Pictures from "Love and Mercy" biopic

[Pretty Funky]

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.

I touched on this a few pages ago but I would bet the farm the legalities of shooting a recreation of this scene stopped it cold. I can see major difficulties from the label allowing their image to be used at a reasonable cost to start with. It just so happens I was at Paradise Cove 2 weeks ago and the place is a zoo during the summer just getting parking for the restaurant. Allowing a movie shoot in such a small area for I guess days would really impact on the owners business plus the same family owns the property surrounding.

End of the day we could be talking a minute of a 90 minute movie. So much simpler to do a recreation elsewhere.

[guitarfool2002]

Did any band member or Nick Venet or anyone else around the band own a 1961 blue Ford Galaxie Sunliner convertible as shown in this pic? They're wearing the same clothes as the SS cover, it's on the beach, etc...was this the model car that someone involved in the shoot drove onto the beach that day in question for the Capitol shoot? Or perhaps is it there for a scene to show something other than the cover shot around the Ford pickup, which may or may not be somewhere else on the beach where they were filming the movie that day? I don't know...does anyone here know? 

[guitarfool2002]

Only two guesses/assumptions/comments so far about the Teresa Cowles on-set photo #2?

[Andrew G. Doe]

Glasses are the same as the "Fire" pic... Brian's handwriting was never that good... wouldn't be a full chart...

And stuff. 

[guitarfool2002]

Comment/question specifically for Andrew: About the clothes Teresa is wearing, consider this. Could it be a case of going for the most familiar and recognizable over the 100% accurate timeline?

A Google image search of Carole produces the studio session photo of her wearing that dress and sunglasses from 1974 three times on the first three rows of results. Someone not familiar with the history searching for what Carole looked like in the studio at work playing bass would see that image the most times. Would the *average* person - not a Beach Boys fan who has dug deep into the history as some of us have done - know that the original photo is from 1974 on the surface without digging deeper?

Taking that further, if Hollywood wanted to portray Carole Kaye at work in the studio in late 1966, isn't that 1974 photo of her something more easily recognized which the casual fan or interested audience member might connect with? As there are no photos of Carole actually playing at a 1966 Smile session that I know of, or at least that are widely known or seen publicly, a costume designer and set designer might see a benefit in going with a familiar image where an actual image of her recording Smile is not available or widely known, whichever is the case.

So they dress Teresa Cowles in that colorful outfit and shades, stage it just like the familiar 1974 studio shot that people would see immediately on the most basic Google search for example, and there is a visual connection right away to a majority of your potential audience. Not to mention, the dress itself is striking, colorful, and looks terrific in color, and Teresa looks terrific wearing it. Even those who never saw the original 1974 shot would be drawn in by the color of that dress and the image it presents.

In short, it's a perfect "Hollywood" image that would jump off the screen both visually with a beautiful woman wearing a striking outfit and also it connects with a familiar archived photo of the woman Teresa is playing at work in the studio for those who have seen the original. Instant connection, instant Hollywood flash, and all that. It's an attention getter, plain and simple.

Now wouldn't there be a case to be made that a Hollywood film production would go for the more striking and more recognizable image of that outfit from 1974 over an imagined image from 1966 when nothing might exist from the actual 1966 session to work from?

For that *possible* reason - Hollywood choosing a more striking visual even though it's from 1974 and not 1966 - I don't have as much of a problem with them taking that kind of liberty with the costuming.

[guitarfool2002]

Glasses are the same as the "Fire" pic... Brian's handwriting was never that good... wouldn't be a full chart...

And stuff. 

 

[Pretty Funky]

I'm afraid some here are going to be too busy nit-picking to enjoy this movie for what it is.

[Iron Horse-Apples]

Reminds me of when I worked at Nestle Rowntree and I went to see Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

"WHAT!!! That's not how they make chocolate!"

"They mix chocolate in a melangeur, not a river"

The only bit they got right was the Oompa Loompas.

So yes, there are going to be some disgruntled, highly anal Smiley Smilers in the cinema.

Hey, maybe we should all go together!

[Andrew G. Doe]

Comment/question specifically for Andrew: About the clothes Teresa is wearing, consider this. Could it be a case of going for the most familiar and recognizable over the 100% accurate timeline?

A Google image search of Carole produces the studio session photo of her wearing that dress and sunglasses from 1974 three times on the first three rows of results. Someone not familiar with the history searching for what Carole looked like in the studio at work playing bass would see that image the most times. Would the *average* person - not a Beach Boys fan who has dug deep into the history as some of us have done - know that the original photo is from 1974 on the surface without digging deeper?

I've seen that photo tagged as from 1974 at least five or six times on various websites.  

