The New $150 million Michael Jackson Biopic

[Vice Admiral]

The new Michael Jackson biopic, Michael, which cost $150 million to make, is, according to a piece by Jonathan Dean in yesterday’s Times, expected to make well over $80 million in its opening weekend in the United States, “before becoming the first music biopic to break a billion globally”.

The film is apparently a hagiographic version of Jackson’s life, focusing on his music and the world-wide adoration he attracted, with no mention of his “troubles”.  As Dean points out in his article, “So Michael is like a Gary Glitter biopic that focuses purely on the writing of 'Hello, Hello I’m Back Again'.”

“Jackson’s 28-year-old daughter Paris,” Dean continues, “has been outspoken in her disapproval. An eminently sensible-seeming young woman with a Radiohead tattoo, she said of the film: ‘I just prefer honesty over sales and monetary gain… I had 0 per cent involvement in it.  The film panders to a very specific section of my dad’s fandom that still lives in a fantasy. It’s not real. But it’s sold to you as real.’”

Janet Jackson seemingly takes a similar view.  However, “at the film’s premiere last week in Berlin, [most of] the Jackson clan were out in full force. Even Blanket was back — albeit now called Bigi — to stand next to his brother Prince and their uncles Jackie, Marlon and Jermaine, all previous members of the Jackson Five. On the red carpet Jermaine was asked about Paris’s reaction to her father’s film, and said: ‘I stay away from controversial stuff.’”

Meanwhile, most of the film-goers who will contribute $1 billion to the wealth of the film-makers and the Jackson family will presumably be comfortable swallowing any reservations they may have.

In an age that is obsessed with paedophilia, how is it that the most famous paedophile who has ever lived is still adored by tens of millions?

It is absolutely sickening.  In a justly configured world, Jackson’s videos should long ago have been removed from the media, just as Glitter’s have been; and he should be regarded with disgust and contempt.

(And yes, I know that Jackson was never convicted of anything.  Nor was Jimmy Saville.)

[mr.bluesky]

I won't be rushing to the Cinema to see it thats for sure 

[mills_and_bhuna]

The new Michael Jackson biopic, Michael, which cost $150 million to make, is, according to a piece by Jonathan Dean in yesterday’s Times, expected to make well over $80 million in its opening weekend in the United States, “before becoming the first music biopic to break a billion globally”.

The film is apparently a hagiographic version of Jackson’s life, focusing on his music and the world-wide adoration he attracted, with no mention of his “troubles”.  As Dean points out in his article, “So Michael is like a Gary Glitter biopic that focuses purely on the writing of 'Hello, Hello I’m Back Again'.”

“Jackson’s 28-year-old daughter Paris,” Dean continues, “has been outspoken in her disapproval. An eminently sensible-seeming young woman with a Radiohead tattoo, she said of the film: ‘I just prefer honesty over sales and monetary gain… I had 0 per cent involvement in it.  The film panders to a very specific section of my dad’s fandom that still lives in a fantasy. It’s not real. But it’s sold to you as real.’”

Janet Jackson seemingly takes a similar view.  However, “at the film’s premiere last week in Berlin, [most of] the Jackson clan were out in full force. Even Blanket was back — albeit now called Bigi — to stand next to his brother Prince and their uncles Jackie, Marlon and Jermaine, all previous members of the Jackson Five. On the red carpet Jermaine was asked about Paris’s reaction to her father’s film, and said: ‘I stay away from controversial stuff.’”

Meanwhile, most of the film-goers who will contribute $1 billion to the wealth of the film-makers and the Jackson family will presumably be comfortable swallowing any reservations they may have.

In an age that is obsessed with paedophilia, how is it that the most famous paedophile who has ever lived is still adored by tens of millions?

It is absolutely sickening.  In a justly configured world, Jackson’s videos should long ago have been removed from the media, just as Glitter’s have been; and he should be regarded with disgust and contempt.

(And yes, I know that Jackson was never convicted of anything.  Nor was Jimmy Saville.)

