This roundtable offers a sharp analysis of the structural compromises required to balance historical complexity with mainstream cinematic appeal. It effectively highlights the inevitable tension between satisfying dedicated fans and maintaining a coherent narrative for the general public.
Install our extension to search inside any video instantly.
The MJCast 191: Michael Filmmaker RoundtableAdded:
The following is a presentation from the MJ Cast, the internet's premier podcast on all things Michael Jackson.
I'm a black American. I am proud of who I am. Together, we can make a change in the world.
>> I like to take sounds and put them under the microscope.
>> But there's a driving bass. You become the bass. Let the music write itself. I don't sing it if I don't mean it.
>> Welcome to the MJcast, your source of news, discussion, and interviews on the King of Pop.
Hello and welcome to episode 191 of the MJ Cast. I'm your host, Charles Thompson. In our last episode, our core team came together to share our thoughts on the Michael Jackson biopic. And in this episode, we're going to be dissecting it again, but we're coming at it from a different angle today because this is our filmmakers biopic roundt.
We've assembled four people, each of whom earned their crust in the world of movie making, to hear their expert opinions on the highs and the lows of Michael, which is already officially a record-breaking blockbuster. Joining me today are award-winning movie director Adam Green, movie editor Paul Black, filmmaker Marcos Kavota, and documentarian Jin Johan. I want to kick off by going around our imaginary table and asking each of you to give us your star rating for the movie out of five and your capsule review. Just 2 or 3 minutes of your overall assessment of how successful the film is, where it hit, and where it missed for you. Once we've heard from each of you, I want to open the floor for a discussion between all of you about the writing, the editing, the character development, and anything else you want to tell us your views about. So, first up, Adam, your star rating and capsule review. I am going to come out swinging with a five out of five. This was the most anticipated movie of my life other than Star Wars: The Phantom Menace in 1999, and we all know how that one worked out.
But almost 30 years later, I had allowed myself to believe and be excited. and then like the sevenyear waits and then of course because it's a Michael Jackson thing there has to be like some big thing to try to derail it and I think having a year to process okay this is not going to be the movie I wanted where it's going to be about exonerating him I had a year to be prepared for that and so I made sure that I was at the very first screening the preview screening with fans and not industry people And I haven't felt joy like that in a theater in so long. Everyone there wanted to be there so bad. They were dressed up. They were cheering. I mean, it was a religious experience, even though I'm not really a religious guy. And then I got to see it two more times after that.
So, three times total. One of those times in 4X. And I'm so happy Michael's on top again. I'm so happy people are dancing to him and that the fans prove the critics wrong yet again. So, I think this is a huge success and I'm so happy it exists. Well, there you go. That's a very positive first review there, which is in stark contrast to what most of us said on the last episode. So, next I'm going to come to Paul Black. Paul, what is your star rating for Michael? And if you could give us your sort of headline thoughts about what worked and what didn't work.
>> Yeah. Well, I saw it twice, both in IMAX. And like a lot of people, I enjoyed it a lot more the second time than the first. I'd probably land on maybe a three out of five in the overall. I'm kind of highly critical.
That's just how my brain is wired. I knew, like Adam said, that it wasn't going to be everything we sort of hoped in terms of exonerating him or humanizing him. As uh Charles, you said in the last episode, they had one chance to do that. And I don't know if they fully did it, but once I knew what we're in for, I was able to sit back and sort of enjoy it a lot more the second time.
I thought Jafar did an incredible job as Michael. I thought Juliano Valdi did a great job as young Michael as well. So, my overall thoughts are that I think what they've included, they've done pretty well, but as a film, it feels like a great collection of flashbacks and a lot of time jumps in desperate need of some sort of narrative glue and perhaps a little more depth. And obviously, most of us know why that is.
Obviously, based on the response, everyone is really loving it and liking it. A lot of people are actually saying it's great and loving it the way it is.
But as filmmakers, we know that a film can always be so much better than the release product. And I guess we'll get into that in this episode. But for those who love it and are having a great time watching it, I think that's wonderful.
But if we were to give you a version of the film that had all the stuff that you're loving in it, but added in a bunch of other stuff, you're unlikely to say, "Oh, what did you do that for? you added in all this context and clarity and depth. I liked it the way it was before. No, you would probably love it even more. So, that's my overall thought is that I accept it for what it is and I'm able to really enjoy it, but deep down as a fan and as a filmmaker, I wish that it could have been stronger and I know that everyone would have been on board if it was even better than it is.
>> Thank you very much. We're going to come next to Marcos, who of course is the author of his own Michael Jackson movie, Sonic Fantasy. But Marcos, what did you make of this effort? What was your star rating out of five? And what are your overriding thoughts about the film? The first time I saw the movie, I would give it like a three and a half out of five, but I've seen the movie now, I think five times already, and now it's jumped to 4.5. This is because the first time I saw the movie, I saw it as a fan. And obviously as a fan, I did miss some things and I was more concerned about the things that we didn't have that we know they were shot. But then the second, third, and fourth time I've seen the movie, I just went like a normal audience. I I didn't put my thriller jacket on. I just went like being myself film lover. And I truly love the film. I like the plot, the characters, the direction of the movie, the cinematography, the editing, the theme, the message that the film give us. And I think overall it's a great product and we can see right now that it's having a great impact on the film world. And this is something that it's not easy and I think the film has to have something good to have all this impact and positive reviews that we're getting from the normal audience.
>> Thank you. And finally, making his MJ cast debut, we have Jyn Choan, who of course is in the middle of making his own Michael Jackson documentary series, Trial by Media. So, Jyn, what did you think of Michael? What's your star rating? What are your headline thoughts?
>> So, my star rating probably would be a 3.5 and that jumped up to like a 3.8. I watched it the second time, it was much better. Same with what Marco said the first time I went in as a fan. And it's hard to separate what you know with what they're probably going to show. So, I kind of left it a little bit disappointed. But the second time I watched it, it was just much better. I was sitting there making notes. I was trying not to make notes. Wanted to remember what I was saying. It was the best movie that they could make probably given the circumstances, I should say, for the general public. And I'm kind of happy it's designed for the general public rather than myself. I'm happy that other people like it. The reaction's been amazing. Okay, so we've got a range of opinions there from three stars to five stars. So, it's going to be an interesting discussion between the four of you. Paul, before we started recording, you indicated that you had some thoughts as an editor about the editing of this movie, the impact on the storytelling, and how you feel it might have been improved. So, I think that might be a good place to start. So, do you want to get into that?
>> Yeah, sure. There's obviously been a lot of talk about the film, and funny enough, as an editor, whenever anyone is talking about films and they mention the editing, it's kind of a rare thing for an editor to go, "Oh, wow. They're actually talking about editing. I've never heard more talk about editing than this Michael movie. I'm just surprised how everyone's talking about the editing. Unfortunately, a lot of that is particularly negative. It's a little bit like, oh, the editing's the problem and it needs better editing here and they've done this and it feels cobbled together and I totally understand and relate to all that. But I just thought it would be good to kind of talk people through a little bit about the industry level standards of editing and the process and responsibilities, the politics, who actually has control over the final edit of the film because we can sit here and sort of say, "Oh, the editing was bad or it should have been done better this or the editing let it down or that kind of thing." My question is, you know, well, who are we blaming for that or whose fault do you think that is or how do we end up in this way? And obviously we all know that the narrative spine was ripped out of this film originally being centered around the 93 allegations which would have held it all together. And I feel like to me that's why it feels like kind of a series of flashbacks that were designed to be viewed with some kind of narrative context with somebody setting it up as a storyteller in some way or scenes flashing back to them which would sort of complement each other or or provide a contrast. And when you string them all together, it feels a little bit hodge podge to me. And then they had to do re-shoots. So, we might get into some of those particulars a little later. But I just wanted to say a couple of things.
I mean, first of all, you've got four award-winning editors on this film.
Three of them Oscar winners and then a couple of additional editors. So, there's a lot of people working on this.
Possibly because not so much of the scope and scale, but the timelines of having to sort of start and stop and recut and get other people on board if people aren't available. So, you've got some amazing editors who have proven themselves as incredible technicians and creative talents. One of the things I wanted to say about editing was we often refer to it as invisible art by invisible artists. And what we mean by that is if the editor does their job correctly, it's invisible. Nobody notices. So, one of the things I just wanted to point out was that a lot of credit I believe is due for the editing of this movie for the things that do work really well that people are really, really loving. I know there's some structural issues and time jumps and things that were not included and setups and context that I believe are an issue, but credit for where credit's due because all the scenes that are working really well, they don't just happen.
