It’s a movie starring his nephew in the lead role, approved by his estate, and by all accounts it just feels like an attempt to whitewash him. This is a man who was accused of being a serial child molester, settled with a family out of court for $25 million just to avoid a trial (Chandler), and openly admitted he slept in the same bed as kids while he was an adult (Bashir interview), among other things. I don’t really see what there is to debate.
Anything pointing this out gets backlash on movie-related subreddits, which I find wild. It makes me wonder, if Epstein could sing and dance, would he have gotten a biopic too? Would people be defending him like this?
I think its right amount of woke.
I personally dont like these kind of things.
I havent and dont intend to watch this or pieces like Oppenheimer or Monster series. I can watch legit documentaries of Dahlmer or unabomber, but i find it to be poor taste to make entertainment from things like that.
Fuck everything about this movie
I think that you’re living you life in an incredibly boring consumptive way if you even have an opinion or care about this movie.
You don’t have to watch every movie. Thousands of terrible movies come out every year, just don’t watch them. If someone makes a bad movie. How would that personally affect me? Unless I was strapped down and forced to watch it. Who cares.
You making this thread and getting people talking about the movie is you low key doing marketing for the movie, whether you like it or not any attention is attention.
So so congrats on going out of your way to market this movie that you don’t have to watch or think about.
You’re not too woke. You’re to green and innocent though. Movies glorifying pedophiles shouldn’t surprise you. Trumps wife just got her own movie ffs.
The people with power like this stuff and want us to like it too.
The thought of white washing MJ is kind of hilarious
He did it to himself 😂
I thought everything against MJ was pretty much determined to be completely fabricated by a physiologist convincing kids that they “remembered” things that never really happened?
I personally think he didn’t do anything. I think he was weird as hell and people took advantage of it. People who are incredibly talented tend to be really different personalities. Look at great composers and painters.
People always point out things that the kids claimed but no one seems to talk about the kids that were forced by their parents to make up shit to sue him for millions. I don’t care, i’m not here to defend the dead guy, but people just want to believe he’s a pedo monster, but normal ass people wanting to get rich quick is not an option? These people were responsible for their kids and were like: yeah, you can have a sleepover with the weirdo. Macaulay Culkin seems like a pretty honeat guy, who speaks out over a lot of shit happened to him and the industry in general, and he said: nah, just a weird dude who liked to have children around.
Dude was so rich in his prime, he had no idea what money even was. Of course he would rather spend 25million dollars to make a lawsuit go away than being questioned over and over again, while people already made up their mind.
Maybe focus on the pedophile in the Whitehouse that the maybe pedophile that is dead.
Michael Jackson never had a childhood and as a result had some clear psychological issues.
Given the evidence (or lack thereof), I’m inclined to think the dude just wanted the childhood he missed. And no one shared the same excitement for it as him than actual kids.
I sure wouldn’t have wanted to hang out with him if I was his age.
That’s…
OK… Let’s practice some Occam’s Razor here. What do you think is the most likely answer?
- MJ was inappropriate with children.
- A psychologist devised an elaborate plot where he managed to somehow make multiple children remember something that didn’t happen.
I mean… It happened with the Satanic panic. This is exactly the plot of it
…because nothing even remotely complex has ever happened before?
We haven’t seen any rich or powerful people turn to paedophilia to manage their internal pain no no that is so rare
I couldn’t care less about it myself. More trash for the dumpster fire of American culture.
you haven’t seen it cuz it isn’t out yet and you think it’s disgusting? I don’t understand man
Yes, they think it’s disgusting that it’s even made, it’s not that hard to understand
ive seen biographical movies that depict ugly things in an honest light it’s been fine before
The line between good and evil cuts through the heart of us all.
Get off your high horse.
Hate it because its Hollywood trash, not because its about michael Jackson.
I mean Thomas Jefferson is on the 5 dollar bill. Do you abstain from $5bills because he sold some of his black children into slavery? (Google it, he did)
(Edit, meant $2 bill)
You think not raping children is being on a high horse…?
