Latest on MJJC

Joseph Fiennes To Play MJ In 9/11 Programme

Prince Of Pop said:
Hopefully this gets shot down by the Estate.
Click to expand...

I don't think theres much they can do except decline the use of MJ's music. I think if they could've done something, they would've done so by now (or at least announced so).
 
It's not the first time another race plays a different race character.. it happens all the time! both in skits and film..

White people playing middle easterns when its high respected figures in history or Myth related.. and Hollywood hires many Hispanics to play middle eastern terrorists..

Isnt that a topic worth talking about also??

lets remember this is just a skit.. 30 min non biographical.. watch SNL once, you'll see people in 'black face' all the time
 
KOPV said:
It's not the first time another race plays a different race character.. it happens all the time! both in skits and film..

White people playing middle easterns when its high respected figures in history or Myth related.. and Hollywood hires many Hispanics to play middle eastern terrorists..

Isnt that a topic worth talking about also??

lets remember this is just a skit.. 30 min non biographical.. watch SNL once, you'll see people in 'black face' all the time
Click to expand...
just because something happens all the time doesn't make it ok
 
I never said it was ok.... But something needs to be said about the fact this is old news and we even didn't make it a big topic until the media did.. we've known about this! and it was when the Oscar drama came about that the media pushed this story harder and we fallowed..

Would I prefer a black person to play Michael yeah! but until we see the content of the film can we make a judgment. To me it's more so if Michael will be shown in a positive light or not. that matters to me much more than what blood runs through the guys veins!

It's more about who can portray the picture over race.. Michael himself knew that!
 
^ regarding a road trip after 9/11 that never happened... if so than yeah! lol
 
KOPV said:
It's not the first time another race plays a different race character.. it happens all the time! both in skits and film..

White people playing middle easterns when its high respected figures in history or Myth related.. and Hollywood hires many Hispanics to play middle eastern terrorists..

Isnt that a topic worth talking about also??
Click to expand...

Yes, and it's white people playing other ethnicities all the time and that is exactly what is problematic about it. It is not just about Michael and it's been addressed over and over again in this thread so, I do not get your question as if no one cared about that when that is the whole point people were making in this thread.
 
my 2 biggest questions no one answers is why wasn't this story a big deal to us until the media told us to make it a big deal.. and wouldn't the portrayal of MJ be far more important than race.. I'd rather have a white guy (for example) play Michael in positive light over a black guy in negative light.. (ie. Man In The Mirror movie)

I'd think we would not take a race of character so heavily knowing that Michael had Wade Robson as the body stand in for the Pepsi commercial and with all the openness to impersonators that are various races...

It's all about the portrayal of the person.. Not the race, and I would bet you Michael would feel the same...
https://darrencostello1.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/michaeljacksonsmile.gif
 
KOPV said:
my 2 biggest questions no one answers is why wasn't this story a big deal to us until the media told us to make it a big deal.. and wouldn't the portrayal of MJ be far more important than race.. I'd rather have a white guy (for example) play Michael in positive light over a black guy in negative light.. (ie. Man In The Mirror movie)

I'd think we would not take a race of character so heavily knowing that Michael had Wade Robson as the body stand in for the Pepsi commercial and with all the openness to impersonators that are various races...

It's all about the portrayal of the person.. Not the race, and I would bet you Michael would feel the same...
https://darrencostello1.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/michaeljacksonsmile.gif
Click to expand...
Hey, no offense, but Michael did NOT use Wade as the kid in that commercial and that's what he is referring to in the Oprah interview. (when he says he didn't want to be played by a white person).

That was strictly a made up tabloid story that was denied by everybody at the time (even pix of the real kid on set were printed) but continues to live on as truth, apparently.

This little skit isn't going to show Michael in a positive light if it follows the original story. It puts Marlon and Elizabeth in a worse light.
 
Last edited:
KOPV said:
my 2 biggest questions no one answers is why wasn't this story a big deal to us until the media told us to make it a big deal.. and wouldn't the portrayal of MJ be far more important than race.. I'd rather have a white guy (for example) play Michael in positive light over a black guy in negative light.. (ie. Man In The Mirror movie)

I'd think we would not take a race of character so heavily knowing that Michael had Wade Robson as the body stand in for the Pepsi commercial and with all the openness to impersonators that are various races...

It's all about the portrayal of the person.. Not the race, and I would bet you Michael would feel the same...
https://darrencostello1.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/michaeljacksonsmile.gif
Click to expand...

Well, if you do not get why it matters as a whole I cannot tell you anything then. Then probably you do not get why people were upset about the Oscars or why people were upset about Exodus: Gods and Kings and why things like this matter. It's not just about Michael and how he is portrayed. And you can show gifs of MJ goofing around as Chaplin or anything but again: you will have to understand the social context to see why it's not the same as when white actors take black roles from black people. It's in a bigger social context but if you don't get that that's where the discussion ends, I guess.
 