There's a lot of challenges and problems to solve perhaps trying to shape performances and material particularly when you're trying to recreate something that people can reference the real thing. I mean Jafar did an amazing job but I would imagine as an editor they were always trying to bring out Jafar's performance and make it as authentic as possible. Make sure the dancing and way they've cut it together to make sure it always feels like Michael and oh it doesn't really there. Let's fix that.
Let's add this. What if we did this? So there's a lot of work that's gone into the editing that is sort of the invisible art and a lot of people are focusing on what is visible which is inevitably the problem. So first of all I just wanted to give a shout out to all the hard work that the editors have done that goes unseen that you probably don't realize all the bits that people are going oh that's great that's great that's great but it's a shame about the editing it's like well the things you think are great the editing plays a huge role in that. So that's the first thing I wanted to say. The second thing I wanted to say is how it actually works in the industry at this level. So the editor, their job is to bring out the best in the material and work and creatively solving problems and trying to fix things and trying to make things as strong as they can be and choosing performances. They're doing a lot of great work to actually make the edit work. However, they don't have the final say. So, it's not the editor necessarily that has the say over what ends up in the movie and what doesn't and what gets chopped out and how the transitions are going to work. They work with the director to together figure that out.
But the director initially is really responsible in the first instance to make sure every single cut, every decision is what the director's happy with. And quite often the editor ends up maybe disagreeing, but at the end of the day you got to say, well, it's up to the director. Now then going on from that, the director, this is probably the big thing, the director almost never has the final say over the final edit. If you're James Cameron or Spielberg or certain others maybe, but in the industry, most directors do not get final cut, particularly when it's a big studio picture. So the studio often has more of a final say than the director. The producer is usually the one I mean people wonder why when a film wins best picture at the Oscars, it's the producer who gets that award. They're usually the person who has a lot more say over the final cut and it's their decisions. A lot of this I also have to say comes down to contracts. And I can't say I'm actually privy to what the agreements and contracts are on this film. I can only base it on what the general standards are in the industry because there's executive producers. Usually that's just people who have put money in or you know part of the production in in that way. Sometimes people just say whoever is paying for it wherever the biggest money is coming from they might have it in their contract that they get a huge say or even the final say. So I can't say for certain who has it but the producers on this film are Graham King, John Branker, John Mlan and they are listed in that order as producers. So one would assume that Graham King is the experienced producer who's done films.
He's done Bohemian Rap City etc. So he is probably in the film world the main producer. But John Branker I have a feeling and if anyone else knows more about this than me jump in. But I believe that the estate, John Branker, they're probably paying for a lot of this film and putting up a lot of the funds. Therefore, I would say knowing how lawyers work, knowing how Brana works, he would have made sure in the contract that he had a lot of say and possibly even the final say. So, I guess that's up for debate over who has the final say, but I just wanted to sort of clarify all that and say, look, anything we say about, you know, the editing of the film or the final version or why it's got this, why they didn't include that, how do we end up with this version of the film in cinemas for better or worse, that's how I understand the director, producer, studio relationship.
Does anyone else have anything else that they are aware of? Maybe Adam. Yeah, I'm so glad that you just kind of set it up with all of that because I was kind of thinking the same thing. I mean, even like kind of just one step further back to what Marco said when he said, "I'm almost kind of glad this wasn't the movie made for me." I hadn't thought about it that way, but I think it's so true because yeah, I guarantee you everything that you guys say or that has been said about, "Oh, why wasn't this in there?" And it needed that. I get it, of course, but it's working. It's working and people are feeling the magic and they're loving it and they're leaving filled with joy and it's a wonderful thing. This was never going to be for us. And the other thing, just so we don't need to harp on it, the critics, if you thought they didn't like it now, because the movie, to the best of my understanding, was going to portray him as innocent, it would have a zero rating. They just want his head on a platter. And if it's not that, they hate it. They hate it. And it's always been that way for what, 35, 40 years at this point. So, it was never going to get into all the nitty-gritty. What we need is Ryan Murphy to do an American Crime Story season just on even just the 2005 trial, if not both. So, it was never going to be all that we wanted it to be.
But what Paul was just saying about the editing, I know we all think, you know what, it just it would have only taken 10 more minutes to show this stuff. And believe me, there's things that I God, it kills me they're not in there, but they know what they're doing and how many times the thing can play a day. And keeping it to that 2hour limit, as much as I'm missing so much, it was the best, most palatable way to present this. And I only hope that it gets over a billion dollars or whatever it needs to do for them to keep going here. But I also hope they don't get greedy and now try to break it up into two more parts. Again, as much as I want to see all the nitty-gritty stuff, just tell a story and do them justice.
>> Okay. Like Adam, I also agree with what Paul said. And I'm just putting myself on the director's perspective. And I can't imagine the producer coming in the middle of the editing process and saying, "Hey, remember the film you shot? We can't use this 50% of what you shot for whatever reason." At this point, there's only two things you can do. Well, there's actually three. You can kill yourself or either you can reshoot. Of course, they did some re-shooting. H But also, a big part of it is editing. And I'm thinking about my editor. I've been editing my last seven, eight films with the same guy. His name is Soul. And I can see Anthony and his editor sitting down or his editors and talking about what can they do, looking at their version of the film again and again and again and getting ideas and understanding where the film has to go to. And I get that the film it has changed. They need to find a new antagonist. And they did that in the most brilliant way. I think it was amazing the way they did it and how they decided that Joseph was going to be the bad guy from the movie. And obviously the editing itself, it was the pacing, the continuity, the transitions, the rhythm, the timing and the way that they created this narrative structure. I think it was emotional. It was emotional and it has had a great impact on the general public and that's what's all about. Jyn, I'm interested to hear what you think. You've given the film a 3.8 after a couple of viewings. So, some of the general criticisms about the film have been the pacing have been at certain point it seems to sort of turn into more of a montage than a narrative, but what are your thoughts on this particular issue? I think when I first watched it, doing the research for the documentary and everything, I could tell that it was kind of hodge podgeed together in the last minute. Like the original story, of course, we know about has been taken out. It's basically like a 2D story of something that is so much deeper to tell. And I think for the general public, that's perfect. And actually touching on a point that you were talking about, the critics, I'm documenting all of that. So that's all material for me. I find it interesting with the reviews they're talking about what's not in the movie. Like the movie ends in 88. That's like me watching like Lord of the Rings one and being pissed off because I didn't get to see that guy put the ring in the mountain and then giving it a zero out of 10. The media knows that there's a second movie coming out. There's no way it's being reshot.
So that's all material for me.
>> Paul, let me ask you something. as an editor. Antoine Fukqua gave an interview the other day to a website called Screen Rent. And in that interview, he said that the editing of this film was still ongoing until a couple of days before the premiere. Is that normal or does that suggest that this is a film which was really being cobbled together in a rush to meet a deadline?
>> Yeah, interesting. I mean, I would start out by saying it's not normal, although in the last sort of 20 years, it's becoming unfortunately more normal. Just a bit of clarity on background. We used to have a term in the industry called picture lock because of the way it was edited on film. You had to actually lock or decide the final edit and say that's it, no more editing changes. And then the reason you'd had to lock it, you had to send that edit off to six or seven other departments to do the sound and the color grading and V effects and music and all this. And you couldn't be editing and changing things or else everything would be going out of sync and six different teams would be working on different versions. So we used to lock picture and say no more changes.
But with digital technically it's possible. But when he says he was editing 2 days before the premiere or whatever, I would take that to mean they were just making adjustments and tweaks because it would have already been in the sound mix. The music's gone in, they're mixing, they're doing foley, they're doing color grading, they're adding the effects. So you're not actually editing the whole movie up until 2 days before and then saying, "Can we quickly do all the sound mix of this edit and color grade?" You know, so all of those processes would have kind of been happening simultaneously and the bulk of the edit would have been complete. But if they're still making tweaks to the film 2 days before it opens, it does indicate that things aren't going perfect and smooth, it means they're under the pump. And I would just say having that spine ripped out of the film, the original structure.
My concern was always as an editor, how are you gonna make a film feel organic and natural when you've had to do re-shoots and things that don't match? I think Jafar's appearance as Michael changes throughout. Sometimes it looks fantastic, sometimes it sort of doesn't.
You can tell they're being done at different times. Put it this way, to make the film feel like it was designed and written as an organic story arc is a huge challenge when you've got all these obstacles and all these things happening behind the scenes. I personally believe that the film is good, but it doesn't feel as strong as a story organically as it would have if it was written that way. So, when they've come in and tried to change and make it all work, they've done the best they can in the time that they've got. But I still believe there are definitely things that I feel should have been set up and given more context so that they landed stronger. You know, Mottown 25, it's like where's the setup for why that's important and all of these things that could have been done a little better with what they had in that time frame. In many ways, this film parallels Thriller when you think about it because like everyone knows how Thriller was almost scrapped completely and then it had to be retoled and reshaped with the the mix and then it goes on to break every record known to man and just put yourself in Antoine Fuku's shoes. Like it's like you accept this job which is unwinable. This is the most famous guy that ever lived. people know more about him. For instance, I love Guns and Roses. I couldn't tell you a single detail about one of Axel Rose's many court cases, but I know everything about Michael Jackson. So, he knows what he's up against. He can't please everybody. And he's also got critics who if he dares to try to say this man was innocent, oh, he's going to get it. And he accepts this task, this monumental task, and he really was one of like the best people they could have picked to do it. I don't know if anybody saw Emancipation. Unfortunately, it came out right after the unfortunate Oscars moment between Will Smith and Chris Rock and people kind of skipped it, but it was an incredible movie. Anyway, my point is though, what if you were making Star Wars and it's finished and then they said, "You got to take out the Empire. You'll figure it out." What?
Like, how do you even do that? And they did it and now it's breaking records.
And it's just so awesome that it's here.
And of course, there's things where it's like, "Oh man, why didn't you show that more or why didn't we get this or get that?" But that's because we're really huge fans who know every little detail.
I think to the worldwide masses, it works. It just does for them. Even though it is missing things. And I guarantee you, especially for the screenwriter, John Logan, who by the way, my podcast, The Movie [ __ ] we're going to be sitting down with him next week at the time of recording this. So, it'll probably run kind of end of June.
But what he was up against with this and then to have the spine ripped out as everyone is saying, I just can't believe it's working the way that it is.
>> Is there an argument to be made though that Michael Jackson's name would have secured this kind of reaction even if the film was dreadful. For example, you hear people saying all the time, well, you know, people say that John Branka is terrible, but you can't argue with the fact that the Michael Jackson estate is incredibly profitable. And you're going, yeah, but is that because of John Branker or is it because it's the Michael Jackson estate? You know, so is the box office demonstrative of a good film or is the box office demonstrative of a public that wants to see a film about Michael Jackson? the initial rush on that opening day in the previews.
Yeah, it was going to do well because it's Michael Jackson. Even that opening weekend, it was going to do business regardless because it's Michael Jackson.
We were all going to see it no matter what anybody said about it. But people are going multiple times. And one of the screenings I went to was at like 10:00 a.m. It was sold out on a Tuesday. So, this is really, really working. And it's word of mouth, social media. People are just having such a good time. I'm sure you guys are seeing the videos of people all over the world like celebrating in their audiences. And really when you think about it, and somebody might be able to correct me here, but when you look at Michael Jackson's life, really his last huge worldwide win like this was the Super Bowl. Because right after that, man, what he got put through and all the stuff that we know to see him celebrated and back on top as the king is incredible. And yeah, I do think of course it was going to make money, but this thing needs to make so much money cuz remember it's not just the estate, it's Universal, it's Lionsgate. Like there's so much writing on this. So to do this well, that isn't just Michael.
It's not just his name.
>> Yeah, I totally agree. When you get these kind of numbers in the box office, it's because people are going more than one time to see the movies. They're going multiple times. And for that you need a great movie. And I think we have a great movie. So I also want to talk about the message of the movie because a couple of years ago when we learned that this movie was being made, we as fans and now I'm talking as a fan. We were thinking, okay, what we really want is a movie that exonerates Michael from all the crap that they have been saying about him, especially the accusations and the allegations that we know they're not true. So, we wanted to talk about The Extortion and that's the movie that we were going to have and that was the movie that we wanted to have. But at the same time, watching this movie, I was thinking the other day, there's two ways to exonerate Michael in a movie. First way is showing how the Chandler family were chasing Michael for money, but now we don't have that. So the second way is to showing the real Michael and showing the general public who this guy was, how was his nature and the way he acted with everyone. And if you show this in a good way, people will understand how was Michael's soul. And I can sense that people, general public, watching this film are changing their minds about Michael and some previous thoughts that they had about him because they're looking at the guy and saying, "Hey, it's not the criminal that I thought he was, and maybe he was framed." And we didn't get the first option, but we're getting the second option. And maybe it's better because now the public is getting their own conclusion. And I've seen this in a couple of friends that I have and I've seen that in a couple of friends of friends that I have and they're changing their minds and that's is good news for us and for Michael of course.
>> Going back to what you were saying, did it do well because the movie was good or because of Michael? I think it's a mix of both, but more because it's Michael Jackson. I think a large amount of the general public. I don't think they actually care about the allegations. I think it's very hard to change somebody's mind. So, I feel like people have kind of got a sense of what they think, but they just want to listen to the music. And I went and rewatched it on a Tuesday, and I was gauging how many people were going to be there on a Tuesday. And I just went here locally and it was full. You know, there were some empty seats around, but it for a Tuesday. I was thinking, "Wow, this is quite amazing." And some guy asked me, he goes, "What did you think after we were walking out?" And he basically said, "You know, I'm just here for the music. The music's amazing. He's the greatest." I think if they made a [ __ ] movie of Michael Jackson, I think the first weekend would have done amazing and then it would have fallen off real quick.
>> Yeah, I think that the movie overall is doing really well and obviously hearing and seeing how people are really enjoying it, that warms my heart. As a filmmaker and as someone who is naturally very critical, I'm always striving for the best. I mean, you know, Michael would always talk about that it can be better, it can be better. So, I'm putting my filmmakers hat on to sort of be a little critical and say, I wish there could be more. I wish there could be more, but I'm actually really kind of glad that the film exists the way it is.
Because honestly, and I'm sure we all agree with this, it could have been so much worse. We were worried. We were going to be sitting there cringing going, "Oh no, what have they done? This is a disaster." Even before we knew who was making the film and and what was going to be involved, we always talked about, you know, who's going to play Michael. I personally always thought we'd never be able to do a Michael Jackson biopic until we got to a point where AI CGI could actually get Michael to play himself digitally and you'd actually believe that it's Michael doing the role. We're not quite there yet, but I think the combination of Jafar being a Jackson and just doing this incredible performance and all the makeup and the trickery and a little bit of CGI to boot, I think they did really, really well. And I never thought we'd get a Michael actor to portray Michael in a biopic the way they have. So, I think that is amazing. But the other thing I sort of wanted to say is what were the ways they could have constructed this movie differently or presented it to us based on what they have and what can we really reshoot. We can't redesign the entire film. We've shot all this stuff.
It's already edited. We've only got so much time left before we have to start getting it into the sound mix. So they had limited options. So I do respect and understand that. But if I was to dig into it from a filmmaker's perspective for a minute, what I would say is things like it starts with the setup of Michael on the Bad Tour. Personally, I don't think that was as strong as it could have been. I reckon they needed a lot of fan reaction, screaming, fainting. Who is this man? How did he have this impact on these people? What is this about? And then go back to Gary. It sort of transitioned to Gary Indiana. For me, that was a little quick. I thought, oh, okay. And obviously one of the biggest time jumps is Jackson 5 straight to pre-offtheall. They never really got into how successful the Jackson 5 were and the Jacksons, it's been mentioned the height of the Jackson 5 in this movie is depicted by them performing at a county fair. The film making method they've chosen to create a narrative given that the original narrative spine was removed was they chose title cards.
Graphically I found these a little bit hard to read to be honest particularly in IMAX. They could have had other options. I mean, I'm not saying these are good options, but they could have said, "Oh, how about we have a voice over as in Michael's voice telling his own story or something like that where it sounds like Michael?" That's another way they could have done because the story was not organically filmed to be able to have you follow characters and build the story elements the way you would have naturally organically done that. I'm really fascinated to hear what the screenwriter is going to say when Adam talks to him. I would predict that the screenwriter is kind of cringing a little bit to be honest because it's not what he wrote and it's not fixed the way he would have solved it. One of the ways that I think could have worked though is just a montage technique whereby you're just using a little bit of footage. Even if they had to use some archive stuff or photos and voice over of like radio just saying things like and the Jackson 5 continue, you know, they had one single of the Jackson 5 climbing the charts to number one. They had four number one singles in a row. That was like a huge achievement. It's like this massive thing and they didn't really communicate that. Like at the beginning of Moonwalker, the little montage of all the news reports, they could have done a little bit of that for 20 seconds or something just to give you a sense of what happened before we cut to Michael getting ready to do Off the Wall. We don't have him meeting Quincy Jones and changing history by deciding to work with him after being on the whiz. My biggest one is probably victory into bad. I really wish there was more setup.
And forgive me, I just want to talk about this for a minute. The end structure of the film narratively, they had to kind of come up with how are we going to end the movie? And they chose to end it with the bad performance at Wembley, which is great. That's probably one of my favorite performances or moments in the movie. I think they did an incredible job all around. That is a huge win. The setup to that could have been done better. My opinion is they should have had one song from the victory tour which was him clearly with the brothers and then telling everyone that's it, I'm moving on. Then you'd set up the bad tour possibly with a few little voiceovers montage saying the bad tour is the biggest world tour. It's going to all these countries 123 shows bit of information and story that to me would have led better into Michael being liberated and going on to do the biggest solo world tour. But what it felt like to me was just three live stadium songs back to back. One, two, three. That's not narrative. That's not storytelling.
That's just being entertained, which is fantastic. But from a narrative perspective, the Thriller album was the biggest selling album of all time. He should have been going on the Thriller Tour, but because he loves and respects his family and Joseph is telling him to do the Jackson's tour, he's like, "All right, I won't do a Thriller solo tour.
I will do the Jackson's victory tour.
But when they play this section of the movie, he's performing a solo Michael Jackson song, Human Nature. So, it's not really story-wise saying that he's stuck with the Jacksons. He wants to break free. It's like he's already in this massive stadium. Then you go straight into Working Day and Night, which is another Michael solo song. Instead of Shake Your Body Down to the Ground, which if anyone watches the original footage is when Michael actually did close the show and say that's it. They were performing Shake Your Body, which is a Jackson song. So, he's performing a solo song. So, two stadium solo performances in a row. Narratively, that's a little much. And then what do they do to follow that up? They cut straight to the Bad Tour. Another solo Michael performance in a row. And my contention is, as much as that's a fantastic ending, it just didn't have the right amount of setup and build because you've just had two solo Michael Jackson songs where you could barely see the Brothers in the background in some cases. The Dodger Stadium looks like it's bigger than Wembley actually does.
And Wembley is massive and bigger by at least 20,000 people. And the audience would be thinking, well, what's the difference here? How different is this bad world tour performance? Oh, he's gone solo. Look at him. He's in a massive stadium performing a solo song.
We basically just had him do that twice and then it cut straight to the third one. So, I wish they could have told more story after he left the victory tour to set up bad and what it really meant and set up maybe the next film.
So, there you go. That's some thoughts.
What do you guys think? I think probably the decision to end with a series of stadium performances is something that was decided well in advance of almost anything else to be honest because I think what they've done is they've taken the formula for Bohemian Ramsy which of course is another Graham King film and is the biggest selling biopic in history and they've basically done a cookie cutter template version. and they've just gone, right, this is what worked in Bohemian Ramsy. So, we're definitely going to copy that in the Michael Jackson film. And I think it was supposed to be in the original version, Man in the Mirror. But I think that kind of speaks to actually you've got a screenwriter here, but the screenwriter feels trapped by the structure that's been imposed by the producer. And it does feel slightly like a film that's been made by a committee rather than representing anybody's artistic vision.
But anyway, Adam, what do you think?
>> I agree with everything that Paul just said and not, you know, to keep reiterating this, but because we don't know what it was supposed to be and then they have to suddenly come up with a different threeact structure and somehow make this work. But also remember, it's a musical biopic. The audience wants to see musical performances. I did, especially as somebody who never got to see Michael live. I know this obviously is not seeing Michael live, but the feeling, the celebration of the music of him, it was there. And I think people wanted it. I agree. Human Nature might have been a weird choice, but it's one of my favorite songs. I think it's a lot of people's. it's up there in their favorite songs, which is probably why that's what they went with. But while we're talking about things that were left out that it's hard to be super critical knowing what they went through, especially, but I think people are getting it. You know, yeah, they could have just had a radio snippet or whatever, but how do you leave out making a much bigger deal out of the fact that he singlehandedly saved the music industry? that felt like a really big thing to not really highlight a little bit more. And then he had such a hard time with puberty with the acne and stuff and that informed so much of the surgeries that would later become such a thing, you know, other than almost sounded like an ADR line cuz it wasn't said on camera where Joe says big nose like randomly after beating him. Also, I felt like we could have used a little bit more. And I understand the way they tried to accomplish this with the pets and the hospital visits, but just how hard it was for him as he became Michael Jackson to relate to other adults around him and how everybody kind of wanted something from him. And it was just such a hard existence to set up why this man would prefer to be hanging around and playing with kids who don't want anything from those things. I personally just could have used more of that, but I still think they made it work.
>> So, Paul basically covered everything that I was thinking with the editing. It did feel like it was rushed and of course with the biopic, we want the music. So, Charles, what you said is they probably had certain songs that they were dead set on. We want these songs in the movie, but the early story could have been told so much better like with Off the Wall, the snub there. I think that's important to Michael Jackson's story in terms of making Thriller. And personally, I would have loved to see how Michael was defiant as a kid. The stories of him throwing his shoe back at Joe. That was just a quick thing I wanted to add there. And also criticizing the movie. I always feel a bit guilty because it's almost like someone's baking you a cake for the past 2 years and you get a slice and you start saying, "Oh, this is [ __ ] This is terrible."
Yeah, that's a vibe I get from a section of the fan community that reacted badly to our previous episode. You know, the thing is this is a film and we should be able to discuss it like we would discuss any other film and I think there is a sense of loyalty and gratitude that comes from the fans and not wanting to bite the hand that feeds them. But, you know, there are clearly issues with the film. But I do get that sense of guilt is something we all deal with as creatives. You know, I write news stories every week and then get people leaving comments under them telling me I'm a thick [ __ ] It just comes with a territory.
>> I just want to add that I do understand that we as fans, the more information we get, the better. But we need to be careful with an excessive information in a film. It can disrupt the pacing. They can even make it a little bit confusing if you're just getting a lot of information. Remember guys, we know all of this. So, it's easy for us to understand what's going on. But for general public is not that easy. If you ask to the general public what are they missing of the film probably the most of them will say nothing. It's perfect for them. They have the information that they want the information that they need to understand the story of Michael. And if they want more information, if they like the movie and they want to just get more information about Michael, we've got thousands of books and they can do their own type of research and start their own way in the Michael path. So I do think that we need to be careful saying that you know we were missing this, we were missing we are the world, we were missing you know of course we're missing a lot of parts that we as fans know that it is important but including all those parts it would be high chance that the film would be a little bit more confusing for the general public and make it a worse movie that we have now.
>> I think there's an argument though that it would have been less confusing. So for example, you have things happening in the film almost apropo of nothing.
You know, you have Michael going to get his nose done in this film because 20 years ago, Joe told him he had a big nose. Whereas, you know, if you included the stuff that Adam mentioned about the terrible experience that he had with the scrutiny of his face during puberty as a celebrity, you know, and the fans coming up to him in the airport and saying, "What happened to you?" and all that kind of stuff. I mean that's a 30-cond scene which would have added more context. You know there's probably a few 30-second scenes which could have been inserted into this film which might have made his obsession with Peter Pan slightly more understandable to the general viewer. Whereas in this film it sort of seems to be again afro of nothing. He just has this strange obsession with Peter Pan that doesn't really relate to anything. I know we're going to talk about Jafar, but the fact that we got a person to portray Michael Jackson on screen and we were able to suspend our disbelief as dieh hard fans and accept that I'm watching someone play Michael Jackson. That is so hard to do. Like even for all the best impersonators there are with their dance moves and stuff, none of them are him.
