Latest on MJJC

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

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
 
IhateTheMedia said:
Michael has a 150,000,000 production budget alone not taking into account the massive marketing budget
Click to expand...
I hope its long but too long runtime might turn the general audience away when they hear about it. I think they want as big audience as possible. My prediction is 2 hours 25 minutes.
 
The "rule of thumb" in productions is that the number of pages equals the number of minutes in length (approx of course). So 180 pages - 3 hrs. Which was pretty much already confirmed from a number of different sources.
 
Yeah, so my guess is the film will be three hours, but there will be lots of additional scenes primarily made for fans that will be added after it leaves Theatres which put the runtime at 4 hours. The question however is, what stuff is getting cut? 3+ Hours basically guarantees life to death
Bogdan said:
The "rule of thumb" in productions is that the number of pages equals the number of minutes in length (approx of course). So 180 pages - 3 hrs. Which was pretty much already confirmed from a number of different sources.
Click to expand...
 
Joseph stated that the adult actors will play their roles until the "end of their lives", confirming that the film will cover Michael Jackson's entire career.
Click to expand...
The actor agreed with the presenter's statement that "Hollywood will not waste a biopic about Michael Jackson", highlighting that the film's marketing and timeline will be like a "wrench", that is, fundamental to facilitate access.
Click to expand...
The actor highlighted Graham King's total dedication during filming, following every detail. This corroborates previous information from Michael Jackson's estate about the thorough research carried out by King over the years to reach his own conclusion about Michael Jackson's innocence.
Click to expand...
The actor also mentioned that, initially, when he found out about his role, he imagined that the biopic would follow a different path and would not delve into Michael's life, as many pseudo-journalists and haters have claimed. However, throughout the filming, he realized how deep and intimate the narrative explored in the film would be, describing it as "a deep dive into Michael".
Click to expand...
The actors who play Michael Jackson's brothers, both as children and adults, rehearsed for two months with Rich and Tone, choreographers hired by Michael Jackson's estate to ensure authenticity for projects like MJ The Musical and the biopic.
Click to expand...
As previously announced, the actor confirmed that filming should have been completed earlier. However, new scenes were added to the script, which already had 180 pages in its initial version, resulting in filming being completed in June due to the script being longer than in the initial cut.
Click to expand...
Jaafar Jackson began filming his scenes in mid-January, while the actors playing his brothers were still in rehearsal.
Click to expand...
Although the actor joked that the film will be 4 hours long, don't take this as a confirmed fact. He was joking at the time about his enthusiasm and stated in his own words that he "doesn't know what the final cut will be like."
Click to expand...
This means any claim you read from the media proclaiming the film will end in 1993 is BS, as we expected.
 
Skylover said:
Jeff Sneider has a follow-up to the "pucknews" article but it's behind a paywall:
www.theinsneider.com

The Blake Lively-Justin Baldoni Feud Shines a Light on the Ongoing Abuse of... the Coveted P.G.A. Mark

Plus, a follow-up to Puck's report about Lionsgate's Michael Jackson movie, and the crew's nickname for its director, Antoine Fuqua.
www.theinsneider.com www.theinsneider.com
Click to expand...
In the previous paragraph, it says "Tonight's newsletter takes a look at..." So is it really behind the paywall or is it in the newsletter, meaning you would just have to subscribe to the newsletter?
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
The estate likely is waiting on a trailer to drop. Get the most attention that way and stifle these rumors that aren't really spreading anyway.

Lies run sprints. The truth runs marathons.

We'll see what happens soon.
Click to expand...
This should be the main idea of the movie... This sentence should be shown across the whole screen at the beginning of the movie. The Chandlers should be in the movie and the movie should by no means shy away from telling the worls Michael's side of the story.
 
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...

This movie is for commercial purposes, and cleaning up MJ’s reputation.
It is a not a documentary that will be aiming to be fully comprehensive of MJ’s life and historical accuracy.

To that end, it made sense to end in 1994 as that will capture his rise to stardom and glory years.
I doubt there will be much demand from the public to view Michael’s life after 1994, as those subsequent years are not fond ones for the wider public and their relationship with MJ - even if from a character lens , MJ actually got more interesting in some ways.

Now, however, if they want to cover the allegations, they will probably have to go with the 2005 trial. That would be a bum note to end on, so perhaps they will stretch it out all the way to the O2 press conference for This Is It?

Non objective fans may think otherwise, but the last twenty odd years of MJ’s life was not pretty, and it would be a depressing story to tell…..and a hard sell. It was the same with the Queen biopic, they ended on a high of the band’s performance at Live Aid in 1985, and avoided Freddy’s dying years.

This is certainly a very difficult situation for the Estate and producers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top