New topic
PrintableUnfortunately for the fans who want to stay in the space of fantasy and how artists bring us joy, the times are coming forth now where we will be confronted and challenged with the failings of artists we have held on pedestals and felt they are infallible and perfect in every way, incapable of malignant tendencies. We live in an expository time where a lot of illusions about the beloved public figures we hold in sacred regard are going to be shattered. It is what it is. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
I see no point in this, other than money. There is no justice if he is no longer living. He cannot defend himself, and he also cannot be punished. I am pretty sure this is the same reason it was thrown out of court. We do know that while he was alive, he fought against every accusation and won. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Very true. As fans we tend to put celebrities on pedestals, making gods and idols out of them, when in fact, they're human with human flaws, just like everyone else.....they are not perfect! A lot of people in the entertainment field are being exposed for their evil deeds, and the time seems to be at the point now where "the chickens are coming home to roost"...as the saying goes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
oceanblue said:
Very true. As fans we tend to put celebrities on pedestals, making gods and idols out of them, when in fact, they're human with human flaws, just like everyone else.....they are not perfect! A lot of people in the entertainment field are being exposed for their evil deeds, and the time seems to be at the point now where "the chickens are coming home to roost"...as the saying goes. Prince(r.i.p.) has NEVER been in ANY scandal & never will be. "That mountain top situation is not really what it's all cracked up 2 B when  was doing the Purple Rain tour had a lot of people who knew 'll never c again @ the concerts.just screamin n places they thought they was suppose 2 scream." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Please, Prince (r.i.p.) whole lifestyle was a scandal, it's just was fortunate for him that people weren't calling him out for it during that time, like they are now. Face it, dude even made a song called Scandelous! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
oceanblue said:
Please, Prince (r.i.p.) whole lifestyle was a scandal, it's just was fortunate for him that people weren't calling him out for it during that time, like they are now. Face it, dude even made a song called Scandelous! He once wrote the lyrics "My claim to fame is scandal". He knew what he was doing. That's why I like him. He was salacious and made no apologies for it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
EmmaMcG said: oceanblue said:
Please, Prince (r.i.p.) whole lifestyle was a scandal, it's just was fortunate for him that people weren't calling him out for it during that time, like they are now. Face it, dude even made a song called Scandelous! He once wrote the lyrics "My claim to fame is scandal". He knew what he was doing. That's why I like him. He was salacious and made no apologies for it. Prince(r.i.p.) was like a mischievous teenager. That’s WAY different than comparing him to what other artist controversial actions have taken them. "That mountain top situation is not really what it's all cracked up 2 B when was doing the Purple Rain tour had a lot of people who knew 'll never c again @ the concerts.just screamin n places they thought they was suppose 2 scream." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ottensen said: Unfortunately for the fans who want to stay in the space of fantasy and how artists bring us joy, the times are coming forth now where we will be confronted and challenged with the failings of artists we have held on pedestals and felt they are infallible and perfect in every way, incapable of malignant tendencies. We live in an expository time where a lot of illusions about the beloved public figures we hold in sacred regard are going to be shattered. It is what it is. You're free to believe what you want but there's more proof of the man's innocence than any crime he supposedly committed. Until something legit turns up besides baseless claims then we shouldn't be so intent on putting this man in the same class as proven pedophiles and sex offenders (i.e. Roman Polanski, R. Kelly, Harvey Weinstein, etc.). | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Both Robson and Jimmy denied having been molested to the authorities. Now that he is dead and cannot defend himself they suddenly realize they had their bootyholes smelled. Sounds fishy to me. And, most of all, sounds like an act of cowardice. Also, Stacy Brown is behind their shady asses and that alone is enough for me to be reticent. Are you honestly telling me Wade had no idea he had been molested in 2005, when he testified? He didn't know it was molestation? Really? And then Safechuck appears out of nowhere with a story seemingly scripted by the same old suspects. I'm not buying it. The only accusation that I sort of would believe is the one in 93. But then again, a molester doesn't molest only 1 child during his lifetime and that is the only credible allegation. And don't get me started on Gavin. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
