mjscarousal said:

Were saying the same thing Ive been saying this whole time that MJs solo Motown albums have filler on it and are not that strong by themselves but ALL of them compared to Invincible are

ONCE AGAIN, I love Invincible and actually find it to be very underrated although its definitly MJs weakest album. I definitly would have taken off some songs to make it better as well.

Here are my favorite cuts from Invincible

Unbreakable-------I know some may not like this song but I love it and I think it was a good album opener

Break of Dawn---- probably my favorite song on the album.... tooooo sexy for words

Heaven Can Wait

Butterflies

You Rock My World

Speechless

You Are My Life---- I know some folks think this song is corny but I love it, so f^&* it

Whatever Happens

Threatened

but that’s 4 vs 1.
Do not you think it's a little unfair ....
what I was trying to say from the outset that his childs albums for different reasons I rates much lower (lack of creative control, a lot of cover versions, less sophisticated music, the complexity of competition for a child with adult artists albums ... and yes, personal taste is also one of the criteria)
Of course I mean 1 vs 1

For me:

best song
Whatever Happens

good songs
Butterflies
Speechless
Heaven Can Wait
You Rock My World

okay songs
Heartbreaker
Threatened
Break Of Dawn
Don't Walk Away
Cry

-------------------------------

he could stop right here

weak, but cute songs
You Are My Life
The Lost Children

few minutes of hell
Unbreakable
Invincible
Privacy
2,000 Watts

Overall - weak for MJ, decent for someone else

Unbreakable

A Place With No Name (from the snippet we have of this, this sounds beautiful)

Butterflies

Heaven Can Wait

Shout

You Rock My World

Another Day

Whatever Happens

The Lost Children

Slave To the Rhythm

Heartbreaker

Speechless

I Have This Dream (Michael was working HARD on this track and desperatley wanted this released)

thats how i would have tracked invincible,

there are a bunch of invincible outtakes though, so until we have all of those i cant really say what the "perfect" tracklist in my opinion would have been.

LiLi1992 said:

mjscarousal said:

Were saying the same thing Ive been saying this whole time that MJs solo Motown albums have filler on it and are not that strong by themselves but ALL of them compared to Invincible are

ONCE AGAIN, I love Invincible and actually find it to be very underrated although its definitly MJs weakest album. I definitly would have taken off some songs to make it better as well.

Here are my favorite cuts from Invincible

Unbreakable-------I know some may not like this song but I love it and I think it was a good album opener

Break of Dawn---- probably my favorite song on the album.... tooooo sexy for words

Heaven Can Wait

Butterflies

You Rock My World

Speechless

You Are My Life---- I know some folks think this song is corny but I love it, so f^&* it

Whatever Happens

Threatened

but that’s 4 vs 1.
Do not you think it's a little unfair ....
what I was trying to say from the outset that his childs albums for different reasons I rates much lower (lack of creative control, a lot of cover versions, less sophisticated music, the complexity of competition for a child with adult artists albums ... and yes, personal taste is also one of the criteria)
Of course I mean 1 vs 1

For me:

best song
Whatever Happens

good songs
Butterflies
Speechless
Heaven Can Wait
You Rock My World

okay songs
Heartbreaker
Threatened
Break Of Dawn
Don't Walk Away
Cry

-------------------------------

he could stop right here

weak, but cute songs
You Are My Life
The Lost Children

few minutes of hell
Unbreakable
Invincible
Privacy
2,000 Watts

Overall - weak for MJ, decent for someone else

Yea I think its fair because you made a bold statement suggesting that all his solo Motown albums when he was young was weaker than Invincible and I disagree with that.

Once again, we are not talking about all of MJ's albums, we are just solely talking about Invincible. I would even argue on Invincible MJ did not do that much songwriting as he did on previous albums so I think comparing it to his solo motown albums is fair. Regardless, we are comparing the quality of the songs and not whether or not MJ was involved with the production. It still does not change the fact he has alot of classics from those Motown albums compared to Invincible because their stronger.

