The Smiley Smile Message Board

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/the-beach-boys-documentary-disney-unseen-footage-1234994454/

Nice to see David, Blondie, and (at least via audio) Ricky are part of this too!

I read in a different article that a soundtrack will be released as well, "featuring songs from the film" (but no mention of there being anything previously unreleased, to my knowledge)

I'm looking forward to seeing this. Especially interested in what unreleased footage they have used.

The documentary will go further than 1980, won't it? I'm askig because the new book will stop at the Washington show in 1980. I would love to get some new insights into the 90s and the 2012 reunion.

From what I can tell, it's being described as a "movie," vs. a series, so I assume it won't have the length to necessarily either go into too much depth and/or to cover the full entirety of their career? But I could be wrong, the info out today is minimal and I'm sure we'll know more soon enough.

Folks should be prepared for this to *not* be the thorough type of documentary people on this board would want.

Remember when John Stamos did that 2000 ABC miniseries movie about the Beach Boys and it stopped in like 1974?

Be prepared for the "coverage" scope so to speak on this new doc to be something more like that.

I'm honestly more intrigued with the soundtrack they're putting out.  Here's hoping they take a cue from the great Endless Harmony soundtrack and give us a lot of interesting unreleased content.  We certainly don't need another greatest hits rehash. 

^  Amen to that! 

That's too bad, HeyJude.  You'd think with (what I believe are) good directors like Frank Marshall and Thom Zimny, that would have been at least been a couple parts, maybe along the lines of Zimny's work on "Elvis: The Searcher."  It's unfortunate we won't ever get something Anthology-styled, though obviously it a) would have been difficult to negotiate relationship landmines within the group (even with IAG/Azoff involved, I guess) and b) would have to be somewhat condensed because of The Beach Boys' 60(+) years together(-ish) rather than 10(+ if counting Quarrymen years and their early lives) for The Beatles.

HeyJude, since Frank Marshall is involved, will it be something more similar to the all-too-brief-but-still-very-nice Bee Gees "How Can You Mend A Broken Heart?" documentary from 2020?

I hope its joyous, I hope its amazing and I hope it properly celebrates the greatest band of all time

Here's hoping the Soundtrack has a Dolby Atmos mix!

Considering they are not doing any type of physical release of the "soundtrack", I would expect that this will be a digital-only sort of comp, probably akin to a Spotify playlist of previously released stuff. If the stuff is pulled from something that already had an Atmos mix, then maybe you'd get that, but probably not. And either way, you would just go back to whatever the source originally was anyway.

I really think the most substantive thing coming out of all of the stuff coming out in the next weeks/months is the book. That looks excellent. The doc and the "soundtrack", well, let's just hope at least sticking *anything* on Disney+ will turn some new people on to the music.

Not an incredibly impressive trailer but it is just a trailer.
https://youtu.be/F_Rspu3Xoi4?feature=shared

FWIW, I *really* like the trailer. All the feels.

Same here!  It looks very promising and I'm sure it'll be on the Endless Harmony/An American Band level of greatness.

I wouldn't be so quick to assume.

Well, that's a poster....

(https://whatsondisneyplus.b-cdn.net/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/image003-71.png)

I can't not appreciate on some level some representation of the pudgy late 70s era for the band (though they subbed in a late 60s Dennis among the circa '79 Beach Boys), but it'll be a bit ironic when that era *isn't* covered in the doc.

They've apparently inadvertently gone for the vibe of one of those old 80s song books:

(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/51kRykBCfBL._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg)

I would not be surprised if the documentary concentrates on the same period as the book. Up to 1980. There is the Paradise Cove gathering but I expect little about 81-12 aside from the passing of Dennis and Carl, Kokomo and the C50.

As I mentioned before in another thread, remember that John Stamos 2000 TV miniseries that stopped in 1974?

It's a largely completely different team behind the film versus the book (though obviously both have the involvement of BRI/Iconic). They are of course happy to market both as they're coming out near each other. But I don't think the film or the book were made to "match" each other.

That trailer is so disappointing

Out of curiosity, I watched the official 'Get Back' trailer and this new 'Beach Boys' official trailer back-to-back. The former gave me goosebumps, and yeah I even teared up a little. The latter left me feeling almost zero emotion at all. The actual 'Get Back' movie left me speechless/excited/inspired after each segment. I am not at all getting those vibes from this Beach Boys doc.

I know they're two separate beasts, but I have to imagine that some creatively talented director could create something as...stimulating? Or breathtaking?...as 'Get Back' when it comes to The Beach Boys. But this looks like a complete run-of-the-mill, cookie-cutter, colored in all the spaces, documentary. No risk, seemingly no artistry or narrative that would get some buzz going. How can you create a documentary using an overused formula about a band that constantly broke the rules of formula?

Also very tired of seeing modern "artists" gush about this band in interviews in these documentaries. Like how insecure are we about the music that we need Ryan Tedder to explain to us the appeal of the music? Or why do we need to hear thoughts on band dynamics by the person who brought us the cerebral, apex-of-modern-intellectualism-song that is 'Water Slide'?

I wish the documentary all the best, and I hope I'm proven wrong about my initial reaction to the trailer. But good grief, this band's music deserves better.

I know what you mean but let’s wait and see-this could be great.  Obviously-it can’t be Get Back because that was a crazy revelatory experience using hours of footage no one suspected would ever surface….the equivalent would only occur in Beach Boys land if 12 unseen hours of the Boys working on Smile surfaced! So obviously you have to lower your expectations

I do agree that they are "two different beasts" - but I feel like it can't be impossible to create something on a 'Get Back' level, at least in regards to the narrative of the documentary. I guess I liken it to how 'Love & Mercy' could've been another 'Walk the Line' but instead it was done in a style that made it stand out so beautifully from other biopics. I would love to see that attention to narrative in a documentary about The Beach Boys.

I'm a big space nerd, so I watch a lot of documentaries on the Apollo program. Two documentaries from two different eras come to mind; 'For All Mankind' (from 1989), and the recent 'Apollo 11'. 'Apollo 11' is like the 'Get Back' of space films because the creators unearthed vintage IMAX-level quality film of the Apollo 11 launch. But 'For All Mankind' uses grainy/shaky footage and is almost just as impactful because it was created in a way that shows it as art and not an extended 60 minutes informative piece (which this Beach Boys documentary seems to be).

