|
| ***Welcome to Spurs 101*** This is a forum for Tottenham Hotspur news, discussion and general chat. For now, you are only able to view the forum. If you wish to take part in the various discussions, please register for free by clicking HERE We hope you enjoy Spurs 101 and look forward to reading your posts. Current members please login below: |
| This Is It; Michael Jackson Film | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: 28 Oct 2009, 22:37 (143 Views) | |
| Dee | 28 Oct 2009, 22:37 Post #1 |
I'm a Malteser
  ![]](http://209.85.48.22/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
Anyone going to see this? Write ups have been mixed, but think this may be a huge rip off, milking his fans yet again. I quite like the early MJ/J5 stuff, but not keen on more recent stuff. Don't think I'll bother, but would be interested in people's opinion. His dad has said that a lot of the dance moves were done by a look-a-like! |
 |
 
|
| GO! | 28 Oct 2009, 22:54 Post #2 |
bas***d!
|
The whole thing makes me sick! His music was good in its day but if all's true (or even ANY of it for that matter) then he's too much of a sicko to be idolised! |
|
|
| Whoami? | 28 Oct 2009, 23:24 Post #3 |
Seoul Man
|
I'm curious as to what it's about, but I won't pay money to watch it at the cinema, i'll rent the dvd when it comes out. I too think it's milking it. I wonder who is getting all this money? |
|
|
|
| GO! | 28 Oct 2009, 23:50 Post #4 |
|
bas***d!
|
It'll probably go towards those massive debits we were hearing about. He was supposed to be broke wasn't he? |
|
|
|
| GO! | 28 Oct 2009, 23:51 Post #5 |
|
bas***d!
|
I think he was still paying off 3 noses and a wig! |
|
|
|
| paul1300 | 29 Oct 2009, 08:27 Post #6 |
League Cup Winner
|
I'm not arsed |
|
|
|
| EZ1 | 29 Oct 2009, 14:03 Post #7 |
|
It's a hard knock life
|
Phil: Read this and then decide: http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/0979549809/ref=cm_rdp_product Gay, anorexic, other-worldly? Yes, yes, yes...he was. But messing with the little 'uns? He did not. |
|
|
|
| MichSpur | 29 Oct 2009, 15:51 Post #8 |
101 Dork
|
Apparently, from what I've heard, it's 95% concert and concert-rehearsal footage. I don't think there is much plot, if any. I, personally, have no interest in seeing it....whether it has a plot or not. He was talented, but just not my thing. |
|
|
|
| GO! | 30 Oct 2009, 01:57 Post #9 |
|
bas***d!
|
When you say "messing with the little 'uns", has he not openly admitted to having kids in his care (or his 'friends') regularly sleeping in his bed with him. This he never denied as far as I am aware. Whether he touched them or not is something that is unlikely ever to be proven one way or the other but we will all have our own thoughts on that matter. I obviously never knew the man nor anything about him other than what I've been fed via the usual outlets so (perhaps lazily) I have managed to form my own opinion on the geezer over the years. I realise theres always going to be sensationalism looming around any mega-star (and no one can deny the the guy was about as huge as they come) just waiting for them to do something they can take a photo of and splash across their scandal-rags but for every claim against the man - be it in the newspapers, magazines, news bulletins, documentaries etc etc - how many counter-claims were there defending him? Not many! And even in the ones there are they hardly made much of a convincing argument in his favour (particularly the ones that had ANY footage of him defending himself). I dont care how 'innocent' Jackson has been made out to be regarding his grasp on what was right and what is wrong. He could not possibly unaware that 99.9% of the general population would frown upon an adult sleeping with children under those circumstances, even if it was perfectly innocent. Its wrong! We all know its wrong! He's admitted to doing it therefore I think I'm pretty insulated against contradiction when I say he was a sicko and I continue to be amazed how he has been idolised in the way he has been with this in mind. The guy was a genius as far as his music is concerned yet if he hadn't have made it in the music business but still continued along the path of his fetishes he'd almost undoubtedly have been killed by some kids dad or be sitting in a cell somewhere, separated from the general population for his own good, as is the norm. Because he was Michael Jackson that seems to have made it ok for him to invite kids over to his place to play in his private fun fair and for them all to crash together in the bigbed. Look at the amazing talent that child killer Colin Pitchfork possess. But being that his skill wasn't discovered before he raped and murdered those two teenaged girls, he'll probably struggle to gain high acclaim within the general population if he's ever released.  