MovieChat Forums > Threadkiller > Replies
Threadkiller's Replies
“MJ hadn't released an album since 2001. In the same time period, McCartney has released 7 albums. 6 of which charted in the top 10, and a #1. Maybe in some backwoods African territory where they are still in 1984, MJ is their hero. The rest of the world, the majority of it anyway, could care less about him now.”
Mccartney choosing to be more active with producing music during that time period is not a measure of his fame but more just a measure of his willingness to keep making music. I’m not sure what charts you’re talking about but as an American, I had no idea what he was doing musically during that time period. It makes sense that Mccartney’s fame is naturally far greater in the UK where he’s a national icon.
It’s also important to note that Mccartney’s career was never sabotaged, the way Michael Jackson’s was, yet his fame endured. It’s crazy to think about how much more he would have done otherwise. Also, I’m sorry but the somewhat racist conjecture that Michael Jackson is only famous throughout the corners of Africa because they’re “backwoods” & stuck in 1984. (They didn’t have smart phones to make viral videos with then btw). Also, you were keeping it somewhat respectable for a while before broadly speaking for the world claiming they “could care less about” Michael Jackson with absolutely nothing to back up that statement (Because it’s absolute nonsense) is really only something an anti-Michael Jackson troll like the one you co-signed would say.
"Michael Jackson was selling out major tours to the day" - - Mmm hhmm, that was 15 years ago, and he didnt perform once. When was the last time he actually sold out a concert in which he appeared?"
It seems personal feelings are increasingly overtaking the conversation. I don't get this argument. It's kind of difficult to sell out concerts when you're no longer alive but no doubt he still would be if he were. I'm also not at all surprised about Mccartney being able to sell out concerts as he has a huge built-in legacy audience of Beatles fans. Pointing out that Michael Jackson's fame simply reaches further than McCartney's was never meant as a put down. Mccartney ultimately has an incredibly accomplished career in his own right. My position is balanced. I'm a fan of both. Clearly, you're a Mccartney fan & not a fan of Michael Jackson (which is fine) but it seems it's affecting your ability to be objective here. Like co-signing that dishonest anti-Michael Jackson troll earlier.
"I said, in the period of which I have existed, in MJ's heyday, he was the most famous singer in history - again, in his heyday - which I claimed was a 10 year period. But, was he more famous than The Beatles, Elvis, or Sinatra? I don't know, I wasn't there for them. It is quite possible, in their time, those 3 were more famous than MJ."
Okay. I don't believe that's an accurate barometer for a number of reasons but thanks for the clarification. Your original comment made that less clear. The standard of fame I'm taking into account is one that transcends race, gender, generations and continents. Michael Jackson didn't just overcome but in fact shattered racial barriers which makes his fame all the more astonishing & exceptional. His status is iconic pretty much everywhere around the world. Mccartney's fame while still very impressive, has never crossed over like that.
Your reply is a confusing contradiction. First, you agree that Michael Jackson is the most famous artist in music history but then you make this erroneous statement & do a 180 & arbitrarily declare Mccartney as the most famous. [quote]Jackson's day is over - his music has not carried over from generation to generation. 15 years since he passed - probably tons of people walking the planet today that don't even know who he is.[/quote] When the exact opposite is true by every relevant metric. Michael Jackson was selling out major tours to the day he died & I previously just explained how far Michael Jackson's fame reaches to this day, where even children in remote African & Asian villages still celebrate Michael Jackson's music.
As I said, even the Beatles fame was never that far reaching & Mccartney as an individual artist isn't even close. Again, the global impact of Mccartney's music/career of the last 40 years (once again, the bulk of his career) has been negligible. This is an objective fact & who we favor as an artist (You're obviously quite an enthusiastic Mccartney fan) has no bearing on it. Sometimes we just have to set aside our biases and accept what is.
[quote]Still doesn't make him the most famous singer in history.[/quote]
It kind of does though. Jackson's fame was in a stratosphere that couldn't be undone even by the major attempts to sabotage his career with constant tabloid media attacks or the preposterous 1993 extortion case, Michael Jackson's fame & influence was so great that there are remote villages in numerous African & Asian countries where even the youngest generation still know who he is & celebrate his music. As major as their influence has been (probably #2), the same cannot be said for even "The Beatles" as a group, let alone solo Mccartney.
Ironically Mccartney's last hit record was a duet with Michael Jackson & for over 40 years since has largely rested on the laurels of his career success up to that point, releasing a modest album here and there & doing concerts basically as a hobby because he simply didn't want to retire. I could be wrong, but I don't think he's done a major tour in all of that time which encompasses the large bulk of his career at this point.
Live & Let Die was a decent, memorable Bond theme. Band on the Run, I find to be "solid" but overall, never really "hit" with me like so many Beatles records have & I was a bit discouraged to hear that it was largely considered the peak of post Beatles Mccartney. It also didn't help when solo Mccartney fans got my hopes up about his apparent #1 UK hit "Mull of Kintyre" which I found to be droning ear poison. I've never heard the third song but it's "fine" I guess?
It's not about having the privilege of "thinking of someone certain way" but instead acknowledging openly prejudiced individuals who argue in bad faith, pushing conjecture to the point of lying & trolling. Zero credibility there. Virtually never non-toxic or factual.
I'd say Elvis & Sinatra are comparable (In the U.S.) but Jackson still surpassed them to become the biggest artist of all time. Absoltuely unprecedented & defied the impossible for a black artist. Definitely in terms of global fame/influence. Literally never heard of the third person
[quote]Mainly agreed with Mitzibishi in this discussion.[/quote]
Yikes. Not a good endorsement. It's impossible to take seriously the opinion of someone who harbors such naked envy & hostility towards Michael Jackson to the point of blatant lying/ trolling when it comes to analyzing Jackson's life & his unprecedented career success.
Literally sold out his "This is It" tour in a week but anti-MJ revisionists like to pretend that his career ended with the 1993 extortion case.
Longer, active career? Yes but worldwide fame, influence & accolades? No. Mccartney was in what is probably the biggest band in history as you say but Michael Jackson managed to become the biggest artist in human history.
Sidenote: As a casual observer, Mccartney may have had significant commercial success in the 70s with Wings/solo but it definitely seemed to be very much of its time with nowhere near the lasting influence that the Beatles had. As a millennial Beatles fan, with the exception of a few songs, I could never get into Mccartney's solo/Wings stuff.
[quote]Anecdotal! And do you have any idea how expensive it would be to license an MJ song for a movie? Clearly prohibitively expensive. There are many artists/labels/estates/catalog owners who don't want their songs being used in movies or who ask exorbitantly high prices making it unfeasible. GTA Vice City even removed Billy Jean from its soundtrack in later releases due to "licensing complexities."[/quote]
Never mind mitzibussy. Dude is a hardcore MJ hating troll willing to make things up out of thin air & deny basic facts in his feeble attempts to tear Michael Jackson down in any way he can. Likely a butthurt & resentful Brit, angry that Jackson eclipsed all of his favorite British artists.
The idea of Michael Jackson songs rarely appearing in movies because of they somehow weren't that popular is just willfully idiotic as it clearly indicates the exact opposite. As you point out they likely cost too much to use & Michael Jackson was specifically against allowing his music to be easily licensed to any random thing for money he didn't need. Still, off the top of my head I remember "Beat it" briefly playing during the Cafe 80s scene in Back To The Future II.
Probably the most famous of female artist of her era but even then, the case could be made for Beyonce.
But is it a question of who has been famous for the longest(while living) or who was the most famous? The level of worldwide fame & influence that Michael Jackson reached in his lifetime hasn't been matched. Many people however have been famous for a longer period.
Whatever you say Mr. Gutierrez, you delusional troll but facts are facts.
Note: ⬇ Poorly informed troll literally proving my point
No one cares what you have to say, Victor Gutierrez. Keep fantasizing, troll. You have no credibility.
Proven innocent with irrefutable facts through years of exhaustive investigation & research with the full weight of legal and independent journalistic authority behind these facts. The perverted, wishful fantasies of lying degenerates like Victor Gutierrez will never carry weight with anyone but other degenerates & trolls.
Proven completely innocent many times over but again, go ahead Mr. Gutierrez and cling to your sick disproven fantasies, troll.
Whatever you say Victor Gutierrez. Making up lies out of thin air involving thoroughly disproven scenarios will only ever exist in your perverted fantasies, so you can stay mad knowing that's the only place they will ever matter, low effort troll.
As I already suspected. Just a troll & a hater projecting their sick, personal fanfiction, as opposed to someone who genuinely too dumb or confused on the issue. Luckily your, mindless conjecture & disregard for actual facts will never matter & what does actually matter is that every witch hunt investigation into Jackson spanning decades, overt & covert only served to conclusively prove his innocence in the end which was eventually even acknowledged by the FBI & other areas of law enforcement, that took part in these unscrupulous investigations for years.
Each extortion attempt has been thoroughly debunked & proven to be lies through the legal system & independent investigative journalism. Keep your sick fantasy scenarios about pedophilia all you like because it's all that degenerates like Victor Gutierrez & you will ever have to cling to.
So you know of the exact camping arrangements in the boy scouts? You think scout leader have never shared tents with boys? A much easier scenario to try something nefarious than any circumstances with Michael Jackson.
"With a bunch of other people"
That doubly applies to the scenarios with Michael Jackson. Again you're coming to conclusions based on false assumptions. Michael Jackson acted as a mentor to numerous kids. These people all came to him. He never sought any of them out.
Michael Jackson commonly allowed all of his guests to sleep in his large 2 story apartment of a "bedroom" that contained 2 or 3 massive beds where entire families could easily share a single bed. Despite what your mind is intent on imagining, there was never a scenario of Michael Jackson, isolated & snuggled up in bed with anyone. No. That would be someone like Sia & her groomer "relationship" with Maddie Ziegler which you would be criticizing if actually cared & weren't just a Michael Jackson hating troll. It's been well established that in these scenarios with Jackson, there was always friends, staff, & most importantly parents & other family members who were always around when Jackson hosted guests & allowed entire families to sleep in his absolutely massive "bed"
Your wishful fantasy scenarios about Michael Jackson with boys sounds creepily similar to the infamous NAMBLA criminal Victor Gutierrez & his perverted fantasies. You need to take a good look at yourself.
Your question is redundant, as I already answered it over 4 years ago, along with correcting some of the incorrect assumptions in your question.
Would you allow your son to ever participate in mentor programs such as the Boy Scouts or the Big Brother program which at times involves men spending time alone with boys, including camping out in the woods? Do you consider those programs inherently inappropriate red flags, hiding something nefarious? If not then you should probably check your arbitrary & biased double standards.