NY Observer: 'Beyond the Life of Brian: The Myth of the ‘Lesser’ Beach Boys'

[petsoundsnola]

One Mike article, 5 pages and counting.  I can't wait to see how many pages the future "Mike's Book is Out" thread in 2016 will generate.

[rab2591]

I'm not sure if it has been mentioned...and I'm not ripping Mike or Bruce or anything but I'm certain that BD or DVD screeners do get sent to critics.  And surely if Mike or Bruce, or an assistant, asked for a screener of L&M they would be sent one.

Just for arguments sake, suppose such a request was made, and met with no response ? What then ?

I'm not at all sure how the nuts and bolts work when it comes to BRI. But in order to approve/disapprove a soundtrack directly related to The Beach Boys wouldn't Mike Love have to watch the film in question? So if Pohlad and the producers wanted to release a soundtrack (which Polhad has expressed numerous times he has wanted) wouldn't Mike be given ample opportunities to see the film or be sent a copy if such a viewing opportunity didn't arise?

[Shark]

Just throwing this out there...Bruce has heard NPP and actually had good things to say about it when I spoke to him in May.

[startBBtoday]

I find it a little funny how upset everyone got over Mike's "autotune" comment.

"I haven't heard the song yet, I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

Isn't this precisely what fans on this board were saying in anticipation of listening to Brian's album? If anything, Mike's comment could be viewed as a nod to this board.

On Love & Mercy: I think Mike was portrayed fairly for the most part, but I'm sure he has heard and knows that he's also depicted as a villain in some scenes. I think it's normal to not want to watch, read, listen, etc. to something in which you're painted negatively. And if he has seen the movie and does feel he's portrayed unfairly, then he can't exactly endorse the movie.

I suppose at this point, I should be used to this board digging for something negative in every Mike Love-related article, but getting up in arms over the fact he hasn't seen a movie is a stretch.

[Shady]

I'm so sick of the articles and all the bullshit..

I just wish they would get back together and do another tour..

I will never experience as much magic in one evening as I did that night in Wembley Arena.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm not at all sure how the nuts and bolts work when it comes to BRI. But in order to approve/disapprove a soundtrack directly related to The Beach Boys wouldn't Mike Love have to watch the film in question? So if Pohlad and the producers wanted to release a soundtrack (which Polhad has expressed numerous times he has wanted) wouldn't Mike be given ample opportunities to see the film or be sent a copy if such a viewing opportunity didn't arise?

Where the dickens do you get this ludicrous notion that Mike - or anyone,in fact - can approve/veto the soundtrack ? It's simple - you pay the appropriate licensing fee for the songs you want to use, and you can use them. I guess if said songs were used in an unsavoury context, or ridiculed, you might have a case for withdrawing the license. Mike has no say in how the movie turns out, any more than Alan, Bruce, Carl's estate, unless they feel they've been defamed. Brian, being the subject, and authorising the movie, is of course a different case entirely.

[CenturyDeprived]

Just throwing this out there...Bruce has heard NPP and actually had good things to say about it when I spoke to him in May.

That's nice to hear. Has Bruce ever said anything about NPP publicly?

[Mike's Beard]

I find it a little funny how upset everyone got over Mike's "autotune" comment.

"I haven't heard the song yet, I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

Isn't this precisely what fans on this board were saying in anticipation of listening to Brian's album? If anything, Mike's comment could be viewed as a nod to this board.

I think Mike was making a dig at Joe Thomas for the horrific 'tuna job he did on TWGMTR and especially the C50 Live cd.

[rab2591]

I'm not at all sure how the nuts and bolts work when it comes to BRI. But in order to approve/disapprove a soundtrack directly related to The Beach Boys wouldn't Mike Love have to watch the film in question? So if Pohlad and the producers wanted to release a soundtrack (which Polhad has expressed numerous times he has wanted) wouldn't Mike be given ample opportunities to see the film or be sent a copy if such a viewing opportunity didn't arise?

Where the dickens do you get this ludicrous notion that Mike - or anyone,in fact - can approve/veto the soundtrack ? It's simple - you pay the appropriate licensing fee for the songs you want to use, and you can use them. I guess if said songs were used in an unsavoury context, or ridiculed, you might have a case for withdrawing the license. Mike has no say in how the movie turns out, any more than Alan, Bruce, Carl's estate, unless they feel they've been defamed. Brian, being the subject, and authorising the movie, is of course a different case entirely.

