The Smiley Smile Message Board

I'm trying to see how Love & Mercy in its current form would have gotten released if C50 had not imploded the way it did.

How far into development was Love & Mercy at the time of C50?

I'm guessing that current-day Mike isn't going to be thrilled with his final portrayal in the film Love & Mercy, even though IMO it's fair and doesn't seem to perpetuate false information about Mike (though it doesn't exactly play Mike's positive contributions "up", which would probably be what would irritate Mike out the most).

What I'm pondering is, was Mike in any way "in the know" about what the film was going to be about, how he himself would be portrayed in the film, either during or pre C50? And I do wonder if he would have at least tried to influence his portrayal in the film if he had found a way to do so.

Conversely, I wonder if the making of the film could have helped undo C50, if people not named Brian Wilson were going to find their soon-to-be filmed portrayal(s) as a dealbreaker.

Not in my opinion.

I'm somewhat qualified to answer. I started researching and outlining my own screenplay of the BW/Landy story in October of 2012--about two weeks later, the casting notices for Dano and Cusack were out. When a friend sent me the script for Love & Mercy, the shooting draft was dated June of 2012. It's likely Mike knew the movie was coming, and very probable he knew what tack the film would take with regards to his role during the "Pet Sounds"/"SMiLE" period; so, I suppose the question COULD be reversed-did the shooting draft have an affect on C50? Possibly fun speculation, but who really knows?

Incidentally, have it on good authority from an acquaintance heavily involved in the production (don't feel like giving more away) that among the letters from BW/BB associates, Mike Love's major complaint was that the film be specifically advertised as a Brian Wilson film, and not a "Beach Boys film".

When I laughed at this, my friend just said they were mainly from Mike's lawyers, so it wasn't too bad.

Sorry, your prose is ambiguous, please clarify. Did Mike "request" that the film be marketed as a BW film? or as a BB film?  Or did he "complain" that the film "was being" marketed as a "BW" film.  I am not being pedantic; your sentence made no grammatical sense. thanks.

Made sense to me.

I'm with you, Professor.  I had the exact same question when I read that.

Will be interesting to see if Mike specifically addresses his portrayal in Love & Mercy in his autobio. I think the film did make an effort to not just blindly make Mike seem completely one-sided, and it did throw a few bones of empathy his way, despite still showing him to be somewhat of a thorn in Brian's side during the time period which the film covered.

I, for one, cannot not see Love & Mercy having been released in the theaters in its current form unless a level of estrangement between Mike and Brian was part of the real-life equation, as it in fact appears to sadly be. I cannot see them working together in a reunited band with the film coming out as it did in its current form, since Mike would probably have thrown a fit, or tried to throw his political weight around in order to force the film to be more fair in his eyes.

I meant that Mike (via his lawyers) stressed that the film be explicitly classified as a biopic of Brian Wilson, so that print materials--and presumably, subsequent reviews--would not mistake the film for a biopic of the Beach Boys.

Because, of course, the ultimate final-word biopic of The Beach Boys was already made 15 years ago for TV, and it would not be desirable to try to rewrite the facts of that film, nor would it be smart to cause confusion in the marketplace with a second biopic of the band proper  :lol Truth be told, L&M is Brian's story, not an attempt at a full-scope BBs' story, which is why it works so well.

American family is Mike's story. ;)

Essentially, yes. When Uncle Jesse is in the producer's seat, that's what you get. Well, maybe Mike could get a Mike-centric theatrical biopic made, called "Whennn". It could happen... right?

Please make "wheenn" happen! :lol

The biggest obstacle I think (beyond it being about Mike Love): who the heck would believe a film where the protagonist never takes off his hat for two hours?

 :-D

With smaller BB films like Bigger Than The Beatles (apparently?) happening, one almost could believe that a smaller indie filmmaker, passionate and determined about his subject, could maybe get "Whennn" off the ground. I'd go see it.

Soundtrack by Ontor! ;D

L&M Lawyer: Well, we've got another letter from Mike Love's legal team.

PR Guy: What now?

L&M Lawyer: They want to make sure that all publicity about the film states that it's a Brian Wilson biopic.

PR Guy: But, it IS a Brian Wilson biopic. Why would we say otherwise?

L&M Lawyer: Dunno. Just make sure the releases are clear that it's not about The Beach Boys.

PR Guy: It's not! Geez! I can't wait to get on to my next project.

L&M Lawyer: What's that?

PR Guy: Shark Week.

L&M Lawyer: Same thing.

Working his full hat range and a brief hairpiece experiment in a film could be hypnotically fascinating.

Luhv's got more lawyers than leads. The ever so litigious myKe luHv.   ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

In all honesty, and all jokes aside, I do wonder what that fairness level would actually be, as determined by Mike. Yes, the horrid TV films with his (or were they his?) viewpoints came out years ago... but if Brian and Melinda were going to spearhead the making of a biopic about Brian Wilson, and it was going to focus only on the few select time periods in his life that L&M actually did (in order to have an actual narrative flow, and to work as a film)... presuming as I am that Mike may be irked by the final product... what would Mike have wanted the actual film to portray?

I guess some scenes of Mike adding relatable lyrics to Good Vibrations, and showing how that was an important part of the process, and perhaps a few less of the scenes of creative friction between Mike and Brian. I wonder if Mike was able to have any leverage, if he'd have let *any* creative friction type material make it into the final product, or if such scenes would only had to have been framed within the context of ridding the BB world of leaches and druggies. And maybe a scene of how extremely pissed at Landy Mike was during the 80s.

I suppose one could say that we have our answer to what Mike's preferred filmed vision would be with the previous TV films, but it's interesting to ponder if C50 had not imploded, if there would/could have been a compromise reached, and for L&M to still be a rad film (focusing on the minimal amount of eras that this film did) while still satisfying Mike's desire for a BW biopic film that Mike would legitimately feel is fair to him. Perhaps this is as much an impossibility as the alone in the room scenario, but it would be interesting to see Mike's hypothetical "notes" for changes for the film.

I wonder how much more "fair" to Mike the film could have been... As it is, the character Mike Love is sympathetic insofar as we can understand that he takes pride in the band's work and longs for their previous standard of success; he's not the belittling jerk of some lore ("Who's gonna hear this sh*t...?"); he's a pop star who wants to stay that way. As defined by the film who can blame him?

Now, as for how much friction SHOULD have been shown, that's debatable. As a rather firm Brianista, I do think the pushback was intrinsic to the output; what else is IJWMFTT if not a lament for feeling sad and out of place? Now I'm not hardcore into the bios, but it doesn't seem a stretch that these feelings of alienation that Mike and Brian struggled with, found their way into the music.

And I'd find it hard to believe that Brian's subsequent descent into further substance abuse and general depression wasn't at least in small part a reaction to the lack of moral support by part of the band for "SMiLE". Yes, Mike may have sung all the parts, but that doesn't mean he liked it.

Ultimately, if this friction played a decisive part in BW's life then any honest film has no choice but to be fair, and demonstrate why Mike took his stance (which L&M does) and how that position felt to Brian (which it also does).

The problem for Mike Love, is that he's officially on record as being on the wrong side of the tide of history when it comes to "PS" and increasingly, "SMiLE". I get that it burns him that Brian is now enshrined as the greatest American post-war composer since Gershwin and the most important facet of the BBs--it would probably piss me off too; but if he tries to  fight the historical record as not being "fair" then he's just digging a hole for himself. A little acceptance goes a long way; maybe people like me would stop giving him grief if he just admitted he couldn't see what Brian was doing at the time.

I think Mike Love comes off okay.  No matter what, you won't be able to satisfy everybody.  There's probably some parts of the film that BW is not entirely crazy about, but overall Hollywood has done a good job.  I can't see any film producer having interest in a Beach Boys movie for a very long time after this.

