Controversial MJ Documentary Leaving Neverland [GENERAL DISCUSSION THREAD]

Joined
Jan 24, 2019
Messages
1,676
Points
0
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"


According to this panel it's the year of the pedophile... Discussion about pedo's film starts at the 6:05 mark.

Please leave a comment or give the video a thumbs down if you have a youtube account. Thanks.
Oh this is no suprise for me. This "Wendy" is a well known MJ hater who let no possibility out to throw dirt on his name in her shows!
And her subscribers are MJ hater too.
 
Last edited:

Gwyneira

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
873
Points
0
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Oh this is no suprise for me. This "Wendy" is a well known MJ hater who let no possibility out to throw dirt on his name in her shows!
And her subscribers are MJ hater too.

Wow I hate shows like this. You can tell they don't do their research, just spout whatever drivel they think will make the audience "nod emphatically" the most. :puke:
 

Gwyneira

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2008
Messages
873
Points
0
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I wonder why no interviewers have asked Wade or Jimmy whether they have thought about his children at all and how this movie might affect them? Seeing as they're fathers themselves.. In fact anyone has barely mentioned them at all?
 
Joined
Jan 24, 2019
Messages
1,676
Points
0
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

In 93 I was this 19 year old with no internetaccess but I was sceptical to the big media circus and that the media just seemed to forget about how it all started, the Chandler tape etc .
In 2005 I was thinking that if we just send facts to the media they will understand and report on that but that was kind of naive. We need to be aware that it is difficult to get someone to understand something if their salery depend on them not understanding it. Some will just be encouraged to write more trash but not all of the media is like that. It is important to understand the difference and send it to what seems to be a serious journalist and like I said before I think a lot of people do see through this to begin with. And why watch the documentary to begin with? Probably because you are a hater or live in a bouble to begin with. These are adult men accusing a dead person after all.
Yeah but.... many people don't trust the media anymore or bying them.
Most of the younger people watch youtube.
So I think we need some bigger youtube channels to fight back and bring good content about the alligations and Michael for dayly researches about his name!
The Video from JacksonPassion " Wade Robson and Michael Jackson the true story". Is very effective, gets 95 percent positive reaction in the comments, and has over 200 000 views now! What is good cause there were no subsriber on this channel before this first video aired!
The team behind this should make a part two with new Informations I guess.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 17, 2004
Messages
5,463
Points
63
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Yeah but.... many people don't trust the media anymore or bying them.
Most of the younger people watch youtube.
So I think we need some bigger youtube channels to fight back and bring good content about the alligations and Michael for dayly researches about his name!
The Video from JacksonPassion " Wade Robson and Michael Jackson the true story". Is very effective, gets 95 percent positive reaction in the comments, and has over 200 000 views now! What is good cause there were no subsriber on this channel before this first video aired!
The team behind this should make a part two with new Informations I guess.

You're right about that. We probably should target the younger folks out there and provide them with videos that discredit a lot of this filth. A lot of the older folks, to put it like that, just either don't want to believe they have been wrong all this time, don't really give a shit, or had their minds made up and nothing will change that. I honestly don't really care about those people anymore. Don't want to believe it? Then don't.
 

MJTruth

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
872
Points
0
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

The Michael Jackson Estate needs to buy airtime before, during, and after the Wade documentary on Channel 4 and HBO. They have financial freedom to pay whatever it costs to get those slots and I'd argue that the cost of NOT buying them is much greater than the cost of doing so because of the damage the documentary will do.

They need to put together some information that demonstrates the extent of the misdirection within the documentary.

They don't have to even say a word.

Just video clips, some text, and MJ's music in the background. (I'd ROFL if they used MJ's track "money".)
They can even use Wade's own words against him in the many video clips of him on YouTube praising MJ.

If they can get the right material together it could be powerful.

A few vocal people argue that the MJ Estate should not bring any attention to the documentary but it's getting attention anyway. They may as well tackle it head on.

Of course they could just release another damning statement to the press, but the only way to make the viewership see that statement is to book the airtime. That is where the damage will be done. That is where they need to focus.

I'd even be happy for Taj to use his donations to pay for the slots if the Estate aren't prepared to do it.
 

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,577
Points
83
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

MJ Estate buying ad time during leaving Neverland would make them money though right?

Buying ads would be good though I like the sound of it - every ad break is a direct rebutttal. Would be great.
 

