Alita: Battle Angel in 3D at my local IMAX and it was AMAZING ... :cool:
Not only is Alita's animation a technical tour de force but she's an interesting character to boot.
https://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-cont...early-buzz.jpg
Printable View
Alita: Battle Angel in 3D at my local IMAX and it was AMAZING ... :cool:
Not only is Alita's animation a technical tour de force but she's an interesting character to boot.
https://www.slashfilm.com/wp/wp-cont...early-buzz.jpg
Great movieQuote:
Originally Posted by JanetElise
Body Double
Attachment 1134227
i need to watch thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Gillian
Four Lions
A Simple Favour (Paul Feig, 2018 )
Anna Kendrick is one of those women with whom you might want to settle down and have children, and a house in, well...Connecticut. It would certainly be more challenging, entertaining and worthwhile than this empty, convoluted tale of crazy women. On the other hand, I might try one of those martinis...
The Hate You Give (George Tillman Jr, 2018 )
This is a frustrating film that contains two intense scenes which will resonate for some time, and scenes that either stretch the boundaries of credulity, or appear too morally righteous and idealistic in their appeal to unity and peace. The two outstanding scenes are the murder around on which the film pivots, and the scene toward the end when the policeman uncle of the witness walks her through the question and answer session that exposes the unjust means whereby a white policeman killing a black man will walk free from the crime. I was not convinced by the white school the girl and her younger brother go to, definitely not her white boyfriend (though in real life Sternberg's father is Danish) just as I felt the way their mother was made up to look like Michelle Obama was unnecessary, not least when some of the older black women in the film were vulgar stereotypes. Indeed, there are too many cardboard black and white people, especially the menacing drug lords inflicting pain and division 'on their own community' -whatever else this is, this ain't The Wire.
At least there is an impressive performance from Amandla Sternberg, previously the young black girl Rue whose death in The Hunger Games prompts that iconic moment when Jennifer Lawrence turns to the camera knowing everyone can see her, and makes a gesture of defiance that changes the trajectory of that film. It is a pity I can't give this film a better review, but it is too flawed if fascinating to watch -and it's not as if the murder of unarmed black men by law enforcement does not happen in the UK with more or less the same consequences. It does. And we await a film that will tell that story.
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
Genuinely one of the best super hero movies out beautifully animated, great characters and story.
American Sniper.
Leaving Neverland (Dan Reed, 2019)
This two part dcumentary aired on the UK's Channel 4 this week. The film consists of interviews with two men who claim they were seuxally abused by Michael Jackson, with additional comments from their mothers, and in the case of one man, his sister and elder brother. The film has caused controversy because there is no comment from the Jackson family, friends and associates of his or the Jackson Estate. The two men have been accused of being liars, of using the film to make the money they failed to make from the Jackson estate, and that their testimony is copied from the testimony of other abused children to give it authenticity.
The problem with the critics, is that the two men offer graphic and compelling detail of the way in which Jackson first groomed them and their families, gradually deepening the relationship until it became sexual, details that can be found in the cases of child abuse we know from other cases, including priests in the Roman Catholic Church. Though this suggests there is a 'repertoire' of accusations that can be made, drawn from other cases and repeated by two men acting rather than telling the truth, one wonders why two men with wives and children would put themselves through this ordeal. And, while they may make money from this film, the Jackson Estate is also attempting to make money by suing HBO for $100 million.
I first saw Jackson when I think he was 10 and appeared on the Diana Ross Show, I thought he was a freak at the time and never had cause to change my mind in succeeding years, though I don't listen to that sort of music anyway and consider most of it is rubbish. I have also seen other children attempting to be pop stars in the age range of 10-14 and in most cases the voice is very loud, the singers can mimic well but the voice is raw, it has no colour or depth and above all, the children cannot sing properly. Indeed, many pop singers do not sing properly and damage themselves. For example, the singer Adele is just over 30 but has already had two operations to repair the damage she has caused to her vocal chords, while other singers such as Elton John, Justin Timberlake, and Björk have also had the operation. There has been a claim that Michael Jackson was 'surgically castrated' by being given regular and large doses of cyproterone to combat his acne, but a drug that also arrests puberty. This is nonsense, as Michael Jackson had a man's voice, and according to one coach could reach as deep as a bass when singing, if he wanted to.
