Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

OK, I left and went back to read other showbiz news, and found the (my) first mainstream review of the movie. It's in Variety, the showbiz trade paper and written by Owen WhathisName, that I can't spell or pronounce, but he's been the film critic for probably 25-30 years at Entertainment Weekly. It's bad.
I just read a bit so far, but glanced at the comments and there are just a few-about half pro and half con. If anyone wants to pile on the comments, feel free. This one will get mainstream traction.

https://variety.com/2019/film/revie...-michael-jackson-1203117883/#article-comments
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

How is sending faxes with nothing incriminating on them that Wade's mother has free access to damning? lol
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

OK, I left and went back to read other showbiz news, and found the (my) first mainstream review of the movie. It's in Variety, the showbiz trade paper and written by Owen WhathisName, that I can't spell or pronounce, but he's been the film critic for probably 25-30 years at Entertainment Weekly. It's bad.
I just read a bit so far, but glanced at the comments and there are just a few-about half pro and half con. If anyone wants to pile on the comments, feel free. This one will get mainstream traction.

https://variety.com/2019/film/revie...-michael-jackson-1203117883/#article-comments
In there is just seem like it is one poster. And here is my issue with these fool poster. he/she is spreading lies and want to believe the lie and then talk about people who have nothing to do with MJ's case. I wont be surprise if that poster is someone is Wade or James circle. there are just certain things I look for when someone is posting.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

It's going to be alright, y'all. We've been through this storm before, but now we got more info, we can use it to our advantage. There will be naysayers every now and then, and they will come and go, but Michael's legacy is forever cemented. No one can take that away.

Don't dwell on it too long, and don't give them any further attention, that's exactly what they want. Don't worry about what people say, we know the truth!
 
https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...ry.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[FONT=&quot]A few years ago, when Dan Reed first learned that two men had filed child sexual abuse lawsuits against Michael Jackson, he was stunned. Given the gravity of the allegations, he didn’t understand why more people weren’t talking about Wade Robson’s and James Safechuck’s stories.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It was 2016, and Reed — a U.K. native — had been looking for his next nonfiction project. He was looking to do something big and investigative, an iconic American story that had the power to engage audiences on a global scale. So during lunch with an executive at England’s Channel 4, he suggested Michael Jackson: Was he or wasn’t he guilty of sexual abuse?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]At the time, Reed wasn’t aware that Robson and Safechuck had recently sued Jackson’s two business entities, seeking damages for what they alleged were years of molestation at the hands of the musician. The documentarian was aware of the two public trials against Jackson — the first in 1993 and the second in 2005 — in which he was charged but never convicted of child sexual abuse. But until a researcher he’d hired began looking into Jackson’s legal history, Reed had no idea who Robson and Safechuck were.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Upon learning of their complaints, Reed immediately reached out to the legal teams for the two men and expressed his interest in interviewing them for a documentary. Though the filmmaker felt “it was a real long shot,” the accusers agreed to participate. In February 2017, Reed flew to Hawaii to interview Robson, then talked to Safechuck in Ventura County.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]On Friday, Reed’s film, which will debut on Channel 4 and HBO this spring, was unveiled to a packed house at the Sundance Film Festival. In the 236-minute project, Robson, 36, and Safechuck, 40, reveal how they came to become close to Jackson as boys and subsequently suffered years of abuse that they hid from their families until they were grown men.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]An hour after the film came to its emotional conclusion Friday afternoon, Reed spoke to The Times about how the two men are coping with the release, his hopes for how the production will help abuse survivors and how Jackson fans should respond to the new allegations.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]<figure class="" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px;">
la-1548467762-ov6y0z9xft-snap-image

<figcaption class="caption-text spaced spaced-top spaced-sm flex-container-row justify-space-between " style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; font-family: Benton; line-height: 16px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-size: 12px; flex-direction: row; justify-content: space-between; margin-top: 8px;">Director Dan Reed says he is hopeful his film opens up a broader conversation about child sexual abuse. (Jay L. Clendenin / Los Angeles Times)
</figcaption></figure>

