Latest on MJJC

"Michael", a biopic about Michael Jackson, is officially happening.

turtleneck_sweater said:
Casting a non-black actor would be 100% disrespectful (and after he said it himself he should be portrayed by a black actor, it'd be 200% disrespectful).
I'd never forget MJ was black. I only thought Mars also was.
Click to expand...
Haha, Bruno Mars is a mix of a lot of different ethnicities, but he does not actually have any black ancestry. I believe I've read that he has Hispanic, Filipino, and Jewish ancestry at the very least. I don't remember all of it, to be honest. 🤔 But I do remember he had no black ancestry; ironically enough, I know this because many people on the subreddit wanted Bruno to play Michael, and I was like, "... wait, is he even black??" and lo and behold, he isn't, lol. I guess people of mixed ethnicity can easily fool people; for example, for a long time I didn't know whether Mariah Carey was white or black, turned out she's both. 😅 No wonder!
 
Myles Frost.

He’s apparently departing the Broadway show soon, and if you saw him, he is immaculate. He isn’t a dead ringer visually but he has the voice, the moves, and the mannerisms perfect.
 
AlwaysThere said:
Myles Frost.

He’s apparently departing the Broadway show soon, and if you saw him, he is immaculate. He isn’t a dead ringer visually but he has the voice, the moves, and the mannerisms perfect.
Click to expand...
I mentioned him earlier, I bet he's auditioned for the part.

He has already received all the choreography from those who worked with MJ , knows the songs, the moves are great and has the mannerisms spot on.

With Hollywood make up I'm sure they could make him look even better with prosthetics etc so he does look like MJ.

I'm sure they would use Michael's real recordings in the show so the voice will be spot on.

The only issue is, can Myles act?? This would be his big debut in the movie industry.
 
Hulkamaniac said:
Who wants to see an actor instead of the real artist?
Click to expand...
The people who watch them. 😂 Why have there been at least a thousand different books about The Beatles (as a group and individually) over the decades? Because they sell. There's even books and/or documentaries about side people like Pete Best, Stuart Sutcliffe, Apple Scruffs, George Martin, Yoko Ono, Magic Alex, Brian Epstein, etc. Not all biopics are about entertainers anyway. Like if someone wants to watch see something about Abraham Lincoln or Jesus Christ, they have to watch a movie because there is no filmed footage of them to watch. There is no footage of Mozart either, but there is a biopic about him. There is a movie about John Lennon as a teenager called Nowhere Boy. Nobody can watch the real Lennon as a teen, because he wasn't filmed and at the time the public wouldn't have cared about some random teen playing in a band in Liverpool. I don't think there is even any home videos of John or any of the other Beatles when they were really young.
 
MJ's appearance didn't change that much. Just his skin tone, his hair length, his weight, and his nose. Those things change all of our looks. So they can easily hire an actor with vitiligo, and go from there. And nothing else needs to be said about it. This isn't rocket science.
 
I know this isn't the most important thing regarding the biopic, but Michael was an absolutely beautiful man and the media spent decades trying to convince people he was ugly. In fact, they've all but erased his status as a sex symbol, which is insane. The other biopics made his appearance like a caricature of him. So although no one looks like Michael for a million different reasons, I really want to see them cast someone very attractive who can capture the duality of his personality.

Am I asking for too much? Lol I don't think so. We just need really good casting. Which is why I suspect they will go with a relatively unknown actor. I'd love to see an otherwise all star cast with someone fresh and exhilarating in the lead role. Someone who we don't have preconceptions of.
 
staywild23 said:
I know this isn't the most important thing regarding the biopic, but Michael was an absolutely beautiful man and the media spent decades trying to convince people he was ugly. In fact, they've all but erased his status as a sex symbol, which is insane. The other biopics made his appearance like a caricature of him. So although no one looks like Michael for a million different reasons, I really want to see them cast someone very attractive who can capture the duality of his personality.

