Latest on MJJC

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

I personally don't see a reason why Mark Lester, one of MJ's most loyal friends till the end, would falsely claim to have been a sperm donor for MJ. It's a very specific thing to make up.

Also, as far as I'm aware, he's not definitively claimed to be Prince and Paris's biological father, but rather that he was one of a few people MJ asked to be a sperm donor.

Not that it matters - MJ is and always will be their father - but it's illogical to deny that the resemblance isn't there.
 
robotchicken14 said:
I personally don't see a reason why Mark Lester, one of MJ's most loyal friends till the end, would falsely claim to have been a sperm donor for MJ. It's a very specific thing to make up.

Also, as far as I'm aware, he's not definitively claimed to be Prince and Paris's biological father, but rather that he was one of a few people MJ asked to be a sperm donor.

Not that it matters - MJ is and always will be their father - but it's illogical to deny that the resemblance isn't there.
Click to expand...
we are not allowed to discuss this subject
 
Mister_Jay_Tee said:
I don't wanna argue about those kids, one way or the other. He took care of em.

But my two cents:

It's just silly the way people be mathing this stuff. They got a white mom. Prince and Paris do.

People act like they were supposed to come out African dark. Both of them have passed and still do pass as light skins, not the version of a light skin you think they have to look like.

If you saw me you'd think I'm white at times, with two light skin parents and only one white grandparent; every other one was darker than all the Jackson's.

Y'all ain't geneticists so please stop acting like this.

And everybody knows Blankets surrogate mom was a Latina. Otherwise he (was) the spitting image of MJ.
Click to expand...
I agree, I too have white looking people in my family. It's not that uncommon so its weird how hard people push this lie about the kids like its never happened before.

some fans will believe any and every lie about Michael and then wonder why people say such horrible things about him.
 
I hope this post is not removed, because I'm simply pointing out evidence that Lester Lied. It shouldn't be against the rules to point out the lies of someone who slandered Michael.

robotchicken14 said:
I personally don't see a reason why Mark Lester, one of MJ's most loyal friends till the end, would falsely claim to have been a sperm donor for MJ. It's a very specific thing to make up.
Click to expand...
He's not a loyal friend. He used Michael to sell stories and profit off his death like most of the other snakes in his life. He was paid for those interviews he gave and he got worldwide attention and got his named forever attached to Michael's. The incentive to lie is there.

He's also a creep and who exploited an 11 year old child grieving the loss of her father. He cause Paris to be bullied for years and you say he's a loyal friend?

His children's mother exposed him as liar way back in 2009, she said Mark was not even in contact with Michael when Paris was conceived. They didn't become friends until years after she was born. And he is NOT Paris God father, he lied and made that up as well. Macauly Culkin is her Godfather.

Is my ex-husband Mark Lester the father of Jacko's children? No, he's completely nuts

After extraordinary claims by the former child star of Oliver, an explosive riposte from his scornful ex-wife...
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk

That doesn't mean, though, that her recall is necessarily inaccurate - she is impressively collected and precise when talking about why she is certain what Mark Lester says is untrue.

'It makes no sense to me,' she says. 'Mark had only met Michael three times before we were married in 1991. From 1991 there was no contact with Michael Jackson for years.

'The first real contact the family as a whole ever had was when Jackson came [to the UK] after he had broken his ankle [Jackson had an accident in rehearsals in 2003].

'Michael only contacted Mark in 2001 and renewed the friendship. There is no way Mark could be Paris's father, as she was born by then.'

Indeed, the dates do not add up. Prince was born in 1997 and Paris in 1998. In Lester's defence, he claims he offered to make the sperm donation in a telephone call to Jackson in 1996 and the whole thing had been arranged without meeting face-to-face.
Click to expand...

Lester says he made the donation in a Harley Street clinic. He presumes the sperm was frozen and taken to America to impregnate Debbie Rowe, Jackson's ex-nurse and mother of his two eldest children.
Click to expand...
^ Mark exposes himself as a liar with this statement because Debbie was in Paris, France with Michael when Paris was conceived. Pictures prove it. Michael flew her out specifically so they could try for another baby together. Mark is a liar.

