Latest on MJJC

"Michael", a biopic about Michael Jackson, is officially happening.

They must address the allegations in some form if they cannot use the actual 93 case.

The footage of the police cars all lined up at Neverland during filming would be such a waste. Michael being strip searched is such a raw and powerful moment . The thought of it all being canned is very disappointing.

This is the biggest opportunity to change public mindset towards him and allow the audience to know the truth.

As much as Michael’s highlights were incredible his low points were a horror and to not get into the gritty stuff would be a crime in itself.
 
Branca or the legal team does not have to written the Chandler Settlement to know its contents. Say what you want about the estate, but the legal team is great. Anyone who follows all the court proceedings cannot say that they are not on their toes. Branca also didn't make the HBO deal for the Bucharest concert, but they knew that Michael had a clause in it that said HBO wasn't allowed to speak badly about Michael, which gave the Estate a chance to sue HBO. The research they did about Robson, Safechuck is great and well documented in court-reports, but they did not know the contens of the Chandler-settlement? Never.
 
Last edited:
It's really hard to believe that the Michael film is threatening to become a disaster like the Michael album. Who would have thought that?
 
t1mber said:
1 Just like the accusations.
2 She was ready to repeat the same words in the court during 2005 trial.
Click to expand...
from what I know, Josie's description of Jordan, especially him approaching her because she was wearing a Jackson's shirt is accurate. Many of his friends are MJ fans even now in current day. Same with his mother and sister.

People want to discredit Josie because she's openly a fan, but that's the reason he started talking to her.
 
Spidey said:
Branca was not involved in the settlement. Cochran was.
Click to expand...
Branca has been an entertainment lawyer for decades. Cannot see any way he could not know (or guess) that such a clause existed. Plus the MJE legal team is pretty good, it's fair to say. They couldn't have missed this, imo.

Spidey said:
Who, like Chandler's father, has been dead for a while. Pretty much any major figure in the MJ circle involved in the settlement is dead or completely off the radar (Jordy). And since the settlement is sealed and no one was or is allowed to talk about it, current players (like Branca) were not familiar with the terms. [...]
Click to expand...
The NDA clause was written about after Michael died.

Annita said:
Branca or the legal team does not have towritten the Chandler Settlement to know its contents. Say what you will about the estate, but the legal team is great. Anyone who follows all the court proceedings cannot say that they are not on their toes. Branca also didn't make the HBO deal for the Bucharest concert, but they knew that Michael had a clause in it that said HBO wasn't allowed to speak badly about Michael, which gave the Estate a chance to sue HBO. The research they did about Robson, Safechuck is great and well documented in court-reports, but they did not know the contens of the Chandler-settlement? Never.
Click to expand...
(y)

The thing I'm bothered about is this NDA clause bc it must apply to Michael's executors. And Branca is an executive producer on the film. I'm not sure how significant that is but it's bothering me. I'm sure Branca knows what he is doing (I hope so!) but still ... :unsure:

EDIT - also, Evan tried to sue MJ after he and Lisa Marie did that interview, didn't he? He failed but he did it bc he claimed it violated the NDA agreement of the settlement. So this clause is not hidden knowledge, no way.
 
Last edited:
SmoothGangsta said:
If it's just gonna be a generic middle of the road biopic movie then I will be much less interested in it to say the least.
Click to expand...
A generic middle of the road biopic is what the movie is supposed to be. It’s what everybody involved is paying for. They want this to do for MJ what Rocketman and Bohemian Rhapsody did for Elton John and Queen.
 
kreen said:
A generic middle of the road biopic is what the movie is supposed to be. It’s what everybody involved is paying for. They want this to do for MJ what Rocketman and Bohemian Rhapsody did for Elton John and Queen.
Click to expand...
They shouldn't have said the film will cover everything and won't shy away from controversy if it's going to the opposite of that lol.
 
kreen said:
That's PR. They won't tell the media: "our movie will be a product of crass commercialism that will whitewash and simplify reality in order to make more money".
Click to expand...
Yeah, that'll go down well when the film releases, of course. I'm sure it won't be torn apart.

(Before anyone comes in and says it will be torn apart anyway I am aware and it's besides the point, making a middling, by the numbers film about MJ is a horrible idea).
 
Last edited:
kelley said:
This is not true I have hard evidence that he was with his mother sister and his whole family just a few months ago as well as evidence of them with him when LN came out too.

They lied about not being able to reach him.

Jordan has not disappeared and he and his family members have not stopped befriending people who like MJ either. I've seen it within the past year.
Click to expand...

Can we see the evidence?
 
Is it smart to stir up the allegations unless there is new pro-MJJ evidence at all? I mean the tapes of Evan e.a.: are they strong enough to convince the public MJ was a victim of an extortion deal?
 
Last edited:
Wait... a guy who has a history of trying to organize smear campaigns against MJ and his legacy.... is the only person in hollywood media who got access to MJ's biopic screenplay... and got the exclusive information that they're trying to "whitewash the allegations" via reshoots?

Yeah I'm not falling for it.

Reshoots happen in almost every movie, especially big budget ones too. Maybe they are going back to re-shoot scenes centered around the allegations because it is a sensitive subject, but to think they'd pull a bohemian rhapsody on everybody knowing the social consequences isn't giving enough credit to the filmmakers or the people behind the movie.

Those news stories were put out to scare his fans and to trick the film producers into doing exactly what the guy said. I think it'll be fine. Everyone working on the film knows how big of a movie this is, and I don't really see a reason to get all uppity about it bc a guy who has a history of pushing these kinds of narratives about MJ says so.
 
Victorious said:
I mean the tapes of Evan e.a.: are they strong enough to convince the public MJ was a victim of an extortion deal?
Click to expand...
Yes, they are. The only people who would still believe it was anything else than extortion after hearing those tapes would be those who WANT Michael to be a pedophile. Very few people even know that those tapes exist, only his most-dedicated fans know about them. But if people heard those tapes, very few people would still believe Michael was guilty of the 1993 allegations. The biopic might be the only chance to finally put those tapes out there for the general public, so I really hope they won't miss that opportunity.

Evan Chandler: I had a good communication with Michael. We were friends, you know. I liked him. I respected him and everything else for what he is, you know. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. He could have called me.

Evan Chandler: When people cut off communication totally, you only have two choices: To forget about them, or you get frustrated by their action. I can't forget about them. I love them. That's it. I don't like them. I still love Jordy, but I do not like them because I do not like the people that they've become, but I do love them, and because I love them I don't want to see them [tape irregularity]. That's why I was willing to talk. I have nothing to gain by talking. If I go through with this, I win big time. There's no way that I lose. I've checked that out inside out.
David Schwartz: But when you say "winning," what are you talking about, "winning"?
Evan Chandler: I will get everything I want, and they will be totally -- they will be destroyed forever. They will be destroyed. June is gonna lose Jordy. She will have no right to ever see him again. Michael's career will be over.
David Schwartz: And does that help Jordy?
Evan Chandler: It's irrelevant to me.

Evan Chandler: There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are intentionally going to be in certain positions. I paid them to do it. They're doing their job. I gotta just go ahead and follow through on the time zone. I mean the time set out. Everything is going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. There's other people involved.

Evan Chandler: Let me put it to you this way: I have a set routine of words that I'm going to go in there that have been rehearsed and I'm going to say. Okay? Because I don't want to say anything that could be used against me.

Evan Chandler: Because this attorney I found -- I mean, I interviewed several, and I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find, and all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can and humiliate as many people as he can, and he's got a bad [tape irregularity] --

Evan Chandler: I mean, it could be a massacre if I don't get what I want. But I do believe this person will get what he wants. So he would just really love [tape irregularity] nothing better than to have this go forward. He is nasty, he is mean, he is very smart, and he's hungry for the publicity [tape irregularity] better for him.

Evan Chandler: My instructions were to kill and destroy [tape irregularity], I'm telling you. I mean, and by killing and destroying, I'm going to torture them, Dave. Because that's what June has done to me. She has tortured me.

Evan Chandler: I mean, once I make that phone call, this guy's just going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I've given him full authority to do that.

Evan Chandler: It's gonna be bigger than all of us put together, and the whole thing's just gonna crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in its sight. That's [tape irregularity] humiliating, believe me.
David Schwartz: Yeah. And is that good?
Evan Chandler: Yeah. It's great.
David Schwartz: Why?
Evan Chandler: Great, because --
David Schwartz: I mean, is that how you're --
Evan Chandler: Because June and Jordy and Michael have forced me to take it to the extreme to get their attention. How pitiful, pitifuckingful they are to have done that.
 
etoile 37 said:
Yes, they are. The only people who would still believe it was anything else than extortion after hearing those tapes would be those who WANT Michael to be a pedophile. Very few people even know that those tapes exist, only his most-dedicated fans know about them. But if people heard those tapes, very few people would still believe Michael was guilty of the 1993 allegations. The biopic might be the only chance to finally put those tapes out there for the general public, so I really hope they won't miss that opportunity.

Evan Chandler: I had a good communication with Michael. We were friends, you know. I liked him. I respected him and everything else for what he is, you know. There was no reason why he had to stop calling me. He could have called me.

Evan Chandler: When people cut off communication totally, you only have two choices: To forget about them, or you get frustrated by their action. I can't forget about them. I love them. That's it. I don't like them. I still love Jordy, but I do not like them because I do not like the people that they've become, but I do love them, and because I love them I don't want to see them [tape irregularity]. That's why I was willing to talk. I have nothing to gain by talking. If I go through with this, I win big time. There's no way that I lose. I've checked that out inside out.
David Schwartz: But when you say "winning," what are you talking about, "winning"?
Evan Chandler: I will get everything I want, and they will be totally -- they will be destroyed forever. They will be destroyed. June is gonna lose Jordy. She will have no right to ever see him again. Michael's career will be over.
David Schwartz: And does that help Jordy?
Evan Chandler: It's irrelevant to me.

Evan Chandler: There are other people involved that are waiting for my phone call that are intentionally going to be in certain positions. I paid them to do it. They're doing their job. I gotta just go ahead and follow through on the time zone. I mean the time set out. Everything is going according to a certain plan that isn't just mine. There's other people involved.

Evan Chandler: Let me put it to you this way: I have a set routine of words that I'm going to go in there that have been rehearsed and I'm going to say. Okay? Because I don't want to say anything that could be used against me.

Evan Chandler: Because this attorney I found -- I mean, I interviewed several, and I picked the nastiest son of a bitch I could find, and all he wants to do is get this out in the public as fast as he can, as big as he can and humiliate as many people as he can, and he's got a bad [tape irregularity] --

Evan Chandler: I mean, it could be a massacre if I don't get what I want. But I do believe this person will get what he wants. So he would just really love [tape irregularity] nothing better than to have this go forward. He is nasty, he is mean, he is very smart, and he's hungry for the publicity [tape irregularity] better for him.

Evan Chandler: My instructions were to kill and destroy [tape irregularity], I'm telling you. I mean, and by killing and destroying, I'm going to torture them, Dave. Because that's what June has done to me. She has tortured me.

Evan Chandler: I mean, once I make that phone call, this guy's just going to destroy everybody in sight in any devious, nasty, cruel way that he can do it. And I've given him full authority to do that.

Evan Chandler: It's gonna be bigger than all of us put together, and the whole thing's just gonna crash down on everybody and destroy everybody in its sight. That's [tape irregularity] humiliating, believe me.
David Schwartz: Yeah. And is that good?
Evan Chandler: Yeah. It's great.
David Schwartz: Why?
Evan Chandler: Great, because --
David Schwartz: I mean, is that how you're --
Evan Chandler: Because June and Jordy and Michael have forced me to take it to the extreme to get their attention. How pitiful, pitifuckingful they are to have done that.
Click to expand...
Damn this brings it all back to me again... If they don't use this movie to virtually include these words, possibly the real tape, it will mean forever loosing an oportunity. For ever!!
 
Michael Prince said on Twitter that the original movie plot ends in 1994. That's consistent with the "leaked early version of the script" by the tabloid guy. The rumor that the movie will cover everything until his death is bullshit. That girl that was credited as Paris Jackson on IMDB site is now simply credited as "girl" so the thing that his kids will by in the movie is also bullshit.

Regarding the latest news about the legal issue, even though I hope it's not true, I'm scared that unfortunately, it is. Branca fucked up, just like when he fucked up when he signed a deal with the Cascios in 2010 to release their songs before anyone ever heard them. And just like he fucked up in 2019 when he signed another deal with the Cascios to pay them 16.5 MIL $.

Of course that he was aware of the 1993 settlement. Of course that he was aware of the NDA that MJ had about talking about the settlement. But he probably didn't read the words "heirs, administrators, executors" or forgot about them.

I don't know how will they re-shoot the third act now. Can they just change the names and re-shoot just the scenes where the names are mentioned? E.g. instead Jordan Chandler say Cordan Jandler and put a disclaimer at the end saying "any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental". South Park is doing that all the time not to get sued, like they did with "The Jeffersons" episode. Can they do that? Does anyone with the legal knowledge know about that, how that works, can they do that here?

What we know for sure is that it is too late to write completely new script for the third act and shoot the complete thing until October. So, it's impossible to change the originally planned and filmed 1993 case with 2003 case, trial and vindication. Cutting the whole thing and ending the movie in 1992 like the musical sucks, but I'm affraid that that will happen. I don't trust Roger Friedman a bit, but unfortunately, I think that he's right about this one. I pray that he's wrong though. I hope that the Estate or Prince himself issue some statement about this mess.
 
Renan_Antonio said:
If the allegations are dropped, I also wonder what kind of “climax” and “tense” moment for the storyline are they going to choose. In Bohemian, it was about the group being separated and Freddie’s problems with drugs, etc, for then to get to the comeback for Live Aid.

What could they do here? I really can’t think of anything in 92 pre-allegations to cause a good story finale.
Click to expand...
They could do the same as the musical, which would be very disappointing. Even more than Bohemian Rhapsody.

But this situation is hilarious. That they approved a multimillionaire movie without properly vetting its very obvious in-your-face legal issue. Everyone knows about the settlement. Branca knows about it, he was around when Michael, Lisa Marie and ABC/Diane Sawyer were sued because of it (and they won). Someone is lying, sorry.
 
OnirMJ said:
Of course that he was aware of the 1993 settlement. Of course that he was aware of the NDA that MJ had about talking about the settlement. But he probably didn't read the words "heirs, administrators, executors" or forgot about them.
Click to expand...
This is the bit I'm focused on. As an entertainment lawyer wouldn't he know that this is a typical clause in this kind of settlement? I don't see how he could forget or not realise something like this would be in the agreement. Plus, all the research that was done before the filming even started. Just the research that John Logan alone would have done for the script, he would have come across this. Did he not talk to anyone about this? The whole thing is so weird to me.

OnirMJ said:
I don't know how will they re-shoot the third act now. Can they just change the names and re-shoot just the scenes where the names are mentioned? E.g. instead Jordan Chandler say Cordan Jandler and put a disclaimer at the end saying "any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental". South Park is doing that all the time not to get sued, like they did with "The Jeffersons" episode. Can they do that? Does anyone with the legal knowledge know about that, how that works, can they do that here? [...]
Click to expand...
I don't have legal knowledge but I've never for one moment expected them to name JC or Evan or anyone. I always expected them to fictionalise the story as much as they could. Still setting the original allegation in the 90's, of course, but not naming actual real life names bc I assumed there would be legal consequences. I think you can name people for real in a documentary but in a drama I think you can only name people who are public figures, not private citizens. No legal knowledge, that's just my best guess.
 
apple🍎 said:
They could do the same as the musical, which would be very disappointing. Even more than Bohemian Rhapsody.

But this situation is hilarious. That they approved a multimillionaire movie without properly vetting its very obvious in-your-face legal issue. Everyone knows about the settlement. Branca knows about it, he was around when Michael, Lisa Marie and ABC/Diane Sawyer were sued because of it (and they won). Someone is lying, sorry.
Click to expand...
Seems like it. None of this is new or hidden knowledge. And it can't have been forgotten bc this stuff never goes away. Mention Michael in any capacity and all of this crap comes flooding back.
 
Also important to remember that the story can be altererd to fit better in terms of narrative. So “ending on the allegations” can also mean that they brought some stuff of the future to a time before that.

For example, maybe MJ already had a kid before the allegations on the story and things like that. They changed a lot of stuff like that in Bohemian, so we shall see…
 
Oldtimer said:
This info was probably put out intentionally, it's all over the place
Click to expand...
This definitely isn't shining a positive light on the movie. And the fact that there has been no official statement put out by Lionsgate or the estate definitely doesn't look good.
 
nextbigthing56 said:
This definitely isn't shining a positive light on the movie. And the fact that there has been no official statement put out by Lionsgate or the estate definitely doesn't look good.
Click to expand...
But those responsible are not allowed to comment publicly on the issue, are they?
 
Maybe they'll deal with the allegations through a bit of unrealized foreshadowing, like with a scene where MJ is seen playing innocently with children, and some PR-obsessed record company suit tells him, "you know, you ought to be careful, people might draw the wrong conclusions", and MJ will say "how could anyone be so evil?" Judging from other biopics, I expect the dialogue to be that on the nose.
 
kreen said:
Maybe they'll deal with the allegations through a bit of unrealized foreshadowing, like with a scene where MJ is seen playing innocently with children, and some PR-obsessed record company suit tells him, "you know, you ought to be careful, people might draw the wrong conclusions", and MJ will say "how could anyone be so evil?" Judging from other biopics, I expect the dialogue to be that on the nose.
Click to expand...
The problem is that this would not convince anyone that he was innocent, it would just raise questions without providing any answers. They need to present the actual proof.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top