Hell has frozen over......A "SAY YOU WILL" DOCUMENTARY!!!
 

According to Lindsey himself, he said a documentary will be out in early 2004!!!!

Someone pinch me...

~Alex

This will be fabulous!

I can't wait to see more of the SN and LB "fight" that was shown in the VH1 All Access show!

Heres a direct link to the info....

SYW Doc!!

~Alex

This will be very intresting. I am so excited! Let's also hope for a DVD of the Boston Show!

yes its true folks -

and i actually heard a little gossip thru the LA film production grapevine....

lindsey supervised a lot of the editing
he's "one of the nicest guys in the world"
"a tremendous amount of pot was smoked"
"stevie insisted on an enormous amount of very expensive touching up to give herself a more youthful appearance on film"
a theatrical release was planned initially as was a possible showtime or hbo release

sounds true to me - can't wait to see it

A theatrical release?! What a bomb that would've been, no wonder they decided against it. I would've liked to have seen it on HBO (considering that Showtime is only in the homes of 9 million), just for the simple reason that it couldbe unedited if there was swearing involved in the discussion about the double-album. :laugh:

I can believe it about the touching-up. It's sooooooo obvious how touched up The Dance was... :nod:

Not sure why that would be necessary, when we all saw footage from the documentary many months ago on VH1, snippets on the official site, and also on the enchanced portion of the 'Very Best of Fleetwood Mac' compilation... and Stevie looked fantastic and radiant even with little makeup.

To touch it up after the fact, would kind of be like closing the barn-door after the horse has escaped.

She looked quite good, but there were some parts where I just knew that Stevie, the infamous glamour QUEEN, would not let be aired in full without touch=up. Notably, the "finances" bit. :nod:

It's all in the puffy eyes, Johnny. :wavey:

In what way is it "obvious" that it was touched up?

Granted the footage was pieced from three nights' worth of performances, and there's a somewhat softer focus to Christine and Stevie's closeups... but both ladies look very natural, and their faces have the same "imperfections" they always do.

We must have different copies of the concert then.

Besides for the amazing amount of pancake make-up that Stevie had on before filming, they used the gauzy-lens technique quite a bit. It wasn't soft focus, it was gauze. I thought it was most notable during Dreams, but that's just me. Throughout the rest of the concert, you, I at least, could notice the subtle things they did to the video (flattened out different parts of the face, added false lighting, etc.).

I've taken some classes on film and it really is quite easy, from what I understand, to do such inexpensive touch-ups. I don't know a whole lot about it, though, just what I learned in those few courses. :)

I guess we'll see how much validity the rumour has, when the documentary is released and we can compare the footage.

Also kind of surprises me that it would be a problem for her, since she probably could have easily blocked the documentary from ever being filmed (or even released) if she was really that worried about how she'd look on camera.

Touch-ups seem unnecessary to me, but if it's true, then more power to Stevie, I guess.
Who doesn't want to look as good as they can?

They can do wonders these days. For example, Michael Jackson had the entire NYC concert a few years ago retouched frame by frame. In no way is Stevie as bad as Wacko Jacko (although she has attended his parties in the past :laugh: ), I can see her wanting to look glamourous. Like it or not, her carefully crafted image helps sell her and their great great great music!!!!!

Apparently we do have different copies.
In Stevie's close-ups, you can very easily see that her face isn't as tight and youthful as it was.
You can also see the "pouty" lines she has around her mouth.

I'm not sure where you see evidence of her face being "flattened out," etc., but I won't argue. :)

And despite whatever clout Stevie has as a celebrity, it surprises me that she could have enough pull to have all the footage of her from that tour re-touched, as she looks the same in all the clips I've seen from that time-period. (Hell, in some of them, she looks better than she did on the 'Dance' DVD.)

For what it's worth, I do agree that "Dreams" seems to have the most noticeably soft-focus/gauzed close-ups. :)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend Stevie here... if I thought it was evident that the footage had been re-touched, I wouldn't deny it. What would be the point?
But I don't see evidence of that on 'The Dance,' beyond the standard techniques they've used to compliment the looks of female celebrities for years.

OMG ~ Love it ;)

I remember reading that.
I also remember thinking that he should have asked for his money back!!! :laugh:

For that and alot of other times he has paid people to make him look good :laugh:

I hope that just because Stevie wants her appearence touched up doesn't mean that she will also insist that some of the juiciest/bitchiest moments be edited out too. I'm hoping for some good Stevie/Lindsey fights and hopefully John McVie will be as funny as he is in the video snippet on the VBOFM CD. He definatly has an air of Ozzie about him that makes it hilarious. :D

I know, check out the difference in Whitney's body weight! :eek: :laugh:

She went from having to eat a few healthy pork sandwiches to only needing one.

Exactly. And the fact that she hasn't had oodles of plastic surgery is a damn miracle in the business she's in, especially for women over 40. I applaud her for staying relatively natural, so if she wants her fake lighting and touch-ups then by all means let the woman have them!!

I noticed that the mere mention of the name "Michael Jackson" resulted in the array of anti-MJ comments quoted above. I know this is a Fleetwood Mac forum, but somehow the anti-MJ sentiment leaked in, which has opened the door for me to defend MJ. The most annoying aspect of anti-MJ comments in general is that they are seldom if ever founded in fact--they only make grave assumptions.

1. The first negative comment, within the same post as the first mention of MJ, is "as bad as Wacko Jacko". This unfortunate nickname implies that MJ is "crazy," a term most commonly used by laypeople to describe people exhibiting sociopathic, psychopathic, and or schizophrenic behavior. However, MJ has never exhibited any such "crazy" or "wacko" behavior. He is, at worst, eccentric.

And before criticizing MJ's lifestyle choices, let's not forget that MJ had no real childhood to speak of, that he was always performing in front of 1000s, his father forbade him to play games, made fun of MJ at every opportunity, and also beat him with such objects as a belt and an electrical cord. In fact, the abuse was so horrible that it eventually caused MJ to gag upon even seeing his father; this is a psychosomatic reaction that clearly shows the severe psychological trauma inflicted on young MJ. This also helps explain MJ's current childlike behavior and attitude.

The comment I quoted also suggests MJ looks bad. Well, that is nothing but a subjective opinion. Why not, instead, say he looks "unconventional"?

2. The second and third comments imply that MJ does not look good AND that "looking good" was his goal. Before and especially after his first surgery (nose), around the time of Thriller (ca 1984), MJ was quite good-looking by conventional standards. So if he kept getting all of this surgery, while being a heartthrob, I think the conclusion is that MJ was not trying to "look good". Specifically, I think MJ is trying to look like Peter Pan (the eternal child) as part of his attempt to experience a childhood he never had. It fits not only his apparent psychology (witness some of the comments he made on the ABC special: "I am Peter Pan at heart", e.g.), it also fits physical evidence: for instance, his ranch suggests strongly, and above anything else, that he is trying to recapture a childhood he never had.

I also suggest you visit this website: geocities.com/plabcures/peterpan.html . It presents a convincing photo-analysis of MJ's face.

Ok. Flame away. I'll be waiting to defend my arguments and face more anti-MJ commentary.

No flames, everybody has the right to their opinion. :cool:

Yup. And my opinion is that he's crazier than a sh*t house rat.

I find it very implausible that he had all of this surgery (from the 80s up until recently) to look less attractive. And he obvioulsy isn't on the same playing level as the majority of adults because adults with morals do not sleep with children that aren't theirs in their bed.

Just my opinion and I respect yours.

Yes. The unfortunate thing is that the prevailing American opinion of MJ, parts of which I referred to above, is not fact based, yet, over time, it has come to be accepted as fact. Although many people dismiss my "opinion" about MJ without hearing my support, I feel that my statements about MJ correspond far better with the facts.

I don't understand what evidence you have to suggest he is crazy, rather than eccentric.

I am not suggesting that MJ had surgery to look less attractive, but rather, that he had it to change his appearance to a more child like one.

He is not on the same playing level as adults: yes, that is true. He is, emotionally, a child. To him, sleeping with children is like sleeping with peers. He has stated that to him, "sleeping with" and "bed" do NOT have a sexual connotation. To MJ, sleeping with children is like having a sleepover. If MJ were 35 years younger physically, nobody would have a problem letting him participate in a sleepover. But people do not understand that, despite his physical advancement beyond the childhood years (which he is trying to counterattack surgically), he is still EMOTIONALLY the same as a child.

The old cliche of "don't judge a book by its cover" is especially apt here, since MJ's physical age is far beyond his emotional age, a discrepancy that came as a result of horrible abuse, and compulsory performance. He never could sleep over with friends as a physical AND emotional child because he was basically imprisoned by an abusive father. Now, he is physically an adult but STILL AN EMOTIONAL CHILD. And without a tyrannical guardian, he is trying to experience childhood again.

So, I do not understand why this behavior is immoral. It is just different and unexpected in our society. It is not immoral--he is not doing anything wrong. If acting like a child is what he needs to be happy, well, just let him be.

Just to let everyone know, Jacko will be interviewed by Ed Bradley on 60 Minutes on December 17.

:wavey:

No flames here, either.