Were you there? If so, hi epstein.
Allegations are easy to make, watch this: Keen flame rapes dolphins who dress too sexy.
What you have in common with MJ now is no court has convicted either of you.
Wow, talk about a high horse to draw the line somewhere beyond not inserting a penis into a child traumatizing them for life
Big talk from you, an alleged rapist.
Which is the same thing as mj.
Our dearest friend… That’s Abraham Lincoln on the 5$ bill. George Washington (avid slave owner who used legal loopholes holes to avoid his slaves from becoming free in northern states) is on 1$, and Thomas Jefferson (guy previously mentioned) is on the 2$ bill.
Note just because they got plastered and are constantly out here on a high pedestal does not mean it’s ok to make more pedestals for more horrible people.
I was wrong,he’s on the $2bill, but I said what I said.
Abe Lincoln’s not on the $5 bill anymore?
Yeah, my bad. Jeffy on the $2.
Ps i love you, let’s run away together.
This is the one sex allegation I just don’t believe.
And its a biopic so… It wouldn’t matter who it was about. Shit… I’d watch a biopic about Epstein. I’d still hate the fucker at the end.
Yeah Michael Jackson was a breed of his own. He apparently had little boys SLEEPING in his bed, which is weird and absolutely unacceptable especially in today’s climate, but he did not touch them. McCauley Culkin said “We were just SLEEPING.” Still completely inappropriate but that family who got $25 million out of Michael, they were just shamelessly telling lies to milk an easy cash cow.
I did wonder if it was going to talk about his abusive father or the molesting thing. But not enough for me to watch it and find out.
Personally I find all celebrity biopics disgusting.
I mean, it would be different if these things tended to actually be honest deeply researched analyses done by hard-nosed experts (which would probably mean they would be spectacularly boring as movies and better as articles or books) and if celebrity status was highly correlated to the greatness of one’s achievements for society rather than to being well known because of practicing a very public profession (so, featuring more of, for example, Great Scientists and fewer Star Musicians and Movie Stars), but in the current society, celebrity biopics are fantasy spectacles about people whose fame is due to nothing else than being a competent professional in showbiz.
That in itself doesn’t make the biopics “disgusting” but the recent abundance of them does add up to too much to of an overly sweet low-nutrition thing the point of being stomach turning, IMHO.
In my opinion, MJ probably was an pedophile in the truest sense of the word. He enjoyed cuddling and simply being close to them, and actually caring about them, which also means he would never actually hurt them. It reminds me of furry cuddle piles. If he would have been born later, he would have an fursona for sure.
Nah, kid was beat by his dad, lost his childhood and just wanted friends. He wasn’t an adult psychologically and enjoyed being around kids his “age”. He wasn’t all there, but id bet money he was far from a pedophile. I don’t think he had it in him at all, just wanted friends.
I have a theory about Michael Jackson. First, a little background for reference. I am not a fan of MJ or his music. I respect his talent and what he did with it, but it’s not really my style. Also, I was a child when the accusations started. We all heard and told the jokes about him diddling little boys. I have no reason to root for or against Michael’s innocence.
That being said, I don’t think he did anything inappropriate.
I could totally be wrong. I wasn’t there and I’m not going to claim that my theory is undeniable truth, but after watching a few of his interviews, I noticed that he never acted like he did anything wrong. I get that someone without remorse would act like that, but typically they know what they did was wrong, and they lie and sneak their way around any implication of involvement. Not MJ. When asked about his “sleepovers” he never denied them. He consistently said “Yes, I did invite them over for sleepovers. Yes, we often shared a bed. We would stay up late watching movies and fall asleep in the bed. That’s what a sleepover is.” It didn’t feel like a predator denying abuse. It felt more like asking a ten year old how his sleepover went. They’d tell you honestly what they did, if they slept in the same bed, and wouldn’t think anything was weird about it, because they’re just kids.
Combine that with the abuse he suffered as a kid. His father treated those kids like a troop of trained dogs. Constantly practicing, constantly performing, always bringing in more money for the family. Michael was a superstar around age 6, and did not slow down until he was an adult, away from his dad and performing for himself.
I think that Michael Jackson never really grew up. He named his ranch Neverland, from the story of Peter Pan, the boy who never grew up. I think MJ felt like HE WAS Peter Pan. He had no childhood, and never developed like the rest of us. He was a 10 year old mind in the body of an adult. I don’t think the amusement park in his backyard or the pet chimp were bait to lure children in, I think he just really wanted to live in an amusement park, race go karts, and hang out with like minded children like any insanely wealthy pre-pubescent boy would. Many of the children he hung out with have said that nothing happened, including Macaulay Culkin, who was his bestie for quite a few years. Even after MJ’s death, he said “He never did anything to me. I never saw him do anything. And especially at this flash point in time, I’d have no reason to hold anything back. The guy has passed on. If anything - I’m not gonna say it would be stylish or anything like that, but right now is a good time to speak up. And if I had something to speak up about, I would totally do it. But no, I never saw anything; he never did anything.”
Maybe I’m wrong, maybe Macaulay was groomed and helped MJ abuse other kids and cover it up, but I think Michael was just a emotionally undeveloped abuse victim trying to reclaim the childhood he never got to experience.
To nitpick: it’s fair to say his relationships with children were inappropriate. The stipulated behavior crosses a lot of lines of propriety.
The stipulated behavior doesn’t amount to being harmful or abusive.
Yes, it is not the behaviour of a healthy adult, nor is it something that should be treated as “normal”.
Also: it does not cross the line where a biopic is “disgusting white-washing” as OP claims.Yeah, I can see that if you define inappropriate as “against societal norms”. I intended the word to mean abusive or sexual in nature.
I think even what we do know about his relationship with children was harmful, just not to the same extent as rape.
Even if he was just having sleepovers with kids, that’s not a healthy thing for Michael or the kids. For one, it sends very confusing signals to the kids in terms of what is acceptable behavior. Secondly, it dragged these kids into Michael’s own traumas (assuming that is the cause of the behavior).
I’m not sure if any of it would rise to a legal level of wrongdoing, but I don’t think anyone was really looking out for the kids best interests regardless of what was really going on.
It was not just sleepovers.
Good argument, definitely provided valid proof or even anything that can hint at it and you also held an objective view and humility like the comments above…
///ssssss
You should feel bad about yourself for being so dumb and lazy to have written that comment. (And to be clear, I say nothing against or for any views here).
Give it up, man. He did it. It’s over.
Corey Feldman also said that while almost everyone in Hollywood sexually abused him as a child, Michael Jackson is the one person that didn’t. He did also say that he doesn’t defend MJ anymore because others have accused him though.
I could totally be wrong.
Sadly, you are. Would multiple firsthand witness accounts and more wtf-episodes than you imagine change your mind? If so, you should change it. The documentary is damning.
How often did he call one of the boys and ask them to retrieve their bloody underwear from the trash so the cops don’t find it? Well, at least once that we know of. And 100 more things like that.
once that was alleged…
Interesting take on a grown man who was regularly spending the night alone with young boys in his bed.
Super abnormal behavior and when you couple that with his security for that wing of the house along with the alleged victim testimony, he seems guilty as fuck. I don’t want it to be true, but there’s too much smoke for there not to be a fire.
Maybe. Like I said, I don’t know for sure that I’m right, and I’ll admit it’s totally strange behavior for a normal adult man, but I do think there’s a chance that we’re injecting our own perverted assumptions on something we can’t understand.
Seriously, watch Leaving Neverland and see what you think. It’s astounding. You will be like
Seen it, you are clearly dumb enough to fall for a ton of wishy washy nothing “proof”.
Wow so multiple first-hand accounts, archival media supporting it and additional contemporary witnesses aren’t enough to convince you?
