Latest on MJJC

The Official 'Michael' Bio-Pic Thread


https://twitter.com/x/status/2050021159177945529

HHPtbIQX0AAF_9x
 
MJ5824ever said:
Got lots of love for you, etoile and I agree with a lot of your points but, I think it’s a bit presumptuous to say that

“the only reason people are happy is….”

You can’t possibly know that?
I know many people who just wanted to watch a positive movie, and hear music LOUD, from the greatest artist who ever lived. I know I wanted that, more than anything.

There may be some people, like me, who are tired of hearing about the PROVABLY WRONG allegations. We’ve had decades of it.

I know he’s innocent. I don’t need anymore proof.
I would probably not have gone (even if I could) to watch a film that (would have to) spend AGES trying to explain the complexities of the chandl3r case and why it’s bullsh1t - mainly to peoples in cinemas who already know he’s innocent.

You can make any film you want that includes hours and hours telling MJ’s side.
The media/press will deride it as lies.
MJ haters/guilters will say it’s ’one Sided bull’

Each to their own, as they say, but I’m enjoying the positivity and MASSIVE success of this film.

I’m also enjoying that it’s annoying a lot of doubters. 💪😂

As I said at the start though, etoile,
It’s all said with love for you 😉
Click to expand...
Honestly! People going on and on about how they won't watch unless the allegations are included - Are you guys fans of music, dance, personality of Michael or because of the allegations? I'm so tired of hearing how "critics will pan" "noone will watch" blah blah from teh beginning of this thread! I'm not even a big advocate of this biopic but even I can see that critics will pan MJ no matter what! NO MATTER WHAT! (unless he is literally depicted as a child molestor). You're not going to convince ANYONE of his innocence by showing the allegations in the movie.

Anybody who watched movie 1 already thinks he is innocent or doesn't care. The set of people who think he's guilty will not come and watch the movie no matter what. There was a fricking trial in a court of law that declared him not guilty and it didn't matter - why on earth will a dramatization or a depiction of him settling with his accusers convince people he's not guilty? I find all of this ridiculous! Movie is probably doing so well cos no one who wants to see MJ on screen wants to see that unpleasant shit. After seeing the amateurish writing in movie 1, how can you even want such a complex topic such as this put on screen?
 
mjfan05 said:
Honestly! People going on and on about how they won't watch unless the allegations are included - Are you guys fans of music, dance, personality of Michael or because of the allegations? I'm so tired of hearing how "critics will pan" "noone will watch" blah blah from teh beginning of this thread! I'm not even a big advocate of this biopic but even I can see that critics will pan MJ no matter what! NO MATTER WHAT! (unless he is literally depicted as a child molestor). You're not going to convince ANYONE of his innocence by showing the allegations in the movie.

Anybody who watched movie 1 already thinks he is innocent or doesn't care. The set of people who think he's guilty will not come and watch the movie no matter what. There was a fricking trial in a court of law that declared him not guilty and it didn't matter - why on earth will a dramatization or a depiction of him settling with his accusers convince people he's not guilty? I find all of this ridiculous! Movie is probably doing so well cos no one who wants to see MJ on screen wants to see that unpleasant shit. After seeing the amateurish writing in movie 1, how can you even want such a complex topic such as this put on screen?
Click to expand...


You know I’m in agreement with you, don’t you? 🤔😂
 
librariangirl:) said:
After ’93, how do you make that a feel-good movie without basically rewriting reality?
Click to expand...
You don t talk about 1993, since, well, they can't.
You talk about It only in part 3, intersped with scenes from the 60's/70's/80's that were cut from the 1st movie, Godfather 2-like. You melt the Chandler/ Arvizo case in one big story. That's the general idea.
You have enough drama in part 2( MJ had to give up Bubbles, 1995 HBO, 1999 fall from the crane, vitiligo, his hair, his dependance to propofol, etc.)
It s just a movie, you don t have It to be chronologically correct ( the 1st one wasn't, It did 300 Mi$ in like a week).
You pay me 50k $ with two months vacancy, and I write these two movies back to back.
More spectaculaire scenes from concerts, like the intro of History tour, etc.
 