Right after Michael died, Mark at first denied the rumors that Michael's kids weren't his, then less than a weak later he made his claims about Paris when he realized it would lead to fame and easy money for him,

I don't know why you guys are so quick to believe every fraud who makes a claim about Michael and dismiss Michael as the one lying.
robotchicken14 said:
Also, as far as I'm aware, he's not definitively claimed to be Prince and Paris's biological father, but rather that he was one of a few people MJ asked to be a sperm donor.
Click to expand...
There's no proof Michael ever asked any man for sperm and what a vile thing to believe with no proof. It plays right into the media's narrative of him being an emasculated freak who wanted to be white. So he wasn't man enough to use his own sperm and was instead begging white men for theirs. Give me a break. That's some tabloid BS if I ever heard it.
robotchicken14 said:
Not that it matters - MJ is and always will be their father - but it's illogical to deny that the resemblance isn't there.
Click to expand...
Resemblances are subjective. I see a clear resemblance between Paris and Michael.
 
kelley said:
I hope this post is not removed, because I'm simply pointing out evidence that Lester Lied. It shouldn't be against the rules to point out the lies of someone who slandered Michael.


He's not a loyal friend. He used Michael to sell stories and profit off his death like most of the other snakes in his life. He was paid for those interviews he gave and he got worldwide attention and got his named forever attached to Michael's. The incentive to lie is there.

He's also a creep and who exploited an 11 year old child grieving the loss of her father. He cause Paris to be bullied for years and you say he's a loyal friend?

His children's mother exposed him as liar way back in 2009, she said Mark was not even in contact with Michael when Paris was conceived. They didn't become friends until years after she was born. And he is NOT Paris God father, he lied and made that up as well. Macauly Culkin is her Godfather.

Is my ex-husband Mark Lester the father of Jacko's children? No, he's completely nuts

After extraordinary claims by the former child star of Oliver, an explosive riposte from his scornful ex-wife...
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk




^ Mark exposes himself as a liar with this statement because Debbie was in Paris, France with Michael when Paris was conceived. Pictures prove it. Michael flew her out specifically so they could try for another baby together. Mark is a liar.

Right after Michael died, Mark at first denied the rumors that Michael's kids weren't his, then less than a weak later he made his claims about Paris when he realized it would lead to fame and easy money for him,

I don't know why you guys are so quick to believe every fraud who makes a claim about Michael and dismiss Michael as the one lying.

There's no proof Michael ever asked any man for sperm and what a vile thing to believe with no proof. It plays right into the media's narrative of him being an emasculated freak who wanted to be white. So he wasn't man enough to use his own sperm and was instead begging white men for theirs. Give me a break. That's some tabloid BS if I ever heard it.

Resemblances are subjective. I see a clear resemblance between Paris and Michael.
Click to expand...
The 3 kids have no resemblance to the Jacksons at all, I'm all for being pro MJ but we need to get real here.

Compare MJ in say 1978 and there's no way on earth you can be true to yourself if you believe Paris looks like him.

I reckon Debbie and Klein are the biological parents.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
The 3 kids have no resemblance to the Jacksons at all, I'm all for being pro MJ but we need to get real here.

Compare MJ in say 1978 and there's no way on earth you can be true to yourself if you believe Paris looks like him.

I reckon Debbie and Klein are the biological parents.
Click to expand...
I have and I see the resemblance.

As your posts about Michael looks in the other thread show. You can't see past skin color. You can't even see Michael still looked like his younger self after vitiligo. So I don't take your opinion on resemblances seriously when it comes to the kids.
 
kelley said:
I have and I see the resemblance.

As your posts about Michael looks in the other thread show. You can't see past skin color. You can't even see Michael still looked like his younger self after vitiligo. So I don't take your opinion on resemblances seriously when it comes to the kids.
Click to expand...
It's not just skin colour , they have zero African American features.

Joe and Katherine were both black, that's a strong gene , compare the 3 kids with the rest of the offspring within the Jackson family and they are the only ones who look completely different.

I don't care if they are biological or not, they are his kids and will always be but I find it extremely hard to believe they have any Jackson blood in them.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
It's not just skin colour , they have zero African American features.

Joe and Katherine were both black, that's a strong gene , compare the 3 kids with the rest of the offspring within the Jackson family and they are the only ones who look completely different.

I don't care if they are biological or not, they are his kids and will always be but I find it extremely hard to believe they have any Jackson blood in them.
Click to expand...
no offense but you sound ignorant. African americans have white ancestry that could result in whiter looking kids if the other parent is white. Ive seen this happen with my own eyes in my own family, so please spare me the nonsense.

Ive seen a picture of Marlons grandkids at Janets concert and 1 of them look just like Blanket. And 1 looked similar to Paris when she was younger. So you're wrong about that anyway.
 
kelley said:
no offense but you sound ignorant. African americans have white ancestry that could result in whiter looking kids if the other parent is white. Ive seen this happen with my own eyes in my own family, so please spare me the nonsense.

Ive seen a picture of Marlons grandkids at Janets concert and 1 of them look just like Blanket. And 1 looked similar to Paris when she was younger. So you're wrong about that anyway.
Click to expand...
Ignorant because I have a different opinion to you?

If Michael was mixed race I could perhaps believe it but he wasn't, he was full on black African American.

Paris has no African American features and neither does Prince. If they were mixed race they would look like say Evan Ross.
 
Blues_Away2023 said:
Ignorant because I have a different opinion to you?

If Michael was mixed race I could perhaps believe it but he wasn't, he was full on black African American.

Paris has no African American features and neither does Prince. If they were mixed race they would look like say Evan Ross.
Click to expand...
Why doesn't rashida jones look like evan ross? Why doesn't my cousins child look like Evan ross?

Like I said you sound ignorant. I won't even be responding to this nonsense anymore.
 
kelley said:
Why doesn't rashida jones look like evan ross? Why doesn't my cousins child look like Evan ross?

Like I said you sound ignorant. I won't even be responding to this nonsense anymore.
Click to expand...
You're clearly in denial
 
SmoothCriminal1995 said:
What's all this got to do with the Biopic?
Click to expand...
Well someone asked if the paternity lies could be addressed in the biopic,and i and few others said we think it should be and then others chimed in parroting the same old lies we think should be addressed and debunked

I didn't mean to start some kinda debate, but I did want to respond to the person pushing Mark Lesters lies. I think we should at least be allowed to expose liars who exploited and profited off Michael's death and his childrens pain.

ETA: I informed blues away that I would not be engaging them on this topic anymore and they still responded to keep it going.
 
kelley said:
I didn't mean to start some kinda debate, but I did want to respond to the person pushing Mark Lesters lies.
Click to expand...
I didn't mean to rile you up so much, I didn't know that Mark Lester was such a touchy subject.

I'd take a bet that there would be far more profitable lies he could come up with about Michael Jackson than being asked to donate sperm. But each to their own.
 
Are we any clearer to understanding the period the film is covering. The MJ Cast were saying Dangerous tour Wembley which seems a random place to end it. And for a life as packed as Michael’s I can’t see how they will fit it all into a biopic, even if you were only focusing on the main events.

For me it would work better split into 3.
1) 29/08/58 - 04/12/78 classic Rags to Riches film ending as Michael begins recording off the wall.
2) 10/08/79 - 31/01/93 The rise and rise of the King of Pop. From release of Off the Wall to Super Bowl halftime show. Pretty much a total feel good film with a great finale.
3) 01/02/93 - 07/07/09 A much darker film focusing on the allegations, court case and the This Is It shows. The pressure he was under. But also the joy his children bring him and finally and the isolation and way he was shunned by so many of those that turned up to praise him once he was dead.
 
Last edited:
Albion said:
Are we any clearer to understanding the period the film is covering. The MJ Cast were saying Dangerous tour Wembley which seems a random place to end it. And for a life as packed as Michael’s I can’t see how they will fit it all into a biopic, even if you were only focusing on the main events.

For me it would work better split into 3.
1) 29/08/58 - 04/12/78 classic Rags to Riches film ending as Michael begins recording off the wall.
2) 10/08/79 - 31/01/93 The rise and rise of the King of Pop. From release of Off the Wall to Super Bowl halftime show. Pretty much a total feel good film with a great finale.
3) 01/02/93 - 07/07/09 A much darker film focusing on the allegations, court case and the This Is It shows. The pressure he was under. But also the joy his children bring him and finally and the isolation and way he was shunned by so many of those that turned up to praise him once he was dead.
Click to expand...
The director said "the good, the bad, and the ugly", so that definitely entails 1993 and/or 2005 at the very least.
 
Things the film needs to show for us fans, aside from what i already mentioned
  • Michael as the driving force behind his creation process regarding songwriting
  • His work ethic and how hard he worked to get to the level he was at
  • At least 20 minutes devoted to his humanitarianism
  • What actually goes on when people visit Neverland, this was shown in Michael Jackson commemorated.
  • He was romantically interested in women
  • Marriage and relationship with Lisa Marie Presley
  • The dehumanizing treatment and abuse at the hands of law enforcement
  • His trip in Africa and fame in other international countries.
Film will have to be at least 3 hours, possibly even 4 hours to get everything in
 
Last edited:
IhateTheMedia said:
It's necessary, his humanitarian work was arguably his most important aspect. It needs to be highlighted
Click to expand...
The mafia and some drug dealers donate money to charities. The mob have even financed hospitals & clinics to get built. They're still organized crime. That kind of thing is something to put in a documentary. Not in a movie that is supposed to entertain people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top