Anywho, sorry for the rambling haha. I do agree that we need to wait and see. We could be pleasantly surprised.

Snap! Between this and The Beach Boys, we’re 60s tragics obviously. 👍

I don't know if "Get Back" is something worth holding up to any potential BB doc.

What I do think is that a great BB doc could *absolutely* be as emotionally affecting, and perhaps more so, than "Get Back." The story is such a huge, sprawling, epic thing.

And I don't even think it would need like 8 parts or anything.

I think three or four 90-120 minute parts, so something in the 5-6 hour range, would effectively tell the story and allow everything to be covered and for the film to have both scope and an epic nature and emotion.

As I've been saying in a few threads, without going into too much detail, I would just say fans should not set their expectations too high for this new doc. And I think the trailer kind of lines up with what I've been hearing and saying. It's not going to have the scope I think people would want, and I guess it remains to be seen how moving/emotional it might be. I think parts of the story are *unavoidably* emotional, and I think the Paradise Cove reunion will be emotional even if it's also awkward or weird.

Keep in mind that while the film is of course done with BRI/Iconic, the team making the doc is a different team from the folks who have been putting together the top-notch archival releases of the last 7-10 years (and beyond including "Smile Sessions", etc.). While the music/audio side of things has finally reached "what we've been asking for for decades" status, I think this film was done by a different group with a different prompt. I have no reason to doubt that *any* attempt at a documentary on the BBs, or *any* project for that matter, is not an easy undertaking. But I also think, at the end of the day, we might find some cool things in this new doc but also be going back to "Endless Harmony" to scratch the doc itch.

Was this the last opportunity to do a "Beatles Anthology" level doc on the band? I don't know. Maybe. I mean, there's enough banked interview footage that they could do an "Anthology" kind of thing even if all the guys were gone. I guess we'll have to see.

But, it's true that getting a Beach Boys *thing* on the front splash page of a streaming app like Disney+ with a hundred million subscribers (or whatever it is) will result in some good in turning people on to the music.

Right?! What I'd give to be laying on a Florida beach listening to 'I Get Around' on the radio watching a Saturn V take off ;D

Tickets for The Beach Boys: Imax Live Experience Featuring Q&A with Filmmakers and Special Guests on Tuesday, May 21, Available Now

Here are the cities (no Atlanta, alas):

* AMC Lincoln Square, NY
* Regal Houston Marq*E, Houston, TX
* AMC Northpark, Dallas, TX
* AMC Boston Commons, Boston, MA
* AMC Metreon, San Francisco, CA
* AMC Tyson’s Corner, Washington, DC
* AMC Thoroughbred, Nashville, TN
* AMC Highlands, Denver, CO
* Regal City North, Chicago, IL
* AMC Mission Valley, San Diego, CA
* AMC Woodlands Square, Oldsmar, FL
* AMC Rolling Hills, Torrance, CA

More here:
https://press.disneyplus.com/news/disney-plus-the-beach-boys-imax-special-advance-screening

Hopefully this will wind up as bonus material on a Bluray/DVD release....

I have to laugh about all these documentaries that have current bands raving about (take your pick of legendary 60s bands), like they're a big influence on (name current popular band).
We really need a documentary that is the Beach Boys BY the Beach Boys. I don't want to hear from outsiders, unless it's someone like Fred Vail, Van Dyke Parks, or the children of the BB's.
We're never gonna get a BB's documentary that goes beyond surf, sun, cars and girls, and Pet Sounds/Smile.
But I hope I'm wrong.

Tickets for “The Beach Boys: Imax® Live Experience” Featuring Q&A with Filmmakers and Special Guests on Tuesday, May 21, Available Now


https://press.disneyplus.com/news/disney-plus-the-beach-boys-imax-special-advance-screening?



(https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/unknown_b62733d0.jpeg?region=0,0,422,625)

Al Jardine spills the beans again:

“There is some really wonderful footage of our performing,” Jardine said. “But unfortunately, Carl and Dennis are gone, so you don’t have their point of view. You have the narrative, according to Mike Love, and you have me in there somewhere in between, going, uh-hmm, sure. The truth is, we didn’t have enough content the way I would have liked to have done it. The producer did what he could, with what he had.”

https://www.mauinews.com/news/local-news/2024/05/beach-boys-cofounder-reflects-on-career-future/

I'm sure they're rushing to make a new poster for the documentary so they can put that Al quote on it.

Doc is 1 hour, 53 minutes:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GNAmOtUbcAAK0ok?format=jpg&name=large)

I'm withholding a lot of opinions for now because it hasn't been streamed yet, but if Al is correct in his words and this film is the narrative according to Mike Love, is that really what fans have been waiting for, or is that what fans can already get from various sources and outlets? We've already seen and heard the narrative according to Mike, and part of that was the "official" bio-pic "An American Family" produced by John Stamos that ran on ABC back in 2000, which was a complete farce.

Side note - From the same interview, Al said this: "Later in life, Brian and I went back on the road together. He loved it. He called me, ‘come out and join me.’ Neither of us were working with Mike (Love) anymore. It was a natural fit.”

He loved it. So much for a miserable Brian being forced to tour all those years, as we were told in another "narrative" that wasn't factual.

I don’t think I have read much to indicate ‘Endless Harmony’ being knocked off its perch as the definitive Beach Boys documentary to be honest.

Do we know if Al actually saw the finished product? It's not uncommon that the artists only see the actual movie at the premiere and before that only get to watch some snippets.

It's certainly unknown precisely which cut he has seen. But I have to say, his comments about the film make sense in light of the things I've heard about the film over the past weeks and months.

I think the filmmakers (remember, a totally different team of course than the people who work on the audio/music/boxed set releases) ran into some of the common pitfalls that occur when working with the Beach Boys/BRI political apparatus (even now with Iconic involved as well), and there was probably a point at which they had to just finish the thing and get it out the door and done. That might be part of why the thing cuts off in 1974.

I also suspect perhaps part of what Al is talking about in that interview is the likely lack of ability of the filmmakers to do much of any substantive new interviews with Brian.

