Latest on MJJC

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

bluemoon7 said:
If you have credible sources, please NAME them, except you are a journalist and your sources need protection.

Please stop hinting and not saying anything, really. That only leads to more speculation, possibly rumors.
Click to expand...
anyone can claim a "source" says something. And people are the internet are forever claiming they know some insider.

Just how why would the estate and lionsgate allow info like this to get out to these insiders if were true?
 
Spidey said:
Branca was not involved in the settlement. Cochran was. 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. I'm not familiar with Belloni (what makes him a MJ hater?), but I have heard from more than one source (I'm in the film industry), that this is completely true. The good news is that they finally have landed on a solution in the script, albeit more similar to the Broadway show. I would have preferred this to tackle the allegations head-on whether than skip them, b/c, much like the estate's silence on this, most people assume rumors to be true if no one actively refutes them. And we have never heard MJ's on a large scale like this opportunity provided. But, the movie will still be a hit, irregardless...which ultimately, is all the Estate and Lionsgate/Universal care about, sadly.
Click to expand...
Sounds like your source is just rehashing roger friedmonds article, that's also filled with nonsense.
 
kelley said:
I am genuinely amazed that many of you are buying this ridiculous story created by one of Michael's enemies.

Theres no reason to believe this guy knows anything. His current story contradicts what he was saying last year. He's probably just making stuff up as he goes along.

The estate probably hasn't shut it down directly because the fake news is generating buzz and keeping the biopic in the spotlight. Bad publicity is still publicity.
Click to expand...
This is the only thing that would indeed justify their silence!
 
Its not good PR to have things written about MJ settling/silencing a boy, especially without the reasons mentioned why he did so. If it ends up not being in the movie, this is a complete clusterfeck! The point would be to get people to see the movie, and take the information in and then go online and discuss it. Not to read snippets about MJ paying someone without understanding the reason and then watching the movie without it being in there!

The best way would be for people to go watch the movie without hearing any of this and then just be: WOW, I never knew about this!
 
Last edited:
kelley said:
[...] The estate probably hasn't shut it down directly because the fake news is generating buzz and keeping the biopic in the spotlight. Bad publicity is still publicity.
Click to expand...
In some cases, yes, but not here. In this case, since it involves issues around csa, no, it's not helpful at all. If the PR team are allowing this to run bc it's 'still publicity' then that's disgusting and a serious misjudgement. The silence is confusing but I certainly hope it's not bc, oh, 'any publicity is good'. That would be beyond crap.

Lightbringer said:
Its not good PR to have things written about MJ settling/silencing a boy, especially without the reasons mentioned why he did so. If it ends up not being in the movie, this is a complete clusterfeck!
Click to expand...
🎯

Lightbringer said:
The point would be to get people to see the movie, and take the information in and then go online and discuss it. Not to read snippets about MJ paying someone without understanding the reason and then watching the movie without being in there!

The best way would be for people to go watch the movie without hearing any of this and then just be: WOW, I never knew about this!
Click to expand...
(y)
 
1nn5 said:
8:40 AM PT -- A source connected to the film tells TMZ ... the film is not imperiled, and there will be re-shoots in March. The source declined to comment on whether the re-shoots have to do with eliminating the scenes involving Jordan Chandler.
Click to expand...
Honestly the fact we keep hearing "no comment" on this specifically is kind of concerning.
 
t1mber said:
Don't forget that the only source of this story that's all over the news outlets (LN style) is the same man who got canceled Chris Brown's tribute to Thriller (40 years anniversary) at the AMA 2022. Because he hates MJ and uses any opportunity to tarnish his name.
Click to expand...
Noted, but it would not hurt the biopic for the Estate or the biopic production team to come out and say that the story is false, it would take 10 minutes. And since they wont do that I suspect there is some truth to it!
 
dam2040 said:
Is it? Why should they have to reply to every rumour that pops up?

Have they been particularly open about anything regarding this film? No. Why change that because some rat has published a story?
Click to expand...
I don't think they need to do anything. It's just concerning to me that there hasn't been a pretty easy denial of the reports, instead just saying they're moving forward and re-shoots are happening.

Of course it could be just as you say.
 
dam2040 said:
Is it? Why should they have to reply to every rumour that pops up?

Have they been particularly open about anything regarding this film? No. Why change that because some rat has published a story?
Click to expand...
They would have had ZERO to lose by saying "this story is entirely false" meaning the Jordan Chandler issue is not a problem. They would not have to mention Jordans name, just saying that the story is false. Instead they wasted the same time side-stepping by being as vague as they could, which leads me to believe there is some truth to the the report.

If the report is totally bogus the blame is on the Estate and the film company for failing to issue a strong denial instead just saying the film itself is not in danger of not happening and saying re-shoots are happening that have nothing to do with the concerns brought up about the Chandlers.

The logical conclusion to draw atm is that there is a problem related to the Chandler part of the movie, it might not be as bad as the report claims, but still an issue!
 
Spidey said:
Branca was not involved in the settlement. Cochran was. 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. I'm not familiar with Belloni (what makes him a MJ hater?), but I have heard from more than one source (I'm in the film industry), that this is completely true. The good news is that they finally have landed on a solution in the script, albeit more similar to the Broadway show. I would have preferred this to tackle the allegations head-on whether than skip them, b/c, much like the estate's silence on this, most people assume rumors to be true if no one actively refutes them. And we have never heard MJ's on a large scale like this opportunity provided. But, the movie will still be a hit, irregardless...which ultimately, is all the Estate and Lions
Click to expand...
The settlement has been a publicly available document for the last twenty years.
 
I think both sides have valid arguments; problem is there's heavy bias on both ends muddying the waters: from the Estate/Lionsgate ultimately wanting the film's marketing to succeed, stonewalling in regards to the reason for re-shoots, and Belloni's anti-MJ reporting, which implies that his reporting that the allegations are the reason behind the re-shoots are probably a fabrication or an embellishment.

As hard as it is, I think I'm going to just let time tell on this one. I have a feeling it's somewhere in the middle. That the re-shoots do involve the allegation scenes, but would be an easy fix (name change) and the allegation scenes will otherwise stay in tact.
 
CodaBroda said:
I think both sides have valid arguments; problem is there's heavy bias on both ends muddying the waters: from the Estate/Lionsgate ultimately wanting the film's marketing to succeed, stonewalling in regards to the reason for re-shoots, and Belloni's anti-MJ reporting, which implies that his reporting that the allegations are the reason behind the re-shoots are probably a fabrication or an embellishment.

As hard as it is, I think I'm going to just let time tell on this one. I have a feeling it's somewhere in the middle. That the re-shoots do involve the allegation scenes, but would be an easy fix (name change) and the allegation scenes will otherwise stay in tact.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't a voice over likely cover that? Or would his name have been used abundantly?
 
SmoothGangsta said:
I don't think they need to do anything. It's just concerning to me that there hasn't been a pretty easy denial of the reports, instead just saying they're moving forward and re-shoots are happening.

Of course it could be just as you say.
Click to expand...
Can they comment on the Chandler-allagations when they can not name it as such?
 
I would be more afraid if there's another reason of re-shooting: for example bad acting of Jaafar (remember he's not a professional actor although Ariana Grande has just received her Oscar nomination for the first real movie) or non working result based on poor reviews of test auditory. In that case Lionsgate/Estate don't want to comment anything to not reveal any problems.
 
I'm really getting sick and tired of this shit.

People ask on occasion about who was the first victim of cancel culture, you can absolutley make the case that MJ was patient zero when it comes to that phenomenon. People simply just want him to be guilty. It doesn't matter that all the accusations have been thoroughly debunked through multiple facets and the actual evidence points to his innocence, the narrative always was that MJ was a creepy ghoulish pedo with a nose that falls off and thats what everybody has stuck with. It's the classic sunk cost fallacy.

And now it's even worse these days than in '93 or '05 because people will take accusations against people at absolute face value without doing any research or appealing to habeas corpus. I mean hell, Johnny Depp was exonerated on every level and people still think he's a wife beater who got off because of his fame.

So yeah, if these reports about the reshoots are true, then it really doesn't surprise me that media insiders were pitching a shitfit and REEEing "aBuSE aPOLogIA" over the biopic rightfully portraying the allegations for what they really were, two extortion attempts by both a jealous starfucking deadbeat father and an insane cluster B narcissist mother who exploited her own son's illness for money and material posessions.
 
t1mber said:
I would be more afraid if there's another reason of re-shooting: for example bad acting of Jaafar (remember he's not a professional actor although Ariana Grande has just received her Oscar nomination for the first real movie) or non working result based on poor reviews of test auditory. In that case Lionsgate/Estate don't want to comment anything to not reveal any problems.
Click to expand...
That would be worrying indeed... but would that affect the third act only??
 
Billie Jean 78 said:
Then why not do a DS then? Sneddon was never able to do anything against it.
Click to expand...
This situation is different because legally they cannot depict or allude to specific details about the case, nor can they depict the family. It's possible even having the father’s phone call in the film could be argued as a breech of contract.
 
Hollywood_Tonight said:
This situation is different because legally they cannot depict or allude to specific details about the case, nor can they depict the family. It's possible even having the father’s phone call in the film could be argued as a breech of contract.
Click to expand...
Who would have been sooo stupid as to suggest such a contract to Michael?!?!

t1mber said:
The most important and dramatic moments... But I really hope that there are just technical reshoots.
Click to expand...
Bad acting skills would show outside of dramatic moments as well... If that is the case... why did they decide to take Jafaar then?
 
SmoothGangsta said:
Honestly the fact we keep hearing "no comment" on this specifically is kind of concerning.
Click to expand...
Maybe the reason why we keep hearing "no comment" on this specifically is because the source doesn't have information on this specifically. They say the statement is from "a source connected to the film", this is not a statement from the Estate or from Lionsgate. The source's knowledge might be limited, depending on who it is and what their role is in connection with the film. The source might know that there are no issues with the film and that everything is still going as planned, with the re-shoots being planned in March, but this source might not know what the re-shoots are about, so they just simply can't comment on that.
 
And another thing, why even bother with the settlement? Now that Evan killed himself, who would even sue? Jordan and Lily want nothing to do with the situation, as they have repeatedly evaded legal matters. June didn't move a finger these past 20 years either. So, this reasoning sounds so iffy. It's frustrating and hilarious at the same time really. For a while it seemed they really had the hang of this but I guess it's too much to expect from the estate
 
apple🍎 said:
And another thing, why even bother with the settlement? Now that Evan killed himself, who would even sue? Jordan and Lily want nothing to do with the situation, as they have repeatedly evaded legal matters. June didn't move a finger these past 20 years either. So, this reasoning sounds so iffy. It's frustrating and hilarious at the same time really. For a while it seemed they really had the hang of this but I guess it's too much to expect from the estate
Click to expand...
Because this entire story is BS
 
The story is definitely not BS. Michael signed NDA. And his Estate is now basically him (legally). Also Prince Jackson is involved as producer. They should have just let Lionsgate produce the whole thing without them being included or credited in any way (just approving the script). That's basically what the Chandlers did in 2004 with their book credited to Evan's brother. They found the loop hole. That was the only way they could have included the 1993 case. But they didn't do that. The only other way would be to sign another contract and pay more money to Chandlers to use their likeness and story without they suing them for the breach of contract. Maybe Branca did that (considering that he did similar thing with Cascios) but they now backed out from the agreement.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top