ChrisC

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
3,276
Points
38
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

This director of programming guy at Channel 4 is clearly anti-MJ for whatever petty reason though so I doubt he'd allow his weapon to be diluted by such a request from the Estate.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
Listening to the radio. I LOVE CHARLAMANE THE GOD. HE and his staff went in on Wade and James called anyone who believes this film a naïve FOOL and can not believe anyone who buys into this trash. As he say who is the @#$ can you believe Guys who swore UNDER OATH nothing happen and now that money is involved they do a doc and now you want to believe them? He went in on these fools and his co hosts. One said this is foul on MJ. LOLOLOLL
 

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,577
Points
83
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Joe Vogel has written a good piece for Forbes
 

dmehta

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
670
Points
0
Location
London, UK
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Re-posting part of what I posted in another forum:

I don't believe Wade or Jimmy would ever have done this if Mike were still alive. This is contrived to extort money out of his Estate.

However, this saga has only just started. Just wait until it's shown on TV. The media will whip this up, and the general public will understandably be outraged with what they have seen in the doc as it's graphic, completely one sided and Joe Bloggs watching this won't have the knowledge we do regarding their lies and prior behaviour.

Unless the Estate comes out and vigorously expose Wade/Jimmy and their lies, this will escalate badly with calls to remove his music from shops/radio stations/streaming sites. Sony will be under pressure to cancel their recording contract with the Estate, there will be calls for the MJ Cirque show, the upcoming Broadway show and things like Thriller Live in London to be ditched.

It's now or never for the Estate to protect MJ's legacy. They can't hold their nose, release a few statements and hope the furore dies down with things going back to normal. It won't this time. Wade and Jimmy are hell bent on getting what they want. The appeal against their lawsuits being dismissed will ramp up.

The last 10 years have been relatively good for MJ's legacy. Despite the tragedy of his death, there was always drama following him in life that was never-ending. Since 2009, many people have re-evaluated his legacy. Cirque du Soleil and the Broadway shows are proof that people want to buy into his musical legacy and celebrate it. His music sales have been high, his Estate has grossed hundreds of millions of dollars. His popularity has been high. Yes, there have always been many people out there who have continued to believe he was guilty, but there would have been a silent majority out there who would at the very least have given him the benefit of the doubt over the last 10 years, as he was acquitted in 2005.

This film threatens ALL of that. I'm genuinely terrified that this could be the end of us ever being able to celebrate MJ and his legacy publicly. We may be consigned to only being able to listen to his music in private. What an absolute tragedy that would be. Devastating.

I recognise I may be sounding dramatic. I am not in life a dramatic person, however we live in an age where "victims" are always believed and the baying mob want to boycott anyone who is accused of a crime, despite the evidence.

I really hope the Estate recognise the gravity of the situation we are in and have a plan. They can't just denounce Wade and Jimmy as perjurers. They are perjurers, but they have an explanation for that. The Estate need to expose the copious lies they have told in their lawsuits. If the public begin to understand what their motives have actually been over the last 6 years, and the devious tactics they've used to achieve it then maybe public sympathy for them will diminish.

If they don't have a plan then they can kiss goodbye to all of the money they've generated. We can kiss goodbye to his legacy being kept intact.
 

Piek

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
158
Points
28
Hey guys... may be my prediction comforts you a bit. From a media standpoint, this Robson / Safechuck story can go nowhere. They spilled their whole story, including horrible details. So where can they go from here, to keep this story burning in the press? Unless new 'victims' appear, there is actually nothing to tell. There is no investigation, so there won't be new details. Michael can't be interviewed. His house was raided a long time ago, he has been investigated for many years. Nothing turned up. Nothing will turn up now. No new elements to their story. They said everything they could think of in this documentary, now it's out there... and now the only turn this story can take, is to prove them liars.

This is a horrible time for us to go through – but it will take a turn in a positive direction.
I don't see what else the media could do with it, storywise.
If there are no new revelations to prove the story, the story either disappears or goes in the opposite direction.
 

MJJ'slilgrl

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
206
Points
0
Location
Portsmouth, UK
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

The Michael Jackson Estate needs to buy airtime before, during, and after the Wade documentary on Channel 4 and HBO. They have financial freedom to pay whatever it costs to get those slots and I'd argue that the cost of NOT buying them is much greater than the cost of doing so because of the damage the documentary will do.

They need to put together some information that demonstrates the extent of the misdirection within the documentary.

They don't have to even say a word.

Just video clips, some text, and MJ's music in the background. (I'd ROFL if they used MJ's track "money".)
They can even use Wade's own words against him in the many video clips of him on YouTube praising MJ.

If they can get the right material together it could be powerful.

A few vocal people argue that the MJ Estate should not bring any attention to the documentary but it's getting attention anyway. They may as well tackle it head on.

Of course they could just release another damning statement to the press, but the only way to make the viewership see that statement is to book the airtime. That is where the damage will be done. That is where they need to focus.

I'd even be happy for Taj to use his donations to pay for the slots if the Estate aren't prepared to do it.

