant to be taken seriously

yeah we have a long tradition of not following that schema.

You can't get everything you want (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093455)

I say he should embrace the film as one of the inevitable results of attempting to somehow be an attention-seeker while simultaneously hiding from anyone and anything that doesn't completely agree with his ideals. There's only so much you can do to control the public's perception of your character, true, but you throw even that away if you hide from public view and only defend yourself in secrecy.

Publicity gains... (1)

djupedal (584558) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093481)

Don't. Stop. Don't. Stop. Don't . . . stop. Don't stop.

Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093485)

And Julian Assange is their Osama. There I said it.

These guys employ terrorist tactics, and act like they are above any law. That's terrorism, that's wikileaks.

Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (1)

SJHillman (1966756) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093633)

Our good friends at Mirriam-Webster define terrorism as "the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal".

I get the political goal part, but I'm really not seeing any sort of violent acts or fearmongering.

He's closer to being just another dickwad politician than he is a terrorist.

Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094781)

You don't see the acts of violence perpetrated by the american terrorists^Wgovernment all over the world to further the american corporate^Wpolitical goals? Then you must be blind.

Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (5, Insightful)

TheCarp (96830) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093647)

> These guys employ terrorist tactics,

Citation needed. What have the blown up? How many people have they taken hostage and/or beheaded? Or do you just mean they keep secrets? In which case every teenager is a terrorist.

> act like they are above any law

Citation needed. Above any law? Would that be when he (not wikileaks the org) offered to meet with prosecutors, just not in their custody on their terms....for mere "questioning"? Would that be when he asked for legal assylum from another country over concerns that the prosecution was a thinly veiled attempt to extradite him for other reasons?

> That's terrorism

who is being terrorized exactly? War criminals? Banksters? Politicians? People with dirty secrets hiding evidence of their own crimes?

I have seen a number of wikileaks, going back before the government leaks, back when it was all banks and companies and their dirty dealings. I have yet to see anything from them I would call terrorism.

Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (2)

Uberbah (647458) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094403)

Would that be when he (not wikileaks the org) offered to meet with prosecutors, just not in their custody on their terms....for mere "questioning"?

He's even offered to return to Sweden, if Sweden promises not to hand him over to the United States. That Sweden refuses to do so tells you all you need to know about what their intentions actually are and how much of a shit they give about the allegations.

Which is also a brave move on Asange's part, because while Sweden has great hippie health care and education, their justice system is straight up authoritarian. The state can hold suspects for extended periods of time without bail, and also incommunicado. So if Asange goes back he could be held for months without outside contact or an attorney.

Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094823)

Would that be when he (not wikileaks the org) offered to meet with prosecutors, just not in their custody on their terms....for mere "questioning"?

He's even offered to return to Sweden, if Sweden promises not to hand him over to the United States. That Sweden refuses to do so tells you all you need to know about what their intentions actually are and how much of a shit they give about the allegations.

It mostly tells me that Sweden respects the principle of legality more than you do. In Sweden extradition requests are negotiated before a court. What you want is the government to tell the judge what the outcome of such a case should be. That may work in Mother Russia but it doesn't fly in Sweden.

Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (1)

TheCarp (96830) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094935)

No, that was only one option presented, they could conduct their questioning (not trial, or anything else) on neutral ground. Or does respecting the principle of legality extend to countries which you are not in and mean you must expose yourself to their legal system if they make an accusation, even if you are not within their country?

Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45095455)

him as something of a hustler who freely lies about his past

This isn't completely inaccurate, the fact remains he continues to take full credit and has seemingly, in his own egotistical way acts as if he is a savior of wikileaks/whitleblowers. There was an investigation by FrontLine and or a documentary on the sundance channel that showed who was really responsible for 90% of the information that ended up on wikileaks, and Assange flat out denies ever knowing these people, but it is ridiculously easy to find evidence that he was closely connected to these people.

Obviously one could argue that he was trying to protect or deflect attention away from his sources, but when they're willing to be interviewed by a reporter without blacking out there faces, they never wanted to protected to begin with.

