Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[filledeplage]

It's possible evidence of malfeasance or whatever the grounds were that Brian brought for his suit wasn't fully known until years later.

Also, for the *zillionth* time, Brian had spent the previous DECADE under the care of an abusive doctor. I know detractors and Mike sympathizers are essentially tired of that being used as an excuse for Brian. It's unfortunate and Brian almost died, but it pretty much *is* an excuse, or at least an explanation, for a lot of things that did or didn't happen from about 1982 to 1992 or so.

Why didn't Brian sue years earlier? Beyond legal machinations to which we're not privy, he was f**ed up on drugs and booze for some of that time, which overlapped with bouts with mental illness, and then the mental illness overlapped with his overmedicated, abusive care under Landy. Sounds like a pretty good potential explanation for why Brian wasn't holding meeting after meeting with lawyers about the convoluted sale of a publishing catalog decades earlier.

Further, the grounds for Brian's suit were far *less* obvious and far *more* complex than Mike's. Mike's was simple. "I wrote this list of songs and didn't credit or royalties."

I believe he was under Landy's "care" when the suit was filed and was continuing to suffer from mental illness and it was a point in the case.

http://articles.latimes.com/1989-09-19/entertainment/ca-4315_1_brian-wilson

So that must not have been it.

Both cases were similar and linked.

I bet it was more like neither Brian or Mike thought there was anything to be done about it, especially as they both had signed those papers (under duress) back in 1969.  I'm guessing someone brought the idea or a plan of a suit to Brian, possible some how enabled by or connected to the recording of Brian's solo album.

Paragraph 9 of the link.

[CenturyDeprived]

You should ask Director, Jeff Bleckner and/or Writer, Kirk Ellis.

Cam, do you honestly, truthfully think that a screenplay would have been written and put to camera, in a film produced by Mike's good buddy Uncle Jesse, without Mike having any idea whatsoever what was going to be filmed? That this Uncle Jesse-produced film was done in some rogue bubble, devoid of any Mike input or influence, and that Mike was completely in the dark about how that VERY important era in the band's history would come off and make Mike himself look? Wouldn't Mike want not-fully-informed viewers to think that all of Brian's SMiLE era friends were in fact parasites who needed to be swept away, so that the almighty Wilson/Love team could reign supreme once again? I'm not saying that Love & Mercy didn't take some liberties too, which Brian and Melinda had to have been aware of, but why try to deflect blame when logic pokes more holes in your idea than swiss cheese?

If you want to try and cast doubt that Mike had any influence on Brian's portrayal in the 2000 An American Family film... do you for a minute think that PRODUCER Uncle Jesse would have also had no idea of what was going on in the script/direction during this part of the story? For one to believe your apparent theory, either Uncle Jesse ALSO went completely rogue (going behind the back of his friend Mike, who functions as his boss, and to whom he is basically beholden to with regards to all matters BB-related), or Uncle Jesse AND Mike were both just oblivious and completely of the loop with regards to how Brian would be portrayed during this part of the film.

You think either of theories are realistic? Does anyone? Is there some other explanation that could make your theory fit?

[SMiLE Brian]

Also funny how part one of  the movie showed BW in a better light since it was "glory years" that Mike obsesses about. The whole movie is passive aggressive swipe at BW's changes to making pet sounds/smile.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm guessing some fans reading were not around in 2000 when that movie was shown. I remember some of the PR leading up to the broadcast made a point of how some original session tapes and tracks would be used, and how it would be *the* history of the Beach Boys. It was suggested it was an answer to the earlier "Summer Dreams" movie bio that was not received well. The summer of '67 was depicted by showing the "Brian" character sporting long hair and a fake 70's-era long beard, wearing headphones, clutching a copy of Sgt. Pepper, as Hendrix playing Monterey Pop was on the TV screen behind him.

Then in 2000, we watched...after I remember some interviews and various press appearances talking up this film...and as soon as it hit the year 1966, the facts and the "history" was as fake as the beards had been in the Summer Dreams film.

Not only that, there was a fake character called "Tommy" or something, apparently the boogey man who had been plying Brian with dope and filling his head with all kinds of cosmic ideas and acting as the interloper standing in the way of the real Beach Boys. This fake character also collaborated with Brian on fake Smile music, like some song about Geronimo with leaps and bounds and other bizarre, discordant (re: non-commercial) music that all the hippies crashing at the Wilson pad were blissing out to as they ingested all manner of dope and chemicals...

