HIStory Tour Discussion - Should it be released? [Merged]

[SoCav]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

No. He proved that by giving an amazing show, pure entertainment for 2 hours for 82 nights. But it is crazy to expect him to do things he did when he was 26 or 29. Just look at professional athletes (football players play until the age of 35-36, only few players at highest level play after that age). Are they old after that? No. But they retire because they can't play like they did when they were 25. That is a fact.

But we were talking about him oftentimes not seeming as into the performance as he was on previous tours. That's completely unrelated to his skill levels. Michael at 44 dancing with James Brown at the BET Awards was technically not very special, but he seemed so into it (as brief as it was). A 50 year old Michael performing Human Nature in TII: he seems completely wrapped up in the music and the performance. Truly captivating.

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

Of course, they are going to say the poll is "ridiculous" because their opinion did not come out as the majority opinion and yes, it is only for this forum which does not represent the whole fandom. However, I can say that whenever the possibility of this release came up in a FB group I also visit sometimes the reactions were about the same. In fact, people were more so against it than here. That's still not the whole fandom, but it at least shows that it is not a very popular idea even within the fandom. All the other tours are more universally loved than HIStory tour and many fans think it is a bad idea.

Who's talking about the fanbase? Let's say that the fanbase is split (50%-50% - not just hardcore fans - or 70%-30% just hardcore fans). That is like 1% of the audience that will buy the ticket. Like I said million times before. Not every project should be for the fans. Michael Jackson was not that - someone who sells 100,000 copies. He was always BIG. And while I agree, that there should be few low scale releases aimed just for the fans (demos, unreleasable material...), but this project should not be like that, it's not aimed for you, it is aimed for the general public and fans who want to see it.

The same thing can be said about Xscape. A lot of people here hate Xscape album (they've said it themselves with some disgusting choice of words). And A LOT of hardcore fans boycotted it because of various valid and not valid reasons. And still Xscape proved to be giant success for record company and brought happiness to 1,5 million people worldwide (let's say 0,5 mil were MJ fans - and that is exaggerating).

At the end of the day no matter what we think or say, the Estate will make its own decision

Exactly. I hope they make the right decision.

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

That's completely unrelated to his skill levels.

I never said skills. I said energy.

 

[analogue]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

Who's talking about the fanbase? Let's say that the fanbase is split (50%-50% - not just hardcore fans - or 70%-30% just hardcore fans). That is like 1% of the audience that will buy the ticket. Like I said million times before. Not every project should be for the fans. Michael Jackson was not that - someone who sells 100,000 copies. He was always BIG. And while I agree, that there should be few low scale releases aimed just for the fans (demos, unreleasable material...), but this project should not be like that, it's not aimed for you, it is aimed for the general public and fans who want to see it.

The same thing can be said about Xscape. A lot of people here hate Xscape album (they've said it themselves with some disgusting choice of words). And A LOT of hardcore fans boycotted it because of various valid and not valid reasons. And still Xscape proved to be giant success for record company and brought happiness to 1,5 million people worldwide (let's say 0,5 mil were MJ fans - and that is exaggerating).



Exactly. I hope they make the right decision.

And this is why many of us are against it. Why the hell would any fan want Michael's worst tour to represent him as live act to the general public? Like someone said earlier in this thread, I want to show Michael off, not make excuses for him

If HIStory Tour doesn't impress a lot of the fan base. How the hell do you except it to impress the general public?

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

If HIStory doesn't impress a lot of the fan base. How the hell do you except it to impress the general puclic?

We are spoiled. Michael spoiled us with his excellency. They aren't. I think the HIStory Tour is great, for them it will be mind blowing. And when you say "Michael's worst tour" it's like saying "Michael's worst album". Is Off The Wall or Invincible bad? Hell no! They ain't as good as Thriller, Dangerous, Bad and HIStory but they certainly ain't bad. Michael's worst is often better than other people's best. That's the point here. I agree that it's not his best tour (although I think it's perfect for theatre 3D release). Also they don't have any other tour in releasable format. So it's not like they don't want to release other tours. Maybe they'll do them too in the future IF they find those film reels.