Jackson's falsetto voice and women's make-up were all part of an act. The claim he never had a childhood is a weird one as it is clear that he did, and spent most of it with his brothers. That he may have been abused as a child could be important, but what cannot be denied is that he had some kind of aversion to women -it is claimed he never had sexual intercourse with his wife, and certainly did not with the mother of his two children. The evidence that Jackson was a serial abuser of boys to me seems impossible to deny, even if over many years 'only' five boys made allegatinos of molestation -should it have been more? Jackson spent most of his professional life with mature adults, but appears to have spent most of his leisure time with young boys.
Does it make any difference to the music? I cannot really say, as his music means nothing to me, and those who like it must make that decision. I have been listening to Wagner's music for more than 40 years even though I am aware of the nauseating things he said about Jews, tempered by the fact his writings are mostly garbage anyway, and he never harmed Jews, recruiting them as musicians in his orchestra at Bayreuth, and employing them as conductors of his music. He was unfaithful to both his wives, and in contemporary terms was probably a fraud having sold the rights to his Ring cycle to more than one person claiming their right was exlusive. Jackson, it seems to me, is a criminal on a different level, because he harmed people, because his interest in children was not natural.
Evidence can be found here:
https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood...se-allegations
Iiiiiiiiiiiiii'm not so sure I agree. Michael Jackson was a victim of society. I've met a LOT of famous musicians - pretty much all of them who were big in the 80's, including Michael (spent 18 years in radio and music promotion). The ones who are new to the game can run the gamut from "still taking it all in" to "obnoxious as hell," but the ones who have been established for many years all have one thing in common - fear of people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I mean real fear, as in they are afraid to go out in public. Any established superstar knows that as soon as he's recognized his life is in danger.
On the other hand, they are treated like royalty by those lesser mortals whose careers intersect theirs. They like that. Never met a musician yet who didn't enjoy being served by everyone in the vicinity; single exception - Neil Young, but he's an exception to pretty much every rule, I don't think he even has a tour rider.
My point is, though, that kind of separation from reality is unhealthy. Period. I've never seen a single superstar artist who was better off for being famous, they all develop more issues than Sports Illustrated. Forget about egoism, imagine being treated like...a god!
Now imagine being treated that way your entire life, from early childhood to death. That's Michael Jackson. The man was SEVERELY mentally ill. And it was through no fault of his own, he simply followed the path laid out before him by his own father, which is an entirely different story.
I don't hold Michael accountable for his actions any more than I would hold any mentally ill person accountable. I don't think HE is responsible for what WE turned him into.
Regarding his music, well, I don't listen to it either. But I recognize the pure pop genius of it all, and I'm 100% comfortable saying that overall, the world was a better place because Michael Jackson was in it.
I agree with most of your post, Nick, but not the claim that Jackson acted the way he did 'through no fault of his own'. He was not a zombie, he was capable of engaging in adult negotiations on his contracts for recordings, videos, gigs and so on, and was compos mentis enough to make the commercial decision to buy the Beatles catalogue. If he was indeed capable of acting like the mature adult male that he was, where did all this 'lost childhood' rubbish come from? It was a device by which he justified 'Neverland' as a place where children and he could 'have fun', taking the latter to extremes. We can agree that wealth and fame can distort reality, that rock musicians have wasted/ruined their lives through drink and drugs, but Jackson was not a helpless slave to his past, he was in control of his life, and had the power to change it any time he wanted. He chose his way of life just as he chose his lovers, illegal though those choices were.
Yet another perspective is that no mental illness is the fault of the person experiencing it. Otherwise it's not mental illness. If I decide to go prancing through Times Square wearing nothing but a MAGA hat and a carrot hanging out of my butt, that doesn't make me mentally ill. But if I am COMPELLED to go prancing through Times Square wearing nothing but a MAGA hat with a carrot out my butt, I probably need to be evaluated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Point being that the very concept of mental illness dictates that the person is not in control.
I think you would agree that Ted Bundy was mentally ill - the compulsion to savagely kill and mutilate is certainly an aberration from the norm. But he was also quite capable of having a career and taking care of business while he wasn't obeying his compulsion. Just like Michael Jackson. Of course, we deemed Ted Bundy guilty because his crimes were too monstrous - society needed to kill him to wash the stain of him off the planet. But Michael was no monster. His deeds had negative consequences, but his victims are still alive, and appear to be thriving. I mean, I watched Leaving Neverland too, both Savechuck and Robson are at least functional enough to take care of themselves, they're both good-looking guys, and intelligent. Undoubtedly some of what Michael did to them left emotional scars, but let's not forget that in Ancient Rome, nearly EVERY young boy of good family was sexually "mentored" by an adult man. And they managed to build an empire.
Also, don't ever think it escaped my attention that both Savechuck and Robson thoroughly enjoyed telling their stories. It sounded like their biggest regret about the whole thing was not the sexual abuse itself, but the time when the sexual abuse stopped and another child was getting Michael's attention instead.
Anyway, I can forgive Michael, because I don't think he ever, at any point in his life, had any grip on reality. Maybe other people can't.
Having mental illness does not mean a person is not in control of any decision they make. The legal standard for it makes some sense of the issue. Under the McNaghten test a person is only not guilty of a crime if he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing based on some mental deficiency. In more than 99% of cases of mental illness you would not meet these conditions.
The degree to which someone's agency and decision-making is altered by their experiences and biology is an interesting question, but morally we do have to assume people are culpable for what they do except in the most extreme circumstances where the defect completely strips them of normal agency.
I don't you could possibly know what effect any crime had on the victim and your sense that they just wanted attention is at best very uncharitable.
I read more carefully your distinction about wanting to go out with the carrot in your butt vs being compelled to. This looks a bit more like the irresistible impulse test. I'm not saying arguments can't be made, but it's pretty unknowable the degree to which someone might have stopped themselves from a course of action they've provably taken. For that reason, maybe it should only apply to those who have gross injury to the frontal lobe or something and literally don't have the cognitive means to stop themselves once they've begun a course of action rather than to anyone who compulsively abuses other people.
If that test were applied this broadly it could defend any sociopathic behavior.
Edit: to conclude, I haven't seen the Michael Jackson documentary, but probably will at some point.
I won't disagree with you, I'm aware I am an uncharitable person when it comes to feeling sorry for people who have their health and their youth. Hurt feelings? Everybody's got hurt feelings, we get over it and move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I freely admit I do not know what effect Michael's abuse had on these lads, I myself was not sexually abused, though I did get the living shit kicked out of me a few times - and well-deserved IIRC. All I know is that Savechuck and Robson are doing just fine now, and I don't think it's uncharitable of me to state the very truth that they themselves told - the truth about their feelings of jealousy when Michael STOPPED abusing them. It's not as if they're "shells of a human being" now because of what happened. I personally found them to be quite eloquent, personable, and likeable. I have no doubt of their future success.
Anyway, regarding all the legal standards of which you speak, I'm not talking about legal standards here. Michael's gone, there's not going to be a trial. I'm just talking about his legacy in the court of public opinion. I don't know if I'm in the majority or the minority - probably the minority. But I'm sure there will be people who will forgive Michael, and people who won't. And the people who forgive him will be the ones who realize that the poor guy was driven batshit insane by having superstardom thrust upon him at the age of FIVE!! Jesus Christ, look at all the crazy shit Michael did to himself. He turned himself into a freak - not because he wanted to be a freak but because that's just how out of touch he was with the rest of the human race.
I ain't saying it's right. But I am saying it's forgivable, because the perpetrator is Michael Jackson. We ALL created Michael Jackson.
You make important points, but the extent to which someone is 'mentally ill' when they behave in a certain way is too complex an issue to resolve given that we don't actually know what Michael Jackson's personal psychology was. There is a confusing debate about what mental illness is, and often the phrase 'mental health issues' is used to by-pass the former: I would refer to the Colombine shooters to try and understand how the mind does or does not work, and yes, it is the case that Michael Jackson did not actually kill anyone, though at least two suicides may be tangential to his influence. There are mental conditions that can be treated: anxiety, depression, paranoia, particularly if the person suffering believes their only remedy is violence against themselves and/or other people, but in the case of Jackson we don't know enough about his private thoughts and just because he was eccentric in some way doesn't mean he was mentally impaired.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
I think claiming Jackson did not have 'a grip on reality' is bogus, he was in sufficient control to go on world tours, record albums and so forth -did he suddenly become mentally ill when he was at Neverland? No, it was a programmed environment in which Jackson got the pleasure he wanted which society deems to be both immoral and illegal.
I came across a bit wooden there Nick. I think you clearly like Michael (I do too) and are more generous with him than those he was accused of hurting. Look for instance at what I quoted. Does this apply to Michael or do his personal traumas entitle him to far more than sympathy, which is all I might have suggested for his victims? edit: obviously Michael doesn't have his health and youth, he's dead...I meant this more for your last sentence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
Anyhow, I agree the difference between morality and legality is important. The reason I used a legal standard is because for this issue it is consistent with intuition. You'll see Stavros used the word zombie above....to me it looks like the Mcnaghten test...are we talking about someone who merely had problems or someone who couldn't do anything other than what he did? He must have been traumatized, but if he really did visit that trauma on others, it's terrible and I think unforgivable.
