|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Apr 24, 2024 8:56:06 GMT
So now we definitely know they are going to cover at least the 1993 allegations. Good to finally have official confirmation of that. I wonder, are they going to cast Evan, June and Jordan? What about Sneddon? The legal ramifications of this fascinates me. Obviously Evan and Sneddon are both dead, but the confidentiality agreement from the settlement still stands. I wonder if Jordan could sue? Tbh i doubt they will go into such detail to cast actors for the chandlers. Maybe distant images of people. Jordans a wuss he doesnt want involvement in anything mj related. Ala when robson and safechick tried to get him involved. The last thing he wants is attention. The estate has a big opportunity to put the facts out there. I so hope they care enough to do it in terms of the settlement rather than just make it as mj was ill and needed to make it go away and move on etc. Tbh i dont know if the estate is that bothered to go into detail. If not it will be the greatest opportunity ever missed to set the fact straight and i will be gutted and 🤬off
|
|
|
Post by MattyJam on Apr 24, 2024 9:20:59 GMT
Good to finally have official confirmation of that. I wonder, are they going to cast Evan, June and Jordan? What about Sneddon? The legal ramifications of this fascinates me. Obviously Evan and Sneddon are both dead, but the confidentiality agreement from the settlement still stands. I wonder if Jordan could sue? Tbh i doubt they will go into such detail to cast actors for the chandlers. Maybe distant images of people. Jordans a wuss he doesnt want involvement in anything mj related. Ala when robson and safechick tried to get him involved. The last thing he wants is attention. The estate has a big opportunity to put the facts out there. I so hope they care enough to do it in terms of the settlement rather than just make it as mj was ill and needed to make it go away and move on etc. Tbh i dont know if the estate is that bothered to go into detail. If not it will be the greatest opportunity ever missed to set the fact straight and i will be gutted and 🤬off I'm sure they will depict MJ's addiction to pain meds around that time, but the fact that Cochran has been cast is a positive sign that they'll delve into the settlement. If it's really true that the opening scene is showing MJ being strip searched then I can't see them just briefly glossing over anything pertaining to 93.
|
|
|
Post by pg13 on Apr 24, 2024 10:39:22 GMT
So now we definitely know they are going to cover at least the 1993 allegations. Good to finally have official confirmation of that. I wonder, are they going to cast Evan, June and Jordan? What about Sneddon? The legal ramifications of this fascinates me. Obviously Evan and Sneddon are both dead, but the confidentiality agreement from the settlement still stands. I wonder if Jordan could sue? IIRC, Jordan could sue and certainly has the potential. But his past behaviour really suggests otherwise! This is a guy who's been more than happy to take the money, live his life without concern for any impact on Michael Jackson, who ran out of the United States to Switzerland to avoid Sneddon's subpoena and who has also made it so difficult for anyone to find where he lives that Robson and Safechuck are reduced to going after his sister. Heavily, heavily suggests this is a guy who doesn't want his cosy life disturbed or to have to answer really difficult questions. The MJ Estate must be highly confident Jordan won't sue. June Chandler can also sue, but again.....I highly doubt it. Either that or the biopic doesn't really address the settlement specifically and focuses on the abuse of Michael's constitutional rights which the Chandlers can't sue over. Certainly can't sue over the biopic asserting Michael Jackson was and remains innocent of the crimes they alleged in their filing. Chandler's civil suit filing allegations tells its own story over what they accused him of which doesn't fit with the narrative the general public believes they accused him of. 🤷♂️ Chandlers definitely won't want to bring more attention to themselves in this.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Apr 24, 2024 12:04:12 GMT
Tbh i doubt they will go into such detail to cast actors for the chandlers. Maybe distant images of people. Jordans a wuss he doesnt want involvement in anything mj related. Ala when robson and safechick tried to get him involved. The last thing he wants is attention. The estate has a big opportunity to put the facts out there. I so hope they care enough to do it in terms of the settlement rather than just make it as mj was ill and needed to make it go away and move on etc. Tbh i dont know if the estate is that bothered to go into detail. If not it will be the greatest opportunity ever missed to set the fact straight and i will be gutted and 🤬off I'm sure they will depict MJ's addiction to pain meds around that time, but the fact that Cochran has been cast is a positive sign that they'll delve into the settlement. If it's really true that the opening scene is showing MJ being strip searched then I can't see them just briefly glossing over anything pertaining to 93. Oh yeah i agree they are going into a level of detail about 93 but i would be surprised if they actually cast actors as the chandlers in anything more than non speaking roles
|
|
Yaza
Speechless
Posts: 42
|
Post by Yaza on Apr 24, 2024 12:58:06 GMT
1993 will be difficult to cover. They would be wise to include the fact that Evan and his lawyer were pushing for a settlement long before they went public with their extortion but Michael refused their offer.
That has always been the elephant in the room that the media has completely ignored. If Michael was a guilty man, why not simply pay the peanuts Evan and his lawyer were initially demanding before they went public.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Apr 24, 2024 13:47:07 GMT
It won't be a puff piece as Bohemian Rhapsody then. Good but knowing myself, I'll suffer and cry. The 93 stuff is going to be hard to watch. It's hard enough to read about let alone watch it depicted on film. If 1993 and 2005 are stuff of nightmares, 2009 will destroy me all over again if it's depicted.
|
|
|
Post by SoCav on Apr 24, 2024 14:41:38 GMT
1993 will be difficult to cover. They would be wise to include the fact that Evan and his lawyer were pushing for a settlement long before they went public with their extortion but Michael refused their offer. That has always been the elephant in the room that the media has completely ignored. If Michael was a guilty man, why not simply pay the peanuts Evan and his lawyer were initially demanding before they went public. Yes, there are a few essential points they will need to hit for this to work. It would be rather disastrous if they give the appearance of facing the topic head on but then avoid key details like this and make it, as someone mentioned before, seem more like a case of 'MJ just wanted to move on'. At the same time, they of course don't want to spend too much time on this either, as they have so much to cover. It's a difficult balance to strike, I certainly don't envy them.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Apr 24, 2024 14:46:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Apr 24, 2024 15:07:03 GMT
I'm pretty sure both the Estate and the production company has a professional legal team for advise how to avoid legal pitfalls.
I don't think the Chandlers would have such an easy time to successfully sue for breach of the settlement. Let's not forget that Ray Chandler published a book about this. They already breached the settlement. Much of the background info about the settlement that we know is actually from their book. They got away with it by having Ray write the book who wasn't bound by the settlement. Well, Graham King or John Logan (scriptwriter) aren't bound by the settlement either. They could do their own research, the Estate didn't have to violate any confidentiality agreement for that. Imagine this scenario if the Chandlers took it to court:
Them: "You breached the confidentiality agreement when you wrote about how the settlement came about."
Estate: "Well, it's in the book that you have published."
I actually would love them to use quotes from the Chandler book. Like this one, for example:
“Had Michael paid the twenty million dollars demanded of him in August, rather than the following January, he might have spent the next ten years as the world’s most famous entertainer, instead of the world’s most infamous child molester.”
The issue would rather be copyright with that, but maybe parts of the book can be used under fair use or in somewhat modified versions.
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Apr 24, 2024 15:29:59 GMT
If that quote doesnt scream blackmail i dont know what does
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Apr 24, 2024 18:21:34 GMT
Using such quotes straight from the Chandler book would also have the benefit of the media not being able to say it's made up fiction. If they claim that the creators of the film could simply point out the source.
The fact is, the overwhelming majority of the sources I use on my website are NOT pro-MJ sources. For the 1993 case, for example, I use the Chandler book a lot. And the movie can do that too.
I still don't think such a movie can dig very deep in the case, but at least they could use some effective lines to make people realize there's more to this case than what the media usually discusses (which are fallacies like "settlement=guilt" or "Jordan correctly described MJ's penis" - simply not true).
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Apr 25, 2024 18:47:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by ghost on Apr 26, 2024 20:53:09 GMT
Well, they're really "going there":
Makes me almost wish it was just going to be a puff piece. This is going to be harder than I thought.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Apr 26, 2024 20:59:28 GMT
If it's the raid scene, oh, fuck! My heart will be broken in million pieces! 😭
I didn't remember the second surprise raid. I hope cancer made that bastard, son of a bitch Sneddon suffer at least! 😡
|
|
|
Post by elusivemoonwalker on Apr 26, 2024 21:06:21 GMT
Oh wow. 😐 and just for a split second i thought that was real and it was taking me back 21 years
|
|