HIStory Tour Discussion - Should it be released? [Merged]

[Michaels Lover]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

I've seen Buenos Aires full show. Didn't see any "struggling emotionally and physically"

me neither. that concert is spectacular, nothing wrong

I've seen various History tours-all on YouTube-but I have no idea which ones they are-and many times he looks very, very tired and his eyes don't look happy-usually it's just parts of a show-BUT I have seen scenes of him drinking juice and joking with the crowd, and looking really happy playing and playing and joking around with his band-is all of that on the second leg?

well, yeah, that particular part was on the 2nd leg. but there's plenty of other moments where he smiles and laughs at ALL HIStory concerts

 

[Galactus123]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

I've seen Buenos Aires full show. Didn't see any "struggling emotionally and physically".

You can clearly see sadness in his eyes.

 

[AlwaysThere]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

I've seen Buenos Aires full show. Didn't see any "struggling emotionally and physically".

That's because you have tunnel vision. You look at the theatrics of the performance and the theatrics as opposed to the man himself. You've never once expressed any sympathy; it's always, "Well, he looks good! So it's a good show!" Look in his eyes; that is not a man who wants to be on stage at that moment.

But what would you know about that? Who cares about Michael's mental health impairing his ability to properly perform on stage? So long as he's not screwing up, it's a good show! Right?

I don't have a problem with it, never did

You should. Lip-synching makes Michael look like a hack who can't handle himself live. (And yes, you and I both are well aware that he has a fabulous voice, but we don't represent the rest of the world. Especially considering Michael's most famous performance is entirely mimed).

if you don't mind me asking, how many HIStory concerts have you seen? it seems you either have only seen parts of a few of the very "worst ones", or you only want to see what you describe just because it's HIStory tour. your description of his state/condition is very very exaggerated. And the reason I say "parts" of the "worst ones", is because your description is Not even like any of those concerts

Over the years I've watched almost every concert available online, whether complete or partial. I would say I've seen History more than any simply because there are several recordings of the show at our disposal - I believe somewhere between eight and ten.

Why do you (and another user) frequently insist that my disdain for the History tour makes me biased? No one on this board is. If there was a performance of Wanna Be Startin' Somethin' from that tour that was absolutely wonderful, I have no doubts that we would all come out and say so. But such quality has yet to come from that tour (at least in my opinion).

he talks a lot more than on any of the other tours, and even jokes around with the audience, band mates/other people who work for him, and at some concerts also the camera (and no, not just in Beat It).

Talking does not equal happiness. Joking around does not equal happiness. Interacting with the camera does not equal happiness.

Michael didn't need to do that for any other show. Seems more like he just wanted to prolong the time between songs.

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

you only want to see what you describe just because it's HIStory tour. your description of his state/condition is very very exaggerated.

Exactly!

to say he looks like he wants to be there for only a couple of seconds here and there, is certainly NOT true. you make it sound like he was dragging himself through it looking awful for being forced to do it, and like he didn't look like he have a good time, and I don't see that at all.

to me, he doesn't look like someone who's suffering or not having a good time at all....the way you make it sound is just wrong and and very unfair. You say you have yet to see a HIStory concert where he looks like he wants to be there from beginning to end. Well, I have yet to see a HIStory concert that's like anything you describe

Amazing post. Well said! If he wanted to be somewhere else, he would. He's Michael Jackson. He could have cancelled the concert (like he did many times during other tours) or cancel the remaining of the tour (like he did on Dangerous) if he didn't want to be there.

You can clearly see sadness in his eyes.

No, I can't. You can because you want to see it. Not because it's there. If that was the show from 1992 you couldn't tell the difference.

That's because you have tunnel vision. You look at the theatrics of the performance and the theatrics as opposed to the man himself.

No, that's because you have tunnel vision. You concentrate just on live singing and all the other stuff that are great become immediately bad just because the performances are lip synced. I look the whole show like the show should be watched, like Michael envisioned it and presented it to the public. I look at Michael ("the man himself") and everything around him (including the theatrics as they are large and important part of the show). And I think it's a great show and a great performance.

