Paramount and Bad Robot to take on Cycle of Lies: The Lance Armstrong Story

t-t-t-too soon? (grabs bike and rides away)

 

I'll beat you Terry: Christopher Nolan and Joss Whedon co-direct while Del-Toro writes the script.

 

Fassbender could be good but I would prefer Guy Pierce.

 

As long as it's not Sony Imageworks, lol.

 

As long as Lance doesn't get a penny from it...and they hire someone like Patton Oswald to play him...then I might be OK with it.

 

Go as extreme/weird with casting as possible.

Gabourey Sidibe. In whiteface. And drag.

 

Is it strange that I immediately thought of Matthew Fox to play him?

 

Armstrong should be so lucky.

 

I'm not too familiar the legalities of this sort of thing, but is it possible to make a movie about a living person without that person receiving some form of payment? I'm not at all interested in seeing the movie, but C. Lee made an interesting comment.

Mostly I just came in here for the jokes...

 

Will there be a drug testing montage?

 

Wes Anderson- Luke Wilson starring. It will be a witty movie with an awesome soundtrack.

Tarantino- Lance "Bunny" Armstrong takes his revenge on the people that ratted him out.

Paul Jackson- Andy Serkis will play the bike and the movie will be 3 hours long

 

Peter

 

I might be wrong, but I really don't like the way people are looking down on him. Yeah, he lied. But look at the bigger and more important contributions he made outside of sports - it's like people have forgotten all about his philanthropic work almost. So I really hope they view him in a more even light. What's more important - starting an amazing foundation to help battle cancer (?!) or just something someone did in sports? One's helping people, the other's a mindless competition.

 

You're making him sound like every cent he made went to the foundation. The guy still pocketed millions from endorsements and such.

People wouldn't be as harsh if it wasn't for the people he ruined just to try and cover up his lies.

 

I'm pretty sure the only thing there are facts around is him having used substances. Everyone else? Yeah, sorry, but due to the number of people who have jumped at "this celebrity did this to me" and "this celebrity did that to me" I have a seriously hard time believing them. People like that are a dime a dozen and they're always proven to be phonies. That's just your classic, and I might be wrong - but it happens so much (!), nut trying to leech off of someone else's status through false accusations.

As said, cycling is really really really small in compared to a fight for cancer. Cancer's important. Cycling is just a mindless sport. Cancer > Sport.

I wouldn't be surprised if he did try to hide his activities so that the organization was continued to be seen in a positive light. Because if it did come out, it could have seriously hurt the organization. People are so hyped up over seeing a fall from grace that that's all they can focus on. Disregarding that his charitable work far outweighs what many and I'm willing to say everyone here has done. Yeah, he made a mistake. But he made a mistake at sports. Look at the larger contribution he made with his life. This isn't black and white.

 

Yes, because they're a public figure. Their lawyers inevitably try to fight the attempts, though, especially if negative portrayals (which this will undoubtedly be).

The only time I think this is really bad is when they make them about people currently on trial for murder or something--the Scott Peterson movie was unethical because they hadn't yet rendered a verdict on it, so one could argue it would sway the jury towards saying he was guilty (not that the evidence wouldn't have done that, but people should avoid giving defense lawyers legal hay) which would be wrong (not in the sense that it's not the right decision, wrong because the legal system should be free of influences like that). I'm surprised the legal injunction against it didn't pass but on the other hand, the final film doesn't actually say he's guilty.

In this case he's admitted to everything so presumably a film portraying publicly admitted acts of a public figure doing said acts would be perfectly legal. If they tried to show him doping at particular times he has not yet admitted to, then there could be grounds for defamation of character lawsuits or something, but if they do it carefully, it's completely legal and he won't receive any money for it.

 

Unsure if that's geared towards me or all the people forgetting his work to aid cancer victims which means a lot more than riding a stupid bike. Lance put his time, effort, and money into this organization which has benefited millions. Lets say someone he beat in a different timeline just put his winnings towards expensive luxuries. Who is worse? The one who spent it on himself, not the one who cheated at a game and helped others.

I'd go so far as saying if it was found out that Christopher Reeves was on steroids while filming Superman the same people would attack him without thinking everything through.

And looking at how films like this aim for complexity, I'm excited because it will probably show him as a remarkably good albeit flawed man. It will show him in the correct light - human.

 

No one really cares about cycling. We just don't like how he acted to cover up his lies. All these stories about how he's bullied or sued people are true. He has essentially admitted to doing so knowing they were right by confessing and trying to offer them apologies.

 

Yea but Armstrong also sued some people for a lot of money claiming libel when it all ended up being true, didn't he? That's a *****ebag move.(IIRC)


They are really wasting no time with this. This and that Paterno movie Pacino is making. I don't know if it is too soon, but I don't think I am all that interested in dramatizations of these events in any time frame.

 

Yeah, it's not so much the severity of his actions or his lying about it as his attitude in the past about it. Take this Nike commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIl5RxhLZ5U

 

All right, if that's true, I still don't see him as a 'villain.' Saying these people were possible athletes - aiming to get at him, possibly due to jealousy. And would have used the winnings for solely personal pursuits. Saying these people are your average media vultures, picking away at people just to get a juicy story. These people may not have been 'completely innocent' either. So to me it still depends on who these people were and what their motivations were. Were they actually innocents or were they vultures? If they were vultures, yeah screw them. But I'm a screenwriter so naturally I'd hate all forms of ravenous vultures.

I'd still say it seems to revolve around how he feared that coming out would impact the foundation. He resigned before he came out about it. Distancing himself from something that he devoted his life to in order to try to save it from being caught in the cross-fire. To me that says everything. This could have caused a great deal of damage to an organization that was helping millions of lives. And that seems to be his primary motivator still and seeing how if it came out that organization could fall apart - thus him resigning first rather than second.

 

You do know that he destroyed several people's professional and personal lives. He bankrupted several people with lawsuits when they said that he was doping and he spent years destroying their reputations before he finally admitted they were right. Yes, he did not destroy as many lives as he helped with his cancer work....but do you ignore the people's lives he actively and very forcefully and cruelly destroyed?