A community about movies and cinema.
Related communities:
No posts or comments will be removed without an explanation from mods.
We're removing Cesar Chavez from street signs, but this biopic won't even mention the allegations?
I find it strange the way people are willing to ignore inconvenient details about Michael Jackson and still celebrate him. If Jackson were alive right now he'd be blackballed in Hollywood surely, but because he's dead we celebrate? It's a strange inconsistency.
This made rich people very rich, Chavez made regular people's lives better. Seems pretty consistent to me.
Sadly he wouldn't be canceled in Hollywood even today. He'd still be celebrated and loved. Check Chris Brown (battering a woman) and Kanye West (all sorts of crazy).
If you can dance and sing and, most importantly, make money for Americans... then you can do anything.
People weren't lining up to watch Michael Jackson when he was pale white, missing a nose, almost dropping his kid off a balcony, plus the sexual accusations. He was a cautionary tale at that point.
His music got a boost after he died. Now that he's dead people like to gloss over the final decade of his life. But they weren't ignoring it when he was alive.
He was about to embarc on a massive tour at the time. People were positively gushing over him even after they knew what he did.
I thought the allegations of child sexual abuse were made up by the families to take advantage. At least, I remember hearing they admitted to it.
Fuck everything about this shit. Another example of how society largely doesn’t give af about people committing atrocities if the person does something they like. Fuck. This. Shit.
I think people tend to use his fucked up childhood and how he was exploited by the industry as excuses, and while they sure can help explain a thing or two they sure as hell don't excuse what he did.
Sorry, I somehow missed this thread earlier. Just reposting my comment from the duplicate:
In one scene from the film’s original script, the King of Pop stares at his reflection in the mirror, capturing his sorrowful gaze as police car lights flash behind him. It’s 1993, a decade after “Thriller” gripped the culture, and Jackson has just been accused of child molestation.
But the sequence with investigators who arrive at Neverland Ranch to search for evidence is one of many that were left on the cutting room floor. “Michael,” which Lionsgate will release in the United States on April 24, was supposed to explore the impact of the allegations on Jackson’s life, with much of its third act devoted to the scandal. But that finale was scrapped, along with any mention of the child molestation accusations, according to sources with knowledge of the production. That’s after attorneys for the Jackson estate, which served as a producer, realized there was a clause in a settlement with one of the singer’s accusers, Jordan Chandler, that barred the depiction or mention of him in any movie.
I'm curious how this film will be received. Upon seeing the trailer in a cinema recently, I did wonder whether this stuff had been cut or conveniently forgotten because the only tension seemed to come from Michael's relationship with his father and his broader struggles with fame. I know there are a lot of people out there who either don't care or have a sort of cognitive dissonance about the whole thing which makes them believe his innocence, but personally I would feel quite uncomfortable paying to see a film about Michael the adult pop star that completely ignores this period of his life. I might feel differently if I knew for sure that the child abuse allegations would be addressed in a sequel, but at the moment it sounds like wishful thinking on the part of the filmmakers.
The accusations will forever be a stain. Not sure I could honestly watch and support something like this. I don't understand why we're still listening to his music...
If they actually brought the accusations front and center, it might be worth watching... but removing it all?
Nah.