You've never once expressed any sympathy; it's always, "Well, he looks good! So it's a good show!" Look in his eyes; that is not a man who wants to be on stage at that moment.

Because I feel there's no need to. Sympathy for what? For something you see and I don't? He looks good and the show is good. I look at his eyes, he looks great, nothing wrong with his eyes. To me it looks like a man (39 years old man - MJ from 1996/1997) who does what he does best and wants to do it and be there at the stage at the moment.

But what would you know about that? Who cares about Michael's mental health impairing his ability to properly perform on stage? So long as he's not screwing up, it's a good show! Right?

I absolutely care about his health. But I don't see a health problems on that tour that would "impair his ability to properly perform on stage" (other than laryngitis during the songs performed live). Neither did 4,5 million people who went to the show or millions of people who watched it at the time on TV. He's not screwing up, it's a good show.

You should. Lip-synching makes Michael look like a hack who can't handle himself live. (And yes, you and I both are well aware that he has a fabulous voice, but we don't represent the rest of the world. Especially considering Michael's most famous performance is entirely mimed).

That's not true. Lip-syncing does not make Michael look like a hack who can't handle himself live! As you said it yourself: Michael's most famous performances are entirely mimed! And they are all critically acclaimed and loved by the public. Superbowl performance was once again voted as the best of all times. Same goes for MTV VMA performance. Every year it gets voted as the best ever. He had a fabulous voice and people who want to know that, know that and they don't obsess themselves with lip syncing. People who don't want to acknowledge that he had a fabulous voice and that he was a great live singer will always have that opinion. Those people are mostly ignorant narrow minded people who don't like MJ and the kids on youtube.

 

[AlwaysThere]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

No, that's because you have tunnel vision. You concentrate just on live singing and all the other stuff that are great become immediately bad just because the performances are lip synced. I look the whole show like the show should be watched, like Michael envisioned it and presented it to the public. I look at Michael ("the man himself") and everything around him (including the theatrics as they are large and important part of the show). And I think it's a great show and a great performance.

I have never considered Michael's lip-synching to be the primary reason why the History tour is a disappointment. Of course it is a substantial part of it, but it's the full package: the "could-be-better" set list, the miming, the less-than-impressive dancing, the rare occasions of live vocals. The tour succeeds in its theatrics (the "Thriller" disappearing act and "Earth Song" Tienanmen Square reference are admittedly excellent) and the band, I cannot deny that. But the greatest production values in the world cannot save a lackluster performance, which was sadly the case quite often in my opinion.

Because I feel there's no need to. Sympathy for what? For something you see and I don't? He looks good and the show is good. I look at his eyes, he looks great, nothing wrong with his eyes. To me it looks like a man (39 years old man - MJ from 1996/1997) who does what he does best and wants to do it and be there at the stage at the moment.

Sympathy because in Buenos Aires, Michael was barely the shell of the man he once was. He was struggling with an addiction to prescription drugs and accusations that (as far as he knew) could have ended his career.

I absolutely care about his health. But I don't see a health problems on that tour that would "impair his ability to properly perform on stage" (other than laryngitis during the songs performed live). Neither did 4,5 million people who went to the show or millions of people who watched it at the time on TV. He's not screwing up, it's a good show.

The 1993 performance is fine for what it is, yes, but it's the context that makes it difficult to watch. I personally can't have much fun watching a show where Michael was psychologically deteriorating, just over a month before he canceled the remainder of the tour and checked himself into rehab.

Attendance records mean absolutely nothing. Let's be honest here - it's Michael Jackson. People are going to go see him no matter what.

That's not true. Lip-syncing does not make Michael look like a hack who can't handle himself live! As you said it yourself: Michael's most famous performances are entirely mimed! And they are all critically acclaimed and loved by the public. Superbowl performance was once again voted as the best of all times. Same goes for MTV VMA performance. Every year it gets voted as the best ever. He had a fabulous voice and people who want to know that, know that and they don't obsess themselves with lip syncing. People who don't want to acknowledge that he had a fabulous voice and that he was a great live singer will always have that opinion. Those people are mostly ignorant narrow minded people who don't like MJ and the kids on youtube.