And "showing Michael off" and "not making excuses for him" is again your subjective opinion based on your obsession with lip syncing. I don't have a need to make excuse for anything and I can definitely "show Michael off" to anyone.

 

[SoCav]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

I never said skills. I said energy.

AlwaysThere said Michael did not seem to want to be there, I agreed and said the raw, contagious energy from previous tours often seemed to be missing. You responded to my comment by saying 'Maybe he was 39'. I then explained that with energy I referred to his motivation to perform, nothing physical (I can understand the confusion, hence the clarification on my part). You then say he wanted to lip sync (as if it was an artistic choice), but then brought up his age again by comparing Michael to professional athletes who get older (so now it seems like you say it is something physical again). I then once again clarified that our original comments had to do with how into the performance he was and not physical energy, and then you again mention energy. I don't follow it anymore.

Maybe we should just move on from this, as I think we're talking about different things.

The same thing can be said about Xscape. A lot of people here hate Xscape album (they've said it themselves with some disgusting choice of words). And A LOT of hardcore fans boycotted it because of various valid and not valid reasons. And still Xscape proved to be giant success for record company and brought happiness to 1,5 million people worldwide (let's say 0,5 mil were MJ fans - and that is exaggerating).

Xscape was aimed at the general public by making the music sound like other music that's popular today. Lip syncing to live performances is not something that's popular today. Contrary to what you think, it's not just a handful of diehard Michael Jackson fans on a message board who do not like lip syncing. People are slamming artists for lip syncing to newly recorded vocals for short, special live performances like the Superbowl halftime show. One can only imagine what they would say about Michael miming almost an entire, regular 2 hour concert to album vocals. It would not be pretty.

I guess if this does happen (and I hope not), we'll see who's right...

 

[analogue]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

double post

 

[analogue]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

We are spoiled. Michael spoiled us with his excellency. They aren't. I think the HIStory Tour is great, for them it will be mind blowing. And when you say "Michael's worst tour" it's like saying "Michael's worst album". Is Off The Wall or Invincible bad? Hell no! They ain't as good as Thriller, Dangerous, Bad and HIStory but they certainly ain't bad. Michael's worst is often better than other people's best. That's the point here. I agree that it's not his best tour (although I think it's perfect for theatre 3D release). Also they don't have any other tour in releasable format. So it's not like they don't want to release other tours. Maybe they'll do them too in the future IF they find those film reels.

And "showing Michael off" and "not making excuses for him" is again your subjective opinion based on your obsession with lip syncing. I don't have a need to make excuse for anything and I can definitely "show Michael off" to anyone.

 

[innuendo141]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

One didn't cut it.... I needed 2...

 

[HIStory]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

I don't have a need to make excuse for anything

But you already do by bringing up his age etc.

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

But you already do by bringing up his age etc.

That's not an excuse. That is a fact. People at 39 have less energy than people at 26 or 29 or even 34. Ask you father. My comment about his age was a direct response to this post: "the contagious, raw energy that Michael had on all the tours prior". Not skills, not quality, not anything else but energy. So stop putting my words out of context.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

That's not an excuse. That is a fact. People at 39 have less energy than people at 26 or 29 or even 34. Ask you father. My comment about his age was a direct response to this post: "the contagious, raw energy that Michael had on all the tours prior". Not skills, not quality, not anything else but energy.

It doesn't matter if we are talking about skills or energy. That's still an excuse.
Someone brought up the lack of energy and you immediately felt the need to jump in and defend it by making an excuse. You would not need to make any excuses about any other of his tours.

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

It doesn't matter if we are talking about skills or energy. That's still an excuse.
Someone brought up the lack of energy and you immediately felt the need to jump in and defend it by making an excuse. You would not need to make any excuses about any other of his tours.

It was not an excuse. And I never said there was lack of energy, but that there is less energy or that his performances and moves are less energetic. You can say that for Bad in comparison to Victory. You can say that for Dangerous in comparison to Bad. Same thing. He became older. Totally normal thing. And not necessarily a bad thing, because with each year and with each tour he became more elegant, precise, had more "swag". He just matured like any other performer (male or female).