Well then you are a True Believer™ . Go forth and enjoy your bliss.
all that stuff that he was acquitted for? It’s not like he was exceptionally rich and ripe for people to try and make a dollar off him due to his strange behaviors. I dont know one way or the other, but way too many people seem to claim otherwise when we ultimately just don’t know. and probably never will. IMO continuing to claim someone is guilty when the law says otherwise is just as bad as people blindly claiming someone is innocent. He was weird. thats really all we know.
The trial is a super interesting part of it. His reaction to it in particular. Exceptionally rich and famous people don’t usually lose. And it wasn’t a civil trial anyway.
Just for giggles, I chose to check the wiki for leaving neverland…
Safechuck says Jackson eventually replaced him with Brett Barnes; Robson claims he was replaced by the actor Macaulay Culkin, who is two years older, because Jackson preferred prepubescent boys
Funny, Culkin explicitly says nothing ever happened. Culkin must just be lying though, right? One of the people in that documentary said he was the next in line, so that’s that.
He’s interviewed at the end of the documentary. It’s worth it.
A quick scan of wikipedia is not sufficient.
As we all know, wikipedia is all lies without sources and all documentaries are truthful without editorial bias.
Yet opinions about any lengthy works by people who have never read / seen / heard those works are abundant.
Should I also watch Loose Change because it’s compelling and would leave me flabbergasted if I didn’t do any other research?
One of the two kids who the documentary follows makes an outrageous claim that we already know is fake based on the word of the person who allegedly experienced it. Just because you enjoyed it doesn’t mean it’s accurate.
I don’t even have any skin in he game (I don’t like Jackson’s music, personally), but the rhetoric around the man has always been contentious, and not always consistent. I’m not going to waste tons of time on a subject I don’t care about by watching a documentary that I already know includes a major falsehood from one of the primary subjects.
Honestly, I wasted more of my life on this subject than I wanted just responding here, so duces.
Should I also watch Loose Change because it’s compelling and would leave me flabbergasted if I didn’t do any other research?
Well they’re not the same thing at all so your rhetorical comparison shows your lack of good faith in the question.
One of the two kids who the documentary follows makes an outrageous claim that we already know is fake based on the word of the person who allegedly experienced it.
What? Try that again.
I’m not going to waste tons of time on a subject I don’t care about by watching a documentary that I already know includes a major falsehood from one of the primary subjects.
So you don’t care and you’re wrong and don’t want to see it. Got it.
Honestly, I wasted more of my life on this subject than I wanted just responding here, so duces.
Just have a habit of shitting in threads about things you don’t care about, eh. Yeah. Alright then.
Ok but it’s easy for a documentary to make you go insert shocked gif here if they just lie about things
True. So are they lying? I don’t think so.
There’s a conspiracy floating around that Jackson became aware of the human trafficking to the ultrawealthy and he was smeared and possibly killed for it. No real evidence but it’s a fun one to think about.
That’s your idea of fun to think about?
Yes. A less fun one to think about is a CIA redacted book called “The Adam and Eve Story”. Every explaination i can think of is deeply unsettling.
I don’t think you need to worry too much about that one being true.
You just take Wikipedia at face value for everything don’t you?
I’m aware of how cooky the guy was. He also for sure did a bunch of government contracting and Einstein thought he was smart. Oh also a large chunk of the book is still classified.
It’s not that I think what’s in the book is all real. It’s that any of it might be even partially true and what is in the redactions.
You can read it. You could also read it as early as this review in the winter of 1982-83. The article begins on page ten with the relevant mention on page 11.
If you scroll to page 50-51 of the pdf that was declassified, you’ll see a transit slip (the missing page 48 in the book is because it’s a blank page in the book following a section that ends on an odd number, like the missing pages 18 and 52). I’m guessing that piece of paper was the relevant document and it was found being used as a bookmark in this book. Scroll further to page 56 of the pdf, to see the supplementary reading and that’s what I’m basing my skepticism on. The Wikipedia page is just a helpful summary.
This is entertainment, not a documentary. As you pointed out, it’s featuring a family member and approved by the estate.
It’s going to 100% be propaganda and completely cover up or minimize any wrongdoing on MJ’s part.
Personally I will not see it.