You truly do exist in an alternate universe in which everyone agrees with your opinion. That's not how the world works.

Michael's most famous performances are mimed, but keep in mind that the performance itself is frequently excellent. MTV 1995 was energetic, there was fire in his eyes, and he looked like he wanted to be there. Similar to the Super Bowl and Motown 25. That kind of enthusiasm is almost entirely absent on the History tour (a couple songs here and there will not suffice).

It's true that you cannot change everyone's mind. But there is no need to give ammunition to people who hate Michael Jackson; you have to give them barriers, things they have to explain. People would have a difficult mind questioning Michael's performing skills if they watched Wembley 1988; they would have no trouble whatsoever if they watched Munich or Gothenburg or Stockholm or Seoul.

 

[Lil]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

Thanks for your very well articulated posts AlwaysThere, I couldn't agree more.

 

[analogue]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

.Because I feel there's no need to. Sympathy for what?

Sympathy for the fact that he was being accused of one of the worst crimes ever, and his life was made a living hell. You act like being falsely accused of child molestation is not a big deal

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

Sympathy because in Buenos Aires, Michael was barely the shell of the man he once was. He was struggling with an addiction to prescription drugs and accusations that (as far as he knew) could have ended his career.

I have sympathy for that. Absolutely. There is no doubt about that. But I do acknowledge the great performance if it's great which Michael Jackson performances usually are. And while watching that show (at least Buenos Aires; although I have seen snippets and clips from other dates) you can't see "struggling with an addiction to prescription drugs and accusations" in his performances. Like I said before, if you don't know the context, you could not see the difference between that show and some 1992 show in terms of performance quality.

The 1993 performance is fine for what it is, yes, but it's the context that makes it difficult to watch. I personally can't have much fun watching a show where Michael was psychologically deteriorating, just over a month before he canceled the remainder of the tour and checked himself into rehab.

Yeah, it's the context. Like I said, not performances themselves. In my opinion that's stupid thinking. In that case everything that happened after the 1993 accusations should not be released including the HIStory album. Or Invincible album because he was dependent on prescription medications at the time. Or the new album because it was after 2005 trial. You can't change history and his story. It happened, it's part of the history and his discography/videography. If the show was great and they have it professionally filmed in releasable video quality and if they have audio multitracks of the show I don't see a reason why it should not be released (Dangerous '93, HIStory or 30th anniversary celebration or any other concert or performance).

You truly do exist in an alternate universe in which everyone agrees with your opinion.

I won't comment on the insults. It is clear for a long time now that we have to agree to disagree. Of course you don't have to agree with anything but keep in mind that not everyone have to agree with you and part of the fans who are the minority in buying public for a release that's not aimed directly at the fan base.

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

Sympathy for the fact that he was being accused of one of the worst crimes ever, and his life was made a living hell. You act like being falsely accused of child molestation is not a big deal

I replied to Always There the same thing.

 

[Michaels Lover]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

Amazing post. Well said! If he wanted to be somewhere else, he would. He's Michael Jackson. He could have cancelled the concert (like he did many times during other tours) or cancel the remaining of the tour (like he did on Dangerous) if he didn't want to be there.

yeah...it's not like someone held a gun to his head saying, you have to go out there, I don't care how bad you feel

You should. Lip-synching makes Michael look like a hack who can't handle himself live. (And yes, you and I both are well aware that he has a fabulous voice, but we don't represent the rest of the world. Especially considering Michael's most famous performance is entirely mimed).

don't ****ing tell me what I should or shouldn't. I'm not telling you that. we will clearly never agree on this, and nothing you say will change my mind. and I'm sure it's the same the other way around. and telling me "I should" sure as hell doesn't change anything. and like you say, we both know he has a fabulous voice, and that's all that matters to me. that I know it. I don't give a rats ass what the rest of the world think about him, and I never did. people will always have their opinion about him, no matter what he did. he has always been misunderstood and people have always hated on him. I have better things to do than to worry about other peoples bullshit and ignorance. he's one of the biggest legends ever, and nothings ever gonna change that, no matter how much people hate on him and for what

 

[Galactus123]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

No, I can't. You can because you want to see it. Not because it's there. If that was the show from 1992 you couldn't tell the difference.

I want the show to be good. You can really tell the difference in my opinion. I don't know what else to say.

 

[AlwaysThere]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

I have sympathy for that. Absolutely. There is no doubt about that. But I do acknowledge the great performance if it's great which Michael Jackson performances usually are. And while watching that show (at least Buenos Aires; although I have seen snippets and clips from other dates) you can't see "struggling with an addiction to prescription drugs and accusations" in his performances. Like I said before, if you don't know the context, you could not see the difference between that show and some 1992 show in terms of performance quality.

Maybe so - I can agree that the performance overall is relatively strong. But unfortunately we do know the context, which makes it incredibly difficult to sit through it and pretend like Michael was okay. I would veto that show on that reason alone.

Yeah, it's the context. Like I said, not performances themselves. In my opinion that's stupid thinking. In that case everything that happened after the 1993 accusations should not be released including the HIStory album. Or Invincible album because he was dependent on prescription medications at the time. Or the new album because it was after 2005 trial. You can't change history and his story. It happened, it's part of the history and his discography/videography. If the show was great and they have it professionally filmed in releasable video quality and if they have audio multitracks of the show I don't see a reason why it should not be released (Dangerous '93, HIStory or 30th anniversary celebration or any other concert or performance).

These aren't appropriate comparisons. Michael performed the 30th anniversary show while under the influence of prescription medication; I'm also relatively certain he was self-medicating for the majority of the 1993 Dangerous trek as well. Watching him on stage in that state is absolutely tragic. We are not listening to a medicated Michael Jackson on History or Invincible or anything recorded post-2005 (until I'm told different by a believable source); there is the difference. We are aware that he was struggling, but we are not directly witnessing it.

But if it really did come down to it, the only demand that needs to be met is that the performance excels. Nothing I've seen thus far from History has done so. But by God, I would rather only have History tour projects for the remainder of my life than to see the 30th anniversary show released once. That show was absolutely horrible.

Of course you don't have to agree with anything but keep in mind that not everyone have to agree with you and part of the fans who are the minority in buying public for a release that's not aimed directly at the fan base.

Concerts are aimed directly at the fan base. Wembley under performed on the charts because the world has never been substantially interested in concerts. (And no, the VHS situation is not a part of it - the greater part of the general public have no idea until they turn it on for the first time).

don't ****ing tell me what I should or shouldn't. I'm not telling you that. we will clearly never agree on this, and nothing you say will change my mind. and I'm sure it's the same the other way around. and telling me "I should" sure as hell doesn't change anything. and like you say, we both know he has a fabulous voice, and that's all that matters to me. that I know it. I don't give a rats ass what the rest of the world think about him, and I never did. people will always have their opinion about him, no matter what he did. he has always been misunderstood and people have always hated on him. I have better things to do than to worry about other peoples bullshit and ignorance. he's one of the biggest legends ever, and nothings ever gonna change that, no matter how much people hate on him and for what

My apologies if it offended you. But the bottom line is that miming is frowned upon in modern society. A couple songs here and there, a la the Wembley tour? That could get a pass. But a full concert? Nope.

 

[Gatesy2006]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

OnirMJ is completely deluded. HOW, how, can you watch a HIStory tour show and say it's great? For the life of me I cannot understand it.

-He's lifeless almost in the shows that I've seen
-Going through the motions
-Lip synching for the majority of it
-Dance movements are slow and stiff.

 

[rsggamer123]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

i must be the only fan to actually like the HIStory tour in Munich. Definitely not upto par with the Dangerous tour but i always enjoy it. I definitely don't think it's the worst show of the whole tour.

 

[Graf]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

Michael's the greatest artist of all time. To me, the magic was ever present in every tour and performance of Michael.

Do I hold a controversial opinion? :lol:

 

[Michaels Lover]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

My apologies if it offended you. But the bottom line is that miming is frowned upon in modern society. A couple songs here and there, a la the Wembley tour? That could get a pass. But a full concert? Nope.

again, I don' give a **** what other people think. so save yourself the energy and stop telling me. "frowned upon in modern society" :lol: that's cute...yeah, like I care

i must be the only fan to actually like the HIStory tour in Munich. Definitely not upto par with the Dangerous tour but i always enjoy it. I definitely don't think it's the worst show of the whole tour.

no, you're not the only one. I love the concert, I love all of them

Michael's the greatest artist of all time. To me, the magic was ever present in every tour and performance of Michael.

exactly! it's sad that some people can't see that

OnirMJ is completely deluded. HOW, how, can you watch a HIStory tour show and say it's great? For the life of me I cannot understand it.

-He's lifeless almost in the shows that I've seen
-Going through the motions
-Lip synching for the majority of it
-Dance movements are slow and stiff.

you're the one who's deluded, like others, because you see these things that are not there. how can you watch a HIStory tour concert and NOT say it's great??

 

[Zakk]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

There can be a documentary for the HIStory Tour, but a full release would be pretty pointless due to circumstances. Stick to BAD & Dangerous Tours, artistry in full swing.

 

[Gatesy2006]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

again, I don' give a **** what other people think. so save yourself the energy and stop telling me. "frowned upon in modern society" :lol: that's cute...yeah, like I care


no, you're not the only one. I love the concert, I love all of them


exactly! it's sad that some people can't see that


you're the one who's deluded, like others, because you see these things that are not there. how can you watch a HIStory tour concert and NOT say it's great??

Because I'm not a biased MJ fan who thinks every song is genius and every performance was brilliant. He was human like the rest of us and the HIStory tour performance wise was poor. Bad was genius, Dangerous was pretty good, HIStory....

 

[barbee0715]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

You can't change history and his story. It happened, it's part of the history and his discography/videography. If the show was great and they have it professionally filmed in releasable video quality and if they have audio multitracks of the show I don't see a reason why it should not be released (Dangerous '93, HIStory or 30th anniversary celebration or any other concert or performance).

You surprised me when you wrote this because I always thought the 30th anniversary celebration was released-I've seen it for sale on Amazon-however, I just looked and it's apparently a counterfeit version-Amazon has been called out on it, and they're STILL selling it.

So that being said, THAT'S the one show that I hope never gets an official release and I wish to the heavens they'd quit showing it on TV. My heart broke during that show and I cried like a baby throughout-not only Michael looking drugged to the skies, but Whitney, Elizabeth and Liza all looked like life had just chewed them up spit them out.
I don't see how anyone can get any pleasure out of watching that-it's a miserable experience. My heart hurts just thinking about it. And this new little dramedy in the UK has made me think about it more than ever.

I am just thankful that for the most part they all recovered from that time in their lives.

 

[Michaels Lover]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

Because I'm not a biased MJ fan who thinks every song is genius and every performance was brilliant.

that's not what I said...but whatever

And yes I do like the tour. I don't see him as slow and stiff at all. Just a man who was approaching 40 who had been through hell and back and could still wow the crowd. I also admire his courage for getting back up on stage after the bashing he had taken in the press.

yeah, exactly. it's such a shame that some people choose to make it into something that it's not. it's one thing to not like a tour, but to make up all kinds of things about it that is clearly not there...I don't get why people do that

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

Back and forth. back and forth Cant you all just agree to disagree. Ppl have different opinions. Move on cause this thread is becoming tiring

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

I'm also relatively certain he was self-medicating for the majority of the 1993 Dangerous trek as well.

Out of topic. But just no! Self-medicating? No. He had numerous doctors and he had prescription medications prescribed to him like painkillers and pills. If you think about taking pills, then ok. If you thing about some Frank Cascio bullshit like self-injecting himself before the show with morphine/demerol, then no!

Concerts are aimed directly at the fan base.

Concerts are aimed at everyone. Of course the ban base will be the biggest buyers of DVDs/blu-rays. But I was talking about John Branca's original idea about releasing it in 3D in cinemas. That project would be aimed at general public more than just on the fan base. That would be huge, too expensive project to be aimed just at the fan base.

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

OnirMJ is completely deluded. HOW, how, can you watch a HIStory tour show and say it's great?

