A Possible Third Michael Jackson Documentary

[InvincibleMJ]

I don't have any problem with Spike Lee I think he's done a wonderful job with the two movies, I like Bad25 better probably because there were more rare studio and behind the scenes footage but I don't think that's Spike's (or anyone's) fault. Kenny Ortega did a great job with This Is It as well and knew Michael personally and worked with him so he could be a good choice but the director doesn't have to be one of Michael's friends. I think Spike Lee should be around for the HIStory movie because he directed They Don't Care About Us and he can also be helpful with a political aspect of HIStory.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

Jam and Lewis will, for sure. Janet no way.

You don't know this, nor do you speak for any of them. You keep speaking in absolutes about people you don't know and/or have any authority to do. It's disrespectful and tired.

 

[DaNgErOuS25th]

"Dangerous"...This year have to be a Special "Dangerous year" :jump: !!!

 

[OnirMJ]

You don't know this, nor do you speak for any of them.

Ok, I'm not sure Jam and Lewis are for sure. But why do you think they aren't? They have always been supportive and willing to collaborate. And for Janet is no way. I think that's a well known fact. Don't understand what's not clear with that to you? Even Spike said that he invited every family member to be part of Off The Wall (one review even specifically mentioned Janet) and that only Jackie, Marlon, Joe and Katherine accepted. She has her own problems with Michael Jackson's Estate and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Same goes for Randy and Jermaine.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

1 thing that bothered me was that in the book moonwalker, Michael stated that joe was supposed to introduce him to fred astair but he never did until thriller & fres supposedly called michael BUT...in this doc we see for the 1st time him meet Astair

And when was the first time he met him

 

[barbee0715]

And when was the first time he met him

In the book Moonwalk, he says he met Fred once or twice, but the day after Motown 25 aired was the first time Fred called him on the phone.
I believe in the doc (I'll have to go back and rewatch) they were on Dinah Shores show and Michael asked him how they shot the dance routine where Fred dances on the walls and ceiling.

 

[Bringing Brighter Days]

There is nothing else that can be said about Thriller, there are 100s of clips all over you tube that can provide a direct account about that album, the recording of it, the videos, how long it remained at the top of the charts, the top 10 singles, the all out mania, and everyone trying to do the moonwalk


Thriller was not the hidden gem, Off the Wall was

 

[Michaels Lover]

There is nothing else that can be said about Thriller, there are 100s of clips all over you tube that can provide a direct account about that album, the recording of it, the videos, how long it remained at the top of the charts, the top 10 singles, the all out mania, and everyone trying to do the moonwalk


Thriller was not the hidden gem, Off the Wall was

that doesn't mean that Thriller doesn't deserve a documentary

 

[Zakk]

A documentary & re-release for both Dangerous & Invincible have to happen, considering the volume of material at there disposal from those era's.. not only vast unreleased song's, demo's etc.. but also rehearsal footage/studio footage and much more.

 

[AlwaysThere]

A documentary for Invincible would be a mess. It's pretty well-known that the creation of that album and the immediate aftermath of its release was hardly a positive time. As I said in another thread, the foundation of a documentary has to be positive, even if the contents aren't always.

There really isn't much positivity to come from Invincible.

 

[innuendo141]

There really isn't much positivity to come from Invincible.

This is very true. Even in fan discussions, its almost always a defense/offense type conversation. That's not a bad thing, but it is by far the album people have felt the need to defend the most on this board alone.

 

[HIStory]

^^ Assuming that's the case I think it's time the reins are handed over.

Thinking about it now though perhaps the documentaries should come to a halt after Thriller.

As much as I would adore pieces about History and Dangerous, it wouldn't be fair to not acknowledge Invincible with its own stand-alone piece, and God knows it would be next to impossible to cut together a positive documentary about that album given the extent of Michael's involvement, the Sony battle, the mixed critical reception, the crummy sales numbers, so on and so forth.

So because the quality of Invincible is debated therefore no documentary should be made about Dangerous and HIStory either? Because supposedly it would not be fair to Invincible if it was the only album with no doc? How would not it be fair if according to you that is MJ's weakest album? Who says every album should have a documentary? How is it more fair if we have documentaries about OTW to Bad, but always only a big silence after that? As if the 80s albums aren't already the albums most featured in such docs all the time? So let's just keep it that way just because of Invincible? I don't see any good logic in this, sorry.

There are other artists with docs about single albums and there is nothing that says that if someone makes a documentary of one album or a certain amount of albums by an artist then that means each of that artist's albums should have a documentary dedicated to them out of some imaginary "fairness". Album documentaries are mostly dedicated to albums only which were somehow significant either in pop culture, the history of music or that artist's career. I think a good argument can be made of each and every album between OTW and HIStory having such significance for one reason or another. And if Invincible is indeed weaker than the rest, there is no "unfairness" in it remaining the only album with no documentary. It's leaving Dangerous and HIStory unaddressed (once again!) what would be extremely unfair to those albums just because of Invincible which is a different album and a whole different debate.

 

[AlwaysThere]

So because the quality of Invincible is debated therefore no documentary should be made about Dangerous and HIStory either? Because supposedly it would not be fair to Invincible if it was the only album with no doc? How would not it be fair if according to you that is MJ's weakest album? Who says every album should have a documentary? How is it more fair if we have documentaries about OTW to Bad, but always only a big silence after that? As if the 80s albums aren't already the albums most featured in such docs all the time? So let's just keep it that way just because of Invincible? I don't see any good logic in this, sorry..

Invincible's quality (which is subjective) has nothing to do with it; it is more about the fact that almost everything that surrounded the album's production and release was less-than-pleasant.

The creation of Invincible was bar none the most extensively-irritating on both the part of those who worked with Michael and Sony Music. There was the incident in which Sony rejected 6-8 songs Michael presented in 1999 which caused him to redirect the entire flow of the album; his habit of frequently being absent from the studio and/or leaving unprompted (he supposedly directed sessions over the phone) and leaving his collaborators to cut together the material for him; his decision to tell Tommy Mottolla in 2000 that he would be leaving Sony immediately after the album's release; Sony's extreme irritation over how much money Michael was spending recording the album; disagreements over singles; the You Rock My World video controversy with the silly putty; Michael refusing to appear in the Cry music video; and, perhaps most immediate, Michael's whole "anti-Sony" rallies.

When it comes down to it, critical reception and low sales numbers are only a very marginal part.

Documentaries need to have a positive foundation even if the material itself can be negative; the overall feel has to be that it was a pleasant and noteworthy experience/situation. Everything surrounding Invincible paints the picture of Michael losing control. Not every documentary needs to be predominantly positive, but it cannot be predominantly negative either. All that an Invincible documentary could offer is studio footage; the anecdotes and actualities of the situation will ground everything into the dirt.

It simply is not a documentary that would do any good whatsoever. And it is the one reason why I would oppose any sort of piece on Dangerous or History - because it would be unfair to not acknowledge Invincible.

 

[HIStory]

Invincible's quality (which is subjective) has nothing to do with it; it is more about the fact that almost everything that surrounded the album's production and release was less-than-pleasant.

The creation of Invincible was bar none the most extensively-irritating on both the part of those who worked with Michael and Sony Music. There was the incident in which Sony rejected 6-8 songs Michael presented in 1999 which caused him to redirect the entire flow of the album; his habit of frequently being absent from the studio and/or leaving unprompted (he supposedly directed sessions over the phone) and leaving his collaborators to cut together the material for him; his decision to tell Tommy Mottolla in 2000 that he would be leaving Sony immediately after the album's release; Sony's extreme irritation over how much money Michael was spending recording the album; disagreements over singles; the You Rock My World video controversy with the silly putty; Michael refusing to appear in the Cry music video; and, perhaps most immediate, Michael's whole "anti-Sony" rallies.

When it comes down to it, critical reception and low sales numbers are only a very marginal part.

Documentaries need to have a positive foundation even if the material itself can be negative; the overall feel has to be that it was a pleasant and noteworthy experience/situation. Everything surrounding Invincible paints the picture of Michael losing control. Not every documentary needs to be predominantly positive, but it cannot be predominantly negative either. All that an Invincible documentary could offer is studio footage; the anecdotes and actualities of the situation will ground everything into the dirt.

It simply is not a documentary that would do any good whatsoever. And it is the one reason why I would oppose any sort of piece on Dangerous or History - because it would be unfair to not acknowledge Invincible.

I get your point about Invincible era because you tell it in every other post you make on this board, but I think there is already a thread specifically dedicated to this.

My point was more about Dangerous and HIStory which you only addressed in your last paragraph and only by repeating your original statement that somehow it would not be "fair" if there was a Dangerous or HIStory documentary but I still dont see any good logic in that statement and for the same reasons I detailed in my previous post.

 

[Galactus123]

Invincible documentary would be great. It would be interesting to hear about making of the songs and You Rock My World video. Not everything has to be positive and things need to be presented like they happened.

 

[OnirMJ]

There was the incident in which Sony rejected 6-8 songs Michael presented in 1999 which caused him to redirect the entire flow of the album

That never happened! If it happened then provide source, links, quotes from reliable sources. Information that is factual is that in mid 1999 Tommy Mottola and Cory Rooney first heard Break Of Dawn and were amazed with it. That was the only song they heard by that time. The next song MJ sent to Mottola was Speechless and again Mottola was amazed. This was around Michael recording Chicago with Cory Rooney. After that he started working with Rodney and the music direction of the album automatically changed - just like when MJ started working with Teddy Riley in 1991 a lot of songs from earlier Dangerous sessions like Bryan Loren tracks (Men In Black...), LA Reid & Babyface (Slave To The Rhythm) were "abandoned".

 

[wonderouzdj2]

That never happened! If it happened then provide source, links, quotes from reliable sources. Information that is factual is that in mid 1999 Tommy Mottola and Cory Rooney first heard Break Of Dawn and were amazed with it. That was the only song they heard by that time. The next song MJ sent to Mottola was Speechless and again Mottola was amazed. This was around Michael recording Chicago with Cory Rooney. After that he started working with Rodney and the music direction of the album automatically changed - just like when MJ started working with Teddy Riley in 1991 a lot of songs from earlier Dangerous sessions like Bryan Loren tracks (Men In Black...), LA Reid & Babyface (Slave To The Rhythm) were "abandoned".

Damn it...i hate to hear that

 

[Annita]

OTW is still 28 on i-tunes USA. That`s not bad.

 

[AlwaysThere]

That never happened! If it happened then provide source, links, quotes from reliable sources. Information that is factual is that in mid 1999 Tommy Mottola and Cory Rooney first heard Break Of Dawn and were amazed with it. That was the only song they heard by that time. The next song MJ sent to Mottola was Speechless and again Mottola was amazed. This was around Michael recording Chicago with Cory Rooney. After that he started working with Rodney and the music direction of the album automatically changed - just like when MJ started working with Teddy Riley in 1991 a lot of songs from earlier Dangerous sessions like Bryan Loren tracks (Men In Black...), LA Reid & Babyface (Slave To The Rhythm) were "abandoned".

Go head over to Maximum Jackson and speak with PG - he's about as reliable of a source as you can easily find online, and has proven himself on multiple occasions. And even he acknowledges that it happens.

There was indeed a point where Michael sent several songs over at once and they were given an apathetic shrug at best.

 

[OnirMJ]

Go head over to Maximum Jackson and speak with PG - he's about as reliable of a source as you can easily find online, and has proven himself on multiple occasions. And even he acknowledges that it happens.

There was indeed a point where Michael sent several songs over at once and they were given an apathetic shrug at best.

So no source, links, quotes, nothing. Just as I thought so. Just opinion by a fan on another board.

 

[Merigrace16]

I love every single word you have mention..... I feel the same!!

 

[AlwaysThere]

So no source, links, quotes, nothing. Just as I thought so. Just opinion by a fan on another board.

Opinion? Very cute.

What of Joe Vogel? He doesn't give quotes or links to everything he says. How do we know what he says is the truth? Because he has proven himself time and time again to have the resources to preach what he does. That is also the case with PG. Go check. I dare you.

Rodney Jerkins himself verified that, at one point, Michael threw everything they had worked on up to that point out and started from scratch. ****** ******* also revealed that only a handful of songs on Invincible were from prior to 2000 (You Rock My World being one of them); everything else was from then on. Seems a bit coincidental that both of these occurrences coincide with the idea that Michael had at one point submitted several songs to Sony, only to have them rejected, wouldn't you say so? He was never one to completely scrap every song he had recorded up to that point; each of his albums had songs that were anywhere from two to six years old. He was known for abandoning songs, but not A YEAR'S worth of material.

Also keep in mind that Cory Rooney (the man you yourself quoted) said that Michael had recorded She Was Loving Me in March/April 1999 and abandoned it completely around May or June. Once again, convenient?

The only person to ever concretely say that this event didn't happen is you.

 

[RockOrBluesInNorway]

I think every album should get a doc.. I do think in the theme Thriller should be next.. But I believe both Dangerous and History should have one.. Even if Spike wants to do a trilogy like he mentioned he can do two sets of trilogies.. Off The Wall, Thriller, Bad... and Dangerous History Invincible... he can do a little different directing style on the other 3 to make them separate if need be.. but the other eras deserve docs too.

Like Star Wars, lol

 

[ChrisC]

PG :rofl:

 

[elusive moonwalker]

Edit. Testing anyone else seeing chrisC PG comment from the 11th as the last post even though the main page says theres others since then

 

[HIStory]

Edit. Testing anyone else seeing chrisC PG comment from the 11th as the last post even though the main page says theres others since then

There are no new messages since ChrisC's post. The thread bumps up all the time and acts as if there are new posts because of the poll. It bumps up every time someone votes.

 

[elusive moonwalker]

ahh thats why. dont i feel daft. thanks respect i was getting confused for a min. i dont see the poll as im using the on the go font

 

[HIStoric]

Wow. I kept seeing the "latest post" be updated but no new posts and I thought the website was glitching out. Kinda silly system but oh well. Thanks

 

[OnirMJ]

That is also the case with PG. Go check. I dare you.

I don't have a clue who "PG" is. So I don't see a point of those initials if those are initials? Nevermind. I'm not that interested in fan's opinions.

Rodney Jerkins himself verified that, at one point, Michael threw everything they had worked on up to that point out and started from scratch.

To create new sound for the new millennium, yes. Not because Sony rejected his songs.

Also keep in mind that Cory Rooney (the man you yourself quoted) said that Michael had recorded She Was Loving Me in March/April 1999 and abandoned it completely around May or June.

Abandoned it again because he started working with Rodney Jerkins on new songs with new sound, not because Sony or Mottola didn't like the song. Mottola even suggested it in the first place! And he liked that one too!

The only person to ever concretely say that this event didn't happen is you.

Because I've never before seen or even heard of that story from any person.

 

[MIST]

I find it strange if Sony said no to "she was loving me" but not to The lost children.