Leaving Neverland might get a sequel

[Didymus 34,379]

"Leaving Neverland’ director Dan Reed wants to make a sequel featuring more victims"

(Source)

"He's hoping to make a follow up featuring Gavin Arvizo and Jordan Chandler.

Leaving ­Neverland director Dan Reed has said he would consider making a sequel featuring more alleged ­victims of Michael Jackson.

The first part of the controversial documentary aired in the UK last night and featured extensive testimonies from James Safechuck and Wade Robson – who both allege that they were abused by the late singer as children.

But Reed now says that he would film a follow-up if fellow accusers Jordan Chandler and Gavin Arvizo agreed to speak.

Chandler famously secured a $23 million payout from Jackson in 1994, while Arvizo’s allegations sparked Jackson’s 2005 trial – which saw him found not guilty of child molestation charges.

“What’s interesting is to look at the Jordan Chandler civil case and criminal trial,” Reed told the Daily Mirror.

“Those are two films I’d like to make. But Gavin and Jordan would have to come forward.”

While both Arvizo and Chandler accuse Jackson of abusing them, the late star’s estate has vehemently denied the claims.

Despite widespread protests, the first half of Leaving Neverland was broadcast on Channel 4 earlier tonight (March 6). Viewers immediately took to social media to share their thoughts on the documentary, revealing a split in opinions on the contents of the film.

Many commented on the graphic retelling of the allegations, calling it “so uncomfortable and sickening to watch.”

A demonstration outside Channel 4’s London HQ took place earlier in the day, after the broadcaster refused to pull Leaving Neverland from its schedule, despite messages from fans and Jackson’s estate."

Thoughts?

[Regina George 59,387]

At this point he is just milking it 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

Good for him.

He's probably rich as **** now. He managed to fool so many people with no regard whatsoever to fact-finding. Didn't bother to include any insight or rebuttal from the other side (oh because MJ is dead, so why should I bother trying to be fair? Since he's dead I can just report anything I want on him)...

What's unfortunate is how many simpletons there are who turn a blind eye to this.

 

 

[Didymus 34,379]

3 hours ago, nicolasrumet said:

He managed to fool so many people with no regard whatsoever to fact-finding. Didn't bother to include any insight or rebuttal from the other side (oh because MJ is dead, so why should I bother trying to be fair? Since he's dead I can just report anything I want on him)...

Why would he need to include a rebuttal though? Why let people speak who don't know anything relevant about Wade or James' experiences?

That's like saying Gaga should first check with Fusari's side of the story before calling him out on raping her. It's absurd.

Plus, when will you finally acknowledge that if your assumptions are true, not just Wade and James are lying but also their partners, siblings and (grand)parents? I've yet to see any statement regarding that of yours and we all know why. It doesn't fit in your grand theory. And that's exactly why it's convincing so many people who've seen the documentary.

Not just Wade but also his sister vehemently opposed the allegations against Michael when she was an early teenager. Yet now we find her crying when she remembers when Wade told her he was abused and fearing for her mother's life. We see her pleading to the audience that she understands why people immediately assume Wade and other victims are out for money, that she was "one of those people" but that she was wrong. When are you going to start acknowledging that? Is she getting her share of the millions, is that it? Is his grandmother getting it too? How far are you willing to take your assumption and present it as obivous fact?

[Ziggy 10,754]

I don't like that he said, 

“Those are two films I’d like to make. But Gavin and Jordan would have to come forward.”

I feel like that's putting public pressure on them when they may not be ready. Like, it's one thing to ask them privately if you want to make a movie. It's a whole other thing to publicly do this not even asking them, just putting pressure on them. Idk, it sits wrong with me.

[Ryusei 60,889]

25 minutes ago, nicolasrumet said:

Good for him.

He's probably rich as **** now. He managed to fool so many people with no regard whatsoever to fact-finding. Didn't bother to include any insight or rebuttal from the other side (oh because MJ is dead, so why should I bother trying to be fair? Since he's dead I can just report anything I want on him)...

What's unfortunate is how many simpletons there are who turn a blind eye to this.

 

 

rebuttal from the jackson estate? Of course they would deny everything they're still on michael's payroll even though he has been dead for so long. They still make millions upon millions off him, he could be a mass murderer and they would deny it. 

[Gimme More 34,982]

i can't with these money grabbers 

[Antichrist 9,818]

they'll probably make 15 more of them, and a few oprah specials at it, gotta milk this to the end.

[misunderstood 8,736]

**** these people

[thatfoxyfeeling 12,715]

Kinda confirms that they were in it for the money. 

[Chickens in Malibu 7,873]

12 hours ago, Didymus said:

Why would he need to include a rebuttal though? Why let people speak who don't know anything relevant about Wade or James' experiences?

That's like saying Gaga should first check with Fusari's side of the story before calling him out on raping her. It's absurd.

The slippery slope here.... I can't 

Was Gaga featured in a documentary accusing Fusari of rape lol?

Any television company that's making public allegations against someone should have the courtesy and the journalistic integrity to include the rebuttal of the accused. Heck notice that even CNN always include a statement from the accused in every report no matter how trivial it is.

It is a common practice in journalism. But Dan Reed isn't one. He's a hoaxer now.

[Economy 47,184]

Ok that kinda looses credibility on the whole "this is not about Michael Jackson it's about the victims"

 

Why a sequel on MJ victims yet again? Why not general victims in general? Perhaps R Kelly?

 

I feel like this special emphasis on MJ really is for the ratings even tho many will say it isnt

[Economy 47,184]

15 minutes ago, THATFoxyFeeling said:

Kinda confirms that they were in it for the money. 

This and the fact that the sequel would be on MJ victims yet again

 

If the film really is based on victims and not MJ as it's claimed why MJ victims again specifically???

[RAMROD 104,487]

LOL definitely business scheme 

[Didymus 34,379]

Surprised by the responses  I mean, people were protesting outside the first screening. The Michael Jackson estate is actively trying to ruin his career. People are protesting it being aired anywhere on tv. He and his family are receiving daily death threats. He’s being called a malicious liar who didn’t interview enough people and his reputation is already intertwined with the question about the truth of the allegations  Of course he’d be interested in expanding his argument. It’s both a fearless protest against his naysayers as it is a passionate cry to defend all victims of abuse. The truth will not be silenced because of a celebrity factor, that kind of thing. I think it’s great tbh.