|
Post by respect77 on Oct 30, 2017 17:18:56 GMT
I know it is kind of a morbid list, but Forbes every year makes its top-earning dead celebrities list (just like they have a list about celebrities that are alive). Since his death MJ was on top of it every year bar one (when Elizabeth Taylor finished ahead of him after her death) and it isn't any different this year either. 1. Michael Jackson $75 million 2. Arnold Palmer (golf) $40 million 3. Charles Schulz (cartoonist, creator of Snoopy and Charlie Brown) $38 million 4. Elvis Presley $35 million 5. Bob Marley $23 million 6. Tom Petty $20 million 7. Prince $18 million 8. Dr. Seuss (author) $16 million 9. John Lennon $12 million 10. Albert Einstein $10 million 11. David Bowie $9.5 million 12. Elizabeth Taylor $8 million 13. Bettie Page (model) $7.5 million Source: www.forbes.com/sites/zackomalleygreenburg/2017/10/30/the-top-earning-dead-celebrities-of-2017/#777ab16541f5
|
|
TonyR
The Legend Continues
Posts: 8,424
|
Post by TonyR on Oct 30, 2017 17:27:26 GMT
Always get a stomach churning mixed reaction when I see this.
But good because:
a) he's done it this year without the ATV sale b) it rubbishes all the 'the Estate has ruined MJ's legacy' crap
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Oct 30, 2017 17:44:28 GMT
I don't know. It tells me that he's the most commercial of the lot and that they'll simply slap his name onto any product for the dollar. For me personally, the wealthiest estate on this list are probably the least creative.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Oct 30, 2017 17:59:31 GMT
No doubt the Estate have made some questionable and wrongful decisions but I don't think they have put his name on anything for the dollar, if the Jacksons were executors, they'd have done that.
I can accept the Halloween special wasn't perfect, it has flaws but it wasn't as bad as some of the fans are painting it The positive aspects of it overweight the negative ones.
|
|
|
Post by SoCav on Oct 30, 2017 18:13:34 GMT
No doubt the Estate have made some questionable and wrongful decisions but I don't think they have put his name on anything for the dollar, if the Jacksons were executors, they'd have done that. Maybe. But I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have released tracks sung by an impersonator.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Oct 30, 2017 18:17:33 GMT
No doubt the Estate have made some questionable and wrongful decisions but I don't think they have put his name on anything for the dollar, if the Jacksons were executors, they'd have done that. Maybe. But I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have released tracks sung by an impersonator. Branca and McClain trusted the Cascios amd were duped.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 30, 2017 18:23:59 GMT
For me personally, the wealthiest estate on this list are probably the least creative. Do you know the activities of each and every other Estate on that list?
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Oct 30, 2017 18:39:19 GMT
For me personally, the wealthiest estate on this list are probably the least creative. Do you know the activities of each and every other Estate on that list? No? Why would I? I'm a Michael fan.
|
|
|
Post by Snow White on Oct 30, 2017 18:42:12 GMT
If some of you think other estates are more creative like Elvis' for instante, his estate has 40 years of experience against 8 of Michael’s. I think I read from SoCav that Elvis' were doing pretty bad for 20 years until someone with the expertise stepped in and revitalized the performer. I think it's a matter of trial and error and understanding the artist.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 30, 2017 18:52:49 GMT
Do you know the activities of each and every other Estate on that list? No? Why would I? I'm a Michael fan. Because you said they are probably the least creative. I thought you might have some information about what kind of creative projects the other Estates are doing.
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Oct 30, 2017 18:53:35 GMT
If some of you think other estates are more creative like Elvis' for instante, his estate has 40 years of experience against 8 of Michael’s. I think I read from SoCav that Elvis' were doing pretty bad for 20 years until someone with the expertise stepped in and revitalized the performer. I think it's a matter of trial and error and understanding the artist. We're living in a different day and age now. It's not the 70's anymore and there's at least a half dozen estates that MJ's could have used as the blueprint. No need to come to their defence. I simply think their a bit shit. I'm a fan and collector of Prince -thus far his estate have been poor but its very early days still-, Elvis, and keep tabs on Lennon and Bowie. Artisically Elvis and Bowie are probably the best although youed want to be a millionaire to keep up with the Bowie releases. I joked last year about MJ's estate slapping his name on happy meals, at this point I see it as a viable possibility for them. But hey, the kids will love it. I'm just being honest. I'm not being diplomatic or giving them a pass anymore.
|
|
|
Post by respect77 on Oct 30, 2017 18:57:27 GMT
Also a list like this isn't just about the creativity of Estates. Last year there hasn't been any big MJ releases, so most of the income probably comes from the sales of MJ's back catalog, royalties and ongoing projects such as the Cirque show (you have to give it to them, that was a good idea and that is a good show).
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Oct 30, 2017 18:58:43 GMT
No? Why would I? I'm a Michael fan. Because you said they are probably the least creative. I thought you might have some information about what kind of creative projects the other Estates are doing. The Elvis estate do a phenomenal job. Yearly boxsets, vinyl filled with unreleased takes, Legacy editions of the classic albums with beautiful booklets and tons of bonus material and the superb Follow That Dream releases for the hardcore's. They have to work much harder than the MJ estate though so the have to be creative.
|
|
|
Post by aazzaabb on Oct 30, 2017 19:00:17 GMT
Also a list like this isn't just about the creativity of Estates. Last year there hasn't been any big MJ releases, so most of the income probably comes from the sales of MJ's back catalog, royalties and ongoing projects such as the Cirque show (you have to give it to them, that was a good idea and that is a good show). It's a phenomenal show! Credit where credit is due.
|
|
|
Post by SoCav on Oct 30, 2017 19:02:20 GMT
Maybe. But I'm pretty sure they wouldn't have released tracks sung by an impersonator. Branca and McClain trusted the Cascios amd were duped. And that wouldn't have happened to the Jacksons. Say what you want (and I definitely understand where you're coming from), but there's no way I can see them making that same mistake. That's not to say that they wouldn't have made other mistakes, of course. Also, McClain wasn't duped. He was against the release of the songs. Branca pushed for their release despite his warnings (and those of others working on the project). Even though Cascio/Porte are of course primarily responsible, it irks me a bit when I see fans absolve the executors of all blame. If some of you think other estates are more creative like Elvis' for instante, his estate has 40 years of experience against 8 of Michael’s. I think I read from SoCav that Elvis' were doing pretty bad for 20 years until someone with the expertise stepped in and revitalized the performer. I think it's a matter of trial and error and understanding the artist. We're living in a different day and age now. It's not the 70's anymore and there's at least a half dozen estates that MJ's could have used as the blueprint. I agree with this. When Elvis died they were entering new territory. The MJ Estate should look at the mistakes that have been made with the catalogues of previous artists and try to mirror those that did well. Of course, I do agree that it can take a moment to find their footing, but we're getting close to 10 years now, and their mistakes haven't exactly been minor... Regardless of all that, I do think this list also reflects the enduring interest there is in Michael. They wouldn't be able to reach those numbers, no matter what their strategy was, without that.
|
|