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How did Robson and Safechuck react after the screening today?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]They’d seen it about a month ago, but at the intermission, they were both overwhelmed and very, very emotional. The film’s crossed that line into the public sphere now, and I think that was an incredibly cathartic moment for Wade and James. They feel very good about the film; they love the film. But it shook them. It’s disturbing as well as life-affirming and liberating.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There’s a tremendous energy for them in getting this out there. We were talking about it, what an incredible moment it is. This thing happened to them, and there’s nothing they can do about it and it [messed] up their lives for a good while. But now it has a purpose. Their experience can be transformed into something that can help other people and give permission to victims of child sexual abuse to speak out.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Did either of the men lay out ground rules before you interviewed them?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It was made clear to the lawyer from the outset that “you have no editorial control.” I just said, “Speak in as plain terms as you can.” I didn’t interrupt very much. I asked a few questions, and [Robson] just went.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You interviewed Robson first, and you’d never spoken with him before meeting him in Hawaii. What was that like?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I flew to Hawaii and met Wade for lunch, and we immediately had a rapport. For three days, we just talked. When I started interviewing him, I couldn’t take for granted that he was telling the truth. I wasn’t skeptical, and sort of gave him the benefit of the doubt, but his story had to make sense, because there was no way I was going to risk my reputation on something that was flawed or not quite true. We agreed that the sexual abuse had to be described exactly as it happened. We had to go graphic, because there’s no point making a film like this and just saying, “Well, then the bedroom door closes,” and we skip ahead.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There were areas where I questioned him more because I needed to make sure that his account was entirely consistent. That’s the big thing — if people are not telling you the truth, then they don’t have a mental picture of what it is they’re actually talking about, because they’re lying. You can feel there isn’t a mental object they’re describing. I straight away got a sense from Wade that he was telling the story effortlessly and it was very fluid. If I asked him questions, his mind was referencing a real thing and not a made-up thing. His account was extremely credible. Certainly by the end of the third day, I had no doubt he was telling the truth.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And you got the same sense from Safechuck?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Equally with James. James was more tentative, because he has not spoken to the press. Wade was in show business, and he’d been interviewed loads of times before. James is so much more raw. You could feel him processing that experience as he was speaking and trying to find words to express what had happened to him. His face is much more — I don’t want to say expressive — but you can read the turmoil on his face.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Although Wade’s very emotional, the conflict isn’t there because I think he’s had a lot more therapy and processed these things. I thought that as contrasting witnesses, they worked very well. I found James so authentic. His account drifted around a lot more, not in ways I found inconsistent, but he was suddenly talking about this enormous part of his life he’d never discussed with anyone. His memories were a lot more attached to feelings, and they weren’t as crisply illuminated as Wade’s — they were more impressionistic. He remembered details of the abuse and the feelings he’d had, but he couldn’t necessarily remember that it was exactly two days between Berlin and Paris.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Both Robson and Safechuck previously testified in court that Jackson never abused them, and now they say they lied because they have since come to terms with what was done to them. Were you skeptical of their stories going into this?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]When Wade told me that he loved Michael, then everything suddenly crystallized and made sense. This is difficult to say, but he had a fulfilling sexual and emotional relationship at the age of 7 with a 30-year-old man who happened to be the King of Pop. And because he enjoyed it, he loved Michael, and the sex was pleasant. I’m sorry, that’s just the reality.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Most people imagine the kid kind of being forced — that’s not what happened, and Wade makes that very, very clear. If you’re really going to understand what oftentimes child sexual abuse is like, you have to understand that the abuser creates an authentic relationship that if the person was aged 18 or older would be completely normal. The problem is that the child is 7, and a 7-year-old can’t make those decisions.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We have to face the fact that child sexual abuse isn’t a guy grabbing you in the dark and you scream and he runs off and you tell your mom. If this film can make certain ideas about sexual abuse current — if that can become part of the culture — then we’ve done a good job, because then people will be able to recognize symptoms and understand why Mark or Joe or whoever started drinking heavily in his early 30s and it turned out he had been abused by his schoolteacher.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]<figure class="" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px;">
la-1548472835-gokgxp2uec-snap-image

