Latest on MJJC

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

Billie Jean 78 said:
Hmm, if they indeed are eying a two parter, wouldn't this narrative actually make sense? Heat up the momentum of the movie and the appetite of the public with his early, prior allegations, years' highlights, then if massively successful, make a second movie to fight those allegations.
Click to expand...
Agree. With the potential first film being the majority of ticket sales, they can tackle the "controversial" portion of his life in the second film; icing on the cake on their end.

EDIT: Missed the portion in the MJVibe article; this looks to be exactly their plan (hooray for integrity, Graham King). I considered this the best case scenario early on in the re-write rumors; so glad to see it could potentially be true:
Puck’s Matt Belloni, who, it must be said, has a reputation for leaning on rumor more than verified fact, recently reported that the final version of “Michael” now concludes with Michael Jackson’s meteoric rise to superstardom in the 1980s, stopping before the turbulence, controversy, and the Neverland years that defined much of his later life.

That’s despite the fact that Fuqua reportedly shot two full weeks of footage at Neverland Ranch which, if true, would be scrapped completely.

Producer Graham King, however, isn’t throwing in the towel. He’s already laying the groundwork for a potential follow-up film that would focus on Michael Jackson’s “King of Pop” years, provided, of course, that “Michael” performs well at the box office. The plan would be to reunite the core cast, including Jaafar Jackson (Michael’s nephew, who portrays the man himself), Colman Domingo, and Miles Teller, and continue the story from where the first film leaves off.

The sequel only moves forward if “Michael” becomes a hit when it opens next April. If it doesn’t, the unused footage, reportedly hours of it, will go straight to the vault. Given that the Estate has been footing much of the bill for this production, that would mean swallowing a major financial loss.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
If you want to get an idea how amazing this film will do to Michael's legacy you only have to look at Bohemian Rapsedy and see how after that film Queens/Freddie music was everywhere. With Michael this will be huge and with that the estate! Family etc can address all the allegations etc in follow up documentaries that will come after or maybe even before this film.
 
xscape guy 2003 said:
If you want to get an idea how amazing this film will do to Michael's legacy you only have to look at Bohemian Rapsedy and see how after that film Queens/Freddie music was everywhere. With Michael this will be huge and with that the estate! Family etc can address all the allegations etc in follow up documentaries that will come after or maybe even before this film.
Click to expand...
*could

We will see...I really try not to have high expectations. I don't want to be disappointed....so basically atm I don't really have any expectations at all. I will watch it and if it's great, I can really be excited about it and go to the cinema several times 😅.
 
If they couldn’t put the allegations in the first film due to legal stuff then there’s zero chance they will magically be able to use it for the follow up.

Just saying…..

Honestly , I think this film will suck. I really don’t want an American dream 2.0 now with the Bad era.

Are we gonna get the Jermaine staying with Motown drama again 🙄
 
I'm the world's BIGGEST Michael Jackson fan, and I'm OK with or without a part 2. :love:
I just want to see and FEEL some Michael Jackson MUSIC🎵 on the "Silver Screen", 🎶 💃🕺
because Michael Jackson is one of God's MOST BEAUTIFUL CREATIONS. 😇🥰
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
If they couldn’t put the allegations in the first film due to legal stuff then there’s zero chance they will magically be able to use it for the follow up.

Just saying…..

Honestly , I think this film will suck. I really don’t want an American dream 2.0 now with the Bad era.

Are we gonna get the Jermaine staying with Motown drama again 🙄
Click to expand...
They may not be able to put the Chandler situation in. But they CAN go into detail regarding the Arvizos, the trial etc. And this was the case where he was legally declared not guilty by a court of law. If the Chandler case isn't be apart of the film/s this absolutely HAS to be.
 
nextbigthing56 said:
They may not be able to put the Chandler situation in. But they CAN go into detail regarding the Arvizos, the trial etc. And this was the case where he was legally declared not guilty by a court of law. If the Chandler case isn't be apart of the film/s this absolutely HAS to be.
Click to expand...
I get what you’re saying regarding the Arvizo trial etc.

The Chandler case is the one that would be more meaningful though . it’s the huge mark on MJ’s legacy that has never gone away.

The boy who he paid off/ settled out of court etc all these words are associated with the Chandler case unfortunately.

When this film got announced, I dreamed of them really fighting back against the 93 case , the world listening to the Evan Chandler recording it would be brilliant, we will never get that.
 
Last edited:
I think as with any MJ project, the people who love him will find more reasons to love him, and the people who don't will find more reasons to loathe him. MJ is a controversial historical figure and a biopic is not going to change that whether or not it addresses the allegations. But what I think it has a great opportunity of doing is humanising/demystifying him from the prevalent media narrative, and raising his profile so more people are exposed to his awesome catalogue. This would lead to curiosity about him and then more fans from those who look into everything like the rest of us have done.

I think we as fans are so familiar with MJs story that we sometimes forget that even without the allegations, MJs story is a fascinating one. I'm sure those who didn't grow up with him will be very curious about what it was about this man that he made such an imprint and ended up becoming the most famous person on the planet. I think people will be curious about MJ the phenomenon.
I'm really curious to see how one would present MJs story in a way it hasn't been done before and with a big Hollywood budget.
 
It will be met with harsh criticism either way but the lack of any allegations in the biopic will come across that they have whitewashed the controversy.

Branca’s own infamous TikTok stating that we don’t do that looks a bit silly now.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
If they couldn’t put the allegations in the first film due to legal stuff then there’s zero chance they will magically be able to use it for the follow up.

Just saying…..

Honestly , I think this film will suck. I really don’t want an American dream 2.0 now with the Bad era.

