19 votes

Inside the ‘Michael’ overhaul: $15 million reshoots, removing child abuse allegations and what’s in store for sequels

13 comments

  1. [5]
    TransFemmeWarmachine
    Link
    Honestly this entire movie sounds like a complete mess. I get the sense that this movie was trying to re-litigate a massive stain on Jackson's career, which isn't new or improper. However, the...

    Honestly this entire movie sounds like a complete mess. I get the sense that this movie was trying to re-litigate a massive stain on Jackson's career, which isn't new or improper. However, the fact that they'd get to post-production without realizing there was a clause prohibiting portrayal of one of Jackson's accusers is insane to me.

    I'm always a bit disturbed by the way allegations continued to be levied at Michael Jackson, especially post Me-Too. From what I have read, he was exonerated multiple times, and no 'smoking gun' was ever produced. I feel like something ought to be said regarding the volume of credible allegations made against a plethora of living Hollywood figures over the last decade, while we're still seeing articles about a dead celebrity who was exonerated multiple times.

    Regardless, it seems that we're going to get a sanded down movie that sanitizes everything controversial on a topic that passed out of relevance years ago and exists only for nostalgia's sake. I guess that's Hollywood in the 2020s for us.

    18 votes
    1. [3]
      Hollow
      Link Parent
      And honestly, the excuse sounds pretty weak: So what, because one of the accusers is banned from appearing or being mentioned, that means the entire ending has to be cut? They can'r dub over his...

      However, the fact that they'd get to post-production without realizing there was a clause prohibiting portrayal of one of Jackson's accusers is insane to me.

      And honestly, the excuse sounds pretty weak:

      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.

      So what, because one of the accusers is banned from appearing or being mentioned, that means the entire ending has to be cut? They can'r dub over his name, or use CG to change his face, or swap out his actor? It sounds more like someone changed their mind about touching the subject.

      5 votes
      1. vili
        Link Parent
        It is not just any accuser, though. It is Jordan Chandler. If I count correctly, there have been four major instances of child molestation accusations against Michael Jackson that create the image...
        • Exemplary

        So what, because one of the accusers is banned from appearing or being mentioned, that means the entire ending has to be cut? They can'r dub over his name, or use CG to change his face, or swap out his actor? It sounds more like someone changed their mind about touching the subject.

        It is not just any accuser, though. It is Jordan Chandler.

        If I count correctly, there have been four major instances of child molestation accusations against Michael Jackson that create the image problem where many associate his name with the word "paedophile".

        These cases are:

        1. Jordan Chandler (1993): I will write about this shortly.
        2. Gavin Arvizo (2005): This one went into a very public trial, at the end of which Jackson was found not guilty on all 10 counts. For anyone wanting to protect and profit from Jackson's legacy (let's call this entity "the Estate", although it might not be entirely accurate), it is easy to point to this verdict as a proof of innocence. Or it would be, if not for the shadow cast by the Chandler case.
        3. Wade Robson and James Safechuck (starting in 2013): These posthumous allegations have been dismissed by courts more than once, both for technical reasons and for lack of evidence. Where the cases currently stand, I don't really know, but at this moment at least the Estate can point to these unsuccessful court actions and dismiss the claims. Or they should be able to do that, if not for the public perception shaped by the Chandler case.
        4. The Cascio family (2026): The latest posthumous accusations come from a family who were quite close to Jackson. This is the same family friend who immediately after Jackson's passing claimed the singer had recorded multiple tracks with him, three of which ultimately got selected for Jackson's first posthumous album. Now, the problem with those tracks is that they don't really sound like Michael Jackson. There has been a lawsuit and the tracks have since been removed from later pressings of the album. Depending on how the Estate can and wants to play this, they could in theory point to the family as having lied already once about their involvement with Jackson, and pretty much dismiss the molestation accusations that way. Or at they could, if it wasn't for the shadow of the Chandler case. (Also, I have no idea what has been going on between the Estate and the Cascio family over the years but there is potentially a whole other can of worms there which belongs to an entirely different story, so I won't go into that.)

        So, the Estate might not really have an image problem if it wasn't for the Jordan Chandler case. And the problem with that case is that it was never publicly resolved. Jackson denied any wrongdoing but was advised to settle out of court, and he did so, supposedly to protect his health and finances, and somehow thinking that he could go on with his life and career. But the lack of a definite "not guilty" verdict forever marked him as a child molester in the public eye.

        Now, I don't know what the film that they are making was originally going to be like. Or what the final version will be like, for that matter. But based on what I have read, I had assumed that the original concept of the film was a very definite attempt by the Estate to change the public perception about the Jordan Chandler case by telling Michael's (or the Estate's) side of the story and prove him, or at least portray him as, innocent. To manufacture that public verdict of "innocent". Because if they could do that, if they could make the Jordan Chandler shadow go away, it would help them clear Jackson's name entirely. All of the subsequent accusations would be viewed through a very different lens.

        I was actually quite looking forward to seeing how they were going to attempt this act of image re-building.

        That said, I want to finish by noting that while I have written about these allegations here as if they were just legal cases and an "image problem", they are of course not just that. I have no idea what really happened, but if any abuse occurred, I hope the survivors find justice and peace. These are things that no child, or adult, should endure. At the same time, these are also serious accusations against a global icon who means so much to so many people.

        10 votes
      2. rich_27
        Link Parent
        I think part of the issue is that legally - at least according to my understanding - it could be argued that depiction of an accuser with enough similarity to the protected party was depiction of...

        I think part of the issue is that legally - at least according to my understanding - it could be argued that depiction of an accuser with enough similarity to the protected party was depiction of the accuser, even if they weren't mentioned by name or minor details were changed.

        8 votes
    2. Eji1700
      Link Parent
      While he was exonerated it’s far from that cut and dry. Especially when they were able to get photos of Neverland in 2003

      From what I have read, he was exonerated multiple times, and no 'smoking gun' was ever produced

      While he was exonerated it’s far from that cut and dry. Especially when they were able to get photos of Neverland in 2003

      1 vote
  2. [7]
    snake_case
    Link
    Imo this always sounded like a bad movie. He did not have a happy ending and to me any attempt to try and manufacture one wouldn’t be true to the story. The only thing Id accept is a movie about...

    Imo this always sounded like a bad movie. He did not have a happy ending and to me any attempt to try and manufacture one wouldn’t be true to the story.

    The only thing Id accept is a movie about just releasing thriller and nothing beyond that.

    10 votes
    1. [6]
      rich_27
      Link Parent
      I could see a really good movie if it documented his life and didn't shy away from the allegations; if it presented him life he was, controversy and all, without an attempt to either tarnish or...

      I could see a really good movie if it documented his life and didn't shy away from the allegations; if it presented him life he was, controversy and all, without an attempt to either tarnish or whitewash his name. The impression I always got was that there was a complicated and nuanced story there, and that the narrative surrounding MJ that the public resolved upon is probably pretty inaccurate.

      I can envisage how a deeply traumatised person who lost their childhood might seek to try and reclaim their childhood or protect childhood and innocence in others with no intent to harm or abuse children.

      I have no idea as to the truth of the situation, but I think it would be a really interesting story to tell whether or not MJ harmed and abused children, intentional or otherwise. If MJ did, it could be a look at the harm that stemmed from his behaviour (rather than showcasing/glorifying child abuse) and even serve as a cautionary tale. If MJ didn't harm and abuse children, it could showcase a deeply misunderstood character trying to live despite the weight of the allegations and public opinion.

      6 votes
      1. [5]
        snake_case
        Link Parent
        A good movie might try and actually investigate and seek the truth, maybe. But Id be just as happy with one that ended before all that. I watched it as it happened I don’t need to watch it again....

        A good movie might try and actually investigate and seek the truth, maybe. But Id be just as happy with one that ended before all that. I watched it as it happened I don’t need to watch it again.

        I don’t think he did anything though. I think if he did, so many more children would have come forward and it would have been obvious.

        2 votes
        1. [4]
          DefinitelyNotAFae
          Link Parent
          I don't know, in this world where it feels like far too many people are abusing children, I'm not sure we can know or that "more kids would have come forward" given how well that went for the kids...

          I don't know, in this world where it feels like far too many people are abusing children, I'm not sure we can know or that "more kids would have come forward" given how well that went for the kids that did and how much he was supported by the public.

          Many people don't report, ever. It's better not to put people on pedestals in the first place IMO. But I don't think a movie could accurately hit that uncertainty - it would have to take a side and that's legally and ethically fraught

          4 votes
          1. [2]
            TransFemmeWarmachine
            Link Parent
            I genuinely think that Jackson should be considered exonerated, and I think that the fact our culture is still talking about the issue is a sign of how deeply unhealthy we are as a society. The...

            I genuinely think that Jackson should be considered exonerated, and I think that the fact our culture is still talking about the issue is a sign of how deeply unhealthy we are as a society.

            The FBI conducted searches on Jackson, and did not find any evidence of wrongdoing. Jackson was also exonerated in the 1993 Trial and the 2005 Trial. Additionally, it seems like there are multiple documented examples of Jackson's accusers having financial or personal motives for accusing him. Finally, there's never been any definitive evidence put forth.

            While I support believing victims, I think that Jackson being exonerated at trial twice, by the FBI, and having died 15 years ago should give us a heavy dose of skepticism as to anyone who's accusing him, especially when the accusations are made in the same breath as a lawsuit requesting hundreds of millions of dollars. This ought to be a 'put up or shut up' situation. Instead we're just re-litigating the same allegations.

            While I think that it's fine to refuse to settle the historical record on people, I don't know what to make of a culture that perpetuates unfounded and settled allegations against the dead. Simultaneously, there are a plethora of Jackson's living contemporaries who have far more credible allegations made against them, and don't make the headlines.

            4 votes
            1. DefinitelyNotAFae
              Link Parent
              That's fair, I don't have a strong opinion, mostly just a pessimism on how victims are easily smeared (even the "files" show people conspiring on how to do so) and others don't come forward and...

              That's fair, I don't have a strong opinion, mostly just a pessimism on how victims are easily smeared (even the "files" show people conspiring on how to do so) and others don't come forward and fame and fortune go a long way towards ignoring sexual assault much less abuse. Those others should absolutely make the headlines fwiw.

              But I don't claim a definitive answer on Jackson because I don't know, and mostly don't care, because I try very hard not to make people heroes and just walk away from their work if I don't like the things they do.

              1 vote
          2. snake_case
            Link Parent
            Sure we cant ever really know. I just don’t think he did, in the same vein that I’m pretty sure supreme court justice whats his face did rape that underage girl when he was in college. Its just...

            Sure we cant ever really know.

            I just don’t think he did, in the same vein that I’m pretty sure supreme court justice whats his face did rape that underage girl when he was in college.

            Its just what I think

            1 vote
  3. tomf
    Link
    I never believed MJ was a rapist or pedo purely because the Coreys backed him up. Charlie Sheen is the one who should be shunned by society and not doing his book tour. MJ was weird and made a lot...

    I never believed MJ was a rapist or pedo purely because the Coreys backed him up. Charlie Sheen is the one who should be shunned by society and not doing his book tour.

    MJ was weird and made a lot of strange decisions, but everybody who came out to accuse him had financial motives.

    If they do a movie it should stop right after Leave Me Alone comes out.

    2 votes