The 2000 miniseries, while being unquestionably and rightly vilified regarding the various characterizations and, oh hell, just the script overall, managed to be remarkably accurate as regards a sense of time and place and a host of incidental detail: I for one laughed out loud when Murry handed out the "I Know Brian's Dad" buttons, and that was on a TV budget. This is a BW biopic made with the active participation of the subject and his management, and you'd like to think they'd have a vested interest in getting it right, if only because they know that the likes of us will be doing exactly what we're doing here. Hell, maybe they should have recruited some of us as factual advisers (not me, obviously) and thus deflected the inevitable online storm in a teacup that's, let's be honest, has already begun here. Some of us - not all, thankfully - are fussed about this because we care, maybe too much granted, and because due to the very nature of the band, such an opportunity to do it right comes around far less often than does that other BEA band. It's not been done right yet, maybe never will, but a close approach would be nice for a change.

And... yes, it is odd that no official trailers/teasers have yet come to pass. Damn thing's due out in six months. 

[Andrew G. Doe]

I'm afraid some here are going to be too busy nit-picking to enjoy this movie for what it is.

I enjoyed Stones The Doors ever though there were enough glaring errors to make the Pope cuss. 

[Ebb and Flow]

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':

I'll bite.  

Of all the songs on Pet Sounds to depict a session from on film they choose the title track, an instrumental that beyond the familiarity of the title is not exactly well known in their oeuvre.  "Wouldn't It Be Nice" or "God Only Knows" would have been much better choices and more familiar to people who aren't even familiar with Pet Sounds or the group in general.  Everybody has heard those songs and the sessions actually contain interesting moments that would be easy to dramatize.  

The "Run James Run" session is probably the least interesting from PS, however great the final track may be.  There's only about a minute of session chatter, it was recorded in 3 takes, used a fairly small personnel of musicians and IIRC nearly all of the tracks were separate overdubs.  Which means there are almost bound to be inaccuracies with how the session is depicted in the film.  Hopefully other, more iconic/interesting sessions from Pet Sounds are seen in the final film.

[Pretty Funky]

I'm afraid some here are going to be too busy nit-picking to enjoy this movie for what it is.

I enjoyed Stones The Doors ever though there were enough glaring errors to make the Pope cuss. 

And heres the thing AGD. As a casual Doors fan, I am none the wiser. That lead singer of theirs. Long haired lizard king guy (tongue in cheek btw) He died in the end regardless or not if Stone parted his hair the right side in the 64 scene. Thats the story!

Working to a set budget on the BW bio we should imagine a scenario like this. Accountant goes to the producer and says "We have to cut one of these three things to get back on target. The rights to use 'California Girls', The rights to use 'Heroes and Villains', or the payment to Capitol to recreate the "Surfin Safari" shoot.

Given a choice of the above, I know which of the two I would want to keep to tell Brians story.

[Andrew G. Doe]

...or the payment to Capitol to recreate the "Surfin Safari" shoot.

What payment ?  Capitol hold the copyright on the cover photo (and outtakes), but I don't ever recall them claiming intellectual copyright over how the image was composed. Did Varese Sarabande have to pay a fee to use that concept on this CD ?



Damn fine collection, btw.

[Pretty Funky]

I'm going by the fact that the Hawthorne monument did not use the image and used 6 band members with zero likeness to any we know. Seem to remember the folks behind it said Capitol refused to let them use the likeness. Don't quote me being 100% accurate but I'm in the ball-park.

[Andrew G. Doe]

True - I remember that too, but fact is that the plaque on the memorial is recognizably from the same photoshoot, just as the CD artwork is.

[ToneBender631]

It's also entirely possible that there was a last minute change to the script or the order they were shooting scenes in and they simply couldn't source a 1929 Model A Truck with the appropriate look fast enough. These things happen. And again, we have no idea how this will integrate into the final cut of the film. Personally, I try to judge my food by how it looks on the plate and then tastes in my mouth, not how it looks sitting in the oven.

[Dudd]

Of all the songs on Pet Sounds to depict a session from on film they choose the title track, an instrumental that beyond the familiarity of the title is not exactly well known in their oeuvre.  "Wouldn't It Be Nice" or "God Only Knows" would have been much better choices and more familiar to people who aren't even familiar with Pet Sounds or the group in general.  Everybody has heard those songs and the sessions actually contain interesting moments that would be easy to dramatize.  

Who's to say this is the only Pet Sounds session they'll depict? Might be part of a montage. Or a publicity grab, given the anachronism.
We can't tell. I think we should wait for a trailer before everyone starts grumbling. WHICH SHOULD BE OUT BY NOW

[Micha]

It's also entirely possible that there was a last minute change to the script or the order they were shooting scenes in and they simply couldn't source a 1929 Model A Truck with the appropriate look fast enough. These things happen. And again, we have no idea how this will integrate into the final cut of the film. Personally, I try to judge my food by how it looks on the plate and then tastes in my mouth, not how it looks sitting in the oven.

Good point. I vaguely remember a story about the Marx Brothers' movie "At The Circus". They had a gorilla skin available only for about half of the shooting, as they only found out during the filming, thus the gorilla - involved in the plot! - mysteriously transforms to an orang-utan some time in the middle of the movie...

