The myth of Michael Jackson in Vegas (Interesting Article)

mo_rizwan

Proud Member
Joined
Jul 25, 2011
Messages
2,974
Points
48
michaeljacksonpaintingri7.jpg

19 June 2008
The myth of Michael Jackson in Vegas


By Richard Abowitz

On this topic the mainstream media seem endlessly gullible. I don't care what the Wall Street Journal says. And, I don't care what the New York Times offers. Michael Jackson is not going to be doing a show or shows in Vegas any time soon.

As readers of the Buffet know, since December 2006, I have been swatting at rumours of various Michael Jackson comebacks set in Vegas. I have even offered the dude a gig in Vegas myself.

Yet, despite years of nothing happening, the rumours continue. This time the Vegas comeback story got a big boost from the Wall Street Journal, which reports that Colony Capital will be the factor that makes a difference: "Colony Capital, which owns the Las Vegas Hilton and is a major shareholder in closely held Station Casinos, is in discussions with Mr. Jackson to get him back onstage and in the spotlight via a long-term stand in Las Vegas."

As for leverage with Jackson, Colony Capital recently bought the loan on Neverland, a property Jackson has shown little interest in for years. Still, the media fantasies, like Charlie Brown going for the football, have begun again in earnest.

One interesting thing about the rumours is that as time goes by, less seems to be expected of Jackson. In 2006 the talk was that he would become a headliner in the style of Celine Dion. No resort jumped at that. Later comeback versions claimed Jackson would be part of a Jackson family reunion that might even include sister Janet. Nothing came of that either. Now, the Wall Street Journal story has lowered the bar even more: "The most likely option would be to create something like 'Love,' the Cirque du Soleil show built around Beatles tunes. Mr. Jackson wouldn't be a regular part of the performance but would appear for 20 to 30 performances a year, possibly with his brothers."

This is a horrible idea. Who is going to show up on the nights Jackson isn't performing? Is it a one-price lottery on if you get to see Jackson or do the nights the Gloved one is in the house make for a totally different show?

That aside: The Beatles were a studio band when they made much of their best-known music, whereas Jackson's dynamic live performances and videos of his dancing were integral to his success and key reasons his fans from the '80s would spend a fortune to see a concert featuring him.

But I suspect that there is little interest in a reunion of the Jackson 5 in 2008, and, as a solo headliner, Michael Jackson remains a huge risk.

Jackson's draw remains undeniable. But even the Wall Street Journal's story notes that if Jackson were to become a Celine Dion-style Vegas headliner, "the rigors of any such commitment would likely be too taxing for Mr. Jackson." Jackson's long dormant period means he needs to prove himself like a novice performer. And, no novice performer is worth the expense of creating a Michael Jackson show. It is an unsolvable conundrum.

In the end, nothing has really changed since the end of 2006. Only more years have gone by since Jackson's last hit, and he remains an unproven live performer in this century. The only headlining Jackson has done in Vegas was the May 2007 auction at the Hard Rock of property he once owned (pictured above).

As a rule, Las Vegas resorts do not believe in gambling when it comes to their entertainment. When considering if the Las Vegas Hilton would take a risk on Jackson, it may be instructive to note that Barry Manilow is its current headliner, and his show, by all reports is doing great, with a contract that runs through 2009.

So, I have contacted Colony Capital to confirm that it is interested in having Michael Jackson as a Vegas headliner. It's considering issuing a statement to me later. If I get it, I will post it for you.

For now, I stand by my belief that a Michael Jackson comeback has become a suitably Vegas version of an urban myth.

Source: LA Times
 
Last edited:
...More BLAH BLAH BLAH from Richard Abowitz and the LA Times.
 
IMO Michael will never "tour" Las Vegas. It's not his thing. If he will perform in Vegas he will perform also elsewhere in USA. So it's much better to tour the whole US instead of touring Vegas. His fans aren't in Vegas but only very small percents of them..
 


So, I have contacted Colony Capital to confirm that it is interested in having Michael Jackson as a Vegas headliner. It's considering issuing a statement to me later. If I get it, I will post it for you.
[/QUOTE]

The fact they are considering giving a statement rather than just saying "no" indicates to me that there is some interest there and possibly negotiations going on behind the scenes.​
 
Plus I have this feeling Vegas is for fallen stars, (I stand corrected) e.g Tony Braxton, Celine..
 
Man MJ has become famed for his procrastination, Chris Brown said it too, but then again I'd be careful about working with that kid too, unless If I was Jordin Sparks.
The point is MJ NEEDS to come back, seroisly now, the wait has been way too much,
ONE MORE TIME BOY, ONE MORE TIME!EVEN THE PAPS WANT HIM BACK, I BELIEVE THERE'S A DROMANT FAN INSIDE OF EVERY NON-FAN. Make your friends watch MJ and them closely..
 
Plus I have this feeling Vegas is for fallen stars, (I stand corrected) e.g Tony Braxton, Celine..

Actually you can't be "that" fallen if you just manage to get chances to perform there. I would say it's more for aged stars than fallen. Because that's just the only place you can be paid well enough your star rating deserve without travelling.
 
