MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

MJ's Pissed!

In LA, as people lined up for the first screenings of This Is It, a hellacious wind blew across the southland and knocked out electricity in Hollywood and beyond.
It has to be the ghost of Michael Jackson, enraged that he is being raped in death by the Brits, the Japanese, and a guy named after a taco.
On a lighter note, IMAX screens with the film are being limited to evening shows in mostly multiplex-imax houses because the screens are already taken up with Where The Wild Things Are. So keep the kids up late, make then dance like Michael in front of the mall’s Ben & Jerry’s and take them to those late night IMAX shows. And remember, this is all about the art… and it’s what Michael wanted… that is, on the list of what he wanted right after not being dead.

Be Sociable, Share!

32 Responses to “MJ's Pissed!”

  1. martin says:

    It will probably do decent box office, but I don’t know a single person that’s interested in seeing this. What exactly is the appeal, other than the slightly morbid fascination with the last rehearsal footage of MJ? Maybe it’s a good film, who knows. But there are quite a few good movies out there right now and I am not at all convinced why I should see this one over the others.

  2. sky_capitan says:

    I have zero understanding of why anyone would want to pay to see a Michael Jackson movie either. None.
    (Although maybe it’s for the special collector’s vial of propofol with every movie ticket sold)
    Did it reallllly sell that many advance tickets?

  3. lazarus says:

    If we’re going to entertain the notion of supernatural weather events, I’d say the power outtage was not so much the work of MJ’s ghost, but more likely God saying “Hey, I didn’t get rid of this freak just so you people could go crazy over some opportunistic movie that never would have resulted in the comeback it was envisioned to be.”

  4. IOIOIOI says:

    Morbid fascination? What the fuck Martin? IT’S MICHAEL FUCKING JACKSON FOR THE LAST TIME GIVING ONE HELL OF A PERFORMANCE. This is literally it. This is him, giving his all, and it killed him. This is a testament to his work. So I will definitely go and see it this weekend. Why? He’s still MICHAEL FUCKING JACKSON. Even if he died because he wanted to get some damn sleep.

  5. I don’t particularly want to see it – feels a bit icky, but probably on DVD – but I’m with IO on this. Anybody who doesn’t get why there isn’t appeal in this movie is clearly a bit thick in the head.

  6. Clearly that was meant to be “why there is appeal in this movie”
    BTW Dave, are you gonna do anything about LexG calling me a “queenie COUNT FROM SESAME STREET-looking toolbox” (after I merely replied to telemachos about the budget for Fury Road, too?) or is his repeated homophobic and general foulness (he hopes my partner – who he is assuming ugly I think, which is strange – and I break up, how mature) just not fuckin’ registering with you? Not to mention that entire BYOB entry the other day.
    This is insane. INSANE!
    Myself, and any others on here, shouldn’t have to be subjected to homophobic comments. Why do you just let it happen?

  7. LYT says:

    Planning on reviewing the movie, DP?
    Hardly worth it, I suppose. Curious what you thought though.

  8. LexG says:

    Kamiqueenie:
    Quite the contrary, I am totally PRO your partner, definitely on that dude’s side. I’m looking out for him when I say I totally gives you the D.T.B. so he can get a less-annoying boyfriend.
    Oh, my heavens!

  9. LexG says:

    Somebody needs to email Kami’s S.O. two things:
    1) A picture of Jessica Alba.
    2) A picture of THE COUNT from SESAME STREET.
    With the word “REALLY?” attached.
    GREAT INSULT.

  10. EthanG says:

    Most analysts are pegging it at around $75 million over Wednesday to Sunday. Sony has been on an unbelievable hot streak since August with “Julia,” “District 9,” “Cloudy,” “Zombieland,” and now “This is It.”

  11. martin says:

    “‘This Is It’ is a film about a missed opportunity, and is also a missed opportunity itself… a curiosity, rushed into theaters, casually stitched together, and utterly forgettable.”
    http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured/posts/the-m-c-review-this-is-it

  12. EthanG says:

    That appears to be a decidedly minority reaction judging from its rottentomatoes score…4 stars from Ebert seems a bit much though.

