Latest on MJJC

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

I don't have high expectations for the movie if I'm honest I'd rather have new live concerts history tour Blue ray and Ghosts
 
No way this is true, honestly it's just people trying to tarnish the film before it's release with baseless made up rumours. Tabloid Junk.

One of the first things they would check is the legality of the film's story in terms of any agreement reached with the Chandlers, that'd be done before casting and way before filming had even begun

I doubt they'll be any reshoots at this point, as they'd be too costly to justify
 
How could they be this stupid with this big budget without checking if there were any legal restrictions on dramatizing Chandler and his family in a movie? For such a massive part of Jackson’s life you think they would’ve done a lot greater research behind it and even looked at the settlement/fine print.

If they can’t get something like this right, it doesn’t give me much hope for the rest of the film.
 
My heart absolutely sunk at this news this morning, if indeed true. More than anything, heartbroken that Michael will never have a chance to hear his side of the story heard, even after his death.
Not only a likely less quality resulting film would come from this, but this would have finally been the launching point for mainstream audiences on the fence on the allegations to seek the truth.
 
Without the Chandlers, a biopic makes no sense. If the part is missing, the estate can leave the film in the drawer. As much as the name Michael Jackson is electrifying because it is associated with incomparable art, the accusations still cling to the name.
 
SmoothCriminal1995 said:
No way this is true, honestly it's just people trying to tarnish the film before it's release with baseless made up rumours. Tabloid Junk.

One of the first things they would check is the legality of the film's story in terms of any agreement reached with the Chandlers, that'd be done before casting and way before filming had even begun

I doubt they'll be any reshoots at this point, as they'd be too costly to justify
Click to expand...
That would mean relying on the capabilities of Branca, who we all know is inadequate and only out for himself. Cochran negotiated the terms of the settlement and has long-since passed, along with Chandler's father. So it makes sense that the terms fell through the cracks. Remember in the Diane Sawyer interview, MJ himself said his is forbidden to talk about the terms of the agreement and was later sued (unsuccessfully) for the few things that were mentioned. This is 100% true and happening. I doubt it will be released in 2025.
 
I find it extremely hard to believe that they could simply forget about this agreement. I mean the most important part of the movie is where they cover the allegations.

Are you telling me through hours and hours of script building, estate discussion and all the other legal matters it was never discussed?

Before all the money thrown at the movie $150 million budget, it never cropped up?

Will be hilarious if we end up getting a trailer at the Super Bowl so we can give a massive **** you to this fake news.
 
I thought branca wasn't involved in Michael's life during 1993 accusations? Was he around screwing Michael still during that time?

It just makes me sick if this is true that we still have to skate around the first accusations and Michael never got to really defend his self.
 
Are there any legal experts on this forum? If so, here are a couple of questions:Ž
I. Did the settlement forbid Michael in person to talk about it or anybody else too? I mean Geraldine Hughes talked about the case too and as far as
I know she was never sued. Who is bound by the settlement???

II. If they did a DS on the names, would they be able to get away with it? Would Michael personally be able to make a DS-type song about Jordan and/or the Chandler family?

III. How likely do you estimate Jordan to come out of the shaddow of anonimity because something like this? I mean I don't think he even goes by his name anymore nowadays, why would he even bother?!

And connected to III...

IV. Could this be a secret plot to finally force Jordan out of the hiding???
 
Last edited:
Spidey said:
That would mean relying on the capabilities of Branca, who we all know is inadequate and only out for himself. Cochran negotiated the terms of the settlement and has long-since passed, along with Chandler's father. So it makes sense that the terms fell through the cracks. Remember in the Diane Sawyer interview, MJ himself said his is forbidden to talk about the terms of the agreement and was later sued (unsuccessfully) for the few things that were mentioned. This is 100% true and happening. I doubt it will be released in 2025.
Click to expand...
The movie was a bad idea in the first place. I’m done with it.
 
I agree with some of the others, feels like a massive kick in the teeth if true and will mean the film will make a much lesser impact on the way we want MJ to be seen.

The story needs to be raw and real. It would have been the best way to finally get the truth out there to the masses.

Just use a John Doe and fck Chandler. This would bring him back into the spotlight and he doesn’t want that.
 
Billie Jean 78 said:
III. How likely would it be for Jordan to come out of the shaddow of anonimity because something like this? I mean I don't think he even goes by his name anymore nowadays, why would he even bother?!
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Exactly! I don't think he would ever do that. And honestly, if sued, how much money could the estate/producers actually lose on this?
Chandler is living his "another" life. If someone has anything to do with this, is Robson/Safechuck/Reed.

Also, how convenient... the guy who says that he has the script from day one is now telling another story that the script is now going to be almost completely changed in its storyline. I call BS.
 
Renan_Antonio said:
This could all go away if the Estate (or the Production company) would just come forward and say if this is true or not. I don't get why they just let this turn into a big mess and let people with weird impressions of the movie.
Click to expand...
I don't think they would want to say if its true and its not always the smartest thing is business sense.
 
Renan_Antonio said:
This could all go away if the Estate (or the Production company) would just come forward and say if this is true or not. I don't get why they just let this turn into a big mess and let people with weird impressions of the movie.
Click to expand...
So the website will have what he aims for.. Estate/ Production Compagny will talk about the Chandlers.. then it goes over all websites..
 
I don’t believe the day rumors whatsoever. Subjectivity aside, do you seriously mean to tell me that lawyers for Lionsgate and the Estate BOTH didn’t bother to look into the Chandler settlement until recently? When even the fan community has read it and knew there was a media limitation involved? Bullshit.
 
1nn5 said:
So the website will have what he aims for.. Estate/ Production Compagny will talk about the Chandlers.. then it goes over all websites..
Click to expand...
It's already on all other websites. Indiewire, billboard, etc... that's why I don't think it's a good idea to not say anything (if actually fake news).

This isn't Wicked. It's Michael Jackson. A lot of people are gonna try to destroy this movie. They need to prepare for all sorts of stuff like this.
 
AlwaysThere said:
I don’t believe the day rumors whatsoever. Subjectivity aside, do you seriously mean to tell me that lawyers for Lionsgate and the Estate BOTH didn’t bother to look into the Chandler settlement until recently? When even the fan community has read it and knew there was a media limitation involved? Bullshit.
Click to expand...
That’s what I find totally bizarre. When discussing the possibility of a Michael Jackson film and the controversy around it , the allegations would be the biggest red flag about the whole project.

Was there seriously no due diligence? I just don’t believe it.
 
Spidey said:
That would mean relying on the capabilities of Branca, who we all know is inadequate and only out for himself. Cochran negotiated the terms of the settlement and has long-since passed, along with Chandler's father. So it makes sense that the terms fell through the cracks. Remember in the Diane Sawyer interview, MJ himself said his is forbidden to talk about the terms of the agreement and was later sued (unsuccessfully) for the few things that were mentioned. This is 100% true and happening. I doubt it will be released in 2025.
Click to expand...
How do you know this claim is "100% true" if you don't mind me asking?
 
I could see how people are saying that they don't buy this story of the estate not being aware that allegations from 93 were going to featured and dramatized in the family. Because for the longest they have been saying that that was going to be a core element of the movie I feel like with Prince Jackson and Jermaine's son being behind this project it's still going to be done with good taste.
 
Spidey said:
That would mean relying on the capabilities of Branca, who we all know is inadequate and only out for himself. Cochran negotiated the terms of the settlement and has long-since passed, along with Chandler's father. So it makes sense that the terms fell through the cracks. Remember in the Diane Sawyer interview, MJ himself said his is forbidden to talk about the terms of the agreement and was later sued (unsuccessfully) for the few things that were mentioned. This is 100% true and happening. I doubt it will be released in 2025.
Click to expand...
You said you work in the movie business. Just to understand, you are believing this only because of the article or do you have additional sources?
Maybe there will be reshoots for another reason.
 
One thing I will say is that when the release date was postponed, it felt like there was a problem with the production, because the reason given didn't make particular sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top