The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/419838/print (http://www.nationalreview.com/node/419838/print)
Read this review posted by JCM in the Love and Mercy review thread and it set off some alarm bells for me.

Obviously this fellow knows the myths. The Beach Boys had ultimately little to do with the collapse of Smile. They certainly didn't force Brian to make Smiley Smiley either. In 1967 Brian was the boss, not Mike, not Carl, Brian. This movie could have set people like this critic straight, sad to hear it didn't.

Frankly the review makes me not want to see the film. I have been going back and forth about seeing this movie, and while I'm reading a lot of raves here, I don't know if six months from now it would be the same. All "new" albums or films have an excitment about them that die down after time has passed.

Full disclousre-bio pics bother me. I am very pedantic on Beach Boys history, and I'm wondering about this one. 1966-67 is half the focus and despite SO much being done on the period to the point of real overkill, I'm still waiting for it to be done correctly. Sounds like it's the myth again and not the truth.

From reading this thread and the attached links it sounds like (YAWN) Mike is the villain who wants to stop the progress.

Murry not liking God Only Knows is ridiculous as well. In 1966 it was more lifestyle than music that split him and Brian. If you get ahold of the few interviews he gave with Rolling Stone or NME the guy LOVED Pet Sounds and Good Vibrations. He hurt Brian many times, but he respected when the Beach Boys matured musically. 

Finally Brian didn't suddenly disappear after Smile. I guess it's such a good story that, photographs, films, recordings etc. nothing will break that myth. It's just sad and it makes light of what did happen to Brian over a longer period. I think the truth of him slowly going down is a much more poignant and moving story, but nobody seems to know it except those who really dig.

The Landy part may actually get me to watch. I'm not as invested in those years creatively so I don't get as hung up on that end of it. Melinda Wilson has got a bad rap from several insiders and Ray Lawlor (I hope I spellled your name right) set the record straight per what seems to be told in the movie. I have no doubt he is telling the truth, I simply hope that other things have been quietly said over the last 20 years is not true.

Again myths are hard to break, sounds like some were deeply moved by this film, but maybe I like Brian in a different way than most here. The story is interesting, but I would only be mildly interested if not for the music. I get upset because I love that 1967-72 music just as much as the 1961-66 and the artist(s) (if not always the person/people) who made it. Hey I don't know the people, I wish them well, but I don't know them. I just like seeing history told right. Though the recent books are finally getting it down with the correct perspective, in the world of filmdom the real Brian Wilson of Smiley Smile to Holland never existed. Or will I be pleasently surprised. Thoughts not on the film itself, but the content.

Read the article, no major probs until I got to this (and bear in mind who is posting this):

"... giving us a scene where we see Brian simultaneously admitting to his domineering father that SMiLE had been shelved and learning that he has unjustly sold off the rights to the earlier Beach Boys’ catalog."

Smile shelved - May 1967... the Sea of Tunes catalog sold to Irving/Almo behind Brian's back - November 1969. I understand the compression of time and combining of events for dramatic effect, standard Hollywood tactic, but the inference that Murry selling his songs combined in any way with the abandoning of Smile to propel Brian further into inner space is... questionable, if not actually spurious. I've not seen the movie, so maybe the reviewer is mistaken or himself conflating: I'll see in a few weeks time. Thus far, I've heard almost nothing bad about the movie, and in the main from folk I trust not to feed me bull. Maybe this is the One Moment.

The movie shows Brian looking through the Smile session tapes as Murry finds him. Brian say's the guys are working on Smile Smile (some people took this to mean that Brian had no involvement with Smiley.. I think it just shows him reflecting on what could have been) and Murry tells him that they basically are at or past their peak and he has sold the songs.

It doesn't bother me that they compressed the timeline on this- there are just too many things to cover in the 2 hours for a film. I think the selling of the songs was just to further show how poorly Murry was treating Brian.

Hm.

Thanks.

Hmmmm.

Well Andrew I would trust your judgement on it, not to disparage other people's thoughts. It's just that we agree on most things-except the best music format.

I've seen the movie four times.

I never thought that “Mike’s” initial opposition to Pet Sounds was “dumb and tactless” -- I thought the screenwriter and actor did a fantastic job of articulating what Mike’s issues would've been, and for the most part, I feel that the audience was sympathetic to him. The cello scene got a huge laugh in the one public screening I saw. They laughed because they related to him.

I also didn’t equate the Murry character selling the songs as having anything to do with the collapse of Smile. It was meant to portray the sky falling in on Brian. Must admit, all of that could’ve been done without the inference that Brian was not a part of Smiley Smile, which I absolutely felt sold Brian short. For the same amount of page space they could've written Brian into saying he was "downsizing" the project. etc.

Haven't seen the movie because I'm not a big fan of the biopic genre in general. Anyway, I think Brian's role as group leader slowly diminishing over the years is one of the most compelling stories in all of pop/rock music. I can picture hard-core fans in the late 60s/early 70s picking up the latest albums and browsing the writing credits for Brian's name, or checking back covers and gatefolds for current photographs of the man. I know it's an expression from the WIBN book but I always loved the notion of his contributions at the time being "postcards to the outside world".

I think at the end of the day, Love and Mercy is still a movie.  

I think most of us know going into it, that there are going to be some things changed to fit the run time.  

Analog, I respect your view point.  But there will never be a music movie that's 100% accurate.  If you generally don't care much for biopics, you might not like L&M, but I will say it's different from the standard biopic that tends to move in a linear way, focusing mostly on the dark stuff (ie. The Doors, Walk the Line, etc).  

But, I think the pros far outweigh the cons.  I think, in general, the movie will be more satisfying for Brian fans who know the story.  For those who don't know the story, and see the movie, it might convince them to dig deeper.  

I do agree with you that I would've liked to get a little more into the 67-73 years other than a mention of Smiley Smile and a snippet of Til I Die.  

I’ve seen the film, and I also didn’t see any inference that there was a connection between the demise of “Smile” and Murry selling the song catalog. It struck me purely as a case where they wanted to get the bit about Murry selling the songs into the film, but didn’t want to go past 1967.

Seriously, this film utilizes less time compression and fictionalizing than any “biopic” I can think of. Frankly, even some *documentaries* time compress and skip over stuff more than this film does.

Now, if anything even slightly “off” is going to niggle at you watching this film, then yeah, I guess you  have to stay away. If you’re one of those people who know that Al’s sideburns were a quarter inch longer in 1967, or that the stripe pattern on Brian’s shirt during the control room scenes is going the wrong way, *and* that actually detracts from your enjoyment of the film, then I guess you have to stay away.

I’ve read a few fan reviews that read as if the fan like never otherwise sees films, ever (on another board, I saw a long rant about the process of buying a ticket, finding a seat, etc. I don’t go to the movie theater every week or anything, but sheesh.). You gotta realize: “Love & Mercy” isn’t a BB/Brian fan wetdream opus that also happens to be a film. It’s a FILM, first and foremost, and those who appreciate good acting and good filmmaking will appreciate this thing, and then if they also know BB history but don’t mind if Hal Blaine’s haircut isn’t note-perfect, they’ll enjoy and appreciate it even more.

