July 13, 2002

3:24 PM

Michael Jacksonkeeps finding ways to shoot himself in the foot. The last thread about this is only 5 days old, but there he goes again.
posted by swell (20 comments total)

(The LA Times registration makes the NY Times registration look like free oral sex by comparison.)
posted by donkeyschlong at 3:40 PM on July 13, 2002

Free oral sex, you say?

(sound of cortex's hurried footsteps, receding)
posted by cortex at 3:42 PM on July 13, 2002

login - genericmember
password - password


Jesus, that took a long time to fill out. Hope this helps everyone save some time. Now, on to the story.
posted by bradth27 at 3:48 PM on July 13, 2002

i tried metafilter/metafilter and that worked.
posted by folktrash at 3:49 PM on July 13, 2002

I use cpunks/cpunks.
posted by McBain at 3:54 PM on July 13, 2002

I tried metaf... what folktrash said.
posted by RylandDotNet at 4:02 PM on July 13, 2002

As to the article itself....

GAY PORN?!

Yowza. MJ's becoming the Eval Kneival (sp?) of shark-jumping. (Although his pathetic-funny-sad cameo in MIB2 was one of that movie's sole bright spots.)
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:05 PM on July 13, 2002

Sorry about not including the appropriate login. I use the one folktrash used.
posted by swell at 4:06 PM on July 13, 2002

"McDonald's was bombarded with complaints from parents upset that the family food chain would consider selling a single by an entertainer who had settled a child molestation case. After conducting an internal poll, McDonald's notified Schaffel it was backing out."

Does this really jive with "Jackson remains a powerful force in music. ...Jackson outsells many new acts and remains one of the industry's biggest global stars...

I don't think so.

Best line in the article: '"If you ask me, I think there are people who don't want to see Michael on top," Schaffel [who has appeared in gay porn videos] said.'

Frankly, I wouldn't want to see Michael on top, on bottom, or even from a very far distance. It'd probably involve his chimpanzee, too. shudder
posted by five fresh fish at 4:28 PM on July 13, 2002

bleary eyed, wild of countenance, a desperate michael paces the room, croaking his raspy mantra: "I AM Dianna Ross. I AM Dianna Ross. I AM..."
posted by quonsar at 5:24 PM on July 13, 2002

From this vantage point, looking at the sheer absurdity of Michael Jackson's life, one can easily surmise that Marilyn Monroe got off easy. So did Jimi Hendrix, John Belushi and Janis Joplin. Perhaps Billy Joel was right: "Only the good die young."
posted by ZachsMind at 6:40 PM on July 13, 2002

Jacko is an interesting case. Surely he is unique, that we all can say with absolute certainty. He and other members of his family have often spoken up against the rather unusual upbringing they all were "forced" into, and I would bet that this has more to do with the way he is today....more than anything else. In constant view of the adoring public, never allowed a "normal" childhood, you have to admire the man in the way he kept it together...at least until the mid-80's. Or is that when we all started to see behind the stunts and makeup, and realized what a troubled man he truly was?
The child-molestation charges against him in the early 90's only compounded his image as a troubled man. Did he do it? Maybe. ( I personally feel he did, but, alas, this is America. He was never brought to trial, so he must remain innocent...right?)
Since that time, we have watched him break down in front of our eyes, time after time, until we have grown cold to his pleas for attention and have begun to act as if he is not a human being at all. And in fact, because of the surgeries he has performed upon his face, it actually looks as if he may no longer BE human.
What do we for a man like this? Should we laugh at him, or try to help? Is it time for him to shrink away from the public eye, or does he feel that this ludicrous stunt may somehow boost his ailing record sales?
Michael Jackson put out some incredible music during the eighties. Being a child of that decade, I can appreciate him for the man he once was. (To be honest, I didn't listen to him back then. I was into other types of music. ) Still, There is not much out there that can compare to the awesome, raw power of the Thriller album.
Now he claims that a record company..one that spent millions of dollars to promote his new album, has discriminated against him for the color his skin.,..is supposed to be.
The truth is painfully obvious, at least to any of us that have heard the album, that it was simply done for one reason. The album sucked.
I think Jackson is a genius. And I may get flack for that. However, admitting someone is a genius, and admiring that person for what they can do....are two different things alltogether. Jackson needs help, and needs it fast.
Honestly, I feel that Jackson, no longer receiving the comfort of adoring fans worldwide, will someday end his life. And I think that in the end, we will have all failed him. But more importantly, he will have failed himself.


Now, if someone videotapes the suicide, THAT would be something I might watch.
And that's what sickens me.
posted by bradth27 at 8:21 PM on July 13, 2002

I think that in the end, we will have all failed him. But more importantly, he will have failed himself.

I'm not quite sure on how the general public is able to "fail" a multigazillionaire celebrity with myriad personal issues.

Now, if someone videotapes the suicide, THAT would be something I might watch.
And that's what sickens me.

Yeah me too buddy. Now I back away slowly..
posted by PrinceValium at 9:25 PM on July 13, 2002

Jackson is so surreal. Batman better put him in Arkham Asylum before he snaps (again),
posted by cx at 4:29 AM on July 14, 2002

"Jackson remains a powerful force in music. ...Jackson outsells many new acts and remains one of the industry's biggest global stars..."

You laught, but it's true.

The problem with Jackson is that he spent something like $30mln of Sony's money on his new album and it sold $5mln copies world wide. $6/album in production costs is a *LOT* of money. If he moved 15mln it would've been alright... but he didn't.
posted by jedrek at 9:13 AM on July 14, 2002

Ths whole thing is a game. Sony want his rights to the Beatles songs he owns, Jackson wants out of the contract with no punishment and his reputation intact.

Sony ain't budging, Jackson ain't selling.

This is going to get ugly
posted by fullerine at 9:30 AM on July 14, 2002

Who was laughing? I was comparing to contradictory statements in the article. On the one side, they say parents hate MJ; on the other, that he's top o' the pop. Now, how'd he get to be on top if he's so despised?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:33 AM on July 14, 2002

I honestly don't see why people still focus so much attention on alleged international music celebrities who are washed up creatively, when there's so much raw now music happening in the world.

Okay sure I know. Cuz losers like MJ can still pull in millions of dollars whereas most talented local artists and bands are lucky if they can get people on their mailing list. Some of these artists have trouble giving their music away, much less getting The L.A. Times to write sordid things about their private lives.

The music industry is more absurd than a Beckett play.
posted by ZachsMind at 9:48 AM on July 14, 2002

"Jackson is so surreal. Batman better put him in Arkham Asylum before he snaps (again),"

brilliant. i wish he would commit some super-crimes though.
posted by clango at 10:00 AM on July 14, 2002

That decision by Jackson left many in the industry puzzled about why an entertainer known for shrewd deal making would simply give away the song's rights to Schaffel. The singer never consulted or notified his lawyer and manager that he had sealed the deal in a written contract, sources familiar with the deal said.

Anybody think it sounds like Schaffel might have some real dirt on MJ? To me, that's what the article seems to be (rather broadly) hinting at...
posted by cps at 12:47 PM on July 14, 2002