I hope Mike Love exercises some self restraint with his autobiography, but his track record indicates he'll try and settle some scores. 

Granted he had next to nothing to do with it, but Brian's 1991 pseudobiography was hardly restrained. Hence the lawsuits from friends and family.  Autobiographies tend to be that way.

I don't see any connection between C50 & this new film (& vice versa). This thread makes no sense.

I thought Mike looked worse in American Family than in Love and Mercy.

It was not flattering of Mike.  I don't see were Mike had any more influence on it than Brian or Stamos.

Seriously? Did you listen to Melinda on The View discuss the fact that it (the film's concept) had been "in the making" or on the drawing board, for years.

C50 was of no consequence...this was "a slice" of Brian's story. Not his "version."

I can't imagine anyone but the most touchy, defensive-of-Mike person ever, to actually feel like Mike was harshly treated in the L&M film.

They went pretty light on Mike in the film. They actually did a pretty good job of fairly conveying his position/point of view. There are times when you can even empathize with him, especially with stuff like the scene where Mike kinda snaps about how long Brian is taking to perfect one little bit (I believe they depict it as the cello session for GV). It almost plays as comedy, but you empathize with Mike.

Unless Mike's "autobiography" is only 30 pages long, his book will undoubtedly have more inflammatory stuff about Brian (and others) than the L&M film has about Mike.

If Mike watched L&M (which I doubt he will, or will admit to anyway), my total guess would be that his biggest gripe would be that he and the rest of the group are minimized. But that's really just a consequence of the focus of the film. It's about Brian, not the BB's. I'm not even sure Al gets a line in the film. I think Bruce gets one. Carl, Dennis, and Mike feature more prominently. But they have limited screen time, and everything pre-Pet Sounds (musically anyway) is barely touched on, which might be something that would irk Mike as well. But the stuff Mike actually says in the film aren't terribly different from what Mike himself says to this day in interviews.

I don't think C50 would impact the film; as others have mentioned, it was in the works prior to C50.

I do think that these side projects like autobiographies would be difficult to put out and promote in the midst of working as a full group. That's one of many reasons I don't hold out a lot of hope for more reunion stuff. Based on recent interviews, I don't think Mike's book is going to be a favorite of Brian or Al, and something like that would be difficult to promote in the midst of a reunion project of any sort.

One thing I've been thinking, is that Mike's "Brian did drugs and I didn't" narrative might have to change in the wake of Love and Mercy. It's going to be harder for Mike to simplify the problems in the group to "They did drugs and I didn't" when the movie has so devastatingly portrayed the whole mix of drugs, abuse, mental health issues and band conflict.

There have been in the past some interesting essays and thoughts people have put forth about the attitude of the others in the group (and friends and family) towards mental illness in the 60’s. There clearly was a lack of understanding and empathy going on back then, so it was easier to chalk *everything* or most everything up to drug use.

The film clearly portrays that mental issues were at play *prior* to any drug use, and that drug use (or at least LSD) simply amplified the issue. Yet, even Brian himself is much more likely in interviews to give answers that interviewers will take as an indication that all or most of the problems were due to drug use. Even some reviews of this very film have *still* ignored the mental issues portrayed in the film prior to drug use, and have implied the film shows how drugs caused all of the problems.

They worked really hard at "objectivity." However difficult.  At some point there may be a comparison between those two films.  They glossed over the SOT "divestment" in Love and Mercy.  They had bigger "fish to fry."  

Murry's character was there and an underpinning, but not as "in your face" as the earlier film.  

And, the "Mike dialogue" is consistent, throughout.  His role is undeniable.  And it appears to be objective.  A "takeaway" for me, is the determination to extricate Brian, from a predator, as between, Gloria and Melinda.  The "will" scenario was very convincing, as well as that "dealership" scene.  The recently linked YouTubes on this board fully  support the concept of that financial and profession exploitation.  