Well, lets look at what he did, without getting too specific, but also without getting too judgmental. Obviously this was a sexual compulsion, but, had you seen the movie, as I'm sure you will, you would know that it was also a very strange compulsion toward childishness. Michael viewed himself as a child, he could only feel love for other little boys. A lot of the stories - MOST of them even - are about Michael and the children playing at childish things. Neverland was well-named, it was a paradise for children. But it was not there as a lure for children to victimize, it was there for Michael. He was the child. He was A child. That was the overriding characteristic of his unique disease - he'd lost his childhood, he wanted it back, and he could afford to buy it back.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I call it a disease, but it's more like a poison. I've been around these people, I've seen the poison and I've seen the effects. The poison is adoration of the masses. The effects are a life taken over by the human ego. In Michael's case, multiply by a hundred and divide by a lost childhood.
Try putting yourself in Michael's position, Stavros. It isn't easy to do - it's a hard position to imagine oneself in. Michael was more than just a celebrity, he was a celebrity OTHER celebrities wanted to meet. Kings, queens, and presidents hosted Michael. It would not be an exaggeration to say he was the biggest star, from any genre of art, of the 20th century.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
And he'd been this GOD his entire life - from earliest childhood; literally from kindergarten. You think this guy had any chance of growing up to be just a normal guy? No fucking way. He had no frame of reference on any other way of life than being the undisputed master of the universe. Was that the life he chose for himself? I don't know, he was 5. Did he volunteer for a lifetime of unimaginable fame at the age of 5? Did he "consent" to it? I don't think so. I think his father chose it for him.
So I'll forgive him. You don't have to.
This will be my last post on this not because it's not an interesting conversation but because it is such a far ranging topic and it really relates to one docu on this thread.
I see what you're saying but take someone like Andre Agassi who undoubtedly had a hard upbringing and a stolen childhood in the same sense. His Dad forced him to hit one million tennis balls from a machine as a kid, gave him illegal stimulants before a match when he was a child, and had him beat adults in high stakes money matches when he was like 6 years old.
The worst he did was wear a wig, take crystal meth with a guy named Todd, endorse tennis shorts that had spandex tights coming out of the bottom that my mom thought were cute and tried to make me wear, and a few other transgressions. He once spat on the pant leg of an umpire, denied it, but was fined when video showed it. He once hit a ball at the end of his match with Rafter at a linesperson he didn't like to scare them. Mostly primadonna stuff.
I bring this up to say this is the kind of allowance I think people should make for someone who clearly had a tough time. He was damaged by his upbringing. Michael likely was too. Agassi was emotionally unstable and did a few provocative, stupid things. Jackson is accused of horrible crimes. I accept that you forgive him and there is reason to think about the things he experienced, but I can't see it making a difference in how people should view child abuse. Just my take. Thanks for the good discussion.
Captain Marvel
It's a good film lots of fun some nice set pieces and characters. It's not the best film in the MCU but it is far from the worst.
[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1877036]
Neverland was well-named, it was a paradise for children. But it was not there as a lure for children to victimize, it was there for Michael. He was the child. He was A child. That was the overriding characteristic of his unique disease - he'd lost his childhood, he wanted it back, and he could afford to buy it back.
--No, this is absolute rubbish. Michael Jackson was not a child, he was a middle aged man pretending to be a child so that he could lure the boys in on the ruse they were the same -its called grooming for a reason. This was a mature man who negotiated contracts on recordings and appearances, who devised stage shows, who had access to mature adults in his home, through his lawyers and his family, with whom he shared a childhood. Most of his eccentricities were an act devised to satisfy his selfish needs at the expense of anyone who got in his way. You've been duped.
Try putting yourself in Michael's position, Stavros. It isn't easy to do - it's a hard position to imagine oneself in. Michael was more than just a celebrity, he was a celebrity OTHER celebrities wanted to meet. Kings, queens, and presidents hosted Michael. It would not be an exaggeration to say he was the biggest star, from any genre of art, of the 20th century.
--Elvis and the Beatles were bigger than Jackson, and I seem to recall at one time Presidents and Royalty wanted to be seen with the Spice Girls, and were. Pop stars are flavour of the month because pop music is ephemeral trash. The Jackson Five met Queen Elizabeth II in 1977 after a concert, and Jackson met dim-as-a-plank Princess Diana, but numerous letters to the Queen begging and begging to be given an honorary Knightood were ignored, a case of vanity being dismissed by reality. There is no need to make excuses for the man who was only called 'the King of Pop' because Jackson insisted this ridiculous title be inserted into his publicity material -wasn't Elvis 'the King'?
And he'd been this GOD his entire life - from earliest childhood; literally from kindergarten. You think this guy had any chance of growing up to be just a normal guy? No fucking way. He had no frame of reference on any other way of life than being the undisputed master of the universe. Was that the life he chose for himself? I don't know, he was 5. Did he volunteer for a lifetime of unimaginable fame at the age of 5? Did he "consent" to it? I don't think so. I think his father chose it for him.
--We have been told Jackson was abused as a child, not the sort of things that happens to Gods. He was just a man, that he chose to speak in a falsetto voice, engage in relentless surgery to change his appearance, and seduce young boys to satisfy his carnal lust is the baggage that attends his professional career as an entertainer. No excuses, please.
[QUOTE=Stavros;1877135]Pretty harsh, and, might I say, pedestrian assessment of a man no one has ever really understood. Some psychologists agree he suffered from an erotic identity disorder known as autopedophilia, in which the individual wishes to become the object of his desire - in Michael's case, a young boy. Thing is, there are only a few other cases of this and it is an unstudied illness. - https://www.science20.com/j_michael_...disorder-55152Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
Point? Even world-class psychologists don't understand what the fuck happened to Michael Jackson to turn him into Wacko Jacko, but they do know it was mental illness. You've appointed yourself, Stavros, to diagnose Michael as a canny predator from quite a distance away from the scene. Can't argue with such an adamantly unqualified appeal to authority.
Also, neither Elvis or the Beatles were as big as Michael Jackson, who had the distinct advantage of experiencing his career zenith during the MTV era, thereby becoming the most-recognized celebrity on a planet with twice as many people on it as lived during Elvis' heyday. Michael's music cut across all barriers, musical, racial, and political. And if he wanted a knighthood from Queen Elizabeth and couldn't get it, it probably had a lot to do with the fact that he's an American, or black, or maybe the Queen prefers smooth jazz.
There's simply no question that more people on planet Earth could tell you who Michael Jackson is than who Elvis Presley is, or who could name even one of the Beatles (there were 4 of them, you know). So no, you're just wrong about that, Stavros, Michael Jackson is quite possibly STILL the most famous person on the planet.
This. Caveat being that the allegations are actually true. You never see this level of defence given to "normal" paedophiles. Then "it's lock em up and throw away the key", or "bring back hanging". Super-stardom doesn't bring immunity...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
No, but you know what does bring immunity, Laphroaig? Death.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laphroaig
I'll tell you right now that I believe every bit of the testimony about Michael's sexual abuse. I believe the ones who say he did it, but furthermore, I believe the ones who say he didn't, including Macaualy Culkin. I don't think it was ever his initial plan to abuse these kids, it seems like it really did just start out as friendship. And I think that with some of these boys, the childlike friendship never did develop to the level that Michael couldn't control his impulses. With some of them it did. If you've seen the movie, then you know that with all these boys, if you take away the sexual abuse, there is also a real playmate friendship happening.
Also, Michael never harmed any of them. The guy was a gazillionaire, he could have quite easily had them all whacked and buried in the desert, and never have to face these allegations. So he was no sociopath.
I realize I'm defending him. I don't mind, though, I do think he's a special case that should be given special consideration. Obviously others disagree.
Talk about low expectations. A pedophile getting credit for the children he didn't molest? Getting credit for not killing the children he did? Come on Nick. He did awful things, which you acknowledge.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
Death may put someone beyond physical punishment for their actions, but it didn't for example prevent Jimmy Saville's crimes from being exposed. Did he deserve special consideration for all the charity work he did over the years?Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
You may believe (some of) the allegations against Jackson, but if there's one thing in all this that I find even more disturbing than Jackson's (alleged) crimes, it's many of his fans utter inability to even conceive that he could possibly do anything wrong. I witnessed this first hand during the in 2004-5 trial. They are as fanatical as any ISIS member.
I'm not keeping score, Bronco. All I'm saying by that is that if you believe the stories from the kids who say there was the child-like friendship but no sexual abuse, then it implies Michael wasn't motivated by the prospect of eventually abusing the boys, but instead by some different compulsion, which in his case, I think, is pretty obviously that he wanted to be a young boy forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Michael wasn't "grooming" these children for abuse, he really did want a friend to play with. I mean if you listen to Stavros, Michael planned his entire life around putting himself into a position to abuse children. It wasn't that predatory, there were other problems with Michael's mental health that pushed him to develop these friendships with young boys. Sometimes the friendships developed into sexual abuse, based on Michael's mental illness, which as I mentioned before, some psychologists believe is a rare disorder called autopedophilia. But sometimes, it remained just a friendship.
To be altogether totally frank, I'm a bit surprised that this is suddenly such a big issue. I have always believed Michael was a pedophile. And a very sick person. I thought everyone knew that. But I guess some people just haven't been paying very close attention to the constantly-developing Michael Jackson story for the last, uh, 50 years?
Michael is greatly beloved, Laph. He was a real charmer. Always smiling and loving, voice like spun silk, moves like a cat, child-like enthusiasm, God-given talent - what's not to like? Oh yeah, he was a pedophile - almost forgot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laphroaig
Personally I can't stand his music, find his squeaky voice incredibly irritating and could never understand his appeal.:shrug I've held that opinion long before any untoward allegations were made against him.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
I get that many people liked and enjoyed his music. I don't get the fanaticism, undying loyalty and refusal to accept that he may have done something wrong, that surrounds him.
I was a senior in high school when Thriller came out. And I was a rocker back then, so were all my friends, and it was out of the question for anyone in my crew to be a Michael Jackson fan. It would be...embarrassing. To even have a pop album in your collection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Laphroaig
But that didn't matter in 1982, and 1983, and beyond, because you were going to hear Thriller anyway. You were going to see every song in heavy rotation on MTV and you were going to hear it in "A" rotation on multiple radio formats, and you were going to read about it in music magazines and newspapers and see it on the Billboard charts for YEARS. And you were going to get burned out on every single goddamn Michael Jackson mega-hit on that accursed album, even though it wasn't in your music collection at all.
But to this day, when I hear one of those songs, which still happens often, I still recognize the genius of it. It still sounds fresh and inimitable all these decades later, even if it doesn't exactly suit my tastes. It really is some amazing music. And I remember all those fantastic dance moves from the videos. And I still can't deny the amazing talent of Michael Jackson, even though I still think it would be extremely uncool to have any of his albums.
I like a lot of his songs Nick. I don't think it has a bearing on any of the other stuff we're talking about. But I have Dirty Diana, Billy Jean and a few others on my playlist. Not everyone likes him but I think he was an amazing talent.
Being fair, this whole discussion has gone off topic.:)Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Yeah what is the topic? I haven't even seen the documentary that is the subject of the conversation....Quote:
Originally Posted by Laphroaig
Fortunately I missed the Thriller period and first became aware of him when he returned with the Bad album. Never was a record more aptly named...Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
Well the topic is "The Last Movie You Watched." I've seen a couple since Leaving Neverland so I've only strayed slightly off-topic. But it's a big and controversial movie so I don't see anything wrong with having a conversation about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Fair enough. I originally said the quality of his music doesn't have a bearing on the accusations of child abuse because I like his music but think he did terrible things, not because I don't think we should talk about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
[QUOTE=Nick Danger;1877193]I have been told, correctly in another thread, not to go 'off topic' so I will end this with a couple of points. Mental Illness is not a well-defined term, and is best not used in Michael Jackson's case, and I note you ignore the difference I have noted between his professional life and his leisure life, neither of which are 'childlike' at all, as the testimony in the film also asserts. As for the Knighthood, honorary Knighthoods to Americans are fairly common, and Jackson seems to have wanted one with a passion when he discovered Steven Spielberg had been endowed with the honour. On this occasion, it seems, Michael Jackson really was being childish and immature.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The last three movies I watched:
"A Star Is Born"
"Searching"
"Crazy Rich Asians"
[QUOTE=Stavros;1877389]Oh yeah well I was told that it was just fine for ME to go off-topic, as long as I don't draw YOU off-topic in the process, Stavros.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick Danger
A salty leprechaun in a tweed suit told me that.
Also we are not off-topic here. This is a movie thread. We are talking about a movie.
"Off-topic?" Jesus, people on the internet are just like people in the real world - scared to death of The Man. Well, I say what I please, when I please, and where I please. Sometimes I do go off-topic, or say something controversial, and by God any forum moderator who wants to is more than welcome to BAN me from any forum. There are 18 trillion goddamn forums on this internet. Getting banned from 17 trillion of them would give me more time to masturbate and build cars.