The Colors R brighter, the Bond is much tighter
No Child's a failure Until the Blue Sailboat sails him away from his dreams Don't Ever Lose, Don't Ever Lose Don't Ever Lose Your Dreams | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Paisley Park is in your heart
#PrinceForever 💜 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
at least it’s not breaking news or entertainment tonight news at this point, and just like wade robson to turn certain things into something sinister(like the faxes) I hope this gets pulled from hbo and channel 5 the way that show about his corpse did | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
“Michael would like it if you would bend over…”
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I don’t feel that like there is anything I need to say to them except that I understand that it is really hard or them to believe,” Robson said in the short Q&A in response a question of what he would say to Jackson fans who doubt the truth of his story and Leaving Neverland. “Even though it happened to me I still couldn’t believe it and I couldn’t believe that what Michael did was a bad thing, so I understand, “ he added to approval from the crowd.“We can only understand and accept something when we are ready,” Robson concluded.“What happened, happened,” said Robson Friday in Park City also of the now dead Jackson’s conduct and the subsequent unsuccessful lawsuit he launched a few years back. Robson noted that he hopes Reed’s film “helps other survivors feel less isolated” and raises awareness “to stop this from happening” to other children.Robson and Safechuck have claimed they were sexually abused by Jackson years and years ago when they were ages 7 and 10. Over a decade ago, Robson said under oath that Jackson never acted inappropriately with him but his much more recent lawsuit asserts that the performer was a serial sexual predator who assaulted him repeatedly for years.Nick Ashford was someone I greatly admired, had the honor of knowing, and was the real-life inspiration for Cowboy Curtis' hair. RIP Nick. - Pee Wee Herman | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
“Michael would like it if you would bend over…”
| |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Two men accuse Michael Jackson of years of sexual molestation in an HBO documentary series that shows why sometimes it takes four hours, many years and some missteps to finally tell your truth. Dan Reed's two-part documentary Leaving Neverland is a perilously complicated project to review. One thing I know for sure is that it is not in my purview as pop culture critic to pass judgment on how and where and when victims of abuse decide to tell their stories. That makes it hard to evaluate a four-hour series, targeted to air this spring on HBO and Channel 4 in the UK, that has been structured almost entirely as a pair of side-by-side interviews in which Wade Robson and James Safechuck accuse Michael Jackson of years of sexual molestation in the most detailed and graphic of terms. They're incredibly persuasive, but I don't want to review them. It happens that beneath these two harrowing narratives, Reed's film is also a complicated story precisely about the challenges of reviewing the film and reviewing Robson and Safechuck's filmed testimonials. The documentary doesn't shy from the fact that Robson was suing the Jackson estate as recently as four years ago, nor from the fact that both men told authorities and/or swore under oath on multiple occasions that Jackson didn't molest them. What it illustrates, and in this respect it's the film (and not just the accusers) that registers as persuasive, is that a thing that might be easy for an observer to evaluate from the outside isn't so black and white when it's your story. Leaving Neverland is, ultimately, nearly as much about the 20+ years during which Robson and Safechuck held onto secrets or even lied and covered up the truth — and the damage that can do — as it is about the alleged crimes themselves. Leaving Neverland is the story of two accusers and two families, where they overlap and where they diverge. Much of both stories is part of the public record. Safechuck appeared in one of Jackson's famous Pepsi commercials and went on tour with Jackson as a featured child dancer. Robson won a Michael Jackson impersonation dancing contest in Australia and shared stage time with his idol. Both can be seen with Jackson in countless pictures from locations ranging from backstage at shows to events at Jackson's famed Neverland Ranch. What you can't see is the alleged abuse