Latest on MJJC

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

One detail about the trailer I realized now. The sound design of the trailer music. It's got all the Hollywood cliches for trailer music: the trailer horns, the quick drums sequence. But then I noticed, for example, the Hollywood horns were actually the BEAT IT horns lol. That's great. It's a mash-up of Michael's music simulating all the trailer cliches. I love it.
 
kelley said:
You're pretty wrong. At least about Jordan.

Evan certainly did lose his 1.5 million almost immediately to debts, his wife divorcing him and taking half and then his frivolous lawsuit against MJ, Lisa Marie and ABC.

But Jordan still has plenty of money and assets. And June is still a gold digger so she's taken care of as well.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I guess it was referring to Evan alone, who crashed and burned pretty quickly. But how do we even know Jordan's current social or financial status? Most sources seem to indicate that he's completely off the radar, on his own volition - and that he intends to remain as such.
 
dukenukem said:
Fair enough. I guess it was referring to Evan alone, who crashed and burned pretty quickly. But how do we even know Jordan's current social or financial status? Most sources seem to indicate that he's completely off the radar, on his own volition - and that he intends to remain as such.
Click to expand...
Trust me I know.

I have the evidence.

I can't post any of it. Because frankly this fandom can't be trusted with info like this. People would spread it around everywhere like idiots. They would try to contact him, they would message his friends and associates on social media and the media would catch wind of it all and claim crazy MJ fans were harassing him. And the fans bombarding him will only further convince him to stay silent and not speak up and tell the truth.

Also I know a lot of the people he, his mom and sister associate with are pro MJ, but they are also fiercely protective of him. If they had to chose between him and MJ they would chose him no question. They will never expose him even though I'm positive he's told people around him the truth.

So the last thing we need is for fans to go bother these people and make them go into defense mode.
 
Last edited:
kelley said:
Trust me I know.

I have the evidence.

I can't post any of it. Because frankly this fandom can't be trusted with info like this. People would spread it around everywhere like idiots. They would try to contact him, they would message his friends and associates on social media and the media would catch wind of it all and claim crazy MJ fans were harassing him. And the fans bombarding him will only further convince him to stay silent and not speak up and tell the truth.

Also I know a lot of the people he, his mom and sister associate with are pro MJ, but they are also fiercely protective of him. If they had to chose between him and MJ they would chose him no question. They will never expose him even though I'm positive he's told people around him the truth.

So the last thing we need is for fans to go bother these people and make them go into defense mode.
Click to expand...
So it’s useless and we shouldn’t even care about what you say really. Thanks.
 
etoile 37 said:
I've been thinking, if right now the plan is to completely skip the 1993 allegations and only cover the 2005 trial, wouldn't it be worth trying to contact Jordan and June Chandler and see if they might actually agree to have their story told in the biopic? What if the Estate could get them to sign an agreement authorizing their portrayal in the movie in exchange for a reasonable payment for the rights to their story? It would hit pretty hard if they could end the movie with a text saying, "This movie was authorized by Jordan Chandler and June Chandler."

Considering that Carol LaMere said she witnessed Jordan calling Michael crying about what his father was doing, and there was also a girl who said that adult Jordan Chandler told her he liked her Michael Jackson shirt, and Jordan Chandler has fought every attempt to make him testify against Michael... it's not impossible that Jordan might agree to let the real story be told if there was a way for him to do it without getting sued and losing his money. Also, when you read June's 2005 testimony, she never said anything that was that bad, she didn't seem to be out to get Michael. It would be understandable if she went along with it because she was afraid to lose her son. Evan Chandler was the main mastermind of the allegations, so it's not like it would show Jordan or June in a bad light. The Evan tapes even make June and Jordan appear like Evan's victims just as much as Michael:
Click to expand...
I still find it very hard to believe MJ’s lawyers would just miss that Chandler clause. Maybe they just didn’t want the new Cascio stuff in the spotlight yet, so they used the Chandler agreement as an excuse when cutting the post 92 parts of the biopic. Of course I'm just speculating but it's fishy to me. With the Safechuck & Robson case coming up too, the timing feels off. Regarding the idea that the Chandlers would suddenly speak out or allow MJ to be shown as their victim instead of the other way around that just feels like wishful thinking to me.
 
