Michael Jackson

[21stamps]

Well, the topic is on this board, so too bad, and you don’t have the luxury of choosing who gets to, or should, respond to your posts. So you might as well nip that fantasy in the bud.

I’m not trolling. I’m have, on multiple occasions, informed you when I would be trolling. It bears repeating because you seemingly can not comprehend that detail.

Now, stop beating around the bush, stop avoiding what I have asked on an exceeding number of occasions, and answer my questions. I will continue to press you on this as long as you avoid them.

You don’t get to ask questions to others in good faith if you won’t answer them yourself. I’m playing your game here; you have a tendency to ask very direct questions to posters that don’t see eye-to-eye with you. I expect you do the same when they’re directed to you. That’s only fair.

I’ll go ahead and post them for you again, in case you conveniently forgot what they were.

1. Is your information regarding Wade Robson’s directorial career accurate, pertaining to Robson being fired as director of Happy Feet?

2. Do you believe Michael Jackson and/or his estate has ever settled with an accuse?

You don’t have the ability to comprehend what someone says, or you simply pretend not to. Either way, as a result of that, any conversation with you is useless on any board on this site.

I am placing you on ignore, so now you can stop with the trolling and move along.

 

[Tony Perkis]

You don’t have the ability to comprehend what someone says, or you simply pretend not to. Either way, as a result of that, any conversation with you is useless on any board on this site.

I am placing you on ignore, so now you can stop with the trolling and move along.

So, you again refuse to answer my two very direct questions.

At this point, it’s clear you don’t have an inability to comprehend.

You have an inability to read.

Have fun spamming the rest of this board with misinformation. As you have frequently chosen to do.

Meanwhile, I will continue to tag you in posts you refuse to acknowledge. It takes no time for me, so I’m happy to do it.

I’d recommend educating yourself more appropriately. You’re deficient in pretty clear ways.

 

[21stamps]

I would be very surprised if the Cirque show lasts past this year. Only one part of the documentary has aired, and I have a feeling that part 2 will draw more viewers, bringing more calls for shows to end.

I don’t see his music going away completely though. It might not get as much radioplay (especially over the next few months), but censoring him completely actually would bring more problems, especially on any classic rock, 70s pop, 80s pop, 90s stations... actually any kind of music station. People can personally choose not to listen to his music anymore, but I’m not sure if I support an overall ban.

I just wanted to let you know that I was in Vegas last week, stayed at Mandalay Bay.. specifically for MJ One and the surrounding tribute/birthday activities.

The show was packed. The atmosphere at the events, and even just walking around, was amazing.

Looks like the end to the Cirque show is not near. That trip was a refreshing reminder that decent humanity still exists. There are too many people who seek truth, not just a 4 hour carefully crafted movie.

Just thought this should be noted.

 

[Tony Perkis]

I just wanted to let you know that I was in Vegas last week, stayed at Mandalay Bay.. specifically for MJ One and the surrounding tribute/birthday activities.

The show was packed. The atmosphere at the events, and even just walking around, was amazing.

Looks like the end to the Cirque show is not near. That trip was a refreshing reminder that decent humanity still exists. There are too many people who seek truth, not just a 4 hour carefully crafted movie.

Just thought this should be noted.

I would recommend you refrain from implying people are undereducated and unaware.

That would be hypocritical.

 

[Tony Perkis]

Emmys: Sexual Abuse Film ‘Leaving Neverland’ Wins Best Doc or Nonfiction Special

HBO's 'Leaving Neverland' — which featured testimony from Wade Robson and James Safechuck about the abuse they allegedly faced at the hands of Michael Jackson — won best documentary at the 2019 Creative Arts Emmys.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

From last Sunday’s Emmy Awards. Leaving Neverland won Beat Documentary or Nonfiction special.

The HBO doc about Michael Jackson took home one of the top awards after receiving five total noms.

HBO's Leaving Neverland won best documentary or nonfiction special at the 2019 Creative Arts Emmys on Saturday night.

Dan Reed directed the four-hour film, which featured testimony from Wade Robson and James Safechuck, two men who claim to have suffered childhood sexual abuse at the hands of the late Michael Jackson.