Am I asking for too much? Lol I don't think so. We just need really good casting. Which is why I suspect they will go with a relatively unknown actor. I'd love to see an otherwise all star cast with someone fresh and exhilarating in the lead role. Someone who we don't have preconceptions of.
Click to expand...
I wonder why it's so common that in many moronic movies and articles (Scary Movie or "cutest hood in town"), the screenwriters and journalists try to portray him as unattractive and odd-looking. Haven't everyone already noticed how fans react when he's on stage? Is it envy? Is it the lack of understanding what women actually like? Even when he looked HIS worse, he still looked better than most people. And when he looked his best, he was extremely attractive. People around me recognise his beauty regardless of sexuality and "taste in men", so why tabloid hyenas didn't? It's insane how they gaslighted whole generations of people into thinking MJ has some weird appearance.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
MJ's appearance didn't change that much. Just his skin tone, his hair length, his weight, and his nose. Those things change all of our looks. So they can easily hire an actor with vitiligo, and go from there. And nothing else needs to be said about it. This isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...
I feel like I look like two different people before and after my nose job and using better makeup. Meanwhile...
pin.it

I cropped it so you can see the picture better (tumblr credit: anajacksonn) | Facts about michael jackson, Michael jackson youtube, Michael jackson pics

Mar 23, 2016 - I cropped it so you can see the picture better (tumblr credit: anajacksonn)
pin.it pin.it
 
turtleneck_sweater said:
I wonder why it's so common that in many moronic movies and articles (Scary Movie or "cutest hood in town"), the screenwriters and journalists try to portray him as unattractive and odd-looking.
Click to expand...
I genuinely believe it was intentionally deceptive for two primary reasons:

1) the racist mainstream media could not handle that women of all races and nationalities were insane for him. They did everything they could to diminish his value as a man.

2) they couldn't attack his talent. And since MJ obviously has insecurities about his appearance, it was the easiest way to tear him down and emasculate him. With his vitiligo, they had the perfect opportunity to exploit his appearance and twist the narrative

turtleneck_sweater said:
Haven't everyone already noticed how fans react when he's on stage?
Click to expand...
This. Exactly. His talent wasn't the only thing making fans pass out...

turtleneck_sweater said:
Is it envy? Is it the lack of understanding what women actually like?
Click to expand...
The mainstream media has absolutely no interest in what women like. I will spare everyone here a rant about toxic heteronormativity, but needless to say women being in love with a beautiful, gentle, soft-spoken man who was also an absolute beast on stage, with more swagger than anyone could possibly process, who was elegant looking, well-dressed, a sexy and sexual performer, a humanitarian, etc. should NOT be surprising.

turtleneck_sweater said:
Even when he looked HIS worse, he still looked better than most people.
Click to expand...
I think the timeframe that Mj didn't look his best was not only brief but largely connected to the fact that he was unwell in a number of ways at those times. But even with that said, what has always bothered me is I can see a photo of him where he doesn't look quite right, but then see a video from the exact same time frame in which he looks amazing. So, let's not forget who edits the photos we so often see. Sigh.

turtleneck_sweater said:
And when he looked his best, he was extremely attractive.
Click to expand...
Excessively good looking. Like, for real. He is without question the most attractive human being I have ever laid eyes on. Like, it is truly not even comprehensible to me lol.

turtleneck_sweater said:
People around me recognise his beauty regardless of sexuality and "taste in men", so why tabloid hyenas didn't? It's insane how they gaslighted whole generations of people into thinking MJ has some weird appearance.
Click to expand...
Thank you for saying this. I agree whole-heartedly. When I first got into MJ within the first week I was falling apart over him, but I was legitimately confused because I had been taught to believe my entire life that he was ugly. It is truly gaslighting. How can the most famous person on the planet with a fan base filled with fans who are in love with him be treated in the mainstream media as if it's just common knowledge that he's unattractive? As if millions and millions and millions of people around the world are just "wrong." That alone makes no sense. But when you consider the campaign of Michael being ugly started in the mid-80s, it's very clear it had nothing to do with his actual appearance, just the medias desire to tear him down.

This is why I'm determined to write a book about all of this some day. You know, beyond the book I just wrote here lol.
 
Not gonna lie... I am anxious. I just can't see this going well.

Who can play MJ? - Will they have 4 different actors play him? 1 as J5 child, 1 as young The Jacksons MJ, 1 turning white with vitiligo 1986-1999 and then on as the old MJ the last years of his life? - That would be a disastor IMO.

MJ's carrer was so long, it spanned 40 years and his musical carrer was extremely popular and intense - but his private life was at times even more hectic. - Marry Lisa Marie, divorce, make a new woman - MJ surgery - pregnant and marry her during the huge History tour. The allegations, the creativity, the genius, the vision.

How on earth can you fit all of that into a 3-hour movie?? - Even if they made 2 long movies so 5-6 hours total it would be difficult. And I think it will only be 1 movie and duration at max 150 minutes. (2 ½ hours)

BUT - it gives me a little hope that Prince will be somehow involved. If he is going to approve it it will not be complete nonsens.
 
