bboy87 said:

There's a great conversation going on on Facebook about the Dangerous videos

another reason why a double was used for Who Is It was that the director, David Fincher was being rude and obnoxious to Michael. Michael left after the first day, and never came back

Never knew that!

alphastreet said:

[img:$uid]http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lmtsu6fYOv1qi2cy6o1_500.jpg[/img:$uid]

MyNameIsPiper said:

bboy87 said:

There's a great conversation going on on Facebook about the Dangerous videos

another reason why a double was used for Who Is It was that the director, David Fincher was being rude and obnoxious to Michael. Michael left after the first day, and never came back

Never knew that!

I heard a very different story - that the video used a double in many of the MJ shots because of tour commitments - and the pressure to rush release the video after MJ did the beat box thing on Oprah threw the production into disarray.

I've never heard of Fincher being rude. What's the basis for this? Or is it just conjecture in the fan community. Would love to know more.

Who Is It? is one of my all time faves of MJ - so beautifully shot.

I'll never listen to "Give In To Me" the same again

ViintageJunkiie said:

I'll never listen to "Give In To Me" the same again

I applaud the effort, but really??? HER MUTHAFUCKIN' DOG JOINED IN!

[Edited 6/16/11 0:37am]

bboy87 said:

There's a great conversation going on on Facebook about the Dangerous videos

another reason why a double was used for Who Is It was that the director, David Fincher was being rude and obnoxious to Michael. Michael left after the first day, and never came back

I also didn´t know that. Do you know in which scenes is the double? I have always thought it was Mike.

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

ViintageJunkiie said:

I'll never listen to "Give In To Me" the same again

I applaud the effort, but really??? HER MUTHAFUCKIN' DOG JOINED IN!

[Edited 6/16/11 0:37am]

exactly!

[Edited 6/16/11 1:50am]

dag said:

bboy87 said:

There's a great conversation going on on Facebook about the Dangerous videos

another reason why a double was used for Who Is It was that the director, David Fincher was being rude and obnoxious to Michael. Michael left after the first day, and never came back

I also didn´t know that. Do you know in which scenes is the double? I have always thought it was Mike.

Beginning at 3:03. That's not MJ in the limo

ViintageJunkiie said:

I'll never listen to "Give In To Me" the same again

I should NOT be laughing. But 3:43 is too much...

WildStyle said:

All these videos are wack without Michael anyway. Who wants to see that shit? I mean, what's the point?

I agree , I really wanted to say this....It's all pointless and I have ZERO interest to see any music videos , A michael jackson video without michael jackson , how is that ? It's ll pointless.

Not to mention how professional they are when it comes to destroy songs , adding the beat of "billie Jean" on " hollywood tonight" , LOL..what a mess, they are stupid and they don't know what the hell they are doing.....

seeingvoices12 said:

Not to mention how professional they are when it comes to destroy songs , adding the beat of "billie Jean" on " hollywood tonight" , LOL..what a mess, they are stupid and they don't know what the hell they are doing.....

I haven't even watched the video. I have zero interest. Yeah, they have no idea what the hell they are doing. Are they even going to break even on that $250 mil? The album and everything affiliated has been a joke. Just enjoy what MJ did when he was alive. Nothing now could tarnish his legacy anyways.

ViintageJunkiie said:

dag said:

I also didn´t know that. Do you know in which scenes is the double? I have always thought it was Mike.

Beginning at 3:03. That's not MJ in the limo

But it is Mike walking in the house and in the helicopter, isn't it? That must be him.

Swa said:

MyNameIsPiper said:

Never knew that!

I heard a very different story - that the video used a double in many of the MJ shots because of tour commitments - and the pressure to rush release the video after MJ did the beat box thing on Oprah threw the production into disarray.

I've never heard of Fincher being rude. What's the basis for this? Or is it just conjecture in the fan community. Would love to know more.

Who Is It? is one of my all time faves of MJ - so beautifully shot.

Someone who worked for Propoganda Films mentioned it. Swa are you on facebook? the discussion is on the Michael Jackson Archives page

Asymphony5 said:

I agree with you guys. I have no desire to watch a video with no Michael. I haven't even seen Hold my hand yet. I honestly think it's pointless.

Me too. I couldn't care less.

ViintageJunkiie said:

I'll never listen to "Give In To Me" the same again

See, this is why I gotta disown you from "Cousin in my head" status cuz you post shit like this!!

I REBUKE YOU!

bboy87 said:

Swa said:

I heard a very different story - that the video used a double in many of the MJ shots because of tour commitments - and the pressure to rush release the video after MJ did the beat box thing on Oprah threw the production into disarray.

I've never heard of Fincher being rude. What's the basis for this? Or is it just conjecture in the fan community. Would love to know more.

Who Is It? is one of my all time faves of MJ - so beautifully shot.

Someone who worked for Propoganda Films mentioned it. Swa are you on facebook? the discussion is on the Michael Jackson Archives page

I hope this isn't true. Fincher is one hell of a director.

GettOffMyLand said:

bboy87 said:

Someone who worked for Propoganda Films mentioned it. Swa are you on facebook? the discussion is on the Michael Jackson Archives page

I hope this isn't true. Fincher is one hell of a director.

Yeah it sounds like a rumor.

Fincher did an amazing job with Jody Watley's Most of All and Madonna's Bad Girl.

I hope the rumor isn't true, I felt so sad when I read it on here last night. E Cassanova the mj impersonator was in the car, plane and the far off scene before he enters the plane

Judge hints jurors may see raw video of Michael Jackson's last days

Los Angeles (CNN) -- Raw video of Michael Jackson's last days is not covered by laws protecting journalists from court subpoenas, making it likely that Sony will have to let lawyers use its video in their defense of Dr. Conrad Murray, a judge said Thursday.

Lawyers for Murray, who faces trial for involuntary manslaughter in the pop star's death, argued that the unseen rehearsal video could show that Jackson was ill and physically weak.

Prosecutors contend that Jackson died from an overdose of a surgical anesthetic that Murray gave him to induce sleep.

Sony Pictures, which bought the video from Jackson's estate, is fighting the subpoena from Murray's lawyers for access to about 100 hours of video that was used to produce the "This Is It" documentary, released several months after the singer's June 25, 2009, death.

The judge has given the prosecution permission to show clips from the movie to jurors during the trial, which is scheduled to start in September, but the defense wants to use video left on the cutting room floor.

Since Sony was under a contractual obligation with the estate to not use anything that showed Jackson in "a negative light," the unused video may be helpful to the defense, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael Pastor said.

The judge gave Sony a week to work out technical details with the defense for a way they can view the raw video without the risk of it leaking.

Sony's lawyer said the public release of the raw video could hurt the studio's plans to use it in other productions, such as an anniversary edition of the documentary.

"If they become part of the public record as an exhibit, we have a whole different problem," Sony attorney Gary Bostwick said. "That would immediately become viral on TMZ or some other website."

Defense lawyers were ordered to narrow their subpoena request for the video, which Pastor called "remarkably over-broad."

Michael Jackson hired video photographers to record his rehearsals as he prepared for his comeback concerts in London, scheduled for July 2009. His estate later sold the video and documentary rights to Sony for about $80 million.

Jackson was pronounced dead by an emergency room doctor at Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center. The Los Angeles County coroner ruled that his death was caused by an overdose of propofol, a powerful surgical anesthetic, in combination with "the contributory affects of the benzodiazepines."

Murray, who was hired as Jackson's personal doctor in the months leading up to the concert, was later charged with involuntary manslaughter in his death.

"Michael is not with us today because of an utterly inept, incompetent, reckless doctor, the defendant Conrad Murray," Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney David Walgren said in his final arguments at Murray's preliminary hearing in January.

Murray's lawyers suggested that a frustrated and sleepless Jackson may have self-ingested the fatal dose while the doctor was out of his bedroom.

The defense is hoping the raw video will show Jackson's weakness and frustration as the concert dates neared.

First time I've seen this shop - must be where all the impersonators get their gear from.

http://www.mjb2c.com/

from the Michael Jackson Archives facebook page

Here is an artwork created by black & white magazine and presented in heir very last issue as the actual official planned and deleted Victory Tour laserdisc. I actually got confirmation that THERE IS a very rare test pressing of the laserdics that exists and that they are in possession of Joe Jackson. But the actual artwork is different: grey with the Jacksons torcj logo as you can see it on the Victory Tour program.
Note: ALL collecrors items presented in the last black & white mag are fakes.

[img:$uid]http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/253910_10150223301078908_680663907_7292066_1612012_n.jpg[/img:$uid]

Timmy84 said:

GettOffMyLand said:

I hope this isn't true. Fincher is one hell of a director.

