Latest on MJJC

The Official 'Michael' Bio-Pic Thread

Jackears said:
They showed Frank Di Leo with his cigar but nothing else. Since Branca helped with firing Joseph, they could have introduced Frank as a new manager somehow. Because it just looked like Branca did everything and was the only figure around Michael's new team.
Click to expand...
I thought that was frank!
 
kelley said:
what sparked the jump on bohemian rhapsody's 10th weekend?
Click to expand...
Japan released late and added big numbers in later weeks (it'll be the same with Michael + South Korea).
Europe (especially the UK & Italy) had exceptional word of mouth (same with Michael, in France first of all).
Music-driven films tend to have slow declines vs superhero films.
 
MJ5 said:
deadline.com

'Michael' Movie Director Talks Reshoots And Controversies: Q&A

'Michael' director Antoine Fuqua talks about the challenges in making the Michael Jackson biopic, the reshoots and an upcoming sequel.
deadline.com deadline.com

Would love to see the Directors Cut. Ending at 1994/1995
Click to expand...
I think it's the first time when they officially confirmed the reason of re-shooting. What we were thinking about as a rumor was the real reason. I'm really shocked.
 
@kelley Its confirmed now straight from the horses mouth it was the allegations causing the re-shoots.

DEADLINE: In terms of everything that happened where you initially shot the film, and then the whole upending between the dramatized accuser and the estate… Has there ever been a challenging film such as this in your career?
FUQUA: All movies have different challenges, but this one was really unique. It was an extra punch in the gut for me at that moment, because I was in the exact same situation with Emancipation. I was literally handing in the director’s cut when Will [Smith] slapped Chris [Rock]. I was floored and devastated and knew what that meant overall and that the movie would be written off. This was a similar situation, because I was handing in the director’s cut and I get this call. That was a tough day.

DEADLINE: It’s clear the groundwork you’ve laid in Michael in regards to telling the story in a sequel about the accusations brought against him. The fact that it wasn’t addressed in Part 1, did that weigh heavy on your mind and the studio’s?

FUQUA: It definitely did for a while, because we had to rethink everything. That was a tough period. Graham, [screenwriter] John Logan and I banged our heads around. We had a lot of meetings. But we clicked into it at the same time: The movie is called Michael so you have to focus on Michael. Unless you can truly take your time, let’s go back to the beginning and really show people who he was on the stage. He’s a superhero on the stage. Just like a human being, movies have the power of empathy to just say this is a human being. No one is perfect. It was important to take the audience through a process of how do you get to wherever it’s going to go in a second movie; for people to get a bigger idea of his personality and what shaped him.

What we realized, if you start there, some people who don’t know Michael, it’s out of context. His arc was so extreme. It was important for us to go back, and give them a journey to go on with Michael. There was also a certain amount of abuse he was always dealing with emotionally and physically in that household with his father. If you don’t do that, you won’t understand him and where the story goes. We planted the seeds: He starts talking to John Branca about the pills, ‘These pills are making me sleepy and the doctor is saying you gotta take these pills’; that’s what killed him. So, it was set up along the way that these are the things that led to wherever it’s going to go which we all know. That’s part of the tension you feel, because you know it didn’t end well, unfortunately.

DEADLINE: How long did it take John Logan to write the additional scenes?
FUQUA: I can’t remember the exact amount. We were writing while we were shooting. As we were shooting, we were discovering things. We had the structure down. Once we had that, Graham and I would go through that, then we’d sit with John. It was a lot of digging and going back at scenes we had before.
DEADLINE: You have a third of footage that can go into the potential sequel?
FUQUA: Absolutely.

deadline.com

'Michael' Movie Director Talks Reshoots And Controversies: Q&A

'Michael' director Antoine Fuqua talks about the challenges in making the Michael Jackson biopic, the reshoots and an upcoming sequel.
deadline.com deadline.com
 
Lightbringer said:
@kelley Its confirmed now straight from the horses mouth it was the allegations causing the re-shoots.

DEADLINE: In terms of everything that happened where you initially shot the film, and then the whole upending between the dramatized accuser and the estate… Has there ever been a challenging film such as this in your career?
FUQUA: All movies have different challenges, but this one was really unique. It was an extra punch in the gut for me at that moment, because I was in the exact same situation with Emancipation. I was literally handing in the director’s cut when Will [Smith] slapped Chris [Rock]. I was floored and devastated and knew what that meant overall and that the movie would be written off. This was a similar situation, because I was handing in the director’s cut and I get this call. That was a tough day.

DEADLINE: It’s clear the groundwork you’ve laid in Michael in regards to telling the story in a sequel about the accusations brought against him. The fact that it wasn’t addressed in Part 1, did that weigh heavy on your mind and the studio’s?
Click to expand...
But this part contradicts the whole claim. They said they laid the groundwork to tell the story about the allegations in part 2! But how is that possible if the settlement forbids it??

Belloni also said that those scenes could be used in a part 2 it makes no sense!

If the settlement prevented them from talking about in part 1 they are prevented from talking about it in part 2 as well!


