The Jacksons' relationship with Michael

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
"I wonder why nun of the family had anything to do with this movie & ive always wanted to know why the movie stopped in 1984 & it was made in 92. Its like 7years that goes by & they could've went up to 2300jackson st at least"

1. What nun of the family?

Oh, I see what you mean with the rest of the post. I suppose that was because it was based on KJ's book and her book didn't go as far as 2300.
 

Liberian Man

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
190
Points
0
"I wonder why nun of the family had anything to do with this movie & ive always wanted to know why the movie stopped in 1984 & it was made in 92. Its like 7years that goes by & they could've went up to 2300jackson st at least"

1. What nun of the family?

Oh, I see what you mean with the rest of the post. I suppose that was because it was based on KJ's book and her book didn't go as far as 2300.
She published that book in 1990. 2300 came out in 89,so she was definitely past the bad era. I haven't read the book & does anyone kno what difference between the book is from the movie other than the errors they made
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
I wonder why nun of the family had anything to do with this movie & ive always wanted to know why the movie stopped in 1984 & it was made in 92. Its like 7years that goes by & they could've went up to 2300jackson st at least
That's not correct about NONE of the family being involved. Michael approved of it saying that whoever played Katherine had to be beautiful. Marlon and Jackie commented on it. Jermaine was a producer. His kid was in it. Katherine and Joseph visited the set often.
It also ends on a high note with all 6 brothers on stage on the Victory Tour.

What happens to the family after 1984? Michael goes on to do Captain EO, makes Bad, goes on tour. Nothing concerning the family as a whole.

It's also based on things in Moonwalker as well as their old interviews etc. from Motown days.
 

Liberian Man

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
190
Points
0
That's not correct about NONE of the family being involved. Michael approved of it saying that whoever played Katherine had to be beautiful. Marlon and Jackie commented on it. Jermaine was a producer. His kid was in it. Katherine and Joseph visited the set often.
It also ends on a high note with all 6 brothers on stage on the Victory Tour.

What happens to the family after 1984? Michael goes on to do Captain EO, makes Bad, goes on tour. Nothing concerning the family as a whole.

It's also based on things in Moonwalker as well as their old interviews etc. from Motown days.
Lol at "nun/none" but all of what they did didnt really use thier input. Yea michael approved angela bassett but Margaret did most of the wrk,jermaine only has a credit & yea they casted him & hazel's son. Mrs jackson & joe where at everything if you think about it,remember mj told john landis to kick joe off the set,mrs jackson was even on the set of ghost etc.. but the wiz,the entire destiny,truimph & off the wall era was skipped,no mention of Janets career,the reason why jackie wasn't on the victory tour,3t...they were in "can you feel it" so they were around,no grammys etc...like i said they really didnt put much depth in this movie. For one it spent too much time on the 1st half of joe & mrs jackson meeting,i understand they have to show that but they couldve used that time to focus more on areas untouched. They shouldve read mjs bio & you know added scenes where like he said he wasn't happy with the motown performance until a boy asked him how he'd learn to dance like that & fred astire finally had called him after joe had promised him that they would meet. & idk how you can say nothing else happend,michael announced on the victory tour that he was leaving,the skin thing wasn't important then up until the dangerous era so but the reason why mj & jermaine not in the torture video...i could go on & on but
Thats just my inputs about it
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
^^well, besides the beautiful remark, Michael also made it clear he didn't want it to be about him. As it was, it's mainly about him, Joseph and Katherine.
If you add in all the stuff you mentioned, it would be a 12 hour movie, not 6.

It's a rags to riches story. Poor family makes good and how they did it. The American dream.

I love the movie.
 

Liberian Man

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
190
Points
0
^^well, besides the beautiful remark, Michael also made it clear he didn't want it to be about him. As it was, it's mainly about him, Joseph and Katherine.
If you add in all the stuff you mentioned, it would be a 12 hour movie, not 6.

It's a rags to riches story. Poor family makes good and how they did it. The American dream.

I love the movie.
Smh & the opportunities they had to do part 2 is...smh i can't even speak on it. Idk how it even got the greenlight. I can say it messed up flexs career as well. Haven't seen him since. Idk why vh1 did that & certain channels only play it because that is the only material they can get other than the 30th & American dream. They used to show Bucharest sooooo much bk in the day. Vh1 doesn't do any mj specials like they used to.smh
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
That's not correct about NONE of the family being involved. Michael approved of it saying that whoever played Katherine had to be beautiful. Marlon and Jackie commented on it. Jermaine was a producer. His kid was in it. Katherine and Joseph visited the set often.
It also ends on a high note with all 6 brothers on stage on the Victory Tour.

What happens to the family after 1984? Michael goes on to do Captain EO, makes Bad, goes on tour. Nothing concerning the family as a whole.

It's also based on things in Moonwalker as well as their old interviews etc. from Motown days.

Barbee, can I just correct that Jermaine's name was put there as producer but he wasn't really producer. It is all in Margarets book how things went on.

Also, that for clearing out what that nun meant in Liberian man post:) I was thinking nun as a member of a religious community of women type of thing:)
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
Sure. And true that Margaret did all the work.
She did a great job too.
Suzanne must have been pretty involved as well-she gave Berry and herself good parts. It really recreates the era.
 

Liberian Man

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
190
Points
0
The Flex movie is pure trash, not part 2. Shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath.
:)
Kmsl thats why i couldnt speak on it,it taste like dirt on my tongue! But for all intensive purposes it was intended to finish where American dream left off unfortunately
 

Liberian Man

Proud Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Messages
190
Points
0
Sure. And true that Margaret did all the work.
She did a great job too.
Suzanne must have been pretty involved as well-she gave Berry and herself good parts. It really recreates the era.
Lol 1thing for sure,the casting was horrible. 1st generation was ok,then as they got older it just focused on michaels character. Marlon shouldve been played by the guy who played jackie & vice versa his role. Randy didnt look anything like randy,tito was ok,2nd jermaine?? Really though? Everyone else matched perfectly to a tee!
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13,016
Points
83
It is obvious the those who made the Flex movie had little to know pre understanding of Michael prior to making the movie.. Litterally laughable I watched it when it aired and it was like a literal 'spoof' to me.. The fact they reached out to people like Jetzi and me for footage tells me they did not do research.

Thow It would be great IF a film is done to have fan input... Both Jetzi and I refused to share BTW
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
To LM: Re casting: I Agree with switching those 2 characters and Randy was totally miscast. That guy looked 10 yrs. older than everybody else.

I also didn't like the kid playing pre-teen Michael. Liked his acting, but thought Brandon Adams should have played it.
Jason Weaver (?) looked too chunky. I think he had to do some of his own singing, so that might have something to do with casting.

Other than that, all the casting, sets and costumes were perfect.

KOPV: they wanted footage from you guys? Poor VH1. They should be so ashamed. I can't believe they still run that movie.
 

HIStory

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
6
Points
0
I liked Jason Weaver in it. I think he did a good job.

The Flex Alexender movie seemed more like a bad parody than anything else.
 

Bubs

Proud Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2012
Messages
7,856
Points
0
Fair play to all who watched the whole Flex movie, I could watch about 15 minutes then I had enough of it:)
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13,016
Points
83
To LM: Re casting: I Agree with switching those 2 characters and Randy was totally miscast. That guy looked 10 yrs. older than everybody else.

I also didn't like the kid playing pre-teen Michael. Liked his acting, but thought Brandon Adams should have played it.
Jason Weaver (?) looked too chunky. I think he had to do some of his own singing, so that might have something to do with casting.

Other than that, all the casting, sets and costumes were perfect.

KOPV: they wanted footage from you guys? Poor VH1. They should be so ashamed. I can't believe they still run that movie.

SMH yes, keeping in mind it was before youtube.. They reached out to us (i'm not sure who else) for footage to study... I was really into collecting what was then 'rare' footage.. from my understanding they did very little studying themselves (well aside from the obvious flaws in the movie) but more so reach out to people that had done the studying (authors etc ) and tried getting footage from fans.
 

euadoropao

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
8
Points
0
The Jacksons: MJ's worst enemies

