Lionsgate’s Michael didn’t just meet expectations—it exceeded them by a wide margin. The film, a big-budget production authorized by Jackson’s estate, opened with $97 million in the U.S. and Canada, surpassing the previous record for music biopics set by Straight Outta Compton ($60.2 million in 2015) and Bohemian Rhapsody ($51 million in 2018). Overseas, it earned another $120.4 million, bringing the global total to $217.4 million. Initial studio estimates had projected around $50 million, with revised forecasts later adjusting to $70 million, both of which proved conservative.
Adam Fogelson, Lionsgate’s chairman, suggested the strong performance was not unexpected. From the beginning, all of the signals were that something like this was possible,
he told 1News. We were seeing massive engagement with every conceivable audience segment that you could identify.
The numbers support his assessment, though the film’s success also underscores how Jackson’s cultural impact continues to resonate despite the controversies that have surrounded him.
The Studio’s Gamble: Why Lionsgate Bet Big on Jackson
Lionsgate’s decision to produce Michael reflected a calculated risk on a figure whose legacy has been shaped by both acclaim and controversy. Jackson, who died in 2009, was acquitted in his 2005 criminal trial, but allegations of child sexual abuse have persisted. His estate has consistently denied wrongdoing, while Jackson himself acknowledged sharing a bed with children, a detail that has remained a point of discussion for years.
The production faced significant challenges. After completing principal photography, producers encountered an issue: the film’s third act initially focused on Jordan Chandler, the 13-year-old whose 1993 allegations led to a $23 million settlement. The terms of that settlement prohibited the estate from depicting Chandler, requiring extensive reshoots. Officials estimated the cost of these reshoots reached as much as $50 million. Director Antoine Fuqua and screenwriter John Logan reworked the ending to conclude in 1988, before the allegations became public.
Fogelson disputed the notion that the studio was in disarray. I would take issue with the idea that we as a studio or as filmmakers were running around in a panic,
he said. Still, the behind-the-scenes difficulties added another layer to the film’s narrative, raising questions about whether Michael’s success was achieved in spite of these challenges or because of the attention they generated. For a biopic about a figure as polarizing as Jackson, the production’s complexities may have contributed to its intrigue.
The Audience Showed Up—But Who Were They?
The film’s strong box office performance suggests broad appeal, though the specific demographics remain unclear. Lionsgate reported massive engagement with every conceivable audience segment,
but the motivations behind that turnout are still being analyzed. Some viewers may have been drawn by Jackson’s music and cultural legacy, while others could have been motivated by a desire to engage with his story despite its controversies.
Reactions to the film varied among Jackson’s family. Paris Jackson, his daughter, described the movie as “fantasy land.” Janet Jackson, his sister, distanced herself from the project. However, the estate’s involvement and the casting of Jackson’s nephew, Jaafar Jackson, in the lead role provided a sense of authenticity for some audiences. Others found the film’s omissions and legal constraints problematic. The Guardian noted the chasm-sized reality gaps
in the film’s portrayal, yet these gaps did not deter moviegoers.
The film’s conclusion in 1988, before the most contentious chapters of Jackson’s life, may have played a role in its appeal. For many fans, this period represents a time when his music and persona were less complicated by later controversies. The nostalgia for this era could explain why audiences embraced a version of Jackson’s story that sidestepped the more difficult aspects of his legacy.
The Future of Music Biopics: A One-Off or a New Trend?
Michael’s record-breaking opening raises questions about whether this success signals a broader shift in the music biopic genre or remains an exception. The genre has long balanced artistic ambition with commercial viability, and films like Bohemian Rhapsody and Straight Outta Compton demonstrated that audiences would turn out for well-crafted stories about iconic figures. However, neither of those films matched Michael’s financial performance.
The difference may lie in Jackson’s unparalleled cultural influence. His music remains widely recognized, and his impact on pop culture is undeniable, even as his legacy is debated. The challenges of adapting his story are also unique. The Jackson estate’s control over the narrative ensured that Michael avoided the most contentious allegations, but this also limited the film’s scope. The result is a biopic that feels incomplete, constrained by factors beyond the filmmakers’ control.
That incompleteness may have contributed to the film’s appeal. The Guardian described Michael as a project that was both blessed and burdened, unable to fully address its subject’s complexities. In an era where audiences often separate art from artist, the film offers a version of Jackson that is accessible and nostalgic, if not entirely comprehensive. It presents a fantasy that millions were willing to embrace, even if only temporarily.
What’s Next: The Legacy of Michael and Jackson’s Place in Culture
Michael’s success does not resolve the ongoing debate over Jackson’s legacy—it amplifies it. The film’s strong opening demonstrates that his story still resonates, but it also highlights the unresolved tensions surrounding his life and career. For some, the movie serves as a tribute; for others, it represents an incomplete or sanitized portrayal. The estate’s involvement ensures that the narrative will remain carefully managed, but the broader cultural conversation about Jackson continues to evolve.
The film’s performance in its second weekend will provide further insight. If Michael maintains its momentum, it could signal renewed interest in music biopics, even those centered on controversial figures. If it declines sharply, it may serve as a reminder that even the most iconic legacies are not immune to the complexities of their subjects.
One thing is clear: Michael did more than break box office records. It revealed the enduring divisions in how Jackson is remembered. His music and influence persist, but his story remains unfinished. The film’s success underscores his cultural significance, while also highlighting the unresolved questions that continue to shape his legacy.
