There's been a few preview trailers for Michael Jackson's upcoming biopic, but the first full trailer just dropped a little over an hour ago.
MICHAEL – in theaters & IMAX April 24, 2026. Starring Jaafar Jackson, Nia Long, Laura Harrier, Juliano Krue Valdi, with Miles Teller, and Colman Domingo.
MICHAEL is the cinematic portrayal of the life and legacy of one of the most influential artists the world has ever known. The film tells the story of Michael Jackson’s life beyond the music, tracing his journey from the discovery of his extraordinary talent as the lead of the Jackson Five, to the visionary artist whose creative ambition fueled a relentless pursuit to become the biggest entertainer in the world. Highlighting both his life off-stage and some of the most iconic performances from his early solo career, the film gives audiences a front-row seat to Michael Jackson as never before. This is where his story begins.
What you wrote is a LIE. Show me the proof that Michael had child p0rn locked in his safe?
I literally wrote a post about it with images from the book of evidence earlier in the thread.
Very long and detailed post about it on reddit if you want further information.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/comments/t29l3r/evidence_books_found_on_michael_jacksons_property/
Edit - here you go, abridged version.
Books found locked in his safe, one of which had his name written on it in his own handwriting.
This isn't open to debate, this is literally fact.
Who were the authors?Both books were made by two known pedophiles, Martin Swithinbank and Ronald Drew, under the pseudonyms Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson. Martin Swithinbank was a NAMBLA officer who was jailed for 10 years for sodomizing young children and deported upon release. Co-author Ronald Drew was fired from his teaching position for sexually abusing a student. Self-described pedophiles such as Hajo Ortil, Karel Egermeier, Jos Le Doare, Jacques Simonot, among others, contributed photographs to the book. In short, books made by pedophiles for a similar audience.
Who were the authors?
Both books were made by two known pedophiles, Martin Swithinbank and Ronald Drew, under the pseudonyms Georges St. Martin and Ronald C. Nelson. Martin Swithinbank was a NAMBLA officer who was jailed for 10 years for sodomizing young children and deported upon release. Co-author Ronald Drew was fired from his teaching position for sexually abusing a student. Self-described pedophiles such as Hajo Ortil, Karel Egermeier, Jos Le Doare, Jacques Simonot, among others, contributed photographs to the book. In short, books made by pedophiles for a similar audience.
In fact, one of the photographers, Hajo Ortil, gave an interview to a website that defends relationships between kids and adults, explaining his sexual relationships with boys and how he collaborated with Swithinbank for both books.
That is incorrect - it just runs up to 1984. You should watch the film first.
Personally speaking I'm not planning to put my money towards a movie that amounts to whitewashing and an exercise in profiteering. Also it sounds pretty crap as well.
I assume you have not seen the film? it's curious so many posters are commenting on details of a film they have not watched.
The film covers all the critical details of his life up to 1984. When they make the sequel and cover the next part you can comment all you like on the allegations.
I personally don't understand the criticism of the film as i thought it was brilliant. Perfect balance of story telling and musical performances and hitting all the key parts of his life to then.
A sequel is going to be very difficult indeed, especially given all the issues later on in his life - the first film was always going to be a home run. The second film not so much.
There will be a second film (Seen loads of footage - for example man in the mirror performance and Miles Teller was only hired as his scenes were a lot more with allegations).
Then why are you devoting time and energy to comment on a movie you have no interest in, that you wont be watching and that doesnt affect your life?
Or are you just commenting purely for the sake to wind up people who have gone to see it so you can say "Ahhh Jackson fans are mental"
Reddit... 🤣🤣🤣 LeavingNeverlandHBO... 🤣🤣🤣
Any chance you have links to The National Inquirer or Weekly World News? 🤣🤣🤣
Ah I see, so you're a head in the sand conspiracy theory person.
How about the New York Times? Or is there something wrong with them as a source too?