IMO, a 2 movie series make sense. One that ends just before the allegations, and really focuses on his talent, musical genius, creative process. The other that can deal with his personal life, please please tastefully, maybe talk a bit about pressure, drugs, all the circus that all celebrities face, paint the human side of Michael and what he suffered.
It's really two different lives, one that knew no bounds and was at top of the world, and other that was plagued by its own success.
 
Hiker said:
IMO, a 2 movie series make sense. One that ends just before the allegations, and really focuses on his talent, musical genius, creative process. The other that can deal with his personal life, please please tastefully, maybe talk a bit about pressure, drugs, all the circus that all celebrities face, paint the human side of Michael and what he suffered.
It's really two different lives, one that knew no bounds and was at top of the world, and other that was plagued by its own success.
Click to expand...
Yes! There is a great two-piece documentary on YouTube (not in English though) which is separated into "Way to the top" and "Exile and death". It handled it in such a respectful and tasteful way that it changed people's minds and even erased my own misconceptions when I first watched it. The separation into two did it justice.
 
I will no doubt go to the movies to see the doc. If it's official they will be allowed to use MJ's music.
So just to be able to hear that on a professionel IMAX cinema will be worth every penny.
 
Hess said:
Not gonna lie... I am anxious. I just can't see this going well.

Who can play MJ? - Will they have 4 different actors play him? 1 as J5 child, 1 as young The Jacksons MJ, 1 turning white with vitiligo 1986-1999 and then on as the old MJ the last years of his life? - That would be a disastor IMO.

MJ's carrer was so long, it spanned 40 years and his musical carrer was extremely popular and intense - but his private life was at times even more hectic. - Marry Lisa Marie, divorce, make a new woman - MJ surgery - pregnant and marry her during the huge History tour. The allegations, the creativity, the genius, the vision.

How on earth can you fit all of that into a 3-hour movie?? - Even if they made 2 long movies so 5-6 hours total it would be difficult. And I think it will only be 1 movie and duration at max 150 minutes. (2 ½ hours)

BUT - it gives me a little hope that Prince will be somehow involved. If he is going to approve it it will not be complete nonsens.
Click to expand...
No, only 2 people. If they use some deepfaking, maybe not even 2, maybe 1 guy they deepfake to "his" youth.
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
No, only 2 people. If they use some deepfaking, maybe not even 2, maybe 1 guy they deepfake to "his" youth.
Click to expand...
Agreed. - 2 is absolut max. - if they start with the early Jackson 5 audition and tour on stripclups etc. they will have to have a child to play young MJ I think. But then if they go all the way to 2009... It can not really be the same, even with ddepfake. Height, way to move etc. is different from 10 years old to a 50-years old.

I am not sure a biopic is a wise move. - not if it is to span for 30+ years.... it's to much, too difficult and to much bull%&it going on.

Pepsi accident - drug addiction - will they include that? How much or little? There are sooo many things.

Would be more wise to focus on a 5-10 years period and then go into detail with that periode. - but since that would just be the 80's - Thriller up to BAD tour maybe. It would not show much of the drama that he dealt with and hd to go thru in his life...

So I do not see anything good coming out of this. But I really really do hope I am wrong. And I will go watch the movie in cinema, no doubt. And with a open heart. - Even hoping to be happily surprised. But I somehow doubt it...
 
Hess said:
Agreed. - 2 is absolut max. - if they start with the early Jackson 5 audition and tour on stripclups etc. they will have to have a child to play young MJ I think. But then if they go all the way to 2009... It can not really be the same, even with ddepfake. Height, way to move etc. is different from 10 years old to a 50-years old.

I am not sure a biopic is a wise move. - not if it is to span for 30+ years.... it's to much, too difficult and to much bull%&it going on.

Pepsi accident - drug addiction - will they include that? How much or little? There are sooo many things.

Would be more wise to focus on a 5-10 years period and then go into detail with that periode. - but since that would just be the 80's - Thriller up to BAD tour maybe. It would not show much of the drama that he dealt with and hd to go thru in his life...

So I do not see anything good coming out of this. But I really really do hope I am wrong. And I will go watch the movie in cinema, no doubt. And with a open heart. - Even hoping to be happily surprised. But I somehow doubt it...
Click to expand...
I think at least one milestone from each era is more than viable. Tbh they can skip much ofJ5 because there's really not much we haven't heard from An American Dream. I would also prefer they not rehash the OTW/Bad documentary concepts, but they should probably dwell more in the 90s than the 80s. A Thriller era montage is more than doable but that's as basic as it gets. They can just empathize how MJ was still a success throughout all the later drama and controversies he dealt with.
 