Yeah it sounds like a rumor.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1394064628177&set=o.183669728348118&type=1&ref=nf

the whole convo is right there. the info from someone who worked for Propoganda Films at the time

bboy87 said:

Timmy84 said:

Yeah it sounds like a rumor.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1394064628177&set=o.183669728348118&type=1&ref=nf

the whole convo is right there. the info from someone who worked for Propoganda Films at the time

Alright, y'all my brothas and sistas so naturally I can talk straight with you.

We're all aware of Lady Gaga and her music. More specifically we're aware of her ever changing image. From the hair, the make up, the outfits, the whole "monster" thing she got goin' on there.

I remember one time I was in Walmart and saw a cover of Lady Gaga on some magazine in the stands, and she did some crazy shit to her face. What with spikes comin' out of her face, forehead, shoulders etc.

Now...when she does shit like this, they consider it some form of artistic lisense. Everybody still loves her, they think this is great and so unique and so on.

That's all well and good for her. Now, my beef is,

Why is it, when Michael dressed in sequins, wore weaves and make up (to hide and evenutally even out his skin disease), had a few plastic surgeries (the number of which is not up for debate here, so don't go off on this tangent please!) to fix somethings in his appearance he didn't like, lost a little wieght, grews some stubble, and so on...people went off the deep end and were right and left condemning him for EVERYTHING he did. Even going so far as to make up stuff that wasn't true. I honestly have never met or seen anyone, famous or not, so misunderstood and so libelled against. I don't see this happening to Lady Gaga or anyone else, ever, as I've seen it with Michael.

Is it because now this generation is more accepting of personal and artistic freedom? Would Michael's reputation be different if he was an emerging artist from a couple of years ago? Or would people's reactions still be the same?

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

Alright, y'all my brothas and sistas so naturally I can talk straight with you.

We're all aware of Lady Gaga and her music. More specifically we're aware of her ever changing image. From the hair, the make up, the outfits, the whole "monster" thing she got goin' on there.

I remember one time I was in Walmart and saw a cover of Lady Gaga on some magazine in the stands, and she did some crazy shit to her face. What with spikes comin' out of her face, forehead, shoulders etc.

Now...when she does shit like this, they consider it some form of artistic lisense. Everybody still loves her, they think this is great and so unique and so on.

That's all well and good for her. Now, my beef is,

Why is it, when Michael dressed in sequins, wore weaves and make up (to hide and evenutally even out his skin disease), had a few plastic surgeries (the number of which is not up for debate here, so don't go off on this tangent please!) to fix somethings in his appearance he didn't like, lost a little wieght, grews some stubble, and so on...people went off the deep end and were right and left condemning him for EVERYTHING he did. Even going so far as to make up stuff that wasn't true. I honestly have never met or seen anyone, famous or not, so misunderstood and so libelled against. I don't see this happening to Lady Gaga or anyone else, ever, as I've seen it with Michael.

Is it because now this generation is more accepting of personal and artistic freedom? Would Michael's reputation be different if he was an emerging artist from a couple of years ago? Or would people's reactions still be the same?

Interesting discussion.

I think the difference is Lady Gaga is constantly out there publicly claiming her art, where as Michael was very secretive of his plastic surgery and the whole mask look was just when he appeared in public - I don't think Michael ever said he was doing things "for art".

Gaga's "art" and appearance is all obviously there for shock value and the prosthetics are obvious make up - not actually surgery. Still some think she is off her rocker.

I think if Michael was a new artist who had plastic surgery, wore a mask, etc he would be slighted still and painted in a "weirdo" mould a la Marilyn Manson.

For what it is worth, for a period of time before the mask wearing and multiple surgeries, Michael was lauded for his fashion, his glove, his sequins etc. I think it's when his "public" persona got more "eccentric" that the whole weird tag was placed and stuck.

Always loved the richness of Lynch's Teaser for Dangerous.

Swa said:

Always loved the richness of Lynch's Teaser for Dangerous.

It would've been interesting if they had filmed a whole video for it

bboy87 said:

Swa said:

Always loved the richness of Lynch's Teaser for Dangerous.

It would've been interesting if they had filmed a whole video for it

Seeing Lynch do a video with MJ (who he loved from Elephant Man) would have been great.

In Fincher's Who Is It there are obvious nods to Blue Velvet - having some people mistake it as a Lynch video more often than seeing it as one of Fincher's works.