On Thursday, Lionsgate Motion Picture Group Chairman Adam Fogelson announced in a Q1 earnings call that a sequel to the Michael Jackson biopic Michael is targeting a late 2026 or early 2027 production start, with a release in late 2027 or early 2028. The original film — directed by Antoine Fuqua, starring Jaafar Jackson (Michael's real nephew, son of Jermaine) — opened in April 2026, grossed $1.021 billion worldwide, and stopped in 1988. Critics gave it 40% on Rotten Tomatoes; audiences gave it 97%. The sequel will cover the 1990s and 2000s: MJ's marriages, the 1993 child molestation allegation (settled civilly for roughly $23 million), the 2003 charges, the 2005 acquittal, and his 2009 death.

1. A Billion Reasons to Make the Sequel (The Jackson Estate, Lionsgate, Family Supporters)

The franchise earned a sequel, and the estate says its story deserves to continue.

A billion dollars is the estate's main argument. The original film's $1.021 billion gross — the first biopic to ever reach that milestone — is the number Lionsgate leads with. Fogelson told Deadline the studio already has "25 to 30% of a second movie already shot from the prior production activity," including big musical sequences, which will cut costs.

The family sees the film as restoration, not propaganda. TJ Jackson, MJ's nephew, posted on social media: "Sorry media, you don't get to control the narrative anymore of who Michael Jackson truly was." Katherine Jackson, MJ's mother, praised Jaafar Jackson as embodying her son. Prince Jackson, MJ's eldest, served as executive producer on the original film.

The 2005 acquittal is the estate's argument. Director Antoine Fuqua told The Wrap: "Sometimes people do some nasty things for some money." He has defended the film as a celebration of MJ's artistry. The estate denies all allegations, and the family says the not-guilty verdict on all 10 counts in 2005 is the legal record that matters.

2. But the Sequel Can't Skip This Era Too (Dan Reed, Paris Jackson, James Safechuck, Wade Robson)

Critics and abuse advocates say a sequel covering the allegations era is a second chance for the same whitewash.

The first film was propaganda. Dan Reed, director of Leaving Neverland — the 2019 HBO documentary in which Wade Robson and James Safechuck described childhood abuse by Jackson — called the original biopic "a complete whitewash." Reed told Variety the film is a calculated piece of propaganda designed to rehabilitate Jackson's image while discrediting his accusers.

The script had lies in it. That's MJ's own daughter Paris Jackson's word — she read an early draft, gave notes "about what was dishonest/didn't sit right with me," and left when they weren't addressed. She called the film "Hollywood fantasy" sold "as real," with "a lot of inaccuracy and a lot of full-blown lies." She had zero involvement in the production.

Safechuck and Robson say the sequel shouldn't exist. James Safechuck posted that "Michael was raping kids during the Bad era" — the exact era the original film covers with adoring nostalgia. He said the film "shouldn't have been made in the first place." Wade Robson posted: "I honestly don't really know how they can make this movie and not think of the victims." Both are suing the Jackson estate for $400 million in damages.

Even with the best intentions, a settlement from 1994 may legally bar honest treatment of the 1993 case.

The Jordan Chandler clause still applies to the sequel. A 1994 civil settlement with accuser Jordan Chandler — which resolved the 1993 child molestation claim — contained a clause barring either side from depicting or mentioning Chandler in any film. That clause forced the 22-day reshoot of the original film's entire final act. The sequel inherits the same constraint on the 1993 case.

The 1993 case may be legally off-limits in the sequel, too. Lionsgate can likely address the 2003 charges (accuser Gavin Arvizo was publicly named in a criminal trial, with no equivalent settlement bar) and the 2005 acquittal. But Fogelson acknowledged the allegations question is "a really complicated question," and the Chandler clause may mean the sequel is legally barred from fully dramatizing 1993 regardless of the filmmakers' intentions.

Where This Lands

Lionsgate has to pick a lane for the sequel, and neither option is clean. The estate and family say the $1B box office proves audiences want the story told, and the 2005 acquittal is the only legal verdict that counts. Critics and survivors say a sequel that sanitizes the 1990s would be worse than the original — because this time, there's no "the story ends before the allegations" excuse. And even a willing production may hit the same Chandler clause that killed the original film's final act.

Sources