Latest on MJJC

dark messages behind 'michael' cover

I don't get the problem with the zombies...That picture has been around since the video came out...Mike standing in front with all the zombies behind him...what's the difference on this cover?
 
I don't agree with the analysis either. One could say that the center portrait shows Michael as strong and untouchable. A King. the zombies don't bother me either. I actually didn't even notice them until I looked for them. Michael stands out because he's in bright red...

The only thing I wish is more Dangerous and beyond Era pics.
 
If Michael was alive, He refuse this cover.... Stupid painting. It terminates Michael's light...

Michael's album covers always best, but this one, stupid... How can Sony decide to use this. Who did give permission...
 
I'm not trying to be snarky or rude or anything, but I really, truly don't understand why so many people have a problem with this cover...I've read everyone's opinions on it, and I just don't understand...Yes, the centre is more younger years Mike, but the ENTIRE thing (which I believe will be a pull out, not sure though) reflects all eras of his life.....I think it's beautiful, and reminds me of the Dangerous cover, but even more to see on this one.....
 
It is very reminiscent to the Dangerous cover, and I really think that's what Sony was going for. But I understand why some people aren't happy with it, the image does look dull, and the "light" in Michael's face and eyes are absent from it, one can definitely interpret it as Sony's way of telling Michael and his fans, "even after all of that, we still got him". In reality, it's quite sad so many people feel this way, but they have reason.
 
AnnieRUOkay89 said:
It is very reminiscent to the Dangerous cover, and I really think that's what Sony was going for. But I understand why some people aren't happy with it, the image does look dull, and the "light" in Michael's face and eyes are absent from it, one can definitely interpret it as Sony's way of telling Michael and his fans, "even after all of that, we still got him". In reality, it's quite sad so many people feel this way, but they have reason.
Click to expand...

That's fair...I respect that opinion...I just never saw any subliminal messaging beneath the 'lack of light'....I don't think it's a big deal at all really...but if that's what people see....well, that's what they see, I guess....
 
His expression is foreboding. Has Michael lost his "power?" Also, look at the smaller "Thriller" Michael in the red jacket. Are your eyes drawn to HIS face...or the two zombies on either side of him? These images are excessively hideous and give off an uneasy feeling of "devouring" Michael, whereas the original Thriller ghouls were ugly, yet campy in nature, with Michael always "in control." The feeling I get here is that Michael is in danger.
If you look at the cherubs, they are poised in such a way (noticeably the left) so as to suggest the crown is being lifted off and away from Michael's head.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I must admit this article made me chuckle a bit :smilerolleyes: talk about over analyzing things!
 
Arklove said:
I'm not trying to be snarky or rude or anything, but I really, truly don't understand why so many people have a problem with this cover...I've read everyone's opinions on it, and I just don't understand...Yes, the centre is more younger years Mike, but the ENTIRE thing (which I believe will be a pull out, not sure though) reflects all eras of his life.....I think it's beautiful, and reminds me of the Dangerous cover, but even more to see on this one.....
Click to expand...

My reason for disliking the cover are just personal tastes. For lack of a better word, I think it's ugly. It is nothing personal against it, which is why I can say , "Oh well, that's what we have". I understand the cover was not made to please me. But my dislike for it verges on hatred, though not that strong so I will go with a very strong dislike. I don't like looking at it and will not keep it as my front cover. I understand the intent but I believe the execution is not well done. (And bsides this, I love, love, love older MJ and for a music that represents as a whole, his later work, I think later Mj should have been front and center, but oh well. These are just quabbles I have).

The cover will not prevent me from buying the CD, which I cannot wait for. Something like the cover I can ignore.:)
 
Staffordshire Bullterrier said:
Stupid-ass analysis if you ask me. The zombies aren't exactly hideous and a...sigh...danger to Michael himself. It's just bad painting really, that's all it is.
Click to expand...

I second this. I think the cover could have been better, I can't understand why they didn't use one of those rare portraits recently discovered that were intended for the Invincible album. Then at least we'd be safe in the knowledge that Michael approved of these images and wanted them for his album cover.
 
:wtf2:

It just seems as though this is trying to find something to pick fault at.

Let the album be.
 
You could 'over analyse' this cover in a very different way.......

Michael is wearing armour (? the armour of God, the breastplate of righteousness: Michael has his hand on his heart; a symbol of truth.).

