Thriller Exhibit at Hollywood Horror Museum

redstrots

Proud Member
Joined
May 4, 2019
Messages
23
Points
0
Location
Bristol
So...hollywood horror musuem (@horrormuseum) tweeted that they will be having a Thriller exhibit to celebrate the video, in anticipation of possible complaints they tweeted an explanation of why they're including it. Because they're now receiving so many negative tweets from fans they're reconsidering the exhibit!

This is crazy!!! why are we being so self destructive?

Please consider tweeting support at them to keep it, personally I'd love to see it & as they say themselves it's part of history.

As a fandom sometimes we react without thinking, as it's almost like a reflex to react to anything that appears negative about Michael, but these guys want to have a Thriller exhibit for the public, so why would we wreck that?

We need to support public displays like this as it keeps Michael visible in a world where the media want to cancel him

and I know some will not be happy with their having an explanation & the wording in their tweet, but what's important is that they keep the display in the museum

please let them know how much you're looking forward to seeing it, if they know it'll attract visitors they'll keep it

thanks
 
It’s another instance of an attempt to “separate the art from the artist” that we recently talked about in another thread. They want the attention (and the money) that the exhibit generates, while at the same time implying that MJ was guilty. The criticism is justified, in my opinion. In fact, I’m one of the people who criticized them. We’ll see more of that now that canceling MJ hasn’t worked. They’re trying to hold on to Michael’s art while canceling the person, and they can put their exhibit where the sun don’t shine, in my very humble opinion.
 
ScreenOrigami;4292773 said:
It’s another instance of an attempt to “separate the art from the artist” that we recently talked about in another thread. They want the attention (and the money) that the exhibit generates, while at the same time implying that MJ was guilty. The criticism is justified, in my opinion. In fact, I’m one of the people who criticized them. We’ll see more of that now that canceling MJ hasn’t worked. They’re trying to hold on to Michael’s art while canceling the person, and they can put their exhibit where the sun don’t shine, in my very humble opinion.

Disagreed in this case.

Going after anyone who has not even expressed their belief on whether MJ is guilty or not is completely uncalled for. Fine to leave a casual comment about it, but repeat messages going after them does not look good at all. (not talking about you) Cant expect everyone to actively take a stance for MJ either.

They dont have an" interest" either way and as such wont spend time researching the case. Without research its foolish to make any assessment. They just protect their business as MJs name is connected to controversy, thats undeniable sadly. They did not he was guilty, and they obviously have no idea if he is or not.

They even said BYE to someone who expressed that MJ was guilty and said they would not support them anymore.

The reason they put that sentence in their first post was to avoid having a hatestorm from regular folks who happen to despise child molesters. Could they have just dont put that first message there? Yes, but then even more regular people would give them the stick.

Essentially they cant win, either they piss off MJ fans, or they piss off other people.

Separating the art from the music would in my opinion be something stronger than this statement: "It may include people accused of or having committed crimes, or other controversy" Thats not only meant for MJ either. They are just implying there is controversy, not saying anything about guilt etc.
 
Last edited:
Lightbringer;4292779 said:
Disagreed in this case.

Going after anyone who has not even expressed their belief on whether MJ is guilty or not is completely uncalled for. Fine to leave a casual comment about it, but repeat messages going after them does not look good at all. (not talking about you) Cant expect everyone to actively take a stance for MJ either.

They dont have an" interest" either way and as such wont spend time researching the case. Without research its foolish to make any assessment. They just protect their business as MJs name is connected to controversy, thats undeniable sadly. They did not he was guilty, and they obviously have no idea if he is or not.

They even said BYE to someone who expressed that MJ was guilty and said they would not support them anymore.

Perfectly fine to disagree. It’s a complex topic. I do see a wave of keep-the-art-and-cancel-the-person attempts coming, though, and personally I will confront people when I see it happening. But I usually just leave one comment, not argue on end.

About “not having interest either way”: If they won’t look into the case, they have to presume MJ’s innocence and not make ambiguous posts that can be interpreted either way.
 