Ya I'm 99% sure this doc goes up to present day.  Otherwise 1974 is such a slap in the face to fans, like wtf!?

I haven't seen the film, so I can't say anything with 100% certainty. I think it's quite possible key events from the later years are covered very briefly via some sort of epilogue or on-screen text or something.

But you're not going to see post-1974 covered in any detail. Certainly you're not going to see detailed discussion of Dennis' demise, the Landy situation, Carl's death, the 1998 splintering, the 2012 reunion, etc. As far as I'm aware.

In all honesty, the part of that interview that caught and held my attention were comments about new music from Al:

Jardine has four new songs that he hopes to release soon. “One is a beautiful song about a soldier going off to war. Neil Young is singing on it with me. He’s the soldier. I want to get it out pretty soon before we go to war. Then there’s another song called ‘Islands in the Sun,’ which is my follow up to ‘Kokomo.’ I invited Mike to be on it several times, and neither time did he show any interest. I came up with a hell of a song. It’s all about drifting among the islands and the Caribbean and losing oneself. I’ve got Bruce (Johnston) and my son Matt and I singing the Beach Boys’ harmonies. It sounds just like the real thing.

I know Al's productivity (or lack thereof) can be something of a joke among some fans, but I would be more excited for a new Al Jardine EP featuring Neil Young & Bruce Johnston than ANOTHER documentary about The Beach Boys.

I had the same reaction -- I too hope he can get these songs out in months and not years.

I'd love for Al to get another album or even EP out; anything but "Waves of Love."

But he has been talking about the Neil Young "soldier" track for probably over a decade, and "Islands in the Sun" has been a title floating around for decades as well (not sure how often Al has personally mentioned that one).

Al has tons of stuff in his vaults. He has enough material for another album, easily. He just has his thing about taking a zillion years to finish anything. He needs an outside producer to come in and tell him what to do, both in terms of culling old material and doing any new recording.

Hey Jude's memory is accurate. From January 21, 2011, when Al talked to me.......

https://medium.com/@jeremylr/persistence-pays-off-beach-boy-al-jardine-spills-the-beans-on-a-postcard-from-california-and-62cc15b9f8e6?sk=53eade62cec8bddeb4b1599b05f0f956
Persistence Pays Off: Beach Boy Al Jardine Spills the Beans on 'SMiLE' and 'A Postcard from California'


Did you record any songs for "A Postcard from California" that did not make the final track listing?

One that immediately comes to mind is a very poignant ballad I wrote called "My Plane Leaves Tomorrow." I may have originally published it via Al Jardine Music as "Au Revoir," the French word for "until we meet again" or "goodbye."

It's about a young guy who joins the military, and then he goes, "I'm not sure why I joined, but I had nothing else to do with my life," which is probably the story of half the guys serving our great nation. The young soldier feels like, 'Jeez, I'm out here fighting, I'm kinda afraid to die, but don't say goodbye to me 'cause I'm coming home.' I really like it.

I adapted "My Plane Leaves Tomorrow" to an old folk song standard called "All My Trials" [Author's Note: Nashville Songwriters Hall of Fame member Mickey Newbury shrewdly transposed a verse from "All My Trials" into "An American Trilogy" in 1971, which Elvis Presley brought to worldwide attention during his historic Aloha from Hawaii satellite telecast].

Neil Young has a prominent vocal on it and does a beautiful job. He sings at a little higher pitch with that lonely-sounding voice of his. In fact, the chorus of "au revoir, don't say goodbye" is where you'll hear Neil. He put a whole day's work into that song and is such a generous guy. I'm still trying to get the darn song finished. It's pretty darn close, but my extensive touring with Brian and just life in general have interrupted my plans.

I shouldn't be surprised at the notion of Al talking about "new" songs that have been in the works for years. I just hope that these projects don't continue to collect digital dust (so to speak) until the principal collaborators have shed their mortal coil. I'd like to celebrate the achievements (and the arguably less successful experiments) of these artists while they're living and breathing as opposed to looking back and asking myself "what could have been"

I'm the biggest Al fan around, but the slow pace on getting music is done is on him much more than scheduling or logistics. He's had a full-service, professional studio mere *steps* from his front door for about 45 years now!

As I've often said, I don't think he has been wholly unproductive. I suspect there are DOZENS AND DOZENS of songs he has worked on over all those years, and I'm sure a number of them are "finished enough" to release. A few have trickled out over the years, like that "Crumple Car." Some of them, like "Crumple Car", are slight and probably not worth putting on an album. But I'm sure he has a good album or two that could be compiled without even doing any new recording, or very minimal. If he got a producer in there to make it happen somehow, I think that would work.

But the guy is impossible to figure out. He has *re-released* "A Postcard from California" multiple times, yet has *sat on* outtakes from him that he could have included, plus alternate versions. There's studio footage of Brian singing verses on "A Postcard from California", and that version has never been released.

I'm not as big on more cover versions from Al, but ironically the re-make of "California Dreamin" he put on the second version of "Postcards" is a pretty good re-imagining of the song. So I wouldn't mind more stuff *like that.*

The Beach Boys Hold ‘Family Reunion’ at ‘Surfin’ Safari’ Spot in Clip From Band’s Documentary
Director Frank Marshall brings Brian Wilson, Mike Love, Al Jardine, and more back to Paradise Cove in this exclusive excerpt from The Beach Boys


(https://www.rollingstone.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/BBs.jpg?w=1581&h=1054&crop=1)



https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/the-beach-boys-family-reunion-documentary-clip-1235021836/?

Here's the direct YouTube link to this little video clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_74NLBJDMc&t=51s


Al mentioned in a Q&A on one of his recent cruise gigs that the filmmakers didn't even want them to do any playing/singing, and he had to convince them to let him have a guitar on hand just in case they might want to sing together. Subsequently, several have mentioned that they sang a few songs together during this meet-up.

But it might be worth pondering the question, what if the filmmakers kept to their original idea of just making this essentially a "photo op" situation in the documentary? Wouldn't it be kind of nuts if they didn't even include any of the songs from that day in the final documentary? It would be nuts.....right?

I'm trying to wrap my head around a filmmaker having the gall to tell any of the Beach Boys that they can't sing or play music together. And yes I understand that there are rules and timelines and equipment considerations and yada yada having to do with filming a scene like this, but good golly it's The Beach Boys, figure it out. If the music sucks, then don't put it in your little film, but let The Beach Boys do what they want to do.