Backstage, Reed explained that prior to taking on the project, he didn't know much about Jackson, nor did he have an opinion if Jackson was "guilty or innocent."

"I thought the two guys [Robson and Safechuck] would never speak out in front of camera," Reed said, adding that in talking to them, he was inclined to believe their claims in-part because they described what he considered a romantic relationship.


Reed also addressed Dave Chappelle's new Netflix special, Sticks & Stones, which referenced Leaving Neverland, the abuse allegations against Jackson, and the apparent movement to "cancel" the star. Chappelle even advised against watching the documentary, calling it "ing gross.

"I don't think he did it, but you know what? Even if he did do it … you know what I mean? I mean, it's Michael Jackson," Chappelle said in the special, along with other jokes about Jackson's accusers. "I know more than half the people in this room have been molested in their lives, but it wasn't no Michael Jackson, was it?"

Reed called Chappelle's jokes "revolting" and "a calculated attack" against Robson and Safechuck.

"I think that mocking the victims of child sexual assault isn’t a particularly clever thing to do," Reed said. "It got some laughs because it was part of his bit about cancel culture …. I never said to cancel Michael, there’s nothing in the documentary that says people need to stop listening to his music."

He added, "You can make jokes about so many things, why not do something brave?"


Leaving Neverland earned a total of five noms heading into Saturday's ceremony, including: outstanding directing for a documentary/nonfiction program; outstanding documentary or nonfiction special; outstanding picture editing for a nonfiction program; outstanding sound editing for a nonfiction program; and outstanding sound mixing for a nonfiction program.

After Leaving Neverland's debut in January at the Sundance Film Festival, Jackson's estate called the film "a tabloid character assassination" and insisted it "isn't a documentary," while his family called Reed and the pic's two accusers "opportunists."

Reed shared his reaction to Leaving Neverland's multiple Emmy nods in a statement to The Hollywood Reporter. "Since Leaving Neverland aired in March, it has launched many important conversations about child sexual abuse and the grooming that accompanies it. This was why James Safechuck and Wade Robson and their families spoke out, and why we made the documentary," said Reed. "We’re delighted that the Academy has honored that purpose — and our dedicated creative team — with five nominations."

The Creative Arts Emmys are being handed out over two nights, Saturday and Sunday. The Primetime Emmy Awards will be handed out Sunday, Sept. 22.

 

[eliza61nyc]

And yet he's still popular and outside of the Canadian radio station, he's played thousands of times a day. Forbes has named him the richest dead celebrity once again. There were all these prophecies about what was going to happen once the documentary came out
So far none have come to pass

It's old news.

 

[Tony Perkis]

And yet he's still popular and outside of the Canadian radio station, he's played thousands of times a day. Forbes has named him the richest dead celebrity once again. There were all these prophecies about what was going to happen once the documentary came out
So far none have come to pass

It's old news.

His music is great. This has never been denied. I still actively listen to him because his songs are insanely good workout songs.

But people canceling him has never really been part of the discussion that got any traction.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

His music is great. This has never been denied. I still actively listen to him because his songs are insanely good workout songs.

But people canceling him has never really been part of the discussion that got any traction.

I think there has been quite a bit of discussion about whether to or whether it would even be possible to cancel Michael Jackson. I remember one article positing the difference between hearing his music and listening to it through your headphones, for example. To me, that's the most interesting aspect of all of this in the present moment when it feels people are being cancelled left, right, and center. If you don't believe the allegations, it's pretty straightforward. For those with doubts, though, how you should feel about listening to his music, watching his videos, etc. is an interesting question.

One thing that seems clear is that his music didn't just disappear, regardless of the decisions of particular radio stations. I live in the Netherlands and read about radio stations banning his music, but I doubt a week has gone by since then where I haven't heard his music somewhere. When it has come on at a bar or club here, his songs still get the biggest response. This makes me suspect that in time people will come to see him as yet another in a long line of brilliant but personally flawed artists. Perhaps an early indication will be how long the Cirque de Soleil show keeps going and what happens with the Broadway musical.

