Michael Sequel In The Works? Jackson Biographer Fires Back At Backlash

So, it turns out people still can’t get enough of Michael Jackson — or at least, the drama around his life. The new biopic, 'Michael', is breaking the kind of box office numbers most music biopics can only dream of, which is impressive considering it cost a whopping $155 million to make. That’s way more than your usual biopic price tag (the makers of 'Rocketman' must be facepalming). But with over $430 million already in the bank worldwide, the accountants are probably moonwalking in celebration.

The critics? Not so much. Let’s just say 'divided' doesn’t even start to capture the gap between audience and critic reactions.

Critical vs. Audience Reception: The Moonwalk Divide

• Critics on Rotten Tomatoes: 39% (yes, rotten territory)
• Audience score: 97% (basically throwing roses at the screen)

That’s not subtle. And it’s definitely got people talking, especially since music biopics — think 'Bohemian Rhapsody', 'Rocketman', 'Elvis' — usually end up with critics being a bit kinder. Joe Vogel, who literally wrote the book on Jackson, isn’t buying what the reviewers are selling. According to him, critics might be singling 'Michael' out, not because it’s worse than its peers, but pretty much because of what’s not in the movie.

'I do think the critical response seems a bit disingenuous, just compared to the other string of biopics that we’ve seen... They all follow a pretty similar blueprint, so it seems to me that the Michael film is being singled out, in some ways, because of what’s not in the film, as opposed to what was actually in it.'

And there’s the twist: if you know anything about Michael Jackson’s public persona, you know what’s 'not' in the film. The absolutely massive elephant in the room is the child sex abuse allegations — a topic you can’t talk about Jackson’s legacy without mentioning. Well, the movie ... doesn't. At all.

What Happened to the Third Act?

Here’s where things get tricky. The original plan — and this might surprise you — was for the movie to actually cover the allegations, especially in its third act. But the project hit a major legal wall. The Jackson estate (which is also the movie’s producer, for the record) remembered there’s a settlement clause with Jordan Chandler (the first accuser to go public in the early 90s) that straight-up banned including him in any portrayal. That’s not a small detail; it basically forced the scriptwriters to cut the story off in the late '80s, just before the barrage of media and legal chaos started in earnest.

Whether the estate was relieved or annoyed to have the legal out is anyone’s guess, but the result is obvious: 'Michael' just ~ends~ before it has to grapple with the most controversial chapter of Jackson’s life. Yes, a sequel is already being discussed, and no, it’s hard to imagine how that movie could possibly sidestep this stuff.

Who’s in It?

The cast is led by Jaafar Jackson (that’s Michael’s real-life nephew, for the trivia crowd), who’s apparently electric in the lead role. Critics who liked the movie — and a lot of fans — are pretty unanimous about that part.

So, Is This a Real Biopic or Just a Glorified Ad?

That’s the debate right now. Critics wanted a warts-and-all take, but that was always going to be a stretch when the film is basically estate-approved — and as legal consultant James Sammataro points out, that means you should expect something with more polish than punch. Here’s how he put it, and it’s worth pausing to consider:

'Expecting a sanctioned biopic to deliver unvarnished truth misunderstands the dynamics: The estate is the gatekeeper, and the film is a catalog activation strategy — a two-hour advertisement engineered to send audiences straight to streaming platforms to rediscover the back catalog.'

On the upside (and Sammataro isn’t wrong about this), biopics aren’t just commercials — at their best, they remind people that iconic songs came from real people and complicated moments. Even a ‘protective’ version of Jackson’s life adds context that Spotify can’t.

Mark Anthony Neal, who literally teaches a course on Michael at Duke, has a more forgiving take on the entire drama: filmmakers can make the stories they want, but critics absolutely have to do their job. If everyone just rubber-stamped whatever came out, we'd all be living in PR land.

Bottom Line (Until the Sequel)

So what is 'Michael' actually? A warts-free look at a complicated artist that just so happens to stop before things get ugly? An extended commercial for the catalog? Both? Take your pick. What’s undeniable is that it’s a massive commercial success, and the argument about what kind of movie it’s supposed to be is just getting started.