I was referring to an actual physical release of the soundtrack. According to Howie Edelson:

There IS a movie soundtrack. From everything I know about its (non)release, it needs to be signed off on by ALL the partners of BRI.
As of April 23rd, 2015, that has not happened.

The work by Atticus Rose is brilliant and important and breathtaking. High art from high art. Why would anybody choose not to sign off on that?

People need to know that the rounding of third began long ago.
How one finishes is how history remembers them.

There's a right side and a wrong side to history.
(I'm both amazed -- and sadly used to -- the people choosing the wrong side.)

And it would seem obvious to me that Mike would want to see the film before signing off on such a soundtrack release (in case he felt the movie cast an unsavory light on the Beach Boys or any other reason)...thus I would be hard pressed to believe that Pohlad, the producers didn't give Mike ample opportunities to view this film.

[CenturyDeprived]

I find it a little funny how upset everyone got over Mike's "autotune" comment.

"I haven't heard the song yet, I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

Isn't this precisely what fans on this board were saying in anticipation of listening to Brian's album? If anything, Mike's comment could be viewed as a nod to this board.

I think Mike was making a dig at Joe Thomas for the horrific 'tuna job he did on TWGMTR and especially the C50 Live cd.

While I agree there were instances of autotune that were less than stellar, do you really think he'd be saying that kind of stuff if the reunion went well, if TWGMTR went to #1, the "room" happened, and they continued recording together? Do you really think it's not sour grapes since Joe Thomas was the guy who was playing interference for Brian, and in effect prevented the magical "room" scenario from happening?

No, I don't have a portal into anyone's brain, but doesn't logic dictate that is more likely the case? Sour grapes against Brian (and Joe, I suppose) of a rather large order. It reminds me of Jeff Beck, who when things didn't go the way he wanted them to go on the tour, all of a sudden THEN he goes and talks smack about Brian in interviews. If autotune was such a big problem for Mike, one would think he'd have said something during the 2012 reunion in a group interview setting. But Mike saves his insults and backhanded compliments for when Brian's not in the room.

It's interesting to me how people on this board can probably almost universally qualify Jeff Beck's post-tour comments as super sh*tty, and have no problem saying he acted like a horse's rear end, but a small section of people finds it impossible to stop defending Mike when he himself makes really lame comments about Brian.

Lame, mean-spirited sour grape comments are what they are, regardless if they are said by a 71 year old British-born dude, or a 74 year old Hawthorne-born dude.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm not at all sure how the nuts and bolts work when it comes to BRI. But in order to approve/disapprove a soundtrack directly related to The Beach Boys wouldn't Mike Love have to watch the film in question? So if Pohlad and the producers wanted to release a soundtrack (which Polhad has expressed numerous times he has wanted) wouldn't Mike be given ample opportunities to see the film or be sent a copy if such a viewing opportunity didn't arise?

Where the dickens do you get this ludicrous notion that Mike - or anyone,in fact - can approve/veto the soundtrack ? It's simple - you pay the appropriate licensing fee for the songs you want to use, and you can use them. I guess if said songs were used in an unsavoury context, or ridiculed, you might have a case for withdrawing the license. Mike has no say in how the movie turns out, any more than Alan, Bruce, Carl's estate, unless they feel they've been defamed. Brian, being the subject, and authorising the movie, is of course a different case entirely.

I was referring to an actual physical release of the soundtrack. According to Howie Edelson:

There IS a movie soundtrack. From everything I know about its (non)release, it needs to be signed off on by ALL the partners of BRI.
As of April 23rd, 2015, that has not happened.

The work by Atticus Rose is brilliant and important and breathtaking. High art from high art. Why would anybody choose not to sign off on that?

People need to know that the rounding of third began long ago.
How one finishes is how history remembers them.

There's a right side and a wrong side to history.
(I'm both amazed -- and sadly used to -- the people choosing the wrong side.)

And it would seem obvious to me that Mike would want to see the film before signing off on such a soundtrack release (in case he felt the movie cast an unsavory light on the Beach Boys or any other reason)...thus I would be hard pressed to believe that Pohlad, the producers didn't give Mike ample opportunities to view this film.

What Howie said - and l defer to his far superior knowledge - was true three months ago: that Pohlad has stated much more recently a soundtrack will be out soon after the movie's release indicates to me that all hurdles have been cleared. As ever, l stand to be corrected, especially if it gets the music out.

[CenturyDeprived]

I'm not at all sure how the nuts and bolts work when it comes to BRI. But in order to approve/disapprove a soundtrack directly related to The Beach Boys wouldn't Mike Love have to watch the film in question? So if Pohlad and the producers wanted to release a soundtrack (which Polhad has expressed numerous times he has wanted) wouldn't Mike be given ample opportunities to see the film or be sent a copy if such a viewing opportunity didn't arise?

Where the dickens do you get this ludicrous notion that Mike - or anyone,in fact - can approve/veto the soundtrack ? It's simple - you pay the appropriate licensing fee for the songs you want to use, and you can use them. I guess if said songs were used in an unsavoury context, or ridiculed, you might have a case for withdrawing the license. Mike has no say in how the movie turns out, any more than Alan, Bruce, Carl's estate, unless they feel they've been defamed. Brian, being the subject, and authorising the movie, is of course a different case entirely.

I was referring to an actual physical release of the soundtrack. According to Howie Edelson:

There IS a movie soundtrack. From everything I know about its (non)release, it needs to be signed off on by ALL the partners of BRI.
As of April 23rd, 2015, that has not happened.

The work by Atticus Rose is brilliant and important and breathtaking. High art from high art. Why would anybody choose not to sign off on that?

People need to know that the rounding of third began long ago.
How one finishes is how history remembers them.

There's a right side and a wrong side to history.
(I'm both amazed -- and sadly used to -- the people choosing the wrong side.)

And it would seem obvious to me that Mike would want to see the film before signing off on such a soundtrack release (in case he felt the movie cast an unsavory light on the Beach Boys or any other reason)...thus I would be hard pressed to believe that Pohlad, the producers didn't give Mike ample opportunities to view this film.

What Howie said - and l defer to his far superior knowledge - was true three months ago: that Pohlad has stated much more recently a soundtrack will be out soon after the movie's release indicates to me that all hurdles have been cleared. As ever, l stand to be corrected, especially if it gets the music out.

Well, it would be unfortunate if (and it remains an if, since we don't all know the internal workings/legal hurdles) one member of the band prevents an awesome soundtrack from coming out. If that's the case, it would suck.

[drbeachboy]

I find it a little funny how upset everyone got over Mike's "autotune" comment.

"I haven't heard the song yet, I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

Isn't this precisely what fans on this board were saying in anticipation of listening to Brian's album? If anything, Mike's comment could be viewed as a nod to this board.

I think Mike was making a dig at Joe Thomas for the horrific 'tuna job he did on TWGMTR and especially the C50 Live cd.

While I agree there were instances of autotune that were less than stellar, do you really think he'd be saying that kind of stuff if the reunion went well, if TWGMTR went to #1, the "room" happened, and they continued recording together? Do you really think it's not sour grapes since Joe Thomas was the guy who was playing interference for Brian, and in effect prevented the magical "room" scenario from happening?

No, I don't have a portal into anyone's brain, but doesn't logic dictate that is more likely the case? Sour grapes against Brian (and Joe, I suppose) of a rather large order. It reminds me of Jeff Beck, who when things didn't go the way he wanted them to go on the tour, all of a sudden THEN he goes and talks smack about Brian in interviews. If autotune was such a big problem for Mike, one would think he'd have said something during the 2012 reunion in a group interview setting. But Mike saves his insults and backhanded compliments for when Brian's not in the room.

Horse dooky! TWGMTR debuted at #3, no small feat for a Beach Boys album. I doubt Mike had much say production-wise regarding the album. Brian & Joe were calling the shots. If I were Mike I'd be upset, no, very upset with the way the live album turned out. Prior to this album, I didn't really get all the autotune complaining that was going on in here and elsewhere, but the Live album convinced me of it's evil influence over Joe Thomas.

[CenturyDeprived]

I find it a little funny how upset everyone got over Mike's "autotune" comment.

