Latest on MJJC

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

Zizzistar said:
i find very hard to believe that someone who literally is financially responsible for creating this movie, and that would be the first in line to suffer the financial blow of said movie not doing good, would hoop on such a outrageously bad interview just to smear said movie and create bad PR around it.

i don't like branca but i mantain my case that some of this reads as heavily edited or manipulated. the journalist is a guilter after all.
Click to expand...
They will never publish the interview unedited because it would add context that undermine the narrative they are spreading.

They just chopped and screwed the interview and posted selective quotes (likely out of context) that help push their narrative and discarded everything else.
 
Last edited:
kelley said:
They will never publish the interview unedited because it would add context that undermine the narrative they are spreading.

They just chopped and screwed the interview and posted selective quotes (likely out of context) that help push their narrative and discarded everything else.
Click to expand...
So true
 
Bring on the teaser/trailer i carnt wait! I am for once with Kelley with this when we see the stress etc portrayed by Jaafar(and im sure we will when lies are told about Michael) the audience will see how much it hurt him and effected him. I think this movie is going to be incredible! This movie will show the Michael we loved out of the lense and then the huge Superstar off and on the stage!
 
kelley said:
As usual the way Branca's interview was reported in here did not match what was actually said in the article. He actually did a fairly good job defending Michael for once. He even referred to the accusers as "extortionists" and "creeps"


Because he didn't. It is no where in either of those 2 screenshots.


It sounds scary until you keep reading.

He affirmed Michael's innocence and said the movie will tell Michael's story, and not the "creeps" who spread lies about him. To me that means that instead of them going on the defense and trying to convince people Michael was innocent, his innocence will be written into the script, so that we the audience will SEE he is innocent, not just told.

At least that's how I interpreted what he said. And if that's the case, I am very happy. Because the best way to debunk the allegations is to simply show what actually happened.

Branca also reaffirmed that the estate has no intentions to settle anything, which is Good news.




I need to point out some suspect things about this Financial Times article.

For one thing, if they talked to Branca directly why are they still referring to "sources"?

"According to people familiar with the matter, Universal considered exiting the project as an international distributor, so the estate is swallowing the entire cost of the reshoots......"

So in other words. BRANCA did not confirm this, nor did any actually named Universal representative. If he had, they would have said "according to Branca," But they did not. Nobody finds that odd? Why didn't they ask Branca directly about these reports?

Either they DID ask him, and didn't like his answer so they didn't print it and chose to continues spreading the negative rumors

OR

They didn't ask him, which is odd.

But we know one thing. Brance did NOT confirm any of these claims about universal almost exiting or the estate footing the bill for the reshoots, because if he did, they would have certainly referenced him as the source.

But instead it's once again attributed to an unnamed "source"

Please do not legitimize everything in that article just because Branca is quoted in it. That fact that they can't reference Branca as a source for these claims despite speaking to him directly should clue you in that the claim is NOT confirmed.
Click to expand...
So this twitter user claims the screenshots from Brancas FT interview were actually from an interview he did with Talauega brothers

https://twitter.com/x/status/1984735249448755580

Im confused. Are those screenshots from FT or something else? The link to the FT article brought up a pay wall for me, so no way to get clarification.
 
Keen Zhang reposted



Cherrelle
@ebonykiss93
·
8h


It's official! We are getting the "Michael" teaser during the previews of The Wicked sequel
Text overlay on a dark background reads about a multidecade project to restore Michael Jacksons public image. It mentions the film titled Michael as probably the highest-stakes release of 2026. Details include audiences seeing the first teaser before the Wicked sequel in theaters this November. References producer Branca ducking stressful calls on the 16th anniversary of Jacksons death during a visit to his opulent living room.





Keen Zhang
@mkgenie
·
9h


I have exchanged contact with the Universal representative, so I can only give out what she authorized. But, it’s happening!




0LIjsPeF_mini.jpg


Keen Zhang

@mkgenie
·
9h
Universal Pictures promoted its #MichaelJackson biopic to Chinese distributors, confirming Jaafar Jackson's over 90% accuracy in portraying his uncle and announcing the Chinese title as "Michael Jackson: The Journey of a Superstar," calling it "good things are worth waiting for."
Image
 
Annita said:
Keen Zhang reposted



Cherrelle
@ebonykiss93
·
8h


It's official! We are getting the "Michael" teaser during the previews of The Wicked sequel
Text overlay on a dark background reads about a multidecade project to restore Michael Jacksons public image. It mentions the film titled Michael as probably the highest-stakes release of 2026. Details include audiences seeing the first teaser before the Wicked sequel in theaters this November. References producer Branca ducking stressful calls on the 16th anniversary of Jacksons death during a visit to his opulent living room.





