Lionsgate hasn’t releasedMichaelyet. And the studio’s already floating the idea of a sequel.
That’s Hollywood for you: sell the opening weekend, then sell the next one before the first ticket’s even scanned. Still, there’s something especially brazen about doing it with Michael Jackson, maybe the most documented pop star in modern history, a man whose music is immortal and whose personal life is a permanent bar fight.
But Lionsgate isn’t treating this like a one-and-done prestige biopic. They’re treating it like an “event” movie, code for: if this thing hits, they want a franchise.
A family casting choice, a studio play, and a director who knows rise-and-fall stories
The headline hook is the casting: Jaafar Jackson, Michael’s nephew, plays the King of Pop. That’s not just a creative decision; it’s a statement. It signals cooperation from the Jackson camp and gives the film a built-in aura of “authorized,” whether audiences buy that or not.
Antoine Fuqua is directing. If you know him, you know he’s comfortable with big, muscular storytelling, guys who climb, guys who crash, and the machinery around them. And producing is Graham King, the same producer behindBohemian Rhapsody, the Queen biopic that proved you can turn a music legend into a global multiplex product.
Put those pieces together and you can see the shape of the pitch: a life everybody thinks they know, packaged like a saga with room to expand.
The sequel chatter: either the “Dangerous” era… or the “This Is It” endgame
The early sequel talk circles two very different Michael Jacksons.
Option one: theDangerousandHIStoryyears, the 1990s period when Jackson isn’t merely famous, he’s a worldwide institution. That’s the era of relentless media pressure, massive tours, huge money, and a public image managed like a military operation. Dramatically, it’s rich: the fame is total, and so is the scrutiny.
Option two: the final stretch,This Is It, the planned London comeback concerts that never happened because Jackson died in 2009. There was already a 2009 documentary-style concert rehearsal film, but a scripted movie could go tighter and darker: the production grind, the physical toll, the last-minute artistic calls, the people around him, and the brutal reality of trying to will yourself back onto a stage.
Those aren’t the same movie. The ’90s version is sprawling, full of industry players and tabloid warfare. TheThis Is Itversion is claustrophobic, less “conquest” and more “can this body and mind even make it to opening night?”
Hollywood learned the wrong lesson from “Bohemian Rhapsody”
Bohemian Rhapsodymade a fortune and taught studios a simple lesson: audiences will show up for the hits, the costumes, and the big re-creation moments. That movie dared Hollywood to crank out music biopics like they’re superhero origin stories.
So when Lionsgate lets sequel talk leak beforeMichaeleven opens, it’s not subtle. It’s market research with a megaphone. If Jaafar Jackson connects with audiences, if people buy him as Michael, Lionsgate gets a ready-made engine for a follow-up.
But Queen had a cleaner runway: a band narrative that can be steered toward a crowd-pleasing climax. Michael Jackson’s story doesn’t behave like that. The further you go, the more combustible it gets.
The part nobody can dodge: controversy isn’t a side plot here
Any Michael Jackson biopic is making editorial choices every second: what it shows, what it soft-pedals, what it leaves out entirely. And those choices will be litigated in public the minute the first trailer drops.
A movie that leans hard into “genius performer, studio perfectionist, cultural icon” might satisfy fans who want the music and the spectacle. But if it feels like a glossy shrine, critics will call it what it is: a hagiography with a soundtrack.
Go too far the other way, make it all about allegations, investigations, and scandal, and you risk turning one of the biggest musical careers ever into a two-hour courtroom recap. That’s not what a mainstream Friday-night crowd is paying for either.
This is where the sequel idea becomes less “creative” and more “strategy.” Split the difference. Make movie one the ascent and the artistry. Make movie two the overheating, the isolation, the collapse. It’s risk management disguised as storytelling.
Why Lionsgate is selling “Chapter One” energy before opening weekend
The music-biopic market is crowded now. Every project has to argue it’s not just another Wikipedia page with a wardrobe budget. Teasing multiple chapters is a way to promise scope: not a summary, a saga.
And for Lionsgate, there’s a long tail to feed, box office, then premium VOD, then streaming licensing, then the inevitable “rediscovered” wave when a song trends on TikTok or an anniversary rolls around. A sequel, or even the suggestion of one, turns the first film into an implied Episode 1, which is catnip for a studio trying to stretch a property across years.
The wildcard is the audience reaction. These movies live or die on the lead performance, the re-creations, the music, and whether the story feels honest enough to withstand the inevitable arguments. If Jaafar Jackson delivers, Lionsgate will treat a sequel as the obvious next check to cash. If the film lands with a thud, or gets swallowed by backlash, the “Part 2” talk will look like what it really is: a sales pitch that got ahead of the product.
