Latest on MJJC

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

For those who have intell on JC, did he or his family have any involvement in how the movie script was altered?

Its hard to find the official narrative on this credible, that an entire movie was mindlessly written and shot centred around the 93 allegations, and then everyone/someone suddenly remembered that JC can't be mentioned. That's something that would have been picked up when the final script was reviewed, the script itself would have required thorough research, add to this that written works usually require a level of legal clearance. As incompetent as the Estate may be, there were experienced movie people involved in this too, that they were all this collectively stupid is highly questionable. Someone must know the truth about this, and I'm surprised it hasn't been hinted at yet.
 
Last edited:
dukenukem said:
The last show of the Dangerous Tour immediately before the allegations hit...cliffhanger-style.
In fact, the final scene might be the backstage of the DWT when MJ first learned of the allegations. The very last lines might be something to the effect of, "Sir, there's something quite alarming that you need to be aware of," to which MJ might reply, "Can't it wait?" only to be met with a very flat, solemn, "No." *Dramatic zoom out as we see Michael's entourage speaking to him, but we can't make out the words...as Michael appears more and more visibly distressed, eventually clutching his chest and then slowly collapsing to the floor* *Soft fade to credits while a song such as 'Music & Me' begins to play.*
Click to expand...
You know, I was thinking it exactly in exactly that way!! They really could end it with a scene when Michael finds out about the accusations without directly mentioning them. Or, if they're really sure about the movie's success they could just show a trailer for the second movie (in cinemas only, no Internet) like it was done with Back to Future 2 and 3.
 
t1mber said:
You know, I was thinking it exactly in exactly that way!! They really could end it with a scene when Michael finds out about the accusations without directly mentioning them. Or, if they're really sure about the movie's success they could just show a trailer for the second movie (in cinemas only, no Internet) like it was done with Back to Future 2 and 3.
Click to expand...
I certainly find it plausible that one way to get round the allegations would be to make the first movie pre-allegations content, and to make the second movie post allegations content, and in that way they skip the contents of the allegation period itself but can address it through the build-up and fallout/effect of it. This way they can keep the allegations as the pivotal turning point in MJs narrative without having to directly reference JC and family.

I'm not sure how satisfying this would be to watch as a viewer/fan though. But it looks like a second movie is highly likely, and they certainly cannot sidestep the controversial topic of the 93 allegation post the success of the Bad era.

Personally, I need some sense of a resolution at the end of a movie, I find cliff hangers are overly used as a lazy story telling device, so I'd prefer the biopic not to end on an obvious cliffhanger.
 
Last edited:
jasmine.uddin said:
that an entire movie was mindlessly written and shot centred around the 93 allegations
Click to expand...
As I recall, the person who claimed that the movie was centered around the allegations was Dan Reed. Do we now consider Dan Reed a credible source of information? Of course he would want a Michael Jackson movie to be all about the allegations, as if that was the most important thing about him. I don't really believe Dan Reed's claims that the movie was ever centered around the allegations, why would the Estate want to do that? Only Dan Reed would want that! Knowing the Estate, the original script most likely focused on Michael's rise as the King of Pop, with the allegations being just one of many moments in Michael's life, not the big thing that Dan Reed made them out to be.
 
etoile 37 said:
As I recall, the person who claimed that the movie was centered around the allegations was Dan Reed. Do we now consider Dan Reed a credible source of information? Of course he would want a Michael Jackson movie to be all about the allegations, as if that was the most important thing about him. I don't really believe Dan Reed's claims that the movie was ever centered around the allegations, why would the Estate want to do that? Only Dan Reed would want that! Knowing the Estate, the original script most likely focused on Michael's rise as the King of Pop, with the allegations being just one of many moments in Michael's life, not the big thing that Dan Reed made them out to be.
Click to expand...
I didn't get my information from DR, I think I heard it from an MJCast episode, that the movie was built around the allegations as the spine of the movie, I particularly remember the word 'spine'. And even if this is not wholly accurate, it doesn't alter the fact that they wrote and shot stuff which then had to be significantly changed due to the settlement with JC, directly impacting the cost and release and possibly even the timeline of the movie. It seems like a highly irresponsible oversight from all those involved and somewhat unfathomable.
 
Last edited:
The movie in April won't be about it, though. Right? So I do not think it fits here.

jasmine.uddin said:
Considering that the initial draft of the script and movie was centered around the 93 allegations, I don't see how mention of JC and Co is suddenly an irrelevant point of discussion here.
Click to expand...
 
MJ5 said:
The movie in April won't be about it, though. Right? So I do not think it fits here.
Click to expand...
So should we just discount that the movie that will be released did pertain to these things, and has been edited due to these very things. Should we discount that the JC settlement had any bearing on the movie to be released in April? I'm not sure that it can be so neatly separated.
 
t1mber said:
You know, I was thinking it exactly in exactly that way!! They really could end it with a scene when Michael finds out about the accusations without directly mentioning them. Or, if they're really sure about the movie's success they could just show a trailer for the second movie (in cinemas only, no Internet) like it was done with Back to Future 2 and 3.
Click to expand...
Well, when BTTF 2&3 were released, camera phones and the internet(at least as we know it) didn't exist. So in this day and age, I doubt they would include any theater-only exclusives - especially at the end of the movie, where nobody is going to care about being possibly ejected from the premises for recording video.
kelley said:
It's a liability because if we had released stuff we have 2 years ago, we would not some of the info we have now. Ever hear the expression "don't jump the gun"? Sometimes it's better to wait, observe, and keep your mouth shut.
Click to expand...
Then the best thing to do is just remain completely silent. The whole Candace Owens-style, "I've got this top-secret info that changes everything, but my lips need to remain sealed" never benefits anyone, and only erodes one's own credibility and integrity.
kelley said:
And the reason I like to correct the false information is because a lot of it was spread by Michael's enemies. And that has helped them push a lot of false narratives and distract from information that provides proper context. For example: Ray Chandler and Sneddon and prosecutors are the one who said he fled to europe during the trial. It's not true. He was photographed skiing here in America by the paparazzi during the trial. And I've heard whispers that he called the paps himself, but can't confirm that. They knew he hadn't left the country. They only said that explain why they refused to subpoena him. And also because they want to make it look like he's in danger from the fans.
Click to expand...
That sounds quite compelling, but in this case(as I alluded to earlier), you also have to ask the question: If he's in the states, what was stopping him from contacting Mesereau and becoming the crowned jewel of defense witnesses? Or why didn't Mesereau try to subpoena him? My point is that a lot of these items can be argued both ways, so speculation and conjecture is oftentimes futile.
 
jasmine.uddin said:
So should we just discount that the movie that will be released did pertain to these things, and has been edited due to these very things. Should we discount that the JC settlement had any bearing on the movie to be released in April? I'm not sure that it can be so neatly separated.
Click to expand...
Given the fact that this will be far from the initial vision of the writers and the director, I think it's a colossal part of the discussion (without needing to veer off into the validity of the claims themselves - or the mental suggestions I saw here that Chandler could come clean as the film is released).

The film we will be seeing will be a bastardised and comprimised version of the original artistic vision, and all sources point to the fact that it's because of the Chandler settlement.
 
Galactus123 said:
It could be because it might have taken too much time. Was Smooth Criminal filmed mainly as a scene for the movie or was is filmed earlier?
Click to expand...
If they talk about Moonwalker, less time to downplay certain songs on the album or get irrelevant celebrities on screen!
 
The movie never was, nor should have been CENTERED around the allegations.
Michael was so much more than those false allegations.
If anything the third act, was centered around the allegations.
The third act in a movie is very typically the point, where the crisis hits (the big bad is coming up) and everything rises to an eventual resolution.
The movie itself was and should have always been built around MJ & his art & work.
The allegations are the “big bad”, the antagonist, of the movie.
Michael is the protagonist, he’s the hero of the film, so to speak.

Most importantly, IMO:
The false allegations are a dark chapter of his life, but they don’t define him.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top