The Smiley Smile Message Board

Thought it be interesting to make a little list of things they changed for the movie. Being a movie it's not surprising they changed the timeline, probably for it it flow better.

Brian tells the group he wants to stop touring to make pet sounds, Stops in 64
Brian's first LSD experience happens after pet sounds, before summer days
Cusack's Brian says he first heard voices in 63, after his first LSD trip in 65
Mike hears Brian start to compose GV , the backing track is virtually complete when he hears it
Murry sells the right in 67, 69
Dont think Brian was a cigarette smoker at that time in the 60's
Isn't Melinda Jewish in real life (think it was in Gary Usher's book)
And most importantly Carole Kaye never wore a fire helmet

This is just my own personal point of view but reading most peoples reviews it seems like people like Dano's portrayal of Brian better but Cusack was much more believable at least for me. Dano's Brian felt very one dimension, like having the same sad expression on his face for most of the movie.
I like the movie and there's so much they got right especially the look and the feel of those two periods.
My only compliant about it would be some of the 60's actors were  a little corny. Just want to know what everyone else thinks about what they changed.

neither of these things are impossible although the 1963 date contradicts public knowledge.

I am certain I've seen BW say he voices started in '63 and that it was one of his problems with touring. I know he's said other things as well. I'll try to find a citation.

I believe he had massive headaches and that sort of thing going on during performances in '63, but I've never read or heard that he had actual voices until later after the LSD.

Unfortunately, the only source I can find right now for 1963 is the "autobiography" but I feel confident I've seen him say that in an interview. I'll keep looking.

ps. I know that he's also said 1965 and other things, so it's one of those moving targets.l

This made me LOL.

This. I adore this movie; saw it three times in theaters, own it on DVD. Almost every other piece of compressing events made sense to me in the context of cinema, but I found this very odd, indeed... Is the film trying to absolve PS in a way, as though it were an album that was created without any sort of "consciousness expansion"? (What makes it odder is that we do see Brian and Mike's first major conflict viz. the lyrics to "Ego", before he's dropped acid. Granted, the character of Brian could have worked with Tony Asher on a song about ego dissolution without the benefit of experiencing it himself, but it is strange that they left it in.)

Also, it sort of switches the emphasis a bit. Apart from a few joint tokes during listening to the mix of "Here Today", moving his first major trip to after "PS" almost makes "SMiLE" seem like the work of a great mind that pushed it too far.

That has to be one of my few criticisms of the film: that in getting the film to a manageable two hours, "SMiLE" really only gets the "Good Vibrations" sessions, an admittedly beautiful recreation of the Bernstein "Surf's Up", before just dropping your average audience member into the "Fire" sessions. There are certainly ways in which to read "SMiLE" as a sonic portrait of a mind wavering between light and darkness, but I think the film spends a bit too much time on Brian's unraveling during the course of the sessions, without really giving the work its full due.

Then again, while I can criticize the scene of Brian "feeling out the vibes" during the "SMiLE" session as being a little sluggish, Pohlad does make it a very heartbreaking contrast between Brian as the man in charge; so I suppose it's a toss-up.

the film never explicitly states that that was the character's first LSD experience, in fact it's hinted at in the line: "I took LSD... and then I took it again."

from 'The Wilson Project': Finally he came out w/ Melinda and got into the car. We met her and she was what I would call a Fairfax Jew w/ a nose job. Now a lil older, a little wrinkled, she was selling cars and doing quite well.

The arrangements for The Moody Blues' concert were simple. Usher and his wife were to drive down to Brian's beach house where they would meet Dr. Landy, his companion Alexandra Morgan and Brian and they would then be chauffer driven to the concert by Scott Steinberg in one of his limousines.

Accompanying Brian and Usher in the limo were Steinberg (the driver/Landy aide), his date (Monica) and of course, Usher's wife Sue.

For narrative purposes, the film just has Brian, Melinda, and Dr. Landy at the concert.

I think The Wilson Project could make a great dramatic movie itself.

I thought the most important thing was that TRUCK! Because, you know, it was proof that this was a crap movie!

Dano makes a greater attempt to look like Brian and have the same facial movements and body gestures. Cusack realistically plays someone who has Brian Wilson's biography and mentality but there are very few similarities to Brian's physical presence or voice. Cusack might have given the greater performance but it is "based on Brian Wilson" rather than an embodiment of Brian, whereas Dano occupies the body but perhaps goes less deep into the character; more like an impersonation, if you well. The other characters are really employing archetypes: Landy is a comedy villain, etc. None of this is a bad thing, and I enjoyed all these components.

Coupla other things:

- MOVIE: Brian is crossing Melrose when Melinda almost runs him over.
- REALITY: Brian was actually crossing Pico (acc'd to Melinda).

- MOVIE: Brian bought a Fleetwood.
- REALITY: Brian bough an El Dorado (again, acc'd to Melinda).
- ALTERNATE REALITY: I saw another story in which he allegedly didn't buy a Caddy but a Maserati (which might be why Landy asks Brian if he's sure he doesn't want a Maserati).

I believe I have heard multiple times that the car was any ugly Brown, but Brian loved it.

I still wanna know where Brian and Melinda *actually* were at the end of the movie, though. I've never been to the LA area, but from looking at the Google Maps street view, it sure as heck wasn't Kornblum and 119th (despite the signage, which could have been props), unless they temporarily re-built the overpass and re-landscaped just for the movie! And it's not mentioned in the commentary.

I still find it hard to believe that Brian played Love and Mercy to Melinda and acted like he just came up with it right there on the spot.  Bet it was something he had been working on.

The original plan was to have "Brian" play "One Kind Of Love" as the I-wrote-it-just-for-you song.

Murry telling Brian that he sold the rights to the Beach Boys songs during the making of Smiley Smile, but this didn't occur until 1969.

The movie made it sound like the group was recording Smiley Smile without Brian's involvement, wasn't he as invested in the making of the album as everyone else was?

MOVIE: Banana was a lemon beagle.
REALITY: Banana was a tri-colored beagle.

There are some good points here. But honestly, I don't think any of these factual errors are too big to enjoy the movie. The main thing is that it captured the emotion of what was going on in those periods.

I'm remembering hearing Bill Pohlad speak in Minneapolis (and in videos I've seen) when he spoke of the obsessive types who would pick this stuff apart.  He was smiling - well, maybe even chuckling a bit.  He's an artist.  He doesn't care about ridiculous, utterly unimportant detail, but he knew that there would be people here (and elsewhere, no doubt) worried about it.  After the amazing studio detail he provided and the intense work he did to make this film real, yet emotionally powerful and accurate, while telling a coherent story...um, no wonder he just smiled about the detail-obsessed.  I guess everyone needs their niche...  

mm. Agree.

It's funny that Pohlad realized this.  The devil is in the details and the fact that they were so authentic is what makes the movie so outstanding. There is a certain core of fans (I include myself) who wanted to see those studio scenes as faithful to the original as possible.  It is what makes this film so great. 

In being painstaking with those scenes, the rest of the film just flowed with cred.  Being true to the original matters.  Disney (Mencken and Ashman) worked hard at that with Beauty and the Beast scores, going back to the old 19th century styles, and it gave it real authenticity. 

Pohlad got it right.   ;)

The only factual error that annoys me is that when they watch the stars at night it's not real stars on a real sky. Those constellations don't exist.

I don't like the Kubrickesque sequence either, but other than that, great movie! Thumbs up.

I think I'm in the minority but the 2001 sequence really moved me.

I saw "Love & Mercy" 14 times in the cinema this summer. I looked forward to that sequence the last thirteen times. It's a head rush.

They were in the Griffith Planetarium, so technically they weren't supposed to be real stars. Doesn't explain the constellations not being real though haha.

As a star-gazer I get the problem.  We ALL have our little "things," including me.  I got really excited when I saw a film yesterday that actually showed Orion rising.  Then again, 99% of the films don't bother and we're supposed to be focused on the characters normally anyway, so I just let it go...I love this film so much, I'm not about to quibble with the artists!

To tell the truth, I said that a bit tongue in cheek... :angel:

Nothing beats seeing the Milky Way around Sagitarius and Scorpio in the Australian desert though. So far. :)

I remember reading that Neil Degrasse Tyson complained to James Cameron that the stars in the movie Titanic were all fake and not factually placed. Cameron, for a DVD re-release, not only put in the real placement of the stars, but placed them exactly where they would've been on the night the Titanic sank.

I'm a fellow stargazer here myself! I'm just starting to get into astro-photography, I may make a sandbox thread if anyone here has any interest discussing space subjects (upcoming meteor showers, eclipses, etc), as well as posting any photos.

The Sandbox would be the place, and I'm certainly interested.  Caught one of the S. Taurid Meteor Shower last Sat early morning and loved it.  Time to take the discussion elsewhere, I think.  Thanks Rab!  Maybe PM me when you put it up, if you feel like it?

(http://www.michael-fredrich.de/P8141129 Kopie1.jpg)

(http://www.michael-fredrich.de/P8141129 Kopie2.jpg)

This picture was taken and send to me by a friendly fellow traveler this year.

Need to jump in!

I Have not been out very much for years but have been an avid stargazer as well since childhood. Great idea to bring this topic to the sandbox...something else besides the Boys to check into with our online friends. Rab...good to see you are still here.

Anyone remember the big dud Halley in 1986? Went to Texas for that....fun trip but that had to be the biggest disappointment relating to astronomy in my lifetime. But then we got Hale -Bopp so it's all good.

Back to the film....the 2001 montage was one of the best sequences of the film.

Indeed. It made me feel like I was watching a masterpiece.

I respectfully disagree. :angel: To me, that was epigonic and seemed forced. Good for you that you were able to enjoy it! :)