I don't think he was a paedophile.
I think he was set up.
He had issues with his management and record company and he made statements accusing certain people belonging to a certain subset of people of trying to screw him over.
A bit like Kanye.
And of course the Press did their bit. And Wacko Jacko was born.

[PilotMan]

I don't believe he was paedophile. He had money, other people wanted it, he was an easy target.

It's very common for this to happen in today's litigious world.

I'm going to the first showing on Wednesday 

[Doc Holliday]

I don't know if he was a sex offender and of course he hasn't been convicted.

However as someone who has been heavily involved in the logistics of Child Safeguarding for many years, he seems to have thought he was 'special' and above having to adhere to safe practices with children. These practices are for the safety of both parties. I would assume some around him must have advised him of such but he chose to ignore?

Had you or I behaved this way we would in all probability have been convicted on the evidence presented, even if we were innocent.

An undoubted talent, but seriously weird and that makes him even more vulnerable to accusation, which it seems he did little to mitigate.

[Monaco]

I won't be rushing to see a film about a pedophile even if they ignore it which is pretty shameful.

[PilotMan]

I won't be rushing to see a film about a pedophile even if they ignore it which is pretty shameful.

He is only a paedophile if you accept his conviction by the press.

The police can't get rape convictions right, so I doubt the press can do much better.

[PilotMan]

I don't know if he was a sex offender and of course he hasn't been convicted.

However as someone who has been heavily involved in the logistics of Child Safeguarding for many years, he seems to have thought he was 'special' and above having to adhere to safe practices with children. These practices are for the safety of both parties. I would assume some around him must have advised him of such but he chose to ignore?

Had you or I behaved this way we would in all probability have been convicted on the evidence presented, even if we were innocent.

An undoubted talent, but seriously weird and that makes him even more vulnerable to accusation, which it seems he did little to mitigate.

He certainly didn't help himself.

However, in the era in which the allegations were made, we were all less conscious of the need to cover one's arse, no pun intended.

[Blackpool Rock]

I won't be rushing to see a film about a pedophile even if they ignore it which is pretty shameful.

I'm with you and used to say that (IMO) he was an unconvicted Paedophile and I couldn't believe people still listened to his music and idolised him while others would have been cancelled long before

I guess this is what having so much money and top lawyers can do for you 

[Blackpool Rock]

He certainly didn't help himself.

However, in the era in which the allegations were made, we were all less conscious of the need to cover one's arse, no pun intended.

Were we 
I was always keenly aware even as a teenager of not doing anything or putting myself in a position where someone could make a false allegation

[Doc Holliday]

He certainly didn't help himself.

However, in the era in which the allegations were made, we were all less conscious of the need to cover one's arse

I accept that Child safeguarding 'awareness' has undoubtedly moved on and continues to do so (although my first CRB/DBS was around 2002)

However as a 35 year old man in 1993 would you have had no qualms about sharing a bed with children who were not your own and with no other adult present?

Even if you did so and others then pointed out that it was wrong and left you open to accusation (and indeed accusations were made) would you ignore it and repeat it over a period of many years?

[Stevelondon]

VA comments certainly bring into play the argument as to whether we delete someone’s artistic history on the grounds of them being a pedo. (Or not) 🤷🏼

I’m all for it when it’s Gary Glitter for obvious reasons 

[Jonestown]

I think Mr Jackson lost his grip on reality before he was out of short trousers and thereafter he was surrounded by people who made sure he stayed that way. What he did, and if he really did it we will now never know, there is far too much money involved.

[Blackpool Rock]

I think Mr Jackson lost his grip on reality before he was out of short trousers and thereafter he was surrounded by people who made sure he stayed that way. What he did, and if he really did it we will now never know, there is far too much money involved.

Exactly it's still a business and lot's of people are getting fat on the gravy train so will do anything to stop it being derailed 

[daviemac]

He certainly didn't help himself.

However, in the era in which the allegations were made, we were all less conscious of the need to cover one's arse, no pun intended.

Why did he pay out millions of dollars to his accusers if he had nothing to hide? That looks more suspicious to me than fighting to prove the accusations were false.

