Michael Jackson Biopic in Peril Due to Legal Issue

Entertainment!
1

You might not be aware of this but the Jackson estate has filmed a Jacko biopic which was due to be released this year. Given Wacko’s reputation and the allegations against him you might have thought it were better not to make one at all and, if you did, you would make something focusing on the music and ignoring the allegations, so, mainly featuring the seventies and eighties where he was the biggest popstar on Earth.

Instead they have chosen to deal with the allegations “head on”

“The script depicts Jackson as the naïve victim of the money-grubbing Chandlers, whose unfounded claims force Jackson to endure ridicule and persecution until he ultimately settles, his resolve and reputation forever in tatters.”

“The film’s third act, in particular, hinges specifically on the impact of the Chandler circus. In the script I read—which I’m told was close to final, but obviously these things are often revised—a tense sequence involves Branca (Teller), Johnnie Cochran (Derek Luke), and other Jackson lawyers discussing whether to pay off Chandler and his family. At one point, the lawyers play the infamous recording, submitted in court, of Jordan’s father threatening to leverage his son’s accusations to “destroy” his ex-wife and Jackson’s career. The ensuing scenes dramatize the extensive police investigation, including a “traumatizing” strip search of Michael that scars him for life.”

Despite the ethics or lack thereof, I am astounded that this made it past the first draught, let alone to the point of filming. Even if you truly believe Jackson his innocent - and there are plenty of people who do and not just people who have the incentives of familial bonds and/or the revenue generated by his publishing rights; it is pretty insane finance-wise to base your movie around “disproving” these allegations. Leaving morality aside they are simply compounding the association of him with abuse.

Things only become more insane/stupid:

“The third act focused on 1993 investigation into Jordan Chandler’s claim that Michael Jackson sexually abused him at 13 years old.

Jackson’s estate forgot they signed a deal with the Chandler family years ago to never include them in any sort of movie, rendering the third act pretty much unusable.“

this has led to the whole third act being scrapped. It’s like some sort of gallows humour comedy.

Non-paywalled version of the story:

https://archive.md/oKwPv

2

I watched a documentary that was a response to the leaving neverland one. I didn’t know that at the time, I thought it was going to give Jackson a kicking.

I’m someone who always assumed Jackson was guilty, long before that documentary. It was the Jordy Chandler stuff that made me think that.

After watching the documentary I’d say I’m open to the possibility he is innocent though obviously don’t know. It focused so much on the chandler case as the later leaving neverland allegations so closely mirror that first one.

The points that I thought had something to them. Chandlers dad only came int the picture once he knew his kid had befriended Jackson. He drugged his kid with a ‘truth serum’ to get him to reveal what happened, however truth serums don’t exist they just make people very suggestible. I always thought the fact chandler could identify markings on Jackson’s genitals was another cast iron sign of guilt, but apparently it wasn’t that accurate, not that a victim should have to have perfect photographic recall but the point it tries to make is if it was known he had vitiligo having those kind of markings are highly likely.

The other reason I always thought he was guilty is he paid the chandler case off, why would he? This doc says it was because it was unusual to have a civil case before a criminal one, and if he defended himself properly in the civil one it would give the prosecution access to his defence in the more serious criminal case, so his lawyers advised him he should settle.

This counter documentary obviously had a pro Jackson bias so maybe all of the above is dubious. But it did make me think people who think he is innocent aren’t as insane as I thought.

It doesn’t address other allegations, it suggests if this first case wasn’t true and the leaving never land cases so closely mirror it, it’s implying they copied it.

I know entertaining the idea he could be innocent goes against believing the victims, and watching the leaving never land doc I did believe them. But we believe victims as we know most of the time they are telling the truth and don’t gain anything from making allegations, often they are the ones put on trial etc. the counter doc makes the point every claim against Jackson have been civil claims first, where people are seeking money.

I feel bad not automatically believing the leaving neverland people, I don’t not believe them either, like I said I just think it’s possible he is innocent when I’d not thought that since the 90s.

So I can understand why his estate would want to try put forward this stuff

3

This is obviously a serious matter so I’m going to limit myself to this one glib comment but reading this I couldn’t help but revisit Carmine junior, Christopher and jt pitching cleaver to the other mobsters. Think they might have been the guys for the job

1 Like
4

This is the doc I saw

5

It seems vanishingly unlikely that Jackson is innocent, thanks for posting the link but I don’t think I’m going to watch that. FWIW I haven’t seen Leaving Neverland either.

1 Like
6

fair enough, he probably is guilty, he definitely had an unhealthy relationship with kids that much is certain. I wasn’t encouraging people to watch it, more responding to the point of why they would want to address it in the film and not just focus on the music. Before I had seen it I thought his truther fans were completely crazy to think he was anything other than completely guilty, it just seemed completely self evident to me ever since the 90s. After watching the documentary some of the reasons I always thought it was self evident weren’t what I thought they were, the role of Chandlers sketchy father as the driving force wasn’t something I was aware of or Jordy’s withdrawing his allegations (I know that doesnt mean they weren’t true, just wasn’t something I was aware of).

i’m not trying to convince people Jackson is innocent, just that i’ve gone from thinking Jackson is 100% guilty without doubt, to thinking he is probably guilty but with a less certainty, so can understand why the estate would try and address it

2 Likes
7

I’m in the 99% certain camp, the guy was clearly very mentally unwell and maybe had a personality disorder or five. Not his fault given the life that was foist on him. He also had a weird obsession with childhood, which, again, one can understand this given the circumstances.

If some weird bloke at the end of road was having little boys over to stay and sharing a bed with them, (virtually) no one would be defending him. Doesn’t mean that guy is a paedo nor that Jacko was but, come on…

Given that at least two boys could cite that Jacko had a birth mark or similar under his knob and innocence seems even more remote.

I totally understand how the estate could be deluded his relatives are just that, relatives. They don’t want to face that fact he might have been a paedo and that they are profiting via royalties etc.

1 Like
8

It does address that in the doc. It wasn’t a birthmark it was vitiligo, same reason his skin changed colour. vitiligo is known to affect that part of the body. No idea if the world knew he had vitiligo but he did always deny he had cosmetic surgery to change skin colour and it was a skin condition.

the doc makes the point that the descriptions weren’t particularly accurate, but the prosecution are able to say vitiligo changes a lot so an inaccurate description doesn’t mean the description is wrong, and it means the defence essentially can’t refute this evidence. Obviously it is damning to know he had any marks there at all, but this is very likely for someone with vitiligo, they also got another bit wrong about that part of his anatomy.

the thesis of the doc is Chandler senior set out to extort michael jackson, drugged his son with drugs he used as a dentist to get him to speak about jackson, with Jordy eventually withdrawing the accusations and eventually emancipating himself from his parents. I just dont think it is impossible that could could happen. Obviously many accusations came since, but they all include the same highly specific things, e.g. the other boys who talked about jacksons anatomy did so after the Jordy Chandler case was in the public domain.

I am just recounting the documentary now and you said you dont want to watch it so I will stop. I’m just saying I was convinced of his guilt as you are, 100% i’m not someone with any interest in hearing out counter narratives for people accused of abuse, I only watched this documentary as I stumbled across it on a streaming service and thought it would be about Michael Jackson’s obvious guilt. but now I have seen it I think what the doc argues is at least possible, but that doesn’t mean I think it is likely

9

I’m sure there’s room for doubt but just not much room.

1 Like