And I agree with your comments, but you have people that buy into government propaganda and the whole ridiculous notion of patriotism (which really is similar to religion) that claim this type of reporting supports terrorism, or whatever else there minds conjure up.

Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45095573)

Citation needed.

Go back to Wikipedia and continue masturbating as you edit. Idiot.

Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093719)

So... what civilians have they targetted and killed? Destroyed any public buildings? Held people for ransom? I mean, even if they have caused harm, 'Terrorist' still technically has a meaning. In what way are Wikileaks terrorists, rather than 'dangerous people I don't like'?

Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093729)

Wow, so much stupidity packed in so few sentences! Congratulations!

Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (1)

The Rizz (1319) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093807)

These guys employ terrorist tactics, and act like they are above any law. That's terrorism

I thought that was governments and corporations?

Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (1)

TWiTfan (2887093) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094479)

These guys employ terrorist tactics, and act like they are above any law.

Sure, the NSA is bad, but what was your point about Assange?

Thank you folks, I'll be here all week.

Re:Wikileaks = Terrorist Organization (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45095315)

Alexander? Is that you?

Up With Wikileaks (4, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093533)

I hope that Wikileaks can continue to get information to the public. I suspect that government agents have infested WikiLeaks in every way they can and wonder if Wikileaks can still function.

Er, wait what? (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093541)

the case of Mark Zuckerberg, who faced similar issues when the David Fincher-directed 'The Social Network' made its debut in 2010; Facebook's PR team was probably preparing for

Taking extra money showers, then wiping their arse with $100 bills? Please! The entire business model of Facebook has been around monetization. They don't care about reputation as long as it sells. "Zuckerberg is evil! Buy this book!" Er, ok. "Zuckerberg is God! Buy this book!" Er, ok. Either way... the book is bought.

Re:Er, wait what? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094065)

The reason The Social Network had no effect on Zuckerberg's reputation was because it portrayed him as a kinda-douchey, hard-working, intelligent dork. This was exactly what people assumed he was.

Re:Er, wait what? (1)

thewolfkin (2790519) | 1 year,13 days | (#45095607)

exactly the struggles of Facebook are not the struggles of Wikileaks.. two separate situations.

go4t (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093581)

Out how to make the will recall that it centralized models may be hurtinG the Trying to %dissect

TEA PARTY FOLDS !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093587)

Cries uncle !! "We had no idea what we were doing. Sorry for that. We good?" !!

Asangeption (0, Troll)

dadelbunts (1727498) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093601)

Hes probably just mad that its not him playing himself in the movie. Even with Wikileaks he made it about Julian Asange instead of about the leaks.

Re:Asangeption (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093829)

Hes probably just mad that its not him playing himself in the movie. Even with Wikileaks he made it about Julian Asange instead of about the leaks.

Interesting that even a year ago, this comment would have resulted in "troll" or "falmebait"... How times change...

Re:Asangeption (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094383)

Hes probably just mad that its not him playing himself in the movie. Even with Wikileaks he made it about Julian Asange instead of about the leaks.

Interesting that even a year ago, this comment would have resulted in "troll" or "falmebait"... How times change...

American government propaganda. Your (well, American) tax dollars at work.

Re: Asangeption (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094407)

Also, Assange was reluctant to be the face of WikiLeaks. "We steal secrets" (considered to be anti-Assange) recognized and spelt out his reluctance to be the face of WikiLeaks ... But let's not get fact (including the reporter that pushed him into the role) get in the way of an entertaining Slashdot post.

I a Also think of Assange as a dick, but one who did a good service.

Re:Asangeption (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094251)

And that's important to anything how?

Tautologies (1)

Uberbah (647458) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094319)

Even with Wikileaks he made it about Julian Asange instead of about the leaks.

Repeating an assertion without evidence doesn't make it true. How has Asange made it about himself - it's not like he asked the Swedish government to cook up a witch hunt as a pretext to hand him over to the United States, after he asked for and was given permission to leave the country.

Re:Tautologies (1, Troll)

HornWumpus (783565) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094579)

He had a choice: Donate money to Cryptome or start a competing site with the same purpose but with himself as a figurehead.

