Latest on MJJC

The Official 'Michael' Bio-Pic Thread

MsAshley said:
if the film only goes into the early oughts and mainly focuses on dangerous and invincible, it would be really weird. theyd pretty much have to move the trial itself to the 90s
Click to expand...
That's what I mean like if they can't "dramatise" the 1993 case in any way how can they make a part 2? The jump from 1984, to Wembley 88 was jarring enough, without going from 1992 to 1995 in part 2
 
MsAshley said:
the fact is, in the allotted time, you will never get too much out of something like this due to the sheer amount of years covered for a real person.
Click to expand...
The issue is that the filmmakers couldn’t decide which struggles to focus on and instead seemed more interested in sanctifying Michael Jackson, portraying him as a two-dimensional character with no depth.

Michael was such a complex person who deserved to be shown in a different light. It feels like the producers assumed everyone already knows his struggles—which might be true—so the film settles for merely mentioning them rather than offering a realistic recreation of what they actually felt like for him as a human being.
 
innuendo141 said:
This page has been wrong quote a few times the last few days I've noticed - they had it "confirmed" as passing 100 million in the US on Saturday night/Sunday morning. It did 97 million. They have a funny understanding of the word "confirmed".
Click to expand...
us box office just estimations the official numbers tomorrow !!
 
Well, hello! It's certainly been many years since I logged in here. But figured I'd leave my thoughts on the biopic here. It does feel like my views are in the minority.

I've been reflecting on why it didn’t sit right with me.

For context, I’m not coming at this as a casual viewer. I’ve been a fan of Michael Jackson since I was about seven, so over 35 years at this point. I saw him live during the HIStory tour in 1997, have also seen The Jacksons perform live without him, and have spent years reading and watching as much as I could about his life. That includes books from a wide range of perspectives-family members like Jermaine Jackson, bodyguards, friends, biographers such as J. Randy Taraborrelli, and accounts from women he was linked to romantically. I also attended the Bad 25 documentary premiere, where Spike Lee gave a talk afterwards, and John Branca - whom I spoke with briefly and passed to him a message from members of this community, in fact.

So I come at this with a fairly non-casual understanding of both the public narrative and the more detailed, sometimes contradictory accounts of his life.

Because of that, what stood out to me most is that the film feels largely fictional, with only fragments of truth woven in. I understand that biopics involve dramatisation, but in this case it feels unnecessary. There is such a vast amount of well-documented material available that a compelling story could have been told without inventing or reshaping events to this extent.

There are multiple examples where things felt either simplified to the point of inaccuracy or presented in a way that doesn’t align with widely documented accounts. The portrayal of MTV’s role, the context around his early cosmetic surgery following The Wiz, and scenes like the creation of the “Beat It” video all felt staged or unrealistic rather than grounded in how these events are generally understood to have happened. Taken together, these choices give the impression of either limited research or a deliberate decision to reshape the narrative.

Just as significant are the omissions. Key people and influences in his life are either absent or barely acknowledged. Diana Ross, Janet Jackson, Rebbie Jackson, and Randy Jackson all come to mind. His work on The Wiz isn’t explored. These aren’t minor details; they were important in shaping both his personal development and career trajectory, so leaving them out changes the overall picture.

The absence of Diana Ross in particular stands out. To understate her importance in his life would be inaccurate. By his own repeated accounts, he was deeply attached to her-he spoke about being in love with her, wanting to marry her, and even named her in his will as his preferred guardian for his children. Minimising or excluding that relationship removes a significant emotional dimension of his life.

Similarly, the film largely ignores his romantic relationships more broadly. There is no meaningful reference to his connections with women such as Brooke Shields or Tatum O’Neal. Whether or not people interpret those relationships in different ways, they are part of the documented narrative of his adult life. Excluding them contributes to a portrayal that feels incomplete.

That leads into a wider issue: the film leans heavily into the familiar “childlike” or “Peter Pan” image. That aspect of him is already well established in the public consciousness. What’s missing is balance-the adult, complex, sometimes contradictory person described across decades of interviews and accounts. By focusing so narrowly on one aspect, the film risks reducing him to a caricature rather than presenting him as a fully realised human being.

The handling of his family dynamics also feels overly softened. The abuse from his father is present, but it feels significantly underplayed compared to widely reported accounts, which describe both physical and psychological abuse affecting all of the children, alongside other complexities within the family. While it’s understandable that a film can’t cover everything, toning this down removes important context for understanding him.

It’s also difficult to ignore the perspective shaping the film. With figures such as John Branca and Jermaine Jackson involved, and others notably absent-including Paris Jackson and Janet Jackson-it raises reasonable questions about balance. That’s an interpretation, but it does feel as though certain viewpoints are prioritised over others.

From a production perspective, there were also elements that didn’t fully work for me. While Jaafar captured aspects of his voice and movement, I felt he lacked the presence and magnetism that defined Michael. The hair and makeup were inconsistent across different eras and, at times, distracting.

Overall, I can understand why general audiences are responding positively to the film-it follows a familiar biopic structure and tells a simplified, accessible story. But for those who are more familiar with Michael’s life, it feels surface-level and selectively constructed.

Ultimately, I came away feeling disappointed. Not because I expected a documentary, but because there was an opportunity here to present a richer, more nuanced, and more human portrayal-and instead it leaned into a version of him that we’ve already seen many times before.
 
SmoothCriminal1995 said:
That's what I mean like if they can't "dramatise" the 1993 case in any way how can they make a part 2? The jump from 1984, to Wembley 88 was jarring enough, without going from 1992 to 1995 in part 2
Click to expand...
I don't know how the NDA is worded but is the issue that they cannot 'dramatise' the 1993 case? I wonder if a way of getting around that would be if they opened part 2 with a montage of newsclips from the time - ie how the media reported it, the Evan recording etc? And then make the film about the aftermath of it and then the trial?

However if the clause is that the case cannot be discussed at all (which is what I have always assumed) then I guess it can't be addressed at all.
 
MichaelD said:
Lionsgate's chairman Adam Fogelson:

Source: https://apnews.com/article/michael-jackson-movie-box-office-9cd10825b6ced69aaa96c6e575ea9d2d
Click to expand...
This makes me think that Part 2 won't tell the whole remaining story and at the ending they'll definitely leave it open for a potential sequel film, just like how they did with Part 1. Otherwise they'd be leaving too much money on the table by willingly deciding not to make a third movie. It would be a no-brainer with how profitable Part 1 has turned out to be.
 
ChanceToDance said:
This makes me think that Part 2 won't tell the whole remaining story and at the end they'll definitely leave it open for a potential sequel film, just like how they did with Part 1. Otherwise they'd be leaving too much money on the table by willingly deciding not to make a third movie. With how profitable Part 1 has turned out to be it would be a no-brainer.
Click to expand...
Its not profitable yet! Marketing etc has to be taken into account, and there was a HUGE promotional drive for this film.
 
Christ! The MSM really are infuriated. It’s clear to see from their hourly released articles that they’re trying everything in vain to guilt trip everyone for going to see it.

Genuine question. Had it not been for LN, do you think they would have been less critical? It seems to me that LN really cemented their belief that MIchael was guilty which has amplified their agenda for trying to sabotage the movie.
 
RodSerling said:
Of course, that s a logical step to turn MJ's life into a franchise when it s' making big money, or to develop the Arvizo trial in a Netflix show American Crime Story type
Click to expand...
How about that... an MJ franchise... maybe there is a way to tell the whole story... a criminal movie alone would not need his music, thus the Estate would not need to support the production, thus it could not be held liable. If they can pull it off, they would bite everyone in their asses!!!
 
As someone who was not looking forward to this film, and was not expecting to like it...

... I am very much looking forward to going again all of a sudden. Tonight or Wednesday. It's not even that I thought it was that great, it's just nice to be caught up in it all at the minute!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top