RodSerling said:
You don t talk about 1993, since, well, they can't.
You talk about It only in part 3, intersped with scenes from the 60's/70's/80's that were cut from the 1st movie, Godfather 2-like. You melt the Chandler/ Arvizo case in one big story. That's the general idea.
You have enough drama in part 2( MJ had to give up Bubbles, 1995 HBO, 1999 fall from the crane, vitiligo, his hair, his dependance to propofol, etc.)
It s just a movie, you don t have It to be chronologically correct ( the 1st one wasn't, It did 300 Mi$ in like a week).
You pay me 50k $ with two months vacancy, and I write these two movies back to back.
More spectaculaire scenes from concerts, like the intro of History tour, etc.
Click to expand...
😅Perfect—so we mention stuff like propofol and Arvizo, but still keep it ‘feel-good,’ shuffle the timeline, and throw in some concert shots… and don’t forget the monkey. Yeah, that totally sounds like a coherent biopic and not a 300M highlight reel. Congrats you win!
 
I enjoyed watching Michael on opening day at the first showing and it was also an emotional experience the whole time even though he has been gone a long time now. I didn't know much about it when I sat down other than that trailers and teasers and a vague understanding that critics complained that it didn't address any difficult topics. I thought it was brave going into the topic of his nose, vitiligo, childhood beatings, arguments with his father, and racism in the music business. I was surprised when credits started to roll and it didn't cover his whole life, but after reading how much financial trouble the production encountered while trying to cover the last half of Michael's life I can see why they cut it off and are waiting for a profit before embarking on the second half of his life.

I felt that it was a win for the surviving Jackson family getting to be a big focus in the biopic and making a big budget recreation of the Jacksons: An American Dream television mini series with MJ's estate money. I can't help but think Michael would have had a different portrayal had MJ been alive to oversee the production. They managed to completely focus on his family music and dismiss his Motown solo career, and how he met Quincy Jones on The Wiz film production. I almost laughed when Michael was there with his team announcing he was going to work with Quincy and everyone was all smiles and nodding in agreement and compliance. The reality is he had to convince people that Quincy was a good choice as a producer, so I don't know why they sugar coated that scene. It wouldn't have made any difference in the outcome of the narrative. Seeing the Mike Myers scene was great, he is very talented and that office meeting scene reveals to the younger generations that it was not easy for Michael to find success as a minority regardless of how talented he was. Also, the part where the Jackson 5 sung a song on stage that wasn't written until after they got signed by Motown was very confusing to me. They should have just picked a different song to perform.

It would be difficult for Michael to approve anything that paints him in any light less than perfect, so I will give them that credit, but maybe he wouldn't want his life portrayed in a biopic at all. He did address some controversies in his Moonwalker autobiography, so maybe there is a chance he would have been ok with any of his perceived short comings in the movie.

The focus on the Jackson family for basically the entire movie, as well as John Branca being a big supporting character feels like it is driven by those who have the most control over Michael's estate which is understandable since it is Michael's survivors sharing their perspective since Michael wasn't there to make the film. How many times in Michael's life he had to push his family away with their tell-all books and money making schemes, and ask them to do their own thing and leave him out of it, and then in the end there they are right at the centre of his story in the end.

It is difficult to fit such a long and interesting life in a two hour movie, but I thought they should have included some indications of Michael having normal friendships and a social life instead of being a completely socially deprived recluse. The depiction showed that he only hung out with his family, animals, and business personnel. In reality, he was outgoing enough to be a frequent guest at Studio 54, made friends with Liza Minelli, Tatum O'Neil, and Fred Astaire and others.

The light hearted scenes of Michael spending time with sick kids and with his pets and his mother were a nice addition. The laughs were all inserted in great places which the audience laughed especially during the tense scenes with Joseph. Jaffar did a superb job. Most of the movie I was immersed in it to the point that I kept forgetting we were watching an actor and not Michael himself.

Overall I'm glad they made the movie and hope lots of people get to see it and learn something or find it entertaining.
 
Last edited:
Xscape2040 said:
They just have to find a way mentioning everything in part 2, an experienced lawyer (maybe not Branca 😉) has to check everything every scene line by line. It may depend on the exact wording if its allowed or not imo. Not metioning it is not an option, unfortunately. I wish it went different for Michael.
Click to expand...

They can make a part two which addresses all the different kinds of lawsuits and back stabbing that Michael went through without violating any existing agreements. They just have to keep the details a little bit vague to not be in violation and not let those moments completely take over the narrative. Another day, another lawsuit. He was sued and charged with all sorts of different grievances, it is an exercise in itself to maintain a list.

