|
||||||||
Is that really Jacko? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,789
|
Is that really Jacko?
Is any1 else a little suspicious that in his new video Michael Jackson appears in about 1% of it?Anytime it shows him doing any of his trademark fancy dancing his face is deliberately darkened so as not to see his face?Which leaves me wondering if its really him dancing at all?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: London
Posts: 362
|
i think it is him but he is just a little ashamed to let people see his face! he has his hat covering some of it then big shadow over the rest! u can just about see his mouth and now and again it looks like he is wearing a mask! the video isnt all that anyway! the only good point is chris tucker!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,192
|
i think it is him, and it really isn't a great video. anyone see the long version yet? is it any good? it would wanna be for $3million
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
It is Jacko that's in this new video and boy he looks old. For whatever age he is he looks as if he's in his 60's/70's. It must be all the plastic surgeory that he had.
$3 million dollars to make a Jacko video is nothing compared he spent $15 million making the Thriller video and $32 million making the video to Black & White. |
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,789
|
How the flying f*ck did he manage to spend 3 mil on it
?I mean take it into considerationA camera and sound crew A director About a dozen or less extras A fake bar scene Chris Tucker And all that costs 3 million all together?Bloody hellfire!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19
|
Its definatey him, in the long version of the video he shows his face. Its a good song, not so sure about the video...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Thetford
Posts: 4
|
The reason it cost $3 million was probably Chris Tucker. You know what hes like
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,789
|
I think i noticed Marlon Brando by the bar as well,so that could help count it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Banned User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Ireland
Posts: 1,789
|
Speaking of the video i saw one of his old ones on Play UK yesterday[didnt get the name]and it bears remarkable resemblence to the new one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 2,192
|
probably Smooth Criminal seeing as everyone is playing it since Alien Ant Farm did the cover
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bexleyheath, SE London
Posts: 17,408
|
Quote:
Originally posted by micksea241 What? The "Thriller" and "Black & White" videos didn't cost anywhere near those amounts.$3 million dollars to make a Jacko video is nothing compared he spent $15 million making the Thriller video and $32 million making the video to Black & White. I think "Scream" is the most expensive video of all time at $5.5m. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 19:13.


?I mean take it into consideration