Latest on MJJC

The Official 'Michael' Bio-Pic Thread

t1mber said:
As always, it's only a speculation (started by a famous MJ hater) without any proof.
Click to expand...
Which was covered in a Financial Times interview with Branca, which the estate have never denied and we know they shot allegation related footage from the leaked photos from Neverland, despite the settlement clearly saying they can’t. The fact they haven’t denied it, when it’s been pretty damaging, is the biggest tell.
 
Last edited:
I remember seeing a signed document around the time when reshoots were scheduled, where it was stated, going off the top of my head along the lines that the name may not be disclosed and the matter may not be dramatized for motion picture adaptation.
 
mjfp said:
I remember seeing a signed document around the time when reshoots were scheduled, where it was stated, going off the top of my head along the lines that the name may not be disclosed and the matter may not be dramatized for motion picture adaptation.
Click to expand...
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”?
 
And what would have been so devestating to just do it anyway and ask for 'permission' later?
Would they be be sued for any fantasy amount the other party sees fit/enough to use all the profits from the film?
 
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...
Do you know this stuff for a fact or are you just confidently repeating stuff that has already been reported?
 
Xscape2040 said:
And what would have been so devestating to just do it anyway and ask for 'permission' later?
Would they be be sued for any fantasy amount the other party sees fit/enough to use all the profits from the film?
Click to expand...
They legally can not include anything related to the Chandler’s, even with names changed or anything like that. You can’t just ask for permission later in a legally binding settlement. The settlement is very clear and relates to heirs and executors as well. If they had actually gone ahead with it then they could have ended up owing substantial amounts of money that they would have to pay Chandler. It could have even a situation where a judge blocked the release.
 
Last edited:
mjfp said:
I remember seeing a signed document around the time when reshoots were scheduled, where it was stated, going off the top of my head along the lines that the name may not be disclosed and the matter may not be dramatized for motion picture adaptation.
Click to expand...
So John Logan and Graham King who according to their words had spent years of research about Michael, wrote a script one third of which is dedicated to the settlement without reading it and asking the Estate?
 
StellaJackson said:
They legally can not include anything related to the Chandler’s, even with names changed or anything like that. You can’t just ask for permission later in a legally binding settlement. The settlement is very clear and relates to heirs and executors as well. If they had actually gone ahead with it then they could have ended up owing substantial amounts of money that they would have to pay Chandler. It could have even a situation where a judge blocked the release.
Click to expand...
Another reoccurring question that has been asked before is - why would the estate and the heirs then even get involved if they cannot include any of it? Surely Lionsgate alone is not liable for including it, they do not have to respect the settlement, do they?
 
Probably just a guess, but stil throwing it out here.
https://twitter.com/x/status/2020207228163371334
EseaP8y.jpeg
 
Ok, if it could be blocked to even be released thats bad. But if the production team didn't know any better (which seems was the case) and the film was lets say as far from release as right now and the other party would suspect something about the content, could they still block it at this stage?

It seems new accusers can always say anything (inspired by the original ones), but nobody can challenge in an official way the public opinion they are shaping.
But the so called family of love can just threaten and get anything they want(ed)? I understand the timing with them coming along couldnt have been worse.
I just wish the record could be set straight in a big way and not just some niche documentary if at all.
 
If that leaked song list was true, how can they go straight to the Wembley show for the Bad tour without covering a portion of the Bad album and making in the first film?

I’ve heard people say aww they’re saving MITM for the second film etc .
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
If that leaked song list was true, how can they go straight to the Wembley show for the Bad tour without covering a portion of the Bad album and making in the first film?

I’ve heard people say aww they’re saving MITM for the second film etc .
Click to expand...
If there'll be a second movie, the first one could end with Bad and afterwards some text on screen that would read something like "the magic will continue".
 
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...
The year of Michael will start in April, so technically first quarter of 2027 would still cover it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top