Latest on MJJC

The Official 'Michael' Bio-Pic Thread

R1chard said:
Living rent-free in your head by the sound of it. I always find it better not to care what other people are doing.


This. I really wish people would avoid posting stuff if they don't know anything about it.


Not true. Some artists don't even have an "estate" and yet their music is used wherever.


Basically they don't know how long they're going to carry a movie for. It's hard to predict how long the public will watch something for. Lots of films are only out for 2 weeks, and then plummet.


I don't know about that. Generally fans of other artists don't take it as a personal insult just because somebody outsells their favourite artist.


What was the question? If somebody wants to make a film about Paris, they can, whether she agrees or not.


It's not really a personal achievement for Michael though, is it? In all likelihood, he would have been against this movie.


This was one of my problems from the outset. People are shaped by their relationships. For whatever reason, this film was too afraid to depict any, do will always feel incomplete.

Btw, you have a very good way with words.


That's the point. Nobody should care about what other people like, and nobody should be judging them for it.

You don't care that others don't like it. And that's fine.

Others don't care that you do like it. And that's fine.

We just need to live and let live.

It's just that it's important. It simply does not matter to most people whether a movie/game/song/painting is successful or not. None of us on this board have any stake in this movie, unless perhaps you own shares in Sony or whatever.

Except that it's literally not.

Watch Wembley. Watch Bucharest. Watch one of the hundreds of other concerts on YouTube.

You shouldn't feel guilted into doing something just to generate money for Lionsgate. Its not your responsibility.

It wouldn't be worth making a movie that didn't tackle it. It IS the defining moment in both his personal and professional life - and at this point it's unexplained how it affected Michael himself. I'd love to understand that.

We've been through this. The contract only applies to the estate. Nobody else. You easily get around it by including in the small print "the estate didn't make this". That's literally all you have to do.

I'm sure she doesn't give a shit.

That's a good take.
Click to expand...
You seem like a very bitter and negative individual.
 
Joanne said:
Im going to see this movie today. My partner doesnt know my absolute LOVE for MJ, they'll get a shock today when I start crying through it telling them how much I miss him... miss someone I've never met 😆😭.

It's bittersweet for me seeing all the MJ love on social media. He's been shit on since LN, but I'm glad people are now okay with admitting they're MJ fans and feel like its okay to be now. I hope it stays like this.
Click to expand...
Gonna reply to my own comment, no shame 😆

Just come from seeing it and I agree Jafaar was incredible, and I was skeptical as I really dislike Jermaine 😆 but the ending, in an IMAX theatre, I felt like I was there and I was just sitting emotional, really miss him and felt so sad for the rest of his life.

That said, yes they did gloss/skip over things. I was disappointed the vitiligo wasn't addressed more or even the lupus because that was a huge part of MJs life and I felt it would of put some of the rumours to bed finally. It was so bittersweet watching it. The love for MJ and his music right now is incredible. I worry about the November 2026 trial with the LN guys but for now... its so nice to hear his music, talk about him and see him be loved again. Feeling sad, happy, all of everything 🥰😆😭
 
Galactus123 said:
Screen X format looks interesting. Posted on X by @mjsunbaenim. You get more image on the sides but I suspect its only for some scenes.

20260502-123436.jpg


20260502-123440.jpg
Click to expand...
ScreenX is very hit or miss. It's not on every scene but is there on the concert scenes.

The one I went to, it wasn't projected properly so was slightly off from the main screen and was just a projector at a wall so it looked quite blurry. I was quite disappointed actually.
 
Prometheus77 said:
The movie is not called Evan. No way will that work.

They probably could show Michael being at an award show with children and not mention their names. They maybe could show them getting a call asking Michael to finance something and if not they will accuse him of child molestation. They could show Michael going on tour while the news brakes. and the turmoil behind the scenes, the increased painkillers until the tour gets stopped. Not sure how they could incorporate the settlement then. But if Evan is dead and no one can sue on his behalf, maybe they could just bring in that settlement without ever mentioning the boy.
Click to expand...
The thing is unless we have a copy of the settlement that MJs Insurance and the Chandler's signed we don't know how vague the wording is. Maybe just depicting a family accusing them of child SA would void the agreement and leave them open to legal consequences.