This is actually a really good idea.
Even though there are some people who will always believe the worst, no matter what, there will be others who will be intrigued enough to do some research.
 

dmehta

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
670
Points
0
Location
London, UK
Piek;4238784 said:
Hey guys... may be my prediction comforts you a bit. From a media standpoint, this Robson / Safechuck story can go nowhere. They spilled their whole story, including horrible details. So where can they go from here, to keep this story burning in the press? Unless new 'victims' appear, there is actually nothing to tell. There is no investigation, so there won't be new details. Michael can't be interviewed. His house was raided a long time ago, he has been investigated for many years. Nothing turned up. Nothing will turn up now. No new elements to their story. They said everything they could think of in this documentary, now it's out there... and now the only turn this story can take, is to prove them liars.

This is a horrible time for us to go through – but it will take a turn in a positive direction.
I don't see what else the media could do with it, storywise.
If there are no new revelations to prove the story, the story either disappears or goes in the opposite direction.


It's not about keeping the story going for the media. The damage will have been done to MJ's legacy. This film will be viewed by a large audience and it will be discussed at the top of the media. People will see and hear these disgusting accusations, and if there is no plan by the Estate to counter this effectively, the allegations will stick. We will have no trial to demonstrate MJ's innocence, there will be no Not Guilty verdict to hang our hats on. We will have had two men describe in great detail on TV, how they were allegedly sexually abused by MJ as children. We've never really had that before, apart from a couple of TV interviews that Wade has done.

Just imagine in a few months time you putting on an MJ song at a party. How will other people react if they're aware of these claims and believe them?
 

MJTruth

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
872
Points
0
according to vulture.com

When questioned about the fans’ rebuttals, Dan Reed says “ I know the reasons why they think that Wade’s lying, and none of them have any validity. It’s just not factual. “

WHAT?!?!?

this guy just killed all his credibility in one.
IF he truly believes what he says then it's concrete proof that he has NOT researched the civil case at all. the only other option is that he is lying through his teeth in the interview to make them all sound more credible.

The majority of fans have done nothing but quote Wade's OWN legal documents and his OWN interviews.

MJ fans need to keep rebutting this dodgy documentary.
Keep quoting legal documents. Keep quoting Wade's own words. Keep linking to appropriate videos or sites like DailyMichael.com

Contact the press editors directly. one day one of them might listen and that could be just enough to blow the lid off this. If we can get one major news outlet to cover the inaccuracies, inconsistencies, lies etc then others may follow the usual "cut and paste" journalism we've all become accustomed to.
 

dmehta

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
670
Points
0
Location
London, UK
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"


Thanks!

Reading Joe's article, he has mentioned the $1.5billion lawsuit. Have we any confirmation that they were actually seeking $1.5billion in damages?

Edit: I have great respect for Joe, but I wish he wouldn't bring up the race card. Very good article apart from that small quibble of mine.
 
Last edited:

MJTruth

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
872
Points
0
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Yes race has nothing to do with this, but for Americans EVERYTHING seems to be a race issue.
 

ChrisC

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2010
Messages
3,276
Points
38
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I believe race IS a part of this.
 

ILoveHIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2013
Messages
778
Points
0
'Leaving Neverland' director slams Michael Jackson estate: 'They obviously haven't seen it'

Patrick Ryan USA TODAY - https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/...fires-back-michael-jackson-estate/2696102002/
Published 8:53 AM EST Jan 28, 2019
PARK CITY, Utah – "Leaving Neverland" director Dan Reed is defending the subjects of his controversial new documentary, who allege that Michael Jackson molested them as kids.

Wade Robson, 36, and James Safechuck, 40, were greeted with a standing ovation from a shell-shocked audience following the movie's world premiere Friday at Sundance Film Festival. The four-hour doc, which debuts on HBO later this year, details allegations from Robson and Safechuck (first made in 2013 and 2014, respectively) that Jackson sexually abused them starting at ages 7 and 10. (Both lawsuits were later dismissed by judges for technical reasons.)

More: Michael Jackson estate slams 'Leaving Neverland'; here's what we learned from watching

Hours after "Neverland" bowed in Park City, Utah, Jackson's estate released a lengthy statement criticizing the documentary.

It's "the kind of tabloid character assassination Michael Jackson endured in life, and now in death," the statement reads. "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."

Reed fired back at the estate during an interview Sunday with USA TODAY.

"How can you call a four-hour documentary 'tabloid'? That beats me," Reed says. "It's pretty much what you'd expect them to say. ... The statement contains nothing that is of concern and no substantial criticism of the film. They obviously haven't seen it, and I'm not engaging with the substance of what they're saying."

