The reviews aren't about the film and people are ignoring it because it suits an agenda

Also, if you guys follow film, you'd know the initial Social Media reactions/reviews mean literally nothing lol.

• Batman V Superman received nothing but praise when the social media review embargo lifted. when the ACTUAL critics got to review it, it got torn apart.
• Suicide Squad had glowing reviews from the public when social media reviews were allowed. Days later when professional critics could drop their reviews, it was destroyed.
• Captain America Brave New World was acclaimed when all we had was social media reviews. Once critics reviewed it, it was nothing but negatives.
• More recently Mario Galaxy had glowing social media reviews. Then later professional critics gave it negatives.

When we see those early reviews weeks before release they tend to be from known fans invited to a viewing. They're likely not paid. But they're ppl who already have a bias. Plus they are wined and dined at those events. Hanging out with the stars, Given nice food and drinks. They are more likely to give glowing reviews due to the experience as a whole.

When part 2 comes out, there will probably be crying about even more stuff being omitted lol. Because the estate is more willing to present a sanitized take cuz that'll make more money, versus showing us any sort of insight

Again flying in the face of reality

They were going to start the film with the 1993 allegations and the strip search at that. What's sanitized about any of that.

That's pretty f***ing head on. It's the estate stupidity that stopped that from happening.

If they present the facts as they occured people will be devastated they cling onto such obvious bullshit for so long

And what about the critics who also have a very evident bias that have review bombed this now the embargo has lifted

Or is their bias ok because they are "critics"

that movie is so f***ing funny lol

His allegations started coming out before 1998.
And its already been pretty much confirmed that even if there is a 2nd part, that portion of his life still won't be addressed due to contractual reasons.

So it then begs the question, if you can't even talk about the more controversial portions of his life, why even make a movie? It only exists to glaze and praise, and not offer any room for the audience to make up their own minds on how to feel about the figure.

That leak of “ we cut the allegations “ didn’t help them

I feel they should have tried to get his whole story in one movie rather than banking on a sequel

Score went up

Nice. So you know f*** all about the guy.

There are no allegations before 1993. They can't cover Chandler which they were full steam ahead on doing until the Estate realised they massively f***ed up and ignored a clause. If they were desperate to be sanitised and ignore it, that doesn't quite line up.

They can, and by the sounds of it, will cover the 2005 trial in the second part.

When they present the facts as they are, be prepared for a whole load more crying about "sanitising". It flies in the face of 30+ years of lies these critics have been hellbent on pushing. It's just laughable to put any stock into their ratings.

"were going to", but they're not because they can't

I don't think that's happening anymore considered the articles I linked, hence the discussion

I don't think people would be "devastated" if they movie took that stance, they'd just beef with the estate and the studio for trying to use a 200 million dollar film(s) to discredit a victim/accuser

Yeah but that is the fault of the Estate and not the movie team. So they've split the story up and will go into those topics in the second part.

Crying about the timeframe is a f***ing stupid point because of it.

Never "cried" about the timeframe or splitting it into 2 movies. I'm just saying they gonna gloss over his eccentricities/controversy in the name of making him seem like a creative savant

And discredit accusers/victims and make a cool couple hundred mil on top

You can totally speak on those events/aspects of his character without directly referencing the events btw. They're choosing to go the sanitized route. It's a movie, you can write what you want

Discredit accusers/victims

F*** off

They want to see kids not being abused

But I mean I knew some critics would be like “ he wan an antisemite child abuser there is no way he didn’t abuse those kids show those parts too “ . You know for a fact after Oprah documentary push some were going to say it’s dangerous to sanitize or worship any black man

I can't imagine believing those allegations in big 26. The FBI, who HATE black people, investigated the nigga for years and found nothing.

mike def touched those kids he was a sicko

Keep crying motherfuckers

look, I'm not sold on the allegations either, and I wouldn't mind a movie that successfully puts emphasis on fun, but biopics are usually so cliche, they have a history of being boring to me.

Even if he never physically touched kids, a lot of the stuff we absolutely do know is still inappropriate.

If literally anybody else in the world admitted to sleeping in bed with a bunch of children(they aren't related to), nobody would give them the benefit of doubt. And even if they didn't actually touch them inappropriately, you would still be on edge about them.

Like, if a singer did this today everyone would (rightfully) assume, at bare minimum, it's grooming behavior. Hell, even dangling his baby over a balcony.
The stuff that we factually know is true are things a lot of ppl wouldn't defend if it was anybody but MJ lol

Allegations aside, judging by the f***y editing of the clip that was released, it's still entirely possible this is a bad film on other grounds