The portrait may be dark, because now 'we see through a glass darkly'. The butterfly is a reminder of transformation and rebirth. The rising sun is a symbol of life, power, strength, energy, force and clarity. The sun is the house of Archangel Michael and is associated with vision (The sun is the eye of Zeus, in Greek mythology).

Just sayin'.
 
Last edited:
Well, I remember how there were some fans that liked the idea of a Dangerous type cover. Well, here we go. I personally like it. I love the warm colors, much better than the colors of Dangerous.

I love looking at his entire career starting from left to right.
And I do love his face. That was Michael at his essence.

I always felt that the cover that the estate would choose would be something that would appeal to the general public. It's marketing. Why do you think they use puppies and babies in commercials? Its that awwww factor. Well, this cover makes ppl reminisce about the Michael that catapulted to the top, the one that everybody went wild over, the one that everybody said WOW!!! the one we always said awwww he's so sweet. (not that he wasn't that all through his life, but I hope you know what I mean). I know a lot of you wanted a recent pic of him, but that's just my humble opinion as to why they chose that image.

Also, do we know when this was commissioned? I thought I read somewhere that this was not done specially for the album. The estate found it and decided it would be a great cover I believe. I wonder if Michael commissioned it himself.

And about the dark messages, like I mentioned all crazy Sony conspiracies again.
 
Last edited:
tricia70 said:
...
Also, do we know when this was commissioned? I thought I read somewhere that this was not done specially for the album. The estate found it and decided it would be a great cover I believe. I wonder if Michael commissioned it himself.

And about the dark messages, like I mentioned all crazy Sony conspiracies again.
Click to expand...

Do you know how hilarious that would be? :rofl:

Edit: Okay, it says "created in 2009".
http://www.examiner.com/young-adult...album-michael-features-kadir-nelson-cover-art

On kadirnelson.com it is found under commissions, Sony.
 
Last edited:
Pace said:
Do you know how hilarious that would be? :rofl:

Edit: Okay, it says "created in 2009".
http://www.examiner.com/young-adult...album-michael-features-kadir-nelson-cover-art

On kadirnelson.com it is found under commissions, Sony.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how that is so funny. The article doesn't say exactly when in 09 it was created and finished. It could have been finished before Michael passed. After 6/25/09 the estate was just trying to get TII ready, only thinking about the cover art for that particular album. They didn't even have a deal with Sony until the next year. So the estate already had the foresight to start cover art for a brand new album before Sony was in the picture? Like I mentioned I have read somewhere where they had found this painting and thought it would be fitting for this album.

Besides, Michael had many paintings commissioned that depicted him and his life in many settings. the Opus has some there. This painting reminds me of something Michael would commission.
 
Even though I don't agree with the original poster about it being intentionally dark, this has become an interesting discussion about the feelings the images provoke and what draws their eyes. I like hearing other people's views on it.

For me, the main center Michael draws my eyes and holds it.. I think it's because it doesn't look right to me and my brain keeps going there because it looks off- it looks reminscent of MJ with mistakes. It fails to capture Michael, but above that, the proportions are out of balance and it's not symmetrical- so that bugs my brain :p !

Most of this portrait doesn't capture the amazing love, kindness, and wisdom that shines in Michael- especially through his eyes. Look at my signature pic- THAT's what Michael's eyes should look like :D . :flowers:

Also the hand pops out at me for a similar reason (that something about it looks off), but this time I think it's because it looks lifeless, unreal, and an unnatural position for his hand to be in. It's how they lay the hands across the chest of people in coffins, so it bothers me.

Overall, it is a dark foreboding painting that wasn't done very well artistically or technically- but no dark hidden messages :p .
 
Last edited:
tricia70 said:
I fail to see how that is so funny. The article doesn't say exactly when in 09 it was created and finished. It could have been finished before Michael passed. After 6/25/09 the estate was just trying to get TII ready, only thinking about the cover art for that particular album. They didn't even have a deal with Sony until the next year. So the estate already had the foresight to start cover art for a brand new album before Sony was in the picture? Like I mentioned I have read somewhere where they had found this painting and thought it would be fitting for this album.

Besides, Michael had many paintings commissioned that depicted him and his life in many settings. the Opus has some there. This painting reminds me of something Michael would commission.
Click to expand...

It would extremely ironic to me if Michael (imagine people ripping something to pieces he might have liked...) indeed commissioned it- because these themes are very Michael- the sunrise in the left (that somebody called a fire...), the planet, the stars, the cherubs.


It would be funny because it totally flies in the face of this weird idea that the entire painting is done to ridicule and damage Michael Jackson. I would imagine Michael sitting there, reading some of the demonization of a painting (!!!) and it's imagery, saying, whaaaat they hate it so much? Why??

But unfortunately some people have literally demonized the 'Dangerous' cover in the same way, all about dark stuff, which is rather unfortunate.

I actually don't mind that expression on his face, it's a bit challenging, almost winking, daring. And reminds me off a Lord Of The Ring Quote: "If you want him, come and claim him!"

Arklove said:
I don't get the problem with the zombies...That picture has been around since the video came out...Mike standing in front with all the zombies behind him...what's the difference on this cover?
Click to expand...

I don't get the problem, either. People constantly talk about Thriller- and then he went on make 'Ghosts' which has, well, a 'family' of Ghosts/Zombies. He loved that theme, so why not?
 
Last edited:
^^ I reported it a little bit ago too- you didn't deserve that. Your post wasn't rude or forcing your opinion on us. Even if we think it's silly, you don't deserve to be talked to like that.

Seems like people who have sprung up on MJJC acting like this have a very low post count- which doesn't always mean anything if you're new of course... but we don't know much about their character yet either. I'd just ignore them and report it next time :flowers:
 
reminder : you don't have to agree with any topic, post or member and you can write your opinions about it but you cannot be disrespectful to other members.

thread cleaned.
 
SmoothCollins said:
For me, the main center Michael draws my eyes and holds it.. I think it's because it doesn't look right to me and my brain keeps going there because it looks off- it looks reminscent of MJ with mistakes. It fails to capture Michael, but above that, the proportions are out of balance and it's not symmetrical- so that bugs my brain :p !

Most of this portrait doesn't capture the amazing love, kindness, and wisdom that shines in Michael- especially through his eyes. Look at my signature pic- THAT's what Michael's eyes should look like :D . :flowers:
Click to expand...

I agree with this ^^. Also, I interpreted the angels crowning Michael instead of removing the crown. However I find this interpretation very interesting and I'm glad it was posted! I like seeing what others think in depth
 
SmoothCollins said:
Also the hand pops out at me for a similar reason (that something about it looks off), but this time I think it's because it looks lifeless, unreal, and an unnatural position for his hand to be in. It's how they lay the hands across the chest of people in coffins, so it bothers me.
Click to expand...

I think the reason the hand is laying over the chest like that is so the viewer can see he's wearing his sparkly glove..
 
Arklove said:
I think the reason the hand is laying over the chest like that is so the viewer can see he's wearing his sparkly glove..
Click to expand...

Oh I agree- I wasn't saying they intentionally made it morbid :p . The artist just seemed to fail at making it look natural- so in my mind the lifeless aspect of the hand combined with the position, I think that's what draws my eyes to it and makes me not like it. Nothing wrong if someone else likes it though :) .
 
SmoothCollins said:
Oh I agree- I wasn't saying they intentionally made it morbid :p . The artist just seemed to fail at making it look natural- so in my mind the lifeless aspect of the hand combined with the position, I think that's what draws my eyes to it and makes me not like it. Nothing wrong if someone else likes it though :) .
Click to expand...

hahaha...I figured that....I agree though, now that you brought it up, it looks morbid to me...Thanks a lot ! :lol:
 
Arklove said:
I think the reason the hand is laying over the chest like that is so the viewer can see he's wearing his sparkly glove..
Click to expand...

SmoothCollins said:
Oh I agree- I wasn't saying they intentionally made it morbid :p . The artist just seemed to fail at making it look natural- so in my mind the lifeless aspect of the hand combined with the position, I think that's what draws my eyes to it and makes me not like it. Nothing wrong if someone else likes it though :) .
Click to expand...

It reminded me of this, the Napoleon deal.

66980_494346689072_547104072_6923878_6541984_n.jpg
 
That's an excellent comparison, Pace- ArkLove, maybe we should try to think of that image instead of mine :lol: .

I'm going to guess that's what the artist was going for, but just wasn't able to totally pull it off and it looks .. not as amazing as that pic :D .
 
Last edited:
I never liked this cover...Thought he looked like badly designed spitting image puppet, The colours are so dark and negative and with the crown being lifted off his head is just disrespectful.
I would have prefered the outake cover from invincible with the blue eye
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top