Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



ALFbrot posted:

Fortunately, the furture-seeing media would get what they wanted the very next year, when OJ Simpson himself would be the nexus of a double homicide and trial

My bad. My brain flip-flopped OJ and the Menéndez murders, which happened in ‘93 and were a big media sensation

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Detective No. 27
Jun 7, 2006



The Menendez trial was definitely a dry run for OJ.

Zogo
Jul 29, 2003



STAC Goat posted:

That same year he did a huge 30th Anniversary thing at MSG that I knew a ton of people who were jacked for it and spent a fortune to go to (and I was jealous).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pur8vGxgiko

Then the very next day :911: happened. A turn of events.

DC Murderverse
Nov 10, 2016

"Tell that to Zod's snapped neck!"



i have a very distinct memory of staying home from school sick (or maybe "sick"? I can't remember) when i was in 5th grade and getting to watch TRL in the late afternoon because Michael was gonna be on. It was right after 9/11, and the You Rock My World video, complete with sad old Brando, was totally my poo poo because my dad was a fan of Jackson, especially Thriller, because he was a human being who was alive and listening to music in 1984, and a month or so later I made sure we bought Invincible and I listened to it a bunch. I'm honestly not 100% sure when I internalized all of the stuff about him abusing children, I honestly don't even remember if I thought he was weird looking when I was 10.

I read an article online sometime within the last few months that I can no longer find (which pisses me off, because it was a well written piece, especially when it talked about his face and how he made himself more resemble "traditional" beauty standards for men) that talked about Michael Jackson and his relationship with the media. He did dumb poo poo like leaking fake rumors to tabloids to keep himself in the news (things like sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber, or wanting to buy John Merrick's remains), and then when he stopped doing that the tabloids just started making poo poo up on their own because it was easy and people would believe most of what they printed. It's sort of a weird ouroboros that ultimately led to his being seen as a joke by most in the years between Invincible and his death, definitely not aided by his weird relationship with children and childhood.

sometimes I wonder if my reluctance to brand Jackson as a child molester is how people who defend Woody Allen feel about him. To me when I read the case as laid out against Woody Allen by his accuser and the circumstances surrounding the trial, it makes me think that Allen is guilty, and has some great lawyers/publicists that are able to manipulate his reputation to keep him out of trouble. But when I read the same sort of facts about Jackson, the circumstances of the trial, the stories from the accusers, the idea that Jackson has been falsely accused has lots of evidence, despite the fact that he almost certainly has the same sort of lineup of reputation enhancers. Does the evidence seem more convincing in Jackson's favor because I have more of a connection to his work? Or is there genuinely a difference?

A Sometimes Food
Dec 8, 2010



DC Murderverse posted:

i have a very distinct memory of staying home from school sick (or maybe "sick"? I can't remember) when i was in 5th grade and getting to watch TRL in the late afternoon because Michael was gonna be on. It was right after 9/11, and the You Rock My World video, complete with sad old Brando, was totally my poo poo because my dad was a fan of Jackson, especially Thriller, because he was a human being who was alive and listening to music in 1984, and a month or so later I made sure we bought Invincible and I listened to it a bunch. I'm honestly not 100% sure when I internalized all of the stuff about him abusing children, I honestly don't even remember if I thought he was weird looking when I was 10.

I read an article online sometime within the last few months that I can no longer find (which pisses me off, because it was a well written piece, especially when it talked about his face and how he made himself more resemble "traditional" beauty standards for men) that talked about Michael Jackson and his relationship with the media. He did dumb poo poo like leaking fake rumors to tabloids to keep himself in the news (things like sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber, or wanting to buy John Merrick's remains), and then when he stopped doing that the tabloids just started making poo poo up on their own because it was easy and people would believe most of what they printed. It's sort of a weird ouroboros that ultimately led to his being seen as a joke by most in the years between Invincible and his death, definitely not aided by his weird relationship with children and childhood.

sometimes I wonder if my reluctance to brand Jackson as a child molester is how people who defend Woody Allen feel about him. To me when I read the case as laid out against Woody Allen by his accuser and the circumstances surrounding the trial, it makes me think that Allen is guilty, and has some great lawyers/publicists that are able to manipulate his reputation to keep him out of trouble. But when I read the same sort of facts about Jackson, the circumstances of the trial, the stories from the accusers, the idea that Jackson has been falsely accused has lots of evidence, despite the fact that he almost certainly has the same sort of lineup of reputation enhancers. Does the evidence seem more convincing in Jackson's favor because I have more of a connection to his work? Or is there genuinely a difference?