Please don't speculate about that which we haven't read.  The pseudo bio didn't treat the band well. And, now we know why.  Landy was building his own band.  Too bad he didn't share a cell with Manson.  

Not being bound by C50 or a subsequent reunited format, when can be sure that they released the movie as they wanted it without any conditioning from the outside. If anything, the end of C50 gave this movie project much more freedom.

Again, the jabs at Mike Love in this and other threads are uncalled for. Just as it would be bringing up Brian's miseries in every other thread.

BW was not in any condition to write or cooperate in the writing of an autobiography so many years ago.  Not surprisingly, his book was a piece of trash.

I am speculating, but to obtain an advance from a book publisher, they want to hear that the salacious stuff is going to be in the book.  With that, and Mike's personality, I expect there to be lots about his trip to India, Brian's drug use, the errors of Dennis' ways and more recent events.  He has every right to chronicle his life as he sees fit, but I think has said enough about the drug and alcohol use by the Wilsons.

Truly with all due respect, I have no problem speculating. That’s a HUGE part of what we do here, and implicit in a discussion of a book that *hasn’t been released yet* is that it’s all speculation.

I don’t want to turn this into a thread about Mike’s upcoming book. But every indication in terms of what Mike talks about in interviews, especially that gawdawful David Beard “interview” (where Mike also specifically mentions he’ll be expanding on his words in said autobiography), smells like the book is going to be controversial and not a laid-back travelogue about all the great vacations Mike took over the years. Again, IMPLICIT in any discussion of a book that hasn’t been released and probably isn’t even finished is that it’s all speculation. If speculation troubles you, feel free to skip over those discussions.

Truly, with all due return respect, there is enough fact and truth out there, that we don't need to resort to speculation. It isn't what we all do...

The YouTube of Landy, his  henchmen (woman) and the car...that should keep a discussion lively...otherwise one could be writing a "future fantasy or fairy tale..."  ;)

There you go--thanks.

I very much like the depiction of Mike, and I believe he will too. Mike reminds BW that genius can isolate an artist and also have the effect of alienating those around him who care and who love him--and as well who have dedicated their art and vocation to the genius.  This, in the movie, compels BW to re-integrate Mike in that lovely, triumphant scene of GV. BW learned something here dramatically, having been chastened by his cousin. Mike was right in every respect, and the collaborative result was GV, one of the most significant songs in history. If I am Mike, I am liking that scene.  Mike was critical of CE (HAV in the movie) but knew enough about Brian and his music to sing his parts brilliantly. There are 2 kinds of resistance: the "I am not going to be part of this crap" type and the "I have real doubts about this commercially and conceptually and I do not like these scum drug addicts, but we are the BB and these are the songs we are doing so let's do them right" type of resistance. Mike chose the second, which history can judge as the wise move.

The movie did a great job of treating this interpersonal tension and artistic dynamic between them.  I cannot speak for Mike, but I would be very approving if I were he, especially since the movie slams, as he often has, those pretentious scum hangers on (VDP excepted, who is an artist and a gentleman in the film).

This is a bit of a tangent, but since we’ve delved into the topics of Brian’s 1991 pseudo-autobiography (and prospects for Mike’s upcoming tome), it perhaps is worth noting that there was pretty serious internal fallout within the band after Brian’s 1991 book, even after Brian was extricated from Landy’s control and everybody knew Brian hadn’t even read the thing.

While many issues were at play (songwriting lawsuit, etc.), it’s worth pointing out that even though Landy was gone by early 1992, Brian didn’t really do much (if anything) with the Beach Boys for several more years. I don’t think he appeared once at a concert with them after 1990 until 1995 if I recall correctly. Long story short, I think at least a little part of this was bad feelings from Brian’s book.

The larger issue I’m simply throwing out there is that books from any member may not exactly engender good feelings from others in the band. In other words, I would guess we’re unlikely to see either Brian’s or Mike’s books run concurrently with another reunion project.

As long as what Mike writes is true, I see nothing wrong with talking about the Wilson's drug use. If the drug abuse had an affect on family and band relations, then he, along with Al & Bruce were all personally affected by it. It is part of all of their life and band experiences. The big question will be whether he takes a more understanding approach (through hindsight) or will be on the attack about the negative influence that it took on their personal and professional lives.

I don’t mean this as a smartass rhetorical question: Have we really ever seen the former in any of myriad of interviews in which Mike has spoken about drug abuse within the band? I ask this question seriously. I'd love to see an example of this.

He has been kind to Carl and to some extent Brian due to the mental illness aspect. Hell, even lately when he speaks of Dennis he has been a bit softer. So yeah, he may take his punches here and there at specific moments, but I can see him taking a lighter stand.

I guess what I see, and what is highly subjective, is a lack of restraint in broaching the subject. I think there is a time and a place and a context for conveying how damaging drugs and alcohol can be to so many lives. Mike’s words prefacing the “California Saga” performance in 2012 really drove this point home. I can only imagine how much Mike has had to see this stuff tear people’s lives apart.

That being said, he often harps on the topic specifically about the Wilson brothers (often specifically pointing out that he, Bruce, and Al did not partake; one of the few instances during the 2000’s Mike would even mention Al’s name in interviews), and I think he has often beat the topic to death. Like a parent who reminds you of mistakes you made decades ago even after the issue is long dead. Seriously, Carl and Dennis are gone and Brian is clean. But he will still go to that topic in countless interviews. I think it’s the same thing as how he will *still* bring up the songwriting lawsuit, even though that’s been a dead issue for over 20 years, and Mike WON the suit. But he’s still disenfranchised about it.

Again, all of these topics need to be addressed, especially in a life-spanning book. But I think some of these things are fallback, negative topics to touch on, and talking about negative things about others is a classic method of deflecting. This was seen with remarkable clarity in a recent interview where Mike was asked if he had any regrets about himself, and he mentioned *other* people’s drug use.

Oh, I think you would love to turn this into a thread about Mike's upcoming book. But, there's plenty of time - and hundreds of pages - for that. In the meantime, speculate away!

However, I am reminded how we were scolded and reprimanded for speculating about NPP based on a nine second snippet of a song, or for speculating about Brian's upcoming tour based on one of his "meat and potatoes"  ::) shows, or for speculating about the movie based on some stills, trailers, or interviews from the participants, and for speculating about Larry Fine's upcoming biography which hasn't been written yet.

But that's Brian Wilson, and you want to speculate about Mike Love, so that's OK. There's one standard for Brian Wilson, and another standard...for everybody else.

Well, yeah. People have different opinions than you and disagree. Are you feeling stifled and Pindered? Awww. Perhaps one day Mike Love will be as likeable as Brian Wilson and more people will want to defend his baffling behavior and mean-spirited statements. I doubt it tho.

Nobody talks more about Brian's drug use with more regret than Brian.

Probably because it's his life and when asked about his own regrets he doesn't yammer on about other people's mistakes.

Please feel free to read any or all of my history of posts on NPP. I defended those who gave the album negative reviews, and those who claimed they heard autotune. Read my review of the album on my blog; it’s far from a glowing review.

I thought (and posted as such) that a few defensive folks were being way too harsh on those who were posting thoughtful, non-trollish criticisms of NPP. I had numerous go-arounds on the autotune topic, I thought and still feel it’s on the album.

Not every person who criticizes Mike lacks the ability to criticize Brian.

Exactly. Look at interviews over the last few years. How often has Brian said anything that even indirectly reflects negatively on Mike?

The entire band collectively has horrible management, but I’ll say that whether it’s by his own choices or due to good management/PR folks, Brian has largely taken the high road post-C50 when it comes to talking about Mike. Similarly, the “Love & Mercy” film was not a score-settling affair either.

I guess we’ll see how much of the high road Mike takes with his book. I’m sure we’ll have the same circular debates here, because some folks read these inflammatory Mike interviews and see nothing wrong, even with that Beard “interview.”