"Neverland" features in-depth interviews with Robson, Safechuck and their families, who allege that Jackson's years-long abuse lasted until they were 14. Robson testified in Jackson's defense in 2005, after the singer was charged with molesting 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo, but eventually came forward with his own allegations in 2013 when he felt ready to speak out.

"One of the things I'm really proud of is that the film is a portrait of grooming by a person who's trusted by a family," Reed says. "It's an incredibly lucidly told (account) – by these guys, their moms and siblings – of what happens when a family encounters someone who's deemed to be a wonderful friend and mentor to a child, and how that can progress to sexual abuse. I think, independently, whether it's Michael Jackson or Joe Shmoe, it's an amazing portrait of that process.

"I think people need to know that with child sexual abuse, the damage is caused very early on, but it's not manifested until quite a lot later," Reed continues. "And that's something people need to realize because quite a few people don't. Some of (Jackson's) fans are like, "Why didn't (Robson) say it before? Why did he defend Michael in court in 2005? He said nothing ever happened.' They don't understand and I can't blame them for that, necessarily. We're not all born with the timeline of child sexual abuse, but here we are."

Reed says he considered including other young men who spent time with Jackson in "Neverland," such as Brett Barnes or Macaulay Culkin (both of whom have denied the singer sexually abused them). He also wrote to Arvizo, who never responded.

But ultimately, he decided that "the film is the story of James Safechuck and Wade Robson. No one else was in the bedroom with them," Reed says. "If there are people out there who were also intimate with Michael Jackson and spent many nights with him in bed that were not molested, that's fine. It doesn't in any way negate the story of these two individuals. So for the estate to say, 'Well, you haven't spoken with other people who weren't molested by Michael Jackson' is absurd."


https://pitchfork.com/news/leaving-neverland-director-responds-to-michael-jackson-estate-criticism/
Leaving Neverland is a new two-part documentary that follows two men, Wade Robson and James Safechuck (now in their thirties), who say they were sexually abused in the 1990s by Michael Jackson. The four-hour documentary debuted at the Sundance Film Festival on January 25. The film was met with statements from the Jackson Estate (who called it “a tabloid character assassination”) and Jackson’s family (who called Robson and Safechuck “perjurers” and the film a “public lynching”).

In a new interview with The Hollywood Reporter’s Tatiana Siegel published today, Leaving Neverland director and producer Dan Reed (whose previous projects include The Paedophile Hunter and Three Days of Terror: The Charlie Hebdo Attacks) has responded to the estate and family’s criticisms.

“A four-hour piece, is that a tabloid,” Reed said. “I didn’t characterize Jackson at all in the film—I think if you watch it you'll have noticed that it’s a story about these two families and Jackson is an element of that story.” Reed claimed that the film isn’t about Jackson, saying it’s “an account of sexual abuse, how sexual abuse happens and then how the consequences play out later in life.”

“They have a very precious asset to protect,” Reed said in response to the family and estate’s statements. “Every time a song plays, a cash register goes ‘ka-ching.’ It doesn’t surprise me that they've come out fighting in defense of their asset.” Reed also said that he doesn’t believe the family have seen his film. “Their statements are not consistent with having watched the movie,” Reed said. Read the full interview.

Leaving Neverland will premiere on HBO and the UK’s Channel 4 this spring.


https://www.rollingstone.com/movies...or-dan-reed-michael-jackson-interview-785817/
‘Leaving Neverland’ Director Dan Reed Talks Michael Jackson Allegations, #MeToo

“There’s going to be a lot of #MeToo after this, I think, with Michael,” says Reed. “We just have to wait and see how quickly that happens”


The blistering 236-minute film Leaving Neverland, which airs on HBO this March, levels damning accusations that the ebulliently childlike and phenomenally talented Michael Jackson was a serial pedophile. In 1993, 13-year-old Jordan Chandler brought charges of sexual abuse against Jackson that ended in a reported $10 million cash settlement. A 2003 criminal case spurred by 13-year-old Gavin Arvizo’s accusations led to Jackson’s arrest, trial and 2005 acquittal. Now, James Safechuck and Wade Robson have gone public to claim to Reed that they had their innocence shattered at the King of Pop’s California compound Neverland Ranch starting in the late 1980s and lasting well into the 1990s. (Intriguingly, Robson’s persuasive testimony during the 2004-2005 trial is what helped convince the jurors that Jackson was innocent.)

British news documentarian Dan Reed (Terror in Mumbai, Three Days of Terror: the Charlie Hebdo Attacks) focuses specifically on Safechuck and Robson, with supporting interviews from only their immediate family members, and braids together their two-decade relationships with Jackson. Reed gets granular with their recollections, using archival footage along with personal photos and documents to vividly illustrate two distinct, concurrent but partitioned sagas of alleged serial molestation and emotional manipulation. (Although Robson and Safechuck did technically meet once when they were children during a rare Neverland sleepover with other kids.)

At Sundance to promote the film, Reed sat down with Rolling Stone to explain why he started this film, how #MeToo influenced the production and the journalistic methodology he uses to achieve what he feels is the unbelievable truth.

“What’s more distressing than the graphic descriptions of sexual abuse are the ways that Michael emotionally manipulated these children and dropped them.”

The Jackson Estate issued a statement that said your film was a character assassination. But you don’t really talk that much about Michael Jackson’s character. Can you go a little more into that decision?
This is not a story about Michael Jackson. It’s a story about child sexual abuse that happened to two families whose lives intersected with Jackson. The fact that the abuser is Michael Jackson gives the film a reach and a relevance that I welcome. But it’s a story of grooming and pedophilia. That could be the story of any predator who inserts himself into a family and gets them to trust him.

The Jackson Estate calls Robson and Safechuck “perjurers” who “continue their efforts to achieve notoriety and a payday.”
Neither Wade, James or any members of their families were paid for their participation in the film, directly or indirectly.

When you introduced the screening, you mentioned how the idea for this documentary came out of a conversation with your producers at the British network Channel 4.
I was having breakfast with a guy called Daniel Pearl, who ran a series called Dispatches, which is like a current affairs show on Channel 4 News. And he said, “What are the big, unresolved stories that everyone’s heard of?” I like to take a story that’s in the public sphere and go deeper into it to reveal the complexities of the truth. I specialize in “It’s complicated,” the antithesis of quick-fire news bites that are becoming more and more the currency of finding out about the world today. And this 4-hour film is the complete antithesis.

So Daniel said, “What about Michael Jackson? That’s a big story and no one really knows what happened.” I didn’t know much about Michael Jackson, to be honest. And I didn’t know much about his music. I was approaching this as a cultural phenomenon.

You didn’t know much about his music? Come on.
I had a strange childhood. Growing up, I had no television. My father banned television. And I listened to classical music. My mother thought that pop music was just not great. I shouldn’t listen to it.

Still, though, Michael Jackson was ubiquitous throughout the Eighties and Nineties.
Of course I knew who he was, but I wasn’t necessarily able to tell you exactly which Michael Jackson song that was or which album it was from and all that. Culturally, he doesn’t occupy that space in my world.

In your previous documentaries, you interview dozens of people. But Leaving Neverland is only a handful of interviews. What informed that choice?
I realized pretty quickly that what happened to James and what happened to Wade was known only to a very small number of people, particularly the way that the abuse played out later in life and all that. And that you had to immerse people; lock people in the room with these two families in order to be able to understand the symptomology and the shape of how child sexual abuse manifests itself later in life. That’s one of the things you learned from the film, and I’m very proud of that. You learn that it’s complicated, that Wade could take the witness stand in 2005 and say, “Michael never touched me,” unequivocally look people in the eye and say, “Nothing ever happened.”

Michael was Wade’s lover and his close friend, to whom he owed a great deal in terms of his career and his life. As he says in the film, there was absolutely no way on Earth that he was going to say anything that might put Michael in jail. Period. And that’s a big point that the film builds up to over three hours to make you understand what happened there and why he then changed his story.

In the film, James recalls that Michael Jackson told him it was his first sexual experience. Is that possible?
I think Michael telling James, “You’re my first,” doesn’t have the ring of truth to me. It’s possible that he might have been, but I don’t think so. He also said, “You taught me to French kiss.” It’s part of placing the blame on a child, or giving the child the responsibility. To me, what’s more distressing than the graphic descriptions of sexual abuse are the ways that Michael emotionally manipulated these children and dropped them.

It’s a very forensic, detailed, concrete story about two specific individuals who were sexually abused by Michael Jackson. I do not know what happened to all the other little boys who spent nights with him. But as far as establishing what happened to Wade Robson and James Safechuck, I have all the evidence that I need. And there was no video recording that exists of Michael having sex with [these] children.

You don’t have the tapes.
There was no flagrante delicto with these guys. We don’t have the tapes.

There was an interview I read where you said that purportedly there was a tape?
James mentioned to me at one point, “You know, Michael had a video camera and he recorded a sexual act.” But he didn’t go into detail. And then Jackson was like, “Oh, what did I do?” and taped over it.

What really struck me was that Wade and James really were in love with Michael.
Yes. People assume that it’s, what we call in the UK, the guy in the “Dirty Mac,” the dirty raincoat, who comes and offers sweets, and then does something disgusting with you. It wasn’t like that. These are relationships that, if they had happened between consenting adults, would be entirely normal. Loving, nurturing, mentoring. There are many relationships between a slightly older person and a slightly younger person that are fine, that are not illegal and that don’t involve any abuse. These relationships were between an adult and, respectively, a 7-year-old and a 10-year-old child. But they were characterized by all the trappings of love.

And that’s one of the moments when I really hit the level of belief. Because obviously, as a journalist, I approached the interviews and reserved judgment until I heard more. I was looking for credibility and coherence. Things I could identify as the way people behave, which I already knew in my 30 years of making films. And when Wade, and then James, said, “I loved Michael and Michael loved me and we were going to be together forever,” they spoke the way a loving adult speaks about their partner.

Or about their first love.
Or about their first love. And that’s incredibly powerful, as we all know. And when I understood that, then I understood everything.

It’s interesting going back and re-evaluating Michael Jackson’s statement about how he would never hurt a child.
He’s telling the truth — to himself.

Because he really thinks so. Even the kids would say, “We weren’t hurt. We were in love.”
Yeah. And that’s why Wade says, “I didn’t consider this to be abuse. I loved Michael and Michael loved me.” That persisted for many years, because that was embedded in his psyche when he was seven. And when we’re that age, we’re so malleable and we form our ideas of normality, right? So, for them, this was a normal, healthy thing. And it’s not until many years later — this is so typical of child sexual abuse — that that structure falls apart and they can no longer hold it together.

“When two men have come forward saying they were sexually abused as a child, why do we want to shame them?”

It seemed like the turning point was when they become fathers.
Yeah. And it can be many things, but it just happened in Wade’s case in particular. And there’s an amazing bit of the interview where he says, “I looked at [my child] Koa and I imagined Michael doing to Koa what he’d done to me and I became so angry. And yet when I thought of little Wade, I felt nothing.” And that encapsulates the whole thing.

You’re also a father of young children. How did that inform the way you approached the material?
Clearly being a dad, and listening to this terrible story … is chilling and it’s awful. I did a film called The Paedophile Hunter, and these were much more the kind of pedophiles who would ambush a child after having met [them] online. So I was very aware of the presence of predatory pedophiles in our society and the extent of that vice out there. And now I’m getting horrible e-mail messages from Michael Jackson fans about my children. Several thousand emails in the past three weeks. Absolutely as disgusting as you could possibly invent.

Oh Jesus. Really?
And why do people react that way? Why when two men have come forward saying they were sexually abused as a child, why do we want to shame them? Why do we want to shut them down? Why do we want to silence them? Why do we want to threaten them? I don’t understand.

Your film decimates an entertainment icon who profoundly affected millions around the world, and who still has an enduring appeal years after his death. Of course people are angry. Is it even possible to salvage that?
You mean, in order to continue enjoying Michael’s music?

I want to listen to “Thriller”! Are we allowed to listen to “Thriller”? It’s a great song.
Every time I see that “Thriller” clip in the film, I’m like, “Wow, this guy is something else.” Can you continue to enjoy that? It’s kind of cheeky of me, but if your 9-year-old goes to a party and they’re playing Michael Jackson, and the room is full of 9-year-olds, what do you do? How do you feel?

Allegations this devastating will take lot of time for people to process. In 2014, there was tons of denial about Bill Cosby being a rapist, when it was two or three very serious allegations. And then it snowballed: 10, 20, 30, and now 50+ people have come out since then. There’s a chance that this might happen with your film.
In the UK, we had a guy called Jimmy Savile, [a radio and TV personality] who had the O.B.E., which is the Order of the British Empire. He had this show called Jim’ll Fix It. And he put kids on his knee and was like, “What can I do for you? What’s your dearest wish? Let me make that come true.” And he was a violent, brutal child rapist. And it took years after his death for the first victim to come forward and be believed. And there was a cover-up, and the BBC tried to suppress that report. And then it all came out and then there was just a cascade of victims who came out after that saying, “Me too. Me too. Me too.” That’s what this is. There’s going to be a lot of #MeToo after this, I think, with Michael. We just have to wait and see how quickly that happens.

You did the bulk of your interviews with Wade and James in February 2017, eight months before the multiple sexual assault allegations against Harvey Weinstein expanded the #MeToo movement. After that reckoning, did you go back and do more?
I did go back and do more. #MeToo was tremendously encouraging for the moms [of Robson and Safechuck] and for the guys. But for Joy Robson in particular, Wade’s mom, she was really inspired by #MeToo. She felt bolder. She felt that now was the time to speak out.

I was stunned when James claimed how he and Jackson had a mock wedding ceremony and a jewelry box of rings that Jackson allegedly traded for sexual favors.
The wedding ring was the last thing we shot with James in July 2018. He had mentioned the fact that he had the rings and he had mentioned the fact that there was a wedding in his initial interview. And then it took, you know, 18 months.

I didn’t want to ever compel James to do anything. You have to be extremely gentle. And we had the time. In his mind, James had already done the work and organized his feelings and his responses. But his body still had this almost cerebral-cortex kind of reaction. And his hands started to shake as he took the rings out.

It was in the context of a very intense, loving relationship. And the wedding was a token of Michael’s love and how they were going to be together forever. To me that’s repugnant, because obviously Michael had no intention of being with James forever and probably had slept with many other boys. We know he did. We know he slept with Wade while he was seeing James.

For legal reasons, Wade and James were kept apart, long before you even approached them about making the movie. That’s fascinating.
Yeah. So they couldn’t exchange stories. Sundance was the first time [as adults] that they’d met. It’s the first time they’ve had any significant time together.

That’s a beautiful coda to this story. In the Q&A after the film’s premiere, it was impressive how kind and wise they seemed. They weren’t vindictive.
They’re both very composed and very generous, even with the [Michael Jackson] fans. What they’ve been through has taught them that there’s no point in getting angry. There’s no point in hating. It doesn’t get you anywhere. It only hurts you.
 

dam2040

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,577
Points
83
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

I believe race IS a part of this.

It is interesting they've gone for the black guy who was on the verge of being bigger than the 'man' [MJ looking to buy Sony out of ATV deal] to cover up the white man's crimes.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

The Estate does not have to seen. There is enuf from what they heard to know it is BS. And YES, there is a race feel to this. And I will warn anyone in the metoo, DO NOT JUMP ON EVERYTHING. They did with Ryan Seacrest and got burned. Know your battle or they will lose the war.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Yes race has nothing to do with this, but for Americans EVERYTHING seems to be a race issue.
When people talk about race, it is more how the media are quick to and ready to tear down blacks with no hesitation.
 

terrell

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
9,540
Points
0
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Re-posting part of what I posted in another forum:

I don't believe Wade or Jimmy would ever have done this if Mike were still alive. This is contrived to extort money out of his Estate.

However, this saga has only just started. Just wait until it's shown on TV. The media will whip this up, and the general public will understandably be outraged with what they have seen in the doc as it's graphic, completely one sided and Joe Bloggs watching this won't have the knowledge we do regarding their lies and prior behaviour.

Unless the Estate comes out and vigorously expose Wade/Jimmy and their lies, this will escalate badly with calls to remove his music from shops/radio stations/streaming sites. Sony will be under pressure to cancel their recording contract with the Estate, there will be calls for the MJ Cirque show, the upcoming Broadway show and things like Thriller Live in London to be ditched.

It's now or never for the Estate to protect MJ's legacy. They can't hold their nose, release a few statements and hope the furore dies down with things going back to normal. It won't this time. Wade and Jimmy are hell bent on getting what they want. The appeal against their lawsuits being dismissed will ramp up.

The last 10 years have been relatively good for MJ's legacy. Despite the tragedy of his death, there was always drama following him in life that was never-ending. Since 2009, many people have re-evaluated his legacy. Cirque du Soleil and the Broadway shows are proof that people want to buy into his musical legacy and celebrate it. His music sales have been high, his Estate has grossed hundreds of millions of dollars. His popularity has been high. Yes, there have always been many people out there who have continued to believe he was guilty, but there would have been a silent majority out there who would at the very least have given him the benefit of the doubt over the last 10 years, as he was acquitted in 2005.

This film threatens ALL of that. I'm genuinely terrified that this could be the end of us ever being able to celebrate MJ and his legacy publicly. We may be consigned to only being able to listen to his music in private. What an absolute tragedy that would be. Devastating.

I recognise I may be sounding dramatic. I am not in life a dramatic person, however we live in an age where "victims" are always believed and the baying mob want to boycott anyone who is accused of a crime, despite the evidence.

I really hope the Estate recognise the gravity of the situation we are in and have a plan. They can't just denounce Wade and Jimmy as perjurers. They are perjurers, but they have an explanation for that. The Estate need to expose the copious lies they have told in their lawsuits. If the public begin to understand what their motives have actually been over the last 6 years, and the devious tactics they've used to achieve it then maybe public sympathy for them will diminish.

If they don't have a plan then they can kiss goodbye to all of the money they've generated. We can kiss goodbye to his legacy being kept intact.
It will not be that easy to destroy MJ legacy. The more this goes on the more people are going to have to look at the other side and more investigative people and journalist will get involved if grows. It is not that simple or easy. See, this situation open many doors to other things from testify under oath; speaking on the dead; unfounded claims that anyone can say, etc. This can go beyond MJ and backfire on these fools. As things cool down, people start to think.
 