 

[SmoothGangsta]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

Oh dear, some of the responses in this thread make my head hurt...I don't understand why people are being called selfish for not wanting this tour released, people have valid reasons, like not wanting Michael to be made a mockery of for lip syncing an entire show. Lip syncing is something people hate nowadays, if you think otherwise you're seriously kidding yourself tbh. It's been shown time and time again recently that when artists lip sync even the shortest of performances they get called out for it. I don't understand why people are thinking the public won't mind because it's Michael Jackson, they would probably mind even more because that's the case.

 

[OnirMJ]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

I don't understand why people are thinking the public won't mind because it's Michael Jackson, they would probably mind even more because that's the case.

No. No one ever said that. Not because it is Michael Jackson, but because it is an amazing show, great entertainment, one of the best world tours ever, especially of the 90's. Also people know that Michael used to lip sync - they all watched Motown 25, VMA performance, Superbowl performance.. and no one complained because they were entertained and mesmerized by the show on the stage. They were not obsessing with the live vocals. I guess they probably knew that they are watching Michael Jackson performance and not Mariah Carey singing live on stage.

 

[Tony R]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

No. No one ever said that. Not because it is Michael Jackson, but because it is an amazing show, great entertainment, one of the best world tours ever, especially of the 90's. Also people know that Michael used to lip sync - they all watched Motown 25, VMA performance, Superbowl performance.. and no one complained because they were entertained and mesmerized by the show on the stage. They were not obsessing with the live vocals. I guess they probably knew that they are watching Michael Jackson performance and not Mariah Carey singing live on stage.

Stop comparing a 5 minute TV performance (which by the way should always be live anyway) to a full show that people have paid a fortune to see and hours to queue for.

Let's face it, miming for a full show is comparable to Britney Spears. Not something that MJ should be.

 

[HIStory]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

No. No one ever said that. Not because it is Michael Jackson, but because it is an amazing show, great entertainment, one of the best world tours ever, especially of the 90's. Also people know that Michael used to lip sync - they all watched Motown 25, VMA performance, Superbowl performance.. and no one complained because they were entertained and mesmerized by the show on the stage. They were not obsessing with the live vocals. I guess they probably knew that they are watching Michael Jackson performance and not Mariah Carey singing live on stage.

He is not Mariah Carey, but he is also not Britney Spears. He CAN sing live and that needs to be shown. And exactly because famous performances such as Motown 25 were lip-synced it's shows where he did sing live that need to be put center stage now to show the public that he DID sing live in concerts and he was great at it. To be honest, it makes me very sad when fans of all people act like his singing is unimportant and irrelevant and act like wanting to hear him sing live is some crazy "obsession".

 

[AlwaysThere]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

And while I agree, that there should be few low scale releases aimed just for the fans (demos, unreleasable material...), but this project should not be like that, it's not aimed for you, it is aimed for the general public and fans who want to see it.

I guess I missed the overwhelming public demand for a Michael Jackson concert film from a tour that general critics (i.e., not Richard LeCocq or Joseph Vogel or Dam!en Sh!elds) never mention or reference in their articles or discussions, and one that a majority of fans consider to be a terrible representation of Michael Jackson as a live performer. I must have slept through it.

I agree that it's not his best tour (although I think it's perfect for theatre 3D release).

You just negated every argument you've made so far in this thread. You just admitted that the only reason you want this tour to be released is because it is 'perfect' for a theatrical 3D release (which, again, there is absolutely zero demand for).

I don't see any reason to say anything further. You just confirmed what most of us believe: you don't care about projects that will honor Michael as a performer or an artist, all you care about is seeing him on the big screen and in 3D. All you want is commercial success and don't care about artistic integrity. Which is exactly why you continually defend the Xscape album (which was very well put together but, let's face it, was hugely disrespectful towards Michael as an artist).