I guess I find it hard to believe that if this were Paul and Ringo, that Paul would have to stoop to begging a director to let him take a guitar onto the set for a possible jam session. It just sounds absurd.

In the new beach reunion, it almost looks like the guys are toasting with glasses of water.   Guess no one ever told them that was bad luck!

Bad luck? What could happen to these guys now? One of them dies? One decides to sue another? They record a reunion album that nobody buys?

Hey, I don't make the rules.  :lol

"U.S. Air Force protocol, though, steers clear of toasting with water unless under extreme circumstances, such as being a prisoner of war. Toasting with water is similarly a no-no in the U.S. Navy. Military officials frown on it with Naval folklore claiming that drinking water during a toast leads to a watery grave..."
https://people.howstuffworks.com/why-is-it-bad-luck-to-toast-with-empty-glass.htm

Maybe Mike forgot to bring along some cans of Kokomojito.

(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/352487599_1457635981716503_8572226416797592247_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=BAkNUWno2LEQ7kNvgFcg2YG&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=00_AYB39Qk3CZTWm0aVakNc7m7DDH5z4V-YLyA9hZ82W4DmMg&oe=664D37ED)

I'm curious what the doc soundtrack will consist of.  Anyone have an inkling of a tracklist?

Considering they haven't announced anything and the doc is a week away, I would think the most likely scenario is just what essentially amounts to a Spotify playlist. I don't anticipate new/unreleased tracks. I would assume some shorter variation of "Sounds of Summer."

Mentioned near the bottom of the RS article.

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/the-beach-boys-family-reunion-documentary-clip-1235021836/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3CsgCFGK9RkynqUbjnZo1neD8IDFY0 (https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/the-beach-boys-family-reunion-documentary-clip-1235021836/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3CsgCFGK9RkynqUbjnZo1neD8IDFY0THJdgrGFIb0RyFKh1Jw3dz_d8eE_aem_AaRauv9S13d1bg0uWA_6LCb6o5Ir-hL8KBFxRMLTE9O3Pa_imqzfvNpF33mftxnGLEwb26mLl5R95pkcLcyOOAg6)

Drinking is illegal on the beach. What a way to finish the documentary. A repeat of the ‘Failure To Surf’ Brian arrest…but with all 5 of them. 😉

You can get alcoholic drinks at the Paradise Cove restaurant, which is where they're sitting (outside dining area)..

Could be glasses of vodka... :lol :hat

I guess Frank Marshall likes Duophonic!

The Beach Boys’ Mike Love & Bruce Johnston Hint At Things To Come | This Morning

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w0PNGr1TUaU

Is the date of the Paradise Cove get together known?

Apparently September 2023.

Might be related to Disney, but who knows.

Probably over-analyzing the beverage situation. But, either way, as I've mentioned in the past, I think folks should be prepared to *not* get much info or footage from that Paradise Cove reunion. I think that one-minute featurette may be more of an insight into that gathering than what you see in the actual documentary.

I put these "hints" by Mike & Bruce in the same bag as Brian's R&R album.

It’s the 2024 version of Mike saying for years “Never say never.”

I am very disappointed that posters on other sites are talking up a possibility of new material and any kind of ‘Live’ event with Brian. The recent conservatorship ruling saying he is free to continue with music projects is one thing. Whether he is able to go to a studio and work with anyone who may put him under any duress has, under my understanding, been taken out of his hands. (thank goodness). Melinda acted as his backstop in the past and now others will do the same.

Enjoy the clips of the Paradise Cove reunion. Maybe this IMAX thing might be a group Q&A from his house, but please…no more. Leave him be. Enough is enough.

 Right. Also, more than enough is more than enough.

We don't know what Brian is like on a day to day basis, we don't know how much Mike knows about Brian's shape (e.g. does he know more than us?), and we don't know how much Mike has been in contact with Brian in the last six months or more. So we have no idea how possible or ridiculously pie in the sky Mike's suggestions are as far as future things concerning Brian.

I dunno; I'd rather hear Mike saying he hopes he can work with Brian again (however unlikely that is, and however much he may have *not* actually put effort into doing so in recent years/decades) than the alternative of interviews where Mike just keeps mentioning all the drugs and drinking the Wilson brothers did.

Really, considering how dysfunctional the band and its members have intermittently been for many, many decades, and how some members have often not spoken particularly sympathetically about some other members, I think everything that has gone down in terms of public comments from band members over the last six months with all the turmoil with Brian, I think we've *so far* seen them show some restraint, and they've either been appropriately vague and supportive, or have just shut the f**k up about it.

I was not a big fan of how Mike tended to speak about Carl's illness, both during and especially after the fact. He never did or said anything particularly harsh, but I didn't like how he spoke about it (I won't digress into that right now), so I'm hoping we won't see Mike (or anybody else for that matter) put his foot in his mouth talking about Brian in the future.

These guys are all 200 years old at this point, yet this is new territory for them a bit.

Few things in the world would delight me more than the miracle of a new Brian-Mike good song, sang by the remaining Beach Boys. But, sadly, I don't think it will ever happen, now. And, of course, these guys have given us way more than was to be expected. Particularly Brian, of course.
Yes, more than enough is more than enough, but, on the other hand, in this case hoping (humbly, not expecting anything) costs nothing.

I guess the documentary premiere was tonight (Tues) in L.A.?
Carnie has photos on her Instagram (including one of Brian and Marilyn together):
https://www.instagram.com/carnie68/

(https://i.ibb.co/Kh21NRs/IMG-3476.jpg)

Brian and Marilyn at tonight’s premiere.

(https://i.ibb.co/kXV4gXF/IMG-3475.jpg)

To get them together at Paradise  Cove and not use it seems very odd.

Can the BB photo historians out there point to the last time, if ever, *this* particular grouping of Beach Boys was ever photographed? How many photos are out there with Blondie *and* Bruce?

(https://scontent-lga3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/443718427_864317565736016_3289413064641061459_n.jpg?_nc_cat=107&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=VP3qU5AGXdcQ7kNvgGNeH7F&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-2.xx&oh=00_AYC9n-1rhw4xH6pZij8tOSNacW4jNKXE9GU-sGeb2fMlgw&oe=6653B948)

And hey, I prefer the clean-shaven Mike without the goofy mustache of recent years, so, that's something I guess.

Well, even if the documentary doesn't cut it for some of us, we can be entertained by a moderately surly Al Jardine during the Q&A:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7SZc7BApKI&t=2s

So, any evaluations? I would love to hear how the documentary was.

Al did seem a little passive aggressive in that first question, did I hear it right that he got in a dig about them playing instruments related to the topic mentioned here earlier?

Just a nit-pick, Mike tells the story about the car sounds on 409 as Dennis revving up his 409 and driving down their street while Brian recorded it on his reel to reel...I thought that was Gary Usher revving up and driving his Chevy with a 348 engine, because the 409 had just come onto the market and they wanted one but couldn't afford it yet. Just a nit-pick there, but I don't think it was Dennis or his car, and it wasn't a 409 Chevy on that tape.

But... is it really so hard to ask shorter questions which actually make sense? "I'll pretend to have understood what you said', indeed Al!

Very moving message from Carnie on Instagram:

https://www.instagram.com/p/C7QlQr9O9XF/

Ambha took this picture.

Haven't seen any reviews yet, but my expectations are low.  If it's aimed at the Disney Plus audience, this likely isn't going to be any sort of "deep dive" aimed at the sort of people who read this board.  And I understand that.  Irving Azoff's Iconic invested a lot of money in taking a stake in BRI/The Beach Boys, and they're now monetizing in mass-market products like this documentry.  They're casting a wide net, so I assume the idea is to tell the BB story in a very straightforward to a new audience.  And that's fine, but I'd be truly shocked if they unearthed anything in the vaults that's going to truly blow us away (e.g., previously unseen/unheard footage of the Smile sessions or something like that)

If you read that interview Al gave a few weeks ago where he didn't seem too hot on the documentary, and then see his surliness here, I think a potential idea of Al's opinion of this documentary project may become a bit clearer.

Al also a bit surly on the press junket, complaining in this interview right to Marshall's face that they cut the Paradise Cove singing out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsnRgc_Dvk8

It was a rhetorical question, Al's opinion is pretty clear! Yes I was referring specifically to the interview in that Maui news article where Al also said the line about the project being the narrative according to Mike, so yes he doesn't seem as keen about this film as the producers and backers probably hoped he would be. I will say there is a difference between saying something in a print interview and saying something when the guy who made the editing decisions is right there in front of you, so kudos to Al for speaking up "live" as he did.

Al's still out there, promoting his ass off for this film. He's got some brand/band loyalty I guess.

Poor Al, always ending up marginalized, confused as to how things ended up the way they did.

I guess we'd have to see more of this Paradise Cove footage to know for sure, but unless the singing and everything was like the most awful trainwreck of all time, I can't imagine why they wouldn't put even a bit of it in there.

(https://i.imgur.com/hjWeYOp.png)

Just want to take a moment to appreciate what amazing people these two are, and what an amazing moment that was captured at the premiere^. After all they have both been through, through the decades, they are still able to love and appreciate one another.

The photo(s) above make me sad in a way - just as it clearly shows all that time that has gone by. It still floors me how Brian has been able to beat all the odds and fight through the demons all these years later. I hear that Brian has a heart of gold, I think it's truly apparent in the way that most of his friends, band, and family interact with him and love him.

Al makes his case again at about the 55 sec mark on what’s been left out.

https://youtu.be/dEeSkxz_7cI?si=mvd2Hxq3kf6H5-Yy

Always like it when Dave gets a spot in front of a camera. So eloquent and humble. I haven’t seen Carrie for some time and such a shame if they have parted. We never did hear the outcome of Dave’s arrest a few years back but I hope they are both doing ok.

https://youtu.be/H4dSzNrh_pA?si=Cpq76Z9HPuGavax7

Honestly, by Beach Boys standards Al is pretty chill here.  :lol

I actually like this interview. Nothing groundbreaking, sure, but it's nice to see Mike and Al together here talking about the early days.

In regards to the cutting room floor footage Al mentioned, I'm hoping we will get a Blu-ray/DVD release with a bunch of bonus features.  🤞🤞🤞

Yeah, I don't get it.  If they sang beautifully, great!  Even if they were completely off key, wouldn't that be poignant too, i.e., that they're alive and singing just for the hell of it??  

I'm not surprised about Al's frustration with the documentary.
Frank Marshall also directed the Bee Gees documentary (The Bee Gees : How Can You Men a Broken Heart), released in 2020, and it was the exact same deal : way too short. It stopped after the disco era and plenty of great material was not in the film. Very frustrating for the fans.

I've been watching a bunch of the red carpet interviews, press junket interviews, etc. with the guys and Frank Marshall.

Frank Marshall has produced ten billion tentpole blockbuster movies. He and his wife (Kathleen Kennedy) have both produced a zillion all-time box office smashes, and they're both surely rich beyond all belief.

Marshall's actual *director* resume is much less impressive. He's done a few action/drama/horror films, and a few documentaries.

But more to the point, in watching the guy and listening to him, he seems like a rich old dude you'd see in a premium box at a Mike "Beach Boys" show at a winery. He's the same age as the BBs (Carl's age to be specific), and in every interview he talks about how he grew up listening to Dick Dale, etc., had his own failed band, and so on. Whatever, but I get the vibe that Frank Marshall does not regularly spin "Carl and the Passions" or "Holland", and I wouldn't be surprised if he couldn't name a song from the era between "Sail on Sailor" and "Kokomo."

I'll cut the red carpet interviews a bit of slack because it was apparently hooked into the "Visit California" organization, so everybody just kept blathering on and on about *CALIFORNIA*. "This is really the story of California." No, stop it. You're not Timothy White. Yes, obviously California is a part of the story and sometimes it even works to kind of weave some themes through the band's story.

Everybody seems in polite zombie mode promoting this thing. I watched one of the press junket interviews with Al, and he clearly is trying to not explicitly just be extra cynical and grumpy about the doc, but he's sitting there at 81 years old and being asked "What's your favorite Beach Boys song?" And he's got nothing. Like, he can barely muster a few obvious titles. I'm not saying he can't name them all. He'll talk about "Santa Ana Winds" and "Holland" if you ask him. But this whole thing is a bit like the Twilight Zone. There's a weird absurdity to it that's fascinating for not all the right reasons.

