Latest on MJJC

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

Spaceship said:
MJ never broke his nose. That was a lie he told Taraborelli. Katherine and La Toya confirmed he wanted a nosejob.

Are people really so gullible that they believe a young man who felt insecure about having a large nose just happened to break it, so he needed a nosejob? No, obviously MJ chose to have it done because he hated having a big nose.

Even MJ having hereditary vitiligo is hard to believe. He was bullied by Joe for having dark skin, so it's more likely that he bleached it. Vitiligo can be caused by abusing skin bleaching products.
Click to expand...
the autopsy confirmed he had vitiligo. same with doctors reports that were presented in the trial. preponderance of evidence >mj lying (although he probably lied about breaking his nose)
 
michaeljackson.nl said:
1 word: Randy (co-writer of SYB)
Everything Randy did for the Jacksons (written songs like SYB and CYFI) couldn’t be used, because he didn’t approve
Click to expand...
Seriously?! This is still going on after 40+ years..? No wonder the brothers aren’t earning money when they keep blocking eachother like that.. real shame.

Thank you for replying.. it makes it much more logical now, seeing how the director had to work around this issue! :)
 
Falcon said:
Seriously?! This is still going on after 40+ years..? No wonder the brothers aren’t earning money when they keep blocking eachother like that.. real shame.

Thank you for replying.. it makes it much more logical now, seeing how the director had to work around this issue! :)
Click to expand...
Im not convinced they "couldn't" use Randy's material. I think they simply just don't have adequate multitracks of a Victory show and just went with Wembley 88 tracks for all Victory performances.
 
innuendo141 said:
Im not convinced they "couldn't" use Randy's material. I think they simply just don't have adequate multitracks of a Victory show and just went with Wembley 88 tracks for all Victory performances.
Click to expand...
I think that's been proven false because they used vocals from an '84 show for "Beat It" on This Is It (you can hear Marlon going "e-e-e!" in the background like he usually does in the center channel)
 
So, I watched the film, and I have to say that overall, it was good!

The positives:

You learn a lot about Michael, his past and his heart. We know that the story was shortened, but it still feels like a complete movie. You pretty much get to experience MJ's journey and feel a sense of accomplishment. There was also some room for emotional scenes. I don’t agree with the criticism that the movie flows like a highlight reel. The only moments that gave that impression were some parts of the Off the Wall and Thriller days.
The concert scenes were amazing in the theater, and I’m particularly happy about one song that was included.

The early years were portrayed nearly flawlessly. Juliano was great and really delivered! I know it’s a movie about Mike, but the other Jackson brothers are initially treated like some average background members. They really put the spotlight on Michael early on. They felt more like an awesome group later in the movie.

Jaafar looks the best or rather, the most like Mike during the Victory era. It was pretty spot on. His mannerisms during that concert were also at their best.

My rating: It wasn't perfect, maybe a 7.5/10.
 
Last edited:
Seldervi said:
I think that's been proven false because they used vocals from an '84 show for "Beat It" on This Is It (you can hear Marlon going "e-e-e!" in the background like he usually does in the center channel)
Click to expand...
I actually forgot about that, you're right - which makes it even more puzzling. I did note that the audio for the '84 performances on the Thriller 40 doc was incredibly poor though, which already had me worried.

They clearly used new instrumentation for the "Victory" performances also.
 
I have to say, unfortunately, that I'd give it a 3/10. The atmosphere is fantastic, of course, but the story clearly lacks depth. You don't see how Michael actually came up with his songs. He turns on the TV and suddenly he's writing "Beat It"—that's the depth. It also doesn't show how his "Off the Wall" Sound came from (Studio 54/ The Wiz etc). Dialogues are very flat. They didn't deliver what was promised, and by that I mean the directors. You can clearly see that there were a lot of difficulties during filming, presumably with his family and estate. Jaafar is simply breathtaking on film. There was so much potential, especially with such a cast. What happened? Michael deserved something much deeper. Now I can understand all the bad reviews. By the way, I went to see it twice in a row.
 