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/30/us/jacksons-books-about-boys-are-allowed-as-evidence-in-trial.html
Here's a free link to the article if you dont have a NY times subscription
https://archive.ph/0x9P8
I've not called anyone mental. I'm commenting because this movie exists solely to profit and attempt to whitewash Jackson's history. Similarly I'd comment on something like Melania which I also have no intention of watching. Cause they both exist as exercises in propaganda in their own unique ways. I think plenty of posters on this thread do have ethical qualms about paying to see this movie.
but you haven't seen the film - there's no whitewashing in it. Includes everything up to 1984.
if you have no interest in Michael Jackson or his music then you wouldn't be spending money to see the film - you'd jog on.
Not really sure what point you are trying to make? Pointing to an article in part about a trial - a trial Michael Jackson was quickly and easily acquitted on all charges?
what relevance to the film is this?
Sligeach said it was lies that there were pedo books found in Michael Jackson's room, which is factually incorrect. I was submitting links to prove otherwise.
Even if he was aquitted on all charges, the books were still found in his room. Why would he have such books?
Sligeach is free to listen to music made by nonces, I do myself, massive fan of David Bowie and Led Zeppelin. I will at least admid they're nonces though.
No you are wrong. Those books were not "pedo" books they were not illegal at all.
The trial determined them to be completely legal books and possibly just gifts from fans - hence why he was acquitted of all charges very quickly in that trial.
You do realise after a 10 year investigation by both the FBI and Sheriffs department that no evidence at all was found against Jackson. Hence no legal charges filed.
So you actually admit he had the books, but are letting him off on a 'not illegal at all' technicality. Just 'Art books' I take it?
Do you have any books in your book shelves that contain photos of boys in various states of undress, that were writen by known pedophiles?
I am fairly sure you don't and would be disgusted to hear someone you know did.
Why does Michael Jackson get a free pass?
Those books generally tie Jackson fans in knots trying to explain them away.
“He had thousands of books”, “A fan sent it to him”, “they’re perfectly legal” etc.
Even without any allegations, finding out that someone had those in their possession would be seriously troubling. When it’s someone that was known to spend a lot of time with young boys unsupervised and in the same bed, it’s pretty damning.
One of the books even had commentary from him written in it, so it's not like they were just random books among thousands.
They were also found locked in a safe. Books with photos of young boys in various states of undress, locked in a safe.
I mean, do I literally have to spell it out? How deep does this bucket of sand go?
They were art books.
The first book was given to him by a fan.
And the other, "This is the life I want for my children." What a sinister inscription. 🙄
It just goes to show the Stretch Armstrong lengths and desperation of the prosecution to use anything to try and get a conviction.
Reminder, Michael Jackson was found NOT GUILTY of all 14 charges in the 2005 trial, which covered the 1993 allegations as well. And the FBI who investigated Michael for over a decade found ZERO evidence of any criminality.
so anyone see the film?
yes it's excellent
He didn't get a free pass - he was investigated for 10 years by two separate agencies and went through a trial whereby he was exonerated of any wrong going.
I can't compare Michael Jackson to anyone I know - as I don't know anyone who was globally famous at 10 years of age.
Yes, you're right most adults lock away books that have children in "different states of undress" that were written by known paedophiles in a safe.
I'm confident that Jackson didn't keep all gifts sent to him by his fans, why this one I wonder?
Ya, I think there's 3 of us.
Myself
@MOR316
@Theboinkmaster
And we all agree that the movie is great.
The rest are just interested in bad mouthing Michael and the film even though they haven't seen it.
Made me laugh tbh
This post, not the film
Meh. I personally wouldn't be arsed commenting. Thats me though
Yeah, it's a bang average music biopic with incredible recreations of his music videos/concerts and a couple of great performances, while absolutely sugar coating Michael's flaws by oversimplifying his Peter Pan syndrome.
It's not even the best music biopic with a CGI Monkey in it..
They're NOT Pedro books. So you're lying.
So you've seen it? This is your first comment in the thread as far as I'm aware.
Well when else would I have commented?
Really? Just look through this thread, most of the people commenting here haven't seen it.
What exactly did you find average about it?
People dismissing pictures of naked children in a locked safe as “art books” is exactly the problem here.
It is defending the indefensible because the guy could bust a move and had some banging tunes.
Imagine you took every undisputed fact that we know about Michael Jackson and his relationship with children, then applied it to a school principal or Catholic priest. Would the same people be defending them? Would they f**k. Would anyone doubt their guilt? Absolutely not.
