Latest on MJJC

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

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.
 
very off topic here, but all this talk about the film ending in 94 has me thinking

What if they're hoping to make this a multi-film situation..

Perhaps the film is going to end with: "Michael Jackson will return in: Michael II" or something along those lines.

Jokes aside, I don't remember where I heard this or if I'm making this up entirely but I feel like I remember a while ago hearing that they wanted to make two films out of MJ's story. Basing this idea of off the script leaks, this film would theoretically be part one and it leads up to 1993/4, then part two would then be 95-09. That would IMO be the better option if they want to really tell his story without sanitizing anything. But that would beg the question of: does the public want to sit through two movies about MJ? All that said: a sequel would be entirely contingent on the reviews of the first film if that was what they had in mind.

If we continue with this theory, the film makers would get two films that are able to delve into Michael's life and give the important off-stage moments the time they deserve alongside his career accomplishments, interesting to think about to say the least but still entirely hearsay.


Fr tho, this is entirely a tangent that based off something I read randomly like a year ago, so don't read into this too heavy. Just an idea.
 
OnirMJ said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is total BS and there's no credibility too it especially when it's published by that asshole from Puck who previously lied about knowing the script.
 
FMJP said:
very off topic here, but all this talk about the film ending in 94 has me thinking

What if they're hoping to make this a multi-film situation..

Perhaps the film is going to end with: "Michael Jackson will return in: Michael II" or something along those lines.

Jokes aside, I don't remember where I heard this or if I'm making this up entirely but I feel like I remember a while ago hearing that they wanted to make two films out of MJ's story. Basing this idea of off the script leaks, this film would theoretically be part one and it leads up to 1993/4, then part two would then be 95-09. That would IMO be the better option if they want to really tell his story without sanitizing anything. But that would beg the question of: does the public want to sit through two movies about MJ? All that said: a sequel would be entirely contingent on the reviews of the first film if that was what they had in mind.

If we continue with this theory, the film makers would get two films that are able to delve into Michael's life and give the important off-stage moments the time they deserve alongside his career accomplishments, interesting to think about to say the least but still entirely hearsay.


Fr tho, this is entirely a tangent that based off something I read randomly like a year ago, so don't read into this too heavy. Just an idea.
Click to expand...
The reports are completely false since the film is already confirmed to end in 2009 with This is It and Michael's death, his kids were reportedly cast in the movie as well last year. Sometimes i think the people here who easily believe negative garbage like these articles here aren't actually fans. You shouldn't be swayed so easily by this stuff
 
IhateTheMedia said:
The reports are completely false since the film is already confirmed to end in 2009 with This is It and Michael's death, his kids were reportedly cast in the movie as well last year. Sometimes i think the people here who easily believe negative garbage like these articles here aren't actually fans. You shouldn't be swayed so easily by this stuff
Click to expand...
Nobody from the film has ever said it ended in 2009.
 
IhateTheMedia said:
The reports are completely false since the film is already confirmed to end in 2009 with This is It and Michael's death, his kids were reportedly cast in the movie as well last year. Sometimes i think the people here who easily believe negative garbage like these articles here aren't actually fans. You shouldn't be swayed so easily by this stuff
Click to expand...
yeah no, like I said that was a tangent off something I heard like a year ago, a "what if" if you will. I'm trusting the reports from the producers as well. that post was simply a train of thought i had lmao.
 
IhateTheMedia said:
The reports are completely false since the film is already confirmed to end in 2009 with This is It and Michael's death, his kids were reportedly cast in the movie as well last year. Sometimes i think the people here who easily believe negative garbage like these articles here aren't actually fans. You shouldn't be swayed so easily by this stuff
Click to expand...
Michael Prince said it ends in 1994. MJ kids are not cast. Everything that producers said is marketing and they didn't say any year specifically.
 
Too much story to fit into a 2/3 hour film . I’ve said it countless times but I’d bet my house on this movie ending around 93.

Jaafar is simply too young to play a mid 2000s MJ and the make up would start to look like a parody with the long straight hair and red shirt etc.

I can see the climax being man in the mirror Dangerous tour or the Super Bowl.
 
  • 1979 to 1989 is one decade.
  • 1989 to 1999 is the second decade.
  • 1999 to 2009 is the third decade.
Jafaar is playing 3 decades of Michael's career, why people are debating about this i have no idea
colman-domingo-confirms-the-movie-gets-into-the-early-v0-iohtuaivkuid1.jpeg
 
IhateTheMedia said:
  • 1979 to 1989 is one decade.
  • 1989 to 1999 is the second decade.
  • 1999 to 2009 is the third decade.
Jafaar is playing 3 decades of Michael's career, why people are debating about this i have no idea
colman-domingo-confirms-the-movie-gets-into-the-early-v0-iohtuaivkuid1.jpeg
Click to expand...
For those that don't know early Noughts means 2000-2002, since he said "accusations" and not just "accusation" that also means we will get some stuff about the trial. There will be a timeskip to This is It presumably and then his death
 
IhateTheMedia said:
  • 1979 to 1989 is one decade.
  • 1989 to 1999 is the second decade.
  • 1999 to 2009 is the third decade.
Jafaar is playing 3 decades of Michael's career, why people are debating about this i have no idea
colman-domingo-confirms-the-movie-gets-into-the-early-v0-iohtuaivkuid1.jpeg
Click to expand...
Except it starts much earlier than that, when Michael is a child. Three decades on from there takes it to the mid nineties. Domingo probably isn’t even aware of exactly when the allegations happened. I would certainly be more willing to trust Michael Prince on this.
 
StellaJackson said:
Except it starts much earlier than that, when Michael is a child. Three decades on from there takes it to the mid nineties. Domingo probably isn’t even aware of exactly when the allegations happened. I would certainly be more willing to trust Michael Prince on this.
Click to expand...
Three decades meaning the period Jafaar is playing, is probably what he meant. That would make sense since we have literal descriptions from people who saw footage saying they saw HIStory era Michael, it shows Michael's drug addiction which only got really bad after the Munich back injury. People who saw the footage also reported that Graham King stated it will explicitly cover the This Is It rehearsals
 
A biopic of Michael Jackson must tell the whole story of his life up until his tragic death in 2009. What can you make of a biopic that ends in the 90s?
 
FMJP said:
very off topic here, but all this talk about the film ending in 94 has me thinking

What if they're hoping to make this a multi-film situation..

Perhaps the film is going to end with: "Michael Jackson will return in: Michael II" or something along those lines.

Jokes aside, I don't remember where I heard this or if I'm making this up entirely but I feel like I remember a while ago hearing that they wanted to make two films out of MJ's story. Basing this idea of off the script leaks, this film would theoretically be part one and it leads up to 1993/4, then part two would then be 95-09. That would IMO be the better option if they want to really tell his story without sanitizing anything. But that would beg the question of: does the public want to sit through two movies about MJ? All that said: a sequel would be entirely contingent on the reviews of the first film if that was what they had in mind.

If we continue with this theory, the film makers would get two films that are able to delve into Michael's life and give the important off-stage moments the time they deserve alongside his career accomplishments, interesting to think about to say the least but still entirely hearsay.


Fr tho, this is entirely a tangent that based off something I read randomly like a year ago, so don't read into this too heavy. Just an idea.
Click to expand...
I said the same thing a while ago. Also because Branca once claimed this film is gonna be "The Godfather of all biopics", which we know consists of TWO amazing films, back to back
 
Billie Jean 78 said:
Who would have been sooo stupid as to suggest such a contract to Michael?!?!


Bad acting skills would show outside of dramatic moments as well... If that is the case... why did they decide to take Jafaar then?
Click to expand...
I guess his has the most closeness to mike
 
ssj said:
I said the same thing a while ago. Also because Branca once claimed this film is gonna be "The Godfather of all biopics", which we know consists of TWO amazing films, back to back
Click to expand...
I do like the idea!!! If they indeed are eying this, it would indeed explain the absence of many caracters in Michael's life that we haven't heard of being casted. Plus, Michael's life in his later years deserves being told!!!

8701girl said:
I guess his has the most closeness to mike
Click to expand...
You think? Have they even done a casting?
 
Billie Jean 78 said:
I do like the idea!!! If they indeed are eying this, it would indeed explain the absence of many caracters in Michael's life that we haven't heard of being casted. Plus, Michael's life in his later years deserves being told!!!


You think? Have they even done a casting?
Click to expand...
Not sure I mean if they did they couldn't find anyone and probably asked jermaine about jafarr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top