Keen Zhang
@mkgenie
·
9h


I have exchanged contact with the Universal representative, so I can only give out what she authorized. But, it’s happening!




0LIjsPeF_mini.jpg


Keen Zhang

@mkgenie
·
9h
Universal Pictures promoted its #MichaelJackson biopic to Chinese distributors, confirming Jaafar Jackson's over 90% accuracy in portraying his uncle and announcing the Chinese title as "Michael Jackson: The Journey of a Superstar," calling it "good things are worth waiting for."
Image
Click to expand...
in the us only or worldwide ?
 
beltrano said:
in the us only or worldwide ?
Click to expand...
i see there is still a lot of confusion around this, let me explain: Michael's trailer will be attached with both Wicked 2 (Universal Pictures, responsible for the global release) and Now You See Me Now You Don't (a Lionsgate's movie, responsible for the biopic domestic release)
 
Zizzistar said:
i see there is still a lot of confusion around this, let me explain: Michael's trailer will be attached with both Wicked 2 (Universal Pictures, responsible for the global release) and Now You See Me Now You Don't (a Lionsgate's movie, responsible for the biopic domestic release)
Click to expand...
so november 14&november 21 in the us ?
 
SmoothGangsta said:
Anybody got an archive of the article that doesn't require a sign up?
Click to expand...
postimg.cc

My Gallery — Postimages

postimg.cc postimg.cc

I'm not really sure how image sharing works. I think I created a gallery of screenshots. Please feel free to take a look.

To be clear, I just screenshot the whole article. From what I can read, there is no mention of the film ending at Bad. It repeats tabloid articles about script changes and reshoots but Branca doesn't mention anything about it other than what's been discussed here already.

The article doesn't give any new information or clarification. The link is above to the screenshots but honestly, there really is nothing there to see.
 
knigofpop said:
postimg.cc

My Gallery — Postimages

postimg.cc postimg.cc

I'm not really sure how image sharing works. I think I created a gallery of screenshots. Please feel free to take a look.

To be clear, I just screenshot the whole article. From what I can read, there is no mention of the film ending at Bad. It repeats tabloid articles about script changes and reshoots but Branca doesn't mention anything about it other than what's been discussed here already.

The article doesn't give any new information or clarification. The link is above to the screenshots but honestly, there really is nothing there to see.
Click to expand...
It is so shady that they didn't ask Branca to confirm or deny those rumors.
 
With this film rumoured to end at the BAD era, I hope they can somehow give us an emotional ending despite MJ being at his absolute peak.

I had always imagined the film ending with his death and live footage of MJ performing along with some notes mentioning his achievements/ being found not guilty and remains innocent etc to the background of say man in the mirror.

I predict we will still get MJ doing man in the mirror live at the end switching from Jaafar to real Michael but it won’t have the same emotional pull.

Edit to add , possibly MITM moonwalker edition? It’s the clearest footage we have of the era
 
Last edited:
Even though the film ends with the BAD era, one can expect it to show what his relationship with children was really like. This should help viewers better understand the reasons behind the later accusations.
 
Hot_Street said:
Even though the film ends with the BAD era, one can expect it to show what his relationship with children was really like. This should help viewers better understand the reasons behind the later accusations.
Click to expand...
I hope they will show how Emmanuel Lewis's family took him in and took care of him after he was burned when he intended to stay at a hotel instead of going home. It would help the viewer understand why Michael needed surrogate families the way he did.

Blues_Away2023 said:
With this film rumoured to end at the BAD era, I hope they can somehow give us an emotional ending despite MJ being at his absolute peak.

I had always imagined the film ending with his death and live footage of MJ performing along with some notes mentioning his achievements/ being found not guilty and remains innocent etc to the background of say man in the mirror.

I predict we will still get MJ doing man in the mirror live at the end switching from Jaafar to real Michael but it won’t have the same emotional pull.
Click to expand...
If they intend to release a second movie, then I would save the real-life footage for the second part, or else it would be weird if you watched both movies back-to-back and saw Jaafar replaced by real Michael in the middle of it, and then back to Jaafar as the second movie begins. If they want to add real-life footage in the first movie, then a short nostalgic montage at the beginning might work better (kind of like the one in the American Dream miniseries, just a little introduction to set the mood).