  13. bulldog68 says:

    Martin said “It will probably do decent box office, but I don’t know a single person that’s interested in seeing this. What exactly is the appeal, other than the slightly morbid fascination with the last rehearsal footage of MJ?”
    A concert from arguably the greatest entertainer in the world, and you don’t get it? Like him or hate him, the MJ’s concerts were spectacles of grand proportions. He held nothing back. And if a studio had released a MJ concert film every two years it would have done some good business, so I think this is a smart move for Sony. You could argue about the morbidness of it all but then death and artistry have always been intertwined. If you believe that this is all about the money then my answer is that when has it not been about the money with film studios.
    On an unrelated note, Rush Hour 3 is playing on cable now and Chris Tucker commented to a french taxi driver about his encounter with the police chief played by Roman Polanski. His words were, “I’ve just been violated by a small Frenchman.”
    Did Polanski know this would be the punchline? Was Polanski okay with this? If he did then isn’t that worst somehow? Just a random thought.

  14. For those who care…
    http://scottalanmendelson.blogspot.com/2009/10/review-this-is-it-imax-experience-2009.html
    It’s an interesting time capsule, but it’s basically just 100 minutes of rehearsal footage from about a dozen songs. On the plus side, Ortega keeps the sentiment to a bare minimum, no mention of his death, his personal life, or anything of that nature. It’s strictly business, which I appreciated.

  15. Joe Leydon says:

    Has anyone heard anything about the grosses for the midnight screenings?

  16. Telemachos says:

    She Who Must Not Be Named is reporting $2.2 million.

  17. According to Finke, Sony is claiming $2.2 million for the late shows (which started at around 9pm in 35mm and 9:30pm in IMAX). For what it’s worth, my IMAX 9:30pm was packed in the back half of the theater and more or less empty in the front half.

  18. Triple Option says:

    When it comes to the subject of who should pay for MJ’s funeral, my contention was always his life insurance provider and those who would profit from his death. Maybe not “fair” in the legal sense of the word and not quite feasible to quantify how to divvy up the bill but it kinda strikes me as being like sports franchise owners who make a city vis a vie their residents buy them a stadium and then pocket the profits and control all the various rev streams. Listen, I’m feelin’ ya on all the money lost on the tour and other expenditures but holy crap this movie was basically finished before the autopsy report even came back and they expect people to gobble it up as the last word of MJ? I like MJ’s music and thought he was spectacular to watch but I’d like to give a nice giant F.U. to the people behind this.
    obviously, you’re not getting any more new footage from the main source but like couldn’t they have taken a LITTLE time constructing this? Heck, even if it were released MLK Day w/e. Now, they’ve got the film out before Halloween which I bet means they’ll have the DVD version of this puppy in time for Christmas. It, to me, is more dirty than the 3 days of wall-to-wall mass media coverage on the guy.
    I wonder if it’s gonna be like Tupac where five years later more “lost tapes” are being released as new albums? The kinda ironic thing is here

  19. martin says:

    Triple, that’s exactly the same issue I have. This was a documentary like maybe 25% – 50% through shooting, and within days of his death we’re already seeing clips and “movie” promo clips so soon after. Two months of post is just ridiculous for any documentary particularly one that’s kind of presenting itself as this grand final note on MJ’s great career. The absolute only reason this was super rushed through post production is because there’s probably more money now, than 6 months from now. Or maybe we’re just the 2 cynics here, since everyone else seems to be gaga for it.

  20. Cadavra says:

    There also seems to be interviews with the dancers and musicians talking about how wonderful he is. If he indeed was taping this strictly for his own private use, doesn’t this seem a little self-serving and strange? Or have I just answered my own question?