But if the surgeries weren't performed to make him look "better," why the need to spend thousands of dollars to re-touch a performance to cover the negative side-effects of one-too-many trips to the plastic surgeon?

And while it's not by business, but out of concern for a fellow human-being, I do have to wonder about Michael's sanity.

Legal issues aside, I do believe people take advantage of his eccentricities, and I think it's a damn shame that no one... family, friends, assistants, or even the plastic surgeons he has gone to... seems to have ever stepped-in and said, "Michael, you're going too far."

Certainly a licensed plastic surgeon should have some idea of how much work you can do on someone's face, before problems would arise (such as the reports that the tip of his nose has caved-in, and he must use putty to fill it in).

And if folks have tried to intervene and talk Michael out of the continual plastic surgery, then, again, you have to wonder about the emotional stability of this person.

A lot of people have had difficult childhoods, or were forced to grow up faster than a child should have to, but chose to face their past and were able to move on.
Michael unfortunately seems to have retreated into his fantasy world, and it's a damn pity that no one seems to have tried to help him.

Amen!!!!

Wacca Jacko is disgusting in so many ways, I don't understand how anyone could defend someone who hangs their baby out a window, sleeps with little boys, etc.

I also don't understand why so many musicians adore him. If you saw the Christine clip, she also said how much she liked Thriller and that it was a classic. That may be true, but I don't think anyone should promote his albums after we have learned about all this.

Give me a f**king break! Kids have grown under great strain and hardship all over the world and didn't become as much of a plucking weirdo as this nut. The man (???) has admitted he sleeps with children in his bed. Whether something untoward happened (yeah, like it didn't!) his admission that little children were sleeping in his bed is enough for me to want to gag. It simply shouldn't be happening.

Do you have children?

Amen! he should be sent to prison ASAP!

We DO know MJ had the show retouched. BUT do we know WHY? Where is his statement that "I had this retouched to cover up plastic surgery side effects."? It could be that he was having skin blotches from vitiligo, a dermatological disease he has, touched up. Or it could be something else.

If you believe that his case of Vitiligo is as extreme as he says. I don't. Have you seen the pictures of him in court where his nose is FALLING OFF? The fact that he has had so many surgeries makes one question his sanity. I saw bits and pieces of the broadcast before it was touched up and there were no blotches, just a sad man who blames his lack of childhood for all his problems. Lame excuse, Jacko. I feel no sympathy for him because he's done this all himself. Don't you remember when he leaked those pictures of himself, sleeping in a tank? Don't you remember that the little boy who accused him of molestation back in '93 described in detail the many genital discolorations Jacko had and the the police concurred? So many crazy things have happened that there is no way he is sane.

re:
 

From what I gather, he hasnt just been sleeping with children, which in some form could be considered "comforting"...

the fact is he's been sleeping with teenagers, which is just down right creepy.

I said it's immoral to sleep with little boys. And I doubt anyone would disagree with me, with the exception of Jacko and your common pedophile.

He must not be able to see very good because his surgeries have not given him a youthful look, they've made him look like a false, middle-aged, unattractive white woman.

Also, if I were to sleep with children that weren't my own in my bed, had countless plastic surgeries to the point where my nose is falling away, am accused of molestation three times (it was discovered that he was accused twice in '93), walk around on crutches claiming I was bitten by a spider, dragging my children into a zoo and letting them get trampled while I revel in being adored, hang my newborn off of a hotel balcony, sleep in a crypt-like chamber, and force my children to where veils in public, would I be crazy or eccentric???

I'd be in the loony bin faster than you could say "vitiligo" and my children would be put in foster care!!!

Well I can't say that I am surprised by some of these reactions, they are all too typical of the ill-informed, assumption-making
American.

Sure, plenty of kids have grown under "great strain and hardship". But what does THAT mean? That is such a vague statement that it refers to thousands of children. All you have to do is remember that MJ was forced to perform, contrary to his desire, in front of thousands of cheering people. That basically renders your argument invalid, because your argument does not consider this highly important factor.

It seems to me that MJ's childhood experience was utterly unique and so, it can't be judged based on the typical abusive childhood.

As for your implication that MJ had sexual relations with the children (and I was wondering when somebody would dredge this up), I do not perceive any evidence. You only cite the fact that he stated he slept with children, which is non-evidence, or even evidence against the molestation claim: why would a man molest a child then turn around and proclaim "I slept in the same bed as children"? As for why it makes you gag I have no idea. Does it make you gag when children of the same age sleep together at slumber parties? Furthermore, are you disgusted by parents sleeping in the same bed as their children? By your logic, EVERY adult who has EVER slept in the same bed as children is guilty of child molestation.

Do I have children? No. That is totally irrelevant. For example, my mother admits that she agrees with all of my arguments.