"I haven't heard the song yet, I am sure with Al's voice and hopefully no autotune, the song will be great."

Isn't this precisely what fans on this board were saying in anticipation of listening to Brian's album? If anything, Mike's comment could be viewed as a nod to this board.

I think Mike was making a dig at Joe Thomas for the horrific 'tuna job he did on TWGMTR and especially the C50 Live cd.

While I agree there were instances of autotune that were less than stellar, do you really think he'd be saying that kind of stuff if the reunion went well, if TWGMTR went to #1, the "room" happened, and they continued recording together? Do you really think it's not sour grapes since Joe Thomas was the guy who was playing interference for Brian, and in effect prevented the magical "room" scenario from happening?

No, I don't have a portal into anyone's brain, but doesn't logic dictate that is more likely the case? Sour grapes against Brian (and Joe, I suppose) of a rather large order. It reminds me of Jeff Beck, who when things didn't go the way he wanted them to go on the tour, all of a sudden THEN he goes and talks smack about Brian in interviews. If autotune was such a big problem for Mike, one would think he'd have said something during the 2012 reunion in a group interview setting. But Mike saves his insults and backhanded compliments for when Brian's not in the room.

Horse dooky! TWGMTR debuted at #3, no small feat for a Beach Boys album. I doubt Mike had much say production-wise regarding the album. Brian & Joe were calling the shots. If I were Mike I'd be upset, no, very upset with the way the live album turned out. Prior to this album, I didn't really get all the autotune complaining that was going on in here and elsewhere, but the Live album convinced me of it's evil influence over Joe Thomas.

I agree the live CD sucked due to autotune, so much so that it remains the only BB album that I refuse to purchase. But again... I am not buying the idea that all of a sudden Mike had a revelation that Joe waved his hand and gave us autotune in a poor manner. I think he was looking for something critical to say, something that could be said without that comment being quantified as outright "false", and he found it, because to give an outright compliment without a backhanded insult just seems not possible and against his nature... unless of course that product was written in a "room", in which case you can bet your bottom dollar that he'd not be saying the same autotune criticisms.

Find me a quote where any of Brian's solo material is complimented by Mike without being accompanied by a backhanded insult.  Maybe something exists, but I sure haven't read/heard it...

Granted, it's one thing if we all say something to the effect of wishing the autotune was held back a bit as fans on a messageboard... but one would think that a bandmate and relative would not try and slip in jabs like that, out of good taste and simply being a bigger person.

And BTW, #3 apparently was a small feat for a BB album, according to Mike who poo-pooed that chart placement after the fact. Those grapes are so sour.

[Andrew G. Doe]

If only there were just fifty shades of grey in the BB cosmos...

[rab2591]

I'm not at all sure how the nuts and bolts work when it comes to BRI. But in order to approve/disapprove a soundtrack directly related to The Beach Boys wouldn't Mike Love have to watch the film in question? So if Pohlad and the producers wanted to release a soundtrack (which Polhad has expressed numerous times he has wanted) wouldn't Mike be given ample opportunities to see the film or be sent a copy if such a viewing opportunity didn't arise?

Where the dickens do you get this ludicrous notion that Mike - or anyone,in fact - can approve/veto the soundtrack ? It's simple - you pay the appropriate licensing fee for the songs you want to use, and you can use them. I guess if said songs were used in an unsavoury context, or ridiculed, you might have a case for withdrawing the license. Mike has no say in how the movie turns out, any more than Alan, Bruce, Carl's estate, unless they feel they've been defamed. Brian, being the subject, and authorising the movie, is of course a different case entirely.

I was referring to an actual physical release of the soundtrack. According to Howie Edelson:

There IS a movie soundtrack. From everything I know about its (non)release, it needs to be signed off on by ALL the partners of BRI.
As of April 23rd, 2015, that has not happened.

The work by Atticus Rose is brilliant and important and breathtaking. High art from high art. Why would anybody choose not to sign off on that?

People need to know that the rounding of third began long ago.
How one finishes is how history remembers them.

There's a right side and a wrong side to history.
(I'm both amazed -- and sadly used to -- the people choosing the wrong side.)

And it would seem obvious to me that Mike would want to see the film before signing off on such a soundtrack release (in case he felt the movie cast an unsavory light on the Beach Boys or any other reason)...thus I would be hard pressed to believe that Pohlad, the producers didn't give Mike ample opportunities to view this film.