Maybe the two points of difference between a Michael Jackson and a Woody Allen (who many seem to have cancelled) is both the quality of the work and the fact Jackson is no longer around so people don't feel like they're personally supporting him? I don't think anyone would begrudge his kids the royalties from their father's music.

 

[21stamps]

I think there has been quite a bit of discussion about whether to or whether it would even be possible to cancel Michael Jackson. I remember one article positing the difference between hearing his music and listening to it through your headphones, for example. To me, that's the most interesting aspect of all of this in the present moment when it feels people are being cancelled left, right, and center. If you don't believe the allegations, it's pretty straightforward. For those with doubts, though, how you should feel about listening to his music, watching his videos, etc. is an interesting question.

One thing that seems clear is that his music didn't just disappear, regardless of the decisions of particular radio stations. I live in the Netherlands and read about radio stations banning his music, but I doubt a week has gone by since then where I haven't heard his music somewhere. When it has come on at a bar or club here, his songs still get the biggest response. This makes me suspect that in time people will come to see him as yet another in a long line of brilliant but personally flawed artists. Perhaps an early indication will be how long the Cirque de Soleil show keeps going and what happens with the Broadway musical.

I personally could not have gone to the Cirque show if I thought he was guilty, and I wouldn’t purposely play his music. I think for those who feel he is guilty, most are unlikely to play his music or attend shows.

Maybe the two points of difference between a Michael Jackson and a Woody Allen (who many seem to have cancelled) is both the quality of the work and the fact Jackson is no longer around so people don't feel like they're personally supporting him?

I think the huge difference here is that Michael Jackson’s guilt is not a certainty, and as time goes on there is more information coming out that points more towards innocence than guilt.
Given his cultural impact, humanitarian impact, and music, combined with the doubt of the validity of the accusations, as well as the many other former-child friends who defending him - I don’t think the general world population is ready to cancel him on a “well, maybe”. I’ll add too that people expected more accusers to come out, similar to Weinstein, Cosby, R Kelly, etc.. but what we’ve seen is the opposite,.. which creates doubt in the public as well.

I feel like lately the press is even starting to back off a little on stating his guilt as almost a certainty, and more people are coming out to defend him. Sheryl Crow has stated that she regrets talking about him, and that she was taken out of context in the interview.
I think the Estate v HBO case will continue to make people aware of the doubt.
I think the Emmy’s response to the concern of Leaving Neverland’s nomination and subsequent award- saying “ We are not concerned with accuracy” (paraphrased, but that’s the response in a nutshell).. and I think the continued uncovering of court documents and speaking out by people who knew MJ and the accusers- it all may turn the narrative around at some point. Of course there will always be some who believe he’s guilty, but I do not think history will label him as a pedophile.

I have to believe that at some point there will be a few more journalists who want to look into the subject, and report accurately. Even ask Wade and James about their inconsistencies and the proven falsehoods.

Maybe when their lawsuit appeal finally gets on the docket, it will spark more journalists to do some investigation.

Time will tell.

 

[21stamps]

I’ll add one more thing to the above..

Several months ago I stumble on a podcast about Michael Jackson, via posts on social media. I thought at first it may be a cheesy fan thing, but it’s the farthest from.
I’ve now listened to all of the episodes.

Here’s the interesting part-

This podcast has interviewed all of the major collaborators, his music director, his Neverland property manager, his nephews, his brother, his long time choreographers, photographers, attorney during the 04-05 case, PI from the 04-05 case, other people involved in the case, His long drummer, guitarist, and some of the cast from This is It.

Most of the people had a 10-20+-30+ year relationship with Michael Jackson, some more intimately than others.. Their interviews are on a podcast.. and yet no one in the press is trying to speak with them.
Instead, the press is interviewing people who didn’t have a close relationship with him.

The interviews are saved, the people are obviously available to talk.. so again, at some point there may be a major publication who wants to speak with them and then publish what they say.

I think it’s tragic that it took a social media hashtag search to find said interviews, and that I had no idea about them.. which means much of the public does not know of their existence either.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I personally could not have gone to the Cirque show if I thought he was guilty, and I wouldn’t purposely play his music. I think for those who feel he is guilty, most are unlikely to play his music or attend shows.

