Pictures from "Love and Mercy" biopic

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm sure most folk here know this, but anyhoo - the reason for the palm fronds on the drivers door of the yellow truck is to obscure the name of the guy it was hired from.

Correct, I can recall neither his name nor his business. Cam ?

[guitarfool2002]

Getting back to the topic after the sidebar about the car history...

Some of the comments I went back and read over the last several pages are kind of troubling, and I wanted to appeal to reason for just a moment without specifically calling anyone out.

1. We don't know what that beach/car/surfboard clip posted on Vimeo is supposed to be portraying. A poster *assumes* it was to replicate the album cover shoot for Surfin Safari, and on that assumption other comments are posted about how "wrong" the scene setup is from the actual cover.

Question: Does anyone here know for sure that the 17 second clip from the set is supposed to be replicating the SS cover shoot? Does anyone know for sure beyond that how many photo shoots Capitol arranged with the Beach Boys at the beach among surfboards and cars beyond the series of photos that made up the SS cover at the time of their first Capitol releases and related promo and marketing activities for the band?

If someone does, please chime in. If that does turn out to be a setup for replicating the iconic SS cover shot, then so be it, and we'll deal with those issues once we know for sure. But no one except those involved in making the film at this point knows, right?

2. Does anyone posting know what kind of things are happening around getting the historical details, props and imagery/scenery as correct or as close as possible for the detail-oriented fans (like me) on the actual set of this film as it's being made?

For those posting negatives about the details, where are you getting your information in order to post these opinions that suggest this film will be full of mistakes and incorrect details, suggesting it's on the level of the 80's Summer Dreams or the later ABC "Family" TV movie bio?

I'm just a little disappointed that assumptions and opinions based on a few still frames and cel phone clips taken on-set are being used to criticize the whole project's validity and accuracy.

Questions/comment:

Those already posting about the mistakes, are there things you know about this project already that are leading to some of the criticisms on these pages?

Could it be possible that maybe...just maybe...there are things happening behind the scenes in the production of this movie that need to be seen in a finished form or at least reported before determining and posting how wrong or how "cheap" it will be? That's just taking an opinion or an assumption perhaps a bit too far before we've even gotten the full story, I'd think, and if casting doubt and negativity on a project that is still actively "in the works" is the goal, I'd suggest it might be a little unfair if not uninformed unless those posting it have other information to the contrary.

And as someone wisely pointed out, even after all of the footage has been shot, who here can tell what will or will not make the "final cut" of the film whenever it's released? There is always a possibility as happens with every film ever made that advance photos, scenes, and even entire pages of script get cut during the editing process and are never seen beyond things like the still frames and the cel phone video posted in this thread.

We just don't know yet.

[Robbie Mac]

If you're being really picky, the pic of Teresa as Carol Kaye has her wearing a dress and boots from the early seventies (as per the original image) and CK says she never wore a fire helmet on 11/28/66.

Or so she says....

[shelter]

If you're being really picky, the pic of Teresa as Carol Kaye has her wearing a dress and boots from the early seventies (as per the original image) and CK says she never wore a fire helmet on 11/28/66.

Or so she says....

...while in fact it was James Jamerson who wasn't wearing a fire helmet that day.

 

[Steve Mayo]

I'm sure most folk here know this, but anyhoo - the reason for the palm fronds on the drivers door of the yellow truck is to obscure the name of the guy it was hired from.

Correct, I can recall neither his name nor his business. Cam ?

wasn't it some beach contractor type guy named calypso joe? if not then i am losing brain cells rapidly...

[alf wiedersehen]

I don't think the problem is so much that the car isn't a Woodie, I think the problem is that it sets a precedent.

[bgas]

I'm sure most folk here know this, but anyhoo - the reason for the palm fronds on the drivers door of the yellow truck is to obscure the name of the guy it was hired from.

Correct, I can recall neither his name nor his business. Cam ?

wasn't it some beach contractor type guy named calypso joe? if not then i am losing brain cells rapidly...

can't speak to your loss of cells, but you are correct with Calypso Joe; according to Jon Stebbins in  "The Beach Boys FAQ: All That's Left to Know About America's Band"
the truck was rented by nick venet from the "Hollywood beatnik "specifically for the cover shoot and driven onto the sand at Mailbu's Paradise Cove

[guitarfool2002]

I don't think the problem is so much that the car isn't a Woodie, I think the problem is that it sets a precedent.

A precedent for what?

[Steve Mayo]

I'm sure most folk here know this, but anyhoo - the reason for the palm fronds on the drivers door of the yellow truck is to obscure the name of the guy it was hired from.

Correct, I can recall neither his name nor his business. Cam ?

wasn't it some beach contractor type guy named calypso joe? if not then i am losing brain cells rapidly...

can't speak to your loss of cells, but you are correct with Calypso Joe; according to Jon Stebbins in  "The Beach Boys FAQ: All That's Left to Know About America's Band"
the truck was rented by nick venet from the "Hollywood beatnik "specifically for the cover shoot and driven onto the sand at Mailbu's Paradise Cove

thanks  and set up cold one for Klaas 

[alf wiedersehen]

I don't think the problem is so much that the car isn't a Woodie, I think the problem is that it sets a precedent.

A precedent for what?

For more obvious blunders.

[guitarfool2002]

I don't think the problem is so much that the car isn't a Woodie, I think the problem is that it sets a precedent.

A precedent for what?

For more obvious blunders.

I'm assuming you didn't bother to read my post on this page, not knowing of course if you did or didn't but assuming in the same way a set of photos taken on-set during filming are *known to be* A. A recreation of the Surfin Safari cover shoot and B. Will absolutely beyond a doubt be included in the final cut of the film as a portrayal of the SS cover shoot.

May I ask how you're aware of this in order to make not only those assumptions but also use those assumptions to conclude the film will contain more obvious blunders?

Seriously, how did you get this info?

[SMiLE Brian]

I don't get the big deal over getting the exact truck for the movie. The movie is about telling the gist of BW's story with a few liberties here and there.

[guitarfool2002]

I don't get the big deal over getting the exact truck for the movie. The movie is about telling the gist of BW's story with a few liberties here and there.

And again, you're basing even this on an *assumption* that the still photos in question are showing the Surfin Safari cover shoot...once again, while it may be true, do you know for sure? Have you seen rough cuts, the daily rushes, or whatever other film was shot for the project enough to know?

If it turns out to be, then so be it - but again, what the heck is the point of basing all of this crap on assuming something before knowing the facts?

[alf wiedersehen]

I don't think the problem is so much that the car isn't a Woodie, I think the problem is that it sets a precedent.

A precedent for what?

For more obvious blunders.

I'm assuming you didn't bother to read my post on this page, not knowing of course if you did or didn't but assuming in the same way a set of photos taken on-set during filming are *known to be* A. A recreation of the Surfin Safari cover shoot and B. Will absolutely beyond a doubt be included in the final cut of the film as a portrayal of the SS cover shoot.

May I ask how you're aware of this in order to make not only those assumptions but also use those assumptions to conclude the film will contain more obvious blunders?

Seriously, how did you get this info?

I'm assuming - just like you are.

Besides, I didn't say there was going to be more mistakes. I'm simply saying that, if this is part of the film, it sets a precedent for more mistakes to arise in the movie.

[guitarfool2002]

Let's do an exercise here, just for fun. I'll post another photo taken on the set and anyone who knows the story behind it and wants to comment can feel free to post any analysis, interpretation, or even assumption about what's being shown and how it relates to the film's overall quality. Keep in mind the film is still being worked on and finalized, I believe the Hollywood folks call it "post"? I'm not sure, please correct if needed.

Here goes nuttin':

[KittyKat]

The people in charge of that background and set design are not the director or writer. Look how fantastic "American Family" looked, especially the first part of that mini series. They had the old recording studio and vintage instruments down pat. However, that mini-series overall sucked. I'd say hold judgment until the final project is complete.

[guitarfool2002]

I don't think the problem is so much that the car isn't a Woodie, I think the problem is that it sets a precedent.

A precedent for what?

For more obvious blunders.

I'm assuming you didn't bother to read my post on this page, not knowing of course if you did or didn't but assuming in the same way a set of photos taken on-set during filming are *known to be* A. A recreation of the Surfin Safari cover shoot and B. Will absolutely beyond a doubt be included in the final cut of the film as a portrayal of the SS cover shoot.

May I ask how you're aware of this in order to make not only those assumptions but also use those assumptions to conclude the film will contain more obvious blunders?

Seriously, how did you get this info?

I'm assuming - just like you are.

Besides, I didn't say there was going to be more mistakes. I'm simply saying that, if this is part of the film, it sets a precedent for more mistakes to arise in the movie.

Saying it sets a precedent for more mistakes is the same thing as saying there will be more mistakes, right? That's a pretty strong "if" in this context, and again based on the unknown unless you've seen stuff that only the crew has seen so far.

Remember with this film as it stands today - NONE of the actual film that was shot nor any of the promotional still frames from that footage has been released. If you're comfortable making judgements about its possible quality without seeing even a single clip of footage from the actual film, I'd say at least realize that such statements are coming from the complete unknown at this point.

[Andrew G. Doe]

I don't get the big deal over getting the exact truck for the movie. The movie is about telling the gist of BW's story with a few liberties here and there.

And again, you're basing even this on an *assumption* that the still photos in question are showing the Surfin Safari cover shoot...once again, while it may be true, do you know for sure? Have you seen rough cuts, the daily rushes, or whatever other film was shot for the project enough to know?

If it turns out to be, then so be it - but again, what the heck is the point of basing all of this crap on assuming something before knowing the facts?

Lessee... the actors portraying the Boys are wearing the exact same clothes as the real band were on the Surfin' Safari & Surfer Girl album front covers... no, you're right, the scene is obviously nothing to do with the Paradise Cove photoshoot. At all and whatsoever.

So glad we've got that sorted.

Consider this: whether or not the scenes we've dissected in this thread make the screen or not, fact is that the wrong vehicle has been used, and the clothes T is wearing fro a "Fire" session in 1966 are based on a pic of Ms. Kaye that was taken circa 1974. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence, but we'll see.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

Let's do an exercise here, just for fun. I'll post another photo taken on the set and anyone who knows the story behind it and wants to comment can feel free to post any analysis, interpretation, or even assumption about what's being shown and how it relates to the film's overall quality. Keep in mind the film is still being worked on and finalized, I believe the Hollywood folks call it "post"? I'm not sure, please correct if needed.

Here goes nuttin':

Just to be that guy, Pet Sounds was a post session title. Should say "Run James Run" or nothing.

[bossaroo]

 

i didn't even think of that! man i'm slipping

[Dudd]

These aren't things that a casual viewer would notice or care about. And that's the audience they're going for; it's a Hollywood biopic, not a documentary. It's a piece of entertainment first. I don't think minor things like the make of car in the Paradise Cover photoshoot, or the chronology of alternate titles for tracks are considered important by the filmmakers; I never expected an exceptionally-researched movie. If they capture the spirit of the story, and get the ground facts right, that'll do it for me.

Provided, of course, it really was only Giamatti having a hard time remembering when the sandbox part was...

[KittyKat]

These aren't things that a casual viewer would notice or care about. And that's the audience they're going for; it's a Hollywood biopic, not a documentary. It's a piece of entertainment first. I don't think minor things like the make of car in the Paradise Cover photoshoot, or the chronology of alternate titles for tracks are considered important by the filmmakers; I never expected an exceptionally-researched movie. If they capture the spirit of the story, and get the ground facts right, that'll do it for me.

Provided, of course, it really was only Giamatti having a hard time remembering when the sandbox part was...

Doesn't Paul G. play Landy? What if they have a sandbox during the Landy years? Oh, the horrors. Unless there was a sandbox during the Landy years, too, who knows.

[Les P]

These aren't things that a casual viewer would notice or care about. And that's the audience they're going for; it's a Hollywood biopic, not a documentary. It's a piece of entertainment first. I don't think minor things like the make of car in the Paradise Cover photoshoot, or the chronology of alternate titles for tracks are considered important by the filmmakers; I never expected an exceptionally-researched movie. If they capture the spirit of the story, and get the ground facts right, that'll do it for me.

+1.  It's not like I want to see a movie chock-full of historical inaccuracies, but I'm also much more interested that the basic gist and spirit of the story, AND THE MUSIC, are right than models of car.  I'm sure the music will be authentic if Darian has any say in the matter (and provided of course that all BRI legal issues have been worked out...).  However, if we see John Stamos replace Dennis Wilson in 1969 following the Manson murders, I might consider that a bit TOO much artistic license (or licence to our friends across the pond).

[wantsomecorn]

Or better yet... if Charles Manson is being portrayed by John Stamos. 

[Les P]

Or better yet... if Charles Manson is being portrayed by John Stamos. 

Calling all Photoshoppers...