Archive for the ‘michael jackson’ Category

there's no such thing as overexposure in the music industry but it sure exists in the film industry

Sunday, July 19th, 2009

there is a huge disconnect between the music and the film industry in terms of how the publicity machine helps or hurts as we can see by contrasting the death of michael jackson with that of farrah fawcett. while fawcett’s was a drawn out ‘is she dead yet’ affair that included a well watched made for tv documentary and michael jackson’s death happened pretty suddenly, both died on the same day.

since the death of MJ, he’s sold (collectively) more than 9 million albums wordwide. and that’s just solo albums. he’s continued to capture the cover of newspaper after newspaper and magazine after magazine around the world. his family organized a public memorial so fans could get a look at his 25K gold platted casket and sunkissed kids and the albums keep selling and the family continues to court the fans.

on the other hand, actors actively hide from their fans and would never have a funeral of princess diana proportion. people haven’t run out to buy old fawcett films like ‘the burning bed.’ and even if someone could find it, would anyone be interested in a poster circa 1976 of farrah fawcett with feathered hair?

why the disconnect. because in the music industry, there’s no such thing as overexposure. because you’re selling a product. yeah, there’s a person attached to the product but in the end every t.v. appearance or mention helps a label to move more units.

it sort of doesn’t work that way with film. maybe because the actors themselves are products. we see angelina jolie everywhere. but this hasn’t helped her put more bodies into chairs at her films. her opening numbers get dismally worse. but she and brad pitt, which the guardian newspaper recently labeled the jolie/pitt/aniston industry, help sell newspapers and magazines.

but since the dynamic duo are everywhere 24-7, why shell out $12 to see their mediocre films when you can spend (in some countries) 50 cents for the ‘privilege’ of getting saucy inside information of princess diana proportion. and there in lies the problem.

how much is too much? when does overexposure set in? is it a good thing or a bad thing to be written about and talked about dailyon on E! and Eonline and perezhilton.com? it helped j.lo get down with ralph (i’ve lost my looks with male pattern baldness) fiennes in ‘maid in manhattan’ –the last j.lo film anyone bothered to see. her being on the cover 24-7 of u.s. weekly with ben affleck –spawning the bennifer industry sure helped her get more money for her acting roles (at the time) and got her a number 1 album, but it snatched ben affleck’s film career from him while he wasn’t even looking.

but hiding out doesn’t help. now affleck is totally MIA when it comes to the press and the paparazzi. nobody cares. and when nobody cares and you’re not like a character actor like dennis hopper, that’s even worse than people caring too much.

back in the 90s, i had a friend who worked with michael jackson’s publicist and she said that he actually liked being in newspapers like the national enquirer, weekly world news, and so on. he didn’t really care what was being written. he knew that that meant he still mattered.

end of part 1.

the diary of prince michael jackson II as told by bill o'reilly

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009

i was born the son of a black man (well, sort of) and a donor egg. i grew up in the lap of luxury. my father unveiled me to the world with a blanket about my head. it’s okay that he nearly dropped me from the balcony, because at least we were holed up in a 5 star hotel in the ‘bestest’ city in europe. he was the best father a kid could’ve ever had.

when he spoke to me –which was only after having watched loads of hours of disney movies on our monstrous flatscreen TV in his bedroom (and just prior to his loading up on jesus juice), he never ever talked down to me. he wasn’t like those dads on TV. no. you see, he was just like me.

*this post is copyright ‘a blog about whatever’ 2009.* but plz by all means, send it around.

bill o'reilly vs. michael jackson

Wednesday, July 8th, 2009

michael jackson vs. macaulay culkin

Sunday, July 5th, 2009

the death of michael jackson has caused strange people to resurface like corey feldman to give statements on the king of pop. but the real question is where is macaulay culkin. who michael jackson presumably wanted to portray him in a movie about his life (when back in the 90s he suggested a white kid play him in a film).

news of the world (yes, that newspaper) has a interview with michael from 1996 in which he is interviewed about his relationship with kids. one of whom reportedly slept in his room for 1 year.

so let us deconstruct the michael jackson media cycle. first there was the shock of his death. so the journalists report the facts. ‘michael jackson. dead at 50.’ then the story becomes a little sentimental. ‘michael jackson. king of pop. dead at 50.’ then the music blares on the street and the little shrines begin to pop up around the world in places like london, berlin, and of course los angeles. the celebrities who knew him (liza minelli, liz taylor, diana ross) give statements about what a great talent he was. that is the end of the first news cycel.

then the weekend papers hit. and publications like ‘the guardian’ do stories about ‘michael jackson the self-loathing black man.’ and magazines like ‘us weekly’ and ‘people’ in the u.s. begin running photos of michael jackson through the ages san commentary. because you know, one wouldn’t want to bring up the fact that he went from being a cute little brown skinned boy with a cute button nose to a caucasian man without one. and janet jackson cries at the BET awards which is one long tribute to a musical genius. that is the end of the second news cycle.

then ‘news of the world’ runs an interview with debbie rowe (or whatever her name is) the former dermatology assistant jackson allegedly paid 750K to stay away from the children she gave birth to who may or may not have actually been hers but who definitely weren’t his. then there’s talk about who would get the kids. why debbie hasn’t seen them in how many years. and what would michael’s 79 year old mother and his 80 year old father do with 3 young kids. meaning you know, those people are old and michael didn’t like his father. that’s the end of the third news cycle.

and so on. then the cross-examination of his strange life begins. and the speculation about his debts. and now the conspiracy theories have started, because you know, michael jackson is alive and well (well as well as he ever was) and hiding out with elvis (who must be pushing 100 by now) and tupac in tupelo mississippi eatting fried banana sandwiches and taking copious amounts of drugs. and that would have newscycles four, five, and six.

jackson paid kids mother 750K to stay away

Monday, June 29th, 2009

this article from the saturday edition of the guardian talks about michael and the seeds that led to his self-loathing. the article also asks us why people had been willing (and now even still) to excuse michael jackson everything, from his bleached out skin to his love of a monkey and the endless trail of little kids and his ‘jesus juice.’ the article also points out that michael jackson paid debbie rowe, the mother of his first 2 children whom he briefly married, $750K per year to stay away from her own children. that she did it is even more bizarre.

isn’t it disturbing that in endless newsreports that this woman, debbie rowe is referred to as ‘the birth mother’ or ‘the biological mother’ but never ‘the mother’ of her own kids? these kids who are whiter than white? if you know anything about biology and how the male has the dominate genes, one has to wonder. if we look at halle berry or barack obama, both of whom had a black father and a white mother, we gotta wonder who is the father of michael jacksons ‘kids.’ did he merely marry debbie rowe so that he could lay claim to the kids knowing that no court in the u.s. (or the world) would allow him to adopt a child. not even malawi? and how in the world did madonna end up with black kids and michael jackson with white ones? the endless questions don’t just stop here.

update: according to an article in the new york post, quoting an interview from the weekly world news, the kids were not fathered by michael jackson.

michael jackson schizophrenia

Sunday, June 28th, 2009

today’s daily mail goes into details about unconfirmed and confirmed speculations and facts about michael jackson’s life and final days. gay. anorexic. bulimic. pill poper. suicidal. and supposedly, according to the article, michael jackson was diagnosed as schizophrenic as a child. the man whom paul mccartney is quoted as calling a ‘boy-man’ in the saturday edition of the guardian newspaper had a life as colorful if not more so than phil spector. but at least he never shot anybody.

the 70s and 80s are officially over; michael jackson and farrah fawcett both die at ucla

Friday, June 26th, 2009

yesterday, the 70s and 80s simultaneously ended upon the death of michael jackson (heart attack) and farrah fawcett (anal cancer).

last year, when john mccain was passed over for president in favor of barack obama, the 60s officially ended. now can we get rid of the 90s?

photos of the self-proclaimed ‘king of pop’ with paramedics can be seen here.