Am I the only one that feels a part two is unnecessary after having watched this movie? Especially if they can't mention the allegations.
Like, what would they talk about? They already got the "Joseph is evil" storyline out of the way and the "MJ wants to shine as a solo artist and make the biggest selling album of all time" too. They could talk about his pill addiction and how bad he felt in his skin, plus his vitiligo and lupus but seeing how they barely mentioned it in the first movie, I don't know if they would elaborate on it that much in the sequel as well.
And how can they talk about anything past 93 without addressing the elephant in the room ? His life had shifted so much after 93 that it's impossible in my opinion to make a movie without being able to mention it.
 
Harun said:
I have to say, unfortunately, that I'd give it a 3/10. The atmosphere is fantastic, of course, but the story clearly lacks depth. You don't see how Michael actually came up with his songs. He turns on the TV and suddenly he's writing "Beat It"—that's the depth. It also doesn't show how his "Off the Wall" Sound came from (Studio 54/ The Wiz etc). Dialogues are very flat. They didn't deliver what was promised, and by that I mean the directors. You can clearly see that there were a lot of difficulties during filming, presumably with his family and estate. Jaafar is simply breathtaking on film. There was so much potential, especially with such a cast. What happened? Michael deserved something much deeper. Now I can understand all the bad reviews. By the way, I went to see it twice in a row.
Click to expand...
The dialogue was one of the biggest problems with the film for me tbf. Not even that it was corny at times, it was just poor. To be honest, I don't really feel like Jaafar was able to really shine as an actor with the limited dialogue he was given. He was very much put in a box and kept in there with what he was given. The only person in the film given room to breathe was Domingo IMO and he felt the most natural.
 
Harun said:
They could at least have shown that Michael, as a child, was extremely lonely, separated from his mother, and that adults cared for him, taking on the roles of mother and father, and letting him sleep in their bed. They could have shown that Michael and his siblings slept in the same room, and that this was perfectly normal for him. They could have shown that he didn't know any other way to experience the love he received, and that he simply let other children sleep in his bedroom without any ulterior motives, simply to pass on the love he had received as a child. Furthermore, they could have shown that his bedroom was as big as a house for others.
Click to expand...
There is so much that was left out.

I know its a controversial opinion but I would have preferred some of the musical sequences be cut down to fit his backstory in.

The absence of Diana Ross was also strange.
 
innuendo141 said:
The dialogue was one of the biggest problems with the film for me tbf. Not even that it was corny at times, it was just poor. To be honest, I don't really feel like Jaafar was able to really shine as an actor with the limited dialogue he was given. He was very much put in a box and kept in there with what he was given. The only person in the film given room to breathe was Domingo IMO and he felt the most natural.
Click to expand...

The script is the weak point of the film unfortunately, in all areas.

I actually didn't mind the way they presented the story. Michael trying to escape Joe and be his own person etc. But the way it was told was not as strong as it could have been.

Jaafar was really amazing though with what he had to work with.
 
bitchimbluejean said:
There is so much that was left out.

I know its a controversial opinion but I would have preferred some of the musical sequences be cut down to fit his backstory in.

The absence of Diana Ross was also strange.
Click to expand...

That’s not controversial we have the originals!! We don’t need much music inside it’s a film not a musical
 
alexbism said:
Am I the only one that feels a part two is unnecessary after having watched this movie? Especially if they can't mention the allegations.
Like, what would they talk about? They already got the "Joseph is evil" storyline out of the way and the "MJ wants to shine as a solo artist and make the biggest selling album of all time" too. They could talk about his pill addiction and how bad he felt in his skin, plus his vitiligo and lupus but seeing how they barely mentioned it in the first movie, I don't know if they would elaborate on it that much in the sequel as well.
And how can they talk about anything past 93 without addressing the elephant in the room ? His life had shifted so much after 93 that it's impossible in my opinion to make a movie without being able to mention it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There is no movie without it imo.
 
bitchimbluejean said:
The script is the weak point of the film unfortunately, in all areas.

I actually didn't mind the way they presented the story. Michael trying to escape Joe and be his own person etc. But the way it was told was not as strong as it could have been.

Jaafar was really amazing though with what he had to work with.
Click to expand...
Of course the script was severely changed, and written under pressure.

