(November 8, 2025) — The teaser for Michael dropped Thursday (Nov. 6), and with it came a wave of renewed euphoria around Michael Jackson and the unprecedented legacy he left behind in a 40-year career that ended tragically on June 25, 2009.
The feature film, starring Jackson’s real-life nephew Jaafar Jackson (Jermaine’s son) as the King of Pop, opens on April 24, 2026—nearly two years after wrapping filming (and undergoing post-production tweaks this year). The trailer’s impact was immediate: 30 million views in just six hours across all platforms, thousands of fans re-declaring their love for MJ, and plenty of others marveling that a biological nephew was chosen to embody him in the debut role of a lifetime.
The Thing About Biopics
Let me be clear: I’ve loved Michael Jackson’s music for as long as I can remember. What I’ve never loved are Hollywood’s “based on a true story” retellings—especially when they rewrite the parts of history I actually lived through and remember vividly.
Biopics love drama more than dates and data. And Michael, like any movie about one of the most documented, celebrated, and controversial figures in history, will invite every kind of scrutiny. Some will question casting choices, others will accuse the Jackson family of overly sanitizing the story, while still others will complain that the film either downplays or overplays the controversies that shadowed his life. (Anyone believing that the film will either confirm or reveal new details about alleged sexual misconduct by MJ will likely be disappointed as the family has steadfastly denied any wrongdoing, as Michael did during his lifetime.)
And then there’s the runtime: three and a half hours. Michael’s life story can’t be told in 90 minutes—but unless your name is The Ten Commandments, any movie beyond double that length is daring critics to pounce.
And then there’s the lead actor. No one faces a tougher spotlight than Jaafar. He’s family, yes, but does he have Michael’s eyes, his precision, his fluidity? MJ’s physical metamorphosis between his early adult years and later ones was so extreme that even the most advanced makeup might struggle to capture it. Would another performer—say, Chris Brown—have been a better fit for the post-Dangerous era? He certainly has the moves, the tone, the cheekbones to capture an older, more frail Michael.
Those questions are fair. But they’re also beside the point for me. My real concern is how faithfully Michael tells the “story.”
Hollywood’s Habit of Getting It Wrong
As the trailer blasted mashups of “Don’t Stop ’Til You Get Enough,” “Billie Jean,” “Beat It,” and “Wanna Be Startin’ Somethin’,” I was transported back to when the music—and its iconic videos—mattered more than the eccentricities, rumors, and courtrooms that later defined MJ’s public image. That music nostalgia is a critical part of the film’s power. It’ll allow those of us who lived MJ’s rise in real time to relive moments that can’t truly be recreated, no matter how lavish the cinematography, how spot-on the costumes, or how perfectly choreographed the dance moves.
But history buffs—and especially chart nerds like me—know that biopics often take liberties. Not with the big facts (year of birth, number of siblings, best-selling album ever, etc.), but with the little things that made the story real.
Completeness Matters
For instance, Michael’s professional collaboration with Quincy Jones began with The Wiz in 1978, but in between that and Off the Wall came Destiny, a Jacksons album that sold millions and helped set the stage for MJ’s solo domination with songs like “Blame It on the Boogie” and the two-million selling “Shake Your Body (Down to the Ground).” Between Off the Wall and Thriller was 1980’s Triumph, another powerhouse Jacksons album that produced dance classics like “Lovely One,” “Heartbreak Hotel,” and “Can You Feel It.”
A less meticulous filmmaker might skip those details—making it seem like the other Jacksons vanished for nearly a decade until their post-Thriller 1984 Victory reunion. But those potentially missing puzzle pieces—especially Triumph during a post-disco haze that made it one of dance music’s few, umm, triumphs—shaped the world that made Thriller possible.
The Relationships with Other Artists
More interesting will be how the movie handles MJ’s complex relationships with other artists, including members of his own family. His collaborations with Paul McCartney are legendary, from the Paul-penned track “Girlfriend” on Off the Wall to later hit duets “The Girl Is Mine” and “Say, Say, Say.” But that relationship is made more compelling by Michael’s outbidding of McCartney for the rights to Beatles music shortly after “Say” hit No. 1. It’s a fascinating tale of MJ’s business savvy, even if executed at the expense of a professional friendship.
Michael also famously wrote, produced, or sang on hits by Diana Ross (“Muscles” and “Eaten Alive”), Rockwell (“Somebody’s Watching Me”), and sisters Rebbie (“Centipede”) and Janet (“Scream”). It’s also well-known that there was public friction between Jackson and some of his siblings, including most notably Jermaine and La Toya.
Will these songs, relationships and the stories behind them be glossed over or worse, whitewashed, in the interest of brevity or image integrity?
The Wiki Effect
If Hollywood bends history for drama, the internet does it for clicks. Wikipedia’s entry for MJ’s singles discography now claims “Billie Jean” and “Thriller” sold ten million copies apiece in 1983, with “Beat It” adding another eight million. They didn’t. In reality, each topped a million during its original vinyl singles run. What did move ten million that year was the album Thriller itself—sometimes a million a week at its peak popularity.