Are we gonna get the Jermaine staying with Motown drama again 🙄
Click to expand...
So you read a blatant contradiction by baloney and instead of concluding that he was just spreading nonsense before. You chose to continue to believe the narrative that he now is backtracking from?

Common sense should tell you that baloney's past claims obviously weren't true and now he's backtracking (while still pushing the chandler nonsense, because he just can't help himself)to cover his tracks so he won't be exposed as the liar he is when the movies comes out and the allegations are addressed.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
It will be met with harsh criticism either way but the lack of any allegations in the biopic will come across that they have whitewashed the controversy.

Branca’s own infamous TikTok stating that we don’t do that looks a bit silly now.
Click to expand...
So you don't think it's strange that belloni is now claiming the chandler stuff (and that IS what he was referring to when he mentioned "rights issue" ) may be in a second part?

That makes no sense. He's been insisting the estate is barred from mentioning the chandlers, so which one is it? If they can't use it in part one, they can't use it in any part.

Belloni is full of shit and like I said he's now slowly and subtlety changing his story probably because he realized he backed himself into a corner in his zeal to destroy the biopic. IF he ever actually heard any insider information he probably misinterpreted it because he's fixated on slandering Michael in any way. He probably projected his own biased onto whatever he hears, if he actually heard anything and didnt just make it all up.
 
But if there's no problem with the allegations, then why did they delay the movie and are doing 2 parts?

First we heard the movie was gonna end in 1988. Then some people said the movie had to end in 1991/1992, before Dangerous era. Then we got the official poster indicating Dangerous era is in. Then Fuqua and Graham mention that the movie will cover everything from up until death. Then there was the delay and publications (Puck news) were blaming the settlement, therefore the allegations are out - the movie ending mid 80s. Then theres 2 movies but the allegations are still out. Now there's 2 movies but the allegations are in part 2 if part 1 does well. Everyone doing a circus over this movie as predicted.
 
apple🍎 said:
But if there's no problem with the allegations, then why did they delay the movie and are doing 2 parts?
Click to expand...
Movie delays are common, especially in todays world. It's not some big deal that it was delayed. And if you think that you probably don't pay attention to production of movies that come out nowadays.

apple🍎 said:
First we heard the movie was gonna end in 1988. Then some people said the movie had to end in 1991/1992, before Dangerous era. Then we got the official poster indicating Dangerous era is in. Then Fuqua and Graham mention that the movie will cover everything from up until death. Then there was the delay and publications (Puck news) were blaming the settlement, therefore the allegations are out - the movie ending mid 80s. Then theres 2 movies but the allegations are still out. Now there's 2 movies but the allegations are in part 2 if part 1 does well. Everyone doing a circus over this movie as predicted.
Click to expand...
What we do know is that they had 4 hours of footage and they filmed more, only finishing on MJs birthday this year.

Pretty sure if they needed to cut the chandler stuff then they had plenty of other footage. So why the need to film more? And now Baloney is claiming there might not even be a second film? So they just wasted millions of dollars on weeks of extra filming for no reason?? Just to end up doing one movie anyway??? Let me repeat, they had 4 hours of footage from the first filming running. Unless you believe half that footage was about the chandlers, then your critical thinking skills should tell you Baloney's story is not adding up. They had plenty of footage to cut the chandler stuff and still put together a cohesive movie.

His claim makes zero sense.


What all this is telling me is that they actually added more stuff to the movie, they didn't take anything away like baloney claimed.

Like I said Baloney projected his hatred of Michael onto whatever little snippets of info he may have gotten, his interpretation is likely wrong. He probably heard they were doing addition filming and just assumed it must have something to do with the chandler stuff.

Or he simply made it up.
 
kelley said:
So you don't think it's strange that belloni is now claiming the chandler stuff (and that IS what he was referring to when he mentioned "rights issue" ) may be in a second part?

That makes no sense. He's been insisting the estate is barred from mentioning the chandlers, so which one is it? If they can't use it in part one, they can't use it in any part.

Belloni is full of shit and like I said he's now slowly and subtlety changing his story probably because he realized he backed himself into a corner in his zeal to destroy the biopic. IF he ever actually heard any insider information he probably misinterpreted it because he's fixated on slandering Michael in any way. He probably projected his own biased onto whatever he hears, if he actually heard anything and didnt just make it all up.
Click to expand...
He might be full of shit but is it not a concern that up to this point, the shit seems to be more on the accurate side considering the delays etc?

Like I mentioned before, it won’t be too far away from the truth I believe.

P.S , you don’t have to insult other posters when trying to get your point across, it’s really not that deep. @apple🍎 ignore 😊
 
It's very obvious who on here hasn't really followed the production of many films over the years.

Every question being raised at this point is valid, and the people that are getting super defensive need to relax and stop being so sensitive. Some posters in here seem to live for negative comments and focus exclusively on them - that seems very unhealthy.

There are far too many red flags not to be concerned about this, and I say that as someone who HOPES this film is good.
 
xscape guy 2003 said:
If you want to get an idea how amazing this film will do to Michael's legacy you only have to look at Bohemian Rapsedy and see how after that film Queens/Freddie music was everywhere. With Michael this will be huge and with that the estate! Family etc can address all the allegations etc in follow up documentaries that will come after or maybe even before this film.
Click to expand...
MJs music is already ahead of all of those people - if he does get a boost like that he'll be clearing most modern artists!
 
The trailer will feel odd at first to us hardcore fans who are obsessed with every little detail.

It’s Jaafar , not Michael . His dancing must be on point and the voice must come across as natural rather than a silly impression- we should get a real feel from the trailer if it feels authentic or not.

There’s been some teaser reactions previously who mention that he speaks just like him etc and it’s like AI …..some fans though believed that Breaking News , Monster etc were legit MJ tracks.

We will know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top