MJ: the musical - Reviews — Page 6

Who had been cast to play Macaulay Culkin?

ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Color me intrigued.


"Regardless, going into this project the producers had to know that this would not get critical praise, and I expect they have a plan to market the show without a need for anyone from the traditional theatergoing audience. Whether that plan works or not is another story."



This was on my mind when it was first announced. Pre-Covid, I really thought it would have been critic proof. (I was surprised that it wasn't more widely marketed when it was first announced.) At this point, I think that will be hard to tell unless ticket sales really go through the roof. It is a different time, as we all know. I really don't know what market strategy they can use when a lot of people who would/want to see the show still are not comfortable going to the theater or are not fully vaccinated and can't get in. His fame, as we also know, was global. But we also do not have as many tourists coming in. JMO

I’m sure Ayanna Prescod isn’t the worst critic we’ve ever had, but to see her claque of Twitter supporters pass around her reviews as “genius”, “spot-on”, “the only one who got it right”, etc. truly makes me feel like I’m in bizzaro world. I might have chalked it up to the rabid MJ fandom, but this isn’t the first show I’ve seen this happen with.

CATSNYrevival said: "That statement is not entirely accurate. There were finger prints found on the adult magazines. Both Jackson’s prints and his victim’s. And his victim testified that Jackson showed him the magazines. Even the jurors decided to ignore that evidence. They did so because the defense persuadedthem to discount the physical evidence and instead focus on Janet Arvizo’s credibility and her values as a mother.The existence of that evidence was largely forgotten in the chaos and media circus surrounding the trial. And that tactic from the defense is largely credited for Jackson’s acquittal."

Actually your statement isn't entirely accurate as well. True, there were finger prints found on adult magazines but it wasn't conclusive evidence. Prosecution claimed showing boys adult magazines was a grooming technique. However even when the accuser testified, he claimed MJ said the magazines belonged to his assistant, mocked the assistant. Defense claimed the boys went to MJ's room when he wasn't there, found and looked at the magazines and got caught. Defense claimed that's how their fingerprints got on the magazines. It really wasn't hard evidence either way. It was indeed a case of they said / he said. It wouldn't pass the "beyond reasonable doubt" requirement in a criminal case.

Accuser's credibility is also very relevant. Mother's sexual assault claims against store security - after she was caught shoplifting. Mother's welfare fraud. Their claims that they needed money for medical expenses while insurance was actually covering their medical expenses. Their attempts to get money and gifts from many celebrities including Chris Tucker, George Lopez, Jay Leno, (also allegedly from Adam Sandler, Jim Carey, Mike Tyson and so on). Even Leno who routinely mocked MJ on his show, testified that he thought the accuser was rehearsed, suspicious, and he thought they finally found a mark at MJ.

Unfortunately media reporting was very biased. I recommend reading "One of the Most Shameful Episodes In Journalistic History" on HuffPost. If you do read that article (or full transcripts), both jury's acquittal and some people's belief in MJ's innocence will make sense.

poisonivy2 said: "This right here is why people don't come forward with abuse claims. Blame the victim, blame the victim's mother."

Not a fair statement. People do come forward with abuse claims. It is important to listen to such claims and investigate them. But you are fooling yourself if you don't think credibility matters and we should accept every accusation as a fact, blindly no questions asked. Accused should have the chance to defend themselves. That's when the merit of the claims and credibility will come into play. Like it or hate it, the accuser mentioned did have serious credibility issues. Simply put jurors didn't believe them.

Here's a quote from the jurors after the verdict "Asked whether they thought Jackson had been the victim of an elaborate sting, one said: "The thought was there. You could not help but wonder and things just did not add up when you looked at the timeline.""

Great comment, I completely agree. And I'm so sorry for what you've gone through.

The cast and crew deserve to be respected for doing great work and no one deserves to be attacked anywhere.

Updated On: 2/3/22 at 11:49 AM

Appler's POV is fair but using the actors as a proxy for the "producers, theater owners, and publicity agencies" isn't really fair to the actors even if you're asking "basic questions." It's just playing in to other people using the actors as a shield.

JSquared2 said: "ErmengardeStopSniveling said: "Good thread by the VARIETY reporter, Michael Appler, who was removed from the post-show red carpet for asking Quentin Earl Darrington about factual parts of Jackson's legacy that aren't included in the musical:

https://twitter.com/ApplerMichael/status/1488949407554981892"

Looks like his Twitter feed was an epic fail, with the vast majority calling him out on being the great big douche that he is.

"

The people re-tweeting this with negative messages all sound like they are in middle school. Calling a journalist a butthole. My guess is this is two or three people with a lot of accounts.

Jordan Catalano said: "I haven’t called anyone a Butthole since 4th grade. I’m gonna bring that back!"

It's the right thing to do.