Then Mike comes in, as Brian is goofing off in the studio playing with stuffed animals and squeak toys instead of getting down to work. It ends up with Mike guiding him back to write Good Vibrations, with the dialogue including lines like "I just want to write songs with my cousin" used to show how writing Good Vibrations helped get Brian out of the muck and back into gear cranking out the hit records.


Does anyone think THAT is an accurate portrayal of the year 1966 going into 1967, or of Smile in general?

Fact-check, anyone? It was a complete farce. One of the most egregious attempts to rewrite history I've ever seen in what was purported to be an "official" bio of the band.

So that was that, 2000. It was rightfully ridiculed and derided as the dreck that it was, especially trying to basically lie about Smile.

But, in 2005, in that lawsuit, we have a legal filing, a legal document entered into a court of law and sworn to as the truth, which paints the same picture of Smile as was shown in that ersatz "biography" of the band. Read the description, it's a different way of saying the same thing the TV movie tried to suggest.

Then fast forward 6-7 years, and "The Smile Sessions" is set to be released, the ultimate box set all the Smile fans have been waiting for. There is a series of YouTube "webisodes" created and uploaded which show the band members talking about Smile.

That, too, was a whitewash. But that's another topic for another discussion.

Point is, there was an official TV movie that made a mockery of itself by portraying Smile (and 1966-67 in general) as it did, even taking a swipe at the music and the people who created it. There was a lawsuit 5 years later that also misrepresented Smile, coincidentally around the same time most of the music community in general was buzzing over Brian's performances/tour and album activities that saw Smile finally getting a release. Then when it came time to promote the box set, the YouTube webisodes gave the suggestion that everyone loved the music Brian made for Smile, it was "new", "exciting", "groundbreaking", "different", "ahead of its time"...add whatever descriptions they used in those webisodes to convey how great everyone thought it was in 66-67.

Much of a contradiction there?

I guess my issue is as a fan who holds the Smile music very close to my heart in many ways, and as a key influence on me (and many others) as a musician, to see a TV movie making a mockery of Smile and those who created it is one thing. To read a legal document that gives misleading or blatantly false statements about Smile and slanders those who created it is infuriating as a fan. To see such a whitewash when it came time to promote a box set was truly bizarre but not unexpected.

The questions linger - who and why.

[Cam Mott]

Since it is Kirk Ellis' screenplay, why doesn't someone ask him?

[guitarfool2002]

Since it is Kirk Ellis' screenplay, why doesn't someone ask him?

You've been saying that since 2010 or earlier, why haven't you asked him?

Kirk Ellis, the writer, is on Facebook; someone should ask him how much influence the individual Beach Boys had on the script/his vision.

Just a few posts away in that same 2010 thread, there was this:

I guess the people who made the film did so in good faith, and the agenda wasn't to publicise one person's view of events...but sadly it turned out that way.

The 'people (or person) who made the film' did so because pressure was brought to bear on them for it to turn out the way it did. Which was, of course, 'to publicise one person's view of events'.

Various people depicted were so offended at how part one turned out that they forced the network to insert a disclaimer prefacing part two saying, in effect, 'this is based on real events but the makers have imparted their own spin'. Further, Van Dyke ensured that in all future airings, his character was renamed "Samuel". When asked about part two, Brian's comment was "it wasn't very nice".

The same "one person's view of events" which appeared in a lawsuit filing 5 years after the TV movie?

[Lee Marshall]

.....Humph....THERE IT IS!!!!! 

+1.

[Cam Mott]

Since it is Kirk Ellis' screenplay, why doesn't someone ask him?

You've been saying that since 2010 or earlier, why haven't you asked him?

Kirk Ellis, the writer, is on Facebook; someone should ask him how much influence the individual Beach Boys had on the script/his vision.

Just a few posts away in that same 2010 thread, there was this:

I guess the people who made the film did so in good faith, and the agenda wasn't to publicise one person's view of events...but sadly it turned out that way.

The 'people (or person) who made the film' did so because pressure was brought to bear on them for it to turn out the way it did. Which was, of course, 'to publicise one person's view of events'.

Various people depicted were so offended at how part one turned out that they forced the network to insert a disclaimer prefacing part two saying, in effect, 'this is based on real events but the makers have imparted their own spin'. Further, Van Dyke ensured that in all future airings, his character was renamed "Samuel". When asked about part two, Brian's comment was "it wasn't very nice".

