Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Michael | Official Trailer

1356716

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,778 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,139 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    The racist angle seems like it may be somewhat legit. The phrasing for it appears to derive from this.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacco_Macacco

    You think there's a plot against Jackson. The reviews have been pretty clear in terms of what their issues are and it's not simply to do with the abuse allegations. On top of that, both Janet Jackson and Paris Jackson have issues with it. On top of that, it appears to amount to a music video rather than a movie.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,860 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    "I'm beginning to think you DO work for the studio, as one poster asked."

    I opened this thread, and posted some trailers for the movie. Big whoop.

    So many people here are spouting statements here as if they are true, when they're demonstrably false.

    "I was 100% going to go see this, knowing they were going to exclude the early 90s charges and legal troubles."

    Michael was never charged in the 90's.

    "Plus it was obvious that the singing was Michael's original voice, which is a bit of a cop out."

    What's wrong with that? That's hardly a fair criticism. Jafaar is meant to represent the visual embodiment of Michael on screen. I would hate if he sang Michael's songs, he was very protective of his music catalogue while alive, they should still be respected. And Jafaar possibly/probably wouldn't be able to do them justice.

    "You seem very defensive of a movie you yet haven't seen either."

    The thing is I haven't said the movie is good or bad. I will reserve my judgement and give my own honest assessment when I see it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,954 ✭✭✭McLoughlin


    Jacko was also a toy monkey very much like a Gollywog. Jacko was very much a British toy and well calling a black person Jacko (a monkey) was common.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭MOR316


    Saw it tonight.

    Dont get the bad reviews at all. Its a music biopic. Its very enjoyable and I had a good time.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,860 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    Yes, it was and still is a racist term. Google it.



  • Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 45,404 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Calling someone with with surname Jackson "jacko" is most certainly not racist FFS.

    'whacko jacko' was very much a moniker based on the weirdness of jackson, a weirdness that no one challenges. It was a nickname used frequently in newspaper articles.

    Even our so called "newspaper of note" used that moniker

    32815.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,860 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    The media clearly have an agenda. Sky News for example today have been promoting this on their channel all day, with a QR code on screen.

    Comments turned off so nobody can re-butt or challenge it.

    Then on The Wrap tonight, they had the human skidmark, Dorothy Byrne on. Why was she on, I wonder. 🙄 Rhetorical. She's behind Leaving Neverland, a shamefully one-sided mockumentary that's been shot to pieces, and was re-edited several times to try and remove some of the lies. There was no balance to her rant against Michael tonight.

    Screenshot_2026-04-22-23-56-31-839-edit_com.android.chrome.jpg

    It just goes to prove you can't trust "Critics" reviews as well as the known fraudsters.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,860 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    2 wrongs don't make a right. I wouldn't call the Irish Independent a beacon of journalism anymore. And I know some people called them out for using that term.

    Can you think of any other famous person with the name Jackson, that's referred to as "Jacko"?



  • Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 45,404 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Yeah loads

    Mark Jackson the Aussie player from the 80s

    Jackson gill the kiwi shot putter

    Peter Jackson the Aussie rugby league player

    Nicholas Jackson Chelsea soccer player.

    Jackson Baker the surfer.

    Jackson free the Aussie rower

    You also had the likes of Jack o shea being called jacko.

    There's loads.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭MOR316


    I genuinely think critics were way too harsh on this movie. It certainly does not deserve the low ratings it has gotten in recent days to me anyway.

    That said, I do get some reviews saying that they copped out by not exploring the physical, mental, racial challenges he faced and how it drove and broke him to an extent. Not talking about allegations. Talking about Lupus, the vitaligo, the abuse he suffered from his father, trying to break free from his father and how it made him surround himself with yes men. The fact he pushed himself to the limit to make Thriller because Off The Wall didnt get as many awards and magazine front covers as he wanted and expected and how it angered him and how that shaped his state of mind etc.

    I think they missed the opportunity with that and it was an open goal. That said, only so much you can do in two hours



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Tork


    Jaco Pastorius?

    This thread is the first time I've ever seen racism being mentioned in relation to Wacko Jacko. The popular press has always bestowed nicknames on people to shorten their names, whether it be Paul Gascoigne (Gazza) or Paul McCartney (Macca) or Gay Byrne (Gaybo). I'm sure there are others, but I can't think of any just now.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,860 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    OK. I've not heard of most of them, apart from Nicholas Jackson and Jack O'Shea. And only Jack O'Shea being called Jacko. That's fair enough, there was no malice there. But there was malice in calling Michael, Wacko Jacko.

    And if we're being honest, you probably had to Google most of those names.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 3,782 ✭✭✭Tork


    Perhaps the makers are paying the price for the many official biopics and documentaries which have been made in recent years. By their very nature, they are sanitised, and that makes for frustrating viewing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,139 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    The thing is, based on the stuff you were posting since day one on the thread, it was pretty much guaranteed that you would be outraged by the critics. I linked to the Ebert review for example and it barely mentions the abuse allegations but it's very much so critical of the movie for other reasons.

    In terms of the allegations, a lot of people very much so think there's plenty of credibility behind them. I'm sure you'll be outraged by this but it's the reality. Woody Allen similarly has plenty of people who will go to bat for him btw. My view is Jackson was deeply troubled, was the victim of abuse and I very much so view his relationship with minors to be deeply inappropriate at the very minimum and there's indications it went further than simply inappropriate.

    Just glancing at some of the online reactions on reddit and they're pretty much backing up critics. But clearly they're plants or something.

    Post edited by eightieschewbaccy on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 6,778 ✭✭✭TheIrishGrover


    Nope. You are intentionally wrong. It was never used as a racial insult and you and everyone else knows it.

    Jackson did face racial oppression of course. (hard to believe that MTV didn't even show his music initially. He and a few other acts practically MADE MTV so popular). But the term Whacko Jacko was not part of it. Derogatory and hurtful term about this idiosyncrasies but not racial. Calling it's use as racist is intentionally deflecting and I will say no more about it as everyone knows it's the case and is sidetracking from the point that the film is made by money-hungry ghouls



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,922 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    Jesus, a comment on the Journal actually made me laugh:

    Screenshot_20260423_084856_TheJournalie.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,286 ✭✭✭Trigger Happy


    I definitely agree with this. Using Jacko instead of Jackson is not racist. And the tag Whaco was down to his oddness which was well publicised. The first I heard that this was a racist term was on this thread today!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,956 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    Just because it's a music biopic doesn't mean it's good or cannot be bad or does not have to have certain standards. Same people did Bohemian Rhapsody, which many people liked, but I found it awful, loose with facts, poor script, and just people mimicking the real people. A 20 minute concert reenactment does not mean a film is good.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,645 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    An agenda, mother of God!

    I had no idea a thread about a Michael Jackson movie would devolve into something plucked from Covid-era After Hours. Just waiting for a rant about the "Mainstream media"

    Michael Jackson had inapproriate relationships with children and was accused of being a diddler. As much as you'd like for these things to be ignored, that's not going to happen.

    If you think a movie studio are going to make a movie like this, pump tens of millions into promo and expect people not to mention that they have left out an enormous part of his story, you're mistaken.

    Post edited by MrStuffins on


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,860 ✭✭✭✭sligeach


    Maybe you should have read the rest of the thread before having your mini rant.

    This movie did address the abuse allegations, but they had to reshoot scenes due to a clause in the 1993 settlement which preventing the accusers from being disparaged. The movie also grew in size, scope and content. It has faced numerous delays as a result. It was running at over 4 hours. So it was decided to split it into 2.

    There are plans for a 2nd part(at least), depending on its success. None of this is officially official. They're not going to get ahead of themselves. This deals with the rise of Michael, the sequel is said to deal with the latter more complex years of his life.

    $¢úm like Dorothy Byrne don't get to dictate the narrative of this biopic. If she wants to make a movie of her own decrepit life, go right ahead. This Michael Jackson biopic is overseen by his Estate and his family. They're telling it as they knew him, not how the tabloid junk media portrayed him.

    Most people here(and the world) haven't seen the movie, and yet they're judging it. I'll give an honest assessment when I see it myself.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,513 ✭✭✭Rocket_GD


    I somehow think if you go and think it's shíte you won't be telling us all that.

    You're clearly a Michael Jackson fan boy, there's nothing wrong with that by the way, I adore his music, but your defensiveness of any criticism of the man is over the top.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,833 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Serious reaching going on to link Wacko Jacko to some Victorian monkey or an apparently "common" racist term no one from the 80s ever remembers hearing.



  • Subscribers, Paid Member Posts: 45,404 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Yeah posters seriously trying to retcon Jackson's history here.

    Whacko jacko as a nickname for Michael Jackson was ubiquitous across the world in the 90s, based on his weirdness and nothing at all to do with racism.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,645 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    But this is what's weird. You're saying "People haven't seen it, and they're judging it"

    Yet when people mention that all of the major news outlets have indeed seen it and have judged it, you cry about it and say not to believe them. Despite having not seen the movie yourself 🤣



  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 31,616 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    "This Michael Jackson biopic is overseen by his Estate"

    Genuine question: do you see how this is a major red flag for many when it comes to ANY biopic, not just a Michael Jackson one?

    A biopic at its best - and unfortunately Hollywood has made a lot of bad ones in the last decade, particularly in the 'music biopic' subgenre - should be a bold and distinctive interpretation of an artist, their life and their legacy, not a formulaic project overseen by legal or commercial interests (which is what an estate ultimately is).

    It's the difference between something like (to pick my own personal favourite biopic of an influential artist) Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters and something like Bohemian Rhapsody.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,139 ✭✭✭eightieschewbaccy


    But you seem to be ignoring that plenty of his family had little time for the script, including his own offspring. The movie seems to be a great example of parasocial relationships that people have with popstars.

    Also declaring people as scum for not liking the individual is a bit excessive. There's plenty of legit reasons for people to have an issue with Jackson.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 15,922 ✭✭✭✭Dial Hard


    "There are plans for a 2nd part(at least), depending on its success. None of this is officially official. They're not going to get ahead of themselves. This deals with the rise of Michael, the sequel is said to deal with the latter more complex years of his life."

    The only talk of a sequel I've seen has been speculation driven by the "His story continues" title card the film ends with.

    I suspect this will bomb at the box office and all this talk of a "warts and all" sequel will quietly disappear.

    Also, I'm not sure that "produced by his estate and family" is the ringing endorsement of this film's narrative integrity you seem to think it is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭MOR316


    Sorry for enjoying myself and having an opinion... Didn't realise that wasnt allowed

    I think Bohemian Rhapsody was crap and the performances were like something from spitting image.

    But I enjoyed this. Probably because I'm a Queen fan boi and just like Michael Jackson's music and his art



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,321 ✭✭✭MOR316


    Well no, there have been interviews with the actors saying another movie is in the works so that's where it gained legs.

    Whether it happens or not, I dont know. Personally speaking, I am not going to see a movie about a man sleeping in bed with children. And like I side eye him for that aspect of his life, I would side eye anyone going to see it or approving of it



Advertisement
Advertisement