ScreenOrigami;4292780 said:
Perfectly fine to disagree. It’s a complex topic. I do see a wave of keep-the-art-and-cancel-the-person attempts coming, though, and personally I will confront people when I see it happening.

About “not having interest either way”: If they won’t look into the case, they have to presume MJ’s innocence and not make ambiguous posts that can be interpreted either way.

They dont have to presume MJ to be innocent they are not a court of law. they are not discriminating MJ, they dont have an obligation to put any MJ related art up for display. They are just doing whats best for their business.

If they had cancelled an MJ art piece and said: "Because of the horrific allegations against Jackson", then I would have been more mad at them.

But, I do agree with you to some extent also, its disturbing if everyone starts saying these things. This is actually a topic where I can read your post, and I both disagree and agree at the same time. As you said the topic is complex, probably one of the most difficult topics I have come across with MJ related stuff.

I think what bothers me most is that some MJ fans take it too far and say that they should put on the art and declare that MJ is innocent in a way to try to calm the regular public, thats just unrealistic. And getting aggressive is not right. You have to do ALOT of research to reach any conclusion, so sending them a few links is not going to change their minds in that aspect.

And this is coming from someone that is a pretty loco MJ fan, I mean I am not the most fanatic fan, but still :D

EDIT: I do think they could have added that they dont know whether MJ is guilty or not to their first posts. Sheesh. My head is spinning from arguing with myself over this matter.
 
Last edited:
You know, they could just have put up the jacket for display and ignore the haters. We all know it’s always only a handful anyway.

And finding out that LN is bullshit takes less time than they took to argue with people in the comments. It’s 2020 and I’m no longer buying the “Oh, we don’t know, but let’s cater to a small but vocal group of haters” crap. Either they educate themselves or give MJ the benefit of the doubt – if the presumption of innocence outside a court is not mandatory in that country.

At this point, it’s pure ignorance, and personally I’m done with that. But again, we can peacefully disagree. You do you. :)

Just watch out for that new “separate the art from the artist” trend. It’s coming, and I think it’s better to fight it now before it gets too big.
 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We've been asked this a lot:<br><br>Our museum displays will include the most classic, iconic horror films+TV<br><br>It may include people accused of or having committed crimes, or other controversy. The film is bigger than one person, and all displays will be decided on a case by case basis <a href="https://t.co/04y5RozBOA">pic.twitter.com/04y5RozBOA</a></p>&mdash; Hollywood Horror Museum (@horrormuseum) <a href="https://twitter.com/horrormuseum/status/1268708663377592321?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 5, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">FURTHERMORE We don't believe the artists, technicians, actors, filmmakers and 100's of other people involved in a film deserve to be shamed or unappreciated because of ONE controversial person whose personal life had nothing to do with them.</p>&mdash; Hollywood Horror Museum (@horrormuseum) <a href="https://twitter.com/horrormuseum/status/1268710795338117120?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 5, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Our CEO is aware of the unbelievably negative and irrational reactions to this post from presumably Michael Jackson fans. Even the haters weren&#39;t this nasty. Our guess is he will seriously reconsider even having a Thriller exhibit. Way to go guys.</p>&mdash; Hollywood Horror Museum (@horrormuseum) <a href="https://twitter.com/horrormuseum/status/1269040311864446976?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 5, 2020</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
Yup, they don&#8217;t even see why their tweets are problematic. They literally brought it on themselves.
 
Lightbringer;4292781 said:
They dont have an" interest" either way and as such wont spend time researching the case. Without research its foolish to make any assessment.

ScreenOrigami;4292780 said:
About &#8220;not having interest either way&#8221;: If they won&#8217;t look into the case, they have to presume MJ&#8217;s innocence and not make ambiguous posts that can be interpreted either way.

Lightbringer;4292781 said:
They dont have to presume MJ to be innocent they are not a court of law.

I agree with ScreenOrigami here, sure the presumption of innocence is a legal term, but should be also the way to go when there's no interest to look further - which is perfectly fine BTW, and fortunately no one has to make any assessment, as it's already done by the justice system: just accept the fact that MJ was more than thoroughly investigated, wasn't even charged due to lack of evidence in one case and acquitted in the other - end of story.

I'm aware it's a bit idealistic expectation, but it's a very disappointing possibility that anything can be said about anyone (especially the dead) without any consequences, while damaged reputations are accepted as a matter of fact. Like by acting "neutral" about it, which in reality is just laziness (and again, it's not that everyone should research the case, just realise that a court decision in a criminal trial weighs much more than some random accusations with the aim of getting money and fame).

And if someone comes with the "courts can be wrong too" argument, sure, that's a possibility in general - but that's already a step to look into the case further, and on an individual basis as it should be, so go read the court transcripts then. ¯\_(&#12484;)_/¯

Lightbringer;4292787 said:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">We've been asked this a lot:<br><br>Our museum displays will include the most classic, iconic horror films+TV<br><br>It may include people accused of or having committed crimes, or other controversy. The film is bigger than one person, and all displays will be decided on a case by case basis <a href="https://t.co/04y5RozBOA">pic.twitter.com/04y5RozBOA</a></p>&mdash; Hollywood Horror Museum (@horrormuseum) <a href="https://twitter.com/horrormuseum/status/1268708663377592321?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 5, 2020</a>

This was the first announce, right? Sorry, but the wording seems unnecessary and like it deliberately tries to shift the focus to the negativity and provoke reactions (and then act like "victims" of vile MJ fans, in a quite immature manner. Sorry, but this "choregraphy" is too familiar).

ScreenOrigami;4292783 said:
You know, they could just have put up the jacket for display and ignore the haters. We all know it&#8217;s always only a handful anyway.

I agree. Please don't accept that "it's unfortunately mandatory to mention the allegation". It's not, there's no such general protocol, it was always the choice of the press whether to include it or not. Interestingly, they managed to write about quite a lot of individuals for decades without ever mentioning allegations against them, if they chose to.

E.g. about Roman Polanski, which was quite an achievement as they had to ignore not only his court case but his "escaping" the US too, resulting in the fact that he couldn't even accept his Oscar. The me-too era ended this and now he's mandatorily criticized, but you'll find quite a lot of essays about him from the earlier period without any reference to his case (not to mention the standing ovation for him at the 2003 Oscars).

But then again, great arguments from both sides, thanks for the thought provoking debate. :)
 
Last edited:
EZzjTiAUcAURfS_

EZzkkNMUMAAwpj2
 
In my opinion it should stay up. whatever people feel like he guilty (which he not). it not the museum to please everyone. people can go or not.

whatever we like it or not Michael is/was controversial topic. it's sad but that just how is.

also us as fans need to stop harassing people etc just because some people believe he guilty etc. we already look bad in this fandom already we don't need to look much worst then we already do.
 
Last edited:
NatureCriminal7896;4292810 said:
also us as fans need to stop harassing people etc just because some people believe he guilty etc. we already look bad in this fandom already we don't need to look much worst then we already do.

Harassing people is of course not good, but taking a firm stand against injustice is. Be assured, the fans seem way less crazy to outsiders than you would assume. I’ve only recently come from the “outside” and know both sides first hand. The outrage about MJ’s treatment is absolutely justified.
 
Yeah but it a way to do it. i'm not gonna force anyone to believe he's innocent (which he is) because i know he innocent. yeah it hurts but it's life it's best for us just accept it.

one MJ fan said that they was gonna kill someone if they believe Michael is guilty. that too much and way over the top. this why our fandom look bad when it comes to these people.

by the way guys these are my opinions you don't have to agree with them but i will put my opinion on things rather you agree or disagree.
 
This is the discussion section of the forum, though, so people will obviously discuss their opinions. ;)
 
It goes without saying that harassing others is unacceptable. But I still see some contradiction here: "But we've been hearing the threats towards us for 5 years if we dared include a Thriller exhibit." and this: "unbelievably negative and irrational reactions to this post from presumably Michael Jackson fans. Even the haters weren't this nasty". How come negative comments from fans can be worse than threats from haters?

Maybe some fans overreacted a bit (understandable considering the situation with MJ), but the CEO - who's supposed to be a professional, unlike the commenters - did the same. The initial post was wrongly worded and should have been changed IMO, that could have prevented the drama. Reading the much more correct newer posts by the HHM there seems to be some double talk here, like the first announcement and comments are done by different individuals then the others.

And I still think it is wrong to accept that if someone was once falsely accused they can be considered "controversial" from then on. While it's not entirely the same as blaming the victim, but still letting them take the blame and suffer the consequences of the wrongdoings of others, and suggesting that society should just accept this.

Some comments I agree with:

The problem is not with the exhibit, it&#8217;s not the part that needs reconsidering. The problem is with your comments insinuating guilt of a black man who was found not guilty of any wrongdoing. In light of the recent social awakening, one would expect you&#8216;d reconsider THAT.

Your CEO may be over reacting. An opinion or two shouldn&#8217;t stop a show. If it does, perhaps it was never meant to happen. I, for one, would still love to see it.

Because it is about a topic that we have been dealing with for years: people doing business with his name, but never wanting to solve the debates around him.
 
Last edited:
If people feel Michael is guilty that their right BUT that shouldn't stop others to go to the museum. there's a lot of places I don't like but I also realize that i don't have to go there if i don't have to.

whatever side anyone on do you. but please don't spread hate.
 
I can understand the 'disclaimer' given the background of the man whose idea the museum was, and who was the former CEO.

I hope they remove the MJ exhibit because of this connnection. (MJ doesn't need this.)

From Wiki : ' The Hollywood Horror Museum, or Horror World Tour, is a proposed educational museum created in 2015 by Huston Huddleston. As of April 2019, no permanent facility has been found for the museum or its collection.

In April 2018, once news broke of Huston Huddleston's felony charges of child pornography, the board of directors list was removed from both Foundation museum websites, and individual members have publicly distanced themselves from the project.

John Purdy, former director of Star Trek World Tour, became the new CEO after the child pornography arrest of former CEO Huston Huddleston.''

Huston Huddleston Conviction Result

Earlier this year news broke that Floyd Huston Huddleston, founder and CEO of the New Starship Foundation LLC, was arrested on March 24, 2018. Stemming from incidents reported in 2013, a five-year FBI investigation lead to the arrest on felony charges for three counts relating to: 1) contacting a minor with intent to commit a felony act (§288.3(a)), 2) hiring or employing a minor to perform sexual acts for production of child porn (§311.4(a)), and 3) possessing pornography produced with the use of a person under 18 (§311.11(a)). Huddleston plead &#8220;not guilty&#8221; to all three charges. He was detained and with a bail set at $750,000.

Following a jury trial on June 20, 2018, documents released have revealed Huddleston withdrew the &#8220;not guilty&#8221; plea on the third count and instead plead &#8220;nolo contendere&#8221; (a &#8220;no contest&#8221; plea by which a defendant in a criminal prosecution accepts conviction as though a guilty plea had been entered but does not admit guilt). Huddleston was found guilty and convicted on the third count. As a result Huddleston has been placed on a 3-year probation during which he must submit to search and seizure including electronic devices, was ordered to serve 126 days in Los Angeles county jail (although he was credited time already in custody and good behavior), ordered to pay a total of $520 in fines, must complete a 52-week sex offender counseling program, and will be registered as a sex offender.

Huddleston has been removed from participating in a planned panel at the upcoming San Diego Comic Con 2018 convention, although at this time it appears the New Starship Foundation will continue to have a booth in the exhibitor hall. Whether Huddleston will be present at the booth is presently unknown.

Huddleston gained prominence in the Star Trek community in 2012 after salvaging the majority of a Paramount-created reproduction of the USS Enterprise-D bridge set which was used for a tour display after the original screen-used set was destroyed while filming Star Trek Generations. His plans to turn the restored bridge into an interactive museum piece snowballed into a larger science fiction museum project named the Hollywood Sci-Fi Museum, and then expanded to include a second museum named the Hollywood Horror Museum. Early volunteers for the New Starship Foundation observed and reported behavior and business practices by Huddleston which were deemed unprofessional and criminally suspect. Many in the community are now left wondering about the future of the New Starship Foundation and the museum projects.

https://www.trekradio.net/huston-huddleston-conviction-result/

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Nancy Adams Huddleston, CFO
 
Welp. That explains a lot indeed.