I'm guessing he thought he would get laid more by starting Wikileaks.

Cumberbatch? Really? (2)

mister_handy (1807584) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093613)

Thanks to the casting choice of this movie, If I ever meet Julian Assange, I am going to walk up to him and say "KHAN!!!!!"

Can't beat 'em (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093623)

So they might as well make a movie about him instead. Character assassination and a profit, everyone wins.

Rewriting the facts (3, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093653)

Seems to me this is a pretty good attempt for the media to portray Assange any way they like. The public will lap it up and believe every bit of it, regardless of it's true-to-life accuracy. It's a lot easier to vilify people when you have the masses on your side already.

Re:Rewriting the facts (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094915)

You mean kinda like Assange picks the leaks he releases to portray others the way he likes?

Overrated? (0)

MaWeiTao (908546) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093701)

Assange's reaction is interesting because everything I've seen about that movie led me to believe it was going to be an overly positive portrayal.

While I think Wikileaks is a good thing for the world, I also think Assange is an attention whore and mostly self-serving. I've found it rather obnoxious the way he's been deified by some in the press. He's not the one putting his neck on the line to disclose secret information, but he's wrapped his whole personality around it. People have been leaking information well before the advent of Wikileaks. It's not like the service is the be all and end all for anything. There are a million and one channels for making information public this just makes it somewhat more convenient.

Re:Overrated? (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094259)

While I think Wikileaks is a good thing for the world, I also think Assange is an attention whore and mostly self-serving.

High profile people tend to have large egos. Go figure.

He's not the one putting his neck on the line to disclose secret information,

And yet he *is* stuck in an embassy for reasons that defy any real logic, stemming from a case that has been prosecuted in a truly baffling manner.

Just one example would be the level of commitment the UK police have demonstrated in ensuring he stays in that embassy -- a 24x7 stakeout for coming up on 16 months at cost of around 300,000 GPB per month... so closing in on 5 million GPB for a guy accused of something ranging from a misdemeanor sexual assault to something like date-rape.

Not that I condone date rape or think he should get away with it... but 1 in 4 college women surveyed are victims of rape or attempted rape... how many UK rape victims could they have investigated with 5 million GPB?

One would think it would be pretty hard to justify that budget for keeping one penned up in an embassy for years on end over a sexual misconduct in another country for which the evidence ultimately amounts to he-said she-said.

Re:Overrated? (0)

onyxruby (118189) | 1 year,13 days | (#45095291)

How many date rapists are high profile and hide out in embassies openly defying the law? Date rape is something that the take fairly seriously in Britain. It's a violent crime from someone accused of two different sexual assaults that refuses to face justice. They certainly aren't spending the money to keep him /in/ the embassy, as they would far rather he come out so that he could answer for the crimes he has been accused of.

As for your 1 in 4 figure [blogspot.com] , you might want to find a figure that wasn't an urban legend propagated by the NOW.

Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093713)

It's no secret that the US military has a close relationship with hollywood at times. They loan military hardware for use as props, in return for assurances that the movies will portray them in a good way. This isn't a shadowy backroom dealing - a few minutes googling will show it's all done out in the open. There is even a small department within the Pentagon, the Film Liaison Office, dedicated to the task.

So is it possible that someone pressured the studios involved (Principly Dreamworks) to make sure that Assange was shown in a suitably scoundral-like manner? I'm not talking about anything serious like threats of jail for no-cooperating, just a reminder that studios which insult the military or lend support to wanted enemies of the state are not going to be getting any of those oh-so-useful support agreements in future. 'If you make Assange look good, don't come to us next time you want to film scenes on an aircraft carrier.'

Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (1)

Motard (1553251) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093913)

Hollywood certainly has had no problem making the US Military look like boobs in any number of films. I think it's only the movies where they need to use fighter jets, or tanks and the like, that they need to play nice.

Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (4, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093917)

Well, you touch on something pretty obvious which is close to what I was going to state. This movie, like the other mentioned Zuckerberg film, is a propaganda tool.