that Robson says began when he was seven and that Safechuck says started when he was 10 — startlingly similar stories that begin with the sharing of a bed and progress to masturbation and other sexual acts that followed from extended periods of grooming and manipulation perpetrated by one of the most famous men in the world against two children whose ability to consent or not is irrelevant. In both cases, Robson and Safechuck were accompanied by mothers who were somehow able to ignore that their children were spending an inordinate amount of time with a grown man, time that was often spent in bed or behind closed or locked doors. And in both cases, Robson and Safechuck felt they were usurped as Jackson's "favorite" by another young boy (which both "replacements" deny). Both thought they moved on. Both were wrong. From their gerundive titles to the coincidental collaboration on the hit song "You Are Not Alone," it's tempting to compare Leaving Neverland to A&E's Surviving R. Kelly, though they take almost opposite approaches. In Surviving R. Kelly, since there's still a chance some measure of justice can be done, the filmmakers bury viewers under a mountain of accusations and evidence, bringing in accusers, authorities, investigative journalists and figures who were part of R. Kelly's sphere on all levels. Reed doesn't do that. Even though depositions from the earlier Jackson accusers included corroborating statements from Neverland employees and other people with variably tangible suspicions and levels of certitude, Reed restricts his interviews to the tightest of inner circles. For Robson, it's mostly his mother and sister, both brought over from Australia once Wade attracted Jackson's attentions and both strong advocates for Jackson against those earlier accusations. For Safechuck, it's a mother who came to view Jackson as almost a son. Reed knows that Leaving Neverland isn't going to "win." Jackson is dead. His supporters remain fanatical. What Reed wants to do is give Robson and Safechuck a safe place to share their experience as they want to and if that required four hours of screen time, so be it. Leaving Neverland feels long and one could argue a tighter two-hour film would have been equally effective. It just might not have reflected the truth they want to tell. Reed mostly knows to keep the camera on his main subjects, but he isn't always sure what to cut away to. For a while, the soaring drone shots over idyllic California or Australian suburbs, accompanied by Chad Hobson's John Williams-channeling score, gives a Spielbergian flavor, a nod to either Jackson's promise to help both of his alleged victims with filmmaking careers of their own or to how this story is a perverse and tragic play on either E.T. or Peter Pan. Eventually, it just feels like a use of drones because those cheaply produced overhead shots have become a scourge of recent documentary visual grammar. Reed's on better footing when he accompanies Robson and Safechuck's memories with available footage from Neverland and other Jackson properties. If you wonder why they wouldn't have told their parents at the time, why they might have been willing to stand by Jackson in his moment of need, why they might both have grieved Jackson upon his death, Leaving Neverland is much about that as it is about whether or not Jackson was a serial abuser of young men. It's all complicated and heartbreaking and just as their perspectives aren't the same today (both are relatively new fathers) as when they were pre-teens or in their twenties, it's doubtful you'll feel exactly the same after watching four hours of Leaving Neverland — whether you came in having already shredded your Thriller albums or prepared to picket a Sundance premiere to protect Jackson's memory. Venue: Sundance Film Festival (Documentary Premieres) Distributor: HBO Director, Producer, Cinematographer: Dan Reed Editor: Jules Cornell Executive Producers: Nancy Abraham, Lisa Heller, Tom Porter Composer: Chad Hobson Running Time: 236 Minutes https://www.hollywoodrepo...ew-1179355 | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I will always love Mike and I hope to god nothing ever happened and I tend to think nothing happened but I'm glad people are coming out. I'd like the truth one way or the other to come out. One very suspicious thing is, with all the thousands of kids that have been near Michael, why only a few have claimed he did anything, they say pedophiles are promiscuous, yet, we only have a few people that I know of who claim michael did anything. If Michael did anything, I'd still have love for him, that might sound crazy but I can't just not see all the good he did because of the bad. He did alot of good for a lot of people that he didn't have to do, and truth be told, had he just kept to himself, kept his wealth to himself and shut himself off from the world, a little more like Prince did, none of these people would even have had the opportunity to do this shit.