The same "one person's view of events" which appeared in a lawsuit filing 5 years after the TV movie?

Yes, Kirk Ellis'.  So why haven't any of you who think it was something else asked him?

[Lee Marshall]

Doesn't appear to be necessary Cam...
-----------------------------------------

"The 'people (or person) who made the film' did so because pressure was brought to bear on them for it to turn out the way it did. Which was, of course, 'to publicise one person's view of events'.

Various people depicted were so offended at how part one turned out that they forced the network to insert a disclaimer prefacing part two saying, in effect, 'this is based on real events but the makers have imparted their own spin'. Further, Van Dyke ensured that in all future airings, his character was renamed "Samuel". When asked about part two, Brian's comment was "it wasn't very nice".

-------------------------------------------
...Pretty much says it all.

One would assume that in doing this 'thing' with Rolling Stone that first and foremost Mike was looking to create interested in his 'story book'.  But rather he has re-opened cans of worms which make him look like whatever it is one doesn't want wedged up into the tread of their favourite running shoes.  I only hope that in damaging 'the brand' as much and as often as he has that BRI finally says..."look dopey...for the next year or 2 that you would have continued on touring...we're willing to forego that income.  You're no longer allowed to represent the Beach Boys musically on any stage.  Fulfill only the existing contracts and then after that...You're FIRED!!!  You ingrate!!!"

That would be the kind thing to do.  They'll help Mike in 2 ways.  THAT action will pump his booklette sales BIG TIME...meaning money in his pockets opening up the possibility of a whole closet full of new hats just for casual use.  AND...it'll also free up time for Mike to get the head help he ever-so-obviously needs.  In that regard...hats haven't worked.

[Cam Mott]

I guess, from the cherry picked examples, we are supposed to take it that some believe this dramatization was crafted to a Mike agenda?  It's been a long time but as I remember the film that would mean Mike also forced in some very unflattering stuff about himself.

If somebody has something definite and on the record about it I'd like to hear it.

 So Van Dyke and Brian had complaints, did none of the other BBs also express complaints/concerns with the film?

Meanwhile those who are concerned should contact Ellis (or Bleckner) _to see how much input he claims the Boys had to the script.

[CenturyDeprived]

I guess, from the cherry picked examples, we are supposed to take it that some believe this dramatization was crafted to a Mike agenda?  It's been a long time but as I remember the film that would mean Mike also forced in some very unflattering stuff about himself.

If somebody has something definite and on the record about it I'd like to hear it.

 So Van Dyke and Brian had complaints, did none of the other BBs also express complaints/concerns with the film?

Meanwhile those who are concerned should contact Ellis (or Bleckner) _to see how much input he claims the Boys had to the script.

What about the Uncle Jesse as Producer factor? Do you think that Mike didn't have Producer Uncle Jesse in his back pocket? Have mercy!

Does there even exist a different guy, other than Stamos, who could have been Producer of this film that Mike could conceivably have had *more* sway with? Let's put it this way: do you think that with Uncle Jesse as Producer, Mike could possibly have thought "wow, I hope I come off looking good in the film, because the guy who is producing the film sure seems like someone who I'd have no sway with, and someone who wouldn't take my side. I'm just as worried about how I'll come off looking as I would be if David Leaf instead produced the film".

Come on. The film wasn't made in a bubble devoid of any people who could have possibly pulled strings for Mike.

Seriously, how are you gonna avoid the Uncle Jesse factor?

And if band politics were a factor in the making of the film, it's highly unrealistic that the writer - who in years since, has become much more lauded, hanging out with the likes of Tom Hanks, thanks to the John Adams miniseries - is just gonna open up to a fan and spill the beans about an already controversial film, which has already been a legal hornet's nest. That's why you keep pushing everyone else to ask, because you know it's probably a dead end.

[Robbie Mac]

Since it is Kirk Ellis' screenplay, why doesn't someone ask him?

You've been saying that since 2010 or earlier, why haven't you asked him?

Kirk Ellis, the writer, is on Facebook; someone should ask him how much influence the individual Beach Boys had on the script/his vision.

Just a few posts away in that same 2010 thread, there was this:

I guess the people who made the film did so in good faith, and the agenda wasn't to publicise one person's view of events...but sadly it turned out that way.

The 'people (or person) who made the film' did so because pressure was brought to bear on them for it to turn out the way it did. Which was, of course, 'to publicise one person's view of events'.

Various people depicted were so offended at how part one turned out that they forced the network to insert a disclaimer prefacing part two saying, in effect, 'this is based on real events but the makers have imparted their own spin'. Further, Van Dyke ensured that in all future airings, his character was renamed "Samuel". When asked about part two, Brian's comment was "it wasn't very nice".

The same "one person's view of events" which appeared in a lawsuit filing 5 years after the TV movie?

Yes, Kirk Ellis'.  So why haven't any of you who think it was something else asked him?

Because it SHOULD be pretty obvious to a two year old.

[Ang Jones]

I guess, from the cherry picked examples, we are supposed to take it that some believe this dramatization was crafted to a Mike agenda?  It's been a long time but as I remember the film that would mean Mike also forced in some very unflattering stuff about himself.

If somebody has something definite and on the record about it I'd like to hear it.

 So Van Dyke and Brian had complaints, did none of the other BBs also express complaints/concerns with the film?

Meanwhile those who are concerned should contact Ellis (or Bleckner) _to see how much input he claims the Boys had to the script.

My emphasis.

You'd like to hear it? Really?

[Cam Mott]

I guess, from the cherry picked examples, we are supposed to take it that some believe this dramatization was crafted to a Mike agenda?  It's been a long time but as I remember the film that would mean Mike also forced in some very unflattering stuff about himself.

If somebody has something definite and on the record about it I'd like to hear it.

 So Van Dyke and Brian had complaints, did none of the other BBs also express complaints/concerns with the film?

Meanwhile those who are concerned should contact Ellis (or Bleckner) _to see how much input he claims the Boys had to the script.

What about the Uncle Jesse as Producer factor? Do you think that Mike didn't have Producer Uncle Jesse in his back pocket? Have mercy!

Does there even exist a different guy, other than Stamos, who could have been Producer of this film that Mike could conceivably have had *more* sway with? Let's put it this way: do you think that with Uncle Jesse as Producer, Mike could possibly have thought "wow, I hope I come off looking good in the film, because the guy who is producing the film sure seems like someone who I'd have no sway with, and someone who wouldn't take my side. I'm just as worried about how I'll come off looking as I would be if David Leaf instead produced the film".

Come on. The film wasn't made in a bubble devoid of any people who could have possibly pulled strings for Mike.

Seriously, how are you gonna avoid the Uncle Jesse factor?

And if band politics were a factor in the making of the film, it's highly unrealistic that the writer - who in years since, has become much more lauded, hanging out with the likes of Tom Hanks, thanks to the John Adams miniseries - is just gonna open up to a fan and spill the beans about an already controversial film, which has already been a legal hornet's nest. That's why you keep pushing everyone else to ask, because you know it's probably a dead end.

As I remember Stamos was not the only producer disappointed with how film turned out.

[Cam Mott]

Because it SHOULD be pretty obvious to a two year old.

So it was obvious to you.   

[CenturyDeprived]

I guess, from the cherry picked examples, we are supposed to take it that some believe this dramatization was crafted to a Mike agenda?  It's been a long time but as I remember the film that would mean Mike also forced in some very unflattering stuff about himself.

If somebody has something definite and on the record about it I'd like to hear it.

 So Van Dyke and Brian had complaints, did none of the other BBs also express complaints/concerns with the film?

Meanwhile those who are concerned should contact Ellis (or Bleckner) _to see how much input he claims the Boys had to the script.

What about the Uncle Jesse as Producer factor? Do you think that Mike didn't have Producer Uncle Jesse in his back pocket? Have mercy!

Does there even exist a different guy, other than Stamos, who could have been Producer of this film that Mike could conceivably have had *more* sway with? Let's put it this way: do you think that with Uncle Jesse as Producer, Mike could possibly have thought "wow, I hope I come off looking good in the film, because the guy who is producing the film sure seems like someone who I'd have no sway with, and someone who wouldn't take my side. I'm just as worried about how I'll come off looking as I would be if David Leaf instead produced the film".

Come on. The film wasn't made in a bubble devoid of any people who could have possibly pulled strings for Mike.

Seriously, how are you gonna avoid the Uncle Jesse factor?

And if band politics were a factor in the making of the film, it's highly unrealistic that the writer - who in years since, has become much more lauded, hanging out with the likes of Tom Hanks, thanks to the John Adams miniseries - is just gonna open up to a fan and spill the beans about an already controversial film, which has already been a legal hornet's nest. That's why you keep pushing everyone else to ask, because you know it's probably a dead end.

As I remember Stamos was not the only producer disappointed with how film turned out.

Well, for one, the film was gonna be near impossible to turn out "good" considering it was a made for TV film with a TV budget, and not nearly long enough to cover the detailed multi-decade time period with any degree of proper accuracy.  I imagine any producer would speak their disappointment for a number of reasons, not the least of which was Brian's public vocal displeasure with it.

Secondly... if you are of the opinion of doubting that Mike had no sway whatsoever with the film... where do you think the filmmakers got the idea of all those folks being drugged-out parasites? Who else was pushing that type of ideology for decades? Is there some other insider whose viewpoint would have been used to obtain that type of filmed result? Even *if* Mike wasn't directly consulted, or didn't directly give his two cents to the filmmakers at all, I don't see how that era depicted in the film differs particularly from the way Mike has indirectly characterized that era as being for a long while before the film was made.  

If there is an era during the band's history for which Mike is very, very concerned about how he comes off looking (for good reason), it's the era we are discussing.

You think with a producer good friend of his on the staff, Mike was just going to stay on the road touring, not call to chime in with an opinion, stay completely mum, and just "hope" for the best?  

You refuse to answer whether or not you think this scenario is realistic (or not).

[Cam Mott]

I don't see any evidence that any of the Boys had undue influence over the script because it wasn't particularly flattering to any of them.

It seems they complained after the airing which would be long after the script I would think. Did any of them even have script approval?  None of them seem to be listed with IMDB.

[Bicyclerider]

The movie was so inaccurate on the Pet Sounds/Smile era it was ridiculous, but then it continued . . . They showed Brian refusing to leave his bed while the other BeachBoys took over in the studio in his absence . . . The song they are recording while Brian is completely absent?  Add some Music . . . The one song on Sunflower that it is documented that Brian did produce.  Ridiculous.

Convincing Cam that this movie represented Mike's viewpoint (what other Beach Boy would have this "spin" on events?  None) is a waste of time - just ignore him and move on to discuss issues that interest us rather than argue about his Mike Love does no wrong stance.

[filledeplage]

The movie was so inaccurate on the Pet Sounds/Smile era it was ridiculous, but then it continued . . . They showed Brian refusing to leave his bed while the other BeachBoys took over in the studio in his absence . . . The song they are recording while Brian is completely absent?  Add some Music . . . The one song on Sunflower that it is documented that Brian did produce.  Ridiculous.

Convincing Cam that this movie represented Mike's viewpoint (what other Beach Boy would have this "spin" on events?  None) is a waste of time - just ignore him and move on to discuss issues that interest us rather than argue about his Mike Love does no wrong stance.

Gaines was a writer according to IMDb.  I just pulled up IMDb and checked the hairstylist. Same as Austin Powers.  That explains the hair.  

[Cam Mott]

The movie was so inaccurate on the Pet Sounds/Smile era it was ridiculous, but then it continued . . . They showed Brian refusing to leave his bed while the other BeachBoys took over in the studio in his absence . . . The song they are recording while Brian is completely absent?  Add some Music . . . The one song on Sunflower that it is documented that Brian did produce.  Ridiculous.

Convincing Cam that this movie represented Mike's viewpoint (what other Beach Boy would have this "spin" on events?  None) is a waste of time - just ignore him and move on to discuss issues that interest us rather than argue about his Mike Love does no wrong stance.

Just think of it as loyal opposition.   

[filledeplage]

The movie was so inaccurate on the Pet Sounds/Smile era it was ridiculous, but then it continued . . . They showed Brian refusing to leave his bed while the other BeachBoys took over in the studio in his absence . . . The song they are recording while Brian is completely absent?  Add some Music . . . The one song on Sunflower that it is documented that Brian did produce.  Ridiculous.

Convincing Cam that this movie represented Mike's viewpoint (what other Beach Boy would have this "spin" on events?  None) is a waste of time - just ignore him and move on to discuss issues that interest us rather than argue about his Mike Love does no wrong stance.

Just think of it as loyal opposition.   

Does the screenplay text follow the book?

 I had no idea that Gaines wrote it.

[Emily]

The movie was so inaccurate on the Pet Sounds/Smile era it was ridiculous, but then it continued . . . They showed Brian refusing to leave his bed while the other BeachBoys took over in the studio in his absence . . . The song they are recording while Brian is completely absent?  Add some Music . . . The one song on Sunflower that it is documented that Brian did produce.  Ridiculous.

Convincing Cam that this movie represented Mike's viewpoint (what other Beach Boy would have this "spin" on events?  None) is a waste of time - just ignore him and move on to discuss issues that interest us rather than argue about his Mike Love does no wrong stance.

Gaines was a writer according to IMDb.  I just pulled up IMDb and checked the hairstylist. Same as Austin Powers.  That explains the hair.  

they're talking about the 2000 movie "An American Family." Steven Gaines worked on the 1990 movie "Summer Dreams"

[filledeplage]

The movie was so inaccurate on the Pet Sounds/Smile era it was ridiculous, but then it continued . . . They showed Brian refusing to leave his bed while the other BeachBoys took over in the studio in his absence . . . The song they are recording while Brian is completely absent?  Add some Music . . . The one song on Sunflower that it is documented that Brian did produce.  Ridiculous.

Convincing Cam that this movie represented Mike's viewpoint (what other Beach Boy would have this "spin" on events?  None) is a waste of time - just ignore him and move on to discuss issues that interest us rather than argue about his Mike Love does no wrong stance.

Gaines was a writer according to IMDb.  I just pulled up IMDb and checked the hairstylist. Same as Austin Powers.  That explains the hair.  

they're talking about the 2000 movie "An American Family." Steven Gaines worked on the 1990 movie "Summer Dreams"

Mea culpa. Mixed up my BB movies.  

Besides which, there does not seem to be a truly accurate and coherent time line of that 66-67 era.

People coming and going, inconsistent accounts coming from various sources.   

[guitarfool2002]

The movie was so inaccurate on the Pet Sounds/Smile era it was ridiculous, but then it continued . . . They showed Brian refusing to leave his bed while the other BeachBoys took over in the studio in his absence . . . The song they are recording while Brian is completely absent?  Add some Music . . . The one song on Sunflower that it is documented that Brian did produce.  Ridiculous.

Convincing Cam that this movie represented Mike's viewpoint (what other Beach Boy would have this "spin" on events?  None) is a waste of time - just ignore him and move on to discuss issues that interest us rather than argue about his Mike Love does no wrong stance.

Just think of it as loyal opposition.   

Does the screenplay text follow the book?

 I had no idea that Gaines wrote it.

You're confusing the movies. The one being discussed is "An American Family" that aired in two parts on ABC in 2000. John Stamos was an executive producer and did publicity for the movie leading up to the broadcast. Gaines had nothing to do with it.

"Summer Dreams" was on ABC in 1990 and was based on information taken from the Gaines book.

There were publicity interviews about "An American Family" in 2000 which made it clear it was an attempt to do the band justice after the 1990 movie got criticized and was not well received. Specifically, in one area, that was why the efforts were made to use the actual Beach Boys recordings and session tapes in "An American Family" instead of recreations, and they did use them for the most part - except for the Smile material, which turned into a travesty in how it was ultimately used in the film.

The attempts to rewrite or reshape the history of the band once Stamos' movie hit 1966 in the timeline looked to many fans and reviewers as bad as the fake beards and wigs from the '90 film.

[guitarfool2002]

The movie was so inaccurate on the Pet Sounds/Smile era it was ridiculous, but then it continued . . . They showed Brian refusing to leave his bed while the other BeachBoys took over in the studio in his absence . . . The song they are recording while Brian is completely absent?  Add some Music . . . The one song on Sunflower that it is documented that Brian did produce.  Ridiculous.

Convincing Cam that this movie represented Mike's viewpoint (what other Beach Boy would have this "spin" on events?  None) is a waste of time - just ignore him and move on to discuss issues that interest us rather than argue about his Mike Love does no wrong stance.

Gaines was a writer according to IMDb.  I just pulled up IMDb and checked the hairstylist. Same as Austin Powers.  That explains the hair.  

they're talking about the 2000 movie "An American Family." Steven Gaines worked on the 1990 movie "Summer Dreams"

Mea culpa. Mixed up my BB movies.  

Besides which, there does not seem to be a truly accurate and coherent time line of that 66-67 era.

People coming and going, inconsistent accounts coming from various sources.   

There were enough sources alive and well in 2000 to make the attempts to slander Van Dyke Parks and turn his character into a boogeyman to suit whatever history rewrite was being attempted look even more egregious and obvious.