That Pohlad and Dano and Cusack (and all others involved) pulled this film off despite NOT being a nerd obsessive that posts all day every day on fan forums is nothing short of a small miracle. And frankly, I think they had the perfect perspective. Filmmakers first and foremost, but with a good amount of interest and attention to detail to all things Brian. 

Wow, ridiculous opinions in the National Review? What a shocker. Almost as surprising as atrocious tabloid gibberish turning up in the Daily Mail, right? Both such respectable, universally beloved outlets of right wing fun. I hope William Kristol or Paul Wolfowitz chime in next with how they think SMiLE collapsed. Maybe get Glenn Beck to do a segment on how Melinda Wilson is threatening our currency and is trying to bring about socialism through... something or other.

It is incredibly amusing hearing such assured commentary from people who haven't seen the film yet. Reminds me of all those religious freaks complaining about "Life of Brian" before it was released... Without having seen it. Good to see another Brian inspire the same sort of dogmatic dicking around. Welease Woderick!

(http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/05.19.04/gifs/brian-0421.jpg)

Actually, it's more like my father screaming like a stuck pig over perceived tank or uniform inaccuracies in Schindler's List. NOT THE POINT, POPS!

No film based on a true story is ever going to be 100% accurate to the letter. There's no point in getting hung up on tiny little details, you'll end up missing the bigger picture.

This post strikes me as concern trolling in a polite package. To say you may not see the movie is stunning to me. Anyone who would take the time to participate in a Beach Boys message board forum, but refrain from viewing this film out of "myth" concern is in my opinion missing what is really important. This film is incredibly responsible and thoughtful, and will enhance the ENTIRE legacy of BW and the Beach Boys despite only being able to focus on pieces of the story. I am as detail obsessed, and myth-busting focused as any BB's fan could possibly be. I've spent many years of my life on the front lines of this battle. This film didn't even raise an eyebrow regarding historical inaccuracy or imbalance for me. That was a HUGE surprise. Usually I shut down as soon as i see something that veers into the "wrong" category. But all the important notes were played with a virtuosity that left me truly touched and incredibly satisfied. I am completely blown away that this film found release in this form. Why? Because unlike so many things related to the Beach Boys, it is not shallow, it is not predictable, it is not embarrassing, it is not shoddy, it is not constipated, it is not creatively inept, and it is not dumbed down. Instead this is a raw, edgy, dark, but beautiful and hopeful portrayal of a particularly sensitive vein of their story. We are so very lucky that the right combination of people were allowed to create this film. It could have been awful. Instead it is as deeply moving as the music. Finally...a good thing has hit the mainstream, a deep thing has found an audience. Finally something tasteful and intelligent regarding the Beach Boys is out there. See it, relax on the non-essential stuff, and take in the sad beauty of a truly magnificent work.

Thanks for checking in. 

And thanks for Beach Boys FAQ.   I find myself referring to it constantly.  Any plans for a 2nd edition which would include C50, TWGMTR, NPP, and the Love and Mercy movie? 

I can take or leave NATIONAL REVIEW as a publication but that's for another discussion.

The review is actually really well written and thought out.  I love his analogy of a 'the tunnel', it's my favorite description of the story arc that we see in LOVE & MERCY. 



I've seen LOVE & MERCY four times and admire it very much.  It is basically everything I had hoped it would be and in many ways, much more.  The artistry Bill Pohlad displays solidifies my opinion that he was most definitely the right person to direct this movie.  After many years in the industry and having worked with such visionary filmmakers like Ang Lee and Terrence Malick, those influence are keenly used in telling this story.

The filmmakers could have taken any number of angles to tell the Brian Wilson story.  And indeed according to the director, producer and even Brian & Melinda there were many iterations of the script (over a period of 19 years) before the vision shown in LOVE & MERCY finally came in to view.  This two prong approach, stripping away as much unnecessary information as possible and just telling the story of Brian Wilson at age 24 and then again at about age 44 was a very inspired and original choice. 

At what point does the fact that the person writing this commentary has not watched the movie start sinking in? I have many doubts about buying certain new albums or seeing movies myself, but if I were to write a public commentary having not seen or listened to what I'm commenting about but going on heresay from other fans and reviews, I'd be rightfully called out for completely missing the point and any cache I had built up as someone whose opinion is read by others would be destroyed.

Let me point out one historical inaccuracy too, from the initial post. For the record, it's readily available to find. This stuff about Murry Wilson, specifically Good Vibrations: As that song was climbing the charts if not when it had already hit #1 in some markets, Murry Wilson was going around on a whisper campaign to Brian's associates and even family members bad-mouthing it. That the song was a "horrible mistake", and that they had to get back to doing what they were doing in order to hold onto their audience. It's similar to what gets said in several scenes in the film. So whatever got out in the mainstream press about Murry's opinions just isn't supported by those who actually spoke to him in 1966 and 1967. Fact.

And another one. Consider seeing the movie before making statements about how any of the characters are portrayed. Jon Stebbins already said it so well, but this film is beyond a standard biopic and encompasses a lot of artistic and creative elements of filmmaking in general that allow it to transcend the standard music biopic. People who have only a casual interest in the subject matter but appreciate the art of filmmaking would find a lot to enjoy in this, as well as some truly stunning scenes that stand as works of art beyond the subject matter itself. Same thing for the soundtrack and sound editing, it's worth seeing and hearing even if you're not a diehard fan. At least watch it before casting doubts on it based on what others have said. And consider the sources.

I'm surprised at how much universal praise this film is receiving on this board. I was truly disappointed. Not by silly details like Al's height or Brian's shirts, but by the overall portrayal of Brian as more of an idiot savant than a true genius. Much screen time is devoted to the complexity and duration of the Pet Sounds sessions, but by the time we get to SMiLE --aside from Surf's Up-- all we see is Brian running around the studio like a lunatic during Mrs. O'Leary's Cow and refusing to record in another studio after gauging the "vibes" of the room for 3 hours. The Hawaiian chant in Do You Like Worms is used to show his decline as a songwriter and the scene in the pool with the whole band and Van Dyke made me cringe. Even the Good Vibrations scene in the sandbox makes it seem like all Brian did was play a boogie-woogie riff on the piano and Mike was the one who heard its potential. It was also a big mistake to let Dano do any singing in my opinion, and his piano playing was very tentative during the God Only Knows scene.

I wanted so much to love this movie and after reading all the glowing reviews I was sure I would. My girlfriend couldn't make it on the night it was released and I couldn't wait, so I went thinking I'd be taking her to see it again. By the end of the film I was glad she didn't come, as I was actually embarrassed by much of it. Mainly the portrayal of Brian as I said, but also some of the dialogue and the feeling that I was watching a made-for-TV docudrama at times.