If part one's antagonist was Joseph, then part two's villain would be Sneddon. Michael's life still had lots of happy moments after part one ends. He had some great career accomplishments, a short list of strong unconditional friendships, brief happy marriages, children of his own, a potentially big come back just before he died. Even while Michael was at his lowest point he still recorded the song Smile as a reminder to all to remain optimistic during hard times. When he was battling the Arvizos and countering Martin Bashir, he was smiling and laughing and reminiscing with this home movies that he released to television. Through all of that Michael's children have fond memories of their dad right until the end. Part two could still be well rounded, and offer a fair and objective conclusion to his story without being completely depressing.

It would be cool to see him writing songs under his Giving Tree at Neverland and having revelations while gazing at the stars. During his depressing and demerol time period before his children were born while making Ghosts it would be intriguing to see the film change the perspective from an outsider looking in on his life to going into an Edgar Allan Poe alter ego narrating his own sorrows which would serve two functions. First telling his story, and second getting to play Poe in a movie like he had originally wanted to.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been thinking about this ever since I saw the biopic. If you want to know my full thoughts, check out the biopic thread. But one of my problems was the director they got, Antoine Fuqua. He only directed one great movie, Training Day, and the rest has ranged from mediocre to just plain bad. That contributed to my overall problem with the biopic, which is that the Estate just saw the biopic as a commercial to market Michael Jackson’s music instead of a unique artistic outlet to tell one of the greatest life and career stories in pop culture history.

So I thought about who would I have gotten to direct the movie instead, and it has to be someone with a specific narrative and filmmaking vision that would have fit the story. And two directors come to mind that in their own ways would have made the movie something truly special.

The first one is Spike Lee. He already has a history with MJ by directing both They Don’t Care About Us short films aswell as the one for This Is It. He also directed the Bad and Motown-Off the Wall documentaries, so he is very much a big fan. But even taking that aside, he knows how to shoot a movie interestingly with really inventive cinematography and transitions, he has a history of biopics including one of the best ever made in Malcolm X, and he is known for making enlightening and inspiring stories regarding different aspects of Black America and the story of Michael Jackson fits like a glove (no pun intended).

The second one is definitely the most ambitious, Steven Spielberg. Being the king of blockbusters would definitely lead to a surefire hit for the Estate, even bigger than the current biopic. Spielberg also was a friend of Michael, who directed some of MJ’s favorite movies. Like Lee, Spielberg has a history of acclaimed biopics like Lincoln. But most importantly, Spielberg knows how to write stories of childlike innocence and awe meeting the cruel and cynical adult world, aswell as stories about physically and/or emotionally abusive family members. And as shown with his version of West Side Story, Spielberg knows how to film, edit, and choreograph musical sequences in such an exhilarating and awesome way.

Both of these directors could have made the movie special, they were my first choices for the biopic when it was first announced. Instead John Branca and John McCain went with a safe and perfunctory choice. But what do you think of my choices and do you have any other directors in mind that should have done this?
 
Last edited:
Gotta be honest, this is the first time I've truly considered the idea of needing "permission" to be portrayed in a movie.
 
foralltime said:
They can make a part two which addresses all the different kinds of lawsuits and back stabbing that Michael went through without violating any existing agreements. They just have to keep the details a little bit vague to not be in violation and not let those moments completely take over the narrative. Another day, another lawsuit. He was sued and charged with all sorts of different grievances, it is an exercise in itself to maintain a list.

If part one's antagonist was Joseph, then part two's villain would be Sneddon. Michael's life still had lots of happy moments after part one ends. He had some great career accomplishments, a short list of strong unconditional friendships, brief happy marriages, children of his own, a potentially big come back just before he died. Even while Michael was at his lowest point he still recorded the song Smile as a reminder to all to remain optimistic during hard times. When he was battling the Arvizos and countering Martin Bashir, he was smiling and laughing and reminiscing with this home movies that he released to television. Through all of that Michael's children have fond memories of their dad right until the end. Part two could still be well rounded, and offer a fair and objective conclusion to his story without being completely depressing.