Last edited:

CeyEntertainment

<img src="http://www.mjjcommunity.com/forum/images
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
56
Points
8
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Totally agree!
 

AliCat

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2010
Messages
1,626
Points
0
Location
Near a National Park
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

These false allegations that Michael was a child molester, beginning in 1993, with Evan Chandler, will finally end with Wade and James. The Arvizos had Martin Bashir to thank and Wade and James can thank Dan Reed. Evan wanted lots of money which is why he moved to Hollywood, he wanted that lifestyle of the rich and famous. Evan was a Dead-beat Dad, who should have been locked up just for that alone. Jordy probably resented being a step-child of a used car dealer and thought better of his Dead-beat Dad, the dentist. No wonder Jordy is so misguided in his loyalties. Michael Jackson paid attention to Jordy and suddenly his bio Dad took an interest in him. I doubt Uncle Ray had any interest in Jordy's welfare before Michael Jackson also. I wonder if Uncle Ray Chandler is still practicing law in Santa Barbara. Uncle Ray got his degree from one of those pop up law school's. Kind of like a tech school, not a 4 year University. You can still get a job, it is just not as prestigious as the credible, establsihed higher Institution of learning.
 

dmehta

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
670
Points
0
Location
London, UK
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Skimming through those articles on the previous page, Dan Reed seems hell bent on destroying Michael's legacy.

I didn't read any of them in depth, but I can't see any of the articles talking about the lawsuit. One of the articles referenced the Estate's statement where they said Wade/Jimmy are looking out for their payday, to which the author says neither of them or their families were paid directly/indirectly for this film. Which may very well be true. However, what about the creditors claim and multi-million dolar lawsuit they filed and failed with? What about their appeal to losing that lawsuit? Is that not about seeking money? What about Wade twisting well known facts to suit his agenda, such as contradicting his own testimony in 2005, his comments in numerous interviews down the years and his own mother's deposition in 2016 to try and allege that Michael's companies were used to procure children for sexual abuse? That Michael, with this assistance of MJJ Productions and Norma Staikos sought out Wade for sexual abuse? That he and his companies allegedly brought them to the US so that Michael could sexually abuse him? What about all those lies?

So when was Wade lying? In 2005 when he had nothing to gain? During all of those interviews prior to 2013 where he talked genuinely and sincerely about his friendship with Michael? or is he lying now after he had a career meltdown, was turned down for the Mj Cirque show and has filed lawsuits for money (whilst lying in the process)?
 

MJTruth

Proud Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
872
Points
0
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

It will not be that easy to destroy MJ legacy. The more this goes on the more people are going to have to look at the other side. It is not that simple or easy.

Sadly I think you're incorrect.

The more this goes on the fewer people there will be willing to consider that MJ was not an abuser. MJ won his acquittal in 2005 and many people used that to justify that it's ok to play MJ on radio, ok to celebrate him. After this documentary there can be no acquittal. It won't happen.

Charles Thomson just echoed a thought that I've had a for a while. The people writing many of these reports in the last week probably grew up reading reports that MJ was an abuser. The previous generation knew that their reporting was biased and in most cases incredibly inaccurate, but the current generation may actually believe those lies of yesteryear. so if that's their mindset, why would they want to investigate the allegations against MJ?
It's self-perpetuating. We're just a bunch of nuts blinded by fandom. Easy to dismiss, apparently.

Dan Reed is a classic example himself. He appears to have gone into this whole thing believing MJ was an abuser, and look what he has produced. A documentary that 'proves' it. It's confirmation bias. By his own admission he avoided talking to anybody that he knew wouldn't support his agenda, meaning Mac, Brett, Corey etc. He wasn't interested in an investigation, he was only interested in bringing somebody down, regardless of truth. According to him none of our objections are factual. Now he's been suckered in he has little choice but to defend his work, even if he did start to realise his error he may think it's too late. It's a crazy world.

Not only that but he's actively seeking new 'victims' for a follow up documentary. the dead cannot be defamed so it's open season again and no proof required! Salacious stories are all that's needed and the dirtier the better.

Make no mistake. MJ's career suffered big time after 1993. It even suffered despite the acquittal in 2005. His legacy can easily be destroyed in 2019 unless action is taken to FAST!
 

elusive moonwalker

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2003
Messages
26,839
Points
48
Re: Sundance Festival 2019 - Controversial MJ Documentary "Leaving Neverland"

Its a mj issue. But do i believe he would have been treated as he has been since the 80's if he were the great white hope then no of course he wouldnt have.

Poor reed on the defensive. He knows what S@#$ he has pulled.and his arguments in his defence are so weak and pathetic it just confirms his agenda. According to reports someone from the estate was there
 
Top