And it shows.
 
bitchimbluejean said:
The absence of Diana Ross was also strange.
Click to expand...
I get the feeling she might be among those who requested not to appear, like Rebbie, Janet and Randy.

It’ll be really interesting to one day find out what was cut out and which parts were reshoots. It’s obvious while watching that it was a troubled production, even the change from ToysRus to “Tom’s Toys” and that sort of thing
 
Nite Line said:
Are there any historical inaccuracies, because biopics normally tend to have some? There were quite a few historical inaccuracies in Bohemian Rhapsody.
Click to expand...

God yes. LOTS.

The most annoying is when Suzzane De Passe from Motown first discovers them performing at the Regent theatre they are singing Never Can Say Goodbye !!

The Thriller music videos are all made *before* getting played on MTV.

No Diana Ross

No Ed Sullivan

Michael is credited for basically everything, apart from John Branca taking credit for various things lol

The list goes on.
 
Falcon said:
The movie, for me, took a turning point right at the 1984 Victory Tour part.. while almost completely ignoring the Destiny and Troumph era, Off The Wall gets a relatively small part.. it ‘just makes him a bigger artist’. THen the Victory part starts.. the ‘last concert of the tour’ gets introduced with MJ wearing his clothes from the opening night... Then it continues using Wembley 88 audio (it sounds like a blend from 2 nights, not using the available Victory Tour multi’s they have) for the Human Nature performance.. where MJ does some sidegliding and stuff.. which he never did during the Victory era.. skipping Heartbreak Hotel (which was in the earlier trailer) and then showing MJ getting back on stage for a performance of WDAN.. IN HIS BILLIE JEAN OUTFIT. this is were i got annoyed as a fan.. during WDAN MJ gives the ‘this is our last and final tour’ speech, which is the actual same speech from the last LA concert.. but it happens during a different song. Why acknowledge the actual lines from the speech but change the song, outfits/staging surrounding it.. ?!
What do I mean? Just imagine/pretend seeing MJ opening his concert singing WBSS in his SC outfit… same thing, outrageous!! Must admit the WDAN breakdown sounded quite funky.. i liked that actually.
Click to expand...
They probably changed the song because of narrative reasons. Joe made them work day and night. I don't really like the change but I can see the reasoning.
 
With a couple of options I headed straight for the jugular, yep! IMAX! I thought i went there simply to beentertained. Dude! I got more than what I f** king bargained for! What freaking sugar coating? don't let the critics get under your skin, the painful belt thrashing, two lines of vitiligo is enuff. Walter Yetnikoff hard nose bargaining " if you don't get Billie Jean on MTV..Imma pull every of my CBS artise off your roll" ...this is as real as it gets ! And the Pepsi burns ...donating a seven figure sum to the burn centre and they'd even addressed he has to take the meds for pain killers which Michael never wanted and that, still haunted him till his passing. Nope! ...ain't no sugar coating ...the best part was the heads popping and singalong you couldn't tell if was from the movie or from the theater. The ending says and the story continues...if the f** king critics want the allegations so bad..wait for part 2. Overall the best immersive movie experience ever! At the end..no one wants to move..they stayed in their seats to scroll down the longest credits ever ! and enjoying Michael's music till complete! How dope is that ya'll. I'll be as sure watching again..hell yeah!
 
JEMFTV said:
Brancas inclusion wasn't as bad as I had expected. Movie-wise there had to be people in MJs corner. Where was Frank Dileo though?
Click to expand...
It could have been worse, but his inclusion was 100% vanity from Branca given that other such important characters were cut. I was kind of shocked at how limited a role Quincy had.

Also, I can totally see why Janet would not want to be included in this film, especially if she has her sights on her own biopic. The Jackson siblings were merely props in this film.

Oh, the CGI monkey looked awful. At times, things looked very cheap and fake.
 
R1chard said:
What with it being the turning point of his career and everything.
Click to expand...
it would be a pretty sour note to end the film on unless it intended on being 4-6 hours long. in fact, you could probably make a film based on each era. one of the legit criticisms seems to be that the film is like a montage, that it condenses so much. it seems pretty clear that the critics complaining about not portraying michael as a monster are believers in leaving neverland so forth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top