Lightbringer said:
FUQUA: It definitely did for a while, because we had to rethink everything. That was a tough period. Graham, [screenwriter] John Logan and I banged our heads around. We had a lot of meetings. But we clicked into it at the same time: The movie is called Michael so you have to focus on Michael. Unless you can truly take your time, let’s go back to the beginning and really show people who he was on the stage. He’s a superhero on the stage. Just like a human being, movies have the power of empathy to just say this is a human being. No one is perfect. It was important to take the audience through a process of how do you get to wherever it’s going to go in a second movie; for people to get a bigger idea of his personality and what shaped him.
Click to expand...
here Fuqua also implies that the allegations may be addressed in part 2.

Lightbringer said:
What we realized, if you start there, some people who don’t know Michael, it’s out of context. His arc was so extreme. It was important for us to go back, and give them a journey to go on with Michael. There was also a certain amount of abuse he was always dealing with emotionally and physically in that household with his father. If you don’t do that, you won’t understand him and where the story goes. We planted the seeds: He starts talking to John Branca about the pills, ‘These pills are making me sleepy and the doctor is saying you gotta take these pills’; that’s what killed him. So, it was set up along the way that these are the things that led to wherever it’s going to go which we all know. That’s part of the tension you feel, because you know it didn’t end well, unfortunately.

DEADLINE: How long did it take John Logan to write the additional scenes?
FUQUA: I can’t remember the exact amount. We were writing while we were shooting. As we were shooting, we were discovering things. We had the structure down. Once we had that, Graham and I would go through that, then we’d sit with John. It was a lot of digging and going back at scenes we had before.
DEADLINE: You have a third of footage that can go into the potential sequel?
FUQUA: Absolutely.

deadline.com

'Michael' Movie Director Talks Reshoots And Controversies: Q&A

'Michael' director Antoine Fuqua talks about the challenges in making the Michael Jackson biopic, the reshoots and an upcoming sequel.
deadline.com deadline.com
Click to expand...
 
kelley said:
But this part contradicts the whole claim. They said they laid the groundwork to tell the story about the allegations in part 2! But how is that possible if the settlement forbids it??

Belloni also said that those scenes could be used in a part 2 it makes no sense!

If the settlement prevented them from talking about in part 1 they are prevented from talking about it in part 2 as well!

here Fuqua also implies that the allegations may be addressed in part 2.
Click to expand...
Its deadline saying that, not Fuqua.

And they could talk about the 2005 trial as thats not forbidden in any way. Some of the footage could possibly be applied to the 2005 trial as well as the 1993 case was part of it and June testified etc.

Also, you should trust the Fuquas own words over The Pucks reporter.

I know you invested a lot of pride in refusing to admit this is what happened, but I would suggest you just accept it to be true now :)

Btw, does it mean that the film was supposed to be 3 hours before the allegations was cut out of it? "The 3rd act" or were they going to cram in the allegations in a 2 hour movie? Of course all you want to do now is for the entire 4 hour directors cut to be leaked in HD....

Or better yet - with the blockbuster money part 1 will make - maybe the estate will decide to **** THE SETTLEMENT and take whatever penalty or trial that would come with breaching it? ;) If they breach the settlement, it would still I assume take years of court room proceedings to get anywhere near shutting down the film. And by then it will be out everywhere already. If its just a cash fine, then why dont the estate just take the cash made from part 1 to pay that?

It would release the Chandlers from their silence as well so they could film their own drama film about everything like with EVANstory.... Dan Greed could join up with them and record Leaving Neverland 4 :D At this point it would not matter, the fuckbag would not get anywhere with that even if he could try to find Jordy for a 100th time...
 
Last edited:
Lightbringer said:
Its deadline saying that, not Fuqua.
Click to expand...
deadline is far from pro-mj so why would the say that? They must have gotten it from somewhere. The last thing the media wants is for the allegations to be addressed in the sequel.

Lightbringer said:
And they could talk about the 2005 trial as thats not forbidden in any way. Some of the footage could possibly be applied to the 2005 trial as well as the 1993 case was part of it and June testified etc.

Also, you should trust the Fuquas own words over The Pucks reporter.

I know you invested a lot of pride in refusing to admit this is what happened, but I would suggest you just accept it to be true now :)

Btw, does it mean that the film was supposed to be 3 hours before the allegations was cut out of it? "The 3rd act" or were they going to cram in the allegations in a 2 hour movie? Of course all you want to do now is for the entire 4 hour directors cut to be leaked in HD....

Or better yet - with the blockbuster money part 1 will make - maybe the estate will decide to **** THE SETTLEMENT and take whatever penalty or trial that would come with breaching it? ;) If they breach the settlement, it would still I assume take years of court room proceedings to get anywhere near shutting down the film. And by then it will be out everywhere already. If its just a cash fine, then why dont the estate just take the cash made from part 1 to pay that?
Click to expand...
I invested nothing actually. And it has nothing to do with my pride and everything to do with the fact that we still haven't gotten a straightforward answer.
Lightbringer said:
It would release the Chandlers from their silence as well so they could film their own drama film about everything like with EVANstory.... Dan Greed could join up with them and record Leaving Neverland 4 :D At this point it would not matter, the fuckbag would not get anywhere with that even if he could try to find Jordy for a 100th time...
Click to expand...
Trust me when I say, Jordan will never repeat his allegations publicly. Maybe he won't ever tell the truth. But he's not going to lie about it again. There's way too many people in his life who know the truth about him. I doubt he would risk even trying to repeat those lies. The people in his life protect him because they believe he is a victim of Evan's abuse and manipulation. They feel sympathy for him. But all that would go out the window if he were to start pretending to be victim again for the cameras.
 