The MIC, as you mentioned, does have ties to Hollywood. Historically movies have been put out to "sell war" and FUD about alleged enemies of the US. Those ties have grown in the last couple decades, and its honestly rare not to find propaganda in movies (if you look). The themes, items shown, etc... are all done intentionally. People argue that it's "all for money" and all the connections to propaganda are accidental, but would a studio full of professional's making multiple millions of dollars really be doing things "accidentally"? By the way, many books are the same way. They must be vetted and rewritten to suite someone's taste and not just the story the Author is trying to present.

So Assange is shown as a person to hate in this movie. Zuckerberg, even though there is much controversy about his beginnings and what he stole to get a company going, was presented as a good guy. Those are the messages they want people to get out of the movie. Whistle blowers are evil bad people, while those that hand all your data to the Government are the good guys.

There is much to study in subliminal messages in movies. Numerous books are out there showing how they do things, in addition to videos showing you what you may have missed seeing in movies but your subconscious picks up.

I'll close with something I already stated for the doubters. Do you really believe that people making millions upon millions of dollars have movies full of "accidents" or unintentional messages and content? That is not a realistic thought process, yet many have it.

Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (2)

DerekLyons (302214) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094275)

Historically movies have been put out to "sell war" and FUD about alleged enemies of the US.

In tinfoil-hat land maybe, in the real world... not so much.
 

I'll close with something I already stated for the doubters. Do you really believe that people making millions upon millions of dollars have movies full of "accidents" or unintentional messages and content? That is not a realistic thought process, yet many have it.

Having seen how much is routinely read into things ex post facto (sometimes by decades or centuries), I find it trivial to belief that such things happen. (Not to mention the vast effort it would require to control every single tiny thing said and seen onscreen - an effort it would be virtually impossible to hide over time.) In short, this is just more tinfoil hat nonsense.

Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094443)

Historically movies have been put out to "sell war" and FUD about alleged enemies of the US.

In tinfoil-hat land maybe, in the real world... not so much.

Are you kidding me? Check out all the propanda films about WW2. You need to leave oblivious-hat land and at least visit tinfoil-hat land or even real-world land once in a while.

Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094919)

This is the western world! only commies use propaganda! the shit i swallow blindly is on the other hand facts and reality!

Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (2)

s.petry (762400) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094833)

Historically movies have been put out to "sell war" and FUD about alleged enemies of the US.

In tinfoil-hat land maybe, in the real world... not so much.

You are going to try and deny reality that is proven over your belief? Really? It is no secret that Hollywood worked for the MIC during WW II, The Korean War, and Vietnam War. This fact is most definitely not a conspiracy, it is reality. This is a reality you may not wish to hear or see, but the reality does exist.

If you knew of a book that showed how advertising uses subliminal messaging would you change your mind and consider that it could also happen in movies, or hide from that reality too? Here [redicecreations.com] , Here [businessinsider.com] , Here [amazon.com] , and Here [davidicke.com] for starters. Those are just the tip of the iceberg mind you, and found in a 5 second Google search.

Denying reality to maintain a delusion is fine because we all do this. When you post in a public forum you are trying to persuade others to live in your delusion, and that is not fine.

For posterity, we all have delusions. It's how we make sense of the world and rationalize what we don't understand. Please don't take that comment as labeling you or insulting you, as that was not the intent.

Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45095241)

Historically movies have been put out to "sell war" and FUD about alleged enemies of the US.

In tinfoil-hat land maybe, in the real world... not so much.

This year we discovered that tinfoil-hat land and the real world are the same place.

Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094441)

Having actually written things and participated in literary analysis, I can assure you that the first thing you learn is to smile and nod once people start cooing about all the subtle undertones and hidden meanings.

I once wrote a poem about spring that was then touted as being about denied love. People make of movies/books/poems/art what they will. I can guarantee you that your audience will read into whatever you produce whatever meaning they are looking for and most of there is no more 'truth' behind it than there is to the idea of playing rock records backwards telling you burn puppies and kick kittens.

Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094603)

. Do you really believe that people making millions upon millions of dollars have movies full of "accidents" or unintentional messages and content? That is not a realistic thought process, yet many have it.

