Latest on MJJC

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

innuendo141 said:
The 2nd week % drop is the worry right now, but its still very early days. I was quite pleasantly surprised to be in a full (large screen) cinema last night (Biggest screen in Ireland's 3rd biggest city, for context)

It looks like MJ's name and word of mouth will need to do all the heavy lifting.

It's safe to say this has been critically panned, so that's very much going to go against it unfortunately.
Click to expand...
mj&word of mouth exactly,we don't care about media shit
 
innuendo141 said:
Unfortunately, it can be a significant factor.
Click to expand...
sorry again,but i don't think so,in France massive debut with awful reviews but
4/5 for the viewers, certainly more than 2 millions admissions full first week,sorry for m'y bad english i don't use Google translation.
 
Michael Jackson is one of those celebrities who is effectively critic proof as far as I’m concerned. The Broadway show got immense heat for not addressing the allegations, and it’s among the most successful productions currently running. If critics and the media mattered as much as some say, this movie wouldn’t exist at all.
 
beltrano said:
sorry again,but i don't think so,in France massive debut with awful reviews but
4/5 for the viewers, certainly more than 2 millions admissions full first week,sorry for m'y bad english i don't use Google translation.
Click to expand...
Yes those are great numbers, but week 2 is more important - that is what a few of us have been saying all along.

The film isnt even properly released everywhere so we have only scarped the surface of public opinion yet. No one knows yet, but so far the public reviews do not match the critics ones which is a good sign.
 
SmoothCriminal1995 said:
Thinking about the film again, I really wish they'd have picked one era and just told the story of that time.

I enjoyed seeing Michael's art on the biggest stage possible, but at times it didn't feel we the audience were given time to breathe and take in the grand scale of the achievements
Click to expand...

They spent too much time recreating certain music videos instead of illustrating the hysteria that surrounded the Thriller era
 
A movie with good reviews doesn't mean it will be a success in box office. For exemple, the sequel to 28 Years later had good reviews but the box office numbers were not that good. If the public like the movie and enjoyed it, it contributes to the success of the movie
 
Last edited:
It will be a success despite all the flaws and reviews. ( havent seen it yet).

I feel bad for the director, a movie which builds towards the third act which must be cut. Now make a movie out of what remains.

I hope they have a solid plan to tackle all the topics for part 2. Otherwise they could have postponed it and make 1 movie according to the original plan, make it 3.5 hours.
Or maybe two relatively good movies still make more cash than 1 very good one?
 
As a Part I, this movie works. Of course we want it to be a bit better. To show a lot more that got left out (am I crazy or they did not include the Gammy wins at all?). However, if it actually is a first part, I am satisfied with it.

Now, this movie needs to make a lot of money and stay strong for a few weeks. Once that is done, we will get a second part.

And for the second part, they CAN'T f*** it up at all. Do what they need to do about the allegations (sign new contracts, change names, mix both cases into a single one). It NEEDS to be in the next movie. A 'Michael: Part II' without allegations is almost like an admission of guilt.

So Branca, do your homework for a change!
 
Lilloue03 said:
A movie with good reviews doesn't mean it will be a success in box office. For example, the sequel to 28 Years later have good reviews but the box office numbers are not good. It the public like the movie and enjoyed it, it contributes to the success of the movie
Click to expand...
On the other side, movies like Suicide Squad & Thor: Love & Thunder were rated kinda low by both critics & the audience. But they made around 750 million (SS) & 760 million (Thor). A Minecraft Movie got low critics ratings, yet made close to a billion.
 
SmoothGangsta said:
I have no doubt that they will start work on a second part. It's been confirmed by the makers of the film and Jaafar recently said that they are in early production for it.

It's all about how much the first part makes, now.
Click to expand...
Antoine said they are currently working on the story for it and Lionsgate CEOs are talking about it on every investor call. I think it's definitely happening
 
The only thing I really didn't like, while I was watching it was how often they portray Michael as a helpless victim.

I understand they want to convey that Joseph was the villain in the story, but it felt like it came at a cost for Michael's inner strength and determination

With that being said, I'm still excited to see it again in Imax tomorrow, I can't wait to feel the music. If you're on the fence, please go snd see the film in the cinema just for the experience of hearing his music blasted on loud speakers, the adrenaline I felt at times during that first viewing was like an action film.
 
renan_antonio_95 said:
And for the second part, they CAN'T f*** it up at all. Do what they need to do about the allegations (sign new contracts, change names, mix both cases into a single one). It NEEDS to be in the next movie. A 'Michael: Part II' without allegations is almost like an admission of guilt.
Click to expand...
The settlement says that as long as the movie has the Estate/heir's involvement they can't depict the allegations in any form even if they change names, locations, appearances, or even just make mentions of it. Of course if they back away it would mean they can't use MJ's music which would make the biopic quite pointless lol.

Though I don't know if there's anything stopping them from depicting the 2005 trial, maybe they can change it so it happens in the 90's instead?
 
Last edited:
ChanceToDance said:
The settlement says that as long as the movie has the Estate/heir's involvement they can't depict the allegations in any form even if they change names, locations, appearances, or even just make mentions of it. Of course if they back away it would mean they can't use MJ's music which would make the biopic quite pointless lol.

Though I don't know if there's anything stopping them from depicting the 2005 trial, maybe they can change it so it happens in the 90's instead?
Click to expand...
I see, but that's what I think they need to do then. Use the Arvizo family as if it was the same case. You can still have the Neverland police raid and then use the Trial later.

I wish they would replace Jordan with Wade Robson. Let the movie destroy this m*** f***. But I think that's too much to expect. haha
 
Lilloue03 said:
At the end of the movie, it was clearly mentionned that the 2nd part was in production
Click to expand...
Well, to me the phrase "His Story Continues" leaves it open for both the audience's imagination and for a sequel. It's not a cliffhanger, but also not a definitive end to the story, hence the sequel will only be made if enough money is made.

I have seen the film a second time today, and whilst not enjoying it as much the second time (first time was in IMAX), I still don't think it was that bad. Very flawed, yes, but not a disaster.
 
Part 2 is cooked no matter what, if Part 1 which focuses mostly on the hits the public holds nostalgia over, the iconic performances, and takes place before any of the controversy happens is already being slammed for being a whitewash then Part 2 stands no chance, if they depict the allegations and portray MJ as anything but a monstruous pedophile (or at least in a way that paints him very suspiciously) the critics and the general public (non-fans I mean) aren't gonna take it seriously due to the first film's reputation and the involvement of the Estate and the Jackson family. And I don't think the 90's-2000's material is gonna have the same pull to bring people in thanks to MJ's career having diminished throughout that time and the Estate's refusal to acknowledge that MJ still had a music career after the 1980's. Plus it would be too depressing of a movie.

I think they should've truly gone all in on the Bohemian Rhapsody method which is to end the movie before any of the controversial stuff happens; focus on the 60's-80's years, extend the runtime to 60 minutes and make it a more full, in-depth retrospective of Michael's career during that period instead of skimming through things. It would still get flamed for playing it too safe but the biopic already is so I don't think it matters lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: MJ5
So word on the street is Diana Ross pulled out of the movie last minute for reasons unknown, further complicating matters and forcing filmmakers to scrap her already-shot scenes altogether. I believe the actress who was cast as her issued a statement, but I can’t find it at the moment.

Honestly, the fact that the movie is even semi-coherent is something of a miracle. The Chandler issue was the estate’s fault, but Diana deciding to back out is insane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top