I realize I'm in the minority here, and I'm glad Brian's story is being told. I just wish they had told it a bit more accurately and done away with some of the "crazy Brian" myths rather than reinforcing them. I'm honestly surprised that Brian and Melinda approved of the script as is.


there... I said it.  :(

Had it occurred to you that maybe Brian was more like that than you cared to admit? Some scenes were uncomfortable for me too, but having read all the stories over the years, I was not surprised by any of it. So many people in Brian's world at that time were concerned for him in different ways. Something changed. You see it just in the way he was in the studio during Pet Sounds and how he ran the Smile sessions. I doubt that they would have Brian doing all these Q & A sessions or having he & Melinda doing interviews if his portrayal was way off the mark. I think it was more honest than we as fans care to admit.

That's an honest review by someone who actually saw the film before reviewing it, nothing wrong with that. You saw it, it disappointed you, that's your take, no worries.

But you should have posted it in the actual reviews thread here on the board rather than this one, I'd say. That's where people who saw the film have been posting their likes and dislikes.

I wish our honored guests would let us know who they are...

There are no major myths that this film continues to perpetuate as far as I'm concerned. Yes, time lines are compressed and things did not happen exactly as was shown on film, but the essence of Brian's story was accurate.

One thing in particular is starting to grate on me. The people that seem to be especially hung up with the film making it "seem" like after Smile failed Brian was done are interpreting it that way because they know about Wild Honey, Sunflower ect. By not telling us he didn't totally stop working after Smile was shelved does not mean the film is saying he did. Brian's stopped being THE MAN after Smile was shelved. That is a fact that anyone claiming to be a Beach Boys fan knows it. He did not go for perfection anymore even when he did record after Smile collapsed. All of the albums following Smile became more and more about the Beach Boys and less and less about Brian when up until Smile it was the other way around. Good albums yes. Denny and Carl really started to shine. But where was Brian. He's not even pictured on the 20/20 record. Because Brian was still capable of making great stuff and did contrubute to the late 60's early 70's stuff does not mean he was not changed after Smile failed. He was. Anyone that can't see that baffles me.

Furthermore. This movie is about how a musical powerhouse with tons of success could end up being brainwashed and living in the shadow of a wacked out "shrink" and afraid to make his own decisions. That is not myth it was reality and I think the film got it right.

sure Brian lost his sh*t a bit. I know all about it. he was paranoid and delusional. but it all happens so fast in the movie without much explanation. I think the amphetamine use had a lot to do with Brian's paranoia and losing a grip on reality, but that is rarely if ever mentioned anywhere... and not at all in the film. and the fact is he made some of the most breathtaking music of his career during the SMiLE sessions and we don't get to hear any of it. the whole SMiLE period in this film is basically just Brian losing his mind.

and as for the notion that Brian is just a conduit for beautiful music, a crazy idiot savant, I am extremely offended by it.

I think I have a handle for who most are, but who is analog?

I posted this the other day in one of the review threads.  I kind of feel like it's applicable here.  Sorry for the re-post I just didn't want to re-type my exact thoughts:

------

One of the things I knew would elicit raised eyebrows is the fact that the film focuses primarily on periods 1965-1967 and 1985-1987.  By choosing to do this, LOVE & MERCY allows for a more intimate character study and portrait than if it had tried to hit all the highs & lows.  To say nothing of the fact that it would take many hours to tell a more complete story.  

Obviously, it is my opinion that LOVE & MERCY is on a whole other level artistically from any tv movie or mini-series done about Brian (and the Beach Boys) before.  I would have been happy with a 3 hour version of this film but that's not very commercial.  The original draft for LOVE & MERCY, according to Oren Moverman, did include a whole section for 1970s Brian.  And likely would have gone more in depth about  "the bed years" and how Landy came into the picture in the first place.

I think what LOVE & MERCY is trying to give you though is snapshots from the other portions of Brian's life, outside of those years that are primary focus.  We see, over the opening credits, about 4-5 minutes worth of 1963-1964 high points.  The success and ascent of stardom is implied  and then we are effectively dropped into the life of Brian Wilson in 1965 (roughly).  I feel like I'm repeating myself but doing this is really an inspired method of storytelling, in my opinion. So much of the peak creativity, with Brian being in complete control of all things having to do with the band, come from those years that are dramatized in the Paul Dano portion of the film.  We don't need to know why Murry was fired; it's fairly evident from the scene where Brian plays "God Only Knows" for Murry that he was likely dismissed due to his overbearing and negative vibes.

Furthermore, regarding the period following SMiLE being left to the imagination; it is implied that Brian went from having complete control of the band (which he did) to ceding control after the failure of SMiLE to materialize (which he did).  The Beach Boys of course built a studio at the Bel Air house and recorded SMILEY SMILE, WILD HONEY, FRIENDS, 20/20, etc.  I don't think I'm telling tales here that Brian's involvement has always been said to have been spotty on those. Based on the documentaries I've seen, it's always said that 'Brian would occasionally come out of his room and contribute'.  Did he write some songs for those albums, yes.  But unlike prior to SMiLE, the "band" was allowed (or forced, depending on your point of view) to have a much more prominent role.  Do we really need to see that part of the story in a film about Brian Wilson?

There are two shots, lasting no more than 4-5 seconds a piece), of 1970s Brian in bed.  Face obscured by robe and girth.  One early in the film, really the 2nd shot of the film and then another much later.  I'm not 100% certain but I think the film is told from all different angles.  Obviously the 1980s scenes are told from Melinda's POV.  But I think the 1960s are told from Brian's POV.  1970s Brian is laying in bed remembering, or it is implied that he is.  Thinking back on it, I believe all of the Paul Dano scenes are basically book ended with the two shots I'm referring to.  I think those images, even without a dearth of background on the context, convey a real heaviness and emptiness of what was once a very vibrant and creative mind.  We don't need to see anymore, I know I didn't.  Did Brian get out of bed in the mid 1970s and make one of my favorite Beach Boys albums (LOVE YOU) yes, but in toto he was a shell of man he was from 1963-1967.  

And within the confines of a 2 hour film I think LOVE & MERCY conveys all of this masterfully.

Clicking on his username and then on the "Show last posts" link should help you figure it out.

Ah yes. I always wondered what happened to him.

So WHY is he now an " Honored Guest" ?
Maybe not the place to address this, but is there a standard for being considered an Honored Guest?
 Maybe we should ALL be honord guests !

Seriously good questions after the discovery.   The distinction should really be held for the Despers, Stebbins, and Jardines, etc. who frequent here.

Absolutely.

I don't want to get into anyone's business and/or issues but the make-believe name and suped-up distinction reeks a tiny bit.
Is making someone a "Honored Guest" a unanimous distinction between the mods?
Is there a nomination process that takes place?
If there is, do the mods also vote on whether said guest can use a make-believe moniker or their birth name?

Zimmerman once said: "You can always come back, but you can’t come back all the way"
(turns out he was wrong.)

AGD used to be an honoured guest.

I wonder why Howie is not an honoured guest.

I think Ray prefers not to have such a title.

Apparently I'm an "AGD".

even your picture makes that obvious; tho why the e is left out is troubling

As a former moderator, I can say that the Honored Guest thing was to denote posters who are of special stature in the Beach Boys organization (Desper, Boyd, Stebbins) or the fan base (Susan Lang).

