Latest on MJJC

The Resurrection of Michael Jackson - Music Monthly

well, many tried to crucify him ... resurrection is a fitting term :yes:
 
Last edited:
StarTrader said:
The Guardian are respected but I've yet to see them be respecful of MJ, LOL, their last long-ass article on MJ was promotion/advertisement for that piece of crap channel four documentary: Michael Jackson: What really happened, late last year...Yeah, the one with Diane Demon, Randy-tabloid-trash-ellie and Bob-I-Need-To-Go-To-The-Gym-Jones. That came in one of the freebie magazines in the weekend paper too.

MJ said it best "Then there are those that disguise themselves as legitimate, those are even more disgusting"

Even in their latest article on Janet, they made a couple of digs at MJ.

Oh well, we'll just have to wait and see what suprises they have in store for us :ph34r:

I wouldn't put my hopes up, but who know's -_-

Doubt it will be anything life changing, LOL, probably a "new and exclusive" compilation of w.i.ll.i.am and akorn quotes from 2007:lol:
Click to expand...

That bit made be laugh out loud!:lol: Very true tho'. Good point. :yes: Guess we'll have to wait and see. There is a possibility that the article will be positive just because of the success of T25 (which continues to p*ss some folks off, to my absolute delight I must add :devil:) so they may want to jump on the bandwagon and do a positive piece. But yeah I really doubt it will have any real revelations about MJ's plans.
 
J5master said:
I don't see any "Jesus" connotations in any of this. Ressurection doesn't always = JESUS. And dramatic glowy over-the-top backgrounds doesn't always = JESUS either :lol:
Click to expand...
You don't see it? I think its obvious thats what they are trying to achieve with this cover and title. Its very cool (no i dont worship mj but its a nice thing to say - hopefully the inside is as appealing as the cover)
 
no paper is repsectable when it comes to reporting on MJ. the truth about mj doc was created by someone who works with/for the guardian. anyway i doubt they will tell us anything new.they probably just sat on these boards collecting info
 
mickyj007 said:
Michael to be on the Cover of The Observer's Music Monthly magazine.

"Is the King of Pop planning a Comeback to end them all?"







The piece will appear as The Observer's cover story this coming Sunday - 16 March. The extensive article follows Michael's plans for his comeback, for which the associated writer, Elizabeth Day, has spoken both on and off the record to a number of people involved (in the singer's comeback plans).
Click to expand...

Do you have link to this story ??
a source you can provide so we can verify where it came from
Also can you tell us where you got the cover pic from ???
Thanks -
 
Last edited:
A lot of photo-shopping went into that picture. MJ's hair was never like that, and he was not wearing bright red lip-gloss.
 
Catherine.. said:
You don't see it? I think its obvious thats what they are trying to achieve with this cover and title. Its very cool (no i dont worship mj but its a nice thing to say - hopefully the inside is as appealing as the cover)
Click to expand...


No i don't see it.

It's like the joke Stephen Colbert made about Obama on the cover of Rolling Stone. There's obama with a light background...white "glowy" stuff around him with "a New Hope" as the title. And Colbert says "They didn't quite finish the angel wings in the back" and the fact that it was SUCH a stretch made it funny :lol:

It's the same situation with this cover. None of it REALLY has any religious connotations.
 
ressurection and glowing lights etc its pretty obivious what they are doing
 
Last edited:
AllTheLovelyFlowers said:
The hand even looks like it was added to the picture to look like Jesus saying, "come to me". Whatever!
Click to expand...
Yes, it is a proper photoshop. Down to the make up. That is not the hair MJ had on the day. It was shorter and it had curls. This one is long and straight, that had to make it that way to fit with the agenda. That is why I said I wasn't sure what they were trying to do with this picture.^_^
 
I really don't understand how everything with glowy stuff behind it has to be religious! LOL And "resurrection" means coming back from obscurity, not necessarily JESUS.

Now as far as the agenda of this magazine, who knows. i think it'll be negative and i think we won't hear any new info. I hope i'm wrong.
 
I hoping its not neg. We need something to boast us up as well as of course giving Michael some overdue respect.
 
Heavily, heavily Photoshopped.

Somebody post some pics from that night. Bet anything he looks nothing like that. Look at that jaw. My god.
 
rickd said:
Heavily, heavily Photoshopped.

Somebody post some pics from that night. Bet anything he looks nothing like that. Look at that jaw. My god.
Click to expand...