<figcaption class="caption-text spaced spaced-top spaced-sm flex-container-row justify-space-between " style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; font-family: Benton; line-height: 16px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-size: 12px; flex-direction: row; justify-content: space-between; margin-top: 8px;">Michael Jackson is shown in 1993, around the time when Robson and Safechuck say they were abused by him. (Rusty Kennedy / Associated Press)
</figcaption></figure>

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Did you reach out to other young men who spent time with Jackson, like Brett Barnes or Macaulay Culkin? What about the males who also filed suits against him, Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We looked into Brett and Macaulay and tried to find Jordy and Gavin. I wrote to Gavin, because I really thought that perhaps we’d have a chance of getting Gavin in as well. I interviewed prosecutors and detectives and did a lot of research, both to validate what the guys had told me, but also to just steep myself in the story so I had a good perspective on it. But in the end, I realized that the really extraordinary thing was the two families and their stories.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]OK, but what would you have done if, say, Macaulay agreed to be interviewed?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I don’t know what you would have done. Of course I would have interviewed them, but I don’t know how I would have structured the film. It would have been an eight-hour epic or something, because then I would had to have interviewed Macaulay’s mom and dad and brother and the whole thing. I think pedophiles often groom a family, they don’t groom a child. [Editor’s note: Culkin has repeatedly denied he experienced anything inappropriate with Jackson.]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Do you think more men will come forward with allegations against Jackson after seeing this?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]There must be dozens of men out there who have been sexually abused by him. And I think in the same way that James saw Wade on TV and said “me too,” others will see this film and come out.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Were you tempted to be more judgmental of Robson’s and Safechuck’s mothers, who allowed their sons to sleep in bed with Jackson and didn’t think anything of it?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]That’s not how I approach the kind of storytelling I do. I don’t see any need to intervene or to comment. It’s very clear that the way that they parented their sons was lacking, was wanting. They were dazzled, as they say, they were starstruck and having this incredible experience at the expense — now they realize — at the expense of their children. My approach as a storyteller is never to [judge], but always to try and create an understanding of what motivated that person. It’s not about condemnation, it’s about trying to understand why they did it.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In the film, Joy Robson says she doesn’t want to know the details of her son’s alleged sexual abuse because it would give her nightmares. How does she feel now that she’s seen the film?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]She saw the film, but she chose not to watch the explicit descriptions of sexual abuse. I fast-forwarded through them. I feel very conflicted about that. Obviously, I was going to respect her wish, and there was no way I was going to force her to watch it or really try and sway her to watch it. I think the reason she doesn’t want to watch it is because it would undermine to some extent the deal she’s struck with herself. “I did this bad, but it wasn’t all bad.” She justifies herself a little bit more than Stephanie [Safechuck] does. Stephanie was so angry that she fantasized about murdering Jackson.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]<figure class="" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px;">
la-1548467658-llo2edyp0h-snap-image

<figcaption class="caption-text spaced spaced-top spaced-sm flex-container-row justify-space-between " style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; font-family: Benton; line-height: 16px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-size: 12px; flex-direction: row; justify-content: space-between; margin-top: 8px;">Michael Jackson with a young Wade Robson, who says he was sexually molested by the musician between the ages of 7 and 14. (Sundance Film Festival)
</figcaption></figure>

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What role do those who worked for Jackson have in all this?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Clearly, the people in the Jackson household would have seen the children coming in and out of the house and the regular movement of young boys and must have asked themselves some questions. He couldn’t have operated without the cooperation of people around him. How much people know or whether they would feel bad when they watch the film, I don’t know. That’s another film that I deliberately haven’t gotten into.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Why do you think abuse allegations have never really stuck to Jackson?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]He was very powerful and very wealthy and could hire lawyers who would intimidate. People are scared of Jackson, still. They’re scared of his legal team. They’re very aggressive. I got that feeling from approaching members of the household staff and detectives — you don’t [mess] with Jackson.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Since it was announced “Leaving Neverland” would play here, Jackson fans have been trolling the Sundance page and leaving thousands of comments on Twitter. Why do you think they’re having such a strong reaction to the film?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]He has this army of fans who are vocal. It’s a sort of cult, isn’t it? Not as in [David] Koresh or anything like that, because Jackson obviously didn’t physically enslave people. But there’s a level of adoration. Because he projected this image of innocence and a connection with children and a purity, I think there’s something in people that wants to worship that. And if you say that actually the opposite was true — that instead of loving and cherishing children, he harmed them — you’re blasphemous. It feels like we’ve committed blasphemy, and the MJ fans have launched a fatwa against us.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How do you think his fans should react to these allegations? Should they stop listening to his music?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The current reaction is revulsion when people hear his music, knowing now the truth about what he did with children. Whether that will last — I never particularly was fond of Jackson’s music. I acknowledge his genius, and he was amazing and incredibly successful. I personally was never a huge fan because I like different types of music, so I don’t have that visceral feeling of someone playing a Michael Jackson track at my wedding. But he means an incredible amount to a huge number of people because they connect Michael’s music to a time in their life.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We’re coming off Lifetime’s R. Kelly docuseries, and now there’s a campaign to #MuteRKelly. Do you think there should be a #MuteMJ campaign?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I think Jackson’s in a different category from R. Kelly. How many people play R. Kelly at their wedding or birthday? Not that many. But Michael Jackson tracks are embedded in our culture. And if you’re going to rip them out, it’s going to cause a lot of pain. So maybe there’s a way to say — not the way Kanye West suggested — but if you listen to his music and you also acknowledge the fact that he was very damaged and an abuser of children.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I don’t know, Amy, it’s a good question, because personally I wouldn’t enjoy listening to Michael Jackson tracks having watched that film. If there’s a movement to reframe or reassess Michael Jackson’s music and that is associated with, “Let’s wake up about child sexual abuse and let’s believe people when they come out and not say they’re just after money; let’s not shame the victims.”

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]If #MuteMJ — if that ever happens — is associated with that, then fine, so be it. I think the Jackson story has become such an arena for slugging matches that don’t involve anything constructive at all. The tone of a lot of the debate is just appalling and negative.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]<figure class="" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px;">
la-1548472630-02fxsav9eh-snap-image

<figcaption class="caption-text spaced spaced-top spaced-sm flex-container-row justify-space-between " style="box-sizing: border-box; display: flex; font-family: Benton; line-height: 16px; color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-size: 12px; flex-direction: row; justify-content: space-between; margin-top: 8px;">Brenda Jenkyns, who drove from Calgary, Canada, stands with a sign outside the premiere of the "Leaving Neverland" at Sundance. (Danny Moloshok / Invision/AP)
</figcaption></figure>

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How would you argue we do right by those who say they’ve been abused by Jackson?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I think maybe that’s part of the answer, because it’s a public acknowledgment that you believe Wade and James and what they’re saying. And therefore, the next time you listen to a Michael Jackson track, what you’ve seen in the film comes to mind and that’s your association, which is not a nice association.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I’m not of the view that there should be a #MuteMJ movement. I don’t think that politically in the wider world that’s the answer. I think what we’re trying to achieve here using perhaps the biggest global star that ever lived is to how power and wealth can be misused.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I think it’s a great film for parents to watch, because the next time you look at someone behaving a certain way with your child, you think, “Wait a minute, let me take a closer interest.” What I want the film to do is to make it OK to talk about child sexual abuse. Not necessarily in an organized, institutional way. I don’t think the answer is to start a war about Jackson’s music.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Why make this a four-hour docuseries?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]We all thought it would be a two-hour film. I remember when I sent the first rough cut to HBO and it was four hours and 50 minutes. You just don’t do that. It was gonna be two hours. But I was just, like, “Watch it.” The story just kind of slows you down and embeds you in the relationships, and I think you just can’t really get it without that. The story’s so contradictory and confusing. “You said there was no abuse, and now you’re saying abuse.” “You say you lied then, so which one is it?” You have to follow that thread of how this all happened step by step and the psychological beats of the story.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The central thing you have to understand is that these children fell in love with Michael Jackson. Jackson wasn’t a kind of grab-and-grope pedophile — he was a romance, relationship pedophile. Wade started telling me how he had fallen in love with Jackson and how that love lasted for years — decades — and how that love motivated his loyalty to Jackson. And how that loyalty ended up requiring him to lie about what happened.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And also because the sexual abuse happened in the context of a loving relationship, it didn’t seem like abuse. It seemed like love.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Did the #MeToo movement affect the film?

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The #MeToo movement emerged as we were making it, and it did play into it. For a long time, Joy [Robson] was reluctant and had doubts about the interview. She basically wouldn’t make a date for the interview. When the #MeToo movement happened, she felt the time had come to go on the record.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I think it’s given this whole narrative in our society a real impetus. This is a case of #MeToo, because when James saw Wade on television, he went, “me too.” I think child abuse stories are the next step for the #MeToo movement.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]That doesn’t mean that women’s stories get superseded, because obviously no one wants that. I think this film is going to get people going #MeToo, and a lot of people will come out and will feel they’re able to talk because Wade and James broke the biggest taboo of all — the biggest silence of all. People who have had the same experience but not with a very famous person will feel empowered to speak, and I hope that that can coalesce with the #MeToo movement. I know [#MeToo founder] Tarana Burke was in the audience [at the Sundance screening], and that’s really thrilling. I can’t tell you how happy I am about that.

[/FONT]
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I guess I have been riding the high of the lack of negativity surrounding Michael Jackson sense passing and got used to a little more fair treatment..

It's hard to put my mind back into going through this type.of BS

You and I both, post 2009 MJ has received fairly good press. Most people considered him a legend and had big respect for his artistry. I really hope this doesn't change that. It would be a shame to see everything start to crumble.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

..but Michael's legacy is forever cemented. No one can take that away.


I wish that were true :/, but over the past few years we've seen people's entire legacies tarnished and "erased" from history because of allegations against them, regardless of whether or not they were true. It almost feels like many people with hidden agendas were just waiting for this to happen. Especially with the recent news about R. Kelly and then Bryan Singer, it's really hitting a nerve with many people and evoking memories of the allegations against MJ. The best way to counter this would be for a strong voice to stand up and present evidence. Or at the very least, make it clear why these individuals are not credible, just as the '93 and '03 accusers weren't credible. If there's anyone with credibility who was close to MJ, it would've been Macaulay Culkin and he vehemently denies all of this stuff. I guess we'll just have to wait and see :/ ..
 
[FONT=&quot]Read the Estate&#8217;s statement in its entirety below:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]&#8220;Leaving Neverland&#8221; isn&#8217;t a documentary, it is the kind of tabloid character assassination Michael Jackson endured in life, and now in death. The film takes uncorroborated allegations that supposedly happened 20 years ago and treats them as fact. These claims were the basis of lawsuits filed by these two admitted liars which were ultimately dismissed by a judge. The two accusers testified under oath that these events never occurred. They have provided no independent evidence and absolutely no proof in support of their accusations, which means the entire film hinges solely on the word of two perjurers.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Tellingly, the director admitted at the Sundance Film Festival that he limited his interviews only to these accusers and their families. In doing so, he intentionally avoided interviewing numerous people over the years who spent significant time with Michael Jackson and have unambiguously stated that he treated children with respect and did nothing hurtful to them. By choosing not to include any of these independent voices who might challenge the narrative that he was determined to sell, the director neglected fact checking so he could craft a narrative so blatantly one-sided that viewers never get anything close to a balanced portrait.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]For 20 years, Wade Robson denied in court and in numerous interviews, including after Michael passed, that he was a victim and stated he was grateful for everything Michael had done for him. His family benefitted from Michael&#8217;s kindness, generosity and career support up until Michael&#8217;s death. Conveniently left out of Leaving Neverland was the fact that when Robson was denied a role in a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production, his assault allegations suddenly emerged.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We are extremely sympathetic to any legitimate victim of child abuse. This film, however, does those victims a disservice. Because despite all the disingenuous denials made that this is not about money, it has always been about money &#8211; millions of dollars &#8212; dating back to 2013 when both Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who share the same law firm, launched their unsuccessful claims against Michael&#8217;s Estate. Now that Michael is no longer here to defend himself, Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers continue their efforts to achieve notoriety and a payday by smearing him with the same allegations a jury found him innocent of when he was alive.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]&#8211; The Estate of Michael Jackson

https://variety.com/2019/film/news/...g-neverland-documentary-statement-1203119202/
[/FONT]
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Debunk the lies when they come up. That's all fans can do really. Unfortunately, the general public often lacks critical thinking skills. Good statement from the Estate btw.
 
The news about this is spreading. And needless to say, the article are implying that everybody who saw that believed these men and some people got so upset with sympathy for them that they had to leave the theater. Taj’s documentary needs to be alot better than this. Other than Michael’s death, this is the most terrible thing to happen since his 2005 trial
 
Last edited:
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

So this hatchett job provided nothing new. No new evidence just rehashed provern lies and innuendo. Is that the best they can do. Says it all. Real abusers actually have evidence against them.

All you can do is for those fans that saw the viewing. If any did is to make a loooong list of each and every lie and rebute it with facts and spread when it ever possible. Of course the reviews are gonna be one sided. As said above those invited will already be haters. Journos that might call out the lies arent gonna be welcome. Common sense folks. They want their agenda to be pushed and will use those that support them.says it all when the best they can come up with is their stories are similiar so it must be true? the idiots have the same law firm and have been creating their story together for the last five years. Duh!! Anyway until the next drama.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

So this hatchett job provided nothing new. No new evidence just rehashed provern lies and innuendo. Is that the best they can do. Says it all. Real abusers actually have evidence against them.

All you can do is for those fans that saw the viewing. If any did is to make a loooong list of each and every lie and rebute it with facts and spread when it ever possible. Of course the reviews are gonna be one sided. As said above those invited will already be haters. Journos that might call out the lies arent gonna be welcome. Common sense folks. They want their agenda to be pushed and will use those that support them.says it all when the best they can come up with is their stories are similiar so it must be true? the idiots have the same law firm and have been creating their story together for the last five years. Duh!!
Elusive, your post states exactly why I feel much better about the situation today! I hope everyone is doing ok because in the end, this WILL be ok!

The Estate still have ammo should they need it, but the statement boldly states the obvious and highlights how the director saught to create a one sided story.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Sums it up when as the estate say the director of course accidently forgot to mention that robsons only made claims after not getting the cirque job. If thats not proof of a one sided hatchet job them i dont know what is.if you have the facts and the truth you dont need to pull a biast one sided hatchet job as the truth and the facts will always stand upto scrutiny. Just as the facts and truth in support of mj always do.Someone should look into this directors background as he seems to have an obsession with child abuse. As we saw with the world of wonder productions some seem to allegedly throw stones to side their hands
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I see nothing in Swedish media so far. I think we should wait and see if this actually becomes a big thing. The people who saw the film did so because they beleived in it to begin with but many people can really think for themself.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

That is a good statement by the estate, finally something more than just "they are liars" or whatever it was they said at first. What the estate says is 100 percent true, sadly the general public probably won't see it that way. Heh, if they even care to read that statement at all, and even then they'll say "of course they say this". If this is going to hit mainstream media, which if it hasn't already, likely will when it's available on HBO, there will be plenty of people that will eat it all up.

If my English aunt brings anything up this Sunday I'll just say, these two have been proven to be liars. Tried to get money years ago, it all failed. Judge dismissed it, forged evidence and so on. When talking face to face to someone English has proven to be not nearly as easy as when typing on a forum or email and because of that I can't really make clear to her what it's really about. Plus at my nephew's birthday it shouldn't even be discussed.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I understand all of that BUT the person who they accused, the people who questioned them even at a YOUNG age; the constance asking by others if they were ever a abused in private and public even after death does NOT fit with someone who you are describing. Also, Mike was NOT a family member someone whom they HAD to live with and deal with. MJ was NOT even a neighbor. The guys could not think anything is "normal" because they always was asked about it and had to deal with it since. Even the stuff you are talking about, I understand. At 7 years old, I had a cousin to touch me twice improper and I NEVER defended him; in fact, I always left the room when he came over and I did not want to go to his house to get something for my grandmother. The point is, as someone who has been through this, worked in this, these guys does NOT fit this. You can not believe something is "normal" when you are WILLING to talk and defend even when you are grown and the person you are accusing is on trial and who you all defended even after he died and then wanting to sue for $100 million dollars and when you lost that suite, you now at a gala talking about it. Give me a break. I have never seen people who are really abused by people, priest, even look at Harvey Weinstein, how many of those people ever defended Weinstein or anyone? NONE.) let alone in court and then change their minds. Even the girl name SMART who was kidnapped and living with her abusers NEVER defended them when they were CAUGHT and put on trial.

first of all, I believe that michael was innocent, but leave this apart, i would explain that this case is more complex, because the experts known there are more types of abuse, more complex and more harmful.

The case of Weinstein has nothing to do, most are adults and Wenstein was not kind or good to these people, was unpleasant, blackmailer and, sometimes, violent victims of Weinstein adults have not had child abuse with mental contradiction which implies and also have been abused in a rude manner. The same for the case of the person who lived with their abusers for years, was mistreated, in a very bad way. It is another type of abuse. In children there are different types of abuse, one of them goes through a "consensual" abuse, the child gives his consent because he thinks it is okay to do it because the abuser has told him, although obviously he does not have the mental capacity. be really spoiled The child, in these cases, even idolatrous and loves his abuser, has a careful relationship of great trust and the abused loves to be with the abuser because he has fun with him, cares for him and loves him, and feels special with him . In this relationship of trust and love, the abuser introduces the child in caresses, kisses and makes him understand that it is normal and that he should not embarrass, never force him, do everything with love and slowly so that the child doesnt leaves and the child simply It allows you to do it because he thinks it's not wrong. This begins like this, for days or weeks in which there are only a few kisses, some caresses and the child accepts it, the rest of the time the child keeps having fun with the abuser and respects him because he takes care of him. and treat it well. Over time and it depends on the child's ability to access sexual games, the abuser is introducing more caresses, sometimes inside the clothes, and the abuser explains to the child that this is normal, that it is not bad, besides that the child enters into contradiction because His body reacts to the caresses and they are pleasant. On the one hand, he feels uncomfortable, but on the other, he can feel pleasure because the body reacts to any caress, which makes children have a great contradiction because the caresses like them and dislike them at the same time, and they also let themselves be carried away.
this results in a feeling in them that they participated in these sexual caresses and games because they liked It. even when they are adults feel that they too did to be touched and normalized since childs in their minds the situation like normal sexual games , the same sexual games they have " children with children "but these are bad because they are between an adult and a child. when they are adults they do not report because they feel that they did let themselves be done. While this is happening it is all soft, slow, if the child does not want one more, he stops, never the abuser forces him, starts as a game or a teaching with the abuser , and it is progressive, delicate, they do it even with love and the child is left to do it because it normalizes it and sometimes even it is pleasant, in addition the child feels love for his abuser and does not want to harm him for something they did together, that's why he can even defend your abuser as an adult, and abuses end at a certain age, the age at which the child already discerns between good and evil and if the relationship with the abuser continues to be good, loving and trustworthy as before but no longer abused, so the child leaves behind everything he experienced and his way of processing it is to think that it was something he accessed because he also liked it and tries to leave it behind for the sake of the relationship with the abuser (who no longer abuse it and treat it well) and shame because he feels that he also let himself be done.
The victim stay for years in silence for not making a scandal of something so intimate that I've been doing for years .. the victim feel guilty with himself , the childhood that adult has not been able to process all of that in the right way and the feelings he feels are very contradictory. The victim loves his abuser because he was good for him (loving, humble,generous etc..)But inside he knowns that something bad happened, years of mental contradicion ...this type of abuse is one of the most complex.

I think Michael did not do it, but for the experts, the case of wade is easy to explain, and the case of james still more, that's why I think that whoever sees the documentary will believe them.
people have the concept that abusers are always abusers and they are bad, but most are not abusers all the time, although some are violent, rude, and the child does not want to be with them, other types of abusers respond to a typology very concrete, they do not harm children to abuse them, they do it with affection and delicately, even in abuses. They are normal people, even kind, educated, who do not harm a fly for the rest of the world, and when a child is involved in this is a very difficult situation because children are not forced. This type of abuse is different from forced abuse, from "non-consensual", and more difficult to recognize for victims as "abuse", for those victims for years they will be "consensual games".
the subject is delicate.

I Hope taj And family work in a good documentary soon,
 
Last edited:
Silverstone;4238125 said:
https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jan/25/michael-jackson-documentary-leaving-neverland

Just came across that,it's a difficult read,in fact,I never finished it but it's certainly a (bad) taster of things to come.

This documentary is going to be a harmful as can be and will "confirm" to many what they already thought.

As the Estate rightly said, this is a one sided hatchet job. Presenting the allegations as fact. All the reviews are going to be bad. I wouldn&#8217;t read them.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

If they mentioned one of MJ's children in the documentary and made false claims, that gives MJ's Estate a chance to sue for defamation. Because unlike Michael, his children ARE alive and CAN sue for defamation.
 
dmehta;4238128 said:
As the Estate rightly said, this is a one sided hatchet job. Presenting the allegations as fact. All the reviews are going to be bad. I wouldn&#8217;t read them.

That's very good of them.&#128527;
All the Estate are interested in is $$$$
 
dmehta;4238128 said:
As the Estate rightly said, this is a one sided hatchet job. Presenting the allegations as fact. All the reviews are going to be bad. I wouldn&#8217;t read them.

Exactly.what do you expect. And will people please stop posting links. Giving them clicks only feeds them. They see theres a market and will keeping posting crap about mj. Not that the guardian needs a excuse
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

That's very good of them.?
All the Estate are interested in is $$$$

Their job is to create money for mjs kids. At the end of the day it is what it is. In a bad or good way depending on how you look at it mj is a money making machine regardless of what is thrown at him so until such stories make a big effect on margins then the estate will do the minimum. Ie put out statements but not bring anymore publicity to such B.S. whether we like it or not they do not have a personal attachement to defending mjs name like we do .to them its all about business
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

See Robson and Safechuck here at the Q & A crying their ass of for fame... I am so so so angry.

 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Exactly.what do you expect. And will people please stop posting links. Giving them clicks only feeds them. They see theres a market and will keeping posting crap about mj. Not that the guardian needs a excuse

They are going to post what they want....putting links in won't make one bit of difference.
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Internet news site are all about clicks . Ir click bait. Giving them hits on certain stories shows theres an intrest in such stories. Not rocket science. Like the old days of paper sales going up on certain days
 
Silverstone;4238132 said:
That's very good of them.&#62991;
All the Estate are interested in is $$$$

What else can you do? At this point in time it’s a balance between refuting the claims, but not drawing more attention to it.
 
elusive moonwalker;4238138 said:
Internet news site are all about clicks . Ir click bait. Giving them hits on certain stories shows theres an intrest in such stories. Not rocket science. Like the old days of paper sales going up on certain days

Completely agree. It&#8217;s click bait.

And as as I said, the film clearly presented the allegations as fact with NO evidence the other way. A reviewer sitting watching it, without the knowledge we have, is going to take it at face value and believe them. People will always choose to believe an alleged victim.
 
marc_vivien;4238108 said:
[FONT=&amp]I think it&#8217;s given this whole narrative in our society a real impetus. This is a case of #MeToo, because when James saw Wade on television, he went, &#8220;me too.&#8221; I think child abuse stories are the next step for the #MeToo movement.[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT]
Yeah, it's a #MeToo case alright. When James saw Wade go for the money grab, he went "me too."

It's so disheartening to see MJ's name get dragged through the mud again. It's reminding me of 03-05 given the amount of attention this is getting. But we now live in an era where, more than ever before, people side with accusers no matter how credible they are. And unlike in previous years, Michael is not here to defend himself. He's the easiest of targets.

The Estate's statement was good. I do hope they continue to closely monitor how much play this is getting. If this thing continues to gain traction over the next couple of days, then the Estate should seriously start prepping some sort of rebuttal. That Take 2 documentary in 2003 was thrown together in a few weeks. They will have more time now until this hits the airwaves. Taj's documentary series, if it ever even gets to be made, is important but will come way too late to counteract the initial damage this is going to do...
 
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

See Robson and Safechuck here at the Q & A crying their ass of for fame... I am so so so angry.


Sitting laughing whilst being asked questions about their "abuse". ****ing scumbags.
 
Back
Top