I've cracked the case. *leans back in chair, puffs on pipe*

I will not support the History tour. It is Michael's worst tour and is one of the few truly disappointing projects he oversaw in his lifetime. I'll take my low quality Wembley DVD over the high definition Munich show any day of the week.

 

[Tygger]

Respect77, we are not going to change each other’s view. You will believe as you wish and I will continue to believe as I do and there is no issue, however; allow me to address the following from your post:

Nothing can embarrass Michael, hurt Michael, etc. at this time. It is his fans who feel embarrassed, hurt, etc as they did in the past and now since he has passed. To worry is a personal activity which is not selfless. You can worry about a person, situation, etc. that is not you, involves you, etc. however; the act of worrying is personal which in turn, is selfish. In this thread, some believe all selfish activities are negative, however; that is not true.

I never said all I wanted was: “to watch Michael in the cinema on the big screen.” I never said that I wanted this to be Michael “main representation as a performing artist in front of the general public.” I never claimed to know the History tour “is not his best.” Despite that, you responded to your own questions with points I never made. No worries.

That's an odd stance (especially from someone who otherwise seems to be pretty critical of the Estate).

This from the poster who said: “the Estate better pay attention to hard core fans' opinion.” I am more critical of the Estate as compared to whom? Shall I assume I am not a hard-core fan? If a critique is valid, does it matter if it comes from a fan at all?

What I find interesting is someone who supports the humanization of Michael yet, made no comment when I stated one of the reasons his History tour performances may have been affected was his dread of performing in front of an audience who he did not trust to view him as a man who was not capable of what he was accused of. We do not know how that dread manifested itself however; Michael’s lip-synching simply showed he was not a machine that could satisfy every fan in the manner they wanted to be satisfied artistically. Michael was simply human and despite attempting to be professional and leave his emotions offstage, life simply did not happen that way.

Because the History tour was based on the History album that detailed Michael's emotions at a horrific time, it may have been one of his most human of moments; thus, it was not perfect. Ah, well.

Being a self-proclaimed perfectionist, Michael saw too many errors in his performance (along with camera angles), was maybe reminded too much of a horrific time and/or his reaction to it, and decided not to release the History tour as a dvd.

4) HIStory tour is a part of Michael's history and should not be hidden.

This is the only point of your four that I actually said. Unfortunately, however; you have failed to realize that I am not one of those opponents of the History tour and I am not one of those proponents that believe this is not Michael’s best tour. I am simply not a person who ranks Michael’s tours, albums, iconic moments, etc. I simply enjoy his art.

 

[SheilaMJFan4Ever]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

You'll just accept anything that has Michael Jackson in it, won't you? The estate could release footage of Michael scratching his ass to cinemas, and you'd still say ''He choose to scratch his ass, and it's part of history. You can't change history''

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (cough, wheeze, grabs my inhaler)!!!!

 

[HIStory]

Tygger

I never said all I wanted was: “to watch Michael in the cinema on the big screen.”

You should have quoted this in its context:

We can say from our point of view that it's you and Onir are who are selfish because all you care about is you wanting to watch Michael in the cinema on the big screen and you do not care about the bigger picture about whether it's his best representation in a high-profile project like this. See how that works?

The point was that there is no reason to accuse each other of selfishness, because we can find selfishness in the motives of both sides of this debate if we want to. So let's just stick to the merits of this concert and the subject please rather than accusing each other of ulterior motives.

I never said that I wanted this to be Michael “main representation as a performing artist in front of the general public.” I never claimed to know the History tour “is not his best.” Despite that, you responded to your own questions with points I never made. No worries.

It's simply that if HIStory tour will be put on the big screen then that's going to be Michael's biggest concert release yet. Bigger than Bucharest 1992 or Wembley 1988, because none of those were featured in a cinema release. So that will make HIStory tour Michael's main, most publicized representation as a concert artist. So you do not have to say it, but anyone asking for this project to happen will have to keep that in mind.

And when I was listing those arguments by the proponents of this project I was talking about the general arguments I have seen in this thread by the proponents of this project, not arguments made specifically by you and only you. In my opinion, that is clear when you read my post in its full context. Even a lot of the proponents of this tour admit and acknowledge that it was not his best concert and even that all of his other tours were better. You can go back and read this thread and see that. All of the arguments I listed were said by the proponents of this project.

This from the poster who said: “the Estate better pay attention to hard core fans' opinion.” I am more critical of the Estate as compared to whom? Shall I assume I am not a hard-core fan? If a critique is valid, does it matter if it comes from a fan at all?

You come accross as rather critical towards the Estate in other threads about most of everything, so it was pretty strange to hear this from you in this thread:

If this footage appears in any length in a theater, that is the choice of Estate/Sony (and Lee if he was to include the OTW medley in the OTW documentary). One can decide if they accept Estate/Sony's choice (and maybe Lee) if that time ever comes. Provided that time comes, I support the choice as I supported Bad25 and TII in theaters and I would hope for it to be successful. More importantly, in my view, is how Estate/Sony would handle such a project to ensure profitability as their promotional tactics tend to suffer. Any posthumous release failure is their responsibility and their responsibility alone and has absolutely nothing to do with Michael or his choices; lip-synching included.

I will accept that you love the HIStory tour and that is why you support this particular project. Although I disagree with the second part of this comment that if it's a flop then that is the Estate's fault and their fault alone. Well, okay, yes, it's their fault, because they are pushing through and spending a lot of money on a project that is not the best, to say the least. So in that way yes, it's their fault if they go ahead with this project and it flops. But that is not only because of promotion. Yes, in some cases you can blame promotion for a project's flopping, but in some cases it flops because the product is just not good enough. Promotion is not the only element of the marketing process. The product itself is an element of it too. And there are several other elements as well.

And I did not say your criticism of the Estate cannot be valid or that criticism should not be made. Where did you read that? I actually think fans SHOULD criticize the Estate when they feel it's due, because no one is above criticism, not even MJ, let alone his Estate. So how is that contradictory to my statement about the Estate having to listen to hard-core fans and how did I suggest you are not one? I did not make any statements about your criticism of the Estate being valid or not valid, right or wrong. I simply said it's strange that a person who is otherwise rather critical of the Estate and who otherwise does not seem to trust the Estate's judgement much, in this thread says that she/he would accept and support whatever the Estate decided to do in this case. That's all.

What I find interesting is someone who supports the humanization of Michael yet, made no comment when I stated one of the reasons his History tour performances may have been affected was his dread of performing in front of an audience who he did not trust to view him as a man who was not capable of what he was accused of. We do not know how that dread manifested itself however; Michael’s lip-synching simply showed he was not a machine that could satisfy every fan in the manner they wanted to be satisfied artistically. Michael was simply human and despite attempting to be professional and leave his emotions offstage, life simply did not happen that way.

Because the History tour was based on the History album that detailed Michael's emotions at a horrific time, it may have been one of his most human of moments; thus, it was not perfect. Ah, well.

Being a self-proclaimed perfectionist, Michael saw too many errors in his performance (along with camera angles), was maybe reminded too much of a horrific time and/or his reaction to it, and decided not to release the History tour as a dvd.

I did address this several times. It's nice that we fans can appreciate Michael's various problems - physical and/or psychological - around that time. I can accept that too, so when you are bringing his problems up you are preaching to the choir here. The point is however, that putting a concert on the big screen is a major representation of an artists as a concert artist and generally for every artist they put the best shows in such a high-profile project. Not something that needs all kind of explanations, footnotes and asterixes. Michael too had a lot of tours which do not need such footnotes, explanations and asterixes. HIStory tour does. That's why we are against putting it into the cinemas.

 

[innuendo141]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

I don't see any reason to say anything further. You just confirmed what most of us believe: you don't care about projects that will honor Michael as a performer or an artist, all you care about is seeing him on the big screen and in 3D. All you want is commercial success and don't care about artistic integrity. Which is exactly why you continually defend the Xscape album (which was very well put together but, let's face it, was hugely disrespectful towards Michael as an artist).

I've cracked the case. *leans back in chair, puffs on pipe*

I will not support the History tour. It is Michael's worst tour and is one of the few truly disappointing projects he oversaw in his lifetime. I'll take my low quality Wembley DVD over the high definition Munich show any day of the week.

 

[HIStoric]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

1) Tank/rocket on stage.

I wonder if fans who think that's some super imperssive spectacle ever watch other shows outside of Michael's. There are a lot more spectacular stages by other artists and that tank and rocket is not gonna impress anyone in 2015.

TBH I've never been impressed by the rocket. It always so... idk... meh, maybe even unfinished looking. The CGI intro would just be another point of controversy. Do they keep it and make audiences worldwide cringe at how bad it is or do they update it to state of the art imagery, pissing off some of the fans who are against them updating elements? Never winning battle in all honesty.

You know what still makes audiences go WOAH 23 years on though? The Jetpack ending. Seriously, most people still see jetpacks as a far-off concept in the future and here we have one of the world's best entertaining flying off in a MOTHERF**KING JETPACK OVER TWO DECADES AGO!!! I've never seen anyone end a concert better than that - ever. End on a high note and get people talking! Yes I know it's not really Michael but shhhhhhhhhh!

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

TBH I've never been impressed by the rocket. It always so... idk... meh, maybe even unfinished looking. The CGI intro would just be another point of controversy. Do they keep it and make audiences worldwide cringe at how bad it is or do they update it to state of the art imagery, pissing off some of the fans who are against them updating elements? Never winning battle in all honesty.

You know what still makes audiences go WOAH 23 years on though? The Jetpack ending. Seriously, most people still see jetpacks as a far-off concept in the future and here we have one of the world's best entertaining flying off in a MOTHERF**KING JETPACK OVER TWO DECADES AGO!!! I've never seen anyone end a concert better than that - ever. End on a high note and get people talking! Yes I know it's not really Michael but shhhhhhhhhh!

Amen!

 

[AlwaysThere]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

You know what still makes audiences go WOAH 23 years on though? The Jetpack ending. Seriously, most people still see jetpacks as a far-off concept in the future and here we have one of the world's best entertaining flying off in a MOTHERF**KING JETPACK OVER TWO DECADES AGO!!! I've never seen anyone end a concert better than that - ever. End on a high note and get people talking! Yes I know it's not really Michael but shhhhhhhhhh!

THIS. RIGHT. HERE. The jet pack ending is easily the most jaw dropping ending to a concert I've ever seen. Not a single moment on the History tour measures up to that level of excellence. The Dangerous tour easily takes the cake as Michael's most impressive tour visually and theatrically - I still have no damn idea how he did the disappearing trick during "Working Day and Night".

 

[Themidwestcowboy]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

THIS. RIGHT. HERE. The jet pack ending is easily the most jaw dropping ending to a concert I've ever seen. Not a single moment on the History tour measures up to that level of excellence. The Dangerous tour easily takes the cake as Michael's most impressive tour visually and theatrically - I still have no damn idea how he did the disappearing trick during "Working Day and Night".

Spot on!

How about that opening with the toaster! So many artists have copied that from him. Like seriously

 

[Tygger]

We can say from our point of view that it's you and Onir are who are selfish because all you care about is you wanting to watch Michael in the cinema on the big screen and you do not care about the bigger picture about whether it's his best representation in a high-profile project like this. See how that works?

Respect77, again, I did not say that and you proved it. By reposting the full quote above it only shows you linked my view to others views for your convenience. Again, no worries.

It's simply that if HIStory tour will be put on the big screen then that's going to be Michael's biggest concert release yet. Bigger than Bucharest 1992 or Wembley 1988, because none of those were featured in a cinema release.

Not true; any theatrical release will depend on its audience attendance and in turn, its box office receipts. The release would have to happen first and then receipts totaled before it could be “Michael’s biggest concert release yet.” As for Bucharest and Wembley, it would be more difficult to gauge however; one could discuss Bucharest’s ratings and the sale numbers for Wembley.

And when I was listing those arguments by the proponents of this project I was talking about the general arguments I have seen in this thread by the proponents of this project, not arguments made specifically by you and only you. In my opinion, that is clear when you read my post in its full context. Even a lot of the proponents of this tour admit and acknowledge that it was not his best concert and even that all of his other tours were better. You can go back and read this thread and see that. All of the arguments I listed were said by the proponents of this project.

I appreciate your clarification however; I said at the end of my post I am not one of those proponents.

You come accross as rather critical towards the Estate in other threads about most of everything, so it was pretty strange to hear this from you in this thread:

I simply said it's strange that a person who is otherwise rather critical of the Estate and who otherwise does not seem to trust the Estate's judgement much, in this thread says that she/he would accept and support whatever the Estate decided to do in this case. That's all.

No, simply repeating your view does not make it fact and I believe you know you cannot prove such which is why you repeat it for your convenience. Feel to post any of my critiques against another in the same thread and we will see if I am more critical. Be warned, you would have to willfully ignore my compliments to Estate/Sony and support of posthumous products while gathering such receipts.

Yes, in some cases you can blame promotion for a project's flopping, but in some cases it flops because the product is just not good enough.

And that continues to remain Estate/Sony’s responsibility, not Michael’s.

I did address this several times.

In this thread? If Michael’s issues did not allow him to give the perfect performance that some would have preferred, it is much ado about nothing because the past cannot be changed. I chose to embrace it instead of being embarrassed by his display of humanity. To each his own view.

 

[HIStory]

And that continues to remain Estate/Sony’s responsibility, not Michael’s.

As I said, in a way yes. If the Estate pushes through an idea no matter what, despite of it already being controversial among fans, then yes it is their fault if it flops.

In this thread? If Michael’s issues did not allow him to give the perfect performance that some would have preferred, it is much ado about nothing because the past cannot be changed. I chose to embrace it instead of being embarrassed by his display of humanity. To each his own view.

Yes, in this thread. You might not have realized but I (and several others) have made this point several times and in several ways: a concert that represents Michael on the big screen has to be one of his best not one that requires all kind of explanations, footnotes, excuses and asterixes. The past cannot be changed, but there is a choice about what they put on the big screen: a concert that represents him at the top of his game or the tour that is the most controversial even among his fans and that requires all kind of explanations and footnotes about why his performance is not as good as on other tours.

No, simply repeating your view does not make it fact and I believe you know you cannot prove such which is why you repeat it for your convenience. Feel to post any of my critiques against another in the same thread and we will see if I am more critical. Be warned, you would have to willfully ignore my compliments to Estate/Sony and support of posthumous products while gathering such receipts.

I don't think this thread needs this kind of derailment to make it about you. To me you just did not come across as so trusting of the Estate's judgement so far, but if you say you are, then OK, I'll accept that.

 

[analogue]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

Spot on!

How about that opening with the toaster! So many artists have copied that from him. Like seriously

Just compare Dangerous Tour opening (Jam) to HIStory Tour opening (Scream). The difference is like night and day. HIStory Tour opening looks really underwhelming in comparison to the Dangerous Tour opening.

 

[Tygger]

Re: Should HIStory Tour be released to cinemas?

As I said, in a way yes.

Not "in a way;" it is Estate/Sony's full responsibility and Michael has no accountability. None.

Yes, in this thread. You might not have realized but I (and several others) have made this point several times and in several ways: a concert that represents Michael on the big screen has to be one of his best not one that requires all kind of explanations, footnotes, excuses and asterixes.

No, that does not embrace what I see as Michael's humanity. It is an embarrassment of what some may consider Michael's human failing.

Please understand that the "countless times" it has been repeated in an effort to "explain" your view, my view (and others) have not changed. When will it be understood that others holding an opposite view is acceptable? That is the wall that has yet to be scaled.

I don't think this thread needs this kind of derailment to make it about you. To me you just did not come across as so trusting of the Estate's judgement so far, but if you say you are, then OK, I'll accept that.

You simply repeat your ad hominem attack against a poster who does not share your view. Your attack is baseless because you cannot prove it and you know you cannot prove it. Ah well.