Michael Jackson: Your thoughts?

dlofnep · 21-05-2008 04:16PM #1

I grew up watching Jackson's videos on tele. He was a mile away from every other artist in his creativity and all of his music videos were awesome. Still, he's left with the stigma of the molestation case, which he was found not guilty in a court of law. Was it a case of an overly-affectionate Jackson being exploited by the families and the media, or is he really a pervert?

In any case, what's everyone's thoughts on his life, what he accomplished, and yadda yadda?

Me? I think he's a legend. What say you?

monkeyfudge · 21-05-2008 04:25PM

Personally I like to think there's a little bit of truth in this story:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30940

Radharc na Sleibhte · 21-05-2008 04:27PM

His music is the best there is.
Its just a shame about all the other stuff.

dlofnep · 21-05-2008 04:38PM

monkeyfudge wrote: »

Personally I like to think there's a little bit of truth in this story:

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30940

The good old onion!

Gummy Panda · 21-05-2008 04:39PM

He's no pedobear

monkeyfudge · 21-05-2008 04:41PM

But they have a point... it was around the late 80s when it all went a bit strange and the music became rubbish.

keen · 21-05-2008 04:42PM

Was decent back in the day, child abuser these days.

Secret rooms in his ranch, alaramed corridors leading to his bedroom a bit strange imo.

Affable · 21-05-2008 04:42PM

He's not an evil man who should be demonised. He just needs help.

elmolesto · 21-05-2008 04:44PM

He is a legend, just a bit strange

21-05-2008 04:46PM

This post has been deleted.

Affable · 21-05-2008 04:48PM

The Scientist wrote: »

He's an evil man who should be demonised.

Way too harsh. The man's clearly off his rocker and not in control of himself.
To call him evil is wrong.

dlofnep · 21-05-2008 04:49PM

The Scientist wrote: »

He's an evil man who should be demonised.

Affable wrote: »

He's not an evil man who should be demonised.

This is all quite confusing.

Degsy · 21-05-2008 04:50PM

he was always a bit strange.I was reading a book about an EMI record executive who worked with a lot of the big stars back in the day and he said jackson was like a big child.Whether he just never matured or it was the symptom of something more sinister that he needed the cmpany of kids remains to be seen.Whether he is actually a nonce or not,he brought all this on himself,he's a grown man who lets kids that arent his sleep in his bed and **** knows what else.

21-05-2008 04:53PM

His plastic surgeon loves him (all the way to the bank).

Dinter · 21-05-2008 04:55PM

Affable wrote: »

He's not an evil man who should be demonised. He just needs help.

Yeah, with all that money you think he could have afforded some.

Although I suppose installing motion detectors on the corridors leading into your bedroom so you don't get caught having "interesting" sleepovers with minors probably costs a bit.

Then again maybe I'm just ignernt in believing there's no smoke without fire.

The Jeffersons in South Park ftw.

Bard · 21-05-2008 05:02PM

Michael Jackson is an enormously successful and talented singer and performer, who has the biggest selling album of all time.

Nicknamed the "King of Pop", he's had a long and well reknowned musical career, producing some of the defining music of its time - particularly in the 80's and 90's.

Despite wanting to never grow up, he turns 50 years old later this year and enjoys the company of children a little too much than is good for his image.

What else is there to say, facts-wise? (apart from all this, of course)

Personally, I don't know if he has it in him to actually molest children, but the allegations against him were very strong and very suspicious. Frankly, I'd generally look at him purely as a performer and not as an alleged abuser of children and from that viewpoint, he's one of the most memorable names of the 20th century.

I think the 21st century has left him behind though - although it'll be interesting to see what his upcoming album sounds like all the same...

dlofnep · 21-05-2008 05:08PM

He has an upcoming album? Sweet!

Dinter · 21-05-2008 05:18PM

Bard wrote: »

Despite wanting to never grow up, he turns 50 years old later this year and enjoys the company of children a little too much than is good for his image.

Personally, I don't know if he has it in him to actually molest children, but the allegations against him were very strong and very suspicious. Frankly, I'd generally look at him purely as a performer and not as an alleged abuser of children and from that viewpoint, he's one of the most memorable names of the 20th century.

Whether or not he actually molested young boys in terms of actual sexual acts I can't see how any boy would not be damaged by having what appears to be a 45 year old, asexual, badly scalded, ladyboy cuddling up to him and murmuring sweet nothings in his high pitched falsetto after paying the child's parents money for the privilege.

Just had a thought that the royalties he received from people's spending on his albums funded his sleepovers. Think I need a shower.