It could be even a disclaimer in the beginning of the film stating they can't talk about the allegations could still be in violation of the agreement. We really don't know the extent,
 
Toby34 said:
The thing is unless we have a copy of the settlement that MJs Insurance and the Chandler's signed we don't know how vague the wording is. Maybe just depicting a family accusing them of child SA would void the agreement and leave them open to legal consequences.

It could be even a disclaimer in the beginning of the film stating they can't talk about the allegations could still be in violation of the agreement. We really don't know the extent,
Click to expand...
Yes. Or maybe they can. They just have to feel it it out. The uncle of the boy was able to write a book about it all, without any repercussion to him. And for sure the major info came from his brother. I'm sure the estate could figure something out how they could address it and stay vague enough.
 
Prometheus77 said:
No. But those other movies were not official. They didn't care if they stepped on anyone's toes. This movie, backed by the estate, does. For sure they could put anyone in the movie they want, but either they will piss people off, who they personally know and who were family/friends of Michael or they will get sued as they can't use certain people because the estate is the legal extension of Michael.
Click to expand...
Exactly this. Diana could threaten legal action if she is portrayed in the film. Does the Estate really want to bother with the legality of this or potentially facing a lawsuit in court? Much easier to just cut her scenes out.
 
Lets not forget American Dream was made my Suzanne de Passe Production and had Motown involved. Its also the reason they didn't sing songs from The Jacksons (J5 only) even in the Jacksons era. Diana Ross was a staple of Motown.

Legalities will always play a part in ehat is and isn't included in films. They fully intended to have her as an important character in the film.
 
Prometheus77 said:
Yes. Or maybe they can. They just have to feel it it out. The uncle of the boy was able to write a book about it all, without any repercussion to him. And for sure the
major info came from his brother. I'm sure the estate could figure something out how they could address it and stay vague enough.
Click to expand...
Exactly!! I simply refuse to believe the opposite!!
 
R1chard said:
That's the fatal flaw.

I want to watch a good movie. One that tries to be good. It's all about quality.

I don't care for them trying so hard to "sell a brand". Yawn. I want to watch a movie that's made for me, not one that's made to satisfy MJ's publicists.


Um, no.

Amy?

Last King of Scotland?


Can we all just stop talking about topics we don't understand?!

In any case, why would anybody want the ****** Chandlers to benefit from a MJ movie?!?


Because everybody has different tastes?

Seriously, I don't understand why people are so obsessed with other people's opinions. You like one thing, they like something else. That's all there is to it.


Songs literally get used in movies all the time. Probably the vast majority of movies. It's not uncommon for a movie to have 10 or 20 songs, all from different singers. A movie most definitely does not have to be made or endorsed by an "estate" to use music.

Yes. I know this for an absolute fact.


I've said before, I have no stake in this film or any of the people involved. I'm neutral. I don't care if it's a success and I don't care if it's a failure. Just like I don't care if KFC makes more money than McDonald's this week. It's a silly thing to care about.


I dunno. Mostly it's an interesting topic of conversation. Doesn't mean you have to love the thing you're talking about. ie people talk about war and taxes, and getting sick, but they don't like any of those things.


Ok. What was the question?


I didn't tell you what to do. I said it’s not your responsibility to "support" this film and to make it a success. Branca is hoping people feel guilty for not going.

I said that because it's true.

But by all means do what you want to do.


Well, you asked me a question...


What can I say, people are different. And that's fine isn't it?

Isn't it?


I'm not about to get into one of those silly competitions where we all try to pretend we're a bigger fan that somebody else. The ignore button is right there, feel free to use it.


That does look very interesting. I wonder how it's achieved from a technical point of view. Perhaps just distorted the last few columns of pixels, the way they sometimes stretch/blur phone footage on TV.

Do we know how far back it goes?


Exactly. Well said. I think people are reading way too much into this stuff. It's just a movie. It's not even Michael's movie. Maybe Janet just didn't care about it. Doesn't mean she hates her brother, lol. Maybe she just couldn't be bothered stepping out and getting hounded for the night. Silly to judge her for not jumping up to attention at the drop of a hat.

Edit - oh, she's in Japan? Yeah, that'll do it.
Click to expand...
Can you just let people enjoy stuff, dude? It’s fine that you aren’t interested, it’s fine that you want to engage in conversation, but you consistently quote people who are expressing their opinions and belittling or cutting them down for no reason. You say “live and let live” yet you go out of your way to judge people for how they’re living. It’s exhausting.
 
Toby34 said:
Exactly this. Diana could threaten legal action if she is portrayed in the film. Does the Estate really want to bother with the legality of this or potentially facing a lawsuit in court? Much easier to just cut her scenes out.
Click to expand...
´Which brings back the initial question - why would she even think about a legal action against the Estate of her darling protege... unless he isn't a darling anymore :cry:
 
Ok, I finally watched it. Late to the party, as always 🥲.

I would rate it a 7,5/10.

First of all, I was wearing my Florsheim shoes, some day these will be the death of me, I am telling you...slippery mf's... the cinema was too small, some people came to late, the music wasn't loud enough (I wanted my ears to bleed - just a little 😐) and too much bass.

BUT to talk about the movie itself. Jaafar did great, I just feel like, while singing, his facial expressions could have been a little more intense. That's the only critique I have.

The story telling was definitely too flat for me. They should have shown more about all the trouble he had to go through. Maybe also inner monologue to make clear what's going on inside of him. Everything was very quick and like "ok, topic finished, next one". I missed more silent moments and real feelings.

Guess, that sums my thoughts up... I would love to watch it again in IMAX or at least on a wayyy bigger screen. Guess that also took away from the experience.
 
To R1chard :

I don't know about Amy or Last King of Scotland box office ( LKoS was a very bad movie imho), but Michael is going straight to the billion dollars. So, who cares about your opinion or mine?
It already did 424 millions $ in like a week :

www.boxofficemojo.com

Michael

www.boxofficemojo.com www.boxofficemojo.com

If they could do It, they would release the movie with all the edited scenes prior to 1984, and It would go to 1,5 billions...

So...
 
Prometheus77 said:
He still is. She still mentions him in concert, does Ease on down the road and has her guitarist Michael play Michael during his solo spot at her concerts.
Click to expand...
I really do not get it... She is a far bigger and more famous name and way more relevant for the J5 than for example Susanne de Pass, has even her name on their first album, and does not want to be in his official biopic. I cannot see this going down well neither in his legacy, nor in hers... nor in theirs.
 
Billie Jean 78 said:
I really do not get it... She is a far bigger and more famous name and way more relevant for the J5 than for example Susanne de Pass, has even her name on their first album, and does not want to be in his official biopic. I cannot see this going down well neither in his legacy, nor in hers... nor in theirs.
Click to expand...
Yeah. I don't get it either. Maybe it has to do with the bullshit people are saying about their relationship, that she supposedly was grooming him. But to counter that, I'm not sure withdrawing is the right way.
 
Prometheus77 said:
Yeah. I don't get it either. Maybe it has to do with the bullshit people are saying about their relationship, that she supposedly was grooming him. But to counter that, I'm not sure withdrawing is the right way.
Click to expand...
Who the *** is saying that? I have never heard of it!!
That cannot be the reason... she would have taken a distance from him on the stage too then.
 
Prometheus77 said:
Yes. Or maybe they can. They just have to feel it it out. The uncle of the boy was able to write a book about it all, without any repercussion to him. And for sure the major info came from his brother. I'm sure the estate could figure something out how they could address it and stay vague enough.
Click to expand...
The question here is, did Michael Jackson try his hardest to stop Raymond Chandlers book? Or was he just advised he could not do anything about it? Or did Michael want to move on with his life and thus did not bother about it? I honestly can not recall atm.
 
Lightbringer said:
The question here is, did Michael Jackson try his hardest to stop Raymond Chandlers book? Or was he just advised he could not do anything about it? Or did Michael want to move on with his life and thus did not bother about it? I honestly can not recall atm.
Click to expand...
I don't know either. But if the settlement stipulates that they can't talk about it, it has to apply to both sides and they would have to expect resistance from Michael's side if he is painted in a bad light.
 
If Diana Ross didnt want to be in the film, she didnt want to be in the film. She has been one of MJs biggest supporters since LN and was the FIRST to tweet support for him after LN. The absolute state of the MJ Twitter Mob pathetically turning on her like a bunch of mental cases. I'd hate to see that mentality come on here.

This film is not the be all and end all for everyone in the planet - she had her reasons.
 
Toby34 said:
The thing is unless we have a copy of the settlement that MJs Insurance and the Chandler's signed we don't know how vague the wording is. Maybe just depicting a family accusing them of child SA would void the agreement and leave them open to legal consequences.
Click to expand...
10. Jackson, individually, and on behalf of his agents, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors, assigns and Related Companies hereby agrees that they will not at any time in the future make any engagement, enter into any contract, agreement, commitment, understanding or other obligation, with any media, including, without limitation, any publishing, print, news, television, motion picture, cable, video, multimedia, software, recording, broadcast, radio or any other media, for purposes of or relating to the commercial exploitation by Jackson or any Related Companies or his attorneys of record in the Action of any story, documentary, docudrama, publication, magazine, tabloid, book, article, motion picture, television program or picture, "movie-of-the-week," serial, miniseries, recording, record, audiotape, compact disc, videotape, program, television or other public or private appearance, interview or broadcast, related to the Minor in any capacity, any recreation or likeness of the Minor or their image, Jackson’s relationship with the Minor, the allegations made in the Action, any information revealed through discovery in the Action, or the Claims.
In addition to any other legal or equitable remedy as may be available as a result of any breach of this paragraph, the Parties acknowledge that the Minor or their respective heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, shall be entitled to recoup as recovery for unjust enrichment, or any other applicable cause of action, any sums as may be received by the breaching party as compensation for such commercial exploitation.
 
t1mber said:
10. Jackson, individually, and on behalf of his agents, heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors, assigns and Related Companies hereby agrees that they will not at any time in the future make any engagement, enter into any contract, agreement, commitment, understanding or other obligation, with any media, including, without limitation, any publishing, print, news, television, motion picture, cable, video, multimedia, software, recording, broadcast, radio or any other media, for purposes of or relating to the commercial exploitation by Jackson or any Related Companies or his attorneys of record in the Action of any story, documentary, docudrama, publication, magazine, tabloid, book, article, motion picture, television program or picture, "movie-of-the-week," serial, miniseries, recording, record, audiotape, compact disc, videotape, program, television or other public or private appearance, interview or broadcast, related to the Minor in any capacity, any recreation or likeness of the Minor or their image, Jackson’s relationship with the Minor, the allegations made in the Action, any information revealed through discovery in the Action, or the Claims.
In addition to any other legal or equitable remedy as may be available as a result of any breach of this paragraph, the Parties acknowledge that the Minor or their respective heirs, administrators, executors, conservators, successors and assigns, shall be entitled to recoup as recovery for unjust enrichment, or any other applicable cause of action, any sums as may be received by the breaching party as compensation for such commercial exploitation.
Click to expand...

This certainly seems watertight so no surprise the movie cant include it. Just like the MJ Estate had a watertight disparage clause with HBO. My theory is that Michael did not bother to sue Ray Chandler and Evan Chandler as he just wanted to move on with his life and not litigate rehashing the allegations further. If someone can provide information to the contrary I would change my beliefs.

It also begs the question, was it a lawyer representing June Chandler that kindly informed the MJ Estate that they would purse action if the allegations were not removed from the film prior to the release? It seems a bit far fetched that the Estate would suddenly after 3-4 years realize themselves that they could not include the footage.

I dont think I have seen that question asked or answered :)
 
Lightbringer said:
was it a lawyer representing June Chandler that kindly informed the MJ Estate that they would purse action if the allegations were not removed from the film prior to the release? It seems a bit far fetched that the Estate would suddenly after 3-4 years realize themselves that they could not include the footage.

I dont think I have seen that question asked or answered :)
Click to expand...
It seems that right after the Cascio lawsuit had gone in public Lionsgate asked the Estate: "Are there any hidden surprises that we're not aware of that can prevent or interfere with the release?" But it's just a hypothesis. My opinion is that the Estate always knew but it's the studio that decided to cut off the scenes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top