Not trying to be overly dramatic; we'll all survive and hopefully soon enough we'll be back to the next archival music release.

And hey everybody, 8mm home movies at least, right?

Well, Arachnophobia was cool.
Congo not so much.

Soundtrack is out.  Nothing new or previously unreleased though...😴

Soundtrack album "cover":

(http://filmmusicreporter.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/vs-53.jpeg)

"Soundtrack" Track Listing: (As mentioned awhile back, this is essentially a Spotify playlist, heavy on Sounds of Summer of course, plus the awful new track from the Disney guy):

1. Don’t Go Near the Water (A Cappella) (2:36)
2. Fun, Fun, Fun (Live/Remastered 2000) (3:13)
3. Their Hearts Were Full of Spring (Demo / Mono / Remastered 2013) (2:37)
4. Surfin’ (With Session Intro/Mono/Remastered 2013) (2:26)
5. Surfin’ Safari (Original Long Version / Mono / Remastered 2013) (2:17)
6. Surfin’ U.S.A. (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:27)
7. Little Deuce Coupe (1:40)
8. Surfer Girl (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:28)
9. In My Room (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:17)
10. Please Let Me Wonder (2007 Stereo Mix/Remastered 2012) (2:48)
11. Don’t Worry Baby (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:51)
12. Girl Don’t Tell Me (Remastered 2012) (2:20)
13. Do You Wanna Dance? (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:34)
14. I Get Around (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:13)
15. Help Me, Rhonda (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:48)
16. California Girls (Mono / Remastered 2001) (2:46)
17. Wouldn’t It Be Nice (Remastered 2012) (2:33)
18. God Only Knows (Remastered 1996) (2:55)
19. Good Vibrations (2021 Stereo Mix) (3:43)
20. You’re Welcome (2011 Smile Version) (1:07)
21. Vegetables (Remastered 2012) (2:10)
22. I Can Hear Music (2:36)
23. Forever (2:44)
24. Long Promised Road (3:32)
25. Don’t Go Near the Water (Remastered 2009) (2:40)
26. Here She Comes (2022 Mix) (5:10)
27. Wild Honey (Live at Carnegie Hall) (5:38)
28. California Saga (Big Sur) (Remastered 2000) (2:56)
29. Surfin’ U.S.A. (Live) (2:48)
30. Don’t Worry Baby (Live) (3:12)
31. Good Vibrations (Live) (4:48)
32. Wouldn’t It Be Nice (Live) (2:43)
33. A Day in the Life of a Tree (Track & Backing Vocals) (2:56)
34. Darlin’ (2021 Stereo Mix) (2:14)
35. Baby Blue Bathing Suit (Bonus Track) – Stephen Sanchez (3:15)

http://filmmusicreporter.com/2024/05/23/soundtrack-album-for-disney-documentary-the-beach-boys-to-be-released/

What the hell is that?  :o

Pretty good tracklisting imo. It's certainly not your typical best of and I think newcomers will be pleasantly surprised. Nothing new for the hardcore fans but that's probably to be expected after all the rare stuff we got during the last years and - may I say - decades.



Mike Love talks new documentary, 'The Beach Boys'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhsXlOwaTfo&pp=ygUKYmVhY2ggYm95cw%3D%3D

Al seems a little annoyed by much of the proceedings not to mention the finished product itself, and I feel him.
to be fair: "What's your favorite Beach Boys song?" is such a lame question, but he comes right out with California Girls and explains why (at 1:45 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG3dub9aunM)

of course I'm looking forward to watching but many aspects, from the art they chose to the non-BBs track on the soundtrack, are just awful moves in my opinion.

Now, I'm no prude, not at all, but... BABY BLUE BATHING SUIT?

REALLY ????

Sure it is not a Stamos/McGrath collaboration? 

F.M.? Based on what I saw/heard, I'd pleasantly surprised if he could name 4 Beach Boys songs if suddenly asked... maybe 3.
And yes, it's all weirdly absurd, and absurdly weird, like everything in the current millennium.

Sorry Mike, but that first question about Stamos made me close the browser.

I get it, it's not easy to find someone who is both deeply knowledgeable about the band and also a good director.

But I think they could have picked someone who "gets it" more than Marshall. I don't need the director to know the lyrics to "Stevie" and "That Special Feeling".

Really, they should have paired a good director who gets it with Alan Boyd and Howie Edelson. Boyd did a good job of telling the story in 1998. Would have been interesting to see what Boyd could have come up with, with the budget that Marshall was given.

In that Q&A before the IMAX screening, they literally asked Marshall why he did the film, and he essentially had no answer. He rattled off something about the music being timeless. I cut these events and promotions plenty of slack in having to offer soundbites and platitudes, but really a lot of the stuff these people have to say, it sounds less sincere and convincing than Patrick Duffy's script for the "25th Anniversary" special.

I suspect Marshall's answer is "they offered the gig and I took it; I'm bored".

It's true; doing a documentary on a well know musical act is not easy. Even Martin Scorsese's Harrison documentary was kind of lackluster.

I might be the only one here who likes the Stephen Sanchez song (and I happen to be a fan of his anyway ).

Just a reminder of how little I have in common with the BB fandom these days lol

you can like the song and the singer but it still has no place on a Beach Boys 60th anniversary documentary soundtrack. smfh

We’ll just watched it here in NZ. 7pm drop time so very lucky.
Actually, I was pleasantly surprised. Finally a documentary that chronologically explains the Al, David, Al, Glen, Bruce coming and goings with correct video and pictures.
While I hope we will eventually see more Paradise Cove footage. What you get is perfect for THIS project. Between Mike talking about Brian, then cutting to Paradise Cove….Have a tissue ready. 🥲

The film comes across as if funding was cut off 30% into production and they decided to go ahead and try to finish it and release it anyway.

One can't help but find elements of the story and some interview clips affecting. But as a film, that was stunningly rushed and abbreviated. The film doesn't really cut off in 1974 so much as it mostly stops in like 1967 and then speed runs through 1974 in the last 10 minutes or so. 