Two of the longest published monologues from Mike in the last few years, things that might give us an indication of how an autobiography might read, have been his 2012 LA Times letter and his monologue (aka “interview”) with David Beard several months ago. Neither of those read like thoughtful, sympathetic pieces. They read like ultra-defensive justifications. Mike’s capable of writing very thoughtful pieces; we’ve seen it. I wish I saw more that when the topic turns to the Beach Boys and goes beyond the boilerplate topics the local newspaper guy asks Mike in every interview about being the “soundtrack to our lives.”

OK, and we start with the community member bashing. This place cannot help itself. We are nasty-ass people.

Fun!

Maybe it's because we see the most interviews with Mike and they both are often answering some question about regrets or band issue and both of them see this as the thing that had the most impact on their lives and families and careers? Brian, to his credit, owns it and if it was something Mike had done or had; the tables would possibly be turned.

Nor should anybody even come within many miles of doing so.

I can vouch for that.

Sheriff, you picked on the wrong member to go after for your normal 'double standard' rant. It's getting old and tiresome. Seriously, if you don't like it here, leave.

So you are saying that if C50 had not imploded, and if Mike got to write in a room with Brian and was happily still in some semblance of a functioning musical and/or personal working relationship with Brian, that L&M would have been released as the same film that it currently is (without pushback from Mike regarding his portrayal)? I'm not sure I see that as plausible, and I don't think you can simply remove elements (like C50) from being part of the overall equation of why some things happen and why some things don't. That's a gross oversimplification; a relationship (or lack thereof) between two people is going to matter and make a difference one way or another on a biopic, IMHO. Don't you think?  

Or to put it another way; if you think that L&M would have been released exactly as it was, and C50 had continued past 2012, the way Brian wanted it to... would the film in its current form not possibly help put an end to the reunion? Mind you... I am NOT saying the film is divisive; I think it's fair, honest, and quite brilliant. I just hypothesize that Mike would make a stink over him possibly feeling it's a divisive film if he were to ever see the film, because the truth hurts, and I don't think he wants to see Brian's own truth onscreen if it makes Mike not look good.

(http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/624_351/images/live/p0/2t/8x/p02t8xmf.jpg)

Was there pushback from Mike? I haven't heard a word.

I think if the C50 had continued, L&M wouldn't have happened, at least not in the form we know. Certainly the books and NPP wouldn't have happened.

Making the band a true, ongoing concern would have entailed sacrifices on all fronts to keep everyone happy.

I think the only change in Love and Mercy had the C50 lineup stayed together would've been in the epilogue just before the closing credits. 

No, because there appears to be no current relationship between Mike and Brian / Melinda. My point is that if there was any kind of relationship where the people were in fact meeting, talking, seeing each other (as would be the case if C50 had continued), there would almost certainly have been some pushback, IMHO.

Exactly.

What could Mike (or Al) do now that they could not do if they had discussed continuing C50 after the set end date? Or vice versa?

So........tough.

+1

It’s pretty simple, I think. It’s not impossible, but it is very difficult to do a career-spanning autobiography where you “tell it like it is” about all of your colleagues, while you’re actively touring and/or recording with those guys. It can be done, and has been done. I’m also not saying Mike or Brian are going to do or would do some sort of trashy, exclusively dirt-dishing book. But a lot of (auto)biographical films and books are done when the person(s) in questions are retired and off on their own, and/or when some, most, or all of the principals are deceased.

But look at Brian’s 1991 book. He wasn’t even particularly active within the group, and yet the fallout from the book led to an even *further* estrangement from the band (as I said, other factors were at play as well). After that book, Brian didn’t even do his occasional gig with the band where he pops up on stage and sings the opening line to “Sloop John B” and the bridge to “Surfer Girl” until, I believe, 1995.