I agreed then as I do now that it's often abused and some "Honored Guests" never should have become such.

I'd love to update the FAQ book. I'm busy with other work right now, but I think it's a valid suggestion for my publisher to consider this in the future. Thanks for the support!

Absolutely. You can see it in the GV studio footage. He's coming unhinged. There is always a counter to a manic period. There is always an exception to a withdrawn period. Films must paint in generalities because of the limitation of the format and the business that controls it, and also due to the limited attention span of the consumer that drives the market. That said, this film finds a way through all that in a noble and responsible way. In my opinion to expect more is unrealistic. However, this is a subjective thing and if someone has seen it and didn't like it that's their perspective, and their opinion. And that's cool. But to anyone who has not seen it, I would strongly suggest that you go...as there is ample evidence from many, many of us who know our insider sh*t, that this is not only a credible and well made film...but that it rises above the limitations and routine of the "bio-pic" and finds its way to a higher form that Brian's story deserves.

Stebbins is killing it with the posts in this thread.

It's a movie, two hours to tell a life story. It's not feasible to get all the details right and the driving story line is the point of view of a person who isn't the subject, which makes the storytelling even more complicated. That scene with Smiley and selling the catalog didn't get it right, but it fit in with the narrative and if that's really the only black eye on the fact face, I can live with it.

Well said!

Couldn't agree more. I mean, if we're talking about accuracy, the timeline for Brian's first acid trip is all wonky as well, but it works perfectly for the story being told in Love and Mercy. Really, these small inaccuracies aren't hurting any legacy and they're certainly not re-writing the history books.

That scene where Brian is told the music rights were sold is one of the most heartbreaking scenes in that movie, one of the few moments where I shed a tear for Brian's character. Accuracy wasn't even on my mind at the moment because the scene is so damn powerful.

The movie is remarkably factually accurate. The one way in which events are seriously altered is in the compression of chronology. Given that it takes place (in movie terms) over two roughly year-long periods, that's understandable. A complete story needs to be told, so you have the events of 64-68 or so being jammed into the Dano section, and the events of 85-94 being abridged into the second.

When seen from this perspective, nearly all of the changes are understandable.

I keep thinking about the thing that Stebbins said about the fact that it was ALLOWED to come out as is -- without all the horrible Hollywood snags this thing could've gotten wrapped up in -- it survived to become good art. What are the odds?

I swear to God I walked into the theater expecting (hoping for at the very least) the likes of Backbeat.
I walked out and called Ed Roach, who thought I was bullsh itting him because I don't think he's ever heard me be so positive about ANYTHING before.
It's the best case scenario. A great underlining of Brian's story.

I remember watching it the first time and thinking, "My grandkids will see this and understand and feel this."

The whole project seemed to have been blessed after so many false starts.  The right people were involved creatively and I think that made all the difference.

 :woot

Well I guess I've stirred up some controversy again. First I don't need any status on here or anywhere. The laughably jealous comments, are the reason I had left, and will leave again after this post. It's been a long time since I was here and I was hoping it would be back to what it had been at one time. Back in the 2005-2010 era it was a great friendly cool place. Just nice people I felt no stress. I just hate to leave again but it was lousy to come back to this. I'm sorry as some of you may have liked what I used to do on here.

I don't think there's any controversy.
Just confusion why a dude with a fake name no one's heard of is suddenly an "Honored Guest."

Thanks for your contribution.

Either the honored guest status was given before my time, or without my knowledge, because I knew nothing of it. What I do know is that some posters have been asked if they wanted the "honored guest" status and declined. I'm not aware of anyone who specifically asked for it, unless that happened in the past. Whatever the case, only the moderators can activate that status. So whatever happened here, I have no knowledge of it. Not a big deal but I wanted to clarify that much.

Ugh, gag me.

Mike, I used to really like your posts. But it seems you are kinda full of yourself man. Laughably jealous? Who is posting jealous stuff? Howie Edelson? I sure as heck don't think so, and unlike you hasn't teased us with information for a "forthcoming book" for years. Instead, if he's got pertinent info, he's actually shared it. All I know, is you kinda used to be a good poster with some mostly level-headed opinions on things. Then you showed up on here writing insane posts and alluded to some odd kind of breakdown. And then kinda trashed the board. And then vanished. I mean, I think it'd be great if you'd like to rejoin our community and discuss BW and the BB with us. But you're gonna have to put your big boy pants on if you do. I'll tell you right now, I (and others) give AGD and Stebbins among others a pretty hard time if we feel they deserve it, but they still come back here because I think they value the Beach Boys fan community. If you don't because you wrote an Elvis FAQ that apparently did decently, and you're above it, then you know where the door is.

Also, if status doesn't matter, I say you relinquish the honored guest title. I personally think it should be reserved for insiders and not just any old poster. But I suppose that's between you and the mods.

And anyways, is your Beach Boys book ever coming out? Or has it been scrapped?

I think the best thing to do for maximum "controversy" is go seek treatment from Evan Landy. Sure to help with those Amazon rankings.

I assume Mike didn't give himself "honored" status. Is that right?

Things to take away, perhaps. If readers think they're reading what seems to be a review of a film, at least the reviewer or commentator should make sure to have seen it before casting doubts on it. And if casting doubts, in this case Murry Wilson's opinions of Good Vibrations, make sure the facts are accurate. See my previous replies for that one.

This one read like a defense of certain things and people that were obviously being defended in spite of the film itself, which was apparently the intended topic of discussion. That kind of thing raises red flags right away, but on this board and some reviews and articles/interviews that have appeared in recent months, it seems to be OK. Launch a defense before the offense even takes the field, or in this case even if there is no game scheduled.

I'm genuinely interested to hear opinions and analysis of the film, it affected me a great deal, I consider it a work of art and a tremendous film (even as a film for film's sake), and I like to hear how it affected others as well.

To me this was a missed opportunity, and mounting a preemptive defensive play before seeing the film (or hearing the song-album in those prior cases) only stirs things up unnecessarily. It's too bad.

I with you Guitarfool.

I just don’t see the motivation in somebody getting the guy who had an absolute and very public nervous breakdown on the board to come back under a false name, promote him to an exalted status, just so that he can throw dirt on such an obvious and well deserved home run for Brian and his team.

Oh, wait. . .

Oh.

Now I get it.

So he didn't confer the honor on himself. He is a published author isn't he?

Wasn't his book about Elvis? Not the Beach Boys? If just anyone who gets published in any field can get honored guest status, then a whole lot of people will be getting stars.

I'll tell you one thing which I haven't even touched on in any writings on the film I've done so far. The set design, the staging, and everyone responsible for the props, design, and "look" of the film in my eyes deserves the highest praise if not an official award for their work.

Yes, I'm trying to put a positive thing in this thread and get people smiling and happy about something. And I know there are threads for reviews...

I'm a studio guy, a guitar geek, and a history buff, I look for the visuals and the props and the little touches on the sets of TV shows and films. I'm a music and history nerd and a studio/gear geek, a deadly and expensive combination.

Darian and Mark respectively did amazing work on the studio scenes. Everything from the period-correct instruments, to recreating a 1966 control room and studio setting down to the patch cables and tape boxes and talkback mic...it was spot-fucking-on. Brilliant work. And having the studio musician actors actually playing the parts when the camera is on the studio floor...what a great touch. And it worked brilliantly in the film. When the camera zoomed in on the song being recorded on the floor, you heard it being played on the floor by real musicians playing the "right" instruments. You had the guitarists playing Fenders who played Fenders in the 60's on these dates. That stuff is priceless. It'sn the stuff to *enjoy*.

I like focusing on *that* and enjoying *that* with fellow music nerds and fans instead of worrying about Murry blankety-blank Wilson's opinion of songs, but that's just me.

A Danelectro Bellzouki. If you haven't seen the film, you won't know what that means but for the few seconds it's on the screen, it's magic for nerds and geeks like me.  ;D

And...historically accurate.

Your either
a) Taking the piss
b) Think we are stupid
c) Taking the piss
d) all of the above

It has become way to obvious Cam.

I thought so but some Moderator(s) gave him the status for some reason.

I was a moderator at the time Mike was made an Honored Guest; he was working on his Beach Boys book and we felt it was worth asking him. He accepted. No one (least of all us) knew Mike was going to make that kind of a left turn. I regretted it later on. It's not the first time the moderators made a mistake and it certainly won't be the last. Give them a break. There was NO ulterior motive on the part of the moderators.

There we go.

I harbor no ill will toward Mike as he has always been a friend on here. But stop going after the moderators over his posting here today. It's not their fault.

No, I don't think it was conscious THEN.
(Obviously.)

I DO think it's odd that you can receive the status and it carries over to a pen name (especially after such a troubling loose-cannon situation -- and I'm not being facetious, it was a heartbreaking thing to see go down here. Poor guy.)

What I DON'T think is odd is that he comes back to sh it on a movie he's yet to see, no one knows who he is until they do the math, all on the eve of opening night for Brian with a rancid minority chorus treating this Wilson-Love thing here like an ugly subway series.   

I don't believe in coincidences.

I guess Dylan was right.
You CAN'T come back all the way.

Anyone can change their name at any time on here. The status is given to the account itself, not the account under a certain name. I certainly never really considered the possibility of people changing their handles under the Honored Guest banner. I don't think anyone else did, either. Perhaps that will have to become a regulation in the future.

Wasn't me or GF. Mike is a friend of mine off the board, but this is the first I'm hearing of this.
to my knowledge members can't change their status  either.

Only moderators or Chuck can change the status of a poster on here.

He might have had it set up before, which is most likely

Nobody would care if he hadn't posted an opinion that people didn't like, anyway. That's how important the "Honored Guest" thing really is at the end of the day.

Or posted an opinion on something he had yet to see.

That's wrong. Why even bring it up like this? I count myself among those who took issue with what seemed to be a review or even a commentary on a film that the author had not seen. It rings as true as a restaurant critic panning a local restaurant based on what he or she heard other diners who ate there saying about it without sampling the menu. It's not about liking or not liking the content no matter how hard you want to push that stuff, and in fact I think the worst part is that a lot of readers here would have liked to read an actual review and commentary of the film. In this case, it looked like slinging mud at a film that the writer hadn't seen based solely on what others had said, and I think that upset some posters here.

Ahh...that's what I thought.  It's been a while, so I didn't remember the particulars.

There is something I want to address, though...



With all due respect....

Just what exactly are you implying here? GF certainly wouldn't set something like that happen just so Brian could be trashed, or have dirt thrown, as you put it. If you are implying *I* did,  well, I happen to take major offense to that. We talk to the same people, any one of whom could and would personally vouch for my integrity, and also my dedication to Brian. I would never *ever* set things up just so Brian could be disrespected, or so that anything he's done could be discredited or shat on.  When I say that Brian Wilson is my hero, and that I respect the man himself as much if not more than his work, that's not lip service....that's the gospel truth.  I mean, my God, meeting him and thanking him for the beauty he has given the world and making it a better place just for being in it happens to be the #1 remaining item on my bucket list.  I don't know how else I can spell it out.

So, yeah....if you meant something else by that, please explain, because as it is, I'm deeply hurt and offended by the insinuation.

In all fairness, I think it's human nature to do so. We all have a tendency to form an opinion on something before we watch/listen/read it based on what we've heard or read about it. Sometimes it's a negative opinion, but sometimes it's a positive one as well. Right or wrong, that's just how people are. I admit I had my doubts as well, but everything I've read on the film makes me excited as hell to see it (and will do so next Friday on payday). Now, if a Bruce Johnston biopic were to be released, I might (as the kids say) 'throw shade' on it jwithout seeing it just because, well...   At the end of the day, though, it'd be wrong of me to do so, but I know it'd still happen.

I'm old school and believe this kind of backroom stuff should be done off-board. Stuff transparency - it just hamstrings effective board management. Ban or demote Eder quietly and let everyone move on. No word, no explanations, unless they're in confidential PMs. Then we can all move on. Probably.

And we've yet again run off one of the good guys of the board out meaningless, stupid bullshit. Yay.

As mentioned previously, Mike's a good friend of mine. He likely won't be coming back, though, for the same reasons why I daily have to ask myself why I even bother here in the first place.

Is this really what we do here? My God, we are such assholes to each other. I mean, sometimes this board makes me weep for humanity.

I'm kind of in the same boat... On one hand I want to see it, because I know modern day Brian was involved in it (and Melinda) so really, how off the mark can it be?  ... on the other hand though, it's kind of like reading a really good book, the movie's never as good and sometimes takes away from it.  Why? ... because it's always better in your mind than what another mind thinks up to put on screen.

This is supposed to be 'factual' history, but in reality just by it's nature it's a spun version of history.  It has to be, to fit it in 2 hours, they can't put in everything obviously and they can't leave a ton of loose ends.  So grey areas (100% of life) have to be made black or white. 

They can't put in the truth: Brian didn't know how to finish the album or didn't have the desire to; the BB's were disinterested or confused at what he was doing... the record company was suing him... he was doing drugs... he had a mental illness... his father and his wife were giving him crap.... I mean it's very grey, Brian couldn't tell you why he didn't finish the album, because there were 50 reasons.  They can't cover all that in the movie.



Another example is how the album eventually turned out... if you weren't a fan back then, you wouldn't have understood that for years he denied the 'tapes' even existed, said he had burned them.  So we all went from , Brian won't even discuss the album, to a press statement that Brian would tour the completed album, live in concert!  You can 'say' that, or depict it in a movie, but you can't actually make it have the incredible, mind-blowing impact that it did when it actually HAPPENED. 

So living through some of that as a fan, it's hard for me to watch bios and things when it's a small slice of what actually happened, and as you pointed out some of the facts are fudged either through ignorance or necessity. 

If you're really, really a superfan of any celebrity these bios are going to be hard to enjoy. 

To be honest I would have been MUCH more likely to see the movie if it was only about Brian and Melinda's relationship!  I don't know anything about that, so it wouldn't have bothered me if the facts weren't straight...

FWIW, I used to be an "Honored Guest", but someone changed that the first time I was suspended (pretty sure I know who: no current mod), then suddenly I'm in my very own category. Bizarre.

Probably a shitweasel...  ;D

Wow, anyone that thinks Mike is crapping on the film needs to reread what he posted. He simply says he has reservations about going to see it (mainly because he is a stickler for a 100% correct limeline).

That's true.

Not that I'd let that stop me from seeing the movie. It's clear that it's NOT a Beach Boys movie, it's a Brian Wilson movie focusing on two distinct separate periods of his life. His involvement on say, Carl & The Passions is not important here.
NOW, if a well publicised, criticially praised full on bio of the group was ever made and the word was that the Smiley to Endless Summer period was presented as 'nothing much happened here', then I'd be concerned.

Mike made it clear he hadn't seen the film and wasn't talking out of school (it was kind of the whole point).

...snore...

Mike (Eder) only commented on Murry and GOK, is there something which shows he was inaccurate about Murry and GOK?

Regardless if the scene was 100% accurate, it conveyed the pressure Murry could put on Brian. They're telling a story. It isn't a documentary.

I haven't seen the movie yet. Trying to coordinate calendars with my wife, a daughter, and her musician boyfriend to see it together. The issue has become Mike's accuracy, so I'm only commenting on that. Looking forward to seeing it.

I have read this whole thread... not sure why.. but I did.  :lol

Poor guy! ;)

Bleh. I’m not saying it’s not impossible to express misgivings about a movie before seeing it. But seriously, if you’re a huge fan of Brian and the BB’s, how hard is it to just go see this film and THEN discuss it and avoid speaking from ignorance? Really, how hard is it to go to a cheap, $6 matinee showing of this thing? Even if the thing sucked worse than “Summer Dreams”, it’s worth it to pay $6 to hear some isolated “Good Vibrations” vocals for the first time, if you’re just all about the music and nothing else.

I’d have to call BS on anyone who thinks Mike is vilified in this film. It’s no coincidence that most of the people I’ve seen who have this misgiving have NOT seen the film. If anything, the film makes the viewer more empathetic towards Mike than I ever would have imagined.

I would suggest seeing the film and paying the $6-12, or wait for the Blu-ray/DVD before writing *multi-paragraph* essays on it. I’m not saying anyone can’t do that, but I would only offer that if you *do* write a multi-paragraph piece on the film having not seen it, you will appear to be speaking from gross ignorance by a lot of people.

It’s one thing to express misgivings *before* the film comes out. Then it’s all speculation and the only type of discussion fans can have, and I’ve often pointed out that I think that’s fine more times than not. I do it. I’ve often expressed misgivings based on past precedent for Mike Love’s upcoming book, for instance. But once the book is released, I’m not going to write a huge essay on why the thing *probably* sucks without having read ANY of it.
 
It’s actually kind of funny that this small handful of fans who are doing the “I haven’t seen the movie, but here’s why it probably sucks…..” thing are coming across as not terribly dissimilar to several Mike Love interviews over the years professing to not have heard BWPS or NPP or seen L&M, but then going on to offer *potential* criticisms.  

+1


Banning someone for having an opinion is setting a very dangerous precedent on this board. Can you blame the mods for responding publicly when they're being taken to task by people who ALSO don't know the whole story? People still wouldn't give a damn about Mike's opinion if he wasn't conferred with a silly title. His carnal sin was having the "wrong" opinion, and member protocol here is to dog pile on those deviant bastards until they either leave or they get banned.

Which brings me to...


+INFUCKINGFINITY

Wait wait. There is or used to be a Mike Eder thread in the "Ask the Honored Guests" section. So, it was a public thing that Eder had been made an Honored Guest. A number of people posted. It surprised me at the time to read that, but nevertheless... It's funny that he comes back with a monicker though. I'm a nobody in the fan community, but a public and "googleable" person and thus choose to post under a stupid name. But this Eder case was bizarre. As for the content of his OP, no big deal I think.

As for the Honored Guest status, it seemed too much: Eder had never been a source of information here, and kept going back tirelessly to his "pre-1973, post-1973" criteria, which seemed like fanboy talk an not an the expression of a serious author... On the other hand, he was thoughtful and respectful, and had a certain ability for synthesis, so maybe he comes out with a nicely-written book on the BBs. But there wasn't and isn't any insider or informative content in his posts that merits such status, IMO.

FYI I had no idea who "analog" was when I wrote my initial response to the thread topic. Didn't matter. I wrote what i honestly felt after reading his post. But after reading the resulting twists the thread has taken I gotta say that if you are a known entity, Honored guest, moderator or part of the regular rotation of smiley posters, you have to have fairly thick skin to participate in a high-profile way. It comes with the territory. I think stating you are leaving the board only adds to the drama instead of defusing it. If you really feel violated, then take a break, quietly, you might want to come back, and it gets weird if you say you're leaving, you come back, and say you're leaving again ...and again. God knows I've been crushed on the board more than a few times, and in the moment would have loved to use my fists instead of my words to respond...but I come back because the smartest Beach Boys fans are here. This is where the opinion is shaped, and where new things are revealed. Its a good board because it's free flowing and alive with well informed opinions. No one is above the fray.

Autotune -  from what I've been able to glean from the interviews with director, and where I disagree a bit with the article, is that it seemed to deliberately limit the scope of topics.  It didn't delve into the "strife" as between required contractual LP's and the sale of SOT.  That was a good thing, I think, to keep  the film, narrow in scope.  I have kids in their 20's and cannot imagine them doing battle with a force such as this record company.  And that could be a story in and of itself.  That segment is absent and it could have been a distraction, in a way, from the story they were trying to tell.  Maybe, had it been alluded to, in some fashion, such as a phone call from the record company, looking for tapes or tracks or deadline reminders, it might have satisfied this reviewer.  Maybe not...

What I really did like is for the lifer fans, such as myself, was the sequence and set of Pet Sounds.  It allowed the fan to "own" that whole sessions thing out of sheer "familiarity" with the banter and authentity of the set and the scene in black and white for the promo.  I found those scenes just fantastic and a gift to the fans.

And I'm interested in the European perspective, when the film is released, as they (French, in particular) tend to do more psychological film topic reviews than the U.S. One of my favorite networks TV5 Monde-FR2 do a lot of BB's music in their broadcasts...it won't be long til we know what they are thinking of this film.

This review asked questions relating to "blame" and I'm not sure that was the goal of this film; as it is the two eras using two actors to attempt "depth rather than breadth." And where the film succeeds. It handled a couple of topics very well, and the score is magnificent.  Of course, it is, it is BB music!

It is a lot to process in a short time.  I think next time I'll see it will be on DVD, where I can pause it, and digest it a bit at a time...it is very intense.  

As with any author/honored guest, I respect your perspective, but the real honor in having a forum such as this is that people of "generally" similar interests can be in one place to discuss that which is so dear to us...la musique!  :love

double post...mea culpa
Bad iPad!

Calm down, Billy. Nobody hates the guy or is chasing him off. Nobody has banned him. Jon said it perfectly above, he creates his own drama.To me the point is we have two Moderators on here who both admitted they had zero to do with giving him his "status". Therefore it was one guy, who himself had his Mod position taken away. It just seems there should be a systematic process of some sort for giving out honored guest status, like maybe at least a majority of the Mods agree on it? And perhaps the posters on here should be aware of who the honored guests are without having to do some sort of search on their pseudonym? Just weird.

I did not make Mike an Honored Guest; I supported the decision at the time. My position was also not "taken away;" I resigned.

edit

Does it really matter who did or didn't give Mike a title? The point is that a bunch of jerks ganged up on somebody(without knowing his identity, mind) out of a snobby assumption that anybody with the words "Honoured Guest" must "out" themselves so as not to seem any more important than us mere fans. All that matters is yet another fellow beach boys fan and friend has been driven away, feeling unwanted and unwelcome. Jesus fucking Christ. Is this really the board we want?!?

On the money. The highlighted bit is what I also said before. The whole board might turn their backs on you - so what? No one should make you want to go, still stay regardless. Don't like the negativity posted about Mike (edit: Beach Boy Mike, that is)? Draw attention to other sort of threads; thankfully, there lots of choice what to view. But if you leave - at least be consistent; why return if you're so distressed & keep whining about how "it used to be such a great board with great posters", as if now & then is totes different community & the place is completely replaced by new members, no old-timers left.

Re: banning people for opinions, no such pattern I noticed. Or else the board would be empty everyday. And earlier GF pointed out to bossaroo that his opinion counts despite not-so-flattering, because he had seen the film. So let's not create stuff.

You all know that you're wrong, those who sympathize with certain posters' reasoning - just don't want to admit. I read smb. say "being offended is a choice". Yet they change their gospel & all this defending. Well-well.

I think the issue of the honored guest status comes down to what happened to others and what also happened to me. I logged on, saw a post from a screen name I had never seen before, and I had no idea who it was - Yet this unknown screen name had honored guest status. I guess the suggestion is for honored guests to do as all of them basically do already with no issues previous to this (I think...), they post using their actual name. If the screen name hadn't been unknown to 99.9% of board members in this case, and had a real name been used, it wouldn't have been the issue it became.

I'm just trying to provide some perspective as someone who has seen the film. I don't care about all the drama around the original post, I'm just sharing my opinion that while the film isn't 100% factual in the placement of certain events, it is still true to the Brian Wilson/BB story overall.

Eder hasn't left the board. His account's still active and he's talking to thin air about it on Facebook.

Apols to those who took my comment as heartless, I regret coming across like that if I did so. Cripes I can be an over-sensitive soul somedays and other days I dish out too much.

Would love to see a return to calm debate and informative posts though, instead of foul beatings and deliberate stirrings.

Bit of humour always used to break the tension here, that and a discussion about ales. I had a terrific pint of Copper Dragon's Black Gold the other night, a light bottled stout with a light fizz. Never had a refreshing stout before - only 4% abv too. Delicious with a buffet of onion bhajis, samosa, spring rolls and the like, and unlike Guinness didn't leave one feeling at all bloated. I'd have another but it's becoming scarce as the brewery's going through a refinancing process that involves a name change - or is it the launch of a sister brewery? Some regard it as a means of evading excise duties but I don't know. It'd just be a shame if the beer was the victim cos it's all about the beer at the end of the day. Anyway, I'd tell you all about it but I can't be inclinded the way things are here…

If people had minded their own business about who did or didn't have a "title", then this wouldn't have become the issue it became. There have been times that I have seen a "Honoured Guest" here without knowing who it was, and been curios. But I just assume there is a reason for it. We are all human beings. We are all Beach Boys fans. Why do we have to be snobbish and act like there is an enemy intruding in on our little space, just because we don't know exactly who somebody is? If you are curios, politely ask somebody in a private message. If you dont want to ask well,...just mind your own damn business and go about your day. I still don't know who Debbie Keil is. But it really doesn't matter. I don't need to know who she is. She's a fellow Beach Boys fan, and that's good enough for me.

+1

I agree. But what's the point of being an honored guest if people do not know who they are talking to? There has to be some sort of public persona to the honored guest title; otherwise why bother? And all this regardless of how merited the status was.

Disagree--  Honoured Guests should be easily identifiable, ie using their legitimate name, else why not simply be a SS ass like the rest of us? 
As to Debbie Keil, she seems to have left the premises, so it's moot

Good grief, it always comes down to whose skin is thinner than the others. Very unproductive.

My sympathies to Mike, he has had troubles and we should all hope for those to ease for him. One way to do that, however, is to realize that no matter how much any of us try to get to the absolute "truth" of the BBs life/times/career, it will always remain elusive in one way or another. The key is not to sweat it--not easy if you're obsessed (as we all are to varying degrees).

Jon Stebbins does nail it (not surprising to me in the slightest, BTW, he's been doin' it for years). L&M is a great film. Yes, there are some "factual inaccuracies." But the psychology (in both historical segments) is so acute and astute, and the performances of Paul Dano and John Cusack are so good, that these are reduced to quibbles. You walk out of the theatre thanking God that some alignment of forces permitted Brian to survive his ordeals and to wind up as intact as he has. You see someone whose talent outstripped his emotional maturity and paid a terrible price, caught in a vise grip of bullies and enablers.

The film shows that 60s Brian, with all his talent and sensitivity, was unable to see how he would need a different path to the particular type of "mess of help" he would need "to stand alone." Which we all do--and don't--at the same time, always.  A problematized parental foundation often provides the drive for success, but not for emotional stability and maturity. That had to come later, and against great odds. To his credit and to our relief, Brian was able to do it, and L&M is a superb encapsulation of that story. Emotional truth, you can't beat it.

Very sorry to hear that Debbie has apparently left--if you're still lurking, Debbie, love and mercy to you and everyone hopes that you will change your mind.

I agree an honored guest ought to use their real name and I was confused at first, but on the other hand it took less then a minute to find out.

I agree. Also, Howie talks albout Mike not using his full name in "Honored Guest", yet I don't see him or anyone else for that matter get on Mark Linett for not using his full name (uses yrplace) or Steven Gaines who uses "Beach Boy Author" or even "aeijtzsche" who to this day I don't know who he/she is. If we're going to be critical about this, then let's do it fairly and across the board.

Yeah, going forward I think that's going to be a requirement...unless it's somebody like Brian (who is already registered here anyway)or Melinda, or Mike and Jackie, just to use examples. Would YOU tell Al he couldn't use the screen name 'Honkin' Down The Highway'? :lol

Well said.

If it's a Beach Boy, they can use any handle they want. :)

again-- 1; Honored Guests should be using their name. Else why be "honored"

If Al ( or anyone else) wants to post as a SSA he can use any handle he chooses, otherwise, see #1.
 And that should apply to everyone including Linett, Gaines, aeijtzsche ( josh?)  and anyone else tripping the light anonymously

True confession time...I'm actually Ricky Fataar.


