Latest on MJJC

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

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
 
Btw guys the ""La times" article titled "Michael Jackson biopic gone in disarray " 🙄🤬
 
All of these so called journalists can do only copy/paste without any fact checking. I'm glad that with the recent development of AI 99% of them will be fired in a few years.
 
I'm not sure how I feel about the Estate and Lionsgate not really commenting on the articles and reshoots.

I mean on one hand, why would they? It'll just draw more attention to the articles and give them more credibility. On the other hand, us fans who support them are on in the dark over this whole thing.

It's been almost 8 months since filming was completed, and all we've seen officially is one still of Jaafar as Michael.

Perhaps a short teaser attached to the Superbowl may pour cold water over those articles and gets fan excited for October?
 
SmoothCriminal1995 said:
I'm not sure how I feel about the Estate and Lionsgate not really commenting on the articles and reshoots.

I mean on one hand, why would they? It'll just draw more attention to the articles and give them more credibility. On the other hand, us fans who support them are on in the dark over this whole thing.

It's been almost 8 months since filming was completed, and all we've seen officially is one still of Jaafar as Michael.

Perhaps a short teaser attached to the Superbowl may pour cold water over those articles and gets fan excited for October?
Click to expand...
They already commented on the reports, but only to say the film was not in peril and risk of not being finished or the project cancelled - and to say that re-shoots are happening in march! The only thing they would not comment on was the issue the reports has brought up!
 
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...
I was thinking about this again today, and I realized another big problem if they used this approach. Haters like to act like even before the allegations, everybody around Michael was concerned about how Michael's relationship with children looked like to the world, and it would make sense to them to have a scene where the people around Michael warned him that his relationship with children might cause him problems, but such a scene would actually be telling the story completely inaccurately. Before 1993, NO ONE was bothered by Michael hanging out with children. NO ONE saw Michael that way. NO ONE ever dreamed he could be that way. In the 80s, when people saw Michael with Emmanuel Lewis, their minds didn't even go there, at the worst they just thought he was a child himself incapable of having a relationship with a woman, but they never thought he was doing anything to Emmanuel. His image back then was that he was the most innocent and harmless man on the planet, literally incapable of harming anyone. Of course after 1993, the media like to pretend they saw it coming, but the reality is that they didn't. No one did. No one was ever worried about Michael Jackson and children before the accusations, and everybody was taken by surprise when the allegations dropped. Like Evan Chandler himself said, this was not something Michael could have seen coming: "He will not believe what's going to happen to him. Beyond his worst nightmares."

That's one of the reasons I really hope that the rumors about the biopic opening with the 1993 allegations are false. Someone who discovers Michael for the first time by watching the biopic should be as surprised as everybody was in real life when the allegations dropped. There should be no warning signs before that, because there were none in reality. Even when Michael suspected Evan Chandler was after his money, I bet ya he never expected the extortion to be done through accusations of child molestation.

Lightbringer said:
They already commented on the reports, but only to say the film was not in peril and risk of not being finished or the project cancelled - and to say that re-shoots are happening in march! The only thing they would not comment on was the issue the reports has brought up!
Click to expand...
They haven't commented, it was an anonymous source, meaning the person probably didn't have permission to speak, but decided to speak anyway because seeing those reports must be infuriating, especially if they are false.
 
etoile 37 said:
Before 1993, NO ONE was bothered by Michael hanging out with children.
Click to expand...
I think I read somewhere that somebody -- I think one of the Jacksons? -- warned MJ about hanging out with teenage boys when he started showing up with random kids in the late Eighties/early Nineties. But even if that didn't happen, don't expect this biopic -- or any biopic -- to care one bit about such historical details. They'll put in whatever scene they need to convey whatever message they want the audience to carry with them.
 
nextbigthing56 said:
Joseph David Jones who plays Jackie in the film speaks about the biopic:

(Skip to 10:13)

Click to expand...
They also talk about the biopic again at 2:26:00, about the allegations more specifically.

kreen said:
I think I read somewhere that somebody -- I think one of the Jacksons? -- warned MJ about hanging out with teenage boys when he started showing up with random kids in the late Eighties/early Nineties. But even if that didn't happen, don't expect this biopic -- or any biopic -- to care one bit about such historical details. They'll put in whatever scene they need to convey whatever message they want the audience to carry with them.
Click to expand...
No, the Jacksons had no problem with Michael hanging out with kids, he was hanging out with all of his nieces and nephews all the time and no one had a problem with it. And why would they have a problem with him hanging out with teenage boys? They knew he wasn't just hanging out with boys, they saw him hanging out with girls just as much, so why would they warn him about boys specifically? La Toya started pretending she saw things only AFTER the 1993 allegations hit. She most definitely didn't have a problem with MJ hanging out with kids before that.
 
kreen said:
I think I read somewhere that somebody -- I think one of the Jacksons? -- warned MJ about hanging out with teenage boys when he started showing up with random kids in the late Eighties/early Nineties. But even if that didn't happen, don't expect this biopic -- or any biopic -- to care one bit about such historical details. They'll put in whatever scene they need to convey whatever message they want the audience to carry with them.
Click to expand...
That was a lie spread by Jack Gordon AFTER the news of the allegations broke.

I have newspaper clippings of Gordon selling this quote in the wake of news breaking

He never said such a thing before aug 1993
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top