I have not read the book you've brought my attention to mate and - to be totally honest - probably never will so maybe there's an argument for me having such a definite opinion as I have but unless there is something in the book that has Jackson categorically denying he ever took a child guest to his bed (regardless of what followed) I cant see my opinion of him being swayed much. |
|
|
|
| EZ1 | 30 Oct 2009, 16:22 Post #10 |
|
It's a hard knock life
|
You know your problem, Phil? You always insist on sitting on the fence. Why not break the habit of a lifetime and have an opinion for once? Believe in something and take a stand. Don't be one of life's "don't knows" and - in the name of Hod - don't gesticulate so…  Look, I understand you have a point of view, but the problem is, as you would no doubt concede if I put you in a half-nelson, it is entirely based on ignorance of the subject matter. An ignorance you would not wish challenged by anything as enlightening as a book that presents the facts as was and as is. So, whilst I could tell you that: 1.His first accuser, Jordy Chandler, initially made the abuse claim after he was unknowingly fed the truth drug by his father. The drug - sodium amytal - is now widely discredited as it has proven to be central cause of what is called "false memory syndrome" in psychiatric cirlces. It is unlikely his testimony would have been admissible (or credible) in court. 2. Michael Jackson did not settle out of court with the boy. That was the independent decision of his insurance company. For what it is worth, Jackson and his legal team were vehmently against it and denied all allegations against him. They wanted to fight the case and clear his name so no doubt Spurs-supporting, Oz-dwelling forum writers did not condemn an innocent man as "a sicko" on the internet. 3. After the claims were made, Jackson suffered the indignity of being photographed naked by the prosecution to verify the boy's story. His description of his "abuser's" physicality did not tally with the reality of those photographs. 4. The second case was so absurd, it beggars belief that it ever made court. Detail I will spare you , but suffice to say the family (the Arviso's) had tried to extort money off other celebrities previously, including Chris Tucker and Jay Leno. 5. I could ask you to use a bit of savvy, peadophiles tend to have numerous victims and literally hundreds of kids - including Macaulay Caulkin and Mark Ronson - stayed at Neverland. Don't you think it odd that only 2 claims were ever made against him. Do the math, Phil! Where are all the others? If they hadn't emerged from the woodwork tempted by a huge payday then surely some would come forward to confirm that he is a wrong 'un; if only to warn others. Makes no sense. Why? Cos him being a nonce is clearly a nonsence. But I won't bother because clearly you've made your mind up already. Whilst I would admit a 40-something man sharing his bed with a child is decidedly odd, it is not illegal. I personally would not be comfortable with my nephews or nieces sleeping in a grown man's bed but - all the same - it is quite frankly an absurdity to compare Michael Jackson to a child killer, Phil. As for the question of why he is idolised the answer for me is quite simply he was arguably the most gifted entertainer who has ever walked this earth. What scares me slightly is that you - someone I respect and like immensely - would take such a polarised view while simultaneously admitting you don't know the truth, only what you have gauged from tabloids. What if Michael Jackson was innocent? What if Bin Laden was not responsible for 9/11? What then? Lord save us from death by apathy and misinformation. 
|
|
|
|
| Dee | 30 Oct 2009, 22:28 Post #11 |
|
I'm a Malteser
|
Blimey, I only asked if people were going to see the film. |
|
|
|
| EZ1 | 31 Oct 2009, 00:52 Post #12 |
|
It's a hard knock life
|
And got an intelligent response, Dee! Take a look, this is a forum. People debating different viewpoints is surely desirable. No? |
|
|
|
| rubecula | 31 Oct 2009, 01:05 Post #13 |
Squirrel Nutkin Lives
|
I can not stand the overated, plastic faced, over paid idiot.
 But of course you may disagree and think he was underated, handsome, and under valued.  My opinion is the right one of course, cos I am a genius and know everything. 
|
|
|
|
| MichSpur | 31 Oct 2009, 03:41 Post #14 |
|
101 Dork
|
I never quite got it either, Rubes. I guess there was a certain level of entertainment and effort he put in, however, he music was never to my liking and his dancing seemed angry and not to my liking either. But, everyone is entitled to their opinion......even if it happens to be wrong. 
|
|
|
|
| GO! | 31 Oct 2009, 03:46 Post #15 |
|
bas***d!
|
  pmsl @ DeeTony, I refuse to believe I cannot sway you on this one. (That'd be a first though huh? Its been a while since we had one of these )Knowing the type of man you are I am not for a second going to bring your morality into question because I know you better than that as one who is a deep thinker and not one to jump on a band wagon without first doing a descent amount of research into a topic before blowing your horn (oo-er missus) But in this instance I fear your opinion has been marred by your love of the mans achievements almost on a spiritual level within the art he created. Now not everyone liked his music but for some it was more than just a bunch of well timed harmonies and lyrics. Art often evokes memories and emotions and for a topical example the song Human Nature (which I am currently listening to here at work via youtube) brings me a very real, very physical memory of temperature & fragrance. It undoubted takes genius to achieve such a thing! I cannot disagree with your claim that much of the argument against Jackson in general society is shrouded in ignorance and built mainly on the shaky foundation of suspicion and innuendo as opposed to hard evidence otherwise, if there were any real evidence of kiddy fiddlin' MJ would undeniably be in the nick. Now here's were you've missed my point. Although you correctly point out that - using its most literal meaning and not requiring the half-nelson - I am indeed appearing to be arguing from a somewhat ignorant position due to my complete lack of research on the subject but in my conclusion you will find this is not in fact the case. You have had a very gentle attack on my point of view which I appreciate is due to the fact that we're mates and you really don't want to chance spoiling the friendship by calling me an ignorant tw*t - for which there probably is a case - so I will show you the same courtesy for the very same reason......and again in my conclusion. You didn't quite grasp my use of the Colin Pitchfork matter but perhaps I didn't word my thoughts well enough. Colin Pitchfork, amongst many others, has gained a little notoriety within the art world for his outstanding talent. There is a movement which not too many people are aware of - despite it being around for a hundred years - called 'Outsider Art'. It basically discovered and exhibited art created by inmates within mental asylums and later gaols, showing the works of some of the sickest and sickest (in both senses of the word) people ever to have walked Gods green earth. Despite being incredibly talented a psycho-nutbag-looney-murderer is never going to gain social popularity due to his past is he? Swinging the door in the other direction, someone as mahoosive as Jackson that had already gained so much love, affection and worked his way into so many lives will have the opposite affect when his integrity is called into question many decades into the relationship built with his fans. His fans could almost be compared with the abused wife that keeps going back to her husband of 20 years because she still loves him. My point here being regardless of what Jackson was accused of, he had a sound enough foundation within his fan base which will keep millions on side. Including you Mr EZ1 I put this to the members of the jury. You will note that at no point in this thread have I ranted on about 'kiddy fiddlin' as I also am far from convinced of any guilt on his part of such an offence. I actually do believe that he was very much a gentle soul that simply enjoyed the company of the innocence of youth. This was exaggerated by his obvious - and well documented - mental issue's brought about by his own childhood (or lack of). You have made two points which I am sure (should you reflect upon them) you will realise that in your defence of MJ you appear less than disgusted at his socially (and morally) unacceptable practices; 1) (And I want you to really read again how this sounds)
Odd? I'm disappointed at a man who's obvious excellent grasp of the English language couldn't better his choice of word when faced with backing out of a self made corner. "Odd"? You have to be joking if you don't see this as being a genuine case where one should be perfectly at liberty to use the word "sick". Lets compare.....; a) Whilst I would admit a 40-something man sharing his bed with a child is decidedly odd, it is not illegal. b) Whilst I would admit a 40-something man sharing his bed with a child is decidedly sick, it is not illegal. Also, here you almost seem to justify the practice (which we all agree Jackson has never denied) purely on the basis that it is not illegal! f**k me! Illegal or not it is wrong, WRONG, WRONG!!! 2)
Again despite the ACTUAL content of my writings you have managed to conclude that I have decided Jackson was a pervert and child molester. This is incorrect. I have simply stated I am a little disturbed that the practice of a "40-something man sharing his bed with a child" can be seen as anything but sick within the realms of the normal everyday person, purely because he'd been idolised to such an extent that you refuse to see how wrong it is. "Odd" doesn't cut it my friend, its sick! I made this observation in an earlier post "if he hadn't have made it in the music business but still continued along the path of his fetishes he'd almost undoubtedly have been killed by some kids dad or be sitting in a cell somewhere, separated from the general population for his own good, as is the norm." Here I still am not suggesting he was guilty of anything sinister, I merely point out the fact that even with his access to such a high profile legal team the case brought against him (rightly or wrongly) could not be dismissed as utter bulls**t, so what chance would he have had as an average Joe Blow in the street facing the same allegations? None! He'd be banged up quick as look at him and there'd be protesters with placards wanting his nuts chopped off! I'm sure Michael wasn't the only person in history that never really grew up but taking who he was out of the picture and concentrating simply on what was openly admitted, if I were to go out looking for my boy (in his younger days) because he was a bit late for lunch and found him cat-napping in a bed with a (single man) neighbour in a dingy filthy house, there is no question that the (single man) neighbour would probably get the side of his head caved in before he even woke up in time to explain he's "really just a little boy inside so what's 'odd' about a couple of little boys taking a nap?". Would you not react the same way? Would you not at least dislodge several of his teeth with an angry 18 hole Dr Martins? Of course you would! And as I was carted off to gaol for GBH, would not the majority of popular support be with me? The man that flipped when confronted with such a sight? I stand by my original statement which was (initially) aimed at the movie.
In retrospect we know for a fact that he slept with unaccompanied minors in his bed so how anyone can continue to defend these actions is beyond me. How is it not sick? Has has anyone even thought about the effect it may have had on the psyche of the kids involved? Jackson certainly didn't! His music will live on and certainly hold a place in my heart but as far as the man goes I am currently debating with myself as to whether the world isn't a better place now he's gone! He gave joy to millions but if he (or anyone else for that matter) f**ked up the life of one single child then he should burn in hell! I dont feel my argument is laced with ignorance due to my lack of detailed information from both sides of the Jackson argument, because my argument has always been from a sociological perspective, not a legal one. |
|
|
|
| Kippa | 1 Nov 2009, 02:06 Post #16 |
NiCorLukaaaaaaa
|
No matter what he did, he was undeniably a confused man. Nevertheless, the parents of the clildren seen an opportunity for some money and, imo, trained the kids well to get what they wanted. |
|
|
|
| GO! | 1 Nov 2009, 02:45 Post #17 |
|
bas***d!
|
I really don't understand all the defence. Yes there's probably a very strong case in favour of some kids being coached into telling stories of sexual abuse but for f**k sake....THE MAN DID TAKE CHILDREN TO HIS BED AND SLEEP WITH THEM! Whether he interfered with them or not is neither here nor there in the context of this discussion. Who really gives a toss if someone tried blackmailing him? I do feel sorry for some of them but it goes on with celebrities all the time, its par for the course. Paternity suits, accusations of assault and battery, rape, murder. From boxers to fooballers & politicians to movie stars, it will always be the case but how can we continue to hold a character in such high esteem when he's openly admitted to such fetishes as sleeping in a bed with little kids? Perverted = Deviating from what is considered right and correct. Nuff said! |
|
|
|
| Gaz:THFC | 2 Nov 2009, 16:46 Post #18 |
UEFA Cup Winner
|
Why would I want to watch a film on a guy that most intelligent people would decline to babysit there child? |
|
|
|
| Whoami? | 2 Nov 2009, 19:50 Post #19 |
|
Seoul Man
|
Jesus christ  Who ordered the essays?
|
|
|
|
| EZ1 | 3 Nov 2009, 13:39 Post #20 |
|
It's a hard knock life
|
Phil: (Apologies for the delayed response – it’s all go in EZ-land at the mo) I would never call you an ignorant tw*t cos I know (you) better than that! But knowing you as I do, I am sure you would concede that opinion on this isn’t exactly well informed. The author of the book I recommended was actually (by admission) very anti-Jackson when she started researching the book, but changed her mind about the geezer once she uncovered the facts…Go figure. It seems your chief objection is the idea of him sleeping with children. I agree and one can only wonder what their parents were thinking. Were they so blinded by celebrity/wealth, they thought it okay? For information, the kid’s relatives were on site (in the guest quarters) and MJ had little girls as well as boys “stayover” too. Why the media always inferred his bedroom guests were male is slightly puzzling and perhaps a little sinister. It’s also a popular misconception that they actually shared his bed. This was seldom the case. The room was (as you can imagine) huge and he (usually) or the kid(s) slept in sleeping bags. Like a pyjama party as opposed to a Roman orgy! And I am not being pious here because like you believed there could be no smoke without fire until I read the facts. Now I’d bet my knackers he was guiltess of all accusations, which is actually deeply worrying because if the memory of a talent as big as his can be tarnished/rubbished, what chance would the rest of us – those without untold fame, money and power – have of defending ourselves should we ever be falsely accused of a similarly heinous crime? |
|
|
|
| Gaz:THFC | 3 Nov 2009, 17:57 Post #21 |
|
UEFA Cup Winner
|
Anything to do with Jacko will attract heat
|
|
|
|
| GO! | 4 Nov 2009, 12:18 Post #22 |
|
bas***d!
|
I dont know about you Tony mate but I'm all out of energy on this one. Yeah, I was aware of the general consensus that kids didn't ONLY sleep in his bed and often his room was littered with them so I realise he was hardly going to be having a fiddle with one when there was another half a dozen within earshot (even if he wanted to) but as ill informed as I may be on the matter, I fear I'll never be able to move past these sleeping arrangements, as innocent as they may have been. In any case you've been gone too long. We'd like to see a bit more of you in here......we miss ya. |
|
|
|
| AT | 4 Nov 2009, 13:28 Post #23 |
|
I won't be watching it in the cinema. Will prob catch it on dvd or tv sometime down the line. I won't get involved in the heated debate between EZ and GO. MJ has his hardcore fans. No doubt about that. And I will be the first to go on record as saying that his contribution to the music scene will never be repeated. But I am once again disappointed by the sheep-like nature of much of the public, who seem to think they have to see this movie just because it's the thing to do. I couldn't see them going to see it if he was still alive. Could you? Where were they when his last album came out? Most of these folks probably haven't listened to an MJ album for almost 20 years. But they are there on opening night, breaking records and raving about the film to their friends. It makes no sense. Think for yourselves, people. Or you turn into a contradiction of yourself. |
|
|
|
| Kippa | 7 Nov 2009, 03:30 Post #24 |
|
NiCorLukaaaaaaa
|
I concur 100% It's a sad reality at times. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Chat Room · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Frosty | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
 4:49 AM Nov 28
|
PhysioRoom.com, first aid kit, wrist support & Sorbothane suppliers.
Hosted for free by ZetaBoards