Just kidding.



I'm Batman.

Josh, who? Inquiring minds want to know. ;) I've seen this person post here every once in awhile, but never knew exactly why they were honored, still don't.

He was one of the original mods here, and I think he works for Capitol, or BRI, or somebody now. I took his place when he stepped down.

whatever. he should be using his own name

He? He has himself listed as a female. Man, I am so confused! ;)

I've already explained it. This was a *new* screen name that on first glance from the two moderators who saw this thread was unknown to either of us. Yes, it was easy to figure out who it was, but from an admin standpoint it went something like this before we knew who it was: neither one of us immediately knew the screen name or how it got honored guest status. That's it, end of story. It would have been helpful had the honored guest Mike not used a new screen name that was unrecognizable to the moderators on board, and looking back it seems like it would have cleared up a lot of issues before the discussion even got started on the status of posters. I also respect any honored guest's choice for privacy or other reasons to stay under a screen name, but in this case it was something of a surprise for even the moderators to see an unknown name pop up as honored guest. The other honored guests either have been on the board since the beginning or have screen names that most posters know.

Hopefully that clears it up and ends this part of the issue.

clears up the eder issue, but not the rest. and doesn't address the concerns previously voiced

Nobody is getting on the Mods. It is just the fact that we can't have people calling someone out for not using their real name and let others do it without a whisper. With regular members I am constantly confused with whom I am conversing with. Some members are constantly changing their handle. As for privacy, I don't get it. If yrplace is answering questions posed to Mark in the Mark Linett thread, then there goes that anonymity aspect.

you are billyman!

Indeed, Billyman!  :lol

Time to flash the billy signal! :lol

Set an example, Mr Chris Bgas! :lol

^^^^^^^^This.^^^^^^^^

Not til I get Honored Guest status

Last time I flashed anything, I ended up detained.

 :lol

You should get that status just for your Beach Boys collectibles, alone. Does anyone here have a bigger collection than you?

I think 'BrianWilson2015' might ;)

That's weird, I thought that was you on the news

Size isn't important… or so  I'm reassuringly assured… probably.

"aeijtzsche" was assistant to Alan Boyd for a while, right?

Listen it NPR Fresh Air today, Thursday, for interview on the L&M movie screenwriter Moverman along with re plays of previous BWs fresh air interviews.    good POV discussion from the writer mixed with Landy era interview.

Hi everybody.

Aeijtzsche here.  

I suppose I owe 3 explanations:

1.  I was given honored guest status presumably because of my involvement with Alan Boyd, and the related work I've done with the BBs archives.  I'm happy to be not-honored, if somebody feels like I don't deserve it.  I have not done any direct work for the band in many years.

2.  I haven't posted much because I've been busy.  (Law school, etc.)  But start a thread about studios and recording and you'll lure me out.

3.  My full name, which I also am perfectly happy to use as my screen name, is Joshilyn Hoisington.  And, despite what most of you probably thought, myself included for a while, my profile is currently accurate, gender-wise.  

I have no issues with your Honored Guest status. I only used your name as an example, is all.

Just heard Oren Moverman comment on the scene in the recent NPR interview. He said that he had heard numerous stories where Brian would play songs for Murry only to be met with fierce disapproval. Seems like one of those things where, if it weren't true, they would have been weeded out by Brian or Melinda.

On the other hand Murry is quoted as saying: “ 'Pet Sounds' is a masterpiece of accomplishment for Brian.  The public doesn’t realize it, most of them.  But Brian took the Masters, a lot of the Masters, approached the music in his own way and put a Rock and Roll beat to it.”

Sure, to a reporter. I don't recall him every being particularly abusive to them.

Good Vibrations too, Cam. Suggested Murry LOVED it.



Exhibit A:

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/vdp1.jpg)

But the comments referred to that is in the movie are about GOK right?

Is that Murry "not liking" GV or Murry sayings "kids" won't like it? I also remember someone saying Murry worried that kids wouldn't be able to dance to the slow part of GV.  Does anyone know the Murry interview(s) Mike is referencing?

Like I already said, BW is quick to defend Murry, so it seems odd that he'd skip numerous opportunities to "correct" that part of the script if it weren't true. Then again, when asked whether Bill Camp did a good job, BW only says that Camp captured Murry's authoritarianism, as opposed to simply stating "very factual/letter-perfect" as he has done with every other actor and actress.

I look forward to seeing the movie.

Cam, that's a very contentious statement - what do you really mean by "look", "forward" and "seeing" ?

Is that a "probably" or a "hell, yes" ?

(giggle)

Rising above or becoming one with?

I agree.  You could not ask for two better guys to handle the studio scenes. Mark owns so much of that original equipment and did an incredible job staging it. Darian is simply brilliant in his musical knowledge; watching those studio scenes is like being in a time machine ; I love the fact that the bulk of the dialogue is pulled directly from the session tapes , adding to the authenticity. And yeah, that Danelectro Bellzouki slayed me as well !

Let's face it, those scenes were basically porn for studio freaks and vintage instrument buffs. What an eye for detail they had! You pick out more on a repeat viewing, if anybody involved with the production is monitoring: ALLLLL DELETED SCENES PLEASE.

(http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n295/guitarfool2002/teresacowles_zps5004a390.jpg)

http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16097.msg452846.html#msg452846 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16097.msg452846.html#msg452846)


Speaking of the studio scenes and possible outtakes/unused footage that *could* be included on the bonus DVD kind of stuff...

Going back just over a year ago to the discussions linked above about the film, and the still photo from the set.

I honestly cannot remember - Was the instrumental "Pet Sounds" session included in the studio scenes in the film?

Because that little challenge I posted last June, now with the film out it all gets revealed. That was the current chart given to the musicians/actors playing the session musicians in the film as they played the arrangements "live" for the studio floor scenes in the film. That still photo happened to catch the bass chart for Pet Sounds (the title track) as it was being played and filmed that day. Someone in the original thread mentioned if the chart were accurate to the time it was actually done, it may have had a title "Run James Run", which is true, but now with the film released it shows how Darian as musical supervisor and whoever copied the charts must have staged the live studio performances. So capturing the accuracy of the title on that chart wasn't important because the chart itself was not featured in the film. But everyone knows what they were recording and reading as "Pet Sounds", hence the sheet music on the stand.

So again, I seriously cannot remember: Is there even a brief snippet showing the recording of this track in the film? If not, this may be one of those outtakes that we may hopefully see and hear on a future DVD release.

Yes, it's played. unless I was hallucinating

Yes it was played.

Sadly, all I can think of now when I see that image is "ditz". 

And the only word that comes to mind for me now is "bimbo".   :drumroll

Hey'all...
I actually loved the movie. My daughter brought me for my Father's Day gift.
There were many totally "believable" moments, and others that had a more manufactured feel,...but so glad I saw it.
Some guy on the radio said it was only playing in 450 houses in the world and drying up fast.
Those of you who haven't seen it, need to,..go....IMO

T

Apparently, that is not true.

No hurry, the dvd will be out in 3 or 4 months...with bonus features.