Bro you know if this dude gave a Michael Jackson biopic a 7/10 this s*** is about to be absolute dookie.
Or it's a fair review you moron
You said nothing but a ton of conspiracy. There were rumblings and rumors about the reshoots for months before it bubbled to the surface. The movie got delayed an entire year because of it. It was rumored that the movie might've been in trouble as a whole.
From the estate's perspective, it's very easy to tell the 93 accusation story's truth and how cut and dry it was as an extortion attempt. The Chandler family was an absolute mess, particularly the father, and i'm sure the estate wanted nothing more than to finally expose the truths behind what actually went down. From the father trying to shake down Michael for film financing before going public with the lies, to the actual truth about the settlement that people still to this day have no idea about. They just think Michael settled out of guilt. They had all of the incentive in the world to have the 93 accusation in this first film and it's clear they shot a bunch of Dangerous era footage that had to get scrapped. They literally released a promo photo of Jafaar in full-on Dangerous era costume as the first look at the film, and it's nowhere in this first film.
I think it's pretty reasonable to ponder how top attorney's overlooked legal clauses in settlements concerning not only the estate they get paid millions to manage, but the story and script they had an abundance of time to mull over and approve. That's really the crux of my comment not anything to do with much of your response here. These aren't things lawyers miss...ever.
I'm on MJ's side as it relates to the case. My issue is with the estate. Paris' arguments with them seem to be the same. And again.... pretty convenient that they can now say "we shot all this stuff but can never show you."
The footage can't at all be used even in a Part 2. So picking up with the Dangerous stuff they shot would still be an elephant in the room once they skip over the obvious.
I think it's pretty reasonable to ponder how top attorney's overlooked legal clauses in settlements concerning not only the estate they get paid millions to manage, but the story and script they had an abundance of time to mull over and approve. That's really the crux of my comment not anything to do with much of your response here. These aren't things lawyers miss...ever.
I'm on MJ's side as it relates to the case. My issue is with the estate. Paris' arguments with them seem to be the same. And again.... pretty convenient that they can now say "we shot all this stuff but can never show you."
The footage can't at all be used even in a Part 2. So picking up with the Dangerous stuff they shot would still be an elephant in the room once they skip over the obvious.
Lionsgate nearly pulled out of the f***ing film over it. It's not convenient at all.
The MJ Estate have proven to be unbelievably incompetent and this is yet another example. Each one more damaging than the last.
No offense but what does paris jackson know about michael
It's because the film includes Branca in a key role. Nothing more, nothing less.
The periods of his life are so epic and full of narrative on their own that I don’t think he requires a biopic that packs in every era
Like you could make a whole movie just on Thriller
The periods of his life are so epic and full of narrative on their own that I don’t think he requires a biopic that packs in every era
Like you could make a whole movie just on Thriller
The complaint from the start was you can't pack his life into one movie
So now for a number of reasons, they are doing two movies and being able to tell more story as a result
Very funny the response is now "well why doesnt the first movie cover everything"
Aint no way they're using Supes in the promo
Wait until they start using the box office records in the promo
Cry about that
It does kinda skip thru events rather than give much insight to who Michael truly was apart from how he didn’t have much of a childhood. I do get the criticism in that aspect.
Saying that, the whole nostalgia factor hits HARD in a great way especially if you’re a MJ fan & Jafaar is EXCELLENT. At certain points, the likeness to Michael himself was uncanny.
Critics smoking CRACK
This movie was amazing, I don’t think there will be another film this year as crowd-pleasing as this
Jaafar should be in serious Best Actor conversation
Wait until they start using the box office records in the promo
Cry about that
Talk your s*** king
The complaint from the start was you can't pack his life into one movie
So now for a number of reasons, they are doing two movies and being able to tell more story as a result
Very funny the response is now "well why doesnt the first movie cover everything"
I genuinely don’t understand how a criticism of this movie is “they don’t cover his whole life” when a second movie covering the rest of his life is literally in development
bruh im hearing the critics put out a hit on michael
gonna hav to watch on the weekend
bruh im hearing the critics put out a hit on michael
gonna hav to watch on the weekend
As soon as they heard the original plot had child abuse and was changed we knew they were gonna tweak