I’ve heard reports on the scene that that Grammy Museum thing the guys did in 2012 was awkward and some folks sensed tension, and that was while they still had a few gigs to go and hadn’t even dished dirt on each other, but rather Mike simply had announced he was going back to his own thing. So imagine during the middle of another reunion tour, any of the guys writing a book where there are unflattering references (justified and/or not justified) to their bandmates. Such books are written, and even when inflammatory, the members will eventually get past it (e.g. the guys eventually working with Brian again in the mid-late 90’s). But it doesn’t always happen while everybody is still together and happy.

I don’t think C50 itself necessarily influenced the L&M film or autobiographies. But the abrupt ending to their reunion has undoubtedly influenced at least the timing and motivation behind some of what will be found in the books (and perhaps at least the timing of the film as well, if not the content to some degree).

I think Wirestone is correct. If the reunion were still active, we wouldn’t be seeing the film and autobiographies in the same state and with the same timing. I’d say moreso with the books. I don’t think the film really trashes anybody (other than the Landy crew, rightly so of course), so I suppose the film could have emerged in the same state. Maybe. I think it would be less the content and more the Brian-centric nature of the film that would not mesh well with continual Beach Boys projects.

I highly doubt the C50 tour (even if it was all smiles and roses and continued to this day) would have any effect on L&M.

As I've said elsewhere (and HeyJude agrees with me), the Mike character in the film doesn't say or do anything that comes anywhere near a hatchet job.

Just stating an opinion, Billy. Just like you are in referring to my "rant" as "old and tiresome". Do you find SmileBrian and OSD's opinions old and tiresome? And others for that matter? Because I haven't seen you ask them to leave, unless you are doing it via PM.

So you could see L&M actually coming out in its current, unaltered form, in 2015, without any effect on either the film or a continually/perpetually reunited 2015 "all smiles" BBs? That the film would come out and the band would happily continue on chuggin' without any disruptions in the force, so to speak?

I guess the thought of an "all smiles" 2012 or 2015 BBs is a stretch in and of itself, but even if such were the case, for that to happen would have (at the very least) required numerous concessions and giving in to demands for Mike to have his way in writing songs with Brian the way he saw fit... and I don't think it's reasonable to assume that a guy who would make such C50 demands (it meant so much to him that he seemingly walked away due to being unhappy with how he fit into those circumstances after going ahead with the contracted tour + a few additional dates) would just happily go along with L&M in its current form (unless he had no political leverage, and had no escape hatch, so to speak), and not make any demands regarding his portrayal. I think that would be out of character, especially considering that C50 fell apart at least in part likely due to unhappiness over Mike not feeling he got his "due" in some fashion. Do you really think he'd just grin and bear it?

Why would somebody else's movie change or not happen because the BBs were hypothetically touring together?

Both have been previously suspended,  and I have told them both to tone it down before.  

And for the record I didn't ask you to leave,  I said if you don't like it here (since  you are always complaining about the mods ) you can leave . There's a difference.  Now, if you continue to falsely accuse us of having a double standard, then well, there won't be a difference any longer

But, if everyone leaves, there'll be nobody to carry on the conversation. tho, if there's no one here, I guess we won't be having this conversation

Not at all related.

Grin and bear what? There's nothing that the Mike character says or does in the movie that's not said in countless other Beach Boys/Brian Wilson profiles. Heck, the Beach Boys have said far worse about each other while they were still a going concern. If anyone should be upset about how they're portrayed in the film it would be Carl, Dennis, Bruce and Al. The movie makes them look like they're input was basically zilch and are just along for the ride. At least Mike comes across like he's a somewhat important member of the band.

Well maybe I'm wrong, and maybe Mike (if he eventually sees the film) will think it's cool, and not begrudge his portrayal, not wish certain scenes were omitted and others added in order to suit what he feels is the real story... but I simply doubt this would be the case. I guess we will find out if and when Mike ever says anything about the film. I also think it's naive to think that if Mike had any leverage/weight to throw around to modify the film (which perhaps could have been the case only in the context of a continuing musical/personal relationship that would have come with a continued reunion), that he wouldn't have at least tried; I doubt that he would have been perfectly happy with the film in its current form, especially if the film has legs as I think it will have.