If you prefer Invincible so be it. Im not bashing Invincible (I think its underrated and I love it to) I just think those Motown albums combined are better than Invincible though.

TheEmperorofFunk said:

If you know already that's not what I was saying then why include it in your response? Now as to everything else you make some valid points but the article wasn't about seeing who was the most popular as i have already said popularity is unmeasurable contrary to your opinion. It was about chart success which is measurable. Sure Attendance is measurable and could be added but then I would have to see average ticket prices and what were the incentives to go (I.E free albums, paraphernalia etc;) and how would that be measured? It starts to become a sticky mess. Chart success is straight forward raw numbers

Incentives? If a person goes to an artist's concert it means just that, they spent their time & money to be there. I'm not trying to offend you but at this point I'm not even sure if you understand what the word "popular" even means...

Also Purple Rain, Graffiti Bridge and Batman are considered Studio Albums that served for the movie. NOT the other way around. Every single one of those albums were released BEFORE the movie came out and are listed as Studio Albums.

Whether album was released before the movie or not (by three days...seriously.) if he hadn't decided to collaborate with Tim Burton there wouldn't have been an album named Batman by P, let's make that clear. And are you saying the success of the movie didn't have any impact on the album sales at all?

Lastly as to the 60% vs the 40%..All I have to say is MJ chose to release 10 solo albums Prince chose to experiment more with music try different things and release everything. to punish or reward artists for efficieny like they are Quarterbacks is senseless. They released what they released. Basically it's like punishing David Bowie because he had X % of Hit albums vs his releases against Adele cuz she went 2/2 with #1 albums.

You don't say!? How are you going to claim Prince was more successful on the charts just because he has more #1 albums than Michael then? Shouldn't you be saying Prince just happens to have more #1 albums because he happens to have released more albums?

Also if you are seriously thinking of adding all the countries the albums went #1 in, how about adding things like, I don't know....how long the albums were number 1 in each country for example? In fact I think you should do that for all the albums that made in top 10! And don't for get to do the same for singles! lol

[Edited 2/17/13 21:17pm]

Emancipation89 said:

TheEmperorofFunk said:

If you know already that's not what I was saying then why include it in your response? Now as to everything else you make some valid points but the article wasn't about seeing who was the most popular as i have already said popularity is unmeasurable contrary to your opinion. It was about chart success which is measurable. Sure Attendance is measurable and could be added but then I would have to see average ticket prices and what were the incentives to go (I.E free albums, paraphernalia etc;) and how would that be measured? It starts to become a sticky mess. Chart success is straight forward raw numbers

Incentives? If a person goes to an artist's concert it means just that, they spent their time & money to be there. I'm not trying to offend you but at this point I'm not even sure if you understand what the word "popular" even means...

Whether album was released before the movie or not (by three days...seriously.) if he hadn't decided to collaborate with Tim Burton there wouldn't have been an album named Batman by P, let's make that clear. And are you saying the success of the movie didn't have any impact on the album sales at all?

Lastly as to the 60% vs the 40%..All I have to say is MJ chose to release 10 solo albums Prince chose to experiment more with music try different things and release everything. to punish or reward artists for efficieny like they are Quarterbacks is senseless. They released what they released. Basically it's like punishing David Bowie because he had X % of Hit albums vs his releases against Adele cuz she went 2/2 with #1 albums.

You don't say!? How are you going to claim Prince was more successful on the charts just because he has more #1 albums than Michael then? Shouldn't you be saying Prince just happens to have more #1 albums because he happens to have released more albums?

Also if you are seriously thinking of adding all the countries the albums went #1 in, how about adding things like, I don't know....how long the albums were number 1 in each country for example? In fact I think you should do that for all the albums that made in top 10! And don't for get to do the same for singles! lol

[Edited 2/17/13 21:17pm]

I really tried to keep it to a professional/respectful level but it appears you chose sarcasm and rudeness. that's fine. Thank you for your input.

TheEmperorofFunk said:

Emancipation89 said:

You don't say!? How are you going to claim Prince was more successful on the charts just because he has more #1 albums than Michael then? Shouldn't you be saying Prince just happens to have more #1 albums because he happens to have released more albums?

Also if you are seriously thinking of adding all the countries the albums went #1 in, how about adding things like, I don't know....how long the albums were number 1 in each country for example? In fact I think you should do that for all the albums that made in top 10! And don't for get to do the same for singles! lol

[Edited 2/17/13 21:17pm]

I really tried to keep it to a professional/respectful level but it appears you chose sarcasm and rudeness. that's fine. Thank you for your input.

I'm sorry if my comments hurt your feelings but I don't think your blog post or all the "research" you did, or little things you threw in here and there was all that professional or respectful. Clearly from the beginning of your article you showed your frustration towards "Jacko Fanatics".

Also just want to be clear that I actually meant what I said in the last paragraph, I really wanted you to do more research. I don't agree with a lot of things you said but more than that it really confuses me what the purpose of your "research" was, and why you didn't put more effort to find further information, etc.

Emancipation89 said:

TheEmperorofFunk said:

I really tried to keep it to a professional/respectful level but it appears you chose sarcasm and rudeness. that's fine. Thank you for your input.

I'm sorry if my comments hurt your feelings but I don't think your blog post or all the "research" you did, or little things you threw in here and there was all that professional or respectful. Clearly from the beginning of your article you showed your frustration towards "Jacko Fanatics".

Also just want to be clear that I actually meant what I said in the last paragraph, I really wanted you to do more research. I don't agree with a lot of things you said but more than that it really confuses me what the purpose of your "research" was, and why you didn't put more effort to find further information, etc.

lol no feelings hurt here bud. It's simply that when you try to keep it respectful to others you expect it back from them is all. If you read what I wrote I had said that it was a work in progress and that posting to this thread was to get more ideas to add. when you brought up some of your ideas like concert attendance I felt that they were unmeasurable due to cost of tickets, incentives, etc. you chose to get hung up with the incentives part but ignored ticket cost. Cost was my major issue because I would have to do an in depth study on ticket sales to use the attendance as a tool. For instance, Prince's concert that took place at MSG in 2010 in to 2011 as part of his Welcome 2 tour was $25 a ticket. That's very cheap. casual or even non fans would buy a ticket for kicks at that price. That surely would have to be weighed differently against an MJ tour, that for example, sold out for an average of 250 per ticket. Do you see how this becomes a rather unmeasurable mess when crossing over attendance with ticket prices? Like I said to a previous poster, Weeks on the charts both albums and singles will be added and how many countries they were number 1 in will be added. If you dont think its fair you are more than welcome to write your own blog/article. Lastly I'm not going to keep going over the fact that those albums are studio albums. You got hung up once again with one thing out of many things which was that batman was released 3 days before. while the other 2 albums were released over a month before. But fortunately, none of that matters because soundtracks are not released even 1 hour before a movie comes out, they are always released after. so I don't see your 3 day comment to be relevant. Also as I have said numerous times before they are all listed as Studio albums that served for the movie not the other way around (you can look this up). Whether the movie gave the album more success or not is irrelevant. Did MJ not use promotional tools that gave his albums more success? Moonwalkers wasn't a promotional movie? Should I make a note of it when I list BAD as a #1 album? Should I make note of the thriller music video for the album Thriller? I find it funny that you want me too talk about the movies aiding the success of Prince's albums when in fact, MJ did so many more promotional videos, commercials etc in his career to aid in the success in all his albums. Anyways as I have said If you feel it is important to list all of the things I find to be either unmeasurable or irrelevent, the great thing about the internet is you can write about what you want. I'd also be interested to read it when you're done and I mean that sincerely. have a great night.

TheEmperorofFunk said:

Emancipation89 said:

I'm sorry if my comments hurt your feelings but I don't think your blog post or all the "research" you did, or little things you threw in here and there was all that professional or respectful. Clearly from the beginning of your article you showed your frustration towards "Jacko Fanatics".

Also just want to be clear that I actually meant what I said in the last paragraph, I really wanted you to do more research. I don't agree with a lot of things you said but more than that it really confuses me what the purpose of your "research" was, and why you didn't put more effort to find further information, etc.

lol no feelings hurt here bud. It's simply that when you try to keep it respectful to others you expect it back from them is all. If you read what I wrote I had said that it was a work in progress and that posting to this thread was to get more ideas to add. when you brought up some of your ideas like concert attendance I felt that they were unmeasurable due to cost of tickets, incentives, etc. you chose to get hung up with the incentives part but ignored ticket cost. Cost was my major issue because I would have to do an in depth study on ticket sales to use the attendance as a tool. For instance, Prince's concert that took place at MSG in 2010 in to 2011 as part of his Welcome 2 tour was $25 a ticket. That's very cheap. casual or even non fans would buy a ticket for kicks at that price. That surely would have to be weighed differently against an MJ tour, that for example, sold out for an average of 250 per ticket. Do you see how this becomes a rather unmeasurable mess when crossing over attendance with ticket prices? Like I said to a previous poster, Weeks on the charts both albums and singles will be added and how many countries they were number 1 in will be added. If you dont think its fair you are more than welcome to write your own blog/article. Lastly I'm not going to keep going over the fact that those albums are studio albums. You got hung up once again with one thing out of many things which was that batman was released 3 days before. while the other 2 albums were released over a month before. But fortunately, none of that matters because soundtracks are not released even 1 hour before a movie comes out, they are always released after. so I don't see your 3 day comment to be relevant. Also as I have said numerous times before they are all listed as Studio albums that served for the movie not the other way around (you can look this up). Whether the movie gave the album more success or not is irrelevant. Did MJ not use promotional tools that gave his albums more success? Moonwalkers wasn't a promotional movie? Should I make a note of it when I list BAD as a #1 album? Should I make note of the thriller music video for the album Thriller? I find it funny that you want me too talk about the movies aiding the success of Prince's albums when in fact, MJ did so many more promotional videos, commercials etc in his career to aid in the success in all his albums. Anyways as I have said If you feel it is important to list all of the things I find to be either unmeasurable or irrelevent, the great thing about the internet is you can write about what you want. I'd also be interested to read it when you're done and I mean that sincerely. have a great night.

When I said concert prices I wasn't even talking about his W2A tours. How about simply comparing the ticket prices and attendance and the size of the stadiums, how many different places they performed before 2009? (And btw if I remember correctly '21 nights in LA' had options of $25 tickets, not 2010 W2A shows.) I'm not saying it's not fair, I'm simply saying you don't understand what Popular means because when it comes to these two artists, unless you're in complete denial of reality it really is measurable. But if you want to focus on charts that's fine too.

And please re-read what I said. When did I ever say you should acknowledge the fact that Batman movie helped the sales for the album in your article? I've mentioned this only because you constantly claimed that these albums were Studio albums that served for the movies which is a very confusing statement to me. Again it was Tim Burton who approached Prince not the other way around. The movie Batman was it's own project, not a movie made to promote Prince's album. All these Prince's and MJ's music videos and yes, even Moonwalker was PART OF the albums' project.

It's because you seemed as if you were genuinely interested in finding out who was more successful on the charts I bothered to have been giving my feedback. But at this point it's clear you you are rather upset about what I pointed out in your post which is lack of research and focus than anything. But hey it was you who posted your article here wasn't it? Like I said I wanted you to do more research but if you don't want to that's totally fine with me. I don't think I'll ever spend time to read your blog posts again but it was a fun discussion. You too have a good night.

[Edited 2/17/13 23:55pm]

I remember after seeing his clothes & some belonggings in an exhibition, as I walked out 'One Day in Your Life' started playing... Michael & me love those lovey dovey ballads. Why oh why didn't he ever perform it in later years? It was a big hit, my mother had it on vinyl

His voice here, so great. One of my favourites.

I did this drawing of beloved Michael a couple of months ago.

[Edited 2/18/13 4:11am]

^ I love One Day In Your Life... such a touching song. I wish Michael performed some of his earlier solo material as well. Nice drawing by the way!

Awesome drawing! Reminds me of his studio 54 days! Like he's going to come to life in that powder blue suit, and get groovy!

I love that One Day In Your Life performance. I don't understand why Entertainment Tonight was putting it down years ago and saying it wouldn't have worked for American Idol...where everyone scream-sings! You can clearly hear him being influenced by Karen Carpenter and Barbara Streisand here vocally.

MJ's Facebook says currently says 'Climb on board and check back in 3 days for big news!', with a pretty random picture (not of MJ).

Anyone have any guesses as to what this is?? New album??

Prince Michael Jackson Named 'Entertainment Tonight' Correspondent

The 16-year-old son of the late pop singer makes his reporting debut on the syndicated show, first covering the junket for "Oz the Great and Powerful."

ET

In a bit of unexpected TV staffing news, Entertainment Tonight announced Monday that it has made Prince Michael Jackson an on-air correspondent.

Just 16 years old, the eldest child of the late pop star started his new life as a member of the Fourth Estate over the weekend at the Pasadena junket for Disney'sOz the Great and Powerful.

"I'm looking to become well-rounded as a producer, director, screenwriter and actor," Jackson tells ET's Brooke Anderson in the first footage from his gig, airing during Monday's program.

Jackson's duties at the Oz junket included interviewing director Sam Raimi and actorsJames Franco and Zach Braff. He asked the trio for advice on how to get started in the entertainment business.

His status as a minor means that Jackson's appearances on ET will likely be few and far between, but the show's announcement promised his Oz reporting will be featured throughout the week.

Watch the video below:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/prince-michael-jackson-named-entertainment-422204

Ahhh, Prince Michael! I don't know if his Dad would approve but I think he'd be proud. Prince Michael was complimented on his demeanor and he accredited it to his Dad and his very good up bringing. Good for him acknowledging his Dad as so few teens do these days. I thought he appeared very poised!

NaughtyKitty said:

Prince Michael Jackson Named 'Entertainment Tonight' Correspondent

3:57 PM PST 2/18/2013 by Michael O'Connell

The 16-year-old son of the late pop singer makes his reporting debut on the syndicated show, first covering the junket for "Oz the Great and Powerful."

ET

In a bit of unexpected TV staffing news, Entertainment Tonight announced Monday that it has made Prince Michael Jackson an on-air correspondent.

Just 16 years old, the eldest child of the late pop star started his new life as a member of the Fourth Estate over the weekend at the Pasadena junket for Disney'sOz the Great and Powerful.

"I'm looking to become well-rounded as a producer, director, screenwriter and actor," Jackson tells ET's Brooke Anderson in the first footage from his gig, airing during Monday's program.

Jackson's duties at the Oz junket included interviewing director Sam Raimi and actorsJames Franco and Zach Braff. He asked the trio for advice on how to get started in the entertainment business.

His status as a minor means that Jackson's appearances on ET will likely be few and far between, but the show's announcement promised his Oz reporting will be featured throughout the week.

Watch the video below:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/prince-michael-jackson-named-entertainment-422204

Good for him. I'm just glad Prince Michael is part of something legit. It was depressing seeing him, Paris and Blanket being associated with the most random z-list ventures.

With this gig, he at least gets nice harmless exposure which can then lead to other respectable things for him.

i'm sorry but i can't even look at that kid without wondering who the donor is. he doesn't look a thing like michael jackson. it's really distracting

mookie said:

Good for him. I'm just glad Prince Michael is part of something legit. It was depressing seeing him, Paris and Blanket being associated with the most random z-list ventures.

With this gig, he at least gets nice harmless exposure which can then lead to other respectable things for him.

i don't know. i think it's depressing that he's working with people who took delight in taking down his father. i haven't seen et in years and years, but i wouldn't characterize it as 'respectable'.

I don't know what to think of that Prince's new job. We don't have E, so I don't know how they work, but I can tell from the youtube clips, they were not good to MJ, but who has been? If his kids were about to avoid everyone who disrespected their dad, they might not be able to meet anyone. On the other hand I can understand that a person should have some dignity and not do certain things. Anyway, I guess I'll have to wait and see how it goes. I can imagine him being all serious with this so it might turn out actually well giving him credit he deserves.

dag said:

I don't know what to think of that Prince's new job. We don't have E, so I don't know how they work, but I can tell from the youtube clips, they were not good to MJ, but who has been? If his kids were about to avoid everyone who disrespected their dad, they might not be able to meet anyone. On the other hand I can understand that a person should have some dignity and not do certain things. Anyway, I guess I'll have to wait and see how it goes. I can imagine him being all serious with this so it might turn out actually well giving him credit he deserves.

I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think the kids know how much MJ was bullied by the tabloids... Isnt this the same show that Diane Dimond was on (or whatever her name is lol) that was saying all those awful stuff about MJ? It seems he is pretty serious about it, so I hope that it will go well for him. I hope someone uploads it on youtube lol....

starfishgirl said:

i'm sorry but i can't even look at that kid without wondering who the donor is. he doesn't look a thing like michael jackson. it's really distracting

He has Michael's mannerisms & hairstyle also very well spoken...That is really all he needs ...I don't understand what is going on with his sister Paris, who was growing into a very beautiful young women. Now she has adapted this Pat Benatar rocker look...

I've always said the quiet one is the one that is going to be huge & that is "Blanket"...

GoldDolphin said:

dag said:

I don't know what to think of that Prince's new job. We don't have E, so I don't know how they work, but I can tell from the youtube clips, they were not good to MJ, but who has been? If his kids were about to avoid everyone who disrespected their dad, they might not be able to meet anyone. On the other hand I can understand that a person should have some dignity and not do certain things. Anyway, I guess I'll have to wait and see how it goes. I can imagine him being all serious with this so it might turn out actually well giving him credit he deserves.

I agree with what you are saying, but I don't think the kids know how much MJ was bullied by the tabloids... Isnt this the same show that Diane Dimond was on (or whatever her name is lol) that was saying all those awful stuff about MJ? It seems he is pretty serious about it, so I hope that it will go well for him. I hope someone uploads it on youtube lol....

Yeah, I also think he's got better things to do in life than to dig dirt on everyone on the internet. I think he will learn his lessons as he gets exposed to things and gets experience. I have already seen the short preview of it and I am starting to feel better about it. If he asks intelligent questions and handles it well (which I can imagine him to do), it will be good for him. I am rooting for him. I hope it does. I really like him a lot.

As for Paris, let her be a teenager now. Actually I think she has learnt her lesson a bit. She's not as much on the internet anymore.

The reviews are good so far. Let's be optimistic. (Taken from KOP board)

How Michael Jackson's son landed an 'Entertainment Tonight' job






By Amy Kaufman
February 18, 2013, 5:40 p.m.


Since their heart-wrenching appearance at Michael Jackson’s funeral in 2009, the King of Pop’s three children have largely remained out of the media glare.

Now, almost four years later, one of the music icon’s sons has decided to step into the spotlight. Prince Michael Jackson, 16 — older brother to Paris, 14, and Blanket, 10 — has signed on to be a guest correspondent for the daily celebrity news show “Entertainment Tonight.” His first assignment, interviewing the director and stars of the upcoming film “Oz: The Great and Powerful,” will air in segments on the program throughout the remainder of the week.


Jackson got the gig in part due to Brooke Anderson, one of “ET’s” correspondents. The television host said she and the teenager shared a “mutual connection,” and she has been itching to do something with Jackson since she met him.

“I thought him interviewing people from ‘Oz’ would be great because his dad was in ‘The Wiz,’ he’s a fan of ‘The Wizard of Oz’ and he wants to get into producing and directing,” Anderson said in a phone interview Monday evening. The timing also worked out well for the high school student, who did filming over the long holiday weekend when classes were not in session.

To help him prepare for the joint interview with director Sam Raimi and actors James Franco and Zach Braff, Anderson said she sat with Jackson and went over potential questions. She also gave him some tips on how to stay relaxed in front of the camera and even did some push-ups with him to eliminate any tension.

“He really did not need that much coaching. This may sound strange because he’s 16, but he was very smooth and confident,” Anderson said.

During the interview, Anderson said all three of the stars were aware of who Jackson was but did not turn the tables and ask him about his father.

“Zach said, ‘Is this really your first interview?’ ” Anderson recalled. “He created a really great energy, and they were all surprised by how knowledgeable he was about the film industry. He knew technical 3-D terms that I had no idea about."

Though Jackson does not yet have a permanent gig with "Entertainment Tonight," Anderson is hopeful he'll return on a "case-by-case" basis for kid-themed show business events, like the upcoming Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards.

"The fact that he's the King of Pop's son may crack the door open for him, but he has a wisdom about him," she said. "He said, 'I owe that all to my dad.' "
A clip promoting Jackson's appearance follows.

http://www.latimes.c...0,3442153.story

[Edited 2/19/13 8:30am]

KCOOLMUZIQ said:

starfishgirl said:

i'm sorry but i can't even look at that kid without wondering who the donor is. he doesn't look a thing like michael jackson. it's really distracting

He has Michael's mannerisms & hairstyle also very well spoken...That is really all he needs ...I don't understand what is going on with his sister Paris, who was growing into a very beautiful young women. Now she has adapted this Pat Benatar rocker look...

I've always said the quiet one is the one that is going to be huge & that is "Blanket"...

Yes I agree. I think that if anyone of those kids will be famous or has talent in music or dance it will be Blanket (he has rhythm and everyone keeps saying he's a good dancer), I think Prince Michael will be a great producer/director though, it seems he has the drive for it.

I'm sure he could dance, but it's not going to be anything special like his dad and just like any other kid messing around. Besides, why should they want to be like him when they could just be themselves? MJ was who he was and so are they

He seems to really be into his karate thing though, maybe he'll teach that in the future, or if he wants to incorporate it with acting, train actors in it that require it for their roles.

dag said:

The reviews are good so far. Let's be optimistic. (Taken from KOP board)

How Michael Jackson's son landed an 'Entertainment Tonight' job






By Amy Kaufman
February 18, 2013, 5:40 p.m.


Since their heart-wrenching appearance at Michael Jackson’s funeral in 2009, the King of Pop’s three children have largely remained out of the media glare.

Now, almost four years later, one of the music icon’s sons has decided to step into the spotlight. Prince Michael Jackson, 16 — older brother to Paris, 14, and Blanket, 10 — has signed on to be a guest correspondent for the daily celebrity news show “Entertainment Tonight.” His first assignment, interviewing the director and stars of the upcoming film “Oz: The Great and Powerful,” will air in segments on the program throughout the remainder of the week.


Jackson got the gig in part due to Brooke Anderson, one of “ET’s” correspondents. The television host said she and the teenager shared a “mutual connection,” and she has been itching to do something with Jackson since she met him.



http://www.latimes.c...0,3442153.story

[Edited 2/19/13 8:30am]

Interesting.

Does Paris still want to be an actress? Or a poser punk child?

I honestly thought she was going to end up on the Disney channel like Selena Gomez or Hannah Montana, but I didn't want her to get it cause of her name either, and also feel a Jackson has to do something outside the box! And I don't mean that Z list movie with Larry King she was supposed to do.