Absolutely, critics are gonna hate this movie no matter what and most will have an agenda against MJ regardless of how they approach it.
They can't directly drill it into the audience MJ was innocent. You'll drive people away, unfortunately.
The video is now pirvat
It’s the that’s why many of us got on board that got me.
The director said he was innocent and people who got early screenings said it does a incredible job of humanizing Michael, they don't need to have to drill it into your head since it will be obvious to everyone who watches it that he's innocent.
You said rerelease Immortal album? Okay!
In a bad way or a good way?
At first I meant it in a bad way, but the more I read it, the more I liked it. I think it’s the best way to go about this film honestly.In a bad way or a good way?
That quote I posted, I just found the interview it comes from. For me it was helpful seeing the exact question he was responding to. I'm expecting to see this question a lot when the cast start to do promotional interviews next year.
This is the full Michael bit:
"[...] He also portrays Joe Jackson in a forthcoming biopic of Michael Jackson that’s financed, in part, by the Jackson estate.
As reported by Puck, the film is supposedly planning to address the sexual abuse allegations against Jackson head-on while also attempting to rehabilitate his image. Did he have any qualms signing onto a project that might be perceived as trying to prove Jackson’s innocence?
“I actually don’t think it’s trying to prove his innocence,” Domingo says. “I think it’s actually just trying to give a great examination of an artist, what made the artist who he is, what makes him complicated, for you to leave with your own answers. There’s a myriad of answers and possibilities, but here’s a human being, and you can’t discount a person’s humanity. I think that’s exactly what it’s aiming to do. And I think that’s why most of us got on board.”
It Took Colman Domingo Three Decades to Reach the Summit of Hollywood. Now What?
After years of grinding, Colman Domingo has finally been nominated for an Oscar and become the new king of red-carpet style.www.gq.com
Michael did nothing wrong, the media's constant lynching of him is what lead to his eventual murder.
But he did have faults and made mistakes along the way, you can't deny that surely?
I don't think Michael was that innocent and green. Sure he was a kid at heart and a very kind and generous person but he wasn't as innocent as he made out to be, especially in the 80s, 90s and 00s. So I also wonder if this movie will tackle the real man behind the mask as well.
All humans have flaws obviously, but if every historical figure was over analyzed and nitpicked like Michael Jackson there would be no heroes left
I don't understand why some people need to list his flaws. Yes, he had flaws, like everybody, but how would we feel if someone did that to us, listing our flaws because "it's important to acknowledge them"? If someone asked you to describe a friend you love, would you list their flaws? I mean we can list Michael's flaws, but if we made the list of all the good things about him, it would dwarf the list of his flaws and make it seem very insignificant.
Let me be damned if I have ever heard anything said in this tone from anyone other but a Michael-basher.
I don't mean anything like that. I mean he wasn't all Heal the World all the time omg. Relax.
I'm sorry, but your wording was absolutely wrong and unwise. Using those words about Michael, even if in a good faith, is a poor judgement. Your opinion could have been made in a different way. If such a statement comes from a fan (I take it you are a fan...?), I cannot imagine what the proclaimed bashers will do.
I do agree with you but I do think it's important to highlight certain aspects of his life where he wasn't Michael Jackson the Superstar. This is where I hope the movie will really shine.
It's not that serious omg.
Oh I agree with that! I want the movie to show him as a person first and foremost, and to show him as he truly was. But the "flaws" that people often list hardly define who he was as a person. I mean, yes he was in debt. But he also gave over 500 million dollars to charity. If he had kept all his money for himself, he would never have been in debt and that's a fact. But why is it listed as a flaw? Showing that even when he was in debt he was driving through the streets giving thousands of dollars to homeless people when he should have been using it to pay off his debt will say more about who he was as a person than just saying he was in debt.
He basically became a martyr for that, and you either respect and or accept it, or not.