Hey everyone. I know that there are some rumblings of someone trying to get a Michael Jackson movie in theaters in the next couple of years. Below is who BET film Critic Clay Crane would cast As Michael, Janet, Letoya & others. Do you agree with his casting choices?
The only way a Michael Jackson movie is made with music is if his family approves (unless they sell the rights to his music, I guess). So unless an honest one can be made, I hope it doesn't happen.
If one were to be made of his later years, Johnny Depp would for me be a very smart choice to play him. I think he could pull it off.
The problem does exist that if the Jackson's hold the rights to the music then they might have control over what is showed on film and then there would be the question of how "honest" the film would be. If it is just the same fluff they showed in the Jackson TV movie then what is the point?
FYC-Album of the Year: Maxwell's BLACKsummers'night
If one were to be made of his later years, Johnny Depp would for me be a very smart choice to play him. I think he could pull it off.
That's Brilliant!
That's ridiculous.
If there is a movie, in no way, shape or form should someone who's not African-American play him.
Despite whatever happened to his skin in his later years, a black man should portray him. Period. With all the things you can do with makeup these days, I don't think casting Johnny Depp (or anyone else who isn't black) makes sense.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: MrTalented,
People don't have to be the same as the people they portray; that leads down a very slippery slope.
Yes, it's true that there are too few good roles for black actors, and at some level I understand the reluctance to have someone not black playing him.
But in this particular case, ages 30-50, post-Thriller, the weird period, I can't think of any actor who could capture the essence of what he had become - the child/man, the oddness, the obsession with make-up and skin pigmentation, than Johnny Depp, and make him both human and credible.
The man isn't even in the ground yet and here you are speculating on who is going to play him in some TV-movie-of-the-week, sure to be hamstrung by the very fact that most of the characters are still ALIVE and very capable of suing if they don't like the way they get portrayed.
Try Again said specifically a theatrical film, not a TV movie.
Since producers all over the industry right now are likely pursuing ideas, of course it is appropriate and interesting to raise the issue.
And "living" characters need not give permission to be portrayed. There can be complications, but anything on the public record is fair game, and movies get around this by changing names, combining characters and otherwise making themselves legally untouchable.
And since Jackson himself is dead, and the central character, he of course can not sure, nor can anyone on his behalf.
That being said, since there probably will be 2 or 3 TV or cable movies in the next couple years, a theatrical biofilm is not too likely.
Originally posted by seanflynn: Try Again said specifically a theatrical film, not a TV movie.
Since producers all over the industry right now are likely pursuing ideas, of course it is appropriate and interesting to raise the issue.
And "living" characters need not give permission to be portrayed. There can be complications, but anything on the public record is fair game, and movies get around this by changing names, combining characters and otherwise making themselves legally untouchable.
And since Jackson himself is dead, and the central character, he of course can not sure, nor can anyone on his behalf.
That being said, since there probably will be 2 or 3 TV or cable movies in the next couple years, a theatrical biofilm is not too likely.
Seems to me even with the name-changing etc. how in the world would any movie present the "truth" about Michael's relationship with his father? Seems ANY effort would be whitewashed (no pun intended).
And as for "theatrical" release, any attempt to capitalize on Jackson's untimely death deserves no better treatment than any other tawdry Lifetime TV movie of the weak.
Really? Great art has the capacity for taking tragic events, or moments from the lives of recent people, and make them into something else.
Would most of these be trashy? Of course. But the idea that great art couldn't be made from Jackson's life is incredibly anti-intellectual.
According to your idea, Angels in America is worthless because it dealt substantially with Roy Cohn's dying.
According to those "rules", Gus Van Sant was a fool to make Last Days, his quite interesting take on Kurt Cobain's suicide.
Art has the capacity to transform the maudlin, the melodramatic, the sensational, the recent, any or all of those into something creative. Michael Jackson's story of course has that potential. Will it happened? I'd be surprised if it did. But maybe a decade or two from now we'll see it.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
Originally posted by seanflynn: But in this particular case, ages 30-50, post-Thriller, the weird period, I can't think of any actor who could capture the essence of what he had become - the child/man, the oddness, the obsession with make-up and skin pigmentation, than Johnny Depp, and make him both human and credible.
I thought that Depp was doing his Michael Jackson impersonation in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. Maybe it would have worked better in a Jackson bio because I didn't really enjoy his performance, and I usually enjoy his performances. The rest of the movie was okay not as great as the original, imo.
ETA: Heh, yes I meant Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Now I will say [best Gene Wilder voice]GOOD DAY SIR![/bGWv] since the original is obviously on my mind right now.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mrs. Daryl Zero,
Really? Great art has the capacity for taking tragic events, or moments from the lives of recent people, and make them into something else.
Would most of these be trashy? Of course. But the idea that great art couldn't be made from Jackson's life is incredibly anti-intellectual.
According to your idea, Angels in America is worthless because it dealt substantially with Roy Cohn's dying.
According to those "rules", Gus Van Sant was a fool to make Last Days, his quite interesting take on Kurt Cobain's suicide.
Art has the capacity to transform the maudlin, the melodramatic, the sensational, the recent, any or all of those into something creative. Michael Jackson's story of course has that potential. Will it happened? I'd be surprised if it did. But maybe a decade or two from now we'll see it.
And don't forget "What's Love Got To Do With It". I don't recall Ike Turner suing the producers, and he didn't really come out all that great in the film.
Posts: 834 | Location: Phoenix, AZ | Registered: February 03, 2003
If one were to be made of his later years, Johnny Depp would for me be a very smart choice to play him. I think he could pull it off.
That's Brilliant!
That's ridiculous.
If there is a movie, in no way, shape or form should someone who's not African-American play him.
Despite whatever happened to his skin in his later years, a black man should portray him. Period. With all the things you can do with makeup these days, I don't think casting Johnny Depp (or anyone else who isn't black) makes sense.
Nonsense.
Actors ACT. Actors transform into their character.
Michael did everything nearly under the sun to NOT appear black, there was some deep seeded self-hatred in his psyche about who he really was. Hell, his "children" don't share his black DNA. The man, albeit very talented and beloved the world over, had big time issues with his race, thanks to Daddy Dearest.
If a movie on Michael were done in the future, sure, a black male child and a black young man can portray him pre-1990, but after that, a very FAIR complexioned person should play him. The more Caucasian their features, the more accurate that actor will be in portraying MJ in his later years.
When I saw Michael's exhibit at the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland a few years back, they used white mannequins to depict Michael in the present. Thems the facts whether people like it or not.
I don't care what Michael did to NOT appear black. The facts are that he was black. Period. So let's not pretend that he wasn't by making asinine statements like that.
See, what you all are trying to do is hold everything up in the name of acting. Well, guess what? You can't do everything in the name of acting, people. The man was African-American. It doesn't matter what he did not to appear as such, but he was black. That's a fact.
And, as such, he should be portrayed by a BLACK man, period. That's my opinion, and I stand firmly by it. You wouldn't get a black man to play George Bush even if he decided one day, "hmmm, I'm gonna get the best tan possible so that I can appear black." He's a white man. Nothing will change that.
Part of what made Michael so groundbreaking was that he was the first black entertainer to break down racial barriers for all subsequent black entertainers that followed him. To cast a white man is utterly disrespectful and would be a slap in the face to part of his legacy. Plus, there are black actors out there who are capable of playing him and doing it well.
I'm honestly outraged at the mere assertion that someone who isn't black should play him. The man isn't even in the grave yet, and people are already disrespecting him in such a hideous manner as this. I'm not gonna get all hyped up though. The black community would throw a fit if they cast someone who isn't black as Michael Jackson, and furthermore, no one has even announced plans to do a feature length film. Anyone casting this film knows this and would likely cast a black actor to portray Michael.
I don't care about how actors "transform" or this, that, and the third. Quite frankly, that's bull**** in regards to this discussion. He was black and a black man should portray him. And with the lack of diversity that already exists in Hollywood, it's even more insulting that someone would suggest Johnny Depp or any other non-black actor for this role. This would be a major role for any actor to take, and as usual, movie buffs like yourselves would cast a white actor. I'm not being racist, I'm being real. The man was black. Don't disrespect him by suggesting that someone who isn't black play him.
Since we're swinging the race card around like twelve inch weiners, let me say, I'm Black, and there is no way that if they do a film on MJ's latter years should it be performed by a Black man.
Congrats Kristen! All the PD haters can (SPOILER ALERT) Suck it!
You are making me far less sympathetic to your argument with each post, Mr. Talented. You are conflating art with affirmative action, which is very dangerous.
Cate Blanchett (a woman) played Bob Dylan (a man) in I'm Not There. If Todd Haynes were to make a movie on Michael Jackson, and cast Johnny Depp (or maybe make a movie with several people playing him at different stages of his life), I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
The problem with saying only black actors can play black characters - which of course is based on the unfortunate lack of roles for these actors - can lead to bad things, like assuming that black actors can't play anything BUT (on paper) black characters. It's part of the same problem.
I stand by my point, while understanding in part what you are saying. But by being completely offended, calling my case BS and being unwilling to understand that art can transcend race, sorry, you've lost me.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: seanflynn,