I haven't posted in about 6 years. During those 6 years, I kinda of stopped being a fan. The reason? The Jacksons turned me off. I remember, right after Michael died, only a handful could see through them and their schemes. As far as I can remember, it was me, elusive moonwalker and soundmind. We tried in vain to open the fans' eyes to them and, after a while, I just turned my back on the whole issue.
After 6 years here I am, and things are exactly the same way: the Jacksons (mainly our beloved Randy) come up with all kinds of schemes and the fans look to the side.
Remember the This Is It tour and all the negative rumours about Michael when it was announced? They were all coming from Joe Jackson and pal Leonard Rowe who, as soon as they realized that they weren't getting a piece of the pie, got their revenge.
Remember when Randy didn't get his way and thus passed the rumour to the press that Michael had a damaged liver due to years of alcoholism and drug problems?
Remember when Joe planted the rumour that Michael was getting drugs from Elvis' doctor? Remember when 15 minutes after Michael was pronounced death Brian Oxman (Joe's lawyer) called Michael a drug addict?

And they come up with schemes every day to get Michael's and the fans' money. Remember when they set up a fake charity and told fans they had to donate to it so they could get tickets for whatever? And only the ones who donated more money would get them! I'm not even going to talk about Randy's ever obvious schemes.

So, after all of this, how come the fans still adore the happy family?
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
Re: The Jacksons: MJ's worst enemies

^^You kinda quit being a Michael Jackson fan because of certain actions of a few family members?
I might be angry or sometimes disgusted at certain things, but it doesn't change my feelings about their music or especially Michael.

I don't especially like how a few of them turned out, but that doesn't change how I felt about them when they were kids.

I don't always approve of the plans they come up with, but then I don't donate money either.
 

euadoropao

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
8
Points
0
What about Stacy Brown's relationship with Rebbie? Just last year she honoured him. Remember when she claimed he was the family's voice? Her husband encouraged Stacy to write the book with Bob Jones.

And yet, the fans still defend the family. It's beyond me.
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
What about Stacy Brown's relationship with Rebbie? Just last year she honoured him. Remember when she claimed he was the family's voice? Her husband encouraged Stacy to write the book with Bob Jones.

And yet, the fans still defend the family. It's beyond me.
When and why did Rebbie honor Stacy Brown? The only time I ever hear about Brown is when he needs money and writes another hit piece and the whole forum trashes him. As they should.

Did something specific happen recently where you're seeing a defense of the whole family? I guess I'm not understanding what you are saying.
 

Psychoniff

Proud Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2015
Messages
933
Points
0
To LM: Re casting: I Agree with switching those 2 characters and Randy was totally miscast. That guy looked 10 yrs. older than everybody else.

I also didn't like the kid playing pre-teen Michael. Liked his acting, but thought Brandon Adams should have played it.
Jason Weaver (?) looked too chunky. I think he had to do some of his own singing, so that might have something to do with casting.

Other than that, all the casting, sets and costumes were perfect.

KOPV: they wanted footage from you guys? Poor VH1. They should be so ashamed. I can't believe they still run that movie.


Jason Weaver did a phenomenal job, and he looked like pre-teen MJ too. Brandon (no pun intended) would have been better casted as pre-teen Marlon instead.
 

KOPV

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
13,016
Points
83
no one is ever going to look exactly like Mike... If we can complain about Jason Weaver as a young MJ we will never be happy with anyone playing MJ. He did a great job considering he was NOT Michael.. his voice was pretty good too!
 

barbee0715

Proud Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
6,940
Points
63
Location
Texas, USA
no one is ever going to look exactly like Mike... If we can complain about Jason Weaver as a young MJ we will never be happy with anyone playing MJ. He did a great job considering he was NOT Michael.. his voice was pretty good too!
Hmm-maybe I should have worded that differently. I complained about Jason's casting, but I didn't complain about the kid playing little Michael or Wylie. And I did say I liked Jason's acting-and yes, he did a phenomenal job and I'm sure they hired him because he can really sing!!! Don't think "Kansas City" is lip synced. And Jason can really dance too.

I was just too used to seeing the real Michael in person as a kid, and I think Jason looks twice his size-but that's OK-it certainly doesn't ruin my love for that movie-although I finally bought it, I never miss the chance to watch it on TV. I love the sets, costumes, choreography-and I've always thought the casting of Berry, Diana, Suzanne, Katherine and Joseph were absolutely perfect.

I would have changed some of the brothers out-mainly the adult Randy-but actually, it's probably one of the best biopics I've ever seen.

Edit to add-just went back in this thread and it's full of my posts raving about how great this movie is-so guess I'm repeating myself. :)
 
Top