Speaking of the Doors movie, I don't know enough about them to ever spot inaccuracies, but it was one of the very few movies I considered walking out of...

[Cyncie]

There are a lot of reasons why things get changed in a movie. Shooting availability of a site, prop availability, time, budgets. I took a screenwriting class where the teacher was talking about working on a TV show.  The whole story was set in a warehouse and was something of a suspense/thriller thing. The warehouse that was booked for the shoot wound up being double booked and they had to look for a new location at the last minute. None of the approved warehouses were available within the shooting time frame, but a school was. So, the whole script had to be rewritten for the new location. 

Maybe the production team went looking for a yellow Model A truck but one wasn't available through the approved rentals. Or maybe the only model A truck was blue and couldn't be altered. Or maybe the Woodie was cheaper and fit in the budget. Something like this doesn't mean a lack of interest in accuracy. It's just the practical side of movie making.

At any rate, we fans are the only ones who will obsess over these details and inaccuracies.  Most people are just looking for a good story.

[guitarfool2002]

I hope I'm not overstaying a welcome in this thread by posting all of this, but it plays into a lot of what I'm interested in, from the little details to period-correct props and set design in film/TV, to the antiques and historical items scene and how it all comes together to stage a show like "Mad Men" for example, or a film like this where people with a keen eye watch for it. I could go on, but...

...That Model A truck and the on-set photos. Again from the car show/car collecting world (I don't own one but I've been following it since a kid...), the Ford Model A truck is in and of itself not a difficult antique car to find. I see them every year at car shows, in various colors and configurations - everything from old work trucks to produce wagons to fire equipment to everything else. It was a very popular model to work with back in the day, it was affordable for more people, and they sold a lot of them at the time.

Another thing about the Model A in general - In the several years it was produced, there was little or no difference between, say, a 1929 and a 1931 unless you looked under the hood, and even then it was mechanical and not cosmetic. So for 98% of people looking at examples, it would be hard to pick out a 1929 in a row of 10 Model A's versus other years.

Having said that, it wouldn't be *too* difficult for a set design/props team on a film crew to locate one. If not from a rental company or agency, the call could be put out in the collector world and one could be rented for use. This happens regularly whenever old cars are needed to dress a movie or TV set with period cars and trucks. It's almost a cottage industry, and again if a rental agency doesn't have one the word gets sent out and chances are a collector has one somewhere.

Now - Finding a yellow Model A truck may be a bigger challenge, but they're not rare autos per se - it could be found. Would the owner, though, allow set designers to mock it up with palm leaves, various wood framing and the like? Who knows...some collectors would refuse not wanting to harm the condition of their collectible. But everyone also has a price, and it wouldn't be too tough to find a lesser-condition example that a collector wouldn't mind having dressed up a bit.

Bonus: For a replica of this cover shoot, the truck wouldn't need to run, or even have an engine to deliver the visual. It would need to be hauled onto that beach, filmed, and hauled off just like any prop.

Here's the thing: I don't know what that cel phone footage captured on set. *Perhaps* they were replicating the SS cover shoot with a later woodie wagon versus the Model A we all know. Perhaps they were filming another aspect of that cover shoot using the woodie...Only people involved directly in the film know what happened.

I'll fess up: I love the details too, the little details...if they used a 40's woodie rather than the Model A to replicate the cover shoot, I'd have to ask "why?" considering Model A's in general are not terribly hard to find or rent, even in 2014. There are some examples in my area that are at the local car shows every summer - again, not an uncommon antique car model.

And the other photos of that shoot show that blue '61 Ford Galaxie...they got that car period-correct, and went for the right look and the type of car that you'd see in 1962. Why go fully authentic on a '61 Galaxie but totally miss the mark on the 1929 Model A that is an icon of early Beach Boys history?

I just don't know, most of us just don't know, and we won't until we see how those scenes are worked into the final cut, if they make the cut at all.

And that's in my mind as I'm still open to the possibility that the 40's woodie on set may have been other than what we might think it is in the context of the film.

But I may be wrong, and we'll soon know for sure. More food for thought. 

[Andrew G. Doe]

Dated 8/7/13:

[guitarfool2002]

Yep: Like I said, if that is indeed the attempt to replicate the SS cover, I wouldn't understand the reasons why considering everything I just posted about finding a Model A truck to stage the scene and be accurate to detail. 

[Pretty Funky]

Of course if we had our way the makers would have bought the actual board, which is for sale last time I looked for several hundred thousand. They need to hire a Marks character too. Of course just to p!ss the fanatics off the director would get him to point at the ocean with the wrong arm.

[Rocket]

I hate to revive this thread with no pictures/updates, but that is kinda the problem - What the heck is going on with this movie? Apparently it's going to be out later this year and yet we have no trailer. Hell, I haven't even seen any updates for this movie in months!

Anyone know what the holdup may be?

[Niko]

I was hoping we'd be seeing a trailer sometime this summer