It would be cool to see him writing songs under his Giving Tree at Neverland and having revelations while gazing at the stars. During his depressing and demerol time period before his children were born while making Ghosts it would be intriguing to see the film change the perspective from an outsider looking in on his life to going into an Edgar Allan Poe alter ego narrating his own sorrows which would serve two functions. First telling his story, and second getting to play Poe in a movie like he had originally wanted to.
Click to expand...
I. I realize by reading your lines that I'm still troubled by Diana Ross's decision not to be in the movie.

II. Given how the first movie didn't really show any writing process at all, I doubt we would get any in the second movie. Maybe some video recreations, but even here we might be extremely limited in number: Smooth Criminal, Black or White, Remember the time, would be cool if there was something from HIStory too - but what? Scream might be expensive to recreate, plus where would Janet come from all of the sudden? TDCAU - would they go and film in the real slums? BOTDF would be low-cost and a very cool visual effect!
 
dam2040 said:
Gotta be honest, this is the first time I've truly considered the idea of needing "permission" to be portrayed in a movie.
Click to expand...
They don't need it. But they will not go against the wishes of Michael's sisters and brother. And if Diana comes off bad, she might have a legal recourse. But also they would not want to piss her off as a friend of Michael.
 
I wonder why they chose the 2 hour runtime? There seems to be so much cut content from the 80s. I remember someone saying that shorter runtime means that they can have more showings in a single day.
 
Galactus123 said:
I wonder why they chose the 2 hour runtime? There seems to be so much cut content from the 80s. I remember someone saying that shorter runtime means that they can have more showings in a single day.
Click to expand...
Younger audience as target group. They prefer shorter movies. 2h is long for the average viewer. I think.
 
MJ5824ever said:
Got lots of love for you, etoile and I agree with a lot of your points but, I think it’s a bit presumptuous to say that

“the only reason people are happy is….”

You can’t possibly know that?
I know many people who just wanted to watch a positive movie, and hear music LOUD, from the greatest artist who ever lived. I know I wanted that, more than anything.

There may be some people, like me, who are tired of hearing about the PROVABLY WRONG allegations. We’ve had decades of it.

I know he’s innocent. I don’t need anymore proof.
I would probably not have gone (even if I could) to watch a film that (would have to) spend AGES trying to explain the complexities of the chandl3r case and why it’s bullsh1t - mainly to peoples in cinemas who already know he’s innocent.

You can make any film you want that includes hours and hours telling MJ’s side.
The media/press will deride it as lies.
MJ haters/guilters will say it’s ’one Sided bull’

Each to their own, as they say, but I’m enjoying the positivity and MASSIVE success of this film.

I’m also enjoying that it’s annoying a lot of doubters. 💪😂

As I said at the start though, etoile,
It’s all said with love for you 😉
Click to expand...
I absolutely understand, and I actually really hated that the first version of the script began with the allegations, not even letting us enjoy that period of time when there were no allegations before telling us "by the way, there will be allegations". I was really happy that the movie was split, so now we have one full movie where we can enjoy this part of his life without the allegations making us sad and angry. But once the movie gets to 1993, I just don't see how it would be possible to skip that. I've seen some people say, "Well, they could just mention that there were allegations, but without getting into the details..." But the problem is, if they just mention that there were allegations without actually telling the full story and showing why Michael was innocent, then people will just assume he was guilty. There will always be many occasions to just celebrate Michael's art, whereas this biopic might be our only chance to put the truth out there and prove his innocence in a significant way that reaches the general public. It's not for me that I want the allegations to be covered, it's for Michael, who never got the chance to tell his side of the story. Like you, I'm sick and tired of hearing about the allegations and I would rather just skip them if the movie was just for me. But since the movie will also reach the general public, they can't let that chance go to waste and not use the movie to put the truth out there. Like you said, the media won't care and the guilters won't change their mind, but it can have a huge impact on the general public for years to come, on many future generations.