Well, it's not really his call. The world is full of movies about living people who didn't have a say in how they're portrayed. John Lydon was pretty furious and very vocal about how his character came off in "Sid and Nancy", that the film was a lot of garbage, etc and he was even consulted about it! He couldn't do anything to stop it though.

Totally - I agree, it's not his call, not his movie. But *if* he were in a position to throw his weight around, to at least get some level of compromise (a la Daybreak Over the Ocean's inclusion on TWGMTR), which likely could only happen if he and Brian/Melinda were communicating in the context of an ongoing reunion, I have a hunch that we might have seen even just a touch of his wishes come to fruition within the film.

Or look at Carol Kaye, who tweeted something way out of line because she was unhappy with her portrayal in LM.

Well, I suppose, but y'know, it's one of those hypotheticals like what if Carl had lived or what if SMiLE had come out..in other words, we'll never know and the world goes on. If Mike has any objections to it, he'll probably make them known in his autobiography. Until then, I'm sure he got a little publishing money from all the co-writes used in the film (and movie rights usually mean big $$$).

What in God's name would Carol Kaye have to complain about??? That her character questions Brian for a split second? (going to search for that tweet now)

No luck finding Carol Kaye on Twitter.  ???

I saw it linked in Facebook.  Called the person who portrayed her  'bimbo' and also that the movie was offensive to women.


Yeah.

I think she needs to be put in a home, personally.

Geez, well....she's obviously lost the plot.

maybe she'll get her own plot soon, then.

:lol

So for the record, we've only heard negative comments about the film from Carol Kaye and (possibly) VDP with his "Mercy Me!" tweet.

Yup, and in both cases, consider the sources.

VDP's complaints are understandable since 1: it's never explained what he or Tony Asher did with BW, which felt off, and 2: his character was so entertaining that I wanted more scenes with him -- but Carol Kaye...?

**SPOIlERS**

Paul Dano's Brian said movie Carol had groovy shades. 

I have no idea how Love and Mercy could be offensive to women.  Elizabeth Banks portrays Melinda as a strong character, especially when she stared down Landy at the dealership after he verbally attacks her with a locked door separating them. 

Carol Kaye did play bass on a lot of classic tracks, but at the end of the day, she's a session musician.  I highly doubt anyone bought Pet Sounds because of the bass playing.  She needs to get over herself. 

VDP should get a pass then, now and forever IMO. He had the same reaction to the film that many people did and he has been there for BW and Smile as best allowed. I could say the same for Carol, but she has been putting up obstacles for too long. Big difference between the two, legacy-wise. Side-note: I can't recall VDP getting kicked on a BB board. Strange.

Oh, and what is C50?

It's short for the Beach Boys 50th Anniversary Celebration of 2012.   

Who are these many people and where did they post these reactions?

My issue with him is not just his comments on the movie.

Fair enough. I'll poke around for more specific info. That's a shame, though IMO. Guess I missed a decade or so of fresh inside info and have been observing too long from the outside.

/duplicate post

The "bimbo" in question, Teresa Cowles, is also a session-level bassist and background vocalist; what you hear in the movie is her playing.  She's performed or done sessions with Ben Vaughn, Evie Sands, Jeremy Spencer, Michael des Barres, and 3/5 of the Beach Boys, including Brian himself.  She's not a jazz player on par with Carol Kaye, but I bet she could get a track done just as fast, and then layer harmonies on top of it to boot.

She also just toured England -- she plays bass and sings lead/backup vocal on this track:

https://youtu.be/q8jYCb3QwrY

Also her on bass/backup vocals with Carnie and Wendie on this performance:

https://youtu.be/8zWiHYiqV5I

She's the real deal.  No bimbo is she.

Exactly. Senility has to be kicking CK's ass for her to post that bullshit.