Sherifu · 21-05-2008 05:22PM

Gummy Panda wrote: »

He's no pedobear

Partners. More evidence.

Cunny-Funt · 21-05-2008 05:47PM

Ex-legend.

He's a talented, misunderstood, ****ed up weirdo.

He's the result of his upbringing and surroundings. & his appearance does not help him one bit.

I feel sorry for the guy tbh.

I feel creeped out by him too however.

South Park had him down imo.

Terry · 21-05-2008 06:02PM

I'd take head.

Sir Molle · 21-05-2008 06:06PM

How exactly do you guys all know what type of person he is? I'd imagine what you see written in the papers which isn't false (which doesn't leave you with a lot of information) would be only the tiniest insight in to what his personal life is like. So, really, you know nothing about who he is or what he is like.

Also, it just so happens that most of the people who have met him seem to think that he's pretty down to earth outside of the fact that he attracts enormous attention where ever he goes. If you are going to be a judge of his character, you could at least take the information you're basing your opinion on from those who have met the man first hand.

Lol, at this thread though.

Cunny-Funt · 21-05-2008 06:07PM

Cheers for that. You just made me shudder.

*edit*

that was @ terry

El Weirdo · 21-05-2008 06:11PM

Bard wrote: »

Frankly, I'd generally look at him purely as a performer and not as an alleged abuser of children...

Would you say the same thing about Gary Glitter?

Amazotheamazing · 21-05-2008 06:38PM

The former head of CBS defended him in a tell-all book. he didn't spare Dylan, Springsteen, the Rolling Stones or Paul Simon so there's no reason to assume he was lying for the fun of it.

Jackson is undoubtedly a disturbed man, but I don't think he is a child-abuser. Made some great tunes too!

RATM · 21-05-2008 06:49PM

I reckon ppls judgement ( especially his fans of which I was one as a kid ) is clouded when it comes to the allegations.

His sister Latoya was the only one who had the guts to speak out about what was going on, the rest seemed to be on a PR drive. For me the facts of the case are conclusive. Add that to his own allegations of abuse by his father and the historic evidence of abused becoming abusers and for me its case closed.

A great performer but a shamed one nonetheless.

Amazotheamazing · 21-05-2008 07:17PM

RATM wrote: »

I reckon ppls judgement ( especially his fans of which I was one as a kid ) is clouded when it comes to the allegations.

His sister Latoya was the only one who had the guts to speak out about what was going on, the rest seemed to be on a PR drive. For me the facts of the case are conclusive. Add that to his own allegations of abuse by his father and the historic evidence of abused becoming abusers and for me its case closed.

A great performer but a shamed one nonetheless.

His father beat him, I don't think he sexually abused him. Don't think it's comparable.

Bard · 21-05-2008 07:20PM

el_weirdo wrote: »

Would you say the same thing about Gary Glitter?

No, but there's a difference, in that Gary Glitter was actually CONVICTED of both possession of child pornography and child sexual abuse.

Jay P · 21-05-2008 08:07PM

A legend. Yes he's a bit weird but nothing he was never convicted so I dont feel any different about him.

Exit · 21-05-2008 08:08PM

I used to be a huge Michael Jackson fan, and I mean huge... posters on the wall, defending him when anybody badmouthed him, that kind of thing.

Thankfully over time, I grew up. He is a bit too weird and suspicious, and I really wish he had never got involved with children whatsoever. It's a little uncomfortable to think about when listening to his music or watching a music video.

The whole thing also overshadows his great music. I hadn't listened to his stuff for a long time, but at work they have an 80s station on satellite radio where they play 5 or 6 different songs of his a night. And it's awesome. Whereas a lot of 80s music sounds like it's from the 80s, a song like Billie Jean really still sounds fresh. I've since asked my brother to post over some of my Jackson albums and i can't wait to blast them in the car.

Sir Molle · 21-05-2008 08:45PM

RATM wrote: »

His sister Latoya was the only one who had the guts to speak out about what was going on, the rest seemed to be on a PR drive. For me the facts of the case are conclusive. Add that to his own allegations of abuse by his father and the historic evidence of abused becoming abusers and for me its case closed.

It's amasing how little you know. Latoya spoke out to boost her career under the influence of her manager and husband. She has openly admited to this, and has retracted her comments. There has never been any conclusive evidence to suggest guild on Jackson's part. If we're talking about evidence, the majority of the evidence incriminates the accusers for fraud.

Michael Jackson: Your thoughts?

Comments