Its crazy that all of it was true.
The questions remains now: Do they intend to mention the allegations at all in part 2 and if yes, to what extent/dialogue can it be done. Also what shots and can be used, and what footage cant be used at all.
 
Last edited:
kelley said:
deadline is far from pro-mj so why would the say that? They must have gotten it from somewhere. The last thing the media wants is for the allegations to be addressed in the sequel.


I invested nothing actually. And it has nothing to do with my pride and everything to do with the fact that we still haven't gotten a straightforward answer.

Trust me when I say, Jordan will never repeat his allegations publicly. Maybe he won't ever tell the truth. But he's not going to lie about it again. There's way too many people in his life who know the truth about him. I doubt he would risk even trying to repeat those lies. The people in his life protect him because they believe he is a victim of Evan's abuse and manipulation. They feel sympathy for him. But all that would go out the window if he were to start pretending to be victim again for the cameras.
Click to expand...
U are so disgusting and like u are obsessed
 
Unless the Estate and their lawyers are trawling through the 1994 agreement looking for a loophole or way around the issue regarding depicting the abuse allegations, how on earth could any Michael sequel be made?

The Estate would need to be 100% severed with regards to production, which could be hard for them to do as they would not have any control over the script and how it would play out on screen. I'm sure a deal could be reached with the allowing of music, likeness etc. to be used in the film. We know the Estate charge an arm and a leg for use of music.

I truly believe there is an amazing film to be made about MJ covering Bad to 1997 (at least). I still have to hand it to the Estate for originally greenlighting the story to include the 1993 allegations and it's clear as day the film was re-written while it was being shot because the "plot" is paper thin.

It would be amazing for the directors cut of the original screenplay to "leak". Stranger things have happened. The Schumacher Cut of Batman Forever is out there in certain people's hands and has been shown at secret fan events.
 
Last edited:
Anyone saw it in 4dx or d-box, worth it?

I saw it in imax laser (smaller aspect ratio than full imax, only option in my country) and normal cinema which should have atmos sound, but its not 'dolby cinema'.
 
kelley said:
I invested nothing actually. And it has nothing to do with my pride and everything to do with the fact that we still haven't gotten a straightforward answer.
Click to expand...
Graham King and Antione Fuqua admitted in their interview with Australian tv (shot during the Berlin premiere) that it was because if the clause in the allegations that they had to reshoot.


7:59
 
MJ5 said:
Wow 34% of US audience was under 25 years old, if I read correctly. Probably, similar stats globally.

That is actually important and great. Maybe that was the plan anyway. Because older generations have their opinions in any case (mostly).
Click to expand...
Actually this under 25-fers is an important demographic, impressionable..they get to define what's cool and set trends and there's also the dating pool and the eligible child bearing demographic..they have access to weild influence to their kids and in turn set off a generational influence thus pertuating Michael Jackson's legacy
 
innuendo141 said:
Unless the Estate and their lawyers are trawling through the 1994 agreement looking for a loophole or way around the issue regarding depicting the abuse allegations, how on earth could any Michael sequel be made?

The Estate would need to be 100% severed with regards to production, which could be hard for them to do as they would not have any control over the script and how it would play out on screen. I'm sure a deal could be reached with the allowing of music, likeness etc. to be used in the film. We know the Estate charge an arm and a leg for use of music.

I truly believe there is an amazing film to be made about MJ covering Bad to 1997 (at least). I still have to hand it to the Estate for originally greenlighting the story to include the 1993 allegations and it's clear as day the film was re-written while it was being shot because the "plot" is paper thin.

It would be amazing for the directors cut of the original screenplay to "leak". Stranger things have happened. The Schumacher Cut of Batman Forever is out there in certain people's hands and has been shown at secret fan events.
Click to expand...
what could they even make the overarching conflict about without it? the biopic focuses on michael versus joe and the post victory liberation of it. i feel like theyll make it something stupid, like la toyas husband jack gordon extorting him. **** it, just give us the la toya biopic
 
SmoothCriminal1995 said:
My question is how are they going to address the allegations if there is a clause in the contract? Could they swap Chandler for Arviso or would they sue for breach of contract still?
Click to expand...
if the film only goes into the early oughts and mainly focuses on dangerous and invincible, it would be really weird. theyd pretty much have to move the trial itself to the 90s
 
Xscape2040 said:
Anyone saw it in 4dx or d-box, worth it?

I saw it in imax laser (smaller aspect ratio than full imax, only option in my country) and normal cinema which should have atmos sound, but its not 'dolby cinema'.
Click to expand...
Would be interesting to see it like this:
20260425-230209.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top