librariangirl:) said:
I still find it very hard to believe MJ’s lawyers would just miss that Chandler clause. Maybe they just didn’t want the new Cascio stuff in the spotlight yet, so they used the Chandler agreement as an excuse when cutting the post 92 parts of the biopic. Of course I'm just speculating but it's fishy to me. With the Safechuck & Robson case coming up too, the timing feels off. Regarding the idea that the Chandlers would suddenly speak out or allow MJ to be shown as their victim instead of the other way around that just feels like wishful thinking to me.
Click to expand...
I agree. It seems insane: according to the previous rumor the main theme of the movie was THE settlement 1994 that had the most significant impact on Michael's life and career and no one hadn't read it carefully before the shooting? A lawyer that is a producer of a movie hadn't read the document that the same movie is about? If it's really happened then in 10-15 years we'll get a comedy about the creation of the biopic with Will Ferrell as John Branca.
 
librariangirl:) said:
I still find it very hard to believe MJ’s lawyers would just miss that Chandler clause. Maybe they just didn’t want the new Cascio stuff in the spotlight yet, so they used the Chandler agreement as an excuse when cutting the post 92 parts of the biopic. Of course I'm just speculating but it's fishy to me. With the Safechuck & Robson case coming up too, the timing feels off. Regarding the idea that the Chandlers would suddenly speak out or allow MJ to be shown as their victim instead of the other way around that just feels like wishful thinking to me.
Click to expand...
I firmly believe that all these insiders heard wrong or were purposefully misled with the Chandler stuff. I believe (and this is just a personal theory with no confirmation) that the movie had to actually be redone because there were scenes with the Cascio's in them, and that's why the estate bought their life story rights before the came crawling out for more and more money in 2024.

This Chandler stuff reads like a hoax.
 
deadline.com

‘Hunger Games: Sunrise On The Reaping’ Teaser Reaps 109M Views In First Day; 2nd Biggest Trailer Launch For Lionsgate

Lionsgate scored its second biggest trailer launch in the studio's history --by the way in the same month-- with The Hunger Games: Sunrise on the Reaping teaser which drew 109 million global views in its first 24 hours after debuting yesterday, Nov. 20.
deadline.com deadline.com

The teaser drop for the Hunger Games prequel follows Lionsgate’s record-shattering Michael teaser launch, which clocked 116M views in its first 24 hours after dropping November 6. That trailer is now up to about 300 million global views and also ranks as the most-viewed trailer for any music biopic ever.
 
t1mber said:
I agree. It seems insane: according to the previous rumor the main theme of the movie was THE settlement 1994 that had the most significant impact on Michael's life and career and no one hadn't read it carefully before the shooting? A lawyer that is a producer of a movie hadn't read the document that the same movie is about? If it's really happened then in 10-15 years we'll get a comedy about the creation of the biopic with Will Ferrell as John Branca.
Click to expand...
You can call me a conspiracy theorist, but I hypothesize that they knew about it but withheld it from the filmmakers. That way, the footage can remain on reserve in case they're ever able to negate was what previously stipulated to in the 1994 settlement. I believe that it was just too much of a temptation not to dramatize their version of events concerning such a vital and polarizing element of MJ's life, even there is only a 0.00000001 percent chance of the footage ever being usable(which of course would be reduced to a flat zero percent if the footage was never shot).
 
Zizzistar said:
I firmly believe that all these insiders heard wrong or were purposefully misled with the Chandler stuff. I believe (and this is just a personal theory with no confirmation) that the movie had to actually be redone because there were scenes with the Cascio's in them, and that's why the estate bought their life story rights before the came crawling out for more and more money in 2024.

This Chandler stuff reads like a hoax.
Click to expand...
It looks like a really good version because the news about the first delay (from April 2025 to October 2025) were about the same time as that first Branca's interview to Financial Times about the extortionists (Cascio family).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top