We're just humans, i had a buddy who raped someone underage, I never saw it coming, never, out of all the people I knew, i'd have never thought he'd do that. I hope that he can get out and live out life in a better way than he did. I'm not gonna throw anyone away that I was like family to at any point because of some heinous mistakes they made but I'm unusual, never did anything like that but always been an outcast so my sense of judgment might be different. I'll be watching this docu as soon as I can. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Michael Jackson Estate Addresses Controversial ‘Leaving Neverland’ Doc
https://variety.com/2019/...ssion=true The Michael Jackson estate has issued a statement on the film “Leaving Neverland,” which premiered at Sundance on Friday morning (Jan. 25). The documentary was screened at Park City, Utah’s Egyptian Theater. The Estate issued its statement about 12 hours after the film debuted, taking issue with what it calls “the kind of tabloid character assassination Michael Jackson endured in life, and now in death.” Dan Reed’s film follows two accusers, Wade Robson and James Safechuck, as they describe intense and graphic acts they say Jackson committed against them, as well those they say the pop icon coached them to commit on him. Robson met Jackson through a dance competition at age 5, and alleges the sexual abuse began when he was 7. Safechuck was cast in a Pepsi commercial starring Jackson around age 8, and the alleged abuse began after months of close friendship. Jackson consistently and wholly denied any wrongdoing when alive, saying he would never hurt a child. As an adult, Robson was one of Jackson’s staunchest defenders, along with the likes of Macauley Culkin and Corey Feldman. Jackson died in June 2009. Read the Estate’s statement in its entirety below: “Leaving Neverland” isn’t a documentary, it is the kind of tabloid character assassination Michael Jackson endured in life, and now in death. The film takes uncorroborated allegations that supposedly happened 20 years ago and treats them as fact. These claims were the basis of lawsuits filed by these two admitted liars which were ultimately dismissed by a judge. The two accusers testified under oath that these events never occurred. They have provided no independent evidence and absolutely no proof in support of their accusations, which means the entire film hinges solely on the word of two perjurers. Tellingly, the director admitted at the Sundance Film Festival that he limited his interviews only to these accusers and their families. In doing so, he intentionally avoided interviewing numerous people over the years who spent significant time with Michael Jackson and have unambiguously stated that he treated children with respect and did nothing hurtful to them. By choosing not to include any of these independent voices who might challenge the narrative that he was determined to sell, the director neglected fact checking so he could craft a narrative so blatantly one-sided that viewers never get anything close to a balanced portrait. For 20 years, Wade Robson denied in court and in numerous interviews, including after Michael passed, that he was a victim and stated he was grateful for everything Michael had done for him. His family benefitted from Michael’s kindness, generosity and career support up until Michael’s death. Conveniently left out of Leaving Neverland was the fact that when Robson was denied a role in a Michael Jackson themed Cirque du Soleil production, his assault allegations suddenly emerged. We are extremely sympathetic to any legitimate victim of child abuse. This film, however, does those victims a disservice. Because despite all the disingenuous denials made that this is not about money, it has always been about money – millions of dollars — dating back to 2013 when both Wade Robson and James Safechuck, who share the same law firm, launched their unsuccessful claims against Michael’s Estate. Now that Michael is no longer here to defend himself, Robson, Safechuck and their lawyers continue their efforts to achieve notoriety and a payday by smearing him with the same allegations a jury found him innocent of when he was alive. – The Estate of Michael Jackson [Edited 1/26/19 2:39am] [Edited 1/26/19 2:41am] Keep Calm & Listen To Prince | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
People are walking away crying and stunned from the Sundance screening. The accusations are riveting. "That mountain top situation is not really what it's all cracked up 2 B when was doing the Purple Rain tour had a lot of people who knew 'll never c again @ the concerts.just screamin n places they thought they was suppose 2 scream." |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Okay, here's ,my 2 cents. I don't believe that Michael touched any child that was ever with him on Neverland and I will always say that he was innocent.
But there are some things I found out that I found a little bit strange and one of those things was that I read an article and the police said they found videos of nudist families and that there are naked kids in it too. They couldn't use this as evidence in the courtroom because this is not child porn. ( I get that, yeah ). But I (and mind you I'm a fan) thought: "Well what IF Mike was actually a predator and he knew that this isn't labeled child porn, then he also would've known that if they ever bring this case to a courtroom, they can't use this.
Now my question is, why didn't they allow this in that case? I mean, they claimed he molested children and here you have videos, not exactly child porn, but there are still naked children in it. They could've asked him about it. Again he wouldn't have thought that they would bring this up, so IF he really would've done anything wrong, they probably would've caught him off guard with that question, I don't doubt that for a second.
And then these photos from children ( I don't believe that they actually found pictures of naked kids tho ). But I saw a video from the police of a "secret" room and there was a picture of macauly culkin and if I remember correctly, he only wore underwear. Now that is strange also. Why on earth would he have pictures of other peoples kids in his house? That doesn't make sense to me. Did they ask him about that? I'm not talking about pictures whit him and the kids, the kids are alone in these pictures.
I try to explain why this is so strange to me: Just imagine your neighbours kids, okay? You see 'em on a daily basis, they like you, you like them, normal stuff. But let's pretend you want to take their picture and have them in your house......pictures of other people's kids. If a normal person would ask their neighbour if they could have photo of their kids in their house, what would the neighbour think? If your neighbour would like to have pictures of your kids in his house? What would you think?
These are the only two things I would like to have an explanation, but I won't get it, because the only person who could answer is dead.
Now the reason why I still believe that he is innocent is, like Pete said, it's always the same two guys who claim that shit, and there were MANY kids on Neverland. If Mike had done these things, there would be way more accusations, but there aren't. And it's obvious that the two man who claim that shit, only want to get some money and if there's such things as heaven and hell, we all know who's in heaven and who's gonna burn in hell. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
ThatWhiteDude said: Okay, here's ,my 2 cents. I don't believe that Michael touched any child that was ever with him on Neverland and I will always say that he was innocent.
But there are some things I found out that I found a little bit strange and one of those things was that I read an article and the police said they found videos of nudist families and that there are naked kids in it too. They couldn't use this as evidence in the courtroom because this is not child porn. ( I get that, yeah ). But I (and mind you I'm a fan) thought: "Well what IF Mike was actually a predator and he knew that this isn't labeled child porn, then he also would've known that if they ever bring this case to a courtroom, they can't use this.
Now my question is, why didn't they allow this in that case? I mean, they claimed he molested children and here you have videos, not exactly child porn, but there are still naked children in it. They could've asked him about it. Again he wouldn't have thought that they would bring this up, so IF he really would've done anything wrong, they probably would've caught him off guard with that question, I don't doubt that for a second.
And then these photos from children ( I don't believe that they actually found pictures of naked kids tho ). But I saw a video from the police of a "secret" room and there was a picture of macauly culkin and if I remember correctly, he only wore underwear. Now that is strange also. Why on earth would he have pictures of other peoples kids in his house? That doesn't make sense to me. Did they ask him about that? I'm not talking about pictures whit him and the kids, the kids are alone in these pictures.
I try to explain why this is so strange to me: Just imagine your neighbours kids, okay? You see 'em on a daily basis, they like you, you like them, normal stuff. But let's pretend you want to take their picture and have them in your house.....pictures of other people's kids. If a normal person would ask their neighbour if they could have photo of their kids in their house, what would the neighbour think? If your neighbour would like to have pictures of your kids in his house? What would you think?
These are the only two things I would like to have an explanation, but I won't get it, because the only person who could answer is dead.
Now the reason why I still believe that he is innocent is, like Pete said, it's always the same two guys who claim that shit, and there were MANY kids on Neverland. If Mike had done these things, there would be way more accusations, but there aren't. And it's obvious that the two man who claim that shit, only want to get some money and if there's such things as heaven and hell, we all know who's in heaven and who's gonna burn in hell. The fact is there were never any videos found of any nude kids. You can bet that dog Tom Sneddon would have used that to convict Michael. That assertion was a tabloid lie. There was no child porn found on any computer or anything else. There were 70 officers who raided Neverland and they found NO incriminating evidence of anything related to child porn. Additionally, there was no photo of MacCuley Culkin in underwear. Another tabloid manipulated lie. IF that were true, Sneddon would have used it. He tried everything to indict Michael, including claiming kidnapping charges. Look at the transcripts from the trial. Btw, There is video footage just released this week of a roomful of children-girls and boys. This was released by one of the children(now grown) and family ,who was in that room. Michael actually invited Mother Goose(in actual costume) to read stories to all these children. The kids LOVED it. Look at the footage( it has been shared on You Tube and other outlets. There is no sexual abuse going on, because Michael was not a predator. I know that there are sickos who WANT this to be true, because it is some perverted fantasy of theirs. Seriously, people who equate being around children with sex are the real predators and seem to be having some pedophilic fantasy. How sick and sad!🤬 [Edited 1/26/19 8:54am] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Good video. Deserves to go viral. Robson is certainly a liar. This collabaration with Safechuck is something they've had a few years to work on. Shameful. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
I saw the doc. I am crying one day later. People defending MJ at this point come across just like Trump supporters. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Thanks for the info, I read that when I was 13 when I had no clue what a tabloid was and was kinda shocked at first but still believed (and still do) that MJ was innocent. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Or maybe we defend him because there's not one shred of evidence that he was guilty? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
|
Did you watch that video above your post too? For balance, I'd suggest you do. Wade's own words, own actions. |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
phillymonster said: I saw the doc. I am crying one day later. People defending MJ at this point come across just like Trump supporters. So you fell for it? Good job. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |