Latest on MJJC

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

Xscape2040 said:
Concerning they call this the year of Michael, I think the second part should come along in octobee imo, but maybe thats wishful thinking
Click to expand...
There will absolutely not be a 2nd film within the next year. It hasn't even been greenlit, let alone in pre-production!
 
innuendo141 said:
There will absolutely not be a 2nd film within the next year. It hasn't even been greenlit, let alone in pre-production!
Click to expand...
Are you sure?

“While we’re not yet ready to confirm plans for a second film, I can tell you that the creative team is hard at work making sure that we’re in a position to deliver more Michael soon after we release the first film,” Adam Fogelson, chair of the studio’s Motion Picture Group, told analysts Nov 6th during a call after releasing Lionsgate’s second-quarter financial results.
 
StellaJackson said:
That was the 1994 settlement, which wasnt brought to the studio’s attention until they learned about the Cascio situation. Then it was a case of “what else don’t we know”?
Click to expand...
Right the studio didn't know about the Chandler settlement despite the media throwing it in everyone's face for the last 30 years and it being available online for over 20 years. Sure....

Congrats you are a sheep who blindly believes anything the media "reports" even when its absolute nonsense.

@mods Can we please make a new thread for all the people who want to complain about the biopic and make their doomsday predictions without dragging down the rest of us who are excited?
 
t1mber said:
Are you sure?

“While we’re not yet ready to confirm plans for a second film, I can tell you that the creative team is hard at work making sure that we’re in a position to deliver more Michael soon after we release the first film,” Adam Fogelson, chair of the studio’s Motion Picture Group, told analysts Nov 6th during a call after releasing Lionsgate’s second-quarter financial results.
Click to expand...
"Soon" in movie terms does not mean wrapping and editing a big budget film within 12 months.

When was "Michael" originally supposed to be released again?
 
kelley said:
Right the studio didn't know about the Chandler settlement despite the media throwing it in everyone's face for the last 30 years and it being available online for over 20 years. Sure....

Congrats you are a sheep who blindly believes anything the media "reports" even when its absolute nonsense.

@mods Can we please make a new thread for all the people who want to complain about the biopic and make their doomsday predictions without dragging down the rest of us who are excited?
Click to expand...
They were reassured by the estate that there were no issues with including the allegations. The studio didn’t know about the Cascio allegations either. When they found out about the latter, they wanted to know what else they weren’t being told. That’s why the film had a 12 month delay and major reshoots that removed all scenes relating to it. Unless you can show me a statement where the estate or the studio denied this.
 
Last edited:
StellaJackson said:
They were reassured by the estate that there were no issues with including the allegations. The studio didn’t know about the Cascio allegations either. When they found out about the latter, they wanted to know what else they weren’t being told. That’s why the film had a 12 month delay and major reshoots that removed all scenes relating to it. Unless you can show me a statement where the estate or the studio denied this.
Click to expand...
They never confirmed it either.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

The estate is not actually required to respond and disprove every wild claim the hostile media puts out there. Belloni and the people who started those claims should prove it, not just refer to nameless "sources"
 
Apart from all the glorious highs and genius performances, I hope this movie shows MJ's struggle with Vitiligo. I hope it shows him choosing to have surgery on his nose and why. I hope it shows the aftermath of the Pepsi burn and the consequent painkiller use and eventual addiction (and why).

Some of this movie looks great from the trailor. I particularly like the Joe Jackson "I told you what to think". That gives me hope they will show how brutal he was.

It's concerning that there's no smooth criminal, they way you make me feel, we are the world. But we still don't know what this movie covers or how far in time it actually goes.

I just hope it's real. As much as a biopic can be anyway. Show the genius, but show the flaws. Show the man. Show us Michael Jackson.
 
kelley said:
They never confirmed it either.

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

The estate is not actually required to respond and disprove every wild claim the hostile media puts out there. Belloni and the people who started those claims should prove it, not just refer to nameless "sources"
Click to expand...
This wasn’t another ridiculous claim about Michael though. This was a damaging story about their product. They could have sued if it wasn’t accurate. If it was false, you can be sure the studio would have shot it down and simply said the delay, script rewrite and reshoots were for some other reason. We know for a fact that they shot stuff for the allegations and they won’t be using any of it. We know they can’t use any of it. It’s not difficult to see what happened here, and the reporting lined up.
 
etoile 37 said:
Hum, but the footage could "accidentally" leak...
Click to expand...
I was about to say that myself. I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but let's think about it for a minute: The estate now has the golden opportunity to tell their version of events, but Fuqua, Lionsgate, and co. are oblivious to the terms of the 1994 settlement. It's painfully easy to anonymously leak anything these days...but if no footage is shot, there won't ever be anything to leak. Just sayin.' 😉
 
StellaJackson said:
We know for a fact that they shot stuff for the allegations and they won’t be using any of it. We know they can’t use any of it.
Click to expand...
We don't know that they can't use it, it's a rumor started by a famous MJ hater Belloni.
No one can sue "journalists" when they hide themselves under "one of our sources" (hello Diane Diamond).
Like a hypothesis it seems quite logical but it's not a fact and wasn't confirmed by anyone.
 
I think it's great that the Jackson 5 songs are getting more attention again thanks to the biopic. Many will be surprised at how well Michael could sing even back then.
 
If I was a casual fan or someone who just enjoys cinema, I’d be going in to the movie expecting to hear MITM, Smooth Criminal, Dirty Diana etc. All the classic hits.

That’s what I expect from a Michael Jackson movie.

It’s all good and well saying that they will be in part 2, but it’s not the point. Many will expect this one movie to contain them all.

Even if we don’t get a MITM performance or the Smooth Criminal video, please still include the music.

MITM instrumental is too beautiful to leave out for many of the emotional aspects.

I hope the leaks are not true!
 
People are taking the whole "they can not show any of the allegations" thing too personally. This is a movie we are talking about - There are rumours for every film production. It just so happens that the rumours for this film align with the serious pushback of the release date. It might be true, might be lies. Who knows. That's for us to speculate, surely?

We might know in a few months what actually went down, but for someone to call for a thread for separate "negative" discussions is beyond hilarious. This is a production of The Estate - not Michael Jackson. The Estate who has treated fans with contempt since he died. Why should ANYONE who uses this forum approach this with wild enthusiasm from an artistic standpoint?

People need to relax about how personally they are taking legitimate criticism and concerns of what has been revealed so far. A substantial amount of Queen fans LOATHE Bohemian Rhapsody, so you will also need to get your heads around that because the writing so far is on the wall.
 
Galactus123 said:
But does it say executive produced by Branca and McClain?
Click to expand...
If writing his name (or not) makes the difference between making a good movie and a shitty one...

I know what I'd do.

StellaJackson said:
John Branca is a producer on the film. It’s made with the estate.
Click to expand...
We all know the best films have nothing to do with any estate.

Literally just omit the logo and you're fine.

Can't you see? Bad decisions lead to bad movies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top