And Jafar just did such a good job. Like the weight of the world on his shoulders, especially never having done this before. And at least even some of the harshest critics of the film are at least acknowledging what he did. And obviously Coven Domingo, he's always fantastic. But somebody who's not getting enough credit, Nia Long. You can tell obviously the movie got restructured and Catherine's part probably got kind of whittleled down which is unfortunate but thankfully we have the Jackson's an American dream that gets into the nitty-gritty as best as a TV movie could but the fact that just through her performance when she's not speaking you're still able to convey Catherine's heart obviously we all would have loved to have seen more of that but it's still there and it's working for people and I just think the performances that were given here, especially Jafar, it wasn't an impersonation. I know a lot of people are saying this, but he embodied it and there was so much love cuz, you know, it's his uncle, but it radiated off the screen and it was just beautiful. Absolutely beautiful.
>> Yeah, I agree. The performances, you know, as we've mentioned, like I was so concerned about how that was going to play when we heard there was going to be a biopic. And I agree and a lot of people have said it, the American dream, it's almost four hours long, is definitely a bigger, deeper story, but also like I just went back and watched, you know, the Spikeley documentaries, Mottown off the wall and bad and the thrill of 41. And that is also where people might go once they've seen the movie to sort of get a bit more and research more. There's a lot more of the story in there. And sometimes you go, "Ah, why wasn't that in the movie?" Cuz you know, we do a thing as filmmakers called filling in the blanks. And as fans of Michael, we are definitely doing that. So what I mean by that is when you've been working on a movie for a year or so, you've known the story.
You've known the script. You know everything that was shot. You start editing it down and tightening it down and shortening it and we don't even need that. We don't need that. No, that works. Does that work? I don't know if it works. Wake up the next day.
Actually, that doesn't work. We go backwards and forwards. We get fresh audiences. Did that make sense? No, I didn't get that. Well, doesn't it make sense to you? It's pretty clear to us.
We are filling in the blanks cuz we know everything that's not in the movie. But the movie is presented to an audience who have never seen or never known maybe any of the things that we do. So, we are filling in the blanks and we think things work, but sometimes they don't to a fresh audience. And it's a similar vibe here because we're Michael fans. We know the whole history. We know all the story. We've heard the stories. So, we can watch this movie and sort of enjoy it because we are filling in the blanks.
We don't maybe even need to set up what Mottown 25 was or how it came to be or why the thriller video was so important.
But what I'm concerned about is when you present a film to an audience, as a storyteller, you're supposed to be able to communicate a story to an audience who knows nothing and can still follow along and get it. And I think most general audiences have a bit of an idea of Michael, obviously, but I think there's just those little things that I sort of wish maybe were included to help it along. Paul, you make such an important point about how we as Michael Jackson fans bring knowledge to this film, which can deceive us into thinking that the film works in areas where it doesn't. And I meant to mention this on the MJ cast roundt last week, but I totally forgot about it. I have spoken to two different nonfans who've been to see the film who each did not understand from the film that that Beat it scene was Michael meeting with real gang members and incorporating them into the video for beat it because it is so poorly executed. There is no moment in the film where anybody actually speaks that Michael is incorporating real gang members into his short film. You hear a phone call where he says something like, you know, Bill, I need you to do something for me and then he just shows up in this place and he's talking to these people. That whole scene is just one example where we as fans bring knowledge to this film and just sort of passively watch it and assume that the audience is going to understand what's going on. But they don't. The audience or not all of the audience is understanding what's going on in that scene because the storytelling is poor.
So I think actually that is a really important point and is one that some of the fans who are really kind of viciferously attacking anyone who criticizes the film might be might be worth just taking a step back and thinking well hang on is my opinion of this film being clouded by the fact that I am a fan as opposed to for example critics being clouded by the fact they hate Michael Jackson.
>> Yeah. And I'm very curious. We know that, you know, the original cut was sort of 4 hours or whatever and maybe an hour of that had to be removed as we've talked about, but I'm wondering what was left on the floor that maybe could have actually helped set up some of these things. I'm also very curious what the re-shoots were because I have my suspicions based on, like I said, the differing looks and makeup of Jafar and looking like that was done later. And just putting my producers hat on and thinking, well, if you had to do re-shoots, trying to get the entire cast back would have been really challenging.
We know they shot all the performances stuff first. So, that was done. They were never going to go, let's do more of that. Let's get everyone back. How much does it cost to get locations and all the group back together, all the actors off doing other things? So, I would assume simple scenes like a simple scene between Michael and John Branker probably could have been easier to do or a scene between him and his mother. So, I don't know if anyone knows for sure in this group, you know, what the actual reshot scenes were, but I'm kind of fascinated to know because my thought was that meeting where you sit down and go, what are we going to do? How are we going to fix this now that we've lost all that original 93 storyline? We've got this much time. We've got this much money. We can only get three out of six actors. Whatever the logistics are, I'm curious to know what they were thinking in terms of how to recreate this film.
Was the narrative spine going to be as heavy with the Joe Jackson being the antagonist and that whole thing? That's pretty much what the movie is. Well, we're very fortunate in this conversation to have someone among us who has been through something somewhat similar in Marcos with Sonic Fantasy where all of a sudden like the estate won't cooperate. You can't use any of the music and you're making a documentary about that music and yet it's absolutely [ __ ] beautiful. That documentary is incredible. And if anybody from the estate is listening, which I would hope you guys at least have somebody monitoring this podcast from time to time, the next release of Thriller, if you don't put Marcus's documentary on it, that is the biggest crime I've ever seen. But you still pulled it off. And I think that's what they did here. And that like what you were saying, Charles, about it wasn't really clear that he brought these like actual gang members together. I'm assuming just given John Logan's pedigree as a writer, he's one of the greatest writers alive today, that this all comes down to having to restructure it where the main bad guy was probably, I don't know this for a fact, but was probably going to be Evan Chandler. And now all of a sudden, you have to make a different movie out of that. And it's all just about him breaking free from Joe when that's not really what that might have been like the B story for all we know. And now that has to be made into the a story. And in order to hit those beats, they just had to move at a certain pace.
>> First of all, thank you, Adam, for your beautiful words. This is not about me, but yeah, I had a similar problem when I was finishing Sonic Fantasy. All the Michael Jackson music that I had before, similarly, I didn't have. And I had to re-edit not just the music, but I also had Quincy Jones and I had to take him off. And that's a long story. and that one day I'll be able to talk about it.
So, I totally agree with Paul. I think he's explaining very well from his perspective as an editor the way that how reshooting and reshaping the film and how it's worked. And I don't know which scenes were shot, but I'm pretty sure that they have to be a lot of Con Domingos, a lot of Joe Jackson's scenes, making him more important than it was in the first draft of the movie. And probably I could bet that one of those re-shotss is when Joe saying to Katherine Jackson, "If Michael doesn't do the victory tour, we're going to lose everything. We're going to lose the house. We're going to lose everything.
behalf and you know making more important Michael's presence with Jackson's and making more important the character of Joe Jackson. I think those were the main re-shoots and it actually worked.
>> Going to your point about the scene where Joe says we're going to lose the house. Just a side note, I think Michael owned the house at that point, didn't he? Cuz he rebuilt it. I'm pretty sure that's how events went. I wanted to talk about moments that I thought were edited really well actually and um just to explain to the listeners when you're making a movie you want to have little exposition as possible. You want the characters not to explain what's going to happen or you want to kind of shoot something and have a moment that the audience can feel the whole backstory to it. So, I actually thought the vitiligo scene where Michael's sitting on the chair just about to get a nose job. When he showed his vitiligo, that kind of explained it really well and you can see it the way that it's kind of blended in.
So, people straight away see, oh, okay, so he went from darker skin tone to lighter gradually. And the scene where he hugs Barry Gordy, that explains a lot there, too. And especially with Joe's reaction, he kind of just looks down.
Coleman Domingo's reaction there, I thought was incredible. Let me ask you something, Jyn, cuz you're in the middle of putting together a documentary series, which one of its main aims is to get under the skin of Michael Jackson and tell the public who he really is.
How effective did you think this film was in its ambition, if it was its ambition, to humanize Michael Jackson?