[PilotMan]

I honestly believe it was just about money.

The Chandler family stopped cooperating with the police during the criminal investigation. I wonder why?

What a coincidence, they were approached by law firm to take out a civil suit.

According to 6ABC, Jackson settled with the family of Jordan Chandler for $23 million. Reports indicate $15.3 million went to a trust fund for the boy, $1.5 million to each parent, and $5 million for legal fees.

The 1994 settlement was not an admission of guilt, with Jackson stating he settled to prevent the lawsuit from interfering with his career.

$5M for legal fees, need I say more.

As soon as a victim starts pursuing money, instead of criminal recourse, all credibility goes out of the window.

But, let's just say at that time we should all have been aware of safeguarding. And let's assume Jackson was a paedophile.

Why did the parents let the situation happen, leaving their teenage son alone with a 30 something man?

[bigden40]

VA comments certainly bring into play the argument as to whether we delete someone’s artistic history on the grounds of them being a pedo. (Or not) 🤷🏼

I’m all for it when it’s Gary Glitter for obvious reasons 

Well, for one thing, there’s a world of difference between Michael Jackson and Gary Glitter. 

Gary Glitter has been charged and convicted at least three times in the UK and Vietnam. 

Michael Jackson was tried once (in 2005) and found Not Guilty on all charges.  Other allegations and settlements create suspicion but that’s obviously not the same as the situation Mr Gadd.

[Vice Admiral]

I guess I’m a dreadful old cynic, but I’m afraid that I err on the side of scepticism when people pay vast sums of money in compensation for sexual offences they claim they didn’t commit.

So Michael Jackson settled with the family of Jordan Chandler for $23 million – although he said Chandler’s allegations were ”predicated on a big lie”.

Hmm.

And Prince Andrew (as he then was) settled his 2022 US case with Virginia Giuffre for around £12 million – although he had “no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever".

Hmm again.

[Blackpool Rock]

Well, for one thing, there’s a world of difference between Michael Jackson and Gary Glitter. 

Gary Glitter has been charged and convicted at least three times in the UK and Vietnam. 

Michael Jackson was tried once (in 2005) and found Not Guilty on all charges.  Other allegations and settlements create suspicion but that’s obviously not the same as the situation Mr Gadd.

So if Gadd had paid vast sums of money to stop things going to trial he'd be an OK guy right now in the eyes of the law and many people defending MJ.

You also get the scenario where some people are tried and found not guilty yet the smear follows them around and ruins their life / career as they are still forever tarnished and people claim "They got lucky / got away with it" etc
How come MJ still smells of roses to Millions of people yet at the same time they put down Jimmy Savile who never went to court and has a clean record 

It's double standards

[Blackpool Rock]

OK so i'm just thinking that standards have changed over the years hence why so many people were investigated for historical things they did in the 70's; 80's and 90's etc

Jackson was having "Questionable" contact with children at least in the 90's and 00's and he's obviously dead now so his actions couldn't continue.

So my question is whether it came out about his actions in say the last 10 years or if he was still engaging in the same actions today if he was still alive would society be more likely to take action / disown him and his music etc   

[PilotMan]

I guess I’m a dreadful old cynic, but I’m afraid that I err on the side of scepticism when people pay vast sums of money in compensation for sexual offences they claim they didn’t commit.

So Michael Jackson settled with the family of Jordan Chandler for $23 million – although he said Chandler’s allegations were ”predicated on a big lie”.

Hmm.

And Prince Andrew (as he then was) settled his 2022 US case with Virginia Giuffre for around £12 million – although he had “no recollection of ever meeting this lady, none whatsoever".

Hmm again.

If you've ever had a civil legal claim against you personally, or your business, the advice from professionals who don't stand to gain financially is often to settle and get on with your life (whether you are in the right, guilty or not guilty). It's a cost / time balance. Going to court takes a hell of a lot of time and money, win or lose. As for people in the public eye, they are under greater scrutiny, with the factor of "reputation" added to the cost / time / equation.