It's like they were halfway through editing and were given 24 hours to finish it.  How bizarre. 

I am glad if the documentary is decent. Personally, I am not spending money on Disney, the butcherers of Star Wars. Have no sympathy for the project however, for how F. M. treated freakin' AL JARDINE, for the Paradise Cove "problem", and for Baby Blue Bathing Suit. More than enough is more than enough. And I think we don't need yet another narrative where the Beach Boys did nothing important after 1966/1967.

Just listened to BBBS (for some reason, I like this acronym a lot). I have to agree with AGD on this... speaking very politely, abysmal.

From The Guardian review -

(At one fantastic juncture, Love posits the theory that Brian Wilson’s mental problems would have been lessened had people realised that there was at least one other genius in the band, namely Mike Love.)

Does seem to be alot of Mike going *What about me/us!" Could have done without Kokomo over the credits too

Pretty nice sounding stereo mix of Surfin' Safari in the documentary.

Does anyone know the year and source of the archival interviews where Brian's voice is at its most youthful?

I dunno,  but it sure sounded like a lot of the audio interview clips were off speed, running too fast. 

Far from the biggest issue,  but why does the copy of the 1980 DC show they used at the end for "Darlin'" look and sound like they took an old VHS rip off of YouTube?  There's a pristine Japanese DVD of it they could have used. 

I like him too. Viral song hit and the whole album is pretty good.


But, I definitely agree with bossaroo. Including it is a real headscratcher. Corporate buying incentive for knewbies I guess.

It's ok for what it is, it wasn't designed to be a dig deep documentary. It was well produced and the music sounded great, loved the new interviews too. But it seemed like it rushed the last 1/2 hour or so, from the 60's to the end. Too bad it didn't end in 1980, but just very rushed. But I enjoyed what there was of it.

Amen!

"Kokomo" is linked with the film Cocktail, which was released by Disney's Buena Vista / Touchstone pictures. No way Disney's not going to include it in the doc. The credits are the perfect place.

My question is what's the deal with ADITLOAT being played over the Paradise Cove footage?

Just watched. It’s what I was expecting. Definitely a mixed bag and then some. Disappointment is to be expected when you’re a hard-core Beach Boys fan. Definitely not definitive, but whatever. This is what happens when you match Disney with a Director who probably is not a true beach boys fan. We need people like Alan Boyd, Howie Edelson at the helm. This should’ve been like a 7 to 10 part series with each hour or two focusing on 4-5 years and stuff like that it would’ve been more Focused and direct in my opinion.
I’ll stick with the E! True Hollywood Story, The Endless Harmony Documentary, Brian Wilson Songwriter and Dennis Wilson The Real Beach Boy.

The SF Chronicle this morning aptly described the film as a "Cliffs Notes" version of Beach Boys history.  

I didn't hate the film.  It is what it is... a mostly sanitized,  mostly glossy, candy-colored promo film for the "Beach Boys" brand that is now majority owned by outside investors who intend to monetize this brand into perpetuity.

But I didn't love it.  Other than a bit of home-movie footage, there was nothing new here. Nada, zilch.

I guess the thing that bothered me most was omission of any sort of discussion of the deaths of Dennis and Carl.  On one level, I get it that if your goal is basically to make a glossy promo fiim, Dennis' tragic final act along with Carl's illness and death are kinda buzzkill.  Still, you torpedo the conceit that this is a documentary rather than a promo film when you make such a glaring omission.

Also, I thought it was strange that Smile was discussed in a weirdly anachronistic way with just pre-2004 clips of Brian, Mike, VDP and Carl discussing the topic.  Hell, if you're going to do that, at least put a note in the closing credits explaining that Brian revisited Smile to great success and the Smile box won a couple Grammies etc.

A couple of things I did like:
1. Seeing a few more seconds of that footage of 1970s Brian looking at the camera and hiding his face, now in color and including Marilyn.
2. Brian's smile at Paradise Cove when he greets Al.

Thoughts about Mike getting choked up in that interview near the end?

To be clear,  this isn't pedantic superfan nitpicking.  This was not good filmmaking or storytelling.  It was regressive and reductive on key topics (Smile, the group's feelings about the genius narrative,  etc.), and the pacing and coverage of post-1967 was the documentary film equivalent of someone rushing through the end of an awards show speech as the house orchestra starts playing music to edge you off the stage.

Really?!  :o

Yes, really.    

One could argue that the makers of this film tip their hand with respect to their values by omitting the tragedies of Dennis' and Carl's deaths while simultaneously devoting so much time to a different "tragedy"... i.e., Murry's ownership and sale of Sea of Tunes and the related aspect of Sea of Tunes' mistreatment of Mike Love.  Is that story really so terribly interesting and important to the legacy?  All parties concerned here are multi, multimillionaires, right?  Is it really so tragic that they're not even richer? The filmmakers think so, apparently, and that's perhaps the Rosetta Stone of understanding this film.

As I mentioned above, this isn't truly a documentary.  It's a promotional film posing as a documentary.  What's it promoting?  A brand called "The Beach Boys" which boils down to a collection of timeless songs created 1962-67 along with a "California dream" of sunny beaches, beautiful girls and fast cars.   I think it's pretty obvious what happened  here.  A couple years ago, Irving Azoff's Iconic bought a majority stake in BRI/The Beach Boys.  Azoff is an executive produer of this film.  He commissioned this film as re-introduction of a newly acquired asset.  This is business, not art.  

Nailed it. Al also answered the reason why they devoted that much to the Sea Of Tunes topic: It's the narrative according to Mike. Simple as that.

I confess that, based on all that has been said, I despise this documentary without having seen it. The omissions etc. are simply TOO glaring. And you don't need to wait for a weapon to strike you, to know it will hurt you.
I'll try to be clearer. The Beach Boys did not end in 1967 or so. Even talking only of their music, their history is really rich and complex, with many phases.
Imho these phases are:

Sun in the fun but not only: 1962-1965
Art pop: 1965-1966
Psychedelia: 1966-1967
Low-fi intimate pop with some rock: 1967-1971
Pop/rock/funky/country (and a bit of psychedelia with Mt. Vernon): 1972-1976
Avant-garde pop/rock: 1977
Retro: 1978-1996
Solo Brian: 1988-2021, and I could identify phases also in that, too
Short but excellent resurgence of the group: 2012

The Beach Boys do not need pandering, their eternal place in the History of Music is already secured. But somebody wants to reduce them to "Baby Blue Bathing Suit".