Actually you can't be "that" fallen if you just manage to get chances to perform there. I would say it's more for aged stars than fallen. Because that's just the only place you can be paid well enough your star rating deserve without travelling.
You're right:yes:
 
EVEN THE PAPS WANT HIM BACK
The Paps are just waiting for another opportunity to bring him down again. They know he can't be better than how he was in his Prime, so they'll always use that to picture him as a fallen star.
 
michaeljacksonpaintingri7.jpg

19 June 2008
The myth of Michael Jackson in Vegas

As readers of the Buffet know, since December 2006, I have been swatting at rumours of various Michael Jackson comebacks set in Vegas. Source: LA Times

^^^that RUMOUR started in June 2005 (maybe earlier, but when I first heard about it it was June 05).
 
the article is crap but I hope MJ won't perfome in LV. Hope he will do some shows alla around the world, just few of them but not in LV...long periods in LV is the sign of a fallen star permanently. But few shows there are quite an interesting thing, and MJ won't be a novice performe, that just stupid!
 
Blah. I have no idea why fans would post anything from that crappy L.A. Times newspaper.

I doubt that MJ would do Vegas either. I do not even think he would even do Vegas at all. I think MJ is in talks, but that is about it. The media is making something out of nothing. If MJ does not do any deals with Vegas that means what exactly? Who cares? Vegas a great place to have fun but that is about it. MJ is too big of a star to perform everyday at one place. He might as well tiour the USA because he owes America a tour.

Man MJ has become famed for his procrastination, Chris Brown said it too, but then again I'd be careful about working with that kid too

You made it seem like it was a bad thing. Chris Brown said that because he was "promised" by Will.i.am that he and MJ would work together. Thank goodness that might not happen. Let MJ procrastinate. If that is part of his personality then fine. As long as he get the work done, who cares?
 
the media dont a clue what he is doing oneway or the other. they are so obsessed is laughable.they hate him but cant keep away from him.
 
the media dont a clue what he is doing oneway or the other. they are so obsessed is laughable.they hate him but cant keep away from him.

THEY don't hate him. Maybe Murdoch does but in general I don't think it is hate but rather profit motive and copy catting. Now I once more feel a need to comment on the WSJ being owned by Murdoch however and because of that I intend to treat what I see coming out of that paper the same as I do Fox and the other tabloids.
 
tbh i dont think murdoch caresless about mj its the editors who have the issues. i would call it hate for certain establishments. hate from the editors who dictate what goes in the paper and how things are reported. theres no other word when u get some of the articles that you do. the uk mail paper is a prime example of that. the editor openly admitted their agenda agaisnt mj. if that is not hate when theres a concerted effort to report what they do then i dont know what it is
 
Last edited:
THEY don't hate him. Maybe Murdoch does but in general I don't think it is hate but rather profit motive and copy catting. Now I once more feel a need to comment on the WSJ being owned by Murdoch however and because of that I intend to treat what I see coming out of that paper the same as I do Fox and the other tabloids.

I just have a question about Murdoch - why do you suspect he dislikes MJ? From what I know about the guy he is quite unpleasant and I do know that he does seem to have an agenda against some people, but why MJ?
 
They just hate the fact that they could not get rid of Michael Jackson. They all talk crap. They cannot stand that Michael Jackson is strong and they have no clue who he is or what he is up to. They hate to see him move on despite what they have tried to do to him.
 
tbh i dont think murdoch caresless about mj its the editors who have the issues. i would call it hate for certain establishments. hate from the editors who dictate what goes in the paper and how things are reported. theres no other word when u get some of the articles that you do. the uk mail paper is a prime example of that. the editor openly admitted their agenda agaisnt mj. if that is not hate when theres a concerted effort to report what they do then i dont know what it is


I don't think The Mail is part of Murdoch's empire but for those media that are it has been widely reported that he rules with an iron hand over what will go into his papers. A lot of reportes have left papers when he took over because they would not bow to his pressure for false reporting.

It sounds like you know what you are talking about in regards to The Mail but the editors may do what their master demands as in the instances for Mucdoch's holdings.
 
I just have a question about Murdoch - why do you suspect he dislikes MJ? From what I know about the guy he is quite unpleasant and I do know that he does seem to have an agenda against some people, but why MJ?
Tha catalogue. Murdock is best friends with Paul and the media is resentful that MJ owns beatles catalogue. Notice they never mention it when they talk about MJ's finances, yet everybody knows that it is doing very well indeed. When they do force themselves to mention it they deliberately devalue it by hundreds of millions, otherwise they woulds have to accept that MJ is worh billions in assets.
 
Last edited:
The media can't figure Mike out. They say one thing and the OTHER thing happens. LOL!

Now Mike is hooked up with Mr. Thomas "MONEY BAGS" Barrack, and I'm sure they are all scratching their collective head's trying to figure out how that happened. The Wall Street Journal knows better then anybody else how much clout Mr. Barrack has and now he has aligned himself with Mr. Jackson.

As Rasta would say: Loving It!
 
I just have a question about Murdoch - why do you suspect he dislikes MJ? From what I know about the guy he is quite unpleasant and I do know that he does seem to have an agenda against some people, but why MJ?

I often wonder that myself. Some say he is all about profit and as we have found with those who have tried to promote positive books about MJ it is more profitable to be negative. Murdoch for years has let profit rule his actions rather than ethics. He seems quite power mad. I also wonder if people who are as power mad as Murdoch see MIchael, with the immense popularity he has had, as competition or a threat to their power. I have a hard time getting in the head of people like that because it just isn't how I think.

Someone here had a thread going about Murdoch with some great background info. The most interesting part for me was that it seems his negativity started when he tried to help someone in his paper or article who was an underdog (I believe it was a black man in Australia) and he almost lost everything because of the backlash against him. It seemed a turning point. After that he was all about gaining power and he used tabloids to build his wealth. It would make a good tradgedy if it were fiction.
 
Tha catalogue. Murdock is best friends with Paul and the media is resentful that MJ owns beatles catalogue. Notice they never mention it when they talk about MJ's finances, yet everybody knows that it is doing very well indeed. When they do force themselves to mention it they deliberately devalue it by hundreds of millions, otherwise they woulds have to accept that MJ is worh billions in assets.

See, I completely disagree with you on the Paul McCartney and Beatles thing. I really doubt that Murdoch gives a rats ass about his 'friend' or the Beatles catalog from any symbolic standpoint.
 
See, I completely disagree with you on the Paul McCartney and Beatles thing. I really doubt that Murdoch gives a rats ass about his 'friend' or the Beatles catalog from any symbolic standpoint.
His papers attacked Heather Mc Cartney with the same venum that they used for MJ. I believe friendship has something to do with it.
 
Last edited:
who said hes best friend with paul. all the papers went after heather. i doubt murdoch really gives a rats about mj hes got bigger fish to fry like making sure mcain wins the US election
 
I think when mj comes back he should just do a one off press conference and say a fuck you to the press and say i'm not doing this for you, but for my fans and because its what i love and music has always been my pashion. Keep things short and sweet then go about his business.
 
Last edited:
I don't think The Mail is part of Murdoch's empire

yeah u are right. sorry i was just using that as an example as emails they sent to the writed of a mj book who was trying to get it serialised were leaked by the author.in those emails they admitted their agenda against mj. and if u see the paper and how they report on mj in the Uk the agenda is pretty obvious to see

*excuse the spelling in abit of a rush*
 
Last edited:
yeah u are right. sorry i was just using that as an example as emails they sent to the writed of a mj book who was trying to get it serialised were leaked by the author.in those emails they admitted their agenda against mj. and if u see the paper and how they report on mj in the Uk the agenda is pretty obvious to see

*excuse the spelling in abit of a rush*

I think I remember you telling us about that at the time.
 
yeah the author posted the emails i think on here or one of the boards. i emailed the mail the other week over nasty comments about mjs kids. i dont tend to email ppl cause it doesnt work but i sent ashort and sweet message to them. got a reply but i just deleated it without reading. lol

some kids were demonstrating outside the mails offices a few weeks ago.it was on the news. over the way they report on goth music. saying it made kids kill themselves etc. nice to see them outside their offices protesting lol
 
Tha catalogue. Murdock is best friends with Paul and the media is resentful that MJ owns beatles catalogue. Notice they never mention it when they talk about MJ's finances, yet everybody knows that it is doing very well indeed. When they do force themselves to mention it they deliberately devalue it by hundreds of millions, otherwise they woulds have to accept that MJ is worh billions in assets.

I do not think it is that personal, per say he's(Murdock) doing it for Paul and friendship. However the true weallth of the land(California prices) and the ever increasing Sony/ Atv 600,000+ songs (the media just says half the Beatles Cat.)value($4-5 billion) is the root; the fact that MJ no longer has to work or come up with album after album or even tour. This they hate, MJ always says, I do not want to tour until I'm old; like James Brown did until he died right before a tour. There is an effort to push/ pressur him back on stage to get him back in the industry ready or not. Also they will be-little everything he does;I.E. the Michelle Obama treatment. I too believe Mj assets make him a billionaire at least twice over; yet Forbes, WSJ and the rest never acknowledges how rich he is despite the "debts". The media as a whole always states only debts that seem to increase with every story(nearly $400 million as of the WSJ); as if he has not earned a dime since 1993. His independence is a serious issue for a massive group in both the media and entertainment business. I hope MJ wins because his battle is far from over(MJ knows this) so he is being as careful and particular as possible.He will move when it is right and not before.
 
the media dont a clue what he is doing oneway or the other. they are so obsessed is laughable.they hate him but cant keep away from him.

The media's stupid. Even when they make positive comments, I just don't trust them especially when they print out rumors about what they think the celebrity would do, be it MJ or anybody else. That's why it's hopeless waiting on MJ material when the only things we can trust is media blurbs and gossip but nothing fore coming. That's why these articles keep getting made. It's annoying but this is what they've been doing FOR YEARS. Only thing Murdock did was make it worse but it was already bad in the beginning. Least to me.

F**k the media. Real talk.
 
Back
Top