With that said, I don't want the allegations to be a big part of the movie, and I most definitely do not want the movie to begin with the allegations. I do want the allegation part to be as short as possible, that is why I feel it's so important for them to include the strongest proof they have of Michael's innocence, to hit hard and fast with undeniable proof, so we can move on to the next part of his life without lingering on the allegations longer than necessary.
 
etoile 37 said:
I absolutely understand, and I actually really hated that the first version of the script began with the allegations, not even letting us enjoy that period of time when there were no allegations before telling us "by the way, there will be allegations". I was really happy that the movie was split, so now we have one full movie where we can enjoy this part of his life without the allegations making us sad and angry. But once the movie gets to 1993, I just don't see how it would be possible to skip that. I've seen some people say, "Well, they could just mention that there were allegations, but without getting into the details..." But the problem is, if they just mention that there were allegations without actually telling the full story and showing why Michael was innocent, then people will just assume he was guilty. There will always be many occasions to just celebrate Michael's art, whereas this biopic might be our only chance to put the truth out there and prove his innocence in a significant way that reaches the general public. It's not for me that I want the allegations to be covered, it's for Michael, who never got the chance to tell his side of the story. Like you, I'm sick and tired of hearing about the allegations and I would rather just skip them if the movie was just for me. But since the movie will also reach the general public, they can't let that chance go to waste and not use the movie to put the truth out there. Like you said, the media won't care and the guilters won't change their mind, but it can have a huge impact on the general public for years to come, on many future generations.

With that said, I don't want the allegations to be a big part of the movie, and I most definitely do not want the movie to begin with the allegations. I do want the allegation part to be as short as possible, that is why I feel it's so important for them to include the strongest proof they have of Michael's innocence, to hit hard and fast with undeniable proof, so we can move on to the next part of his life without lingering on the allegations longer than necessary.
Click to expand...

Very well explained. I totally get your point now. 👍
 
Galactus123 said:
I wonder why they chose the 2 hour runtime? There seems to be so much cut content from the 80s. I remember someone saying that shorter runtime means that they can have more showings in a single day.
Click to expand...
We know there were plenty of scenes from the 70's years that were cut due to certain legal issues also, but I think the reason they were cut instead of having them rewritten to get around those issues (let's say changing out characters) is simply because it would take up less time and resources in the end. The movie had already been delayed by a whole year and the Estate spent over $55M on the reshoots, if they went back to re-do more and more scenes they would've just spent more time shooting and it would've added to the expenses. Cutting out those scenes entirely is just the easier route.
 
Last edited:
librariangirl:) said:
😅Perfect—so we mention stuff like propofol and Arvizo, but still keep it ‘feel-good,’ shuffle the timeline, and throw in some concert shots… and don’t forget the monkey. Yeah, that totally sounds like a coherent biopic and not a 300M highlight reel. Congrats you win!
Click to expand...
YEs, that would be awsome, thank you.
You can't forget the monkey in Michael 2 to be coherent with the 1st one because he has such a prominent part - sorry, I didn't write that one movie.
That monkey story absolutely needs some closure in Michael 3.

Opening scene, Michael 3 :
Flasforward after MJ s death : Latoya, played by herself, visits Bubbles, she gives him a photograph of MJ. The viewer understand Bubbles recognizes him.
Now transition, return to some 2000's, some forensic experts take photographs of MJ intimate parts. background music : Monkey Business.

That s the movie most people wants to see.
 
ChanceToDance said:
We know there were plenty of scenes from the 70's years that were cut due to certain legal issues also, but I think the reason they were cut instead of having them rewritten to get around those issues (let's say changing out characters) is simply because it would take up less time and resources in the end. The movie had already been delayed by a whole year and the Estate spent over $55M on the reshoots, if they went back to re-do more and more scenes they would've just spent more time shooting and it would've added to the expenses. Cutting out those scenes entirely is just the easier route.
Click to expand...
They could have included Bad era. I guess maybe they decided to leave it for Part 2 so they can have more popular songs in it too. I expect marketing to use TWYMMF and MITM like Beat It and Billie Jean were used in trailers for this.
 
Billie Jean 78 said:
I. I realize by reading your lines that I'm still troubled by Diana Ross's decision not to be in the movie.

II. Given how the first movie didn't really show any writing process at all, I doubt we would get any in the second movie. Maybe some video recreations, but even here we might be extremely limited in number: Smooth Criminal, Black or White, Remember the time, would be cool if there was something from HIStory too - but what? Scream might be expensive to recreate, plus where would Janet come from all of the sudden? TDCAU - would they go and film in the real slums? BOTDF would be low-cost and a very cool visual effect!
Click to expand...
Maybe Diana ross thought she would be the one seen to discover the J5, she did seem to like taking credit ,even though it was not her , think its fair to say she is quite the diva
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top