Yeah, I think it is all straightforward if you don't doubt his innocence. Personally, I'm not hugely interested in debating his guilt or innocence as I don't have any real insight beyond what is already out in the public domain. People will ultimately make their own judgement.

I think the huge difference here is that Michael Jackson’s guilt is not a certainty, and as time goes on there is more information coming out that points more towards innocence than guilt.

I honestly don't see this as a huge difference. There will always be doubt and conflicting evidence in both cases.

Again, I don't have any insight into Woody Allen's guilt or innocence. I do think, though, he has at least as credible a claim as MJ to benefit of the doubt in arguing that the allegation of abuse against him came in the midst of a messy divorce proceeding, was investigated, and ultimately it was determined there wasn't enough of a case to proceed with charges. Despite this, I feel like it's almost taken for granted that Woody Allen is an abuser and he seems to have been largely cancelled from the culture. Indeed, people seem to get upset when people who worked with him defend him or anyone states that would work with him in the future. The main differences I can see in the way both are treated is that one is still alive and it's also relatively easy for most people to just stop watching Woody Allen films.

 

[21stamps]

Yeah, I think it is all straightforward if you don't doubt his innocence. Personally, I'm not hugely interested in debating his guilt or innocence as I don't have any real insight beyond what is already out in the public domain. People will ultimately make their own judgement.


I honestly don't see this as a huge difference. There will always be doubt and conflicting evidence in both cases.

Again, I don't have any insight into Woody Allen's guilt or innocence. I do think, though, he has at least as credible a claim as MJ to benefit of the doubt in arguing that the allegation of abuse against him came in the midst of a messy divorce proceeding, was investigated, and ultimately it was determined there wasn't enough of a case to proceed with charges. Despite this, I feel like it's almost taken for granted that Woody Allen is an abuser and he seems to have been largely cancelled from the culture. Indeed, people seem to get upset when people who worked with him defend him or anyone states that would work with him in the future. The main differences I can see in the way both are treated is that one is still alive and it's also relatively easy for most people to just stop watching Woody Allen films.

I think journalism has a duty to try to be accurate for the history books, whatever the subject may be.

Whether someone even cares if Allen or Jackson are guilty or not, all evidence and circumstances should be reported, and people can make up their mind based of that. In that case of MJ, we haven’t yet seen that happen, but in time it will. That will be the key to his legacy and public perception going forward.

 

[Tony Perkis]

I think there has been quite a bit of discussion about whether to or whether it would even be possible to cancel Michael Jackson. I remember one article positing the difference between hearing his music and listening to it through your headphones, for example. To me, that's the most interesting aspect of all of this in the present moment when it feels people are being cancelled left, right, and center. If you don't believe the allegations, it's pretty straightforward. For those with doubts, though, how you should feel about listening to his music, watching his videos, etc. is an interesting question.

One thing that seems clear is that his music didn't just disappear, regardless of the decisions of particular radio stations. I live in the Netherlands and read about radio stations banning his music, but I doubt a week has gone by since then where I haven't heard his music somewhere. When it has come on at a bar or club here, his songs still get the biggest response. This makes me suspect that in time people will come to see him as yet another in a long line of brilliant but personally flawed artists. Perhaps an early indication will be how long the Cirque de Soleil show keeps going and what happens with the Broadway musical.

Maybe the two points of difference between a Michael Jackson and a Woody Allen (who many seem to have cancelled) is both the quality of the work and the fact Jackson is no longer around so people don't feel like they're personally supporting him? I don't think anyone would begrudge his kids the royalties from their father's music.

Your last paragraph hits the nail on its head. It’s easy to shrug off any apprehension listening to his music when he’s six feet under looking like his South Park caricature.

 

[Tony Perkis]

I think the huge difference here is that Michael Jackson’s guilt is not a certainty, and as time goes on there is more information coming out that points more towards innocence than guilt.

Public sentiment is as convinced that he is guilty more than it has ever been. You’ve just been focusing on the defense side of things that you don’t see the bigger picture.

