avoid both, very simple and boring as hell!!
the best MJ bio by far is the jacksons american dream tv special
Michael Jackson Biopic in the works from Bohemian Rhapsody director
- Thread starter Rhapscallion Démone
- Start date
-
- Tags
- biopic king michael jackson
the best MJ bio by far is the jacksons american dream tv special
FeloniousMonk
Dont mind me..Im a azzhole
If he's able to touch on the psychological damage created by Joe Jackson and the predator factors of industry pressure.
I think, how he is portrayed in this instance, will be the deciding factor.
Formerly Black Trash
Philosopher, Connoisseur, Future Legend
You really cant ignore the controversial shyt later in his life
Drew Wonder
Superstar
MJ fans don't want anything controversial though. If this movie even hints at him doing anything inappropriate with kids, MJ fans will boycott.
Critics were lukewarm on Bohemian Rhapsody but Queen fans loved it. Most diehard fans of a legendary singer want something safe that focuses on the music
I’ll stick to the made for television special from the 90s.
The Jacksons: An American Dream is the only biopic you'll ever need.
I would rather see a Jacksons documentary about their early days in Gary, Indiana and how that community played a role in their future success.
I would rather see a Jacksons documentary about their early days in Gary, Indiana and how that community played a role in their future success.
You can address them, even show kids playing at the house. What I don’t want to see a scene of him taking kids to the bedroom and him closing the door. They should show kids at the house and them him being sued/questioned/arrested and the trial. You can’t tell his story without bringing it up, I just want them to play it as straight as possible
Seems difficult not for the obvious reason that MJ went from black to white continuously. But from the fact that you can't cover such a life in 2 hours.
Hopefully they will focus on interesting things, I've noticed that a lot of biopics seem to try to find some weird angle. Such as someone actually being closet homosexual or had dad issues, or something that nobody really cares about. Like that Edgar Hoover movie, I thought it would be about the feds and crime, but it was about him perhaps being bisexual or something, as if that's worth making a movie about
Well MJ DEFINITELY had daddy issues and it would be something worth exploring ESPECIALLY with a black director who can link the nuances of Joe Jackson being a hard working black father who literally saw no other way out of the ghetto than to relentlessly train 6 boys and 1 girl into worldwide superstars with Michael’s later relentlessness in the being the greatest pop star of all time.
Thats why i say its going to take a BLACK director to make an all time classic MJ movie. White people can NEVER EVER understand the greatness that is born from black pain
There's certainly a way to tell the story like that. A movie like DOUBT is a good blueprint to follow, although that's not based on true story. That's probably the ONLY way to handle it and still get his estate's permission. But I feel like to get that permission, they may inject even to that level of uncertainty. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like in order to get the rights to his music they'd have to pull their punches quite a bit, if not outright distort the story.
Which, oddly enough, is exactly what happened with BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY. In order to get the rights to Queen's music they had to allow the surviving band members script approval more or less.
All things considered, this sounds like a bad idea for a biopic and a recipe for a lot of unhappy parties no matter what route they take the story.
Wonder if they’ll show how much MJ hated touring.
To keep it 100 I don’t blame Queen and I DAMN sure don’t blame the MJ estate for that.
Just think about if it were YOUR life story, or your brother, sister, etc. and you were STILL alive. Of course you’d want your own input on your OWN story being told. And look at how MJ was raked over the coals during his lifetime. I’d INSIST on being involved and having certain approvals.
With the Queen situation, the film was originally supposed to be a Freddie Mercury biopic and much less about the band. Their interference forced the studio into a much different movie.
I don't blame them, or the MJ estate, but it absolutely makes for inferior art.
Lets keep it a stack though.
The movie was still 90% a Freddie biopic. The band, even with their “interference” were only about 10% of the actual movie.
And when we talk about biopics we are not strictly talking about “art”. We’re talking about the ARTISTS behind the art, who are/were real people with families and legacies. MJ is the biggest pop star the world has ever seen, who went through some real life drama and scrutiny. It could go either way with an MJ movie, which is why its paramount that the estate DOES have some say. White people have been trying to bring down MJ since before his death, and have gotten even bolder with sullying his name after his passing. His legacy does indeed need some level of protection.
That wasn't a Freddie biopic. The driving arc of the film was Queen...it's formation, the songwriting process, the breakup/reunion. Any real look at Freddie and a serious look at his life was washed away for the sake of a hollow, crowd pleasing moneymaker.
When I say it leads to inferior art, I'm taking about the art of filmmaking. If the goal is "protecting a legacy" and merely celebrating their music, there is a limit to how good of a film it can be.