>> To the general public, I think it was very effective. Not gauging from what I've seen from the movie, but what I hear people saying about it who don't seem like they're fans and especially on TikTok, too. I see a lot of young people talking about how they can't stop listening to his music. And actually myself, I don't really listen to Michael Jackson that often. And I've been listening to the Jackson 5 on loop for the past week. I think it was quite effective with the story points that they had. And I thought the Peter Pan through line was kind of weak. you know, he could have been done a little bit better with his childhoods and just showing that he wasn't normal. He didn't have a normal upbringing. So, how can somebody who didn't have a normal upbringing be normal when they're an adult? But to answer your question, I think for the general public, I think they achieve their goal.
>> Yeah. I mean, I agree with Jyn on a couple of points. Like with the Neverland thing, it felt like they were planting a seed, but that's just another example of something that didn't fully pay off. And to me, the whole point with the narrative would be that he's searching for something. He's trying to get away from Joe. So the ending of the film with the liberation from Joe, he's finally on his own. He went on the bad tour, as I understand it, to pay for Neverland so he could buy it. They said, "Well, if you go on the tour, you can buy Neverland." Now, maybe, again, that's the thing with biopics, the actual truth sometimes takes away from the story they're trying to tell. So, as much as I wish the Jacksons were on stage during Mottown 25 to set the scene that he's with the brothers, but now he's going to go and do his new song, the solo song, Billy Jean, that would have actually narratively taken away from the end of the movie where he's supposed to be breaking away and doing his own thing. So, even though it happened, you got to shape the story in a way that kind of works. You are correct, Jyn, in talking about as filmmakers, we always say don't show and tell and ideally try not to tell with exposition. The best film making is if you can sort of present something visually, make us feel something or understand something just from a look and a performance or a moment or it's unwritten, then that's always going to be stronger from a film making perspective. One of my favorite scenes from the movie to be honest was little Michael Jackson when he's like, "Okay, Michael, you can't move when you're in front of the microphone." And that little series of him trying not to move.
To me, that was one of the highlights that surprised me from a film making perspective. I thought everything else in the movie is like, okay, they're recreating this, they're doing that.
Yep, I get this. I know this. But that was an example of a moment where whether it ever happened or not, it just cinematically said, this kid is special.
There is something about this kid that is different. You can see the music and the movement. It's in his soul. He cannot not move. And I saw it twice and the audience laughed both times in that moment where you could just visually see Michael with his feet planted trying not to move but he can't help it. So it's just one of those moments that I thought was really really strong. As filmmakers we try and find ways to make things clear and that's our job and as an editor that's what we're always trying to do. Like one of my great mentors, you know, an editor Don Campburn, who cut Easy Rider, for example, he said there's only really two rules in editing that he follows. Don't bore and don't confuse.
And it's an amazing insight because with the Michael Jackson content that they've got, I don't think they're at risk of boring people because it's just such a gold mine of material and they've done really well. But I think the confusion part is a little tricky. Like I said, we're filling in the blanks. There are just certain little parts here and there that I'm like, are people going to understand that? Do people know why that is or how that came to be? Is it misleading in any way? As I said, I reckon people are going to come out of this movie if they don't know a lot about the history thinking that Jackson 5 were never really that famous. The Jacksons never really happened. They did some community fairs and they did a few songs, but then nothing happened until Michael was an adult. Now, we fill in the blanks, but it's just that kind of clarity. It's like can we make that clear or can we put this in context? Can we take what is there and just enhance it? The film is great and nobody in my opinion would complain if it was better.
We are behind the scenes for up to a year on some of these feature films before they reach cinema. We are constantly trying to make it better and better and better and better. Whereas some people general public might see the first cut and go, "Yeah, that was good.
I went to a test screening once and I had to hold a focus group and ask." So, did anyone have any problems? Was there anything you'd take out of the movie?
Was there anything you didn't like? And this group just went, "No, it was good.
I liked it." And I'm like, "What are you talking about? There's so many issues.
It's half an hour too long and all this." But sometimes people don't know that something could be better until you present it to them. If we had have released Thriller and they had have been forced to release that original version that Adam was mentioning when they just fell to the floor and went, "This is unreleasable. It's pitiful. We can't release it." You never know what would have happened. I think there would have been a huge section of the public would have gone, "Oh, this is great. Oh, yeah, I like this." Because often if you're not a filmmaker or a practitioner or a recording artist or an engineer, you don't know how much better something could be. How would you know? I've edited films where I think, "Wow, this would have been a whole different story if someone else had edited it. And I think it might not have turned out the way I've done it." And there's no such thing as a parallel universe where you can find out what it would have been for better or worse if someone else did it.
When I used to teach editing, I used to give all of the same raw material of a scene to all the students and say, "Go away independently and edit these scenes." And they'd all come back with completely different ideas, different scenes with the same material just cuz they've all got different brains and different creative levels or skill levels. And sometimes people would be like, "Where was that shot? I didn't have that." It's like, "Yes, you did, but you didn't look." Oh no, I cheated that shot by moving it here or this is actually backwards or I extended this reaction. So all I'm trying to say is things can always be better and we are striving and striving and striving to make it the best we possibly can until it's ripped out of our hands and released. They say you never finish a film, you abandon it because eventually you have to let it go and release it.
One of the questions for me is what is this film doing for Michael's legacy? Is this a positive thing? Is it working?
Sure, there's missed opportunities, but I think overall it's really positive and I believe they've done the best they can and they've come up with something that is hugely successful. People are entertained. They're loving it. They're enjoying it. However, the filmmaker in me is just digging into this and saying, "Ah, I wish it could have been this. I wish it could have been that." Of course, without knowing all the actual politics, the restrictions, the limitations, I'm guessing at a lot of this, but I just wanted to be clear. The reason that there's some kind of like critique coming through here and whether that's too negative, it's just because it's the kind of things that we do as filmmakers behind the scenes when we're making films until it's time to release the movie.
>> As far as what it's doing for Michael Jackson, you know, you think about how many people wear this this movie is going to be their first experience. And there aren't a ton of pro Michael Jackson things out there. Especially, you know, when he first passed away, I feel like people took a breath and were like, "God, this guy was treated unfairly. He was a genius. He wasn't, you know, it was too little too late."
But it was nice to see him, you know, being remembered. But now he's the number one streaming artist in the world again. And obviously the music is going to be the first thing everybody runs to, but there's so many great books about him. There's great documentaries out there, which is why more than ever we need people to be seeing those things. I can't wait till Taj finishes what he's working on, when Jim finishes what he's been working on. But people are going to be looking into him and wanting to know more. And that stuff is out there, but unfortunately, there's also a lot of garbage out there, and we just got to hope people can think and actually look at it, you know.
>> Yes, I totally agree. I think the film is going to be great for Michael's legacy. I don't want to repeat what my colleagues have said. I do want to talk about Jafar for just a brief second cuz we were talking about him. Just want to say from my perspective, Jafar, wow, he was great. He was really authentic, emotional, his voice, his delivery, the body language, I think it was a ninth out of 10. You know, the way he portrayed his uncle, the way he portrayed Michael Jackson, we all were scared about that. And man, the job he did is amazing. And we do all agree that the general public, cuz we know when we're watching the movie, we know it's not Michael. We even know this is the son of Germaine and everything, all that stuff. But general public, they don't know about that. They just sure that he's his nephew or anything. But when they see him, they're like looking at Michael. So that's truly amazing. And I just want to talk a little bit that I've got the feeling that this film ultimately in a way for various reasons it functions primarily as a character introduction. the whole film. It's like setting the stage for everything that will unfold on the next movie. I just think that this film is essentially plays like an extended first act. You know, in the movies, the first act, we just present the characters. I think Michael, the movie, it's a whole movie where we present the character and we leave it where we want to go on, you know, bad tour. Michael at his peak and now we're going to see what's going to happen to him. And it's like a huge first act.
>> Marcus, that's exactly where I was about to take the discussion next. So, I want to change direction and talk about part two. So, I don't know if anybody had the opportunity to listen to the Matt Belly podcast a couple of days ago. He had Adam Fogson from Lion's Gate on for an interview. It's around 20 minutes that they're discussing the Michael movie, the making of the movie, the reception of the movie so far, and the potential for a sequel. And in that interview, Fogen is talking sort of optimistically about the prospect of a second installment, and he talks about how there will be meetings going on in the coming weeks to try to figure out how it's going to work.
What he also says is that part two will not necessarily deal with the allegations.