In China, many people felt that the movie Avatar was social commentary about the occupation of Tibet. It got to the point where the government cancelled all 2D showings (about 4500 screens) leaving only the 3D version to play in much smaller number of theaters. Who really knows what was in Cameron's head, but it sure seems unlikely that Tibet was the focus of the movie. Just because some films are propaganda doesn't mean that everything in a film is propaganda.

http://www.chinasmack.com/2010/stories/avatar-movie-chinese-reactions-long-lines-shanghai.html [chinasmack.com]

Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45095539)

I don't think you have chosen the right example for your point. While Avatar wasn't about China and Tibet specifically, it was quite obviously and intentionally parable about struggle of small nation against colonial imperial power. As such the analogy with China/Tibet or American settlers/Native people isn't something I would call misunderstanding on the part of audience.

Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (1)

steelfood (895457) | 1 year,13 days | (#45095069)

To concur with your point, professional storytellers have no unintentional messages and content. Most of their education revolves around making up bullshit about past works. They're well aware of the B.S. that'd their own work would become the subject of, and plan accordingly. And the longer they've been at it, the better they're able to manipulate their audience into thinking what they want the audience to think.

This is what happens when the school system fails. People get their truths from entertainment. That's exactly what how an effective Ministry of Truth works. Deleting the past would cause an uproar. Burying it, and replacing it with a different, better version is far more effective.

Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (-1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093987)

So is it possible that someone pressured the studios involved (Principly Dreamworks) to make sure that Assange was shown in a suitably scoundral-like manner?

Considering he raped two women and has a head as big as the Goodyear blimp, that's not hard to do.

Re:Throwing in a little conspiracy theory here, (1)

Uberbah (647458) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094239)

Considering he raped two women and has a head as big as the Goodyear blimp, that's not hard to do.

That demagoguery gets more and more pathetic the longer Swedish prosecutors refuse to interview Assange remotely or by visiting him in the embassy, and the longer the Swedish government refuses to say they wont extradite him to the United States.

If you guys actually gave a shit about the rape allegations, you'd be demanding that Sweden make it clear that it's just about those allegations and not an increasingly transparent pretext to hand him over to the United States.

Risking your career for wikileaks? (0)

HockeyPuck (141947) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093745)

So let me get this straight, wikileaks relies on a steady stream of gov't employees willing to risk their own careers to stay relevant?

Are they any different than the cold era KGB/CIA in that their main goal is to spy on the gov't?

Re:Risking your career for wikileaks? (1)

mjr167 (2477430) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094461)

They don't pay as well?

Meh (0)

Meneth (872868) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093765)

Wikileaks has been over for some time now. Let's start ignoring it already. Other leakers can handle the future.

should e? (1)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45093783)

embrace, extend, extinguish? :-)

Fact v. Fiction ... (1)

jabberwock (10206) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093843)

Most of the people who will see the film can tell the difference between fact and fiction, including being able to generally identify the wide swath in between. This is not going to be a "Batman" blockbuster. It's not even going to be a "The Social Network" blockbuster.

Anyone who had an opinion on whether or not Mark Zuckerberg was sort of a sleaze did not have their opinion changed by seeing "The Social Network."

Re:Fact v. Fiction ... (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094247)

Most of the people who will see the film can tell the difference between fact and fiction, including being able to generally identify the wide swath in between.

I don't know about that and think it depends on the facts and fictions involved. After seeing Gravity, I'm sure there will be many, many people that think the ISS and Hubble are just a jet-pack ride apart, when, in fact, they are not - Astronaut and a Writer at the Movies [nytimes.com] . Unless one actually knows (or is willing/able to research) the facts, the fictions can be rather compelling...

Oh darn (1)

onyxruby (118189) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093879)

He's being portrayed in a way he doesn't like by somebody that has an agenda that involves gain on their part by making others look bad. This is happening by using information provided by others and the whole thing is outside of his control. The media is then being involved to make sure that the exploitation is maximized for greatest impact. The bully gets his due and doesn't like the taste of his own medicine and is off to cry to his mommy about how others are treating him.

This couldn't have happened to a more deserving person if they tried. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Re:Oh darn (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094033)

He's being portrayed in a way he doesn't like by somebody that has an agenda that involves gain on their part by making others look bad. This is happening by using information provided by others and the whole thing is outside of his control. The media is then being involved to make sure that the exploitation is maximized for greatest impact. The bully gets his due and doesn't like the taste of his own medicine and is off to cry to his mommy about how others are treating him.

This couldn't have happened to a more deserving person if they tried. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Your response to not liking someone is to perform slander and "defamation of character"? Who's the bully?

They're afraid of you speech (2)

m00sh (2538182) | 1 year,13 days | (#45093959)

The fifth estate is a mediocre movie. The fact that the talented Cumberbach plays Assange means that Assange becomes human rather than a political figure. When Cumberbach is not on screen, it has the feel of a PBS UK import.

The movie is through the perspective of Assange's friend and so, Assange comes off as a mystery rather than a liar.

As for the movie, it is just middling. People who dislike Assange will find more reasons to confirm their dislike and those who like Assange will find more reasons to do so.

Maybe I missed it during the movie but the speech where Assange/Cumberbach says "they are afraid of you" that is in the trailers is not in the movie.

Re:They're afraid of you speech (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094363)

Maybe I missed it during the movie but the speech where Assange/Cumberbach says "they are afraid of you" that is in the trailers is not in the movie.

Probably didn't test well against government audiences...

Julian Assange = Useful Idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094165)

In every dictionary of English, the explanation of the political term 'useful idiot' should use Assange as the primary example. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about the recent history of whistle-blowing and leaking KNOWS wikileaks was created to destroy honest, non co-opted groups that were attempting to give public access to 'secret' information. Assange was chosen because of his sociopathic personality. The group overseeing the real control of Wikileaks and Assange was led by British Intelligence, under another of Tony Blair's war-mongering projects.

The British have a long history of using these intelligence methods. During WW2, Britain was injecting control messages into the mainstream media of West Europe, even to the extent of taking over Nazi radio broadcasts seamlessly, with voice impersonators replacing the usual radio announcers (the BBC actually handled the recruitment of the voice talent, leading to the little known fact that the so-called Churchill Radio broadcasts on the BBC were actually spoken by an impressionist, while Churchill was at home- usually outside of London because he was such a coward- drunk).

Assange was the stooge used to create the circumstances for strife and war in the Middle East- especially Egypt and Syria. Not one of his so-called 'leaks' harmed Israel or the USA- what an amazing coincidence. Assange's ego (and low intelligence) made him the ideal dupe.

On the other hand, Snowden is the real deal- except even in his case he is a dupe telling us powerful truths, but truths that your masters decided had better come into the open at this time- for fear that an uncontrolled release of the truth later could have a very nasty, uncontrollable backlash. Snowden was allowed to gather and inform us of a FRACTION of the extent of abuses by the intelligence agencies of the West in an inoculation (you inject a little bit of the real 'poison' to allow the body to become immune to further 'poison' in the future).

Now when informed people tell their sheeple friends about the extent of government evil, their friends yawn, shrug their shoulders and say "heard it all before, and what can anyone do about it?".

The monsters that rule you spend tens of billions of each on psychological warfare against YOU. You, on the other hand, have exactly one person's collections of resources to fight back- not exactly an even contest. So when YOU try to figure out the real truth behind Assange and Snowden, if there is ANY sheeple instinct in you, you will fail. In truth, even if you consider yourself cynical, you still believe the 'push' information the mainstream media feeds you. You WILL be distracted by the sex crime charges against Assange, for instance, thus limiting your ability to see the bigger picture- that Assange is an identical play to so many used by the British during WW2.

Re:Julian Assange = Useful Idiot (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094559)

s/Assagne/Snowden/
s/Wikileaks/The Guardian/

In every dictionary of English, the explanation of the political term 'useful idiot' should use Snowden as the primary example. Anyone who knows ANYTHING about the recent history of whistle-blowing and leaking KNOWS The Guardian was created to destroy honest, non co-opted groups that were attempting to give public access to 'secret' information. Snowden was chosen because of his hacker personality. The group overseeing the real control of The Guardian and Snowden was led by British Intelligence, under another of Tony Blair's war-mongering projects.

The British have a long history of using these intelligence methods ... such as electing cowardly drunks.

Snowden was the stooge used to excuse the circumstances for strife at home after war in the Middle East- especially Iraq and Afghanistan. Not one of his so-called 'leaks' harmed Ire land or the UK- what an amazing coincidence. Snowden's ego (and high intelligence) made him the ideal dupe.

On the other hand, Assange is the real deal- except even in his case he is a dupe telling us powerful truths, but truths that your masters decided had better come into the open at this time- for fear that an uncontrolled release of the truth later could have a very nasty, uncontrollable backlash. Assange was allowed to gather and inform us of a FRACTION of the extent of abuses by the warmongers of the West in an inoculation (you inject a little bit of the real 'poison' to allow the body to become immune to further 'poison' in the future).

Now when informed people tell their SHEEPLE ::Baa-aa-aa:: friends about the extent of government evil, their friends yawn, shrug their shoulders and say "heard it all before, and what can anyone do about it?".

The monsters that rule you spend tens of billions of each on psychological warfare against YOU. You, on the other hand, have exactly one person's collections of resources to fight back- not exactly an even contest. So when YOU try to figure out the real truth behind Assange and Snowden, if there is ANY SHEEPLE ::Baa-aa-aa:: instinct in you, you will fail. In truth, even if you consider yourself cynical, you still believe the 'push' information the mainstream media feeds you. You WILL be distracted by the treason charges against Snowden, for instance, thus limiting your ability to see the bigger picture- that Snowden is an identical play to so many used by the British during WW2.

Clearly, the conspiracy knows no bounds...

Is Assange a bit of a hustler who has lied? (0)

Anonymous Coward | 1 year,13 days | (#45094225)

Hollywood makes movies to make money. I don't know Assange, but weren't there some shady things in his past? I'm not an expert and not accusing him of anything, but when the stories were breaking they ranged from "he is a saint" to "he is the devil." The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

Par for the course. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094349)

Reminds me of the pro-gov slanted news and media in Russia, China, Syria, etc.

Just mix in some non-factual shit, call it "artistic license", and you can paint whichever real events however you want in the minds of fools -- The largest voting demographic...

Truth (1)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094361)

Wikileaks is about exposing hidden truth. Assange would be a hypocrite to go along with a production that he feels hides the truth.

Assange might be wrong about what constitutes truth in this situation because, unlike something as straight-forward as publishing secret documents, some truths are a matter of perspective. Nevertheless, you can't reasonably expect Assange to go along with something he believes is not truthful.

Comparisons to facebook miss the point. Facebook is about making money and while they may have lofty corporatespeak goal - they are a publicly traded company and therefore can't honestly aspire to anything more than the almighty dollar.

Laugh (1)

koan (80826) | 1 year,13 days | (#45094817)

Producer (one of them)
Steve Golin (born March 6, 1955)[1] is the founder and CEO of Anonymous Content LLP, a multimedia development, production and talent management company and co-founder and former CEO of Propaganda Films.[2]

"producing spots and campaigns for Nike, Intel, Citibank, United Airlines, Ford, Audi, Coca-Cola, Pepsi"

Well versed in propaganda, or for the slow people "A really good liar"

Bill Condon ( winner of the Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Director for his work on The Twilight Saga) is a shlock artist well versed in writing mindless garbage, also a big fan of propaganda (that benefits him of course).

All in all the reason Assange isn't happy about the film is it's a hit piece, a dilution of a critical issue.
Making a movie is the first step to marginalizing Assange and wikileaks into meaningless.
Hollywood knows this, look at how well they marginalized the American public and destroyed this country.

The comparison to the Facebook movie is a naive and simplistic view that is entirely incorrect.
Everyone making that film knew it would appeal to the young set.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?