Last edited:
respect77 said:
Well, if you do not get why it matters as a whole I cannot tell you anything then. Then probably you do not get why people were upset about the Oscars or why people were upset about Exodus: Gods and Kings and why things like this matter. It's not just about Michael and how he is portrayed. And you can show gifs of MJ goofing around as Chaplin or anything but again: you will have to understand the social context to see why it's not the same as when white actors take black roles from black people. It's in a bigger social context but if you don't get that that's where the discussion ends, I guess.
Click to expand...

So no body has an answer?? someone flat out answer why wasn't this a big deal until the media picked it up and backed it up along with Oscar news.. this is old news to us, but we didn't find it important enough to make it a huge thing til we were told to..

and no one Is going to comment on the gif I posted of MJ as Charlie Chaplin? Or how about the fact he wanted to play Edgar Allen Poe!!

If you guys are not seeing my points, than it seems a little close minded... We can support Michael playing a white man but not a white man playing him....
 
KOPV said:
So no body has an answer?? someone flat out answer why wasn't this a big deal until the media picked it up and backed it up along with Oscar news.. this is old news to us, but we didn't find it important enough to make it a huge thing til we were told to..

and no one Is going to comment on the gif I posted of MJ as Charlie Chaplin? Or how about the fact he wanted to play Edgar Allen Poe!!

If you guys are not seeing my points, than it seems a little close minded... We can support Michael playing a white man but not a white man playing him....
Click to expand...

Lemme explain it to you. (To others: Feel free to correct me, I'm white and don't know everything.)

First off, google blackface, have a look at its history and contemporary manifestations. Read also pages talking about white privilege.

Michael could play Chaplin or the white Mayor in Ghosts. There was no way for him to oppress white dudes. Whereas those people that put on blackface/yellowface/brownface/redface contribute to long-lasting systemic oppression of people of colour.

Michael's legacy has been whitewashed. He was presented as a black man wanting to be a white woman. (As a queer person, I would also say he was being silenced because he was a gender bender and thus was oppressed for this, too. This shit is happening all the time.) Attempts to cast any white actor to play him are whitewashing. Michael played Chaplin and no-one thought Chaplin was black. Michael played the Mayor and no ****ing thinks Thomas Sneddon was black. But we have a shitty amount of whites playing people of colour, just like in films about ancient Egypt, and then (mostly white) people are surprised the real persons weren't white.
 
I guess I am just coming from the position that Michaels image has been so attacked by people that I feel that it is way more important to have a positive pretrial of him over what blood is running through someone's veins... It (in my opinion) would do much more harm to have a black man play Michael and make him portrayed bad than a white guy playing him and it show him in positive light..

That to me means way more to me.. ie. Flex Anderson!!!
 
KOPV said:
I guess I am just coming from the position that Michaels image has been so attacked by people that I feel that it is way more important to have a positive pretrial of him over what blood is running through someone's veins... It (in my opinion) would do much more harm to have a black man play Michael and make him portrayed bad than a white guy playing him and it show him in positive light..

That to me means way more to me.. ie. Flex Anderson!!!
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying, and that's why I'm saying that NO ONE-Michael, Marlon, or Elizabeth is going to come off in a good light in this-because it's just a farce poking fun at their personas as the media portrayed them. It's just going to be satiric versions of them-not positive at all. Marlon makes them stop at a KFC or McDonald's so he can eat again every 3 miles, for Pete's sake.

And yes, I think a big deal was made of the casting right off the bat-go back to the first page and people are questioning the fact that a white guy with GREEN eyes is playing Michael.
It just got bigger and bigger with the media and the public at large because Fiennes was promoting his new movie "Risen" and talked about this play the very same week the "Oscars So White" started.

Lots of people imitate Chaplin-it doesn't mean that Michael was going to play the real Chaplin in a movie. I doubt he would have played Edgar Allen Poe either-not in a legitimate bio anyway. Maybe a photo shoot paying homage-maybe.

And yes, nothing was worse than Flex Anderson in the MITM horror show.
 
KOPV said:
So no body has an answer?? someone flat out answer why wasn't this a big deal until the media picked it up and backed it up along with Oscar news.. this is old news to us, but we didn't find it important enough to make it a huge thing til we were told to..

and no one Is going to comment on the gif I posted of MJ as Charlie Chaplin? Or how about the fact he wanted to play Edgar Allen Poe!!

If you guys are not seeing my points, than it seems a little close minded... We can support Michael playing a white man but not a white man playing him....
Click to expand...

What should I answer to that first question? I did not know about who is going to play MJ in that movie so far.

And I DID address the Charlie Chaplin thing, it's not my fault if you ignore the fact that it's absolutely not the same to goof around in Charlie Chaplin costume for a photoshoot than a white man playing a black man (or other ethicities) in a movie. One, because a photoshoot is not a movie, two, you totally ignore the historical context of white people playing ethnicities all the time and why it is different than the other way around. Although the other way around it rarely, if ever happens (which again should tell us something). You could only bring up the hypothetical situation of MJ playing EAP which never actually happened and probably he would have never been cast as EAP in a real movie anyway.

The history of black face and how white people historically pushed other ethincities out of roles depicting their own people was dicussed in this thread, if you cannot see the bigger social context of it then you will never be able to understand why this is wrong.

