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 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.
Fuck everything about this movie
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.
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.
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 $2 bill)
Our dearest friend… That’s Abraham Lincoln on the 5$ 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.
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
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.
To be clear, I am, and have always been a punk rocker/metal head, so I couldn’t give a rats ass about the king of pop.
But he always struck me as very much on the spectrum, of course not when I was growing up, since it wasn’t a thing back then, but I find it very unlikely he did the things he was accused of.
I could be wrong, but it felt like a cash grab by the parents.
I’ve also seen many people’s personal accounts indicating he was protecting them. I believe m. culcan was one of them
My son is a big cinephile, and we watch a LOT of movies, but I am also a history guy, so my son knows that I really don’t like biopics, or films that portray some historical event. Invariably, Hollywood decisions outweigh historical accuracy, and the result is usually impossible for me to tolerate. I would rather see a boring portrayal of the actual events, than an exciting rewrite.
MJ and I are the exact same age, and I grew up LOVING his music. The allegations were shocking, and I studied every interview and watched every documentary and news coverage of it that I could. Today, I can’t really say I trust either side. I see problems with the accusers, I see problems with the accused. Lawyers advise their clients to settle all the time - “It’s not personal, it’s just business.” I’ve been on the receiving end of that “advice,” and it’s hard to hear, because you know people will always see it as an admission of guilt, and not “just business.”
So while I abandoned Bill Cosby (another heartbreaker I grew up with) I’ve decided to keep listening to MJ. We will never know the entire story, but I know enough that the accusations have a LOT of problems, and I’m not willing to throw MJ aside for that.
So while I am still a big (but conflicted) fan, I probably won’t watch the film, and if I do, I won’t be taking it seriously.
I saw a thread recently that seemed to indicate the Epstien files exhonorated Michael. Apparently it may have been a smear campaign against someone on the spectrum that wouldn’t work with them. He was notoriously picky about who he would work with.
Epstien files exhonorated Michael. Apparently it may have been a smear campaign against someone on the spectrum that wouldn’t work with them.
I haven’t looked further into it myself, but I also heard much the same.
Props to him if this is anywhere close to being real. He was one hell of a damaged person carrying a shitton of psychological scars, but it sounds like he really did care about the kids.
And he was one hell of a good singer. I’ve got most of his albums on vinyl and MP3.
Eh, just because he rebuffed attempts by Epstein doesn’t prove anything. MJ wasn’t into hanging with those Walk Street billionaire types. Besides, he had his own place to entertain kids, if he wanted to.
From what I saw, it wasn’t so much that he rebuffed attempts. Epstein actively implemented plans to destroy him, much like Brendan Frasier, because he wouldn’t play ball.
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.
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.
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.
Thanks for putting my thoughts into words. I’m of the same opinion that his own childhood was shattered and he sought a simulacrum of a childhood as an adult.
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.
which is a healthy pr take to have for corey, he isn’t going to go out and speak for others. As a lot of people in this thread seem to have no problem doing lol
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.
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
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.
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.
interesting that you should mention epstein because when macaulay culkin was interviewed about that a while ago he brought up mj. mac said that one time as a child, he was scheduled to go to epsteins island when jackson called out of the blue to ask if he wanted a tour of the neverland estate. since jackson was famous, mac and his agent went to neverland, and he and jackson apparently became friends. mac stressed that he had never even gotten a creepy vibe, just that michael genuinely liked children.
maybe this was entirely coincidental, i don’t know. but there is a chance that michael knew about epstein in the 90s and tried to help people steer clear.
all i know is that culkin seems like a good guy. he’s called out bad practices and abuse in the industry before, to his own detriment.
Edit: Apparently that interview was faked. bummer.
Mac has defended Michael for years but the Epstein tie is untrue
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/macaulay-culkin-michael-jackson-epstein/
oh that’s unfortunate. i’ll add a clarification.
I have a friend who worked for, and alongside MJ (they’re credited on at least one album). They became a personal friend and have a ton of amazing stories and insane memorabilia. On the day Michael died, his phone rang and rang with a LOT of people wishing him condolences.
They tell me that MJ never really got a childhood, and in some ways lived his childhood through other children. My friend spent a couple nights at his Neverland ranch with his own kids and tells me that he trusted MJ and doesnt believe for a minute that he was actually guilty of anything untoward, and that things like “sleepovers” really did happen but were really from a place of innocence and MJ just wanting to have that childlike experience that he didn’t get.
I hear stories like this, and I think the part people stumble over is that it’s very common for kids to explore their bodies and each other’s at sleep overs.
It’s not that hard to imagine his sleepovers being ordinary, kids sleepovers and also an environment in which he crossed some boundaries. That’s very common at sleepovers.
It’s not that hard to imagine
Self report?
that it’s very common for kids to explore their bodies and each other’s at sleep overs.
Yeah I don’t think so. I am way over 30 years old and never heard of that.
It’s uncomfortable but true.
Have you ever heard of kids playing Doctor? It’s not like kids routinely engage in sexual acts, but left alone at night it’s very common for them to do things like undress and compare bodies. Often it’s benign, but without an understanding of safe touches, it’s easy for such encounters to be unintentionally harmful.
Well, I have
Damn. I’m sorry to hear that.
what why ? there is nothing to be sorry about… clarification : no adult was ever involved to my knowledge
I’ve never heard that from anyone.
Well, I have regular sleepovers with my wife and I can tell you that at least once a month there is some exploring
Dang. Once a month! Nice!
“At least once a month,” because birthday month brings the average up to 1.083 handjobs per month.
Can confirm - I also have sleepovers with this person’s wife.
This is a topic that doesn’t get discussed much, but if you stop and think about it for a moment you might realize that we’re all aware of it, we just basically have a cultural taboo against thinking about it.
Have you ever noticed that sleepovers are almost always gender-segregated? Why do you thick that is?
well i cant speak for everyone, but when i was of the age of having sleepovers, i was very much of the mindset that girls had “cooties” and didnt want them at my sleepovers to begin with. had nothing to do with my parents decision, they werent invited to begin with.
Lots of child molesters have sad origin stories. Whoop dee doo, he didn’t have a childhood. He still molested kids
That’s the thing, though, we really don’t know that he did. He did some stuff people think is pretty suspicious, but there are genuine credibility issues with the accusers. It’s not impossible that there’s truth to the allegations, but from what I’ve seen, it’s more likely that greedy people took advantage of that suspicious behavior to milk him for money.
Your friend’s anecdote or the victims testimony… That’s a tough one.
How do you justify that claim with that link? What in that article supports the idea that it was debunked?
Aren’t “anecdote” and “testimony” technically the same level of trustworthiness?
No…
Anecdote: “he’s a nice guy who didn’t have a childhood so he hung out with children, he couldn’t have possibly done anything wrong, I know him” -> opinion
Victim testimony: “he took advantage of my trust and innocence and molested me. I didn’t realize I’m being abused and it has given me a lifetime of mental suffering” -> data
You can say you don’t trust the victims, but it isn’t the same as proclaiming someone definitely didn’t commit a crime because I have a positive experience with them.
Hmm, point taken. I think they’re both equally valid data points in theory, which is what I was trying to convey, but to your point, “he didn’t molest me” has much less determining power than “he molested me” when trying to determine if he molested someone. I see what you’re saying now.
