So, I guess Michael Jackson has been rehabilitated?

Has Michael Jackson been redeemed through his death? I think that it’s shameful that Farrah Fawcett was dissed at the Oscars, and that Michael Jackson got some airtime. Not because of his, well, anything, it was his lack of everything Oscar related; at least Farrah was in a couple of movies.
And, I remembered her as a movie star, rather than a TV star.
Pretty sad, methinks. But, to the main: Is it now totally unacceptable, socially, to have less than a hagiographic view of MJ?
Best wishes,

A saint? I’m not sure anyone would ever go that far, nor do I feel that a person would be out of line to mention his alleged indiscretions. I believe there will always be doubts as to his absolute innocence of whatever, but being dead tends to wash away a lot of bad things. It was never any secret that he was, um-- eccentric, to say the least, but as more and more time passes what’s truly indelible will be his talents.

BTW I’m not really even a fan. But the man was undeniably talented.

My opinion is that any view of MJ is welcome as long as it contributes to the money machine.

They snubbed Gene Barry too.

I don’t know. I thought they were stretching it when they included George Harrison. I know he was in the Beatles movies & also a movie producer, but his movie work was not his claim to fame. But, as a Beatles fan, I was kind of glad to see his passing recognized. I guess there are MJ fans who feel as I did. It still doesn’t excuse the treatment of Fawcett & Barry.

“The Wiz” had several Oscar nominations.

“Ben” was nominated for best original song (and won a Golden Globe in that category.)

It certainly helps his legacy that MJ was never actually convicted of anything.

Still, it’s a crying shame that Farrah Fawcett got snubbed in favor of a bunch of writers and cinematographers that nobody’s ever heard of. :mad:

He was not convicted of a crime but he did pay a different kid a settlement.

Yes, and one has to ask why.

Rehabilitated? Hardly. If nothing else, I am sure people will remember him as creepy, with an unnatural interest in young boys, which is something that will probably overshadow his music career forever.

I think it’s just that a lot of the people who didn’t believe the allegations now feel it’s okay to come out, and that they are influencing people who grew up with the guy and never wanted to believe the allegations in the first place. I know my mom and her best friend are now convinced he was fine.

No way. If you think that, you have an incredibly limited view of what “forever” means.

His recorded music will be around for a very long time, long after anyone of us who remembers co-existing with him is dead and gone. And any new generations who grow up and re-discover it will neither know nor care about his private life. Oh sure, it’ll still be in some written documents that occasionally get read and passed around in “Strange Facts about Historical Figures”-style e-mail glurge. Like the kind today that tell you about how our founding fathers were marijuana farmers, slave owners, and debaucherers. And people will say to themselves “huh, how about that” and move on.

Here’s the thing - you can reprove the dead all day, but at some point you’re beating a dead pop star. And what’s the point of that? Ultimately it’s a person’s contributions to society that last. The moral judgments of how they lived their lives get less and less relevant over time.

What I found interesting about Michael Jackson being included in the memorial segment was that there was no “identifier” under his name. Everybody else was identified as an actor, producer, writer, or whatever, but when they got to MJ they just had his name. I’m not sure if this meant that everyone was supposed to just know why he was included or if they couldn’t decide on how to classify him.

And I agree that Gene Barry being snubbed was a disgrace.

There were a fair amount of people who thought this when he was still alive. Clubs around here still have Michael Jackson nights.

Now that he’s dead, Jackson’s image will get better and better as the years go by. His estate will get richer and richer because he’s not around to waste the money.

Elvis died horribly overweight and drug addicted. He was nearly bankrupt. His ex-wife took over the estate and within a few years it had millions of $$$$.

Younger people today don’t even remember the fat, bloated Elvis that split his pants on stage. Elvis is the king of rock n roll. People remember him as the young stud in the pictures from the 50’s anf 60’s.

Twenty years from now, the younger fans will only know Michael as that cool guy in Thriller. All that weird crap with the masks and young kids will be forgotten.

People say there’s not “proof.” Well there’s lots of proof, just not the kind a jury would accept.

It would be interesting to conduct a mock trial with a fake person and see if the jury would find a regular person guilty.

Death has redeemed him in many ways because you can now focus on his music and shy away from his weirdness. In other words, he no longer can screw up his music with his actions.

When his kids grow up this will be the final verdict. It’ll be interesting in ten or twenty years when one of them writes a book. Even then with no evidence it’ll be hard to change people’s minds. Did “Mommy Dearest,” really change any of the minds of people who were fans of Joan Crawford? Most likely not.

I don’t quite agree with Rigamarole that Jackson’s life will become a footnote. I think the fact that he was a weird little perve will follow him around forever, because it’s very well-known, and possibly even integral to his personna. The same can’t be said of Joan Crawford’s alleged behavior, nor for the druggie Elvis.

I do think, however, that the music will overshadow the man-boy-whackjob; how long anyone cares depends on the public’s musical tastes. Eventually he’ll excite about the same level of interest that Al Jolson does today.

I’m right in the middle of the supposed Michael Jackson demographic but his “magic” appears to have passed me by. Even leaving aside his bizarre lifestyle and possible child molesting, I saw him as an average pop star. Popular but nothing special - I’d rank his contemporary Prince as more talented and influential. As far as fame, I’d have ranked him with Farrah Fawcett - somebody who had been really big quite a few years ago but had now been mostly forgotten. So I was surprised by the size of the coverage of his death.

Personally I think he is vastly overrated. Shrewd business man but nothing more than that. I don’t think his music is particularly memorable and I really don’t think it will stand the test of time. YMMV.

As for the Oscars, well it’s for a mass audience so I’m not surpised that he was included.