Michael | Official Trailer

Pretty sure you'd be getting a similar discussion if a similar film came out about Polanski or Woody Allen.

Sorry. I'll reword it

Fair enough saying it doesn't hint at allegations or inappropriate behaviour with kids (regardless if nothing sexual happened, it was inappropriate and wrong)

What I meant was its turning into a discussion about that and that alone.

Yeah, I get what you're saying.

I do know a sequel is in the works. Saw pictures yesterday of his nephew as Michael in the 90s. So we'll have to see if it gets green lit. Maybe it'll show it. Maybe it won't. Who knows.

Only think I'll say is, the timeline in the movie is before any allegations became public so to not mention it, I get it purely because of that.

The Broadway show does hint at it and mentions it "Who is the boy he's bringing on tour and why is he?"

Again, as I stated earlier, I knew what to expect and I have my own criticisms of the movie. I enjoyed it though. Far from the best movie I'll see this year, but I enjoyed it and I did like seeing younger people going, dressed in the gear and loving it. There's enough bad in the world so I take what I can get 😁

I'm smart enough after seeing Bohemian Rhapsody (Queen are my number 1 band) I knew what to expect from this genre going forward. I hated that movie where as I didnt hate this.

Walk The Line and Ray were the exceptions rather than the rule

Probably over analysing it but there are two parts in the movie where I thought his downfall was hinted at.

His father telling him that if he breaks away from his family, he'll just surround himself with yes men who dont care (That is very true. Read before he sacked his manager because he told him hanging with kids wasnt a good look. Which is why I felt the writing was poor as it shoilr have explored his mindset and family abuse growing up more)

And when he's in the hospital on painkillers and he's clearly high and he's on about God putting him on the planet to heal people and looking at a picture of Peter Pan.

Maybe its because I lived through it and we all know the story of Michael Jackson. But I felt there was a change in the character after those two scenes in comparison to what came before it in the movie.

Or maybe it wasn't deliberate and I'm just seeing it for what it truly was in real life

Don’t think anyone has an issue with you enjoying the film? Plenty of people are judging by the box office.

I do think the critical reviews are understandable though. A good biopic should give an honest account of the subject, flaws and all - and this doesn’t do it. It touches on some subjects but very lightly, the overriding theme is his immense talent. For an individual with so many well known issues, it’s going to stand out when they’re absent.

The argument that it stops in 1988 doesn’t really wash with me as it wasn’t planned to be more than one film. If a sequel does appear then maybe people can revisit this and look at it as a whole. But that’s if one happens. For right now it’s definitely a poor picture into the man himself.

Nothing online suggests that a second part exists, or is yet to be greenlit. Your statement makes it seem like they’ve already scripted and filmed scenes for another part that goes into the 90s/00s but that doesn’t seem to be true at all.

If there is 4 hours of content filmed here, it sounds far more likely that the home version will have extended footage.

Tbf there is footage going into the 90s and stills and images have been released.

Also, the cast and actors have said it's in the works. So there is a lot to suggest it.

Whether it actually happens or not is another story. I dont think it will happen personally

There's no way to tell the story from the estate's POV without making him look innocent.

And as I said above in previous posts, even if nothing happened sexually, which I pray and hope didn't, its still wrong and massively inappropriate

For the period it covers (to 1984)

Haven't seen it but I thought it runs up to 1988, when there were definitely things to address…

the father beating him with a belt was quite harrowing - I think they covered the relationship with his parents very well and accurately.

But being beaten by his father is not a negative for Michael Jackson, so why wouldn't they include it?

Jackson's father beating him isn't a negative impact on his own reputation. Child abuse on the other hand is reputational to him. This is very much so about creating a narrative where Jackson is always the victim. The fanbase are doing the same thing, negative reviews amount to racism or some evil agenda. There's a desperate need to rewrite history basically.

Wouldnt say being beaten by your own father is a positive…

I didn't say it's a positive.

But if you're trying to rehabilitate the image of a man with some very credible allegations of child rape hanging over him, there's a clear advantage in portraying him as a victim himself. Sure who could blame Michael for turning out a bit odd, look at the childhood he had, etc etc.

Painting that as the film tackling the hard questions about Jackson is not reasonable.

Turning out odd and in serious need of therapy due to mental issues and arrested development caused by childhood trauma is a reality for a lot of people and regardless of allegations, there is sympathy and empathy there.

However, there is absolutely no reasoning for inappropriate relationships with children, regardless of whether or not anything sexual occurred. There's simply no excusing it and I never will make excuses for it and no movie ever will. Its absolutely wrong.

Want to be childlike and play with kids and help them? Absolutely, go nuts! But have a boundary and send them off home to their parents when its over.