|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 8:59:29 GMT
I presume some of the people buying the music are fans (who may already own copies) who want to make it very clear that they're on MJ's side. And if the charts include streaming, then it's entirely possible that some people just want to listen to the songs one last time before cutting them out of their lives all together. (And there'll be people who don't really have an opinion one way or another on the documentary but who have been reminded that although they've never been a huge MJ fan they still quite liked some of his songs actually so maybe they'll listen to some of them this morning, or whatever.)
|
|
2,024 posts
|
Post by distantcousin on Mar 12, 2019 12:03:50 GMT
It's worth pointing out here that James Safechuck didn't testify in the 2005 trial - he refused to do so.
I don't think for a SINGLE minute that James wants fame. Wade, possibly. He's worked in the business for some years, and there is a possible 'fringe benefit' to taking part in the documentary.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 12:42:58 GMT
Kind of a ridiculous comparison to make but Mein Kampf is still selling today. It is, but mainly for academic study by historians, luckily. I was going say 'I bet Tommy Robinson has a copy' then realised its probably a bit above his reading ability. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 13, 2019 6:54:35 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Mar 13, 2019 23:12:14 GMT
Pleased to see that TFL has said that the MJ is Innocent adverts are to be removed from buses etc. They should never have accepted them in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 14, 2019 4:40:17 GMT
And honestly, none of us know what it would be like to be in the situation of these families and while we may all want to believe we'd act perfectly and not give in to any of the seductions of his fame, power and manipulation, it is not really possible for us to know that. No. I do know. I would NEVER allow my child to sleep in the same room as a grown man. You cannot tell me I would. I would not. That's...not what I said. Don't misconstrue my posts. Saying you would never about a situation you have never even been close to being in is not helpful to anyone and certainly not to victims of abuse. Wade and James themselves will reckon with their parents actions, not some people on a forum that want to feel better about themselves by comparing their hypothetical perfect actions to the reality of those of others. Their actions are meant to be shocking to viewers, so that viewers can understand the shocking effects that emotional manipulation can have on a human being. But if you come out of this doc and your main focus is on the parents, as it seemingly is for a number of posters here, and their wrongdoings (whose worst intentions were money and fame) rather than the person who purposely manipulated them and abused their children, you are missing the point of why the parents were willing to be so honest about their experiences and why their stories were also included in the doc. Wade and James do not want a bunch of strangers coming away from this doc focusing on how bad their parents were, rather than on the realities of what happened to them and their families at the hands of Jackson. |
|
923 posts
|
Post by Snciole on Mar 14, 2019 14:45:03 GMT
It's worth pointing out here that James Safechuck didn't testify in the 2005 trial - he refused to do so.
I don't think for a SINGLE minute that James wants fame. Wade, possibly. He's worked in the business for some years, and there is a possible 'fringe benefit' to taking part in the documentary.
I think Safechuck is the key to why this has been such a painful documentary. I believe Wade, Wade had a lot to lose by coming out about his abuse and more scrutiny because of his profile. He also stayed close to the Jackson family in adulthood. It is clear he felt he had a duty to Michael and his family. Safechuck could have just stayed quiet, in the shadows and become forgotten as one of Michael's boys (I was fascinated by Brett Barnes who seems exactly like the sort of boy MJ could have abused). I think once this dies down so will Safechuck. I do believe MJ didn't abuse Culkin. Culkin was too powerful, even as a child, to take that risk even if he was vulnerable. MJ would have focused on the nobodies who weren't to be believed. |
|
