Latest on MJJC

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

IhateTheMedia said:
It's necessary, his humanitarian work was arguably his most important aspect. It needs to be highlighted
Click to expand...
The mafia and some drug dealers donate money to charities. The mob have even financed hospitals & clinics to get built. They're still organized crime. That kind of thing is something to put in a documentary. Not in a movie that is supposed to entertain people.
 
DuranDuran said:
The mafia and some drug dealers donate money to charities. The mob have even financed hospitals & clinics to get built. They're still organized crime. That kind of thing is something to put in a documentary. Not in a movie that is supposed to entertain people.
Click to expand...
You can't really introduce Gavin Arvizo without first establishing the fact that Michael had always visited sick children in hospitals and orphanages, and welcomed them into his home. It was a big part of his life, not just some money he donated. When he went on tour, he visited as many hospitals and orphanages as he gave shows.
 
DuranDuran said:
The mafia and some drug dealers donate money to charities. The mob have even financed hospitals & clinics to get built. They're still organized crime. That kind of thing is something to put in a documentary. Not in a movie that is supposed to entertain people.
Click to expand...
Horrible comparison. Sorry to everyone in need of flashing lights and Joss Whedon quips to be "entertained".
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
Horrible comparison. Sorry to everyone in need of flashing lights and Joss Whedon quips to be "entertained".
Click to expand...
That's sort of what the recent Elvis Presley biopic was. Although it was kinda more about Colonel Parker than Elvis. It even had a Doja Cat song playing in the movie. It's Hollywood. Also the MCU is the most successful movie series in history and that's flashing lights & quips. Even if that is in the movie, it won't be 20 minutes of it.
 
Considering the director is mostly known for action films I'm expecting this to be pretty entertaining and the live performances to be shot with all the razzmatazz of the edited HBO Bucharest concert. (I prefer the real BBC version).
 
The movie cant have everything and do a good job. The more plates it tries to spin, the worse the overall product will be. I don't think his humanitarian work needs 20 whole minutes of a movie. That's a bit ridiculous. What is so interesting about that? Save that stuff for a documentary. Maybe ellude to it in the movie, but 20 minutes of the movie? You wanna put everyone to sleep?

As for Michael's kids, I'd be shocked if they were biologically his. There is no resembleance there and you have to warp reality quite a bit to see a resembleance. It's beyond just skin colour. There is nothing going on with any of those kids that say "Jackson". I am not sure why he chose not to father his own children but that is what he did. Maybe he didn't want them looking like Joe just as much as he didn't want to look like Joe? Fact remains they're still his kids. And unless they have any hard evidence to say either way, this shouldn't be put in the movie unless there is a revelation to glean from it that the family and directors ACTUALLY KNOW.

Anyway there's a lot we dont know about his life and I hope to walk away from the movie having learned some things about why he was the way he was. I don't need some virtue signalling about how much he gave to charity. I mean really, who gives a shit? Some references here and there are fine. But 20 minutes of the movie. 20 minutes? Come the **** on lol.
 
Hurley509 said:
And unless they have any hard evidence to say either way, this shouldn't be put in the movie unless there is a revelation to glean from it that the family and directors ACTUALLY KNOW.
Click to expand...
Michael said they were his biological kids. Debbie said they were his biological kids. That's what the movie should say.
 
IhateTheMedia said:
Things the film needs to show for us fans, aside from what i already mentioned

Film will have to be at least 3 hours, possibly even 4 hours to get everything in
Click to expand...
This is a commercial film where money has been invested, we are not the target audience, the general public must go and watch the movie. Most people wont go to a 4-hour Michael Jackson biopic showing Jafaar in hospitals for 20 minutes. I guess it will be 2,5 hours tops to keep it interesting for most people to go.

So prepare to be disappointed because they are not included all that stuff.
 
MJImpeccable said:
This is a commercial film where money has been invested, we are not the target audience, the general public must go and watch the movie. Most people wont go to a 4-hour Michael Jackson biopic showing Jafaar in hospitals for 20 minutes. I guess it will be 2,5 hours tops to keep it interesting for most people to go.

So prepare to be disappointed because they are not included all that stuff.
Click to expand...
Yep it will be another jacksons an American dream
 
Put a scene in the movie of Stephanie Mills washing Mike's clothes. 😁
tumblr_mul4gjWQRN1rxfhcfo1_500.jpg
 
Hot_Street said:
who cares
she was his first girlfriend, wasn't she?
Click to expand...
She was his “first” girlfriend (maybe she wasn’t first?) but I don’t like her, I think she just wanted him for sex only and she just didjust because he
DuranDuran said:
Put a scene in the movie of Stephanie Mills washing Mike's clothes. 😁
tumblr_mul4gjWQRN1rxfhcfo1_500.jpg
Click to expand...
she was so respectful towards to Michael and always protected him, so I think she deserves to be mentioned in this movie
 
Prometheus77 said:
It better not be. That movie wasn't really accurate to what has really happened.
Click to expand...
Nor was it a particularly qualitative work of art as a whole. Yet, it did a great job at promoting Queen and their music, which hopefully will happen for Michael as well.
 
dethorro said:
Nor was it a particularly qualitative work of art as a whole. Yet, it did a great job at promoting Queen and their music, which hopefully will happen for Michael as well.
Click to expand...
I liked the movie. I just wished they wouldn't have taken those liberties. That doesn't help to be believable and maybe change some minds.
 
robotchicken14 said:
I didn't mean to rile you up so much, I didn't know that Mark Lester was such a touchy subject.

I'd take a bet that there would be far more profitable lies he could come up with about Michael Jackson than being asked to donate sperm. But each to their own.
Click to expand...
He lied about being Paris God father to bolster his lies. He is not her godfather.

He lied about the extent of his relationship with Michael, like his wife said they did not become friends until years after Paris was born. They did not have some specially close relationship either. The lesters were just one of the many families Michael spent time with, no different from the Cascios, the Malniks,
the Schleiter Family and many others.

Just because Lester hasn't jumped on the guilty train it doesn't mean he's not a liar and opportunist. He sold his stories about Paris to the media for money. Don't think he did them for free. It also got him attention and got his name in the headlines again.

And he claims Michael asked him for sperm with no proof of this. None at all. Not to mention the timeline doesn't match up. He made these claims after Michael died and could not respond. It's ridiculous tabloid BS.

Michael said he used his own sperm for all 3 of his children.

"I used a surrogate mother with my own sperm cells, I had my own sperm cells with my other two children, they're all my children"

Debbie said Michael is father, her lawyers also said Michael is the father. People only deny this because they're ignorant about genetics.

Why is it when someone claims something that contradicts what Michael said you all automatically believe the other person and write Michael off as the one lying?
 
Hurley509 said:
As for Michael's kids, I'd be shocked if they were biologically his. There is no resembleance there and you have to warp reality quite a bit to see a resembleance. It's beyond just skin colour. There is nothing going on with any of those kids that say "Jackson". I am not sure why he chose not to father his own children but that is what he did. Maybe he didn't want them looking like Joe just as much as he didn't want to look like Joe? Fact remains they're still his kids. And unless they have any hard evidence to say either way, this shouldn't be put in the movie unless there is a revelation to glean from it that the family and directors ACTUALLY KNOW.
Click to expand...
This literally means nothing. Nothing but talk and your own personal opinion.

Watch the Maury show or paternity court on youtube and you will see example after example of naysayers saying the child doesn't look like the father or the fathers family, the child is too light skinned or doesn't look black enough. Blah Blah Blah. Plenty of times the man turns out to be the father and naysayers end up with egg on their faces.

In 2024 and people still think their eyes and their worthless opinions about who looks like who, are the same as a DNA test. 😄
 
It would be interesting if they showed Michael's reaction to when he first noticed that Prince had vitiligo too. I guess they would have to ask Prince if he remembers and if he's okay with including it in the movie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top