5,996 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jun 25, 2022 13:28:44 GMT
I totally respect anyone being set against this show for believing the worst in Jackson. Truth is we will never know the truth now.
And they don’t have to buy a ticket to see it, simple.
|
|
277 posts
|
Post by gmoneyoutlaw on Jun 25, 2022 13:44:30 GMT
It might do better if it had nothing to do with Michael Jackson either. Sorry MJ fans but I think this is highly questionable given the obvious circumstances. If this show doesn’t at least make reference to the problematic areas of his personal life then it’s worthless as far as I’m concerned. It does make mention of problems in his personal life, but takes place before the legal battles. You will be thrilled how they handle his relationship with his father Joe. The production values are incredible and MJ still has an international fan base. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2022 14:54:30 GMT
Jackson wasn't convicted for the same reason Savile wasn’t. Fame. If he’d not been famous he’d have been convicted long since. He’s also likely still be alive - the same fame and money that allowed him to get away with molesting boys also allowed him unfettered access to the drugs that ultimately killed him. You were in the court room? You were on the jury? You saw all the evidence? You studied the trial intimately? You witnessed him molest children? You were at Neverland Ranch? No. You weren't. You don't know anything definitively. The only ones who do are Michael and his accusers. If you don't want to see it, don't go. But you don't get to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent - the jury does that. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 25, 2022 16:09:34 GMT
Looks like today is the anniversary of Jackson's death
We will never fully know the truth of his life.
But the accusations are very persuasive and are enough to cast a huge shadow over his legacy.
The music does live on. But a stage show about his life is problematic for many. Understandably so.
London had Thriller for so many years. Too many years in all honesty. When there are many shows that would love a London transfer, why do we need another Jackson piece?
|
|
|
|
Post by inthenose on Jun 25, 2022 17:14:17 GMT
Looks like today is the anniversary of Jackson's death We will never fully know the truth of his life. But the accusations are very persuasive and are enough to cast a huge shadow over his legacy. The music does live on. But a stage show about his life is problematic for many. Understandably so. London had Thriller for so many years. Too many years in all honesty. When there are many shows that would love a London transfer, why do we need another Jackson piece? Why do we need any theatre? The show has done very well critically and commercially on Broadway, so it's as strong a candidate as any to transfer. It will also make a fortune, which is the producers and investors big concern, which is what big commercial theatre is all about. It's going to be there regardless, plenty of other shows to see for those with concerns. |
|
7,251 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jun 25, 2022 17:38:23 GMT
MJ and Thriller are two different things, one was a tribute show that ran far too long in the West End and the other is a bio musical with top notch creatives.
|
|
4,162 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 25, 2022 18:16:12 GMT
Jackson wasn't convicted for the same reason Savile wasn’t. Fame. If he’d not been famous he’d have been convicted long since. He’s also likely still be alive - the same fame and money that allowed him to get away with molesting boys also allowed him unfettered access to the drugs that ultimately killed him. You were in the court room? You were on the jury? You saw all the evidence? You studied the trial intimately? You witnessed him molest children? You were at Neverland Ranch? No. You weren't. You don't know anything definitively. The only ones who do are Michael and his accusers. If you don't want to see it, don't go. But you don't get to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent - the jury does that. In America the justice you get depends on how much you can afford to spend on lawyers, and on how much the jury likes you. In subsequent interviews jury members have said it was the demeanour of Arvizo’s mother on the stand that they disliked, that they did believe that Jackson had molested boys at Neverland and probably molested Arvizo, but they didn’t feel they could convict because there wasn’t physical evidence of the act (semen) or a video of it. web.archive.org/web/20110211055853/http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/8880663/ns/today-entertainment/larryharrietlive.blogspot.com/2006/11/exclusive-interview-with-jackson-juror_28.html?m=1This betrays a misunderstanding of what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ means - they were looking for evidence that would remove any doubt at all (literally a video of Jackson having sexual with the boy) before they were prepared to convict. Expensive lawyers are good at causing this kind of confusion in jurors. What we do know, for sure: Jackson had large pictures of babies on display in his bedroom, as shown in the photographs taken after his death, and books of photographs of naked boys, some of them taken by self-confessed paedophiles. Technically legal because they don’t