Given his cultural impact, humanitarian impact, and music, combined with the doubt of the validity of the accusations, as well as the many other former-child friends who defending him

This has always been a bad argument. It’s the equivalent of saying Timothy McVeigh isn’t a murderer because he didn’t murder me.

 

[networkpro]

Oh goodness, cant we just agree that he was talented, had a bad childhood resulting from both of his parents pushing him and his siblings into musical performance (both of them were not successful as professional musicians, but they tried), and as a result, didn't have the coping skills to handle his success ?

He's gone, not a corpscicle or head in a jar, and some enjoy some of his performance work. He was an entertainer, not a role model for almost everyone.

 

[21stamps]

Oh goodness, cant we just agree that he was talented, had a bad childhood resulting from both of his parents pushing him and his siblings into musical performance (both of them were not successful as professional musicians, but they tried), and as a result, didn't have the coping skills to handle his success ?

He's gone, not a corpscicle or head in a jar, and some enjoy some of his performance work. He was an entertainer, not a role model for almost everyone.

I think that’s why people are so passionate about the subject.. he was a lot more than an entertainer.

I have used aspects of his life as a role model/example/studying for myself and my child.. the same as I have used aspects of Michael Jordan, Beethoven, Messi, Gareth Bale, Abraham Lincoln, Einstein, etc etc etc. in this manner.

There are certain people in history who changed the world.. or have an impactful story. If this was as simple as “he was a great entertainer” then I think we wouldn’t see so much of what we’re seeing in reactions to his guilt or innocence.

 

[networkpro]

I think that’s why people are so passionate about the subject.. he was a lot more than an entertainer.

We'll agree to disagree as I am not invested in his memory as anything more than some songs from the radio.

 

[networkpro]

So how many of y'all have read about what Elton John's memoir said about Michael Jackson? Unlike thae majority of us he knew him from when he was still a child until the end.

 

[21stamps]

So how many of y'all have read about what Elton John's memoir said about Michael Jackson? Unlike thae majority of us he knew him from when he was still a child until the end.

The story that came out last week? That he was weird to be around and preferred the company of children over adults?

I’m so curious how these are the stories being picked up and noticed, when literally people who worked with him for 20+ years are giving interviews, yet not being spread like wildfire. Elton John wasn’t one of those people who knew him in that way. Although I do believe that he thought he was disturbed later on in life, everyone says he had huge trust issues after the mid 2000s...only choosing to be around a very select group of people, he thought everyone was out to extort him or sell a story.

I guess I’m not really curious of how Elton John’s story has been picked up and copy and pasted everywhere.. there’s a certain narrative to sell.. and there’s a large portion of the public who only wants to read that narrative.

There’s a song called Money.. way ahead of its time.

 

[Tony Perkis]

The story that came out last week? That he was weird to be around and preferred the company of children over adults?

I’m so curious how these are the stories being picked up and noticed, when literally people who worked with him for 20+ years are giving interviews, yet not being spread like wildfire. Elton John wasn’t one of those people who knew him in that way. Although I do believe that he thought he was disturbed later on in life, everyone says he had huge trust issues after the mid 2000s...only choosing to be around a very select group of people, he thought everyone was out to extort him or sell a story.

I guess I’m not really curious of how Elton John’s story has been picked up and copy and pasted everywhere.. there’s a certain narrative to sell.. and there’s a large portion of the public who only wants to read that narrative.

Probably because the only narrative that matters to you is the one you create in your head to justify your actions and your beliefs.

And just because facts are important, especially when you want to put inaccurate motivation on something that you have absolutely no authority to attribute motivation to, this story is news because it’s an excerpt from Elton John’s new memoir “Me”, due for release on October 15, 2019, and the reason why the news isn’t spreading like wildfire is due to 3 very obvious reasons:

1) It’s simply a brief excerpt from a book not about Michael Jackson
2) It conveyed an opinion, not a fact
3) It isn’t that important of a revelation; it’s a continuation of something everybody already either knew or said

These details, which you were so quick to trivialize, add much needed context so that people like you don’t get away politicizing and spinning the narrative in a dishonest manner. Those details matter.

If you want to be a purveyor of truth, learn all of the facts, not just your preference of ones that agree with your perception of reality.