The Beach Boys An American Family - 8PM EST Tonight

[LostArt]

I had never seen this before...had read quite a bit about on this here board.  It was as most here said it was.  Terrible.

The portrayal of Brian was incredibly bad.  The longer I watched, the more it seemed like I was watching Jeff Daniels in "Dumb and Dumber". 

[donald]

Maybe holiday boredom but I watched this yet again.   Wasn't it longer before?  Was it edited down to a couple of hours?

I thought they were calling VDP "Vannie".    The ears are getting old.  But Sammy?

Also, the whole thing didn't seem so bad as I remember.

Wasn't there a scene near the end (of the original?) where they were sitting around a table and someone said "I guess we'll just be a band that plays their old/hit songs"?

And yeah, that guy playing Brian did come off sounding kind of Dopey, but Brian did kind of sound dopey over the years, although I'd spin it as sort of odd or eccentric, uncomfortable with the role, rather than as sounding kind o dum.

And the Mike character seemed a little less flattering than I recall from seeing it before.

Wasn't this the Stamos movie?

[JaredLekites]

Watched a bit of this while flipping through channels. A lot of the acting is worse than I remember it but I blame that on the all-too below standard TV mini-series writing. Honestly, who goes up to a widow at a funeral and says "my condolences,"? Parts of the script read like a Hallmark card.

I love the mom from The Wonder Years as Audree and the original vocals and backgrounds are saving it from being a complete loss. But the revisionist historic elements and the skewed P.O.V. tarnish any hopes of it being the essential Beach Boys story.

I recall Alan Boyd said something along the lines that he completely regretted having any involvement whatsoever with this.

[Mahalo]

This movie should NOT be taken too seriously... then it becomes kinda cool in a B-Movie sort of way. Who cares if it is all fodaed up, the music is great, and the acting is nothing more than a novelty...just take it for what it is..

[filledeplage]

Maybe holiday boredom but I watched this yet again.   Wasn't it longer before?  Was it edited down to a couple of hours?

I thought they were calling VDP "Vannie".    The ears are getting old.  But Sammy?

Also, the whole thing didn't seem so bad as I remember.

Wasn't there a scene near the end (of the original?) where they were sitting around a table and someone said "I guess we'll just be a band that plays their old/hit songs"?

And yeah, that guy playing Brian did come off sounding kind of Dopey, but Brian did kind of sound dopey over the years, although I'd spin it as sort of odd or eccentric, uncomfortable with the role, rather than as sounding kind o dum.

And the Mike character seemed a little less flattering than I recall from seeing it before.

Wasn't this the Stamos movie?

This movie was not in the "market" where I am right now.  I did see it about a month ago, as a result of some debate surrounding this made-for-TV movie.  First, my initial criticism was that my recollection from seeing it when it was released was that the actors cast were not as cute as the Boys.  (That is the ever-teenage fan in me!)

What impressed me on this "recent" viewing was that I felt that Mike demonstrated extreme restraint and dignity, when confronted with the fact that his uncle had "sold the catalog" which would confer an enormous amount of feeling betrayed on anyone.  It is bad enough to be defrauded by a stranger, but a family member appears to be extremely outrageous.  

The movie depicts Mike as turning to meditation which is a "positive place" to put those emotions.  It is an emotional point in the film, as the film shows the intent of the uncle, at the outset, to make a "side deal" with Brian, and then defraud both of them under what appears to be "conversion" - or, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to another."  That is a very superficial "observation" based on the facts "as depicted" in the film, not a legal opinion. *

So, it appears to be double-pronged as against Mike, as portrayed in the movie script.  What does one do, when one is defrauded of a great deal of their life's work, and, according to the film, the "profits" were spent, so where it your remedy?  When it comes from an "elder" in your family...it is not a good thing.  But, to his (Mike's) and the rest of the band's credit, it did not appear to deter them from more hard creative work, touring and open-mindedness, they were able to "dig deep" and turn it around.  It would have broken other bands, but not "them."

Unfortunately, when you are young, talented, and being "managed," and perhaps have little or no legal and business knowledge and no apparent representation, plus are working on a principle of "good faith" - the "other side" is in a position of "superior bargaining power" - but in those days, young people with talent, may have been victims to an unfair system.  Mike is always taking the hit.  I don't get it.      



 

[Andrew G. Doe]

What impressed me on this "recent" viewing was that I felt that Mike demonstrated extreme restraint and dignity, when confronted with the fact that his uncle had "sold the catalog" which would confer an enormous amount of feeling betrayed on anyone.  

Two comments:

1 - that's what happened in the mini-series. No proof it actually happened in real life. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. No-one except those involved will ever know.

2 - the character of Mike as portrayed in this production is a direct result of the considerable influence exerted by an interested party. It's not anything close to an objective, detached piece of writing, even if it originally was. This isn't my opinion, this is what I've been told by several people who would know.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I recall Alan Boyd said something along the lines that he completely regretted having any involvement whatsoever with this.

... and he still does.

[bgas]

What impressed me on this "recent" viewing was that I felt that Mike demonstrated extreme restraint and dignity, when confronted with the fact that his uncle had "sold the catalog" which would confer an enormous amount of feeling betrayed on anyone.  It is bad enough to be defrauded by a stranger, but a family member appears to be extremely outrageous.  

The movie depicts Mike as turning to meditation which is a "positive place" to put those emotions.  It is an emotional point in the film, as the film shows the intent of the uncle, at the outset, to make a "side deal" with Brian, and then defraud both of them under what appears to be "conversion" - or, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to another."  That is a very superficial "observation" based on the facts "as depicted" in the film, not a legal opinion. *

this is right about where I tuned in, for about 20 minutes, off and on.  
I didn't see the beginning, but what I saw in this scene was:  Mike blowing his stack, and almost beating the crap out of Brian, before throwing a chair in the pool.
Gee, but that's not my idea of " extreme restraint and dignity".
 And the meditation scene, what I saw was:  Mike looks like he's going to jump up and fight somebody; that's "a positive place" ?  

We must come from different worlds.  

[Andrew G. Doe]

What impressed me on this "recent" viewing was that I felt that Mike demonstrated extreme restraint and dignity, when confronted with the fact that his uncle had "sold the catalog" which would confer an enormous amount of feeling betrayed on anyone.  It is bad enough to be defrauded by a stranger, but a family member appears to be extremely outrageous.  

The movie depicts Mike as turning to meditation which is a "positive place" to put those emotions.  It is an emotional point in the film, as the film shows the intent of the uncle, at the outset, to make a "side deal" with Brian, and then defraud both of them under what appears to be "conversion" - or, according to Black's Law Dictionary, is "an unauthorized assumption and exercise of the right of ownership over goods or personal chattels belonging to another."  That is a very superficial "observation" based on the facts "as depicted" in the film, not a legal opinion. *

this is right about where I tuned in, for about 20 minutes, off and on.  
I didn't see the beginning, but what I saw in this scene was:  Mike blowing his stack, and almost beating the crap out of Brian, before throwing a chair in the pool.
Gee, but that's not my idea of " extreme restraint and dignity".
 And the meditation scene, what I saw was:  Mike looks like he's going to jump up and fight somebody; that's "a positive place" ?  

We must come from different worlds.  

Granted, I have some insight into this matter from discussion on A. N. Other MB, but basically, her premise is this: John Stamos was involved with the mini-series, ergo it cannot have anything said against it.

[Jon Stebbins]

This movie should NOT be taken too seriously...

There's the understatement of the decade.

[filledeplage]

What impressed me on this "recent" viewing was that I felt that Mike demonstrated extreme restraint and dignity, when confronted with the fact that his uncle had "sold the catalog" which would confer an enormous amount of feeling betrayed on anyone.  

Two comments:

1 - that's what happened in the mini-series. No proof it actually happened in real life. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. No-one except those involved will ever know.

2 - the character of Mike as portrayed in this production is a direct result of the considerable influence exerted by an interested party. It's not anything close to an objective, detached piece of writing, even if it originally was. This isn't my opinion, this is what I've been told by several people who would know.

Andrew - My "impression" was "qualified" as to what was "represented" in the film, with two lenses, ten years apart to look through.

And, it should be regarded in the "time frame" of production, and much as changed, as well it should in ten years.  People move on and grow or they don't survive.  That said, it is a "made-for-TV" film, and I would not call it a mini-series, as there were only two viewings, minus the advertisements, does not leave a lot of time to tell a "40 year story."  It is not an historic documentary subject to scrutiny of whether all the facts were exact.  It might be classified someone where in the middle as "edutainment."  

No art form is fully objective; it is always told from a "point-of-view" or "vantage point" of the story teller. Film is no different.  I was not unclear about that.  What I "took away" from the viewings, "as depicted in the film" was that there was "chicancery" which did cause damage, monetary or otherwise, to band members.  My sense is that the average viewer took away a similar "global" impression.  

My "analysis" was confined to the "facts, as depicted" in the film as "a fan."  My opinion is that it "probably" was a "window," which  chronicled and reflected some events that happened over 40 years.  I think it gave great reverence and deference to Brian's early inspirations of the music. That is hardly "one-sided."  And who knows what ended up on the cutting floor.  The discussion was confined to the film "as depicted."

But, you are absolutely correct in saying that "only the people who were there" would know the subtleties of the entire story.  Perhaps it is not for our eyes and ears, out of respect for the privacy of all concerned.  It is a "distraction" from the real star, which is and has always been, " The Music" which had to come "from somewhere."  

And, I think the film did a fairly good job in conveying that, within the context of an early 1960's American Family, that, from many "inspirational" sources, a "sound" particular to our Boys, in a particular vocal "style" emerged which has not been duplicated, and has endured for half a century, amid almost "mythological"and "romanticized" events, but remains a "cultural/musical force" in our lives.

If a viewer who is not familiar with the Band, "casually" views this film, I think it does its job of conveying that uncontestable fact, of the musical creativity element. It is a "global view" of events. "as told" ten years ago.  One might liken it to an "intro" to Beach Boys 101.  It is not a doctoral level course.                      

[Mahalo]

It is not a doctoral level course.                      

Which is why I'm not offended by all the discrepencies. (I hope I spelled that right)

[Emdeeh]

MST3K fodder, anyone?

[Chris Brown]

It is not a doctoral level course.                      

Which is why I'm not offended by all the discrepancies. (I hope I spelled that right)

A discrepancy here and there doesn't bother me too much - portraying Brian Wilson as a drooling mental patient during the time period in which he was creating his most celebrated works is a bit more than a "discrepancy." 

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

I'm serial, Bgas! The text across the screen said 1974 and 'Mike' is seen coaxing (almost dragging) Brian on stage to play the piano. Home made sign in the crowd said "Welcome Back Brian". Gee, I wonder where the producers came up with that scene! American Band video, wadinit?

As I have not seen it since its original airing,I'm not 100% sure, but  didn't it end with them all sitting in the studio and laughing and reminiscing? IIRC, it was right around the time of the Brian's Back campaign, only in the film it happened in 74. 1st part was decent, 2nd part was an abortion.

[A Million Units In Jan!]

What impressed me on this "recent" viewing was that I felt that Mike demonstrated extreme restraint and dignity, when confronted with the fact that his uncle had "sold the catalog" which would confer an enormous amount of feeling betrayed on anyone.  

Two comments:

1 - that's what happened in the mini-series. No proof it actually happened in real life. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. No-one except those involved will ever know.

2 - the character of Mike as portrayed in this production is a direct result of the considerable influence exerted by an interested party. It's not anything close to an objective, detached piece of writing, even if it originally was. This isn't my opinion, this is what I've been told by several people who would know.

Andrew - My "impression" was "qualified" as to what was "represented" in the film, with two lenses, ten years apart to look through.

And, it should be regarded in the "time frame" of production, and much as changed, as well it should in ten years.  People move on and grow or they don't survive.  That said, it is a "made-for-TV" film, and I would not call it a mini-series, as there were only two viewings, minus the advertisements, does not leave a lot of time to tell a "40 year story."  It is not an historic documentary subject to scrutiny of whether all the facts were exact.  It might be classified someone where in the middle as "edutainment."  

No art form is fully objective; it is always told from a "point-of-view" or "vantage point" of the story teller. Film is no different.  I was not unclear about that.  What I "took away" from the viewings, "as depicted in the film" was that there was "chicancery" which did cause damage, monetary or otherwise, to band members.  My sense is that the average viewer took away a similar "global" impression.  

My "analysis" was confined to the "facts, as depicted" in the film as "a fan."  My opinion is that it "probably" was a "window," which  chronicled and reflected some events that happened over 40 years.  I think it gave great reverence and deference to Brian's early inspirations of the music. That is hardly "one-sided."  And who knows what ended up on the cutting floor.  The discussion was confined to the film "as depicted."

But, you are absolutely correct in saying that "only the people who were there" would know the subtleties of the entire story.  Perhaps it is not for our eyes and ears, out of respect for the privacy of all concerned.  It is a "distraction" from the real star, which is and has always been, " The Music" which had to come "from somewhere."  

And, I think the film did a fairly good job in conveying that, within the context of an early 1960's American Family, that, from many "inspirational" sources, a "sound" particular to our Boys, in a particular vocal "style" emerged which has not been duplicated, and has endured for half a century, amid almost "mythological"and "romanticized" events, but remains a "cultural/musical force" in our lives.

If a viewer who is not familiar with the Band, "casually" views this film, I think it does its job of conveying that uncontestable fact, of the musical creativity element. It is a "global view" of events. "as told" ten years ago.  One might liken it to an "intro" to Beach Boys 101.  It is not a doctoral level course.                      

Why do you put "every other word" in "quotes"? Is it some sort of secret message? Like, if I take every word that's in quotes, will it spell out something? Let me try the last paragraph: 'Casually, global view as told intro". Nope, guess not.

[Don_Zabu]

"MARILYN! MARYLIN! THERE'S A SPIDER ON MY FACE! THERE'S A SPIDER ON MY FACE!"

It's like a comedy sketch.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Does anyone remember that right after the original broadcast, ABC news had a story on the movie and had a crew at Mike Love's house to be there when he watched the premiere and to get his reaction?


Damn, I wish I still had my taped VHS copy!