I don't know about you, but I would be disappointed if they chose to end the movie with real-life footage from just one performance. Unlike other performers, I don't feel any performance would be enough to summarize Michael's life. I would rather see a well-done montage with moments from the Jackson 5, all the way up to This Is It. Now THAT would make me feel the nostalgia, and it wouldn't force them to pick one era to represent all that Michael was.
 
kelley said:
As usual the way Branca's interview was reported in here did not match what was actually said in the article. He actually did a fairly good job defending Michael for once. He even referred to the accusers as "extortionists" and "creeps"


Because he didn't. It is no where in either of those 2 screenshots.


It sounds scary until you keep reading.

He affirmed Michael's innocence and said the movie will tell Michael's story, and not the "creeps" who spread lies about him. To me that means that instead of them going on the defense and trying to convince people Michael was innocent, his innocence will be written into the script, so that we the audience will SEE he is innocent, not just told.

At least that's how I interpreted what he said. And if that's the case, I am very happy. Because the best way to debunk the allegations is to simply show what actually happened.

Branca also reaffirmed that the estate has no intentions to settle anything, which is Good news.




I need to point out some suspect things about this Financial Times article.

For one thing, if they talked to Branca directly why are they still referring to "sources"?

"According to people familiar with the matter, Universal considered exiting the project as an international distributor, so the estate is swallowing the entire cost of the reshoots......"

So in other words. BRANCA did not confirm this, nor did any actually named Universal representative. If he had, they would have said "according to Branca," But they did not. Nobody finds that odd? Why didn't they ask Branca directly about these reports?

Either they DID ask him, and didn't like his answer so they didn't print it and chose to continues spreading the negative rumors

OR

They didn't ask him, which is odd.

But we know one thing. Brance did NOT confirm any of these claims about universal almost exiting or the estate footing the bill for the reshoots, because if he did, they would have certainly referenced him as the source.

But instead it's once again attributed to an unnamed "source"

Please do not legitimize everything in that article just because Branca is quoted in it. That fact that they can't reference Branca as a source for these claims despite speaking to him directly should clue you in that the claim is NOT confirmed.
Click to expand...
SO thanks to @knigofpop for posting the screenshots.

Turns out the FT "journalist" actually did talk to someone from Lionsgate, but as usual what she quotes from him is vague and STILL does not actually confirm the claims made about the changes made to the script. He confirms that the script WAS changed, which I have no problem believing that and others like Taj already confirmed that. But he still does not confirm the claim about the chandler settlement, and in fact the vague quote attributed to him actual CONTRADICTS those claims AGAIN


We have been told that the allegations were removed because of the chandler settlement. But just read this guy Adam Fogelson's statement. Nothing about any settlement. The FT wants you to believe he's referring to the reports about the chandler rumors, but nothing in what he actually says confirms. We know the script was changed, that's not in dispute, it's WHY it was changed that is in dispute.

He says Branca and the estate aren't steering the film. Ok........Nobody ever said the script was changed because the estate is steering the film. They said the settlement was steering the production of the film and forced them to change it. Once again theres no mention of any settlement and Fogelson's comment points to the true reason of the script change being something else entirely.

Fogelson also states the movie was never designed to be a puff piece which also contradicts the reports that the allegations were stripped and the film removed anything controversial and it is going to a puff piece. His statement implies that Lionsgate definitely DOES want to cover the contrevesial subjects.

Screenshot-20251102-163342.png



Also this part of the article backs up my belief that had this reporter asked Branca about the specific rumors and he declined, she would have made note of it. Notice here she notes Branca refused to comment about Paris remarks about the biopic.

Screenshot-20251102-163608.png



So she just exposed herself a shady unethetical journalist.

She never asked branca if the chandlers rumors were true. Either that or she did and she refused to print what he said.

The question is WHY.
 
Last edited:
I don't think a Lionsgate exec would just confirm the reasons for changes one way or the other.

Him saying it's unusual just makes me think it is something legal and not anything to do with normal production.
 
Last edited:
knigofpop said:
postimg.cc

My Gallery — Postimages

postimg.cc postimg.cc

I'm not really sure how image sharing works. I think I created a gallery of screenshots. Please feel free to take a look.

To be clear, I just screenshot the whole article. From what I can read, there is no mention of the film ending at Bad. It repeats tabloid articles about script changes and reshoots but Branca doesn't mention anything about it other than what's been discussed here already.

The article doesn't give any new information or clarification. The link is above to the screenshots but honestly, there really is nothing there to see.
Click to expand...
Thanks a lot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top