DC Murderverse posted:

i have a very distinct memory of staying home from school sick (or maybe "sick"? I can't remember) when i was in 5th grade and getting to watch TRL in the late afternoon because Michael was gonna be on. It was right after 9/11, and the You Rock My World video, complete with sad old Brando, was totally my poo poo because my dad was a fan of Jackson, especially Thriller, because he was a human being who was alive and listening to music in 1984, and a month or so later I made sure we bought Invincible and I listened to it a bunch. I'm honestly not 100% sure when I internalized all of the stuff about him abusing children, I honestly don't even remember if I thought he was weird looking when I was 10.

I read an article online sometime within the last few months that I can no longer find (which pisses me off, because it was a well written piece, especially when it talked about his face and how he made himself more resemble "traditional" beauty standards for men) that talked about Michael Jackson and his relationship with the media. He did dumb poo poo like leaking fake rumors to tabloids to keep himself in the news (things like sleeping in a hyperbaric chamber, or wanting to buy John Merrick's remains), and then when he stopped doing that the tabloids just started making poo poo up on their own because it was easy and people would believe most of what they printed. It's sort of a weird ouroboros that ultimately led to his being seen as a joke by most in the years between Invincible and his death, definitely not aided by his weird relationship with children and childhood.

sometimes I wonder if my reluctance to brand Jackson as a child molester is how people who defend Woody Allen feel about him. To me when I read the case as laid out against Woody Allen by his accuser and the circumstances surrounding the trial, it makes me think that Allen is guilty, and has some great lawyers/publicists that are able to manipulate his reputation to keep him out of trouble. But when I read the same sort of facts about Jackson, the circumstances of the trial, the stories from the accusers, the idea that Jackson has been falsely accused has lots of evidence, despite the fact that he almost certainly has the same sort of lineup of reputation enhancers. Does the evidence seem more convincing in Jackson's favor because I have more of a connection to his work? Or is there genuinely a difference?

The trials for Jackson were shoddy and weak as hell which colours things.

Also there's a much greater perception that MJ was severely damaged, not fully competent and not all the way culpable. No idea to what devree that was actually true but that's how he came off to random not super interested me.

Woody Allen has avoided any trial and seems perfectly sane and stable. So he's avoiding justice and has no seeming mitigating factors to his abhorrent behaviour. Least that's my read.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


I also feel like once you delve into those trials or the way the Chandler settlement was handled, you come away with a pretty good grasp of whether he's guilty or not. It's this weird thing where you think there's an abundance of evidence against him until you look at it.

I do think that people, myself included, are more prone to give him the benefit of the doubt though and I wasn't even particularly a big fan. Perhaps it's because he's a sympathetic figure who had an incredibly hosed-up upbringing which he was never able to escape from.

Skwirl
May 13, 2007

😶😯😮😲🥱😲😮😯😶
The 'blood babe with the silicone chest, 200-dollar haircut, and a closet full of the latest fashions.



It's not the Oscars, but it is a pretty big award.

https://twitter.com/PattyArquette/status/1093338849512701952?s=19

Ghost Leviathan
Mar 2, 2017

Exploration is ill-advised.


I still think a lot of it is with the hindsight of how many high-profile sex offenders we've seen now, Jackson doesn't really fit the profile. For one, it's rarely the parents who actually come forward about the abuse, being either silenced, disbelieving or complicit. (or out of the picture in the case of vulnerable and trafficked children) Note that the more recent allegations being taken more seriously are from the now-adult victims themselves... doesn't necessarily make it any better, mind you.

People really had totally maladaptive advice hammered into them about how to handle abusive and predatory behaviour for decades. Mostly since it was all about blaming it on the nearest available minority.

edogawa rando
Mar 20, 2007



And when you get statements from people that would otherwise fit the profile of those who were allegedly victimised by Jackson, it muddies the water and creates further doubt. As has been stated, I don't think we'll ever actually know.

That said, he apparently had a stash of kiddie porn, so yeah, so there's a reasonable chance he was a paedophile.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


Vagabundo posted:

And when you get statements from people that would otherwise fit the profile of those who were allegedly victimised by Jackson, it muddies the water and creates further doubt. As has been stated, I don't think we'll ever actually know.