Huddleston was also a Channel 4 staff writer. You know- the Channel that backed Reed's 'LN' project...

Wiki: ''Huston Huddleston worked in London at Channel 4 as a writer, creating several TV pilots including The Wacky Dooley Show, The Spinal Tap Reunion Special, Vivien Leigh, and the comedy The Greatest Show Ever directed by Joe Dante and starring Mickey Rooney.[1] Huddleston wrote and directed "Six Chicks and a Dead Guy".[2]

He co-wrote the second episode of the fan-made web series Star Trek Continues entitled "Lolani".[4]



I think starting an 'educational museum' is a great way to attract ...kids.
 
Last edited:
Funny how the whole &#8220;MJ controversy&#8221; always seems to revolve around the same group of people. Not ha ha funny. The other one.

And now watch them move slowly to the separate-art-from-artist crowd to squeeze a few more bucks out of their agenda.
 
Well from reading that maybe it would be a good thing to take it down. i agree. we don't want that with Michael. :no:
 
I guess then they should be called "the controversial Hollywood Horror Museum" now, and horror fans can decide whether they are able to separate the expositions from the institution.

Seriously though, the former CEO is now replaced and his wrongdoings can't be blamed on the other workers, so I don't think Thriller should be removed because of this. Nevertheless, it was a very instructive experience, revealing more about the inner problems of the museum than anything having to do with MJ - again.
 
Agreed with ScreenOrigami here. Think you put it better than I could have.
 
My head is spinning from arguing with myself over this matter.

Oh, I know this feeling too well. :flowers: I've done it with this topic as well, when - after sending my first post - I read HHM's much more reasonable later reactions to the comments. But I don't know, their initial announcement was still wrong, maybe they just realized that there are more fans than haters, and the change in tone was just a pragmatic step. :laughing:
 
ozemouze;4292852 said:
I guess then they should be called "the controversial Hollywood Horror Museum" now, and horror fans can decide whether they are able to separate the expositions from the institution.

Seriously though, the former CEO is now replaced and his wrongdoings can't be blamed on the other workers, so I don't think Thriller should be removed because of this. Nevertheless, it was a very instructive experience, revealing more about the inner problems of the museum than anything having to do with MJ - again.

I have further reservations:

1. ''RENTALS, WEDDINGS AND PREMIERES
Further revenue will come from private tours, rentals, screenings, live theatre and music events, the gift shop, café and rentals of the sets and rooms for Weddings and Private Parties.''

i.e The premises and sets can be hired, and I don't want to see 'Thriller' costumes to be misused eg in drunken stag-party videos and

2. There is a very interesting paragraph on 'copyright' as follows:

''COPYRIGHTS
All displays, props, content and materials in The Hollywood Horror Foundation correspond with the laws of Fair Use as an educational nonprofit museum. Certain props are acquired from the studios, networks or collectors, and others are not sponsored nor endorsed by the following companies: Universal, Lionsgate, New Line, Warner, Sony, MGM, ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox, Paramount, Legendary, Darkhorse or Hammer Horror. Apologies for any companies excluded.''


In other words this whole enterprise is entirely 'unofficial' and could be fantastically tacky.

3. Also: ''Music and sound effects will accompany each exhibit.''

I can imagine the Estate landing like a ton of bricks on this. (MJ image and music are all copyright).
Fair use would require that the exhibit is in some way transformative, as well as educational.

A recent tw post by the HHM reads:
''We were quite shocked there was no MJ museum apparently anywhere in the world. So if things go well, we plan to invite the family to the opening, in addition to the people involved.''

(I think they mean John Landis and Rick Baker).

This looks like a bust from 'Godaiking Studios':
vzo8nfB.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm gonna kick you out my family because you believe a celeb is guilty? tell me does that sound right because to me that really ridiculous
 
Back
Top