  21. Lota says:

    I think I’d want to see a concert, or multiple concert footage…but this seems like a strange quasi-movie to be rushed through and wonder who was cut in on the cash.
    Yeah Dave–I guess Lex can bash women in most foul ways seen anywhere even though this is ostensibly a movie blog, call men he doesn’t like *gay* as if that is an insult, and now he is bashing a gay man, more homophobia.
    So when is enough enough? Bicycle Bob got his ass kicked off for much less.
    Will you ban him if he uses the N word for people of African descent or the K word for Jews or is that allowed too?
    It is a long tedious experiment perturbing readers and commenters who make your blog a good movie discu place.

  22. martin says:

    Lota, I know what you’re saying and it’s certainly not an unreasonable response. But IMO, it’s kind of like taking offense to an amateur Lenny Bruce wannabe. The context that he’s given for this online persona implies that you can’t take any of it too seriously, and his dumb youtube videos cement that further. I’m sure that if you told him in a very serious way that you take the comments to heart, he would stop it. He’s just looking for attention, I don’t think he’s actually out to bully or hurt anybody. That’s IMO also the way that Dave takes it.

  23. Lota says:

    i get that Martin, and I agree, I just thought it was a movieblog with some sort of standards as opposed to all the detritus one has to wade through and makes one work awfully hard to find something worthwile to read.
    this blog needs a diet or enema.

  24. martin says:

    I don’t know, to me the back and forth discussions can sometimes be so tedious on here that I don’t mind someone trying to break up the monotony. As soon as I see a Jeff comment on diction or LYT comment on Saw, I’m skipping past quickly. So I guess it all depends on what the majority likes, hard to tell. Maybe there should be a poll, LexG: Fish or Foul. Do it like SNL did with Kaufman.

  25. leahnz says:

    lex’s lap dog to the rescue!
    “I’m sure that if you told him in a very serious way that you take the comments to heart, he would stop it.”
    lol, are you high, martin? (but wait, lex said you’re cool so you’re no doubt chuffed as a school girl. you’d better defend lex’s honour lest you end up on the wrong side of his little circus sideshow)
    “He’s just looking for attention, I don’t think he’s actually out to bully or hurt anybody.”
    he’s out for attention all right, but not to bully or hurt anybody? seriously? like hudson said, have you been keeping up with current events? lex’s alter-ego treats this blog like his personal sand pit in which he can and does anything with impunity, because in real life he’s ineffectual (and DP allows him to); he’s gone from being annoying, occasionally amusing and sometimes interesting (and weirdly endearing, at least to me once upon a time) to a downright nasty, unbearably repetitive whiner. his late night I NEED VAAAAAAAGGGGG GET ME A SLUT BOOOONEEEEER I’M DRUNK GET ME A SAG CARD SHOOT A WHITE RAY I HATE MYSELF I’M SUCH A LOSER YOUR A LOSER DON’T PRETEND YOU’RE NOT I AM YOUR GOD BOW! rants are the least of it, they are easy to laugh off/skim over; the toxic lex routinely blames everyone else for his problems/failings, bullies anyone who doesn’t agree with him and gleefully makes it personal (and whines like a little weeny when things don’t go his way), blithely tosses around homophobia and misogyny because he finds himself hilarious and worships that tub-o-lard loser leykis to whom he pathetically relates, and without provocation goes from thread to say nasty shit to people because he’s insecure and it makes him feel good to tear others whom he considers easy targets down – the very definition of a bully (and ftr i don’t give two farts in the wind what he says to/about me, i couldn’t give less of a shit, this isn’t about me)
    oh, but it’s just a bit of a laugh and all in fun, right? because that’s what lex said so it must be true!
    does he take shit from some people here? absolutely. does he bring it upon himself? absolutely
    and DP turns a blind eye because…who knows, because he feels sorry for lex is the only explanation i can think of. apparently he’s mum on the matter

  26. Lota says:

    what leah said
    and it isn’t a bit of a laugh if it is misogyny or homophobia or racial
    unless this is the Hot misogynyhomophobiaracial blog with occasional movie references

  27. leahnz says:

    in lex’s defence i can’t recall any particular racism on his part (except maybe calling out white dudes for acting super white). but then again i’ve apparently forgotten an entire short film i must have seen so i may not be the gold standard in comprehensive recollection

  28. scooterzz says:

    lex may be the only person in the entire universe who wants to be andrew ‘dice’ clay (and that includes andrew ‘dice’ clay)……

  29. leahnz says:

    hey lex, i’m quite tired and need sleep but in the interest of civility and just trying to be a straight-shooter, i thought i’d explain my personal take on things because i honestly feel a bit sorry for you, you just don’t seem to get why people get fed up with you.
    goodness knows the bloggers here get into little fracas from time to time and we often disagree, that’s natural. however, you seem to be under the impression that you are entitled to commandeer threads as you see fit, say any and all manner of offensive shit about anyone you please (for whatever reason you do it, which only you really knows), but when somebody actually takes offence -which let’s face it is exactly what you are trying for – and calls you on it, perhaps dishes it back with interest, you freak out and lose the plot.
    are you entitled to say anything about anybody and pick on whomever strikes your fancy, but others aren’t entitled to do exactly the same to you? doing your ‘act’ doesn’t mean you are exempt from criticism simply because you maintain it’s an act, in fact just the opposite; in intentionally playing the provocateur you’re asking for people to take offense (why else would you do it) and yet one major requirement of a playing a provocateur is a thick skin, something you do not appear to possess.
    if you are going to dish it out in heaping helpings, you have to take it without losing the plot, having a nuclear meltdown and turning into a whiny-ass punk who gets progressively angrier to the point of turning truly nasty.
    why would you think you can just spew an endless stream of vitriol against women, and yet take umbrage when women tell you you’re a tool?
    why do you constantly denying homophobia, and yet just in the last few days you’ve slung sarcastic gay barbs at kam, ranted that anybody who likes a certain movie you don’t like “takes it up the ass” in a clearly derogatory manner, needled jeff – who you openly admit you hate – to admit he’s gay just like a high school bully. and you regularly insult the men here who don’t have the same taste in women as you and who manage to refrain from going on endlessly about their supposed boners by accusing them of being less than manly, ‘gay’ in fact.
    your perception of yourself would appear to be at odds with they way you are perceived. clearly you think shouting down anyone who disagrees with you is funny. it’s not (at least for some)
    going on is likely pointless – as was this entire exercise – but i just thought i’d at least attempt to explain in a civil manner that your mean, erratic behavior would appear to indicate a certain lack of self-awareness and self-deprecation. if you can’t take people telling you you’re a narcissistic asswipe, don’t act like one, it’s that simple. otherwise it’s just an unpleasant fuckarow.

  30. Lota says:

    “Yeah, Lota, YOU’RE UNFORTUNATE LOOKING.”
    JBD wouldn;t say that to me because I haven’t earned it, and those who have seen me on this blog, some in person, would never say that about me. JBD is a funny civil guy.
    It is ultimately Dave’s responsibility for letting LexG’s unfortunate looking ego run amok for everyone to have to wallow in his drunk fat bald middle-aged never successful, never laid misery that everyone could do without. “A life of squandered chances.” GOOD EPITAPH

  31. leahnz says:

    yes, the tirade where lex went mental and tore a strip off lota and i is gone now. we’re ugly, we’re man-less, we’re old, we’re yentas (i always thought a yenta was a matchmaker), we’re hens. got that lota? HENS FOR FUCK’S SAKE!!!!! HEEEENNNNNSSSSS!!!!!!
    (oh well, i guess that makes lex the pig out rolling in his own shit)

  32. Lota says:

    back to MJ
    actually a couple friends saw THIS IS IT and they liked it. and were surprised.
    still have mixed feelings and don;t know if I would go see it, but then I associate MJ with Halloween, since Thriller was such a great Halloween song when I was a youngster. might be fun.
    what is the profit breakdown I wonder?

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon