"Passionate gift" from Michael

“This is it” INTRO:

It was the Spring of 2009.

At the age of 50, after a decade’s absence from the stage,
Michael Jackson was quietly performing and crafting
an entirely new concert experience.

His only audience was a small group of technicians
and dancers who watched Michael create a show that
would have been his return to the stage.

This film consist of footage captured during
the rehearsal period from March through June,
it was intended for Michael ‘s personal library and
as original film content for the show.

On June 25^th, Michael and his team were eight
days away from traveling to London to begin their final dress
rehearsals for an unprecedented 50 sold out concerts.

With the permission of the Michael Jackson Estate
and thanks to a few cameras that caught the magic, here
is a glimpse of the passionate gift Michael was preparing
for his fans and the audiences of the world.


Ok, besides the obvious "Why didn't they mention he died?", I think this is a very interesting part of the intro:

"...here is a glimpse of the passionate gift Michael was preparing
for his fans and the audiences of the world."

We know the shows were supposed to be held in London. Of course people would be flying there from the US and probably from all over Europe to see MJ perform. But can this justify the use of that phrase?
Can "Audiences of the world" actually mean "the whole world"?
As in...... the whole world would be a witness of what Michael was passionately preparing; his "passionate gift" is something more than those 50 London concerts? And "This is it" movie is indeed just a glimpse of what he has prepared?

Just wondering.

very strange indeed

I noticed that at the beginnin of the movie when I watched. I was wonderin why they didn't mention it, that he died suddenly... And I think it's also strange that there was no dedication to Michael, no R.I.P., but a dedication to Michaels Kids..

I guess Michael wanted the concert to be dedicated to his kids.

Kirsche wrote:I noticed that at the beginnin of the movie when I watched. I was wonderin why they didn't mention it, that he died suddenly... And I think it's also strange that there was no dedication to Michael, no R.I.P., but a dedication to Michaels Kids..

I was wondering this myself....

...and thanks to a few cameras that caught the magic, here...

This part really stands out for me. It makes it sound like there were just some random little cameras sitting around and not the full highly staged movie production machines that created TII.

GirlSaturday wrote:...and thanks to a few cameras that caught the magic, here...

This part really stands out for me. It makes it sound like there were just some random little cameras sitting around and not the full highly staged movie production machines that created TII.

Exactly!

...for his fans and the audiences of the world....

It seems as if they are making a distinction and saying he has fans but there are also worldwide audiences out there too. Concert audiences or movie audiences?

"...here is a glimpse of the passionate gift Michael was preparing
for his fans and the audiences of the world."

Wow I didn't notice that when I saw TII. That's really odd. Especailly since, according to the intro, these rehearsals were supposed to be in his personal library. So obviously by saying that, the whole world wasn't supposed to see it. And like you said, this was a tour in London, not a world tour.

GirlSaturday wrote:...for his fans and the audiences of the world....

It seems as if they are making a distinction and saying he has fans but there are also worldwide audiences out there too. Concert audiences or movie audiences?

Yes, I too feel there's a distinction made there.
Maybe there're the "Hoax" Audiences - if there is such a thing.
And maybe Fans = Believers ?

Harleyblonde wrote:I have always thought the movie was planned all along and he never intended to do those concerts in London. I did notice the careful wording in the film and in normal circumstances if someone has met with their untimely end then it would have mentioned it in the credits. Definately something not right here. Is it possible to find out who exactly wrote the credits? Is it Kenny? If so then we must assume he is in on the hoax.
We not only need to know of inconsistances like this but we need to know who is behind them and ask ourselves why and are they involved? We keep going round and round with these irregularities which in the circumstances do not seem at all normal but we are not getting to the bottom of them or gaining any answers. We have to dig deeper.

There are so many people in on the hoax, it's not even funny. And yeah, it makes sense that it had to be planned all along