That said, he apparently had a stash of kiddie porn, so yeah, so there's a reasonable chance he was a paedophile.

Nah, again this is down to shoddy reporting. He had a lot of nudist/naturist books and magazines. He had some books that had kids in them, but you can go and buy those on Amazon right now.

You or I might fairly say well that's messed up to even have those books, but they're not illegal. The prosecution tried making the case that these were just grooming materials even if they're 'art', but this fell apart when the kids admitted that Jackson had never shown them anything like that. The prosecution also thought they had a smoking gun when two brothers admitted to looking at porn on Jacksons computer until they testified that not only was Jackson not in the country when they did this but that he got annoyed when he found out what they did.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if Jackson abstained from sex altogether. His marriage to Lisa Marie and the whole thing with the mother of his kids seemed more like damage control than anything else.

DC Murderverse
Nov 10, 2016

"Tell that to Zod's snapped neck!"



DrVenkman posted:

I personally wouldn't be surprised if Jackson abstained from sex altogether. His marriage to Lisa Marie and the whole thing with the mother of his kids seemed more like damage control than anything else.

The Lisa Marie stuff could honestly go either way. They had a genuine emotional connection insofar as they were very good friends and they got married at a time where he was really hurting and she wanted to be there for him. Whether there was a sexual component is a mystery. I've never really seen any evidence in favor for or against it, and I'm sure at this point if you asked Lisa Marie she'd (rightfully) tell you to gently caress off.

the mother of his kids wasn't planning on being a part of their lives, really. She was a friend of Jackson's who worked with his dermatologist who was gonna be a surrogate for them (for money, as typical when you are a surrogate for someone) and Jackson was gonna raise them "solo" (not really solo since he had lots of people working for him as well as very close family, but without a mother), but at some point during the pregnancy, Katherine Jackson told Michael that he should give them "a real mother" and marry her like a normal family and so he did. They got divorced a few years later, Jackson got full custody of the kids (like the original plan) and a few years after that she got her parental rights completely terminated. She later came out and said that she was artificially inseminated, and it seems incredibly unlikely that she and Jackson ever consummated their marriage.

Once the second trial started up she went to try and get custody back, apparently because she was worried that the kids were being exposed to the Nation of Islam, and she was Jewish.

fascinating side note: the number of different religions that surrounded Jackson at one point or another is amazing. He grew up Jehovah's Witness (but i think had a falling out with them during the 1980s, though I don't think he ever officially repudiated the church or anything), and apparently enough of his family was NoI that his kid's mom was concerned about it. You also have Lisa Marie, who was Scientologist for a vast portion of her life, including during her marriage to Michael, who opened up a Scientologist child literacy program with Isaac Hayes less than a year after her divorce from Jackson. And then his kids are Jewish by matrilineal descent (kinda).

Tart Kitty
Dec 17, 2016

Oh, well, that's all water under the bridge, as I always say. Water under the bridge!



I’m honestly surprised more poo poo didn’t come out about Joe Jackson after his death last year. By all popular accounts he was a massively abusive rear end in a top hat, and undeniably had a major hand in Michael’s personal life trajectory. I kept waiting for the hammer to drop after he kicked it, but it never really came.

edogawa rando
Mar 20, 2007



DrVenkman posted:

Nah, again this is down to shoddy reporting. He had a lot of nudist/naturist books and magazines. He had some books that had kids in them, but you can go and buy those on Amazon right now.

You or I might fairly say well that's messed up to even have those books, but they're not illegal. The prosecution tried making the case that these were just grooming materials even if they're 'art', but this fell apart when the kids admitted that Jackson had never shown them anything like that. The prosecution also thought they had a smoking gun when two brothers admitted to looking at porn on Jacksons computer until they testified that not only was Jackson not in the country when they did this but that he got annoyed when he found out what they did.

I personally wouldn't be surprised if Jackson abstained from sex altogether. His marriage to Lisa Marie and the whole thing with the mother of his kids seemed more like damage control than anything else.

OK, I wasn't aware that there were some mitigating factors involved there. While it's not a good look, it certainly does cast a new light on things.

Anonymous John
Mar 8, 2002


Fart City posted:

I’m honestly surprised more poo poo didn’t come out about Joe Jackson after his death last year. By all popular accounts he was a massively abusive rear end in a top hat, and undeniably had a major hand in Michael’s personal life trajectory. I kept waiting for the hammer to drop after he kicked it, but it never really came.

Didn't his daughter LaToya come out and say he molested her?

esperterra
Mar 24, 2010

SHINee's back






There's also Macaulay Culkin and Corey Feldman swearing that Jackson never touched them and they never felt uncomfortable, and in Feldman's case it was one of the few people he felt safe around as a child actor.

It could go either way w/r/t whether Jackson did it or not. I personally lean toward him being innocent.

e: i think jackson never really grew up, and his own time as a child star being tumultuous made him protective of kids

STAC Goat
Mar 12, 2008

Watching you sleep.

Butt first, let's
check the feeds.



I definitely lean towards the "Jackson was kind of asexual; had some kind of arrested development that had him obsessed with his lost childhood" theory myself. But again, he was still clearly at least somewhat abusive to kids left in his care. It might not have been overtly sexual in nature but he clearly crossed boundaries. And as said, we'll probably never know the truth at this stage.

DrVenkman
Dec 27, 2005

I think he can hear you, Ray.


STAC Goat posted:

I definitely lean towards the "Jackson was kind of asexual; had some kind of arrested development that had him obsessed with his lost childhood" theory myself. But again, he was still clearly at least somewhat abusive to kids left in his care. It might not have been overtly sexual in nature but he clearly crossed boundaries. And as said, we'll probably never know the truth at this stage.

I think you can cross boundaries but not have it fall into being abusive. I don't think he touched the kids at all, but I do think he probably got them to try alcohol for example. That's clearly going where you shouldn't, but there didn't appear to be any other motive for it (Again, that's even if it's true. The various testimonies and whatnot are so all over the place that it's hard to know) and Jackson didn't appear to gain from or use it to his advantage. Maybe all that will change at some point, but I don't think it will and I don't think that a questionable documentary is going to do anything about it either.

In other news, Woody Allen is suing Amazon for millions and...I think he might weirdly be in the right. I guess for Amazon to be successful they would have to prove that Allen was guilty?

OrthoTrot
Dec 10, 2006
Its either Trotsky or its Notsky

esperterra posted:

There's also Macaulay Culkin and Corey Feldman swearing that Jackson never touched them and they never felt uncomfortable, and in Feldman's case it was one of the few people he felt safe around as a child actor.

This is a terrible argument. Just because he didn't do anything with them doesn't mean he didn't abuse others. The only logic to it is that someone who abuses a child will attempt to abuse all children, which we know to be false.

Obviously a lot of the facts are unclear with Jackson but even a cursory glance at this very thread shows how people seem keen to reach a hell of a long way to cast reasonable doubt in his case. Fortunately this behaviour is not replicated widely for most people accused or the whole recent movement to stop predatory behaviour would never have gone anywhere.

Ghost Leviathan
Mar 2, 2017

Exploration is ill-advised.


OrthoTrot posted:

This is a terrible argument. Just because he didn't do anything with them doesn't mean he didn't abuse others. The only logic to it is that someone who abuses a child will attempt to abuse all children, which we know to be false.

Obviously a lot of the facts are unclear with Jackson but even a cursory glance at this very thread shows how people seem keen to reach a hell of a long way to cast reasonable doubt in his case. Fortunately this behaviour is not replicated widely for most people accused or the whole recent movement to stop predatory behaviour would never have gone anywhere.

I think a lot of that is, as said, that Jackson doesn't fit the same profile; he was fundamentally screwed up with his own childhood likely instilling a skewed and maladaptive sense of boundaries and priorities, while most of the high-profile predators we've seen simply do a lot better job at having it covered up. It's hard to say how much of it might be him genuinely not knowing what he's doing is wrong; wouldn't be surprised if MJ was introduced to drugs and alcohol far too young as well, given he'd been in showbiz almost his entire life.

Guilty or innocent, it'd require looking at the situation through a different lens from what's worked so far, and things have been made so murky at this point that it's probably right that we'll never know the truth.

SimonChris
Apr 24, 2008

The Baron's daughter is missing, and you are the man to find her. No problem. With your inexhaustible arsenal of hard-boiled similes, there is nothing you can't handle.

Grimey Drawer

OrthoTrot posted:

This is a terrible argument. Just because he didn't do anything with them doesn't mean he didn't abuse others. The only logic to it is that someone who abuses a child will attempt to abuse all children, which we know to be false.

Obviously a lot of the facts are unclear with Jackson but even a cursory glance at this very thread shows how people seem keen to reach a hell of a long way to cast reasonable doubt in his case. Fortunately this behaviour is not replicated widely for most people accused or the whole recent movement to stop predatory behaviour would never have gone anywhere.

Michael Jackson was the target of massive investigations and several high-profile trials. If every accused was treated the same way, the movement would have gone much further.

chitoryu12
Apr 23, 2014



Ghost Leviathan posted:

I think a lot of that is, as said, that Jackson doesn't fit the same profile; he was fundamentally screwed up with his own childhood likely instilling a skewed and maladaptive sense of boundaries and priorities, while most of the high-profile predators we've seen simply do a lot better job at having it covered up. It's hard to say how much of it might be him genuinely not knowing what he's doing is wrong; wouldn't be surprised if MJ was introduced to drugs and alcohol far too young as well, given he'd been in showbiz almost his entire life.

Guilty or innocent, it'd require looking at the situation through a different lens from what's worked so far, and things have been made so murky at this point that it's probably right that we'll never know the truth.

Especially with Joe Jackson raising him, I have absolutely no doubt that MJ was introduced to a lot of poo poo that he was way too young to understand. Just about everything weird or creepy about him could probably be traced directly to Joe's abuse in turning his children into a money printing machine.

Skwirl
May 13, 2007

😶😯😮😲🥱😲😮😯😶
The 'blood babe with the silicone chest, 200-dollar haircut, and a closet full of the latest fashions.



I was worried when he was trying to get custody of Michael's kids. After how Michael turned out there's no way he should be in charge of any other kids.

DC Murderverse
Nov 10, 2016

"Tell that to Zod's snapped neck!"



DrVenkman posted:

I think you can cross boundaries but not have it fall into being abusive. I don't think he touched the kids at all, but I do think he probably got them to try alcohol for example. That's clearly going where you shouldn't, but there didn't appear to be any other motive for it (Again, that's even if it's true. The various testimonies and whatnot are so all over the place that it's hard to know) and Jackson didn't appear to gain from or use it to his advantage. Maybe all that will change at some point, but I don't think it will and I don't think that a questionable documentary is going to do anything about it either.

In other news, Woody Allen is suing Amazon for millions and...I think he might weirdly be in the right. I guess for Amazon to be successful they would have to prove that Allen was guilty?

the "giving alcohol to kids" thing is another one of those common misconceptions (it's in the same category as showing porn to kids). he had a habit of drinking wine out of soda cans because he didn't want his kids to see him drinking, the only people who accused him of giving it to kids are the accusers in the second trial (where he was found not guilty).

teacup
Dec 20, 2006

= M I L K E R S =


So let me get this straight every cursory reports and rumours of behaviour = that star canceled

But MJ is immune to this completely and was just misunderstood

I mean he made good music but even that I reckons overrated, and certainly not enough to make up for abuse allegations so easily.

WeedlordGoku69
Feb 11, 2015

by Cyrano4747


I mean, MJ's also kind of an outlier because his case was just such a completely weird clusterfuck. Most of these are somewhat more obvious.

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007

I don't think you can analyze love. It's the greatest mystery of all.


Uh I think that just because MJ had a terrible childhood and was probably molested by his father doesn't mean he gets to molest kids.

He obviously did something

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009


Hollismason posted:

Uh I think that just because MJ had a terrible childhood and was probably molested by his father doesn't mean he gets to molest kids.

He obviously did something

As someone else said, some of his behavior with kids was clearly inappropriate. Such as inviting kids over and sleeping in the same bedroom as them. And continuing to do so even after being accused of child molestation once.

He was such a broken clusterfuck of a man though that I can't even be sure that what would normally be deeply concerning behavior was proof of pedophilia on his part.

Like I said earlier in the thread, I am neither convinced that Jackson was a child molester, but nor am I convinced that all the allegations had no merit and that he wasn't a child molester. I just don't know.

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009


Hollismason posted:

Uh I think that just because MJ had a terrible childhood and was probably molested by his father doesn't mean he gets to molest kids.

He obviously did something

I don't think it was ever alleged that Joe Jackson sexually abused his children, but it's completely loving certain that he beat the hell out of them, treated them like slaves so that he could make a living off of them, and destroyed Michael's childhood. Everything I've heard about Joe Jackson makes him sound like a monster.

teacup posted:

So let me get this straight every cursory reports and rumours of behaviour = that star canceled

But MJ is immune to this completely and was just misunderstood

Both of these extremes go too far and are a problem.

DC Murderverse
Nov 10, 2016

"Tell that to Zod's snapped neck!"



Sucrose posted:

I don't think it was ever alleged that Joe Jackson sexually abused his children, but it's completely loving certain that he beat the hell out of them, treated them like slaves so that he could make a living off of them, and destroyed Michael's childhood. Everything I've heard about Joe Jackson makes him sound like a monster.

I'm pretty sure Joe was accused of sexual abuse by his older daughters, Rebbie and LaToya.

Snowman_McK
Jan 31, 2010


Didn't Joe Jackson use either the press conference where it was announced Michael died or possibly the funeral to promote some construction company he had money in? Dude's a grifter, through and through.

syscall girl
Nov 6, 2009

by FactsAreUseless


Fun Shoe

DC Murderverse posted:

I'm pretty sure Joe was accused of sexual abuse by his older daughters, Rebbie and LaToya.

He did basically lock Michael in a room with a girl his age and basically made it clear that they were to couple

Is what the girl said, and that Michael was shy and a perfect gentleman so nothing happened

So, pretty creepy on Joe's part right there

Sucrose
Dec 9, 2009


I could be entirely wrong about Joe Jackson, I just hadn't heard that rumor before. Ick.

Hollismason
Jun 30, 2007

I don't think you can analyze love. It's the greatest mystery of all.


Joe " Let me promote some business at my son's death press conference" Jackson most certainly abused his children sexually and physically.

Anonymous John
Mar 8, 2002


syscall girl posted:

He did basically lock Michael in a room with a girl his age and basically made it clear that they were to couple

Is what the girl said, and that Michael was shy and a perfect gentleman so nothing happened

So, pretty creepy on Joe's part right there

Knowing Joe Jackson, he probably whipped MJ with his belt afterwards for not having done anything with that girl.

WeedlordGoku69
Feb 11, 2015

by Cyrano4747


Hollismason posted:

Uh I think that just because MJ had a terrible childhood and was probably molested by his father doesn't mean he gets to molest kids.

He obviously did something

yeah, he obviously did something, but we have basically no clue what he actually did and there's a whole lot of daylight between the best and worst possible scenarios. you seem to be taking this as a lot more clear-cut than it actually is.

e: like, with all of the angles on MJ's case in mind, i'm okay with just throwing my hands up on it and calling it a riddle for the ages. we don't know, and we probably never will.

WeedlordGoku69 fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Feb 11, 2019

Skwirl
May 13, 2007

😶😯😮😲🥱😲😮😯😶
The 'blood babe with the silicone chest, 200-dollar haircut, and a closet full of the latest fashions.



One reason people are (or at least I am) willing to treat MJs case with more nuance than, say, Brian Singer, is Singer is still working, getting high profile gigs. Michael Jackson isn't exactly touring anymore.

DC Murderverse
Nov 10, 2016

"Tell that to Zod's snapped neck!"



Anonymous John posted:

Knowing Joe Jackson, he probably whipped MJ with his belt afterwards for not having done anything with that girl.

but he still made the Grammy "In Memoriam" reel!

(no poo poo i saw that today after this conversation and booed heavily at my TV)

Rhyno
Mar 22, 2003

how few people do you
need before you can
change the world?


Skwirl posted:

One reason people are (or at least I am) willing to treat MJs case with more nuance than, say, Brian Singer, is Singer is still working, getting high profile gigs. Michael Jackson isn't exactly touring anymore.

Joe wanted to take the remains on a nationwide tour.

Chris James 2
Aug 9, 2012



https://medium.com/@coloursocietyreject/i-submit-the-following-to-the-court-of-public-opinion-fd966549cc5e

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Chris James 2
Aug 9, 2012



Deadline posted:

Millennium Films’ Red Sonja film with Bryan Singer is being put on the back burner. After the movie was on the slate last year at the American Film Market, the prolific U.S. mini-studio has told us, “the project is not on the slate at the moment and is not for sale at the EFM in Berlin.”

Embattled Bohemian Rhapsody director Singer has not been formally removed from Red Sonja, but Millennium’s statement seems to at least acknowledge the filmmaker may not be the right fit for the movie at this juncture.

The big-budget action-fantasy film, which has been on the The Expendables outfit’s slate for more than a decade, was expected to shoot this year in Bulgaria, but that won’t be happening. Cast has not been set.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply