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?

  • redsand@infosec.pub
    133·
    2 days ago

    There’s a conspiracy floating around that Jackson became aware of the human trafficking to the ultrawealthy and he was smeared and possibly killed for it. No real evidence but it’s a fun one to think about.

      • redsand@infosec.pub
        31·
        2 days ago

        Yes. A less fun one to think about is a CIA redacted book called “The Adam and Eve Story”. Every explaination i can think of is deeply unsettling.

          • redsand@infosec.pub
            11·
            2 days ago

            You just take Wikipedia at face value for everything don’t you?

            I’m aware of how cooky the guy was. He also for sure did a bunch of government contracting and Einstein thought he was smart. Oh also a large chunk of the book is still classified.

            It’s not that I think what’s in the book is all real. It’s that any of it might be even partially true and what is in the redactions.

            • idiomaddict@lemmy.world
              3·
              2 days ago

              You can read it. You could also read it as early as this review in the winter of 1982-83. The article begins on page ten with the relevant mention on page 11.

              If you scroll to page 50-51 of the pdf that was declassified, you’ll see a transit slip (the missing page 48 in the book is because it’s a blank page in the book following a section that ends on an odd number, like the missing pages 18 and 52). I’m guessing that piece of paper was the relevant document and it was found being used as a bookmark in this book. Scroll further to page 56 of the pdf, to see the supplementary reading and that’s what I’m basing my skepticism on. The Wikipedia page is just a helpful summary.