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?
you’re not too woke.
you’re not even wrong on your assessment.
I think you just need to chill out. it’s a biopic. Hitler has had tons of biopics done, think anyone believes he didn’t do the terrible shit he did that weren’t already sympathetic to his goals?
my point is, everyone knows he was a pedophile and the people who refuse to accept that are never going to change their minds.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
No, You are not too woke. However, being accused of a crime is not the same as committing the crime. Sleeping in bed with a child isn’t a crime. Settling out of court isn’t an admission of guilt. Making a biopic about Michael Jackson, the king of pop, is a no brainer for me.
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.
Lots of child molesters have sad origin stories. Whoop dee doo, he didn’t have a childhood. He still molested kids
Your friend’s anecdote or the victims testimony… That’s a tough one.
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.
How do you justify that claim with that link? What in that article supports the idea that it was debunked?
“too woke” was invented by big sleep to sell more Zzzz…
I couldn’t care less about it myself. More trash for the dumpster fire of American culture.
In lieu of facts, I think most apologists who know the broad strokes of his life tend to address his behavior as the result of the significant abuse he received as a kid. I’m not really familiar with his behavior beyond the highlights, but I don’t know if he was ever accused of having raped any of the kids. I know he generally engaged in very creepy behavior with the kids, and the pedophilia was heavily implied though.
To answer your question, yes, I think it’s a creepy cashgrab at best. I might watch it on a long flight out of curiosity if it’s available, but I don’t forsee seeking it out.
but I don’t know if he was ever accused of having raped any of the kids.
The first accuser…
But that one was weird. The kids parents were divorced and the mom had custody.
So the kid, his siblings, and mom hung out with MJ, and he took them to all types of shit, like award shows, giant concerts, trips all over the world. But not the ex husband, because the family was already split when they met MJ.
Ex husband initially was super pissed, then one day did a 180 and started pushing hard for unsupervised overnight trips that had never happened before. Then the ex-husband (who was a dentist) gave his kid a bunch of laughing gas for a “procedure” and claimed that in that state the child told him of the abuse.
MJ settled because that’s what people did, and the second that happened the floodgates opened.
He was weird as fuck, and any parent that was letting him spend nights unsupervised with their child is a piece of shit…
That doesn’t mean anything bad actually happened tho. There’s no real evidence it did, but it’s impossible to prove it never happened.
That’s a cash grab? He’s been dead for almost 2 decades. They’ve made a film about Steve Jobs before his body got to room temperature.
I’m not really familiar with his behavior beyond the highlights, but I don’t know if he was ever accused of having raped any of the kids.
Leaving Neverland will erase any doubts you may have. He raped a lot of kids.
I wouldn’t say “too woke” at all.
Not having met the man, though, I’m not at liberty to decide his guilt or innocence, how mature or simple he was, how platonic or pedophilic he was.
I’d always caution against unassailable certainty, but you decide your own safety level.
No. Biopics always are a watered down version of their real life. Ita basicly a “best hits of”
We also need to remember that some people have reason to believe that he was outspoken about protecting the children from Epstein and that culture of child rape and trafficking. And those people, who believe this, also believe that your belief and opinions about MJ being a child rapist was a smear job against them by the Epstein Class.
Sadly, no. Although he seemed like a much nicer rapist i guess. So there’s that.