As for this...
That is exactly the kind of uninformed declarations I was talking about. As you apparently agree with the other person I quoted, I can only conclude that you feel this way because MJ sleeps in the same bed as children and admits to it. I can just hear that argument in a courtroom now: "Because MJ slumbered in a bed with a child, it is CONCLUSIVELY SHOWN that he is a molestor." Well, that's some argument. Step aside F. Lee Bailey; out of the way, Johnny Cochran. There's a new lawyer in town.

Don't forget that the first accuser SETTLED OUT OF COURT!!! I ask you, what parent would rather receive money than see a man they accused of molesting their child go free?

Furthermore, the accuser's description of MJ's genitalia DID NOT match MJ's genitalia.

:shocked:

I'm going to throw up now!!!!!!!!!!

Re: re:
 

He sleeps with ten year olds! He's a pedophile who should be thrown into a psychiatric hospital! It could be called comforting if it happened once or twice with a family friends child while your babysitting, but when it happens constantly with children you barely know and who are going through diseases like cancer, it's f*ckin' gross.

But he has slept with a 13 year old, so you are right about the teens, too. ;)

He's a goddarn pig.

Ill informed American? There is no excuse for these things so I don't have to be informed on exactly what kids he is sleeping with!

And, even if nothing sexual is going on, then I look at it like this. If sex is going on then he needs to be sent to jail, if not (and he just likes sleeping with them) he needs to be hospitalized!

Yes, it did match. You are sorely misinformed. The investigators confirmed it back on Dateline last year. ;)

He may have been forced to do it then, but he sure as hell isn't being forced to perform now, is he?

Yes, the first accuser settled out of court. Firstly, the boy didn't want to testify, for reasons that I'm sure are obvious to anyone with a grasp on psychology. Secondly, the settlement reflects on the parents and their bad choice, not the boys and it doesn't negate what may have happened; just because the parents accepted money, it doesn't mean something didn't happen! Lastly, why settle for over twenty million if you did nothing wrong, Jacko?

I'm waiting for you to ask if I'm Diane Dimond. :laugh:

The same Dateline that ran a highly suspect special on MJ's nose surgeries (it used pictures to show the nose's changes over the years--but in some cases, it used pictures from the same era taken from different camera angles as "evidence").

While some shows known to distort data (such as Dateline) have reported the amount MJ forked over to settle, nobody other than privileged parties know of the exact amount.

I know why. Because going to trial would be undoubtedly embarrassing. If I was a huge, mega rich star being falsely accused of molestation, and I had the unusual and suspicious chance to settle, I certainly would, since it would mean not having to endure a long trial during which photos of private parts would surely be shown. Plus, he was in the middle of a busy part of his career and the trial would only take up valuable time.

Of course, that he settled does not mean conclusively that nothing happened. But if the parents honestly believed this man molested their son, settling seems unconscionable.

Also, there is good reason to suspect that the father may have put the boy up to suing MJ, that he saw a goldmine and this was his way of striking it rich.

What kids he sleeps in the same bed as does not matter; the ill informed part refers to poor grasp many have on MJ's psychology. THAT is an excuse for "these things". Why can't people understand that these kids are MJ's peers? They are not sexual prospects.

Now if by hospitalized you mean given psychological treatment, I may agree. I am not saying that it is normal to consider children your peers and to sleep in the same bed as them; I am saying that one can't just level such accusations without understanding MJ's abnormality, and when one DOES understand it, the accusations no longer seem valid. Unfortunately, MJ's particular psychology--unlike my OCD, for examples--leads him into situations that are misunderstood and sources of speculation.

Actually he is not because a pedophile must be a sexual predator who is adult physically AND emotionally. And I'm sure those cancer kids are very appreciative of a friend who relates to them on an emotional level and does not judge them.

And then there are ALL of the kids who praise MJ and call him a friend.

So who do YOU believe? The couple of kids who allege molestation--kids whose parents are suspect (e.g. in the latest allegations, the parents have sued multiple times before--including one time alleging a JC Penney guard molested that same boy--I just find it extremely difficult to believe that if these allegations were true they would let their son sleepover with MJ!!! Or that the boy himself would sleeover with MJ if he was really sexually assaulted. And if those allegations are false, as I suspect they are, then what does that do to the credibility of the current suit?). Or do you believe the countless children (who far outnumber the accusing children) who love and support MJ and call him their friend?

I'm confused.... :( Is the Say You Will documentary going to include a bonus disc covering Michael Jackson's child molestation allegations??? :rolleyes:

Misterbug, have you already Jordy Carter's deposition? It's on The Smoking Gun. Any way you look at it, MJ is a pretty sick guy.