Michael Jackson musical...new documentary — Page 4

perfectliar said: "Dave28282 said: "The most important thing is that nobody draws any conclusion before a judge has done it."

Yet you've brought up Jussie Smollett's guilt twice in this thread.

Looking at some of these responses, I guess we need a Broadway actor to tweet how gross some posters are before the mods will step in? Because many of these replies are not only off-topic but arevictim-shaming, name-calling garbage."

No, it's called a normal discussion. When the truth about the Jussie Smollett case came to light, I remember the first few days many people like you shouting these words too; "victim-shaming and name-calling!". Luckily, they were soon put into place.

And that case is different, because 1. He admitted it. and 2. There will actually be a trial.

Updated On: 3/6/19 at 09:00 AM

Dave28282 said: "perfectliar said: "Dave28282 said: "No, it's called a normal discussion. When the truth about the Jussie Smollett case came to light, I remember the first few days many people like you shouting these words too;"victim-shaming and name-calling!". Luckily, they were soon put into place.

And that case is different, because 1. He admitted it. and 2. There will actually be a trial."

Allow me to quote you AGAIN: The most important thing is that nobody draws any conclusion before a judge has done it.

Dave28282 said: "So there is nothing left for these men aside from a business and a movie."

Or that they will encourage other victims of sexual abuse to come forward, deal with their trauma and seek justice for themselves while simultaneously educating the masses on warning signs so these sorts of crimes can be avoided or stopped.

And there's nothing left for the Jackson estate but to continue to cash in on a dead man's legacy. The Jackson estate is worth $825 million and projects like this musical and any other future shows, films, album reissues, "new" albums, song licensing, etc will only add to that. Do they not have a major material interest in ensuring that Jackson's legacy be untarnished? By your logic, Dave, if their intention was simply to be the vanguard defenders of Jackson's life, if they were so noble, they would not be cashing in so readily.

The "fame and fortune" argument cuts both ways here.

---

Updated On: 3/6/19 at 10:11 AM

haterobics said: "TheQuibbler said: "Or thatthey will encourage other victims of sexual abuse to come forward,deal with their trauma and seek justice for themselves while simultaneously educating the masses on warning signs so these sorts of crimes can be avoided or stopped."

It is interesting online since you can immediately see that people making this about the guilt or innocence of Jackson are just rehashing their own beliefs, without any new insight based on the documentary.

Anyone who watched the documentary knows that the documentary isn't about Michael Jackson necessarily, but really about two men who were groomed, abused, handled, and taught to protect their accuser even after his death. The only reason this documentary exists is because Robson had a son, and when he saw his son at the age he was into Michael Jackson, it put everything in a new light.

Like the director of the documentary said, the reason he didn't have other people or the Jackson family in the docu is that it wasn't ABOUT Michael Jackson, but what he did to these and other boys.

"

While its kinda true (very kinda) this film wouldn't have been made if these guys weren't molested by Michael Jackson.

That being said it is probably lucky it was about him as at least people saw it. If it was just about 2 random abused kids it would've languished in the Doc section of Netflix in a few years time.

Kad said: "The "fame and fortune" argument cuts both ways here."

True. Greed happens everywhere.

It's painfully obvious the people criticizing the documentary have not seen it.

10 Undeniable Facts About the Michael Jackson Sexual-Abuse Allegations

The author, who spent more than a decade covering the scandal for V.F., shares the key revelations and insights that viewers of the new HBO documentary Leaving Neverlandneed to know.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2019/03/10-undeniable-facts-about-the-michael-jackson-sexual-abuse-allegations

Updated On: 3/6/19 at 04:07 PM

James Safechuck said in the interview with Oprah that he knew it was an unrealistic expectation to think that die-hard MJ fans would change their minds about Jackson’s guilt. Instead he considered the audience to be other sexual abuse survivors. Obviously, the documentary has wider reach than that, but I thought that showed some insight from him. Anyone going in disinclined to believe Safechuck and Robson will probably be unchanged by the documentary. I remember once on Oprah’s shoe, she said they her dad told her that he never quite understood what happened to her (molestation from a male relative). Her response to him was quite wise: you don’t understand because you don’t want to understand. That had always stayed with me. For her dad, I suspect he would have felt more complicit if he truly understood so refused that knowledge.

While Safechuck proved quite insightful in the Oprah interview, he did seem more fragile than Robson. I worry for him as the MJ fanatics come after him and Robson. Robson has already received death threats and by this point, I suspect Safechuck has, too.

haterobics said: "TheQuibbler said: "Or thatthey will encourage other victims of sexual abuse to come forward,deal with their trauma and seek justice for themselves while simultaneously educating the masses on warning signs so these sorts of crimes can be avoided or stopped."

It is interesting online since you can immediately see that people making this about the guilt or innocence of Jackson are just rehashing their own beliefs, without any new insight based on the documentary.

Anyone who watched the documentary knows that the documentary isn't about Michael Jackson necessarily, but really about two men who were groomed, abused, handled, and taught to protect their accuser even after his death. The only reason this documentary exists is because Robson had a son, and when he saw his son at the age he was into Michael Jackson, it put everything in a new light.

Like the director of the documentary said, the reason he didn't have other people or the Jackson family in the docu is that it wasn't ABOUT Michael Jackson, but what he did to these and other boys.

"

^^^

THIS 10000%. I could care less about Michael Jackson, but this documentary taught me so much about sexual abuse, how it manifests, and why sometimes it doesn’t look like “abuse”.

TheQuibbler said:
This was something I kept thinking about while I watched the documentary, too. I have to wonder if society didn’t take these things seriously because the issues were turned into a joke. It reminded me of a similar sentiment from Hannah Gadsby’sNannette,and while the topic is different, I think it’s applicable here, too:

“Do you know who used to be an easy punch line? Monica Lewinsky.Maybe, if comedians had done their job properly, and made fun of the man who abused his power, then perhaps we might have had a middle-aged woman with an appropriate amount of experience in the White House, instead of, as we do, a man who openly admitted to sexually assaulting vulnerable young women because he could.”"

It's definitely applicable. We need to change how the media treats these victims because it's a big part of the problem.

Isn't the documentary and its affect on the upcoming musical the topic, though? Rehashing a bunch of old information juxtaposed with the new information to sort of muddy everything enough to make it unclear is not really advancing any point.

Also, smiling after a trial/testimony is actually normal and unrelated to what was said and what the case was about. I covered criminal trials as a newspaper reporter for years, and civilian witnesses are often smiling and laughing afterward, because testifying is tense and unnatural, and when they get through it, they are actually relieved. There is also a lot of joking and gallows humor in courtroom breaks, etc.

But to look at someone's demeanor in a video, ascribing your own context and backstory to it, and then using your made up backstory as a reason to be cautious about their new interviews seems like a dangerous way to interpret the world around you.

Updated On: 3/7/19 at 09:24 AM

This musical is dead before arrival. If not produced, no one will miss it. If produced, it will be a disaster. Certainly some will show up for a bit - there were enough die-hard Parrotheads to keep Margaritaville going for a few months after all - but after last week, I find it nearly impossible to imagine many who would take their kids or families or parents or even grandparents to this musical. The songlist in the Playbill is now enough to scare away potential investors. “Beat It”? “Don’t stop till you get enough”? “I’m bad, you know it”? Indeed.

Updated On: 3/7/19 at 11:25 AM

The Simpsons just pulled their infamous MJ episode from syndication. Which is a pretty big deal. So the boycott begins...