Latest on MJJC

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

Jaafar's press tour April 2nd is getting bigger with the Today Show as well.

Between the two shows he's set for, they average 4.5 million viewers. Domingo on SNL, averages approx 5 million an episode.

9.5 million potential viewers, many of which likely do not even know about the film currently. (y)
 
KOPV said:
Jaafar's press tour April 2nd is getting bigger with the Today Show as well.

Between the two shows he's set for, they average 4.5 million viewers. Domingo on SNL, averages approx 5 million an episode.

9.5 million potential viewers, many of which likely do not even know about the film currently. (y)
Click to expand...
This is what I want to see - more Jaafar. He seems like such a class act.
 
dam2040 said:
This is what I want to see - more Jaafar. He seems like such a class act.
Click to expand...
Jaafar quickly becoming one of my favourite Jackson members. I really hope he makes it as an actor so we can cheer him on and watch him in big budget movies for years to come.

It would be nice to have a Jackson family member in Hollywood and be a big name
 
Universal Pictures Germany just posted this on Instagram
HErFfllbAAAkJXL
 
Prometheus77 said:
The movie is only 2 hours long. What do you expect them to do??
Click to expand...
So that means that they can’t briefly touch on a few prominent elements of his life that are usually overlooked? You strike me as the kind of person to be extremely butt hurt about any critiques that might be levied towards this film.
 
Prometheus77 said:
No. But the concert recreations do. The video recreations. Any of the performance scenes. But then again, it's not Michael, it's only Jafaar.
Click to expand...
That's what I mean. If I want to watch MJ at Wembley then I'll watch MJ at Wembley. The real MJ at the real Wembley. I'm not interested in listening to Jafaar sing or dance.

That's where I think people are going wrong. A biopic is not a concert film. They're very very different. A biopic doesn't need any music at all. It's definitely not a good biopic just because there's 3 minutes of a loud stadium scene in the middle.

Prometheus77 said:
I do hope they will take out a page out of Elvis and after this movie bring the Victory tour to the cinemas.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I mentioned before, the Beatles already did that. The post-credits scene was an entire concert.

michaeljackson.nl said:
The movie was split because of the settlement, it’s not subjective but a fact.
Click to expand...
How do you mean? There is NOTHING in any settlement that requires MJs life story to be released in two separate parts.

Prometheus77 said:
It's not like they didn't try. But if the outcome is that they are getting their pants sued off or even worse the movie blocked, it's not worth it.
Click to expand...
Again, if I'm a filmmaker, I can make any movie about any people and any events I like, and nobody can stop me.

All they have to do is include the word "unofficial" in the small print and they can include anything they want. It really is as simple as that.

Blues_Away2023 said:
I do feel that some fans have overestimated this film’s potential success at the box office.
Click to expand...
I think basically people are just naïve and insecure. They like MJ, therefore they think everybody else must like MJ too, therefore the film must be successful, in order to validate their own opinion.

kelley said:
At this point it seems like you want it to fail
Click to expand...
It's almost as if you're completely intolerant to anybody with a different opinion. Or even to those with an open mind.

KOPV said:
Just want to remind people that inflation is real. 'Michael' would have to sell 85%-90% of tickets that 'Bohemian Rhapsody' did to reach $1 billion today.
Click to expand...
Nah, because they'll just adjust for inflation.

It's why comparing movies based on $ is ALWAYS STUPID. If you did want to know which movie had the biggest audience, you'd report how many PEOPLE saw the movie (ie the number of tickets sold). But movie studios just care about profit margins, and in claiming they have biggerest movie evah, so they choose to report in meaningless dollars, and the public is stupid so they go along with it.
 
R1chard said:
It's almost as if you're completely intolerant to anybody with a different opinion. Or even to those with an open mind.
Click to expand...
Says the person who thinks deluxe box sets are stupid and the people who buy them are wasting their money and you also complain about people who don't care about audiophile sound/video quality and things like SACDs. You should take your own advice. :ROFLMAO:
 
R1chard said:
That's where I think people are going wrong. A biopic is not a concert film. They're very very different. A biopic doesn't need any music at all. It's definitely not a good biopic just because there's 3 minutes of a loud stadium scene in the middle.
Click to expand...
A biopic about a musician with zero of his music makes zero sense. Those are the unofficial ones. So they have to include some of it. And that some should look great. No one is talking about a concert film.


R1chard said:
Again, if I'm a filmmaker, I can make any movie about any people and any events I like, and nobody can stop me.

All they have to do is include the word "unofficial" in the small print and they can include anything they want. It really is as simple as that.
Click to expand...

What is in the settlement is that not Jackson, his heirs, anyone related or connected to him can retell the story of the accusation of '93. The estate can not make a movie that touches this accusation and settlement, unless they wanna risk to get sued. So no, slapping an "unofficial" tag on it won't save them. It is their movie. And they are forbidden to do that per the settlement. Someone entirely unrelated would have to produce it, without any involvement or connection to the estate or Michael. You could make that movie. The estate can't.
 
james283126 said:
So that means that they can’t briefly touch on a few prominent elements of his life that are usually overlooked? You strike me as the kind of person to be extremely butt hurt about any critiques that might be levied towards this film.
Click to expand...
You know nothing about me. So stfu. They have to tell a story. They can't cram every unrelated and irrelevant bit and piece of performance and stop along the way into it, just because some fans irrationally demand it. If it bogs down the story, it has no real place.
 
Last edited:
Personally I dont care how much the movie makes in its first weekend. Doesn't matter if it makes $100 or $100 million, as long as it's a GOOD MOVIE (and not just 100% fluff)

My main concern is that Paris' prediction about the movie being nothing but fan-pandering propaganda is true. This movie (and especially the sequel, if there is one), above all else, has to be a good film that pleases critics/audeinces and not just die-hard fans like us. It needs to tell the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it may be for some of y'all.

Tons of critics automatically dismissed the Broadway show just on the grounds that it barely addressed the allegations. It was like the actual show itself didnt matter, it was just labelled MJ propaganda from the start. These films CAN'T repeat that.
 
One thing I hope the film doesn’t do is “normalise” Michael’s early adulthood so that the general audience can relate to him more. In many people’s minds this would solidify the idea that Michael became ‘weird’ in the late ‘80s, though the truth was that he had been that way for many years.

They’re including Michael reading Peter Pan to Bubbles, but I wonder if the filmmakers will see conversations with mannequins as going a step too far… or perhaps Michael wandering the streets at night to find a friend
 
I forgot to add: I wonder which, if any, of the children in Michael’s life will appear here. Is it too risky to include any of them?

This period sees Michael write State of Shock with a young friend called Randy Hansen, whilst Emmanuel Lewis was famously by his side for much of 1984. Their absence would likewise place Michael’s ‘interest’ in children as something that developed in the late ‘80s, and not earlier
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top