In one post you bring up how there is a history of white people playing other ethnicities (doesn't make it right, so what's your point?) and how no one here has a problem with that. I pointed out how actually people did discuss that and did have a problem with that in this thread, so now you switch back to the only thing imporant to you in this is that MJ is portrayed in a positive light. So which one is it? Do you want the bigger social context to be discussed or not and it's just about MJ to you? And BTW, it's obvious that MJ is not going to put in a positive light in this and a white man playing him is already a dig at his character (the whole "he wanted to be white" narrative).
 
FullLipsDotNose said:
Lemme explain it to you. (To others: Feel free to correct me, I'm white and don't know everything.)

First off, google blackface, have a look at its history and contemporary manifestations. Read also pages talking about white privilege.

Michael could play Chaplin or the white Mayor in Ghosts. There was no way for him to oppress white dudes. Whereas those people that put on blackface/yellowface/brownface/redface contribute to long-lasting systemic oppression of people of colour.

Michael's legacy has been whitewashed. He was presented as a black man wanting to be a white woman. (As a queer person, I would also say he was being silenced because he was a gender bender and thus was oppressed for this, too. This shit is happening all the time.) Attempts to cast any white actor to play him are whitewashing. Michael played Chaplin and no-one thought Chaplin was black. Michael played the Mayor and no ****ing thinks Thomas Sneddon was black. But we have a shitty amount of whites playing people of colour, just like in films about ancient Egypt, and then (mostly white) people are surprised the real persons weren't white.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
barbee0715 said:
Hey, no offense, but Michael did NOT use Wade as the kid in that commercial and that's what he is referring to in the Oprah interview. (when he says he didn't want to be played by a white person).

That was strictly a made up tabloid story that was denied by everybody at the time (even pix of the real kid on set were printed) but continues to live on as truth, apparently.

This little skit isn't going to show Michael in a positive light if it follows the original story. It puts Marlon and Elizabeth in a worse light.
Click to expand...
sad to see FANS still believe this stupid rumor :no: I mean, what fan hasn't seen the Oprah interview??? :doh:
I actually didn't know about the rumor till I saw the interview when it FIRST aired. it's only because it was addressed in the interview that I even know about it
 
There was no hostility associated with Michael's career from 1969-1985...none...there was balance and things were on point
 
And FYI I do not need to Google 'blackface' to understand racial issues.. I am a biracial America with half of my family being mixed with black and the other half 100% arab. I fully understand race and how it play within the united states and abroad..

And me thinking the race of the person playing Michael matters MUCH less than the portrayal of him... and I would really think in our fan community for being accepting to impersonators of all races and backgrounds and have dealt with a film that portrayed Michael as a strange freak by a black actor - we would be more open to a skit that could (we don't know) show a sweet side of Michael.. We really don't know what the film will be.

Let's pretend E'cas was not black (for example) would we not be ok to let him portray Michael over any black actor that we could think of...? Plus we all know racially we are at a pivotal place in time.. With both White actors getting black parts and slooowwwly black actors playing white parts (yess still behind) but the door is slowly opening

Maybe me having family In a war torn country not knowing which family member is safe makes me 'jaded' to something as miniscule as a race preference in a skit...IDK!
 
^ Getting at post 1985 time frame people started talking about his skin turning lighter I assume!?!
 
It seems that even if a black actor was cast, they may not be 'black enough' as per a similar outcry over a new Nina Simone biopic

http://www.vulture.com/2016/03/zoe-saldana-nina-simone-biopic-poster.html#

Zoe Saldana’s Nina Simone Biopic Will Be Released After All


The Nina Simone biopic starring Zoe Saldana screened at Cannes nearly two years ago, but no one has seen it since, likely due to heavy pushback from the black community over Saldana's casting. Despite Saldana's Afro-Latina heritage, her skin color is several shades lighter than Simone's, and she was photographed on set wearing what appeared to be prosthetics to enlarge her nose for the role as well as blackface. Many fans, including Simone's daughter, called for the role to be recast with Viola Davis or someone more appropriate, with Saldana herself later admitting that she didn't think she was right to play Simone.

But despite the backlash — and perhaps in response to renewed interest in Simone's life after Liz Garbus's Oscar-nominated Netflix doc — plans to release the film have been revisited, with an official date now finalized. EW reports that Nina will be released in theaters and on VOD on April 22. The film also stars Mike Epps and David Oyelowo.


Here's its first poster, featuring a noticeably darker Saldana:
 
^^Personally, that's a shame that even Saldana herself said she was miscast. She probably felt she had to say that bc of backlash.
Public opinion is going to be all over the place, no matter what.
 
I'm not a fan of impersonation. That concept seems weird to me. If I wanted to have MJ songs at my wedding, I would either bring in a CD or hire a singer that would be themselves.
 
FullLipsDotNose said:
I'm not a fan of impersonation. That concept seems weird to me. If I wanted to have MJ songs at my wedding, I would either bring in a CD or hire a singer that would be themselves.
Click to expand...

Isn't all acting impersonation? Ergo you're against all films and TV based on real life events?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top