\n
![](\"https:\/\/assets-prd.ignimgs.com\/2026\/04\/23\/gettyimages-2272377186-1776938990398.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
One of the main actors in the Michael Jackson biopic has defended the film from \u201c\u2019whitewashing\u201d claims, pointing to the potential for a sequel to deal with sexual abuse allegations.<\/p>\n
Michael does not feature any scenes dealing with the singer\u2019s high-profile child abuse allegations after they were cut from the film, allegedly forcing reshoots that added $15 million to the budget.<\/p>\n
Variety has reported that Michael, which sees Michael Jackson\u2019s real-life nephew Jaafar Jackson play the title role, was meant to include a scene in which police arrive at Neverland Ranch to search for evidence of child abuse in 1993, but it does not appear in the final cut.<\/p>\n
This is allegedly one of many scenes that were meant to explore this part of Jackson\u2019s life in the third act of the movie, but were all cut because attorneys for the Jackson estate \u201crealized there was a clause in a settlement with one of the singer\u2019s accusers, Jordan Chandler, that barred the depiction or mention of him in any movie.\u201d Michael Jackson had denied all allegations, and his estate continues to deny the claims.<\/p>\n
This sparked $15 million dollars worth of reshoots and a new ending, Variety reported, contributing to a delay to the movie\u2019s release from April last year to this spring. The Jackson estate covered the cost because the error was theirs, Variety said, but it now has an equity stake in the film.<\/p>\n
Now, Michael ends with a scene set during Jackson\u2019s Bad tour, which ran from 1987 to 1989. There isn\u2019t a single mention of the child abuse allegations at any point in the movie. It revolves around the music and Jackson\u2019s troubled relationship with his father, Joe, played by Colman Domingo.<\/p>\n
And it was Domingo who this week defended Michael from the “whitewashing” claims by suggesting a sequel could continue Michael Jackson\u2019s story on from 1988. Speaking in an interview on the Today<\/u> show, Domingo said Michael is focused on “the makings of Michael.”<\/p>\n
“The film does stop in 1988, several years before the first child molestation allegations were made. And we live in an environment now where we take survivors of sexual abuse, we take their stories very seriously,” interviewer Craig Melvin began. “What would you say to folks who see this and they’re like, ‘You know what? They whitewashed that part. They didn’t even include that part.’ How do you reconcile your performance with that?”<\/p>\n
\u201cThe film takes place from the \u201860s to 1988, so it does not go into the first allegations,\u201d Domingo said in an interview on the Today<\/u> show. \u201cWe center it on the makings of Michael. It\u2019s an intimate portrait of who Michael is. Through his eyes, truly. So that\u2019s what it is. So that\u2019s what this film is.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd there\u2019s a possibility of there being a Part Two, that may deal with some other things that happened afterwards. This is about the making of Michael, how he was raised, and then how he was trying to find his voice as an artist and be a solo artist.<\/p>\n
\u201cThere could be a sequel. We don\u2019t know yet.\u201d<\/p>\n
Is a Michael sequel likely? According to Variety, Michael is aiming for $65 million to $70 million from 3,900 North American theaters in its opening weekend, but that figure could rise to a whopping $80 million. It\u2019s almost certainly going to be the largest debut ever for a musical biopic.<\/p>\n
So, assuming the box office plays out the way it looks like it will, a sequel is perhaps more likely than unlikely. But even if it were greenlit, surely it would run up against the same issue Michael did, given the settlement clause.<\/p>\n
In September last year, Jackson\u2019s daughter, Paris, criticized the \u201csugar-coated\u201d biopic about her father, saying it \u201cpanders to a very specific section of my dad\u2019s fandom that still lives in the fantasy.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cI read one of the first drafts of the script and gave my notes about what was dishonest \/ didn\u2019t sit right with me, and when they didn\u2019t address it, I moved on with my life,\u201d Paris said in a social media post. \u201cNot my monkeys, not my circus. God bless and God speed.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cSo I just butted out and left it alone because it\u2019s not my project,\u201d she added. \u201cThey\u2019re going to make whatever they\u2019re going to make. A big reason why I haven\u2019t said anything up until this point is because I know a lot of you guys are gonna be happy with it.<\/p>\n
\u201cA big section of the film panders to a very specific section of my dad\u2019s fandom that still lives in the fantasy, and they\u2019re gonna be happy with it.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe narrative is being controlled and there\u2019s a lot of inaccuracy and there\u2019s a lot of just full-blown lies. At the end of the day, that doesn\u2019t really fly with me. Go enjoy it. Do whatever. Leave me out of it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Photo by Axelle\/Bauer-Griffin\/FilmMagic.<\/em><\/p>\n