Wow! So I'm deluded because I think it's great. Also facts and numbers show that it was great. But you are not deluded because you think it's bad? It's called opinions not delusion. And opinions are subjective (the numbers and facts aren't though).

For the life of me I cannot understand it.

Exactly! You can not understand it. You can not enjoy it. That's the problem. Problem is in you, not in me or Michael or the Tour.

 

[Galactus123]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

Wow! So I'm deluded because I think it's great. Also facts and numbers show that it was great.

How? Do you mean how successful the tour was? I don't think that can be used to measure how great it was. People didn't know what it would be before going there.

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

i must be the only fan to actually like the HIStory tour in Munich.

You're definitely not the only one. Trust me!

Michael's the greatest artist of all time. To me, the magic was ever present in every tour and performance of Michael.

Do I hold a controversial opinion? :lol:

I agree. It might be a controversial opinion here on this board, but it's definitely not a controversial opinion or at least it shouldn't be. HIStory Tour and its performances are full of magic!

And yes I do like the tour. I don't see him as slow and stiff at all. Just a man who was approaching 40 who had been through hell and back and could still wow the crowd. I also admire his courage for getting back up on stage after the bashing he had taken in the press.

Exactly! Great post.

There can be a documentary for the HIStory Tour, but a full release would be pretty pointless due to circumstances. Stick to BAD & Dangerous Tours, artistry in full swing.

Why pointless? Due to what circumstances? Bad & Dangerous Tour have already been released and they are available for purchase. HIStory Tour is not.

Because I'm not a biased MJ fan who thinks every song is genius and every performance was brilliant. He was human like the rest of us and the HIStory tour performance wise was poor. Bad was genius, Dangerous was pretty good, HIStory....

I expressed my opinions, my likes and dislikes several times. And HIStory Tour is not one of my dislikes. Neither are Dangerous '93 or 30th anniversary celebration. And personal likes and dislikes are not the problem here. The question here is should all tours be released and treated equally. And I say yes. But some fans here are against it because of their personal preferences and they are for selective treatment of the tours.

THAT'S the one show that I hope never gets an official release and I wish to the heavens they'd quit showing it on TV.
I don't see how anyone can get any pleasure out of watching that-it's a miserable experience. My heart hurts just thinking about it.

I think you are looking again at the context here and not the show itself. In my opinion the show is great and the its significance is very important: the reunion of The Jacksons, Michael Jackson's last full concert, the only concert from Invincible era... This show deserves to be officially released. And if TV stations want to show it often I'm fine with it because there's nothing wrong with that. And again one thing is your personal feelings and dislikes, that's completely fine, but saying things like "I wish they'd quit showing it on TV" and "I hope it never gets an official release" are just wrong, mean and selfish.

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

How? Do you mean how successful the tour was? I don't think that can be used to measure how great it was. People didn't know what it would be before going there.

I said: "Also facts and numbers show that it was great". I think the tour was great because of the quality of the show itself but also because of its significance as being one of the biggest tour ever performed, seen by 4,5 MIL people, Michael Jackson's last and biggest tour of his career, one of the top grossing tours of the '90's. Those are all historic facts that can't be ignored.

 

[Michaels Lover]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

How? Do you mean how successful the tour was? I don't think that can be used to measure how great it was. People didn't know what it would be before going there.

Well, that depends how many concerts you went to. After the first one, I went to 2 more. Nothing was gonna keep me away, not even that I couldn't get time off from school to go, I just simply dropped out. And I know many other fans also went to more than 1 HIStory concerts. So many people obviously liked it, since they came back for more, again and again

 

[AlwaysThere]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

Concerts are aimed at everyone. Of course the ban base will be the biggest buyers of DVDs/blu-rays. But I was talking about John Branca's original idea about releasing it in 3D in cinemas. That project would be aimed at general public more than just on the fan base. That would be huge, too expensive project to be aimed just at the fan base.

Not whatsoever. There has been no remote indication that the general public has ever been interested in a Michael Jackson concert release; that became evident enough after Wembley. The biggest draw to the masses has always been, and most likely will always be, new music, considering Xscape was one of the biggest selling albums of 2014 and gave Michael his highest charting single since 2001.

The entirety of the Bad25 campaign and creation was almost certainly immensely expensive, from the documentary to the Pepsi promotional trek to the under-promoted Ne-Yo concert to the Wembley remaster to the creation of the special edition deluxe packages to the Bad tour replica jackets, and so on, and that was aimed primarily at the fan base.

Also, if a Michael Jackson concert were to be broadcast in cinemas, come on - the History tour? Whether or not you enjoy the tour, I refuse to believe that would be your first choice.

I expressed my opinions, my likes and dislikes several times. And HIStory Tour is not one of my dislikes. Neither are Dangerous '93 or 30th anniversary celebration. And personal likes and dislikes are not the problem here. The question here is should all tours be released and treated equally. And I say yes. But some fans here are against it because of their personal preferences and they are for selective treatment of the tours.

That is not the most important matter when it comes to a concert performance; that distinction would go to, "Is this performance strong enough to be released? Does the artist sound good? Does the choreography look good? Is the show, as a whole, worthy of a commercial issue?" Equality is completely irrelevant.

I think you are looking again at the context here and not the show itself. In my opinion the show is great and the its significance is very important: the reunion of The Jacksons, Michael Jackson's last full concert, the only concert from Invincible era... This show deserves to be officially released. And if TV stations want to show it often I'm fine with it because there's nothing wrong with that. And again one thing is your personal feelings and dislikes, that's completely fine, but saying things like "I wish they'd quit showing it on TV" and "I hope it never gets an official release" are just wrong, mean and selfish.

How can you accuse someone of looking only at context and then immediately proceed to outline contextual reasons as to why the show should be released? Seems hypocritical, to say the very least. Nothing new I suppose.

The 30th anniversary concert is the worst Michael Jackson concert in existence. The televised cut was immensely doctored to present the show as having been better than it actually was. The amateur cam videos available on YouTube paint a clear portrait of how things actually went: medication hindered Michael's ability to perform properly. His vocals are frequently shaky (parts of the Jackson 5 Medley were almost certainly re-recorded after the fact and dubbed for the broadcast), his dancing is lethargic and downtrodden, and over half of the show was comprised of tribute acts as opposed to the man himself.

The History tour could be debated day and night but I could, at the very least, see the other side of the argument. The 30th anniversary shows? No. I will flat out say I am against any release or public acknowledgement of those shows happening. Why? Because the only important parts are contextual (as you listed: the Jacksons reunion/Michael's final full concert performance). Talent-wise the show is heartbreaking to watch.

 

[Galactus123]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

Well, that depends how many concerts you went to. After the first one, I went to 2 more. Nothing was gonna keep me away, not even that I couldn't get time off from school to go, I just simply dropped out. And I know many other fans also went to more than 1 HIStory concerts. So many people obviously liked it, since they came back for more, again and again

Most people still went to only one concert. There might be many fans who go to many concerts but it's still a very little amount from all the people in the stadiums.

I said: "Also facts and numbers show that it was great". I think the tour was great because of the quality of the show itself but also because of its significance as being one of the biggest tour ever performed, seen by 4,5 MIL people, Michael Jackson's last and biggest tour of his career, one of the top grossing tours of the '90's. Those are all historic facts that can't be ignored.

That doesn't have much to do with the quality of the show. All tours were successes. Most people went to see it because it was a Michael Jackson concert. This Is It concerts sold out even though we didn't know if they were going to be good or not. For example the new Star Wars movie could have been really bad but it still would have been a success. People went to see it because it was Star Wars.

I hope they make both HIStory and Thriller documentaries but they shouldn't forget Dangerous.

 

[Michaels Lover]

Re: A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

Most people still went to only one concert. There might be many fans who go to many concerts but it's still a very little amount from all the people in the stadiums.

lol of course. that goes for ANY tour with ANY artist. the majority of the audience only goes once. it was the same with the Bad and Dangerous tours. but if HIStory tour was so awful, why did people choose to come back for more? never ever in my life have I heard anyone say things like, "his performance was awful" "OH NO!! he lip synced. boohoo" "he looked horrible" etc etc. people were just as excited for the next concert, as they were for the previous one, no matter how many concerts they had been to