It’s a movie starring his nephew in the lead role, approved by his estate, and by all accounts it just feels like an attempt to whitewash him. This is a man who was accused of being a serial child molester, settled with a family out of court for $25 million just to avoid a trial (Chandler), and openly admitted he slept in the same bed as kids while he was an adult (Bashir interview), among other things. I don’t really see what there is to debate.
Anything pointing this out gets backlash on movie-related subreddits, which I find wild. It makes me wonder, if Epstein could sing and dance, would he have gotten a biopic too? Would people be defending him like this?
Seriously, watch Leaving Neverland and see what you think. It’s astounding. You will be like
Just for giggles, I chose to check the wiki for leaving neverland…
Funny, Culkin explicitly says nothing ever happened. Culkin must just be lying though, right? One of the people in that documentary said he was the next in line, so that’s that.
He’s interviewed at the end of the documentary. It’s worth it.
A quick scan of wikipedia is not sufficient.
As we all know, wikipedia is all lies without sources and all documentaries are truthful without editorial bias.
Yet opinions about any lengthy works by people who have never read / seen / heard those works are abundant.
If you think wikipedia is wrong, you can submit proof that the links are inaccurate.
But they probably don’t listen to people who hate facts that prove them wrong.
The one i found said Culkin denied there was any wrongdoing. That was it. That’s the one you’re basing this on? If so, you’re putting a lot of weight on something that isn’t even alleged in the doc.
Should I also watch Loose Change because it’s compelling and would leave me flabbergasted if I didn’t do any other research?
One of the two kids who the documentary follows makes an outrageous claim that we already know is fake based on the word of the person who allegedly experienced it. Just because you enjoyed it doesn’t mean it’s accurate.
I don’t even have any skin in he game (I don’t like Jackson’s music, personally), but the rhetoric around the man has always been contentious, and not always consistent. I’m not going to waste tons of time on a subject I don’t care about by watching a documentary that I already know includes a major falsehood from one of the primary subjects.
Honestly, I wasted more of my life on this subject than I wanted just responding here, so duces.
Well they’re not the same thing at all so your rhetorical comparison shows your lack of good faith in the question.
What? Try that again.
So you don’t care and you’re wrong and don’t want to see it. Got it.
Just have a habit of shitting in threads about things you don’t care about, eh. Yeah. Alright then.
Ok but it’s easy for a documentary to make you go insert shocked gif here if they just lie about things
True. So are they lying? I don’t think so.
bro, there’s so many docs about aliens constructing the pyramids. do i think they did? hell no. Docs are made to make money.
Mm. And the Enron doc? Also lying? Fog of War? Made for the money? If all documentaries are to be dismissed for being documentaries, thats fucked up, but ok. If not, this one is a “real” one.
The other commenter pointed out a pretty major inconsistency in what I assume is one of the main points of the documentary, so if they’re correct, then yes.
There’s a LOT of testimony in the doc. Which is being contested?
Macaulay Culkin’s experience
Well, he’s like a postscript to the doc. He’s only on it for like two minutes.
The doc is about the two boys before Culkin, not the entire group of boys he collected, so dismissing 98% of the movie, and the corroborating accounts Culkin has made seems disingenuous.
I understand people don’t want to believe it. But these two guys are direct and their stories match in many ways and they are eminently believable. If it didn’t happen to Culkin, he’d be an outlier, but - good.
Seen it, you are clearly dumb enough to fall for a ton of wishy washy nothing “proof”.
Wow so multiple first-hand accounts, archival media supporting it and additional contemporary witnesses aren’t enough to convince you?
Well then you are a True Believer™ . Go forth and enjoy your bliss.
all that stuff that he was acquitted for? It’s not like he was exceptionally rich and ripe for people to try and make a dollar off him due to his strange behaviors. I dont know one way or the other, but way too many people seem to claim otherwise when we ultimately just don’t know. and probably never will. IMO continuing to claim someone is guilty when the law says otherwise is just as bad as people blindly claiming someone is innocent. He was weird. thats really all we know.
The trial is a super interesting part of it. His reaction to it in particular. Exceptionally rich and famous people don’t usually lose. And it wasn’t a civil trial anyway.