'Hunger Games' Director Francis Lawrence to Helm Hulk Hogan-Gawker Movie - Sensationalist Headlines

https://variety.com/2018/film/news/hunger-games-director-francis-lawrence-hulk-hogan-gawker-movie-1202840886/ "Charles Randolph, who won an Academy Award for his “Big Short” screenplay, is attached to write the adaptation for the project, which was unveiled in March by producer David A. Neuman, CEO and partner of Blackrock Productions. Neuman made the announcement Monday and said he is targeting an A-list cast to play the story’s principals — Peter Thiel, Hulk Hogan, and Nick Denton. Published in February, “Conspiracy” outlines the tempestuous legal battle between the pro-wrestler Hulk Hogan (Terry Bollea); Gawker Media and its founder, Denton; and Silicon Valley titan Thiel — who secretly funded Hogan’s successful lawsuit over the publication of a sex tape involving Hogan. The suit resulted in a $140 million judgment against Gawker and led to Gawker’s subsequent bankruptcy." lmao sure why not. I wonder who's gonna play Hulk Hogan tho.

if anyone besides Hulk Hogan plays Hulk Hogan why would I go see this LOL

Wonder if this is gonna be slanted towards Gawker or show both sides as kinda bad.

The first hunger games was a perfectly fine movie so I don't see a problem with this.

Francis Lawrence had nothing to do with the first hunger games movie

Whoops. I've only seen the first tbh. At least the series in general has pretty good art direction, from what I've seen.

Please get Ben Stiller to play Hulk Hogan.

He's a perfectly competent director, the second Hunger Games movie in particular was very enjoyable for what it was

can't say for sure, but I was hearing a while back about a pro gawker script circulating (maybe was in preproduction). What makes me suspicious this is that script about peter thiel secretly funding the case, it wasn't much of a secret. And if it is pro gawker, how are they going to spin reporters on the stand mocking the trail and shooting themselves in the foot with things like pedophilia comments.

Easy. They won't even bring it up

This movie smells conspicuously like an attempt at rewriting history.

Yeah I wouldn't even be surprised if they don't mention that Gawker outed Thiel in the first place.

My guess is that Hogan will be portrayed as a pure morally black villain and Gawker will be the Underdog Reporters, a Ragtag Bunch Of Misfits And Nerds Who Simply Do What Is Best For The People when they were gossip rag shitheads taking a steaming dump on an almost-forgotten wrestler who opened up a can of Hulkamania when they fucked with his sizeable capital base. I don't really think the Hulkster is a great guy, mind, but I feel like Gawker got exactly what was coming to them for their continued paparazzo garbage by fucking with him and getting almost entirely nuked.

I would laugh if Peter Theil responds by bankrolling a competing movie that's rabidly anti Gawker. What I'd really like is a balanced take, but I fear that's going to be hard to come by - a lot of people have an axe to grind one way or the other with this case. It's a real shame that Gawker has become an icon of the war of the free press, when it was one of the least legitimate "journalistic" eendeavors of the twenty-first century.

It always made me mad when people imply that Peter Thiel somehow paid Gawker out of business with evil billionaire grudge money. This case was open-and-shut, and it absolutely should never have required a billionaire to fund it. But since it's apparently a thing that Gawker could just outfund Hogan until he would eventually have to give up, it's a good thing that Thiel stepped in. People have to remember that he couldn't have done it with all the money in the world if Gawker hadn't done what they did. I certainly hope this movie isn't going to try to paint a false picture.

It infuriates me how much people who should know better buy into the whole "Peter Thiel is evil" crap. The guy isn't Jesus but he's certainly not a bad person. He made most of his money off of setting up paypal, innovative as it is, and has since dedicated a ton of his money to philanthropic measure to try and make breakthroughs for all of humanity, as well as for political activism for gay rights, arguably one of the biggest influences in bringing moderate conservatives into supporting gay marriage, as well as journalistic integrity. In fact you know why he helped fund the Bollea v Gawker case? Because in 2007 Gawker outed Peter Thiel as a homosexual, and even back in those days that was still a controversial thing. He has unfortunately associated with bad people, such as James O'Keef, and doesn't have the best political views, but overall he's a much, much better person than Gawker ever could have dreamed of...

And I remember correctly, when Gawker outed him, he was in Saudi Arabia.

I don't know, didn't I hear that Thiel wants to drain blood from virgins so he can live forever? Or was that a Gawker article?

How would this even appeal to moviegoers? Its literally just a court case about a sex tape. Like how the fuck you gonna make it interesting? Explosions in the court room?

Play the sex tape.

He's actively worked against democracy, and has stated outright democracy is incompatible with our current times. Go ahead, cheer for the death of gawker as we all should. But you're being dishonest.

Could have maybe tried google before flopping out such a ridiculous sounding rumor? First result for "peter thiel blood virgins" is an article titled "No, Peter Thiel is not harvesting the blood of the young". Interestingly, it seems like there's something to it, based on the editor's addition at the end of the article, but the article also also explains the reality of what the company Ambrosia actually does, which is significantly less satanically evil like how you worded it, and more just a bit experimentally wacky.

Sure, and the funny thing is if you read what I said, I actually specified that I agreed with you on the latter. But look at the quoted post I had saying he wasn't a bad person. Maybe deal with what was said, rather than what you'd like me to have said

Yeah, I did understand that, I wasn't necessarily attacking your point. I'm just worried that this is a way that discussions about Hulk Hogan's can get derailed. And also, the post you quoted did not say he was a hero, but that he was "not a bad person".

I don't think it is irrelevant. He didn't fund the gawker case because he's a really nice guy who just supports good journalism. He did so to settle a grudge, he did so to silence opposition, and he did so to exert his control over the narrative going forward. He has ties to mutliple media companies, he's a major stockholder in facebook, and owns Palantir, he's literally one of the biggest names there is in "Big Data" and he's positioned himself in that way for good reasons. Namely, it gives him control over what information goes out, specifically around him. He's a super secretive guy, and he's happy to use big data and otherwise to get leverage on you, but he's going to destroy an entire website over a personal grudge. He saw Hogan as a way to do this. I think it's pretty important who Thiel is in regards to this case. And I think it's pretty important no one look at this guy as anything but bad fucking news.

Thiel did not destroy Gawker, Gawker did. He could not have done this with all the money in the world if they hadn't done what they did. The alternative would have been that Gawker kept the case in court until the legal fees forced Hogan to quit even though Gawker were clearly in the wrong. The evil part of this story is that an open-and-shut case can be subverted by a big company's money unless there's a billionaire funding the victim.

Hey man, way to miss my point. Thiel did destroy Gawker. Gawker mounted the most fucking retarded legal defense in all history, and even had AJ Dalerio on the stand saying abhorent shit like "4 years old is the youngest sex tape I'd release". I'm not defending Gawker. I'm not on Gawkers side. I am not saying the justice system is without fault, or issue. You are making a whole fucking whack of statements that I didn't imply, even remotely. I'm just sick of the truth about the kind of fucking evil asshole Thiel really is being burried by people who are just so fucking happy Gawker died, they'll forgive or forget fucking anything as has been made apparent already. If Gawker had killed itself, as you stated(This whole argument you've presented is confusing. How would Gawker die if they would have won the lawsuit without Thiel? You've contradicted yourself hard) Thiel is an anti-democracy, super libertarian who has his hands and fingers in the majority of the "Big Data" pockets that exist, and this gives him a lot of control over a lot of different facets of the economy. If I see someone downplay the motherfucker, I will say my piece. He has been downplayed. I've said my piece.

I don't think they're necessarily forgiving and forgetting bad things Thiel have done. Personally I just don't give a shit who he is in relation to this case. I'm concerned with the Gawker case, which was clearly in Hogan's favor regardless of billionaire influence. Gawker would have won without Thiel, yes, and that would have been a massive injustice. Gawker willingly broke the law, which by all means should have caused their downfall even without Thiel. I guess I agree that you can say Thiel destroyed them under the unjust circumstances where they could have gotten away with it without him, but Thiel would still not have been able to take them down if they didn't break the law. So now we've established that both sides made the downfall of Gawker possible. Deciding whether "Thiel destroyed Gawker" then comes down to who you give the bulk of the responsibility. Is it Gawker, who willingly broke the law by refusing to comply with a court order, or is it the evil man who simply funded the victim's case? I'm leaning toward saying the people breaking the law are responsible for the consequences, even if they could have gotten away with it if it weren't for meddling billionaires.

Eh, I didn't look it up because I didn't actually care. It was a joke. He's an -illionaire, so he can take it.

why is this a movie? gawker fucked up but then a multibillionare nutjob also funded the whole thing to take them down for their legitimate reporting