Most of those sky-high figures for his singles come from 21st-century digital downloads and streams, especially around Halloween, when “Thriller” becomes an annual zombie-like resurrection (it will return to the Hot 100’s top ten for the first time in 41 years this week). But that nuance is omitted from Wiki, and a hype-focused filmmaker could easily weave in the exaggerated 1983 data for added effect.
“Ben” Wasn’t First
Then there’s the “Ben” myth: many assume it was MJ’s first solo hit because of the oddball premise (a song about a pet rat) and its eerie foreshadowing of his later affection for animals. But before “Ben,” Jackson had already scored with “Got to Be There,” “I Wanna Be Where You Are,” and “Rockin’ Robin,” the latter (I know, another animal song) a No. 2 hit months before “Ben” reached No. 1. The assumption that “Ben” was MJ’s first excursion away from his brothers would be low-hanging fruit for a producer more interested in the “Wacko Jacko” image played up by 1980s tabloids. But a thoughtful inclusion of the earlier songs would add depth and warmth to someone who was obviously a complex person.
I have reason to be skeptical about biopics. The most glaring recent example of the restructuring of a high-profile artist’s art was in 2018’s Bohemian Rhapsody, another film by this movie’s producer Graham King. King and Company rewrote Queen’s discography, making 1978’s “Fat Bottomed Girls” appear as if it accompanied their breakthrough three years earlier and releasing 1980’s “Another One Bites the Dust” before 1977’s “We Are the Champions.” That’s not creative license—it’s carelessness. And for people who care about pop history, it’s like fingernails across vinyl.
The point isn’t to nitpick. It’s that these small revisions—whether by studios or search engines—distort how it really happened for those of us who were there and remember.
The Hope—and the Risk
None of these potential inaccuracies will tarnish MJ’s legend. His place in cultural history is secure. But Michael will test whether Hollywood can tell a well-known story without remixing it into something unrecognizable.
If the film gets it right, audiences will leave theaters remembering not just the moonwalk and the glove, but the genius behind them. If not, audiences will still remember those things. But it’ll be another dazzling production that entertains millions while quietly rewriting history for the next generation.
I loved Michael Jackson then, now, and I’ll probably love the music all over again next April. But unless Hollywood resists the urge to remix the truth, I’ll still dislike biopics.
DJRob
DJRob (he/him) is a freelance music blogger from the East Coast who covers R&B, hip-hop, disco, pop, rock and country genres – plus lots of music news and current stuff! You can follow him on Bluesky at @djrobblog.bsky.social, X (formerly Twitter) at @djrobblog, on Facebook or on Meta’s Threads.
You can also register for free by selecting the menu bars above to receive notifications of future articles.
Queen, Bruce, Dylan, Whitney, The Doors, Amy, Tina, Elton, and on and on and on . . . all these biopics leave me with one overwhelming feeling. It’s one you mention as well. I’m glad I have been alive during each of these superstar careers. I fully expect there to be major holes in time frames, major deletion of events that seem unimportant or perhaps contorversial. I expect even if they touch on a few negative aspects we will overwhelmingly be showered with “the good side” of things. I’m grateful I went to the concerts, that I bought the albums and have listened to them endlessly, that I paid attention to what we were allowed to see as the persons behind the music. I’m a front row attendee to these things that cannot be erased or take away from me as a lover of the music. As good or as bad as the Michale biopic will end up being may disappoint — as they ususally do — and may leave us wishing for what could or should have been. Don’t show me the life if you’re not truly going to show me the life. But . . . I can put on the glorious music and live the past and present memories I personally have of how incredibly good and alive the music made/makes me feel.
(Apologies if this is a duplicate comment).
The recent Dylan and Springsteen bios focused on one or two critical years in the respective artists’ life. Even though the Springsteen movie has disappointing box office, is that an approach you would prefer? As far as Michael goes; there are several pivot points that would make great movies. I would love to see a film (documentary or acted-out) that focused on the 1984 Victory Tour. So many compelling sidebar stories! And the casting could get really fun: Who would -you- cast as Don King (I’m rooting for RuPaul!)
No worries. I moderate comments and never checked my alerts.
The recent Springsteen and Dylan movies focused on one or two critical years in the respective artists’ life. Even though the Springsteen movie has disappointing box office, is that an approach you would prefer? When it comes to Michael, there are several pivot points deserving of their own film. I’d love to see one (documentary or acted-out) which focused on the 1984 Victory Tour. So many sidebar stories! And casting would be fascinating: Who would play Don King, for example (I’m hoping for RuPaul!)
No, I’d prefer the lifetime span used in the Jackson film. One or two years would be too few, unless it was the two years centered around Thriller—from its inception to its final chart hit with the title track.