What Howie said - and l defer to his far superior knowledge - was true three months ago: that Pohlad has stated much more recently a soundtrack will be out soon after the movie's release indicates to me that all hurdles have been cleared. As ever, l stand to be corrected, especially if it gets the music out.

That the hurdles have possibly been cleared is great news. My point still stands that I'd be hard pressed to believe that Pohlad/producers didn't give Mike ample opportunities to view this film, especially if the release of the soundtrack possibly hinged on it.

[Ang Jones]

If Mike is concerned about seeing Love and Mercy because of how upsetting it might be to him, surely he could say so to any interviewers asking the question. He doesn't even need to go into detail, just make it clear that he feels it is a private matter on which he doesn't wish to comment.

But I repeat, if Mike is so sensitive on his cousin's behalf, why doesn't he show this level of sensitivity in his interviews?

Why do you think anyone is owed an explanation?

Telling people it is a private matter on which he doesn't wish to comment is hardly an explanation.

The second part of my message doesn't require an explanation either but without one we can all draw our own conclusions about Mike's level of sensitivity on the subject of his cousin.

First - they are family. Family in business. They share a parent who is a sibling to one another. Family bonds confer privacy.


Second - it isn't "sensitivity" as much as "sincerity" which is ascribing a connotation of falsehood.  So even if Mike wishes Brian well, you are calling him a liar.  I guess that is the problem.  You are questioning his motivation, as insincere rather than "sensitivity" which is an "awareness of the feeling of others."

As I have already written, he could just tell any interviewer that he didn't wish to comment. Stating that he hasn't seen it because he is too busy makes most question whether he has an ulterior motive. This isn't prejudice against Mike - if you had a cousin who had a film made about him/her and  you didn't go to see it people would inevitably wonder why not.

The family thing - there are many who have family members, even families which are in business together, and yet are not close. I don't know how close Mike and Brian are and only those of their personal acquaintance probably know the whole truth.

Secondly, anyone who is arguing that Mike may be too upset by the harm caused to Brian to watch Love and Mercy, must surely doubt his sincerity and sensitivity when he seems not to mind reminding people of things that Brian did wrong decades ago.

As for your suggestion of Love and Mercy being played at a reunion, here we go again. I'm sick of the word 'reunion'. Love and Mercy is not and never was a Beach Boys' song. This is Brian's song. The Beach Boys have had so much from Brian. Some things are for Brian and his excellent band.

[CenturyDeprived]

If Mike is concerned about seeing Love and Mercy because of how upsetting it might be to him, surely he could say so to any interviewers asking the question. He doesn't even need to go into detail, just make it clear that he feels it is a private matter on which he doesn't wish to comment.

But I repeat, if Mike is so sensitive on his cousin's behalf, why doesn't he show this level of sensitivity in his interviews?

Why do you think anyone is owed an explanation?

Telling people it is a private matter on which he doesn't wish to comment is hardly an explanation.

The second part of my message doesn't require an explanation either but without one we can all draw our own conclusions about Mike's level of sensitivity on the subject of his cousin.

First - they are family. Family in business. They share a parent who is a sibling to one another. Family bonds confer privacy.


Second - it isn't "sensitivity" as much as "sincerity" which is ascribing a connotation of falsehood.  So even if Mike wishes Brian well, you are calling him a liar.  I guess that is the problem.  You are questioning his motivation, as insincere rather than "sensitivity" which is an "awareness of the feeling of others."

As I have already written, he could just tell any interviewer that he didn't wish to comment. Stating that he hasn't seen it because he is too busy makes most question whether he has an ulterior motive. This isn't prejudice against Mike - if you had a cousin who had a film made about you and didn't go to see it people would inevitably wonder why not.

The family thing - there are many who have family members, even families which are in business together, and yet are not close. I don't know how close Mike and Brian are and only those of their personal acquaintance probably know the whole truth.

Secondly, anyone who is arguing that Mike may be too upset by the harm caused to Brian to watch Love and Mercy, must surely doubt his sincerity and sensitivity when he seems not to mind reminding people of things that Brian did wrong decades ago.

As for your suggestion of Love and Mercy being played at a reunion, here we go again. I'm sick of the word 'reunion'. Love and Mercy is not and never was a Beach Boys' song. This is Brian's song. The Beach Boys have had so much from Brian. Some things are for Brian and his excellent band.

I will disagree a touch there; if there was indeed another reunion, it wouldn't be a bad thing for Love & Mercy to be played (unless of course, Brian didn't want to play it, which is his choice)... I say this because beautiful, personal solo songs like Heaven have been played with the BBs in the past.

[filledeplage]

If Mike is concerned about seeing Love and Mercy because of how upsetting it might be to him, surely he could say so to any interviewers asking the question. He doesn't even need to go into detail, just make it clear that he feels it is a private matter on which he doesn't wish to comment.

But I repeat, if Mike is so sensitive on his cousin's behalf, why doesn't he show this level of sensitivity in his interviews?

Why do you think anyone is owed an explanation?

Telling people it is a private matter on which he doesn't wish to comment is hardly an explanation.

The second part of my message doesn't require an explanation either but without one we can all draw our own conclusions about Mike's level of sensitivity on the subject of his cousin.

First - they are family. Family in business. They share a parent who is a sibling to one another. Family bonds confer privacy.


Second - it isn't "sensitivity" as much as "sincerity" which is ascribing a connotation of falsehood.  So even if Mike wishes Brian well, you are calling him a liar.  I guess that is the problem.  You are questioning his motivation, as insincere rather than "sensitivity" which is an "awareness of the feeling of others."

As I have already written, he could just tell any interviewer that he didn't wish to comment. Stating that he hasn't seen it because he is too busy makes most question whether he has an ulterior motive. This isn't prejudice against Mike - if you had a cousin who had a film made about you and didn't go to see it people would inevitably wonder why not.

The family thing - there are many who have family members, even families which are in business together, and yet are not close. I don't know how close Mike and Brian are and only those of their personal acquaintance probably know the whole truth.

Secondly, anyone who is arguing that Mike may be too upset by the harm caused to Brian to watch Love and Mercy, must surely doubt his sincerity and sensitivity when he seems not to mind reminding people of things that Brian did wrong decades ago.

As for your suggestion of Love and Mercy being played at a reunion, here we go again. I'm sick of the word 'reunion'. Love and Mercy is not and never was a Beach Boys' song. This is Brian's song. The Beach Boys have had so much from Brian. Some things are for Brian and his excellent band.

I will disagree a touch there; if there was indeed another reunion, it wouldn't be a bad thing for Love & Mercy to be played (unless of course, Brian didn't want to play it, which is his choice)... I say this because beautiful, personal solo songs like Heaven have been played with the BBs in the past.

Guess I  agree here - CD  - And, the BB's have "covered" other's music such as Frankie Lyman, Fassert, etc., and why not cover Brian's work? Who better to cover? I can't think of anyone better!

[SMiLE Brian]

L&M doesn't fit into Mike's fun,fun,fun brand while goin to the beach and Pisces brothers does.

[filledeplage]

L&M doesn't fit into Mike's fun,fun,fun brand while goin to the beach and Pisces brothers does.

And you would know that how?

[rab2591]

Secondly, anyone who is arguing that Mike may be too upset by the harm caused to Brian to watch Love and Mercy, must surely doubt his sincerity and sensitivity when he seems not to mind reminding people of things that Brian did wrong decades ago.

Not only that, but Mike Love is the same man who just a few weeks ago called the Evan Landy Daily Mail article an interesting read. THE Evan Landy article where not only does it drone on for pages about the abuse Brian endured during his time with Landy, but Evan was also given a pulpit to say that Landy had Brian's best interests at heart.

If Mike is too sensitive about the subject of the Landy years why the hell is he reading and commenting about a multiple page article about the Landy era? Come on guys. You'll scrape the bottom of the barrel, seemingly scrape through the bottom of the barrel, to defend the guy. Hilarious

[filledeplage]

If Mike is concerned about seeing Love and Mercy because of how upsetting it might be to him, surely he could say so to any interviewers asking the question. He doesn't even need to go into detail, just make it clear that he feels it is a private matter on which he doesn't wish to comment.

But I repeat, if Mike is so sensitive on his cousin's behalf, why doesn't he show this level of sensitivity in his interviews?

Why do you think anyone is owed an explanation?

Telling people it is a private matter on which he doesn't wish to comment is hardly an explanation.

The second part of my message doesn't require an explanation either but without one we can all draw our own conclusions about Mike's level of sensitivity on the subject of his cousin.

First - they are family. Family in business. They share a parent who is a sibling to one another. Family bonds confer privacy.


Second - it isn't "sensitivity" as much as "sincerity" which is ascribing a connotation of falsehood.  So even if Mike wishes Brian well, you are calling him a liar.  I guess that is the problem.  You are questioning his motivation, as insincere rather than "sensitivity" which is an "awareness of the feeling of others."

As I have already written, he could just tell any interviewer that he didn't wish to comment. Stating that he hasn't seen it because he is too busy makes most question whether he has an ulterior motive. This isn't prejudice against Mike - if you had a cousin who had a film made about him/her and  you didn't go to see it people would inevitably wonder why not.

The family thing - there are many who have family members, even families which are in business together, and yet are not close. I don't know how close Mike and Brian are and only those of their personal acquaintance probably know the whole truth.

Secondly, anyone who is arguing that Mike may be too upset by the harm caused to Brian to watch Love and Mercy, must surely doubt his sincerity and sensitivity when he seems not to mind reminding people of things that Brian did wrong decades ago.

As for your suggestion of Love and Mercy being played at a reunion, here we go again. I'm sick of the word 'reunion'. Love and Mercy is not and never was a Beach Boys' song. This is Brian's song. The Beach Boys have had so much from Brian. Some things are for Brian and his excellent band.

If he does or not, is only his business.  

[filledeplage]

Secondly, anyone who is arguing that Mike may be too upset by the harm caused to Brian to watch Love and Mercy, must surely doubt his sincerity and sensitivity when he seems not to mind reminding people of things that Brian did wrong decades ago.

Not only that, but Mike Love is the same man who just a few weeks ago called the Evan Landy Daily Mail article an interesting read. THE Evan Landy article where not only does it drone on for pages about the abuse Brian endured during his time with Landy, but Evan was also given a pulpit to say that Landy had Brian's best interests at heart.

If Mike is too sensitive about the subject of the Landy years why the hell is he reading and commenting about a multiple page article about the Landy era? Come on guys. You'll scrape the bottom of the barrel, seemingly scrape through the bottom of the barrel, to defend the guy. Hilarious

Let's not forget who had court ordered control...his Daddio.

And calling something "interesting" does not necessarily mean "agreement."  I seem to recall in the movie, in the scene where Brian and Melinda jump off the boat, Evan's character seemed fearful saying something like, "SH**...my dad is going to kill me!" More power and control to Gene. 

[rab2591]

Secondly, anyone who is arguing that Mike may be too upset by the harm caused to Brian to watch Love and Mercy, must surely doubt his sincerity and sensitivity when he seems not to mind reminding people of things that Brian did wrong decades ago.

Not only that, but Mike Love is the same man who just a few weeks ago called the Evan Landy Daily Mail article an interesting read. THE Evan Landy article where not only does it drone on for pages about the abuse Brian endured during his time with Landy, but Evan was also given a pulpit to say that Landy had Brian's best interests at heart.

If Mike is too sensitive about the subject of the Landy years why the hell is he reading and commenting about a multiple page article about the Landy era? Come on guys. You'll scrape the bottom of the barrel, seemingly scrape through the bottom of the barrel, to defend the guy. Hilarious

Let's not forget who had court ordered control...his Daddio.

And calling something "interesting" does not necessarily mean "agreement."  I seem to recall in the movie, in the scene where Brian and Melinda jump off the boat, Evan's character seemed fearful saying something like, "SH**...my dad is going to kill me!" More power and control to Gene. 

I never said "interesting" meant "agreement" - why you'd even bring that up in response to my post is beyond me. I was strictly making the point that if Mike can endure a multiple page article on the Landy era and then talk about it with a reporter surely the argument that he's too sensitive to see the movie for that reason comes into question.

That being said, I completely agree with AGD that it's probably not a movie that Mike would want to see in a public theater. And thus I'll circle back to my point that I'm sure Pohlad would've made the arrangements for Mike to see it in whatever setting he wanted to.