He makes comments along the lines of there's loads more fantastic music from Michael's career that followed what we've made and there's a lot we could do with that music and he's asked whether it will deal with the allegations and he is very evasive about that. So, what I wanted to hear from our panel really is their thoughts on a part two on how a part two could work and how the filmmakers would balance audience expectations and wishes against the actual reality of what happened. Because I think what's happened here, the public is enjoying this film. And I said when I was on last week's episode that as I was leaving the cinema the first night I saw it, I was surrounded by people who were absolutely rapsidizing about this film and about how they can't wait for part two. But they've just exited part one in a state of almost euphoria because what this film charts is the up and up and up of Michael's career. just the ascension from being the greatest child star ever to being the greatest pop star in history and the most famous man in the world. And it ends right at the zenith of Michael's fame and popularity. It ends right as he's on his first solo tour. After that, Michael had many great artistic projects and he had many successes, but none of them ever came close to the same level of success.
Dangerous is a fantastic album. It did not reach the popularity and the heights of what came before it. The same is true of history. The same is true of Blood on the Dance Floor. The subsequent tours were not as big. They were not as successful. So I think the filmmakers are going to face a very serious quandry which is that the audience wants to have part one again. The audience wants to have this amazing sort of sugar rush of a film where they're going to leave the cinema in a state of euphoria and hysteria and excitement and joy. And I wonder how it is possible to take that second half of Michael's career and fit it into that template. So Jyn, what do you think about part two? What do you think could or should be done? How should they make part two? So firstly, going off of that interview that you're talking about with Adam and Matt, I watched that and I was surprised he did the podcast actually and I think a lot of the questions that you raised is probably what the studio and the people making the film are talking about. In terms of what I think they will show, they will have a problem with leaving the audience on a positive note at the end. So my guess is they're going to show that he was mistreated by the media and he was misunderstood. I think that will be the stamp at the end of it. My guess is with all the allegations, there's going to be a whole bunch of slates on the screen, legal wording, which I don't want in a fictional movie.
But I think they can't really work around certain aspects of it. And in some way, I'm actually more excited to hear the music from Dangerous and History and Blood on the Dance Floor, just that one song alone. But I think they're asking the same question. So, I really don't know, especially with how this movie went. I hope they hit the mark. I'd be interested to see what people think. I agree with what Jen just said, but I don't think they need to be scared of a sad ending. You know, who knows what they were going to do or what they're going to do, but I would imagine if you end the movie with his death and maybe like Al Sharpton's memorial speech or piece of that and the reaction around the world and then you go back to him on stage with Man in the Mirror, people will leave crying, but they'll be leaving full of love. You know, remember just because a movie ends sadly, look at Titanic. It's not exactly a happy ending by any stretch, it did pretty well. So, I think that's probably the way they'll go. But not knowing the exact parameters of the NDA and was that just with the Chandlers or does that also include the RVOS? Let's just say for some reason because the RVO stuff that was all public knowledge, it's all out there. If they could do that, this is not a good idea. But when you're desperate and trying to find a way around it, if we saw that something was going on that was really bad, but we don't know what. And then when the Ariso accusation comes, that's when it comes out that he settled with someone else. But you don't get into the specifics of it. Could that be a way around it? I don't know. Again, how do you take a story point like that and just not show it to the audience and go, "Oh, by the way, this other thing happened that was life-changing and terrible. Don't worry about that." So, I don't know what they do. Do they change it to something completely different just to get around it? I don't know. But I'm sure that's why they're kind of skirting it right now because they probably don't know the answer yet. And I'm sure there's people getting paid a lot of money right now to figure that out.
>> Well, let me ask you this, Adam. The interview with Bellan was extremely non-committal as to whether the allegations, not just the Chantel case, but the allegations in general will be addressed at all by part two. So, what would be your thoughts about the prospect of making a part two and still failing to acknowledge this elephant in the room? I don't know how you tell the story of the next part of Michael Jackson's life and not include this. I don't know. And thank God it's not up to me to figure this out. When the movie got announced and they announced John Logan, it was like, "Oh my god, that's so great. Thank God it's not me."
But I don't know how they could do it without addressing it. But I think even being non-committal that a sequel is definitely coming. I know I keep seeing that online, but I don't know if it's definite yet. This movie is not there yet financially. It needs to make a lot of money because remember whatever number they're telling us, even with the re-shoots, it was probably a lot more than that. And they're not including marketing and they spent a fortune marketing this. So, it's got to make a lot more than just a ton. So, I'm sure he's being non-committal there still.
But also, they probably just don't know.
and he's probably been advised just don't say anything either way. Let's figure this out before we make it a bigger problem.
>> I think they in a potential second movie then I am pretty sure that will happen.
They will have to address the allegations and they will address the allegations. I agree with Adam.
Obviously they can talk about the 93 allegations but what about the trial?
You can talk about that. That's something that happened to Michael.
nothing to do with the Chandlers and that was public and I don't think there was an agreement that they had to sign up where you couldn't talk about the trial. So yes, I think it's important for the movie, for Michael's legacy, for everything that we support that they need to explain the extortion Michael had during those years. And remember, you can, as we've seen in the first film, there's things you can take off Michael Jackson's real story that won't fit on the film or place it somewhere else and it will work. General public, they they don't know about the 93 or 2003. They can get confused. So, if you just talk about 2003, they'll think, okay, those were the allegations.
Michael had a trial and that's it.
That's what happened. They will totally forget about 93. They won't ask about that. So, yes. And also I think if this movie, the first one, it's been like a rock song because it's been up tempo.
It's been brilliant. I think the second movie it's more like a ballet. We need to calm things down and we need to get more personal with Michael and obviously I would love to see yes his love interests fatherhood. He became a dad.
How did it change Michael's life being a lonely father? And yes, I think you need to take the movie to the end of his life. his failed comeback. And yes, probably will be a sad ending, but as we've said before, sad endings doesn't mean they're bad movies. You can have a really sad ending. And let's be honest here. Michael's story, it ended pretty sad. And that's the truth of it. So why not? If we ended in the bad, in the hype in this first movie, I think we could be honest and understand that the second movie can end up how Michael's life ended, you know, in a pretty pretty sad way. Yeah, I agree with everything you guys are saying. You're knocking it out of the park. I would also say that you cannot make a movie a second part to Michael's life without including the allegations. You just can't do it.
You're better off not making a movie than making one without it. They're already getting a lot of bad publicity or bad press about the fact that the first movie didn't cover it. You cannot make a second one and do the same thing again. And to my opinion, there is no story in the second movie if it doesn't include that. Michael had a lot of great creative endeavors and successes and family things going on and that's all wonderful, but in terms of what makes a gripping screenplay and something that the audience can engage with. I know that the directors been saying and all the PR stuff have been saying, "Oh, it was kind of a blessing that we didn't have to include the allegations in the first one because we could just focus on the genius that he was and how he became the greatest entertainer of all time."
I'm sort of on the fence about that. I'm like, "Yeah, in some ways I agree. I'm so glad we got to just go and enjoy. I got to sit in an IMAX seat and watch the movie without sitting there in fear cringing going, "Ah, they're going to cover all this bad stuff and I don't know how they're going to do it." So, in some ways, I'm kind of glad that the first movie was what it was. But that's the point. That's the contrast. The first movie is the greatness that he achieved despite all those obstacles that he had in the first part of his life. We've done that movie. The second movie, the story is basically the tragedy of what was done to him. He continued to try and do great music and great albums and great performances and do all of these amazing things. And some of his best, most creative works happened in these periods, but he was constantly doing it against the backdrop of everybody giving him a hard time and all of the craziness and nonsense and persecution that went on. You cannot make a second film without including that. And I agree with what everyone's saying. It does not have to be a happy blockbuster awesome thrill ride like the musical or like the first biopic.
There's no point making a second movie unless it's something different and people will accept that it was heartbreaking. But that's the point.
That's Michael's life. That's the story.
He reached those heights. And then the second half of his life was heartbreaking. And I want people to know that and see it and feel that. And I think as Adam was saying as well, at the end you might be in tears, but you might understand what he went through. And to me, that's the core, what he went through. People need to know what he went through. They've set it up in the first movie. The second movie has to be about that. However, who's making those decisions? One way that they could go with the second movie is to base it around the 2005 trial because it actually has a structure and you can use parts of that trial as the backbone and use that as a representation of all trials and allegations. And the beauty of the trial is it has a definitive ending. So we talk about communicating to an audience and clarity. Most people just get the basics of what we present in a film and they don't really understand all the ins and outs or what happened. The good thing about it is it's a very true powerful thing to say there was a trial. It was a legal trial.
You could incorporate all of these other things into it. And what was the result of that trial? Not guilty on all counts.
That is an arc, that is a story, that is the truth. And you could use that and create a film and people would go and look it up afterwards and go, "Oh, that's actually what happened." I just think that would be a really powerful way of presenting the story that could possibly work.
>> Yeah, I agree. And something I thought of while Marcus was talking, my prediction is I think they'll close the loop on showing that he didn't have a childhood with him having kids. So with the 93 allegations, I think they'll probably have to show just from the trial because in the trial, of course, they entered in prior bad act. So that's all in the public domain. So they can share everything that was in the trial.
So my prediction is they'll tell the 93 story in 2005. But where 93 sits, it's really hard to tell the dangerous story.
So they'll probably have to jump around.
They'll probably have to have like two or three timelines going on. But it's really tough. But also from a filmmaking point of view, it's always good to have more options of story than there is less. And as a fan, I think people seem to think we don't want allegations in Michael story. We only ask that you cover the allegations fairly. A story about Michael Jackson's life has to have this in there. And we want it in there.
Just it needs to be fair. I think based on some of the media coverage over the past couple of weeks, we know that even if the film had come out as it was originally supposed to, the media would have attacked it then as well. So if they don't cover the allegations, the media kicks the [ __ ] out of them. If they do cover them, but they say he's innocent, the media kicks the [ __ ] out of them. Right? That's what's going to happen. So I do kind of form the view that basically they should just forget about anything that might be said to attack the film and do what is best to communicate to the audience their message about these allegations and get it out to a mass audience. I fear based on the Foglesson interview that that's not what they're going to do and that they're actually considering a second film which still continues to ignore and cover up the existence of the allegations. I did notice that both Fukqua and Fogson have mentioned in interviews about a part two where we've still got the Super Bowl. It's just like, "Yeah, okay. Well, that's going to be the climax. Just Michael mimming to 50 seconds of jam at the Super Bowl. Who cares?" One thing I was kicking around with Damian Shields the other day was whether potentially a way to do it, a way to combine the horror of the last 20 years of Michael's life with also a hit parade is to use this Is it as the narrative spine and maybe have the film be set in this is it rehearsals and then keep going into flashback to demonstrate all the terrible stuff that's happened to Michael in the preceding 20 years and how he's now trying to mount this make orb breakak comeback. I don't know if that's a good idea or a terrible idea.
>> Well, I think you just hit the nail on the head again though that the movie, from my understanding, having met with John Logan, was taking the position that Michael was innocent. So, all the filmmakers involved had to know they're going to get crucified by the critics cuz it's not what they want to hear.
It's not the movie that they want to see. So, I have to assume they're already putting that to bed. Like, they're going to say what they're going to say depending on just how successful this is. It's always possible that Charles, they do do what you just said and the next one goes up to the Super Bowl or up to maybe the first if they can't make it that accusation, something bad happens. But let's just assume we are going to get a second one. And let's just assume for a second it is going to complete the story. I hope the narrative is this was everyone's favorite person and look what they did to it. It's just obviously getting around the allegations. We all have kind of ideas and off-the- cuff pitches for how they could do that. Being able to show the 2005 trial would definitely be huge and I hope they do it. And I think it was Paul who just said the fact that there's a trial with a definitive ending, everyone will understand that. So, I don't know what they're going to do next, and I don't know if they know for sure yet, but I would imagine they're going to in the next 30 days.
>> Well, food for thought. When you speak to John Logan, maybe you should after you've done your interview, you should ask him to listen to this episode and maybe he'll steal some of our ideas.
>> I will. Also, something I don't know if I'm supposed to be saying this, so John Logan, if you do listen to this, please forgive me, but I do know that the original script, it did start with The Raid on Neverland. That was how the movie was going to open. So, they definitely were going to address this stuff. They were how somebody overlooked, oh, wait a minute, we can't at that point. Glad I wasn't part of that meeting. Yeah, that was another issue that Foglesson was not particularly forthcoming about in his interview with Bellanie, but I'm sure everybody's NDA up to the eyeballs.
Well, I want to thank you all for joining us. So, it's been a very interesting 2 hours discussing our reactions to the film and our hopes and expectations for part two. Before we wrap up, I just want to go around and ask everybody, where can our listeners find you if they want to on social media so they can keep a breast of the projects that you're all working on. So, Adam, you have a podcast. I don't know if you want to tell our listeners about that and also where they can find you on social media. Sure. Yeah, the podcast is called The Movie Crypt. This week, we are celebrating our 13th anniversary, 675 episodes so far. But yeah, we are going to be interviewing John Logan soon. And we recently interviewed Steve Baron, who I'm assuming most people know directed the Billy Jean video. Some great stories in there as well. Also, my series Hatchet is getting a 4K box set release of all four films through Umbrella in Australia that is region free. So, that's out there. And you can find me on Instagram, though I tend to try to sort of stay off social media these days.
Now, Marcos, if people want to watch Sonic Fantasy, where can they do that officially? And also, where can they follow you on social media? So, I know it's been a long way with Sonic Fantasy.
Sonic Fantasy was officially released in Spain in our own VODs, video on demand streaming platforms, but we obviously wanted to go internationally. We had a problem there, but we're trying to solve it. And probably in a couple of months, Sonic Fantasy will be available for everyone to watch. And I'll keep you updated on my Instagram, Marcus Kabota Cabota. That's where everyone can find me. So, hope to see you there.
>> Jen, how can people continue to support you in your journey making Trial by Media and how can they keep updated on your progress?
>> Regarding the documentary, I've been working on it for it's gone 5 years now.
So, I'm working behind the scenes trying to get things going. It's taken a little long, but it's going to get there. In terms of following me, you can follow me on Instagram if you want to. I mainly just post like workout videos. I don't really share too much about the documentary. And actually, I feel like I've shared a little too much, especially when reaching out to distributors and all of this. And actually, on a side note, I actually took some classes back at UCLA and asked them in the film making world, how do you share your story without somebody trying to steal it? And they said, when you're new, you can't get around it. So, I don't really share too much about the documentary, but if I'm doing an interview, you'll probably see a picture of Beverly Hills Courthouse or something or if I'm filming something. You can follow me on Instagram, Jin Choan, or Twitter is, I believe, Jin-Chan if you want to.
>> And Paul, are you on social media? Do you want to be followed or do you want to live in anonymity? As always, I'm off the grid, so you can't really find me, and that's the way I like it. But you can contact me through the MJ cast, which uh I just want to say great discussion from all of you guys. It's been amazing. And I just want to finish on a positive note and say I am so glad they made this movie and that it's getting the love that it's getting and people are celebrating Michael and enjoying the music and having an amazing time. I am so glad it finally happened and everyone's having a ball with it.
Thank you very much. Thank you all for joining us on the show. Of course, we are the MJ Cast, so if you want to find us on social media, probably best to type in the MJ Cast and that will bring us up. Thank you for listening and keep Michaeling.
This has been a production of the MJ Cast. If you enjoy the MJ Cast, please consider rating, reviewing, and sharing it. The MJ Cast is produced by Elise Kapron, Charles Thompson, Charlie Carter, and Shaun Shackleford. This episode was edited by Paul Black. Intro and outro music by Dan Booos.
If you'd like to contact the makers of this podcast, please visit our website at www.themjcast.com.
Related Videos
Fouchon is Defeated | Hard Target
ActionPicks
4K views•2026-05-28
It Takes Two 💞
barefootandindependent
1K views•2026-05-31
Supply and demand, my friend. #movie #edit #shorts
gaskinpenton
11K views•2026-05-28
🎬 Across the Line (2000) 4K | Brad Johnson Neo-Western Thriller 🔥 | Crime & Border Justice
BabelWestern
734 views•2026-05-30
An Anime For Every Letter In LGBTQIA
KrisPNatz
2K views•2026-05-31
Mark Kermode reviews Tuner
kermodeandmayostake
2K views•2026-05-28
Once Upon A Time In The West (1968) - 20 Hidden Facts Nobody Knows
AmazingMovieRewind
111 views•2026-05-28
Backrooms Movie Review
TheAwardsContender
785 views•2026-05-30