show sex acts, they are very popular among paedophiles. He also had piles of adult pornography magazines - of all types - that he kept in his bedroom where he slept with boys alone at night, that were covered in fingerprints that were not his or any of his staff’s, and could not be identified. Oh, and there samples of semen taken from his mattress that did not belong to him, in the bed that he admitted to sharing with young boys night after night. (Some of this stuff that was not allowed to be submitted into evidence in the Arvizo court case, some of it was. However as the interview from the juror above shows, some of it was just ignored by jury members…) Jordan Chandler’s drawing of the marks on Jackson’s penis matched the those in the photographs taken by the police, according to the detectives. That evidence was never submitted to court, because the Chandlers accepted a $20 million settlement. Jackson’s lawyer has spoken about this in a seminar about the case that keen be seen on YouTube: The entire trial testimonies from the Arvizo case are available online: www.mjfacts.com/2005-michael-jackson-molestation-trial-transcripts/And there’s www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdfFrom the Santa Barbara court website. This document outlines items that were seized by police in the 2005 case and exactly where they were found. Includes several books known to often be in the collections of pedophiles (Bill Dworin, the lead investigator and expert on pedophiles, explains this in part 3 of the documentary 'Michael Jackson's Boys), masses of pornography and two photographs. One photograph is of a young boy holding an umbrella, his bikini bottoms partially pulled down. The other is a fully nude photo of Jonathan Spence, a young boy known to Jackson, who he'd been pictured with intimately. Edit: I guess this is all to say that a tremendous amount of evidence about the Jackson cases are available to the public, I’ve spent way too much time looking through it, and I find it overwhelmingly convincing of his guilt. I honestly don’t know how anyone who examines it in detail can conclude that he wasn’t a preferential paedophile who groomed young boys in order to have sexual relationships with them, which he justified to himself as ‘loving’. There is so much corroborating evidence here beyond victim testimony - much more than Savile! But I will stop arguing about this now because I know some people will never be convinced. I also understand that there is a desire to separate the art from the artist, and to enjoy the talents of those who produced the show separate from the man who it is about. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 25, 2022 18:43:38 GMT
Thriller Live was never produced in the US let alone on Broadway as far as I can tell.
That would indicate that this piece was the first chance for US audiences to see a stage show with the music of MJ.
I grant you that it is a different beast but they are both vehicles for the music and some of the original choreography.
To my mind that means that it is far from guaranteed that the US success will be replicated here in the UK where audiences have had years to see this music in a theatrical setting. And indeed, Thriller Live is still out there touring.
Setting aside my personal feelings towards Jackson, I remain sceptical of this new piece being the same sort of success as the US original. UK audiences have had an alternative and tourism is not yet recovered to such a point that they can be relied on to fill out theatres.
|
|
7,251 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jun 25, 2022 19:01:04 GMT
I would imagine the Jackson estate will likely pull the music rights from Thriller Live once MJ is ready to come over. It's a bit of a stretch to say people won't see MJ just because they saw Thriller.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 25, 2022 19:08:53 GMT
I would imagine the Jackson estate will likely pull the music rights from Thriller Live once MJ is ready to come over. It's a bit of a stretch to say people won't see MJ just because they saw Thriller. I think it just as much of a stretch to think that more than diehard fans of Jackson will flock to see another show about him. We shall see. I would much rather have far fewer biographical musicals in West End houses. I understand the business case for them but they are not good for the long term health of musical theatre. |
|
7,251 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jun 25, 2022 19:19:50 GMT
I think it just as much of a stretch to think that more than diehard fans of Jackson will flock to see another show about him. We shall see. I would much rather have far fewer biographical musicals in West End houses. I understand the business case for them but they are not good for the long term health of musical theatre. The alternative is dark theatres for months or years on end which no one wants. |
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 25, 2022 19:31:27 GMT
There are shows that could transfer in but can't find the right venue like Bedknobs and Broomsticks which got a decent reception out on tour at a difficult time.
By all accounts What's New Pussycat could have found an audience in London. Other people might have other names of shows that have been looking for London opportunities.
I know all theatres are struggling for audiences right now. I get the short term financial case.
But we have shows about Tina Turner, Bob Marley, Frankie Valli and his mates, the Drifters already running with possibly Michael Jackson, and the Temptations joining the list. That is a lot of biographical shows.
|
|
350 posts
|
Post by Figaro on Jun 25, 2022 20:46:23 GMT
Thriller Live was never produced in the US let alone on Broadway as far as I can tell. That would indicate that this piece was the first chance for US audiences to see a stage show with the music of MJ. l. There has been a Cirque du Soleil show bard around the music of MJ running for years. Very good it is too! |
|
|
|
Post by partytentdown on Jun 26, 2022 8:32:51 GMT
I wonder if Cameron (or whoever) will get a lot of flak when it's announced he's hosting this
|
|
7,251 posts
|
Post by Jon on Jun 26, 2022 9:34:55 GMT
I wonder if Cameron (or whoever) will get a lot of flak when it's announced he's hosting this Cameron won't care as long as it brings in the dosh. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Jun 26, 2022 9:40:59 GMT
Again for the people at the back…if it came to light that Shakespeare was a serial paedophile, or John Lennon, would it reduce the quality of the work they had created whilst alive? All it changes is our reaction to it and how deserving it is to make that person money from it. Of course it will inform our processing of it, but it won’t stop ‘Smooth Criminal’ from being thrilling or ‘Man in the Mirror’ being so uplifting.
Listing the details of Jacksons misdemeanours does not make those songs lose their genius. They just add to a picture of a flawed genius who was a victim of his own different abuse. If nobody tells you no for long enough or you are allowed to buy yourself out of problems without consequence chances are you are going to do it. There is a huge team of people behind Jackson that should have similarly been held to account for enabling his behaviour and criminality.
|
|
4,162 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 26, 2022 10:17:28 GMT
I still enjoy some of Jackson’s music - and his best work owes an awful lot to the genius of Quincy Jones.
It’s a hagiographic approach to him and his life (and trust me, there are absolutely still a contingent of Jackson fans who are convinced that he was a pure-hearted Angel and poor innocent victim) that is disturbing.
We as a society have a real problem separating the art from the artists - people’s love of the art affects their ability to judge the artists objectively, and allows the artist licence in their personal life they would not be granted otherwise. And some of them use that licence - and the money that comes with it - to get away with abusing people in various ways.
This is less of an issue once an artist is dead, obviously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2022 15:54:43 GMT
You were in the court room? You were on the jury? You saw all the evidence? You studied the trial intimately? You witnessed him molest children? You were at Neverland Ranch? No. You weren't. You don't know anything definitively. The only ones who do are Michael and his accusers. If you don't want to see it, don't go. But you don't get to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent - the jury does that. In America the justice you get depends on how much you can afford to spend on lawyers, and on how much the jury likes you. In subsequent interviews jury members have said it was the demeanour of Arvizo’s mother on the stand that they disliked, that they did believe that Jackson had molested boys at Neverland and probably molested Arvizo, but they didn’t feel they could convict because there wasn’t physical evidence of the act (semen) or a video of it. web.archive.org/web/20110211055853/http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/8880663/ns/today-entertainment/larryharrietlive.blogspot.com/2006/11/exclusive-interview-with-jackson-juror_28.html?m=1This betrays a misunderstanding of what ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ means - they were looking for evidence that would remove any doubt at all (literally a video of Jackson having sexual with the boy) before they were prepared to convict. Expensive lawyers are good at causing this kind of confusion in jurors. What we do know, for sure: Jackson had large pictures of babies on display in his bedroom, as shown in the photographs taken after his death, and books of photographs of naked boys, some of them taken by self-confessed paedophiles. Technically legal because they don’t show sex acts, they are very popular among paedophiles. He also had piles of adult pornography magazines - of all types - that he kept in his bedroom where he slept with boys alone at night, that were covered in fingerprints that were not his or any of his staff’s, and could not be identified. Oh, and there samples of semen taken from his mattress that did not belong to him, in the bed that he admitted to sharing with young boys night after night. (Some of this stuff that was not allowed to be submitted into evidence in the Arvizo court case, some of it was. However as the interview from the juror above shows, some of it was just ignored by jury members…) Jordan Chandler’s drawing of the marks on Jackson’s penis matched the those in the photographs taken by the police, according to the detectives. That evidence was never submitted to court, because the Chandlers accepted a $20 million settlement. Jackson’s lawyer has spoken about this in a seminar about the case that keen be seen on YouTube: The entire trial testimonies from the Arvizo case are available online: www.mjfacts.com/2005-michael-jackson-molestation-trial-transcripts/And there’s www.sbscpublicaccess.org/docs/ctdocs/011805pltreqaseemd.pdfFrom the Santa Barbara court website. This document outlines items that were seized by police in the 2005 case and exactly where they were found. Includes several books known to often be in the collections of pedophiles (Bill Dworin, the lead investigator and expert on pedophiles, explains this in part 3 of the documentary 'Michael Jackson's Boys), masses of pornography and two photographs. One photograph is of a young boy holding an umbrella, his bikini bottoms partially pulled down. The other is a fully nude photo of Jonathan Spence, a young boy known to Jackson, who he'd been pictured with intimately. Edit: I guess this is all to say that a tremendous amount of evidence about the Jackson cases are available to the public, I’ve spent way too much time looking through it, and I find it overwhelmingly convincing of his guilt. I honestly don’t know how anyone who examines it in detail can conclude that he wasn’t a preferential paedophile who groomed young boys in order to have sexual relationships with them, which he justified to himself as ‘loving’. There is so much corroborating evidence here beyond victim testimony - much more than Savile! But I will stop arguing about this now because I know some people will never be convinced. I also understand that there is a desire to separate the art from the artist, and to enjoy the talents of those who produced the show separate from the man who it is about. First of all, I'm American. Secondly, I appreciate you taking the time to put this all here. I have watched the documentaries, etc etc. I've followed it too, but there were things you mentioned I did not know. I'm a victim of sexual abuse as a child. I'm not really a big Michael Jackson fan. But after all of it, I'm still not convinced to either side. And I wasn't there, so I don't know. But regardless, I don't condemn this musical because it doesn't glorify him, or redeem him. It calls out a lot of bad stuff. I would never have gone to see it, but as I usher for it I've seen it a lot and I admire and respect what Lynn Nottage did with the book. The musical is a study of the artist, more than the man, but it doesn't shy away from critiquing the man, particularly his drug use. I just don't know what the answer to it all is. I understand why some are turned off by it, but I also understand why the show works despite who it's about. Sorry if I came across a bit antagonistic. Frankly, the news here in America this week has been horrifying and I think I was already a bit heated while on the boards. |
|
|
|
Post by danb on Jun 26, 2022 16:57:32 GMT
I still enjoy some of Jackson’s music - and his best work owes an awful lot to the genius of Quincy Jones. It’s a hagiographic approach to him and his life (and trust me, there are absolutely still a contingent of Jackson fans who are convinced that he was a pure-hearted Angel and poor innocent victim) that is disturbing. We as a society have a real problem separating the art from the artists - people’s love of the art affects their ability to judge the artists objectively, and allows the artist licence in their personal life they would not be granted otherwise. And some of them use that licence - and the money that comes with it - to get away with abusing people in various ways. This is less of an issue once an artist is dead, obviously. So, are you saying that irrespective of time lines and being dead etc that people are morally wrong to enjoy Jacksons music? (And Quincy Jones had a hand in relatively little of MJ’s total output.). I can quite comfortably separate the man & the music and enjoy one but not the other. Yet apparently, thinking ‘Dirty Diana’ is a total banger makes me somehow responsible too does it? Am I so in awe that I don’t know the difference between right & wrong? Have a word with yourself. |
|
4,162 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 26, 2022 18:12:12 GMT
. Sorry if I came across a bit antagonistic. Frankly, the news here in America this week has been horrifying and I think I was already a bit heated while on the boards. No worries, it’s been a distressing week even for those of us who are not American. There’s a real hell-in-handcart feeling at the moment. |
|
4,162 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 26, 2022 18:17:58 GMT
I still enjoy some of Jackson’s music - and his best work owes an awful lot to the genius of Quincy Jones. It’s a hagiographic approach to him and his life (and trust me, there are absolutely still a contingent of Jackson fans who are convinced that he was a pure-hearted Angel and poor innocent victim) that is disturbing. We as a society have a real problem separating the art from the artists - people’s love of the art affects their ability to judge the artists objectively, and allows the artist licence in their personal life they would not be granted otherwise. And some of them use that licence - and the money that comes with it - to get away with abusing people in various ways. This is less of an issue once an artist is dead, obviously. So, are you saying that irrespective of time lines and being dead etc that people are morally wrong to enjoy Jacksons music? (And Quincy Jones had a hand in relatively little of MJ’s total output.). I can quite comfortably separate the man & the music and enjoy one but not the other. Yet apparently, thinking ‘Dirty Diana’ is a total banger makes me somehow responsible too does it? Am I so in awe that I don’t know the difference between right & wrong? Have a word with yourself. No, clearly not saying it’s ‘morally wrong’, since I say that I still enjoy some of his music. 🙄 And obviously you are not ‘responsible’ for anything that Jackson did - JACKSON is responsible for the things he did. My comment was simply about the ‘separating art from the artist’ argument, and how difficult that seems to be for people in reality. The effect that being rich, famous and widely beloved on people’s ability to get away with doing very bad stuff is well-documented. I don’t know what anyone can actually do about this quirk of human nature. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2022 20:37:07 GMT
. Sorry if I came across a bit antagonistic. Frankly, the news here in America this week has been horrifying and I think I was already a bit heated while on the boards. No worries, it’s been a distressing week even for those of us who are not American. There’s a real hell-in-handcart feeling at the moment. Thanks for understanding. Sigh. A really dystopian and bleak time, eh? Anyway, I do hope you all get Myles over, and that those who see it enjoy it. I was very reluctant to admit I enjoyed it while working it. A little note about Myles: this sweet, lovely performer always shouts out the house staff stuffing playbills after his mic check. "Have a good show, house crew" and we all yell something back. I've ushered a lot of different shows, and I've only encountered this from Myles and every single one of the Tinas in Tina. |
|
|
|
Post by thecursedexpress on Jul 12, 2022 14:24:22 GMT
I'm going to put my two cents into this.
I saw MJ on Broadway at the start of June. I was hesitant as I'm not particulary a fan of jukebox musicals as I only like one which is Bat out of Hell. Plus I never saw Thriller Live and was apprehensive that it might be like. (Every time I passed the theatre, it looked very cheap in terms of production)
MJ however, is not a Thriller Live and it blew me away after I saw it. As a fan of Michael Jackson's music, I was bobbing my head at every song and the sets and the way the story progresses from start to finish gels really well. I know there has always been controversy around Michael Jackson, however, i have always been able to detach the person and performer from him.
Also, Myles Frost, who plays MJ (who is only 22 yrs might I add) was such a convincing Michael and it felt like I was watching the real person. I know we live in a time where there are so many jukebox musicals right now filling up theatres, but this one is up there for me.
If it transfers to London, I would love to see Ivano Turco or Koffi Missah play MJ.
|
|
5,996 posts
|
Post by mrbarnaby on Jul 12, 2022 23:31:39 GMT
I wonder if Cameron (or whoever) will get a lot of flak when it's announced he's hosting this He won’t give a hoot. Look at how terribly he’s behaved with things like Phantom and Les Mis. And not sure why everyone is debating venues. It’s going to the Prince Edward. Worst kept secret in London. |
|
1,762 posts
|
Post by fiyero on Oct 17, 2022 7:10:40 GMT
Spring 2024, just had the pre pre sale email.
MJ
OPENING MARCH 2024 AT THE PRINCE EDWARD THEATRE
STARTIN' SOMETHIN' IN LONDON
He is one of the greatest entertainers of all time.
Now, Michael Jackson’s unique and unparalleled artistry is heading to the West End in the multiple Tony Award® winning musical MJ.
Centred around the making of his 1992 Dangerous World Tour, MJ goes beyond the singular moves and signature sound of the star, offering a rare look at the creative mind and collaborative spirit that catapulted Jackson into legendary status.
Created by Tony Award® winning Director / Choreographer Christopher Wheeldon, and two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Lynn Nottage, MJ will open at the Prince Edward Theatre in March 2024 with booking from Spring 2023.
|
|