I hope the community understands that this film does not target the MJ fanbase (us) but the mass market to reach new target audiences. And it will NOT be a documentary solely consisting of facts. It is a movie about Michael for a wide audience, and thats it. And it will be positive for sure. The question is in what way they will deliver the negative-looking phases of MJ's life..
 
Nite Line said:
I hope they get MJ’s speaking voice right and not make it seem like a parody or some cheap imitation, which has been the case with previous MJ roles.
Click to expand...
Agree with this!

This is exactly the reason why it needs to be a great actor to take on the role.

Previous film attempts have been laughable because their acting is so poor!

I remember watching Charlie and the chocolate factory with Johnny Depp and strangely thinking that he sounded like MJ at times during the film - it was odd!

He got questioned about playing him after MJ died, it was bizarre.

Wonder what the chances are of Denzel Washington playing Joe Jackson are 👀
 
Nite Line said:
I hope they get MJ’s speaking voice right and not make it seem like a parody or some cheap imitation, which has been the case with previous MJ roles.
Click to expand...
YES!! Also, I have exclusively seen other actors and impressions speak in a higher voice than MJ ever did, aside from maybe his late teens/early 20s. They are always high voices, never soft voices. There's a difference.
 
DuranDuran said:
Why have there been at least a thousand different books about The Beatles (as a group and individually) over the decades? Because they sell.
Click to expand...
Yeah, because they are books about The Beatles, and not about actors :)
 
‘Michael’ is such a common name. people might not automatically associate it with Michael Jackson. likewise, ‘mj’ is also a nickname for basketball player Michael Jordan. why not use his full name? even using a song title or lyric would be better. they’re still afraid..

just as I’m afraid of tabloid sensationalism, I’m also afraid of revisionist history from fans. the source should be neutral and unbiased. the objective should be to simply tell the truth; the good, the bad, the ugly.

yet this story has already been told countless times before. we literally saw it play out before our eyes. to quote Michael himself; ‘no matter how it starts it ends the same’. in tragedy..

the second half of michael’s life was a decline in every way. there’s no getting around that. he was partly responsible for the confusion, and he didn’t always tell the truth. it’s not as simple as heroes and villains. there was a sizeable grey area. not everything can be tied up neatly, and any attempt at whitewashing will result in critical backlash, and a box office flop.

why risk damaging Michael’s reputation even further? the ‘thriller 40’ documentary will show Michael at his peak, when it was all about the music. isn’t that a better lasting memory?
 
Hulkamaniac said:
Yeah, because they are books about The Beatles, and not about actors :)
Click to expand...
If nobody wanted to watch music biopics, they wouldn't continue to be made. Because the studios couldn't make money on them. Biopics & historical movies have been made ever since movie making has existed. There's been TV series biopics (rather than movies) about Wu Tang Clan, Aretha Franklin, Elvis Presley, & the early days of hip hop. In the TV show format, they go more in depth than a movie can. Some acts have made their own biopics (NWA, Mötley Crüe, New Edition, TLC, The Clark Sisters, etc.) Also there are a large amount of people who are into gossip and dirt. That's why stuff like Wendy Williams, TMZ, reality TV shows, Jerry Springer, & the Lipstick Alley website exist. The Kardashians became famous because of a sex tape that has Kim with Brandy's (singer) brother Ray J.
 
It will obviusly focus on the pre off the wall and mostly the Thriller era. Maybe some flashbacks to the J5 era, but I see it beginning during THE WIZ and going through when the Thriller era came to a finish.

They want to tell THE GOOD MICHAEL story. They're not gonna tackle the allegations, too sensitive, and frankly, NO ONE really knows how Michael felt during those years to create an insightful recreation of that moment.

Said it once, will say it again, a true Oscar winning movie, would be the trial, but from the point of view of Messerau, with MJ just merely being a secondary or third character. This biopic is just to continue to cash in on the music.
 
It all feels so bittersweet, how will MJ's legacy continue after the biopic? Will it just be the musical and then the end? :(
 
flight85 said:
It all feels so bittersweet, how will MJ's legacy continue after the biopic? Will it just be the musical and then the end? :(
Click to expand...

That's not how I see it, personally. To me, the biopic is a great opportunity to get the general public's interest in Michael peeked to the point that other companies will see a positive reason to invest further in him. I see the biopic as the beginning in some sense. After the biopic I would love to see more documentaries about specific times in his life, theatrical releases of concerts, more music released, more positive books, memorabilia everywhere, etc.

Basically, I want Michael to have what The Beatles have. Just all around, general acceptance of him as the legendary artist he is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top