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.
he wasn’t on trial for possession of child porn, he was on trial for molestation.
Interesting that some people would think child pornography is ok if you don’t get convicted for it.
Oh, right, so they ignored the possession of child porn? Give me a break! They threw everything at him. Not a chance would they have let such a crime slide.
I'm sure everyone will watch this, because they're interested in the truth. And haven't ignored the fact that Michael was found not guilty in a court of law. And the FBI found no evidence of any criminality after investigating him for over a decade.
I’ll ask you the same questions that you conveniently ignored previously.
Would you be ok with your children sleeping in a bed with a non relative?
If you don’t have children would you be ok with a male relative sleeping in a bed with children who weren’t relatives?
This thread is why this site is dying/dead. Can we limit posting to people who have seen the film?
Also as I said. Sequel confirmed by the studio.
It was not disputed that he owned it, nor was it disputed that it was sexually explicit. Jackson's lawyers fought to keep it from the 2005 jury because it would prejudice them. This is all public record.
https://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/04/29/jackson.trial/index.html
This is a very strange hill to die on. A passionate defence of a grown man having explicit pictures of children was not something I thought I’d read on boards today.
Sequel is expected. I wonder will we see a re release with some deleted footage there is allot of photos clips especially some songs that never used though legal issues seems to be the reason.
Half expect Jermaine and LaToya to have a film aswell knowing them a Jacksonverse so to speak.
Great to see a bit of activity in the forum all the same.
'There's at Least One More Movie' — Studio Boss Talks Up Potential Michael Jackson Film Franchise
has broken all records for biopics and music/consent films
has broken all records for biopics and music/
consent
films
A Freudian slip if ever I saw one
I liked this take on why the critics reviews of the biopic are irrelevant and clueless.
I don't believe a thing in that video. It was clearly put together by someone who point blank refuses to consider any of the allegations as being true. MJ defenders are like Q anon, stubborn as hell.
Here's a list of points in that video that have been refuted
https://www.reddit.com/r/LeavingNeverlandHBO/comments/167ufbm/rebuttal_to_twentyfive_lies_they_told_you_in/
I don't believe a thing in that stink link. It was clearly put together by someone who point blank refuses to consider any of the allegations as being false. MJ haters are like Q anon, stubborn as hell.
Again, Reddit… 🤣🤣🤣 ... LeavingNeverlandHBO… 🤣🤣🤣
I'm still waiting for the answer to my simple questions,
Would you be ok with a male relative of yours having those books locked away in a safe?
What about a grown man sleeping with non related children in his bed?
Or are you that much of a fan that these just don't bother you?
Bit of an ironic post given the discussion in this thread is actually contributing to keeping the site alive and is probably the most active a thread on this forum has been in a while 😁
You've linked to what amount to fan blogs and YouTube videos so criticizing the quality of other people's sources doesn't make a whole lot of sense. On top of that you've accused all critics of being part of a racist conspiracy.…
Duplicate post
Stuff like this is pretty pathetic tbh and misses the entire point of criticism.
Good critics are usually well educated in their field, and are excellent at putting into words why they did or didn’t enjoy what it is they’ve just seen.
But at the end of the day, it’s simply one persons opinion. It’s really up to the consumer to find critics that they trust. I have disagreed with plenty of critics but still consider their opinion valid.
And it’s patently absurd that he suggests critics are unable to critique a work because they don’t have lived experience as the subject. That would make basically any film impossible to critique.
I don’t understand why Michael Jackson fans particularly care either. They love the film and good for them, but it’s very thin skinned to try and suggest people that don’t enjoy it are simply wrong.
You’re being ignored as you’re trolling a thread on a film. There’s a completely separate post on the allegations so argue away on that one.
I agree with most of this - I’m ok with loving this film and others hating it.
What I do find suspicious is a load of reviews giving the film 1/5 which IMO is ridiculous - meaning it’s one of the worst films ever made. Just silly.
I’m delighted to see it do so well at the box office.
Can you explain how I'm trolling?
I'm asking a poster a legitimate question about the artist that this movie is about and I'm sure @sligeach is able to answer for themselves.
I cannot see a recent thread for the allegations.
The outrage over responses is getting a tad silly TBH.
there’s a leaving neverland thread which I posted in with deep dive into allegations and a lot of back and forth you’d be interested in. I can see the thread easily enough or of course you can start a new one.
My question are for @sligeach on this thread as it was here that they argued in favour of Michael Jackson for his possession of these books so it's very much relevant to ask it in this thread.
You're free to ignore my questions that are put to a different poster.
Sequel will be a VERY tough sell. Now I have not seen the first movie but, from the descriptions, I know pretty much where it ends.
The majority of his most iconic music is probably already covered. The movie charts his rise to the peak of his fame and public admiration.
From this point on, the movie would, in effect, be the downfall (as much as they can cover given settlements etc). The allegations, the public mass loss of respect. Yes, there are still of course fans and people who do not believe the allegations but even they must agree that he had a massive fall from grace. And was what he was most in the limelight by the end.
If it wants to be honest then it needs to chart the fall of Jackson. (And as everyone seems to be calling him by his first name only these days - not a thing at his peak - then they could call part 2 "Jackson"). However I seriously doubt the Jackson estate would allow this.
Now, I'm not going to debate on this as there is nothing to debate: those who didn't believe the allegations still have to acknowledge that allegations were made. Settlements were made. His best music has already been released and his popularity had fallen.
I don't think it's a particularly good take on "film criticism" as such.
He's making the argument that critics points of view don't count because they don't have an understanding of the same lived experience as depicted in a film. Which is a very limited prism to which to view the role of a film critic.
Surely, a bigger argument to assess whether a film is objectively good or not is to say how clearly it convinces someone who doesn't have that lived experience in understanding how something felt, or evokes the stakes.
So we can't talk about a person in a thread discussing a film entirely about that person's life? Got it.
It's an utterly idiotic criticism of criticism, which completely misunderstands what film critique is about, or for.
of course you can - but some posters are going down an obscure rabbit hole into the allegations for which there’s already a massive thread. This thread seems to be derailed by allegations that aren’t really relevant as the film only covers up to 1984.
And if a biopic was made about Woody Allen that cut out before allegations were made, do you think it wouldn't raise eyebrows and wouldn't be discussed?