Look at the Rooney / Vardy case and see how much they spent on a civil case. Fortunately they had the money to fund it, Vardy lost a considerable amount of money. However, both sets of lawyers made money, win or lose.

And the Jonny Depp case. The UK case was behind closed doors and went against him. In the USA, if you watched the trial on TV, I doubt there was anyone who would side with Amber Heard and her story. It makes you wonder how the UK courts reached the conclusion they did. Depp was refused an appeal in the UK.

Jackson was found NOT GUILTY on all charges by a jury in the US legal system.

Anything else is pure speculation, and I believe financially driven.

[Vice Admiral]

Jackson was found NOT GUILTY on all charges by a jury in the US legal system.

Anything else is pure speculation, and I believe financially driven.

Certainly we all need to take care to consider issues objectively and rigorously, and to avoid just following the herd. 

As I often say in such instances, I was not a fly on the wall when the alleged events took place, and I was not a fly on the wall in the courtroom (where applicable).

Nonetheless we all have "instincts" about high-profile cases (cf Lucy Letby), and those instincts may often be correct.

Instincts are, of course, not the same as legal verdicts.  In the context of Jordan Chandler and Virginia Giuffre, however, there is a wealth of circumstantial and other evidence relating to Michael Jackson and ex-Prince Andrew that lends strong support to instincts about their guilt.

[bigden40]

So if Gadd had paid vast sums of money to stop things going to trial he'd be an OK guy right now in the eyes of the law and many people defending MJ.

You also get the scenario where some people are tried and found not guilty yet the smear follows them around and ruins their life / career as they are still forever tarnished and people claim "They got lucky / got away with it" etc
How come MJ still smells of roses to Millions of people yet at the same time they put down Jimmy Savile who never went to court and has a clean record 

It's double standards

That’s really not the point I’m making.

Paul Gadd was convicted in a court of law on at least three separate occasions.  Michael Jackson was acquitted on all charges on the one of assault that he was tried. 

These are facts, the two men are therefore not the same. 

MJ does not “smell of roses”, there remain massive question marks over his legacy.

[Blackpool Rock]

That’s really not the point I’m making.

Paul Gadd was convicted in a court of law on at least three separate occasions.  Michael Jackson was acquitted on all charges on the one of assault that he was tried. 

These are facts, the two men are therefore not the same. 

MJ does not “smell of roses”, there remain massive question marks over his legacy.

So what 
MJ used huge sums of money to make things "Go away" whereas Gadd didn't, one got convicted while one didn't, go figure

Nobody in their right mind would allow Gadd to have any contact let alone any unsupervised contact with their child, would you be happy with MJ having contact / unsupervised contact with your child / grandchild / nephew etc etc  What about if that was a sleepover with said child alone with MJ sleeping in the same bed 

While there are massive question marks over his legacy i'd say that given all the shit he does still smell pretty rosy in as much as people still fawn over him and his music and are prepared to defend him often seemingly blindly

[Jonestown]

While there are massive question marks over his legacy i'd say that given all the shit he does still smell pretty rosy in as much as people still fawn over him and his music and are prepared to defend him often seemingly blindly

I’d imagine with the passage of time Jackson’s fan base has dwindled & died off significantly, don’t see Gen X or Gen Z, whichever it is, have much interest in or time for his kind of music. With Cinema being a dying institution itself it’ll be interesting to see how badly this new bio fares.

[Monaco]

If you've ever had a civil legal claim against you personally, or your business, the advice from professionals who don't stand to gain financially is often to settle and get on with your life (whether you are in the right, guilty or not guilty). It's a cost / time balance. Going to court takes a hell of a lot of time and money, win or lose. As for people in the public eye, they are under greater scrutiny, with the factor of "reputation" added to the cost / time / equation.

  I think Jacksons lawyers would have seen off Chandlers lawyers for a lot less than the $25M he paid him if he wasn't guilty,to think otherwise is extremely naive.

[bigden40]

I think Jacksons lawyers would have seen off Chandlers lawyers for a lot less than the $25M he paid him if he wasn't guilty,to think otherwise is extremely naive.

The argument against that is that the Chandlers didn’t go to the police first, they went to Jackson and demanded money.  The subsequent 18-month criminal investigation found no corroborating evidence at all and despite convening two grand juries were unable to indict.  The investigation included Jackson having to strip and be photographed to compare descriptions of his skin blotches from vitiligo and his genitalia, he didn’t match the descriptions.

Afterwards the Chandlers launched a civil action for which the settlement was actually negotiated and paid by Jackson's insurance company against the wishes of Jackson and his lawyer, so it would be inaccurate to say that Jackson bought his silence.

[PilotMan]

The argument against that is that the Chandlers didn’t go to the police first, they went to Jackson and demanded money.  The subsequent 18-month criminal investigation found no corroborating evidence at all and despite convening two grand juries were unable to indict.  The investigation included Jackson having to strip and be photographed to compare descriptions of his skin blotches from vitiligo and his genitalia, he didn’t match the descriptions.

Afterwards the Chandlers launched a civil action for which the settlement was actually negotiated and paid by Jackson's insurance company against the wishes of Jackson and his lawyer, so it would be inaccurate to say that Jackson bought his silence.

Funny how most people on this thread seem to not know these FACTS, but are happy to go along with mainstream media and opinions, citing false / erroneous information.

Like I have been saying all along - it's all about money.

[PilotMan]

I think Jacksons lawyers would have seen off Chandlers lawyers for a lot less than the $25M he paid him if he wasn't guilty,to think otherwise is extremely naive.

Talking of naive, maybe you should check facts, before commenting further.

[myothernameis]

The new Michael Jackson biopic, Michael, which cost $150 million to make,

I can see this movie eventually becoming a musical in various theaters 

[PilotMan]

I can see this movie eventually becoming a musical in various theaters 

 

External Link/Members Only

[PilotMan]

I think Jacksons lawyers would have seen off Chandlers lawyers for a lot less than the $25M he paid him if he wasn't guilty,to think otherwise is extremely naive.

Extremely naive....

It appears to me that there is a lack of understanding on the Civil Legal System, people seem to think it is the same as the Criminal Legal System.

Large value cases in the Civil legal System are a business venture, more like a game of poker, to think otherwise is naïve.

A significant number of high value cases in the USA (and UK) are paid using Third-Party Litigation Funding. Hedge Funds, Private Equity, Sovereign Wealth Funds are all involved in finance it. Essentially a specialist funder will pay for the legal fees of the claimant on a non recourse basis, for a share of the damages. They only finance claims where the defendant has the funds to pay.

Third Party Litigation Funding remains secret. There is no obligation to disclose it, although this is under review.

Lawyers are paid by Conditional Fee Agreements; if they win they get a share of the damages.

There is also After The Event insurance, to cover for an unexpected loss.

It's a $15 Billion Dollar industry in the USA, and worth around £3 Billion in the UK.

That's why I say that Civil legal cases are more like poker. The side who thinks it has the biggest hand and the cash to back it, can call the other sides bluff.

Nothing to do with right and wrong, it's a business venture.

[daviemac]

It appears to me that there is a lack of understanding on the Civil Legal System, people seem to think it is the same as the Criminal Legal System.

Criminal proceedings are 'beyond reasonable doubt', civil is 'on the balance of probability'.

My opinion that he had serious mental health issues and therefore, on the balance of probability, would be capable of inappropriate behaviour with children is based on his actions, from dangling a baby over a balcony to the extensive surgery to alter his appearance.

[Stevelondon]

Well, for one thing, there’s a world of difference between Michael Jackson and Gary Glitter. 

Gary Glitter has been charged and convicted at least three times in the UK and Vietnam. 

Michael Jackson was tried once (in 2005) and found Not Guilty on all charges.  Other allegations and settlements create suspicion but that’s obviously not the same as the situation Mr Gadd.

I’m not sure why you included my quote in your post.
What you are on about has nowt to do with what I said. 🤷🏼

[PilotMan]

Criminal proceedings are 'beyond reasonable doubt', civil is 'on the balance of probability'.

