Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Ceci n'est pas une idée.

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

user:
pass:
register,


                                                             

Bring Me The Head of Michael Jackson

who's bad?
  (+11, -14)
(+11, -14)
  [vote for,
against]

Bring Me The Head of Michael Jackson is a small replica head of the recently deceased pop idle, as he used to look like, prior to all that bleaching and bizarre nose sculpting.

You can keep him like this as "Original Michael", or if you prefer you can opt for "Recent Improved Michael".

To get "Recent Michael" you just place the head into a container of water, drop in the disclosing tablet that comes with the kit, and watch as the skin turns white, and the nose peels off to reveal the latter version, with surgically modified nose area. (note this process is not reversible)

xenzag, Jul 19 2009

3D_20Michael_20Jackson_20Face_20Jigsaw [calum, Jul 19 2009]

[link]






       A new production line for Mr Potato Head.
skinflaps, Jul 19 2009
  

       I think I'm missing the joke - or maybe it's that he's dead, and all the "Ha ha Michael Jackson has a weird face" gags have been done countless times already. I think it's tragic - if only there had been a way to go back in time and warn Michael what might happen - a sort of Christmas Carol type of thing with Michael waking up in hospital the night before the first surgery and being given a tour of his future life by a ghostly Quincy Jones. [-]
zen_tom, Jul 19 2009
  

       At this point he's probably saying "bring me my brain". It's been out for toxicology work for a very long time.   

       He needs to be buried. It's sad.
blissmiss, Jul 19 2009
  

       Bring me the head of MJ, failing which, bring me a plastic bottle of OJ, and just leave it in the sun...
4whom, Jul 19 2009
  

       zzzz...
daseva, Jul 19 2009
  

       You guys suck, Michael Jackson doesn't deserve the public ridicule he suffers, and I think it's entirely unfair to laugh at his skin, which I genuinely believe is vitiligo. The man was very troubled, and you should leave him alone. 'De mortuis nil nisi bonum', 'never speak ill of the dead'.
duh_don, Jul 19 2009
  

       //I think it's entirely unfair to laugh at his skin// Who's laughing? MJ was a tragic figure, but that does not afford him any immunity.
xenzag, Jul 20 2009
  

       //'never speak ill of the dead'//

Why not?
DrBob, Jul 20 2009
  

       There are a number of great things about people being dead. Foremost is the fact that once dead, there is opportunity for them to become un-dead, vampiric or zombie Michaels Jackson, Pères Joseph and Stellas Rimmington running around doing what they do best only more shamblingly/under cover of darkness than before. The second best thing about people being dead is that you cannot defame them, as they can suffer no harm being as they are now in the arms of the Lord/the Dark Lord/the worms. Which gives us free rein to say what we like about MJ, without having to give any thought to the veractiy of wur statements.
calum, Jul 20 2009
  

       //Who's laughing?//   

       So xenzag, what you're saying is that this isn't a joke, it isn't making fun of Michael Jackson, it's just a replica of Michael Jackson's head that, when added to water and an included //disclosing tablet//, changes to mirror the progression of a disease and plastic surgery he underwent. If it isn't meant to be funny, this is just a tad messed up.   

       //Why not?//   

       Because saying bad things about a dead person is very easy, and there won't ever be repercussions. I can imagine you'd feel a little uncomfortable explaining your plans for "bring me the head of MJ" to MJ himself. I think calum is trying to get at this, but I really don't know.
duh_don, Jul 20 2009
  

       If the idea annoys you that much, then you can do this: [marked-for-deletion] - offensive to dead people and [duh don] - there I've done it for you! Or you could just stop reading it.
xenzag, Jul 20 2009
  

       //You guys suck, Michael Jackson doesn't deserve the public ridicule he suffers, and I think it's entirely unfair to laugh at his skin//
Taking those in order:
True, False, (probably) True.

A while ago, we did the Thom Yorke Radiohead Headradio, and Thom Yorke isn't even dead yet.
The idea seems to have gone now, which is good, 'cos by his own admission, he's a creep; a weirdo. He doesn't belong here.
coprocephalous, Jul 21 2009
  

       is "weigh your head" still here?
po, Jul 21 2009
  

       //Because saying bad things about a dead person is very easy, and there won't ever be repercussions.//

Hmmm! That doesn't seem like much of an argument really. I can think of lots of dead people who are quite rightly spoken very badly of indeed [insert your own favourite madman/murderer/ megalomaniac here].

Whilst Michael Jackson is a relatively harmless member of the great legion of the dead (aside: that last sentence has me thinking that perhaps for his laying-in-state he should be in full 'Thriller' make-up; or just wait until he's decayed a bit), the fact that he was quite happy to use the media to continually insinuate himself, uninvited, into my consciousness makes him fair game to my way of thinking.

po, it's "Weigh Your Own Head", and yes it is!
DrBob, Jul 21 2009
  

       Good point, [DrBob] "Bring me the head of Nicolae Ceausescu/ Josef Stalin / Mao Zedong / Ronald McDonald" just sounds ludicrous. Not a good idea at all.
coprocephalous, Jul 21 2009
  

       I think I must have undergone a conversion regarding the "fair-game"-edness of celebrity recently.   

       There used to be a time when, as DrBob points out, I found the uninvited foisting of various types into my face unwelcome and I would direct my displeasure directly and personally at the celebrity themselves - and from there on in, effectively join in with the general hoi-polloi in baying at their vapid indiscretions, surgical misadventures and whatever else "they" seemed to be desperately urging me to pay attention to - "they" had, after all, signed an implicit contract, if they wanted me to read about them in the newspapers, then I got to choose to love or loathe. Fair enough, right?   

       But, and here is where my view has developed over time - the more I see celebrity in action, the less I think the people in the limelight are in control - there are always people behind the scenes "advising", "styling" or "managing" them who make damn sure they get their money's worth. So the Pop band who goes non stop touring for 2 years and breaks up due to stress and pills and drinking might not see any of the cash at the end of it - while the managers who drove them to breaking point through constant performance and exposure, move on to their next fresh-faced victims.   

       So there's money to be made through mass exposure, but most of it goes to those behind the scenes guys who organise and arrange the photo shoots, product promotions, movie premiers etc - it's all cash generation activity for the products being sold, nobody (except, apparently us, the dupes) actually gives a damn about whichever celebrity it is this week who's holding the product, just as long as it's somebody famous, because that's what sells the product.   

       Now the process of celebrity as "marketing campaign" has been demystified we are experiencing a period of manufactured celebrity where people are contrived into "stardom" because that's a much more cost effective way to get someone to perform that necessary marketing role.   

       Jackson was an early experiment in cost effective celebritisation, picked at a young age and trained to perform - he was capable of enduring the rigorous schedules that were set for him - I don't think it's controversial to suggest there was some level of exploitation in his early career - and who knows, into his more mature years as well (i.e. who benefited more from Michael Jackson's performances at different stages of his life than Michael Jackson did?) Note also that only in "showbusiness" are people encouraged to undergo plastic surgery for the continued benefit of their careers - these people are desperate, vulnerable, lonely and easily exploitable.   

       So no, I don't necessarily think it's the celebrities' fault, and I don't necessarily think they are (always) "fair game" - there is an industry out there that creates, promotes, sustains and feeds off the happenings of a select few - and anyone who takes the remotest interest (whether it be positive, or negative) is complicit in the result.   

       As for speaking ill of the dead - it's just not nice. And re those possible exceptions, it seems reasonable to suppose that perhaps if, while alive you were responsible for other people's deaths then you forgo that nicety. But I don't think Michael Jackson ever actually killed anyone, he just mostly did the moonwalk.   

       On a par with Michael Jackson, we might post sneering thoughts about Marilyn Monroe - someone who was paraded about in front of the media while it was profitable (to others) only to be left to fend for themselves as soon as it wasn't any more - is she too, "fair game"? Is she "immune" from being considered with some level of human dignity?   

       I'd like to see sustainable, organic (if needs be) celebrity management where I can be sure that the celebrities I watch are being cared for humanely, and without performance enhancing chemicals - maybe they will one day be required to wear some form of kitemark to show that their management conform to some governmental standard of husbandry.
zen_tom, Jul 21 2009
  

       //we might post sneering thoughts about Marilyn Monroe //
Whilst we're on the subject of plastic celebs, maybe that should be Marilyn Manson.
coprocephalous, Jul 21 2009
  

       [c] You are such a butthead. You made me laugh, even at the end of a very sober read. still snickering. Thanks!
blissmiss, Jul 21 2009
  

       Actually, z_t, I think that you could make a good argument, in the case of 'vulnerable & exploited' persons, for taking the exact opposite line. Leave them alone whilst they're alive (or else you'll just make them miserable, depressed and possibly suicidal) but once they are dead and beyond caring about your scorn, then have at it.

Personally, as duh_don sort of says, I don't think that you should say or write stuff about people (regardless of their metabolic status) that you wouldn't be prepared to say to their face...assuming of course that doing so wouldn't lead to you being hussled off to a 'work' camp of some description.
DrBob, Jul 21 2009
  

       I suppose that the rejoinder to zen_tom's annotation is that there is in most cases (but arguably not in the case of King of Pop) there is single free-will action of the celebrity by which said celebrity can be cast as apple-stealing Adam to the viewer's vengeful God and ostensibly castigated etc until death/obscurity. In each case the action will be different but at core the same: the action whereby the individual passes from having idle dreams of celebrity/fame to actually doing something about it (applying for Britain's Got Talent audition, for example). In and by this act the individual proto-celebrity loses (rightly or wrongly) their rights to privacy, freedom from mockery and becomes unworthy of respect (whether alive, nearly dead, dead or un-dead).
calum, Jul 21 2009
  

       Rejoinery accepted, but if we are going to adopt The Fall as our analogy of choice, we have to label our characters thusly.
God: Viewer/Audience/Public at large/Posterity in General
Snake: Max Clifford, Andrew Lloyd Webber, That Bloke with the Big Trousers, Piers Morgan etc
Eve: Michael Jackson, Britney Spears, <The Exploited, Innocent and Naive>
  

       (N.B. I'm not 100% sure where Adam fits in here - but it might be ok to just consider Adam/Eve as one)   

       The big question is: Does Eve fully understand the consequences of her actions, living as she does in The Paradise of obscurity?   

       And, depending on the answer to that we can either:
a) rightfully and eternally chastise Her (and by extension, all of her wanton and devious kind) as the source of original sin and personal Architectress of our fall from grace
or
b) instead lay the blame on The Snake (embodiment of Satan Himself) for miss-selling the contract without fully explaining in detail the small print?
zen_tom, Jul 21 2009
  

       Bring me the head of Kevin Arnold! I know he is not dead, well in the sense of not not being alive, but really!   

       I believe that fame, and in close association, celebrity, is a two way street. As a content producer you have proffered yourself to widespread assimilation. A direct result of which is that people will be interested in the miniscule details of your life. As long as you remain publically relevent. Unfortunately there is nothing like dying to increase public relevence.   

       There is possibly a Rubicon that you can cross (whilst still alive), whereby no matter how little you produce, or do, you still remain cause célèbre. How much of this is a function of Media managers or how much of it can be put down to the macabre, banal human audience is a point of some debate. If you want to lay a finger of blame, I suggest not looking at the finger!
4whom, Jul 21 2009
  

       Apologies for mixing Adam with his rib but yet, in the analogy we are the Furious God of the Old Testament, laying the blame (a)wise, upon Eve, rather than post-Enlightenment favouring reason and blaming the snake. I am not saying that (b) is an inferior option, just that when you pursue this line of discussion with people who have "dissed" (to use the parlance of the kids) celebrities, it often if not always boils down to the (a)-blame approach. Man made God in his image.
calum, Jul 21 2009
  

       Goodbye Head of Michael Jackson.... you have attracted too much piety and platitudes for my taste. Deletion day looms.
xenzag, Jul 21 2009
  

       [coprocephalous], you crack me up.   

       My mother said that "death improves people", in that less ill is said of them because it's considered poor form.
normzone, Jul 21 2009
  

       //un-dead, vampiric or zombie Michaels Jackson//   

       There should be capsules for different MJs - the first would transform the AMAZING MJ HEAD to pre-botched-plastic-surgery MJ (not just the skin and nose, but also the chin, cheeks and freaky ears), but then subsequent capsules could create Vampire Michael and Zombie Mike. This could give the kiddies weeks of magic-crystal/seahorse style fun.   

       End-stage MJ might grow My Favorite Martian style antenna and turn green. Or turn into Elvis. Or, for the sad celebrity lovers in this thread, he could become entirely Caucasian looking and get a halo.
Yappa, Jul 21 2009
  

       //if only there had been a way to go back in time and warn Michael what might happen//   

       If only there had been a way to go back in time and warn the children whom frequented micheal's never land ranch.   

       Yeah, it's been a few since I logged on.
MikeD, Jul 22 2009
  

       xenzag, not piety, just interest in the moral and philosophical aspects of your idea. I don't think deletion is necessary. Certainly not on an idea that has generated 20+ votes.
DrBob, Jul 22 2009
  

       ok - but I'm tired of it now, and wish I had posted its sister idea "Show me the Burning Head of Michael Jackson". I devised this years ago at the time MJ was alive but was too afraid to post it, in case HE came for me.
xenzag, Jul 22 2009
  
      
[annotate]
  


 

back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle