Only one thing could have saved the Michael Jackson biopic

The defining feature of the new Michael Jackson biopic is not what it shows us, but what it doesn’t – and why that omission matters more than the film seems willing to admit.

After a late discovery of a legal clause preventing any reference to Jordan Chandler, whose father accused Michael Jackson of sexually assaulting his son in 1993, the production was forced into a major rethink.

Earlier versions reportedly included that fallout and showed investigators arriving at Neverland and the narrative turning towards the consequences of the allegations.

That material has now been removed entirely, prompting the scrapping of a third act, 22 days of reshoots in Los Angeles, and an additional $10million to $15million added to the budget.

The film instead ends during the Bad tour, closing on Jackson at the height of his fame, with its focus shifted to his difficult relationship with his father.

So far, critics have not been convinced, with Metro’s Tori Brazier calling it ‘deep as a puddle,’ a criticism that points directly to the absence at its centre.

And that absence, according to experts, is going to draw the audience’s attention. As Jack Hayes, brand expert and founder of Influencer Matchmaker, tells Metro: ‘When a biopic about a figure like Michael Jackson omits the most contested aspects of their life, you risk producing a more streamlined and sympathetic narrative, but one that may feel incomplete to audiences.’

His life invites multiple interpretations at once: a child star denied a childhood, a once-in-a-generation talent, and an adult whose behaviour has been read either as the result of profound emotional damage or something far more troubling and darker.

Any discussion of those allegations has to begin with a clear and simple truth: child sexual abuse is horrific, indefensible, and deserving of absolute condemnation.

At the same time, Jackson was never convicted and maintained his innocence throughout his life. That absence of a definitive legal conclusion has left the public in a position of having to make up its own mind.

A media landscape shaped by true crime and an ongoing appetite for examining controversial figures is part of what keeps Jackson relevant, and part of what makes the idea of a biopic so compelling in the first place.

In other words, the very tension the film avoids is also part of what creates the appetite for it.

And crucially, audiences are unlikely to miss what’s missing. ‘Viewers today are much more aware of how storytelling can be shaped by reputation management or commercial considerations,’ Hayes adds, ‘so omissions are often noticed rather than overlooked.’

There is, of course, a broader pattern here. Projects backed by estates often favour a controlled version of events, particularly when the figure in question remains commercially valuable.

As PR expert Josh Allsopp puts it, this film is ‘less about preserving cultural memory and more about cultivating mythology, preserving instead the collective illusion of celebrity. We willingly suspend our disbelief… to be entertained.’

The success of MJ The Musical, which also avoids the allegations, is hardly surprising; a production built around some of the most iconic pop songs ever written is always going to draw a crowd on Broadway, and there is space in that format for a more straightforward, celebratory experience.

But a biopic carries a different expectation. It is supposed to place a figure within their cultural moment and help audiences grapple with their legacy with the benefit of hindsight.

That becomes difficult when the very material that reshaped that legacy is absent.

Olivia Bennett, Senior Digital PR Director at Go Up, tells us: ‘When more difficult or contested parts of someone’s life are left out, it doesn’t just simplify the story, it changes how people remember them.’

Audiences are not approaching this story without context, and they are more attuned than ever to how narratives can be shaped by legal or reputational concerns.

Leaving out the allegations does not remove them from the conversation; it simply makes their absence more visible, because viewers know exactly what has been left outside the frame.

Bennett adds: ‘People understand they’re watching a version of events, not the full picture. That doesn’t stop them engaging, but it does affect how much they trust what they’re seeing.’

A more meaningful film would not need to resolve the questions surrounding Jackson, but it would need to acknowledge that they exist, and that they matter.

Without that, what remains is a partial portrait of a figure whose significance has always come from contradiction.

The story of Michael Jackson does not end at the height of his fame, and any attempt to fix it there inevitably leaves out the very tension that made him not just famous, but endlessly, uncomfortably compelling.

And as Bennett concludes, that omission may ultimately backfire: ‘If audiences think something important has been avoided, it often leads to more questions rather than fewer… Audiences are much more switched on now. They’re not just watching the story, they’re thinking about what’s been included, what’s been left out and why.’

Got a story?

If you’ve got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the Metro.co.uk entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@metro.co.uk, calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we’d love to hear from you.