My opinion that he had serious mental health issues and therefore, on the balance of probability, would be capable of inappropriate behaviour with children is based on his actions, from dangling a baby over a balcony to the extensive surgery to alter his appearance.

On the balance of probability, there's very few people who shouldn't be locked up 

[bigden40]

I’m not sure why you included my quote in your post.
What you are on about has nowt to do with what I said. 🤷🏼

Fair enough, wasn’t aimed at you, probably your post is just what triggered the thought

[Stevelondon]

Fair enough, wasn’t aimed at you, probably your post is just what triggered the thought

[Vice Admiral]

Under the heading “Risible biopic turns Jacko into a 20th-century Jesus” and the sub-heading “The saintly Michael Jackson just can’t keep away from sick children in an aimless and mendacious portrait of the King of Pop, starring his nephew Jaafar”, Kevin Maher, Chief Film Critic of the Times, begins his review of Michael thus:
 
“Future cultural historians will look back on this Michael Jackson biopic as a watershed moment for the genre. It will be known as that infamous film in which the subject became completely untethered from reality and the film delivered instead two hours of pure and unadulterated bullshit.”

[PilotMan]

The movie timeline ends at the beginning of the "Bad" tour in 1998.

The allegations of child abuse were after this. As were the albums, Dangerous, Invincible and History, none of which are covered in the film.

The movie was originally covered this era, but due to a legal settlement with Jordan Chandler in 1994, the third act had to be reshot.

That settlement contained a binding clause that forbade any commercial dramatisation, adaptation, or mention of Chandler or his family in any film or television production.

The Jackson family, the studio and their legal advisors are working on a sequel to cover this era.

[spiralnotebook]

Why did he pay out millions of dollars to his accusers if he had nothing to hide? That looks more suspicious to me than fighting to prove the accusations were false.

Precisely.

[spiralnotebook]

Jesus juice in bed with kids, What was that all about?

[bigden40]

Precisely.

As noted earlier …. the settlement was actually negotiated and paid by Jackson's insurance company against the wishes of Jackson and his lawyer.

[Moby Dick]

I went to the pictures with a lass to watch a Michael Jackson Movie once -  late ‘80’s.
Moonwalker I guess (had to google it)
What a bag of shite, self promoting disturbing bollox. Never again.
At least she paid and I got a blow job out of it.

I’ll give this one a miss (even if a blow job is offered).

[maxQ]

As noted earlier …. the settlement was actually negotiated and paid by Jackson's insurance company against the wishes of Jackson and his lawyer.

But Jacko would say that, wouldn't he

[daviemac]

As noted earlier …. the settlement was actually negotiated and paid by Jackson's insurance company against the wishes of Jackson and his lawyer.

How can an insurance company pay out a civil claim against his wishes? He would be entitles to prove his innocence in court to remove any doubt regardless of any outside influence.

 

[bigden40]

How can an insurance company pay out a civil claim against his wishes? He would be entitles to prove his innocence in court to remove any doubt regardless of any outside influence.

From wiki

The insurance company negotiated the settlement over protests from Jackson and his legal counsel. The settlement included no admission of wrongdoing or guilt, otherwise, it would violate the California Insurance Code. The insurance company had "the right to settle claims covered by insurance where it decides settlement is expedient and the insured may not interfere with nor prevent such settlements," a practice established by several precedents in California.

[Stevelondon]

So have I got this right.
Jackson took out an insurance policy that would pay out in the event of him ever been accused of child sexual abuse. 🤷🏼

[bigden40]

So have I got this right.
Jackson took out an insurance policy that would pay out in the event of him ever been accused of child sexual abuse. 🤷🏼

No. I don’t imagine any insurance company would write that policy.

Presumably it was some broader personal liability insurance.

[Stevelondon]

No. I don’t imagine any insurance company would write that policy.

Presumably it was some broader personal liability insurance.

Jeez……….. I’d hate to have read the small print on that policy.

[scutty brown]

Is it true that Bubbles was the film's technical director / executive producer?