Well, of course the image as a whole has been photoshopped, but I don't think they've manipulated his face. Sorry, but that is exactly the way he looked that night. Just google, it is very easy to find pics from the night. That is how MJ looks these days. Now, the ebony photo shoot - that was photoshopped to death...
 
Look, this little woman who probably got lucky enough to get close to some people in the "circle" is not gonna just come back to her desk and write down what peeps actually said to her. She is gonna add to it. Why? Because what she really wanted was an interview with Michael himself and she obviously did not get that. So unless she got some juicy information that no else has, she is gonna make her article as attention getting as possible. She will add to it if she has to.
 
cpp said:
Well, of course the image as a whole has been photoshopped, but I don't think they've manipulated his face. Sorry, but that is exactly the way he looked that night. Just google, it is very easy to find pics from the night. That is how MJ looks these days. Now, the ebony photo shoot - that was photoshopped to death...
Click to expand...


it doesn't matter, cus it looks good. and as usual..there will be varying opinions on his look.

anyway...i want to take back something i said...

i think i let the media get to me. there's nothing wrong with the photo..and as someone else posted....i don't have to think of 'God'..everytime i see that photo taken that way. if the media is picking at things just to irk MJ and his fans..well...it's not gunna work.

so..while i stand by what i said about the idea of using the word 'resurrection', concerning his career...i admit that i was...wr....wr..well...i admit that i was...wr....wr.....

..i'll be back.:)
 
Datsymay said:
A lot of photo-shopping went into that picture. MJ's hair was never like that, and he was not wearing bright red lip-gloss.
Click to expand...


YEP! you're absolutelly right.

They put some 'liquify' action on his face, distorting it a bit, make it longer but not too much. They have incresed the magenta/red levels and contrast as well.

Blurred a LOT around his hair, not only with that light but really blurred and erased part of the hair, by doing this they changed the shape of the head a bit more.

The soft light and the high contrast on the face, create a strange effect...

I don't like it at all... I can almost bet the article won't be much better.:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Tipareth said:
YEP! you're absolutelly right.

They put some 'liquify' action on his face, distorting it a bit, make it longer but not too much. They have incresed the magenta/red levels and contrast as well.

Blurred a LOT around his hair, not only with that light but really blurred and erased part of the hair, by doing this they changed the shape of the head a bit more.

The soft light and the high contrast on the face, create a strange effect...

I don't like it at all... I can almost bet the article won't be much better.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I agree Cecilia, it is almost devilish the way they played around with it. How you doing girl, long time no see.:D
 
rickd said:
Heavily, heavily Photoshopped.

Somebody post some pics from that night. Bet anything he looks nothing like that. Look at that jaw. My god.
Click to expand...

Well yeah, unfortunately, that is the way Michael looked then. That is why I think that it's the worst he's ever looked. I think he looks better now.
 
Well I am just stating my opinion. A lot of people turn the blind eye on the way Michael looks sometimes. I don't say anything bad, I just say that he has looked better...
 
I don't think that the Ebony mag cover was all the doctored. It still looked just like Michael. I mean he doesn't have any blemished to remove. The only thing in that pic that looks a little different to me is his mouth.
 
Tipareth said:
YEP! you're absolutelly right.

They put some 'liquify' action on his face, distorting it a bit, make it longer but not too much. They have incresed the magenta/red levels and contrast as well.

Blurred a LOT around his hair, not only with that light but really blurred and erased part of the hair, by doing this they changed the shape of the head a bit more.

The soft light and the high contrast on the face, create a strange effect...

I don't like it at all... I can almost bet the article won't be much better.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

well..lol..i saw him live at the trial..and so did a freind of mine..and many others...lol..no chance for photoshopping in that moment. they all said he looked great.:) i thought so too
 
dangerous_88 said:
Well I am just stating my opinion. A lot of people turn the blind eye on the way Michael looks sometimes. I don't say anything bad, I just say that he has looked better...
Click to expand...

i don't think there is an objective way to see how somebody looks. it's in the eye of the beholder. i'm sure if ur in love with someone, u might think he's gorgeous, while someone else thinks he's...not so gorgeous.

and..lol...however the look may be, he's been here a long time, and is still loved, so the look isn't bad enough to detract from that...

i saw someone over in another section of this thread, who looks like she's very attractive...and she loves his look of today...and no matter what image seen..she has nothing but glowing things to say...so..i guess...like u said..it's a matter of opinion...
 
MJ did NOT look bad at the WMA's. He looked AMAZING...wth are ya'll talkin about? LOL Should I do a picture proof?

The thing that's sometimes unflattering is the lighting which makes him look extremely pale. Other than that he looked FINE.

144.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top