Latest on MJJC

PEPSI NOT RE-RELEASING MJs COMMERCIALS

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
I understand wanting to do research. I'm talking more so just switching it on out of curiosity.
Click to expand...
I think it's the same, though. Let's say a fan of Michael has heard (I don't mean now, I mean in the first few weeks or months after LN came out) about the tv programme and they are unsure / curious / nervous / whatever. They're not seeing it as research but they need to know for their own reasons what the content actually is. I think that's reasonable. It's true that I haven't watched the thing and I have relied on other people's assessment of it but I wouldn't normally do that. I would always want to check something out for myself. With LN I did it the other way around and by the time I had researched it thoroughly I knew I didn't want to watch it and couldn't bc it would be so triggering. But I can understand why a person might decide to take a look.

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Idk, there's levels of intensity, you just have to know exactly how it'll proceed:
Click to expand...
But how would you know if you didn't look at the thing?

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
even if you don't know what exactly they'll say, just getting the general gist from somewhere.
Click to expand...
But that could be problematic. Just getting the general gist as opposed to knowing exactly how the story was told. It's better to know for sure. I'm not exactly advocating for people to watch this thing and especially not now, so many years down the line. But if someone did watch it now, in 2023, I would understand. I'm talking about Michael fans watching it for serious reasons not some sick fkr watching it for god knows what reason.

I realise I'm not being entirely consistent here bc I haven't watched it myself and that's not happening. But it was always necessary to have a cohort of people who did watch it, especially the original 4 hour version. I think that will continue to be essential even in the future.
 
zinniabooklover said:
But how would you know if you didn't look at the thing?
Click to expand...
Watch it on mute maybe? Dissect it a scene at a time. In addition to compiling reviews and clips.

I'm not saying it's foolproof, it's just, the way it effectively affects you is due to the way it appeals to the senses. The music, their dialogue, editing, etc. Idk, watch it in a room with the lights on, without headphones on. Don't make it immersive. Too many people might've "experienced", especially with the whole Sundance movement. That's hard to fight. That's why I personally am not interested.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Watch it on mute maybe? Dissect it a scene at a time. In addition to compiling reviews and clips.
Click to expand...
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. If someone watched it on mute how would they know that false claims were being made about Brett Barnes? How would a person know that WR and JS claim that Michael was trying to separate them from their families even though there is photographic evidence to show the opposite? I believe it's towards the end of the film where the famous 'fire' scene is shown, WR burning items allegedly given to him by Michael. There is documentary evidence proving that WR sold his 'Michael' items by auction and the stuff he burned was just random, ordinary stuff (a copy of Thriller 25, iirc) that had never belonged to Michael.

I suppose one good thing is that those lies have been documented and the info is there on the web so nobody needs to force themselves to watch something so upsetting.

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
I'm not saying it's foolproof, it's just, the way it effectively affects you is due to the way it appeals to the senses.
Click to expand...
But this is exactly why you would need to watch it fully if you decided to watch it at all. You would need to see for yourself exactly how they are trying to affect you and draw you into their story.

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
The music, their dialogue, editing, etc. Idk, watch it in a room with the lights on, without headphones on. Don't make it immersive.
Click to expand...
I'm sure the vast majority of people who watched the thing did exactly this. Most people would have seen it on tv, no headphones, normal home lighting etc. Probably eating Domino's pizza. I don't think people would be trying to recreate the Sundance experience.

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Too many people might've "experienced", especially with the whole Sundance movement. That's hard to fight.
Click to expand...
It is hard to fight which is why I think anyone who feels the need to watch it has to watch it properly. Not necessarily in its entirety but watch it like any other tv programme. If someone feels they cannot watch the whole thing - or any of it - that seems entirely reasonable.

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
That's why I personally am not interested.
Click to expand...
And I think that's perfectly fine. I'm not interested in watching it either but I am very glad other people did. Michael's fans could not have mounted such a robust challenge to the thing if they hadn't been strong enough to watch the wretched thing.

Very early on I saw a few tiny fragments of the tv programme - completely inadvertently (bloody YT) and closed them down immediately. Later on, after seeing / listening to numerous interviews I heard a detail that is included in LN. It was gross and I wish I could 'unhear' it. But what it did do was make me understand exactly how far these people are prepared to go. I understood something about the nature of what they are trying to do which I don't think I could have got otherwise.

Anyway, you're right. It's depressing, we don't want to watch it, end of.

Pepsi adverts!
 
Last edited:
Hmm, my post got lost, so I retyped it. Read the following two posts in reverse order...

Zeus 7 said:
Motown leaving him off their anniversary special, MTV renaming the Vanguard Award,
Click to expand...
This is what I mean. There is no "greatest superbowl appearance". You ask 10 people and you'll get 10 different answers. Everyone is different!

As for Motown, they have nearly 70 years of history. That's a lot of artists. Of course they're only gonna promote the ones they think will sell the most next year. That's all they've ever done.

MTV - sorry to break it to you, but these "naming rights" go to the highest bidder. Whoever pays the most money gets the award named after them. And after 5 years, the contract expires and they sell it to someone else. Nothing is permanent.

Blues_Away2023 said:
Unfortunately there's no way back for MJ if this trials goes south and the unthinkable happens.
Click to expand...
How come? Firstly, MJ is dead and therefore cannot be "on trial". Secondly, the way to accuse somebody isn't via a million dollar TV show, anybody who actually thinks about this will see it's just for money. Thirdly, what is the worst that can happen? Fourthly, I'd suggest going to the store and picking up all the CDs. That way, you can always listen to his music, no matter what.
 
Last edited:
Hmm, for some reason these two posts are gonna appear out of sequence.

Mister_Jay_Tee said:
It's for cable.
Click to expand...
Still don't understand. What does "re-release a commercial" mean? The answer is nothing. So what if they released a commercial once in a couple of countries for a few weeks in the 80s? If you wanna watch it for nostalgic reasons, then go ahead.
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
This is still super ignorant. It's not a huge deal, these Pepsi ones aren't, but it certainly makes some already fragile people feel more so.
Click to expand...
Fragile. Too fragile. The answer to this "problem" isn't to ram Pepsi commercials down everyone's throat. The answer is for these people to stop being so fragile. And that's not something I can help them with.

ChrisC said:
I'm not interested in how much money the Estate makes.
Click to expand...
Wow, great post. Thanks for making it. I agree with so much of it. I could reply to points in every paragraph, but I'd be here all day, do I'll just keep it short and pick one line.

I'm the same. I don't care about "the estate". I'm not even sure we need an "estate" at all. I don't care how much the lawyers make. I definitely don't care about how much the publicists and managers make. I like MJ because I enjoy listening to his music. That's it. No other reason. I'm not an MJ fan just because he's popular. I couldn't care less who else likes him. It doesn't matter if he gets to number 1, or sets a new record, or wins an award. All that matters is that I can listen to his albums whenever I want to.
 
Last edited:
R1chard said:
Hmm, my post got lost, so I retyped it. Read the following two posts in reverse order...


This is what I mean. There is no "greatest superbowl appearance". You ask 10 people and you'll get 10 different answers. Everyone is different!

As for Motown, they have nearly 70 years of history. That's a lot of artists. Of course they're only gonna promote the ones they think will sell the most next year. That's all they've ever done.

MTV - sorry to break it to you, but these "naming rights" go to the highest bidder. Whoever pays the most money gets the award named after them. And after 5 years, the contract expires and they sell it to someone else. Nothing is permanent.


How come? Firstly, MJ is dead and therefore cannot be "on trial". Secondly, the way to accuse somebody isn't via a million dollar TV show, anybody who actually thinks about this will see it's just for money. Thirdly, what is the worst that can happen? Fourthly, I'd suggest going to the store and picking up all the CDs. That way, you can always listen to his music, no matter what.
Click to expand...
A win for Robson and Safechuck is essentially a MJ guilty verdict.

I don't want my idol to be labeled as that. He deserves better.

Who buys Cd's in 2023? plus I already have all his music in a variety of different formats.
 
R1chard said:
What does "re-release a commercial" mean? The answer is nothing. So what if they released a commercial once in a couple of countries for a few weeks in the 80s? If you wanna watch it for nostalgic reasons, then go ahead.
Click to expand...
Well, I'm not saying it's a big deal, I don't care. But Pepsi decided they have a history worth celebrating. So why exclude any of it?


R1chard said:
The answer to this "problem" isn't to ram Pepsi commercials down everyone's throat. The answer is for these people to stop being so fragile.
Click to expand...
Maybe that's true, but that's not a new problem. People pick and choose what to be sensitive about.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
A win for Robson and Safechuck is essentially a MJ guilty verdict.
Click to expand...
Again - MJ is dead. He's not on trial. He died an innocent man and that can never change.

Blues_Away2023 said:
I don't want my idol to be labeled as that. He deserves better.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I guess. Nobody would want that. But again, it doesn't matter. If you're a fan, and want to continue being a fan, then why not? If you'd consider not being a fan just because other people don't like MJ, you probably need to ask yourself sone questions.

Blues_Away2023 said:
Who buys Cd's in 2023?
Click to expand...
Anybody who wants to be in control of what they listen to.

Like, I'm presuming that anybody dreading this is afraid that all of MJs music will suddenly be delisted from Spotify and Tidal (if not then wtf is the issue?)

And if you own the CDs, you can get around the problem of other people dictating what you can or can't listen to.
 
It is pretty funny how it seems like the height of the 80s and the signs of being a success was sponsoring a crap drink brand. Probably loaded with FPAs too.
 
83magic said:
just came across this article. thought I’d share to reassure everyone that michael and his accomplishments have not been forgotten 💜🫣

www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

Night Michael Jackson performed to 125,000 people at Aintree

The King of Pop performed the iconic show 35 years ago
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk
Click to expand...


83, this is the Liverpool Echo piece from 2013 about the Aintree gig. It doesn't tell you anything you didn't already know but it's a lovely little write-up (imo!) from 2013 for the 25 year anniversary.
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk

Michael Jackson Liverpool's gig in 1988: Unique star, unique date

Jade Wright looks back on the King of Pop’s thriller on the racecourse
www.liverpoolecho.co.uk www.liverpoolecho.co.uk
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
It is pretty funny how it seems like the height of the 80s and the signs of being a success was sponsoring a crap drink brand. Probably loaded with FPAs too.
Click to expand...
You must like This Note's For You by Neil Young. Some people sang for food too like the McDonald's commercials with DeBarge. The Rolling Stones made a Rice Krispies commercial in the 1960s. I guess back then singing for cereal was the thing because The Monkees & Jackson 5 have cereal ads too.
Blues_Away2023 said:
Who buys Cd's in 2023?
Click to expand...
 
out of the two pepsi commercials in ‘84, my favourite is the (infamous) concert one. here, michael made the best of his limited screen time. the close up shot of his footwork was astounding. I’ve never seen michael or anyone else replicate that. it would’ve been interesting to see what the top half of his body was doing.

we get a couple more spins during the performance portion, which is fine by me. I like michael’s blue sparkly jacket, and the take on the motown 25 outfit as a whole. he looked every inch a superstar.

I don’t think the pyrotechnics added anything, and was unnecessary. a more dazzling moment could have been achieved by using some kind of computer generated effects. the accident was a tragedy, and it’s a shame the commercial will be forever associated with that. bob giraldi directed four of michael’s promos in total (‘beat it’, ‘say say say’, and the pepsi street and concert commercials). I wonder if michael would have continued to work with him had it not been for the accident?

there was an uncut version I saw awhile ago with all of the brothers huddled together in group choreography, before they hit the stage. unfortunately I can’t seem to find it now..
 
83magic said:
out of the two pepsi commercials in ‘84, my favourite is the (infamous) concert one. here, michael made the best of his limited screen time. the close up shot of his footwork was astounding. I’ve never seen michael or anyone else replicate that. it would’ve been interesting to see what the top half of his body was doing.

we get a couple more spins during the performance portion, which is fine by me. I like michael’s blue sparkly jacket, and the take on the motown 25 outfit as a whole. he looked every inch a superstar.

I don’t think the pyrotechnics added anything, and was unnecessary. a more dazzling moment could have been achieved by using some kind of computer generated effects. the accident was a tragedy, and it’s a shame the commercial will be forever associated with that. bob giraldi directed four of michael’s promos in total (‘beat it’, ‘say say say’, and the pepsi street and concert commercials). I wonder if michael would have continued to work with him had it not been for the accident?

there was an uncut version I saw awhile ago with all of the brothers huddled together in group choreography, before they hit the stage. unfortunately I can’t seem to find it now..
Click to expand...
The footage looks great. Michael looks fantastic. Was this all recorded pre accident?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top