I am just amazed and disappointed that one of the landmark songs of the Beach Boys' career - if not the 70's overall - was not included on this soundtrack. And that's "Til I Die". Maybe Brian himself vetoed it as he did "Let Him Run Wild" on the '93 box set, but I'm absolutely shocked Til I Die isn't on the soundtrack, especially if the point is to 1. sell Beach Boys music to new generations and fans and 2. introduce new generations and fans to their music. It's one of the most unique and compelling recordings I've ever heard, and it should be on there for a wider audience to hear and experience.

I'd like to know what decision-making process was behind that song's exclusion. If it was Brian's call, it's disappointing but I can live with that. If including it would be too much of a "downer", if you know what I mean, I'd be righteously pissed off.

I just wish to agree with all written in this post. And Surf's Up didn't get full play either and isn't on the sound track. To me, the absence of these songs haunts the film.

The fact that some friends of Brian's and family members had shown some support for the film made me consider that their wish was to pay tribute to Brian. The words of The Wrecking Crew certainly did that. But the music - the most significant music - is surely the biggest compliment we could pay The Big Guy.

I want to see this lineup on tour.

(https://scontent-lga3-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/442496605_980518367030433_1905288124978080107_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=8y3m9r2AFlEQ7kNvgGsfXcD&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-2.xx&oh=00_AYBxkIZ0ry4RvH_-kdVJAfqAcC3K9xGdmwiiUSa8GsjeRw&oe=6657E701)

Few first thoughts about the docu.

Definitely a well made documentary, professional, a big improvement on the last Brian docu Long promised road. No complaints in quality department from me except the weird pitch problems with some of the interview voices; Brian sounded weird in atleast one clip. I’m especially glad the irrelevant celebrity talking heads were kept to a minimum. This too a big improvement from the typical BB docus. No head of Elton John appearing out nowhere to tell ”Brian is a genius!”

The obvious problem with the docu is the running time is too short to tell even the first half of the story in a comprehensive way – this is what explains the fact that the docu seems to cut short; there simply is no other way to do it in under 2 hours but to cut it short and of course the golden years of the 60’s need to have more time in a docu than the 70’s for example. This should have been a multiple part series. When you have an hour and 50 minutes you have to make tought decisons what to cut. All of us (or atleast most of us) here would like to watch a documentary where Brian explains for three hours what the ”cork” in ’Til I die really was about but it is not realistic to expect this to happen in a mainstream docu, and as sad as it is much stuff that should have been there has to be cut.

I think this was a good docu in that it got me thinking once again about the band. What this documentary especially reminded me is how the story of the Beach Boys is essentially a story of wasted potential. As sad as that is it is what it is. And the failure of the Smile project is the quintessential moment of this story of wasted potential. I understand this is a useless thing to say and nobody on this board of all people needs to be reminded of this but they should have finished it and gone where ever that road would have taken them. Loosing the best years of Dennis and Carl to drugs also a big part of the story of wasted potential...

I don’t agree why Mike gets so much criticism for how he has been should we say bitter, angry and frustrated about how he got screwed concerning the songwriting credits and royalties; if I had written songs with Brian Wilson including some genuine pop music classics and his dad had screwed me over about it, to put it mildly I would sue anyone anywhere to get right this wrong righted. This is not reason to criticise Mike. Mike like everyone has an ego, we hc fans now this, but some of it is perfectly understandable. He's probably traumatized about it which is why he brings it up so often. I understand maybe this topic would not be a very necessary thing in a docu like this especially since the credits have been corrected since and his part in creating songs was clearly represented. However, I think the reason why the director decided to include this in the docu is that he wanted to underline the unhealthy character of Murry.

The one plain thing this documentary told us about the reasons for the failure of Smile is that it was down to something happening in Brian’s life that made his professional life as the leader of the group unravel. Was it just the drugs and the mental problems those created? Was he literally so out of his mind on drugs he wasn’t able to literally physically and then mentally to actually do all the work required? This is what I was asking myself while watching. Also, it seems how what Mike has said in years past that in the end it was Brian’s choice alone to abandon the project probably is an accurate summary after all. All of us here know that there is a alot more to the story regarding details – though we dont have the complete picture either – but in the end I guess it really was just Brian’s decision. This brings the question that I cant answer; what happened to him?

I sometimes wonder what the boys privately talk about Smile to people they trust; it is obvious we have never gotten all the facts of what happened which is sad because that time is the part of the band that in many ways defined much of the story of the band. The Beautiful dreamer docu back in the day was worthless in explaining any of this and was just a generic promo piece. No books have really given us much except the official version and/or the hazy legend. I wish some serious A-level historian would tackle this subject and write a comprehensive history of the Smile project with new research in academic quality standard including doing multiple interviews again and again with those who were there and are still around to tell the story. And I am talking about serious academic level interviews to get every snippet of possible info to reveal all relevant details.

In general about the documentary I think Mike tearing up at the end was a symbolic detail that shows there is so much more to the story of the band and unfortunately you cannot fit much of that into a single documentary. Considering how old the members are and Brian is no longer capable of telling that story there will likely be much questions left unanswered (especially reagrding Smile).

Oh well, I think it was a good thought provoking documentary.

I used the word "anachronistic" to describe this documentary's treatment of "Smile" because the way it was treated wasn't all that different from how it was presented in "An American Band" from 40 freakin' years ago:
1976-era unhinged Brian Wilson talking about how unhinged he had been 10 years earlier... check.
Scrawny, poorly dressed, weirdo-phase Van Dyke Parks holding court in the Tower Records parking lot... check.
Misleading use of the "Good Vibrations" fire department film footage when Brian is talking about the "Fire" track sessions... check.
"Inside Pop" footage of Brian at piano doing Surf's Up... check.

There was no acknowledgment whatsoever that the legend of Smile as the greatest album never released grew exponentially over the decades and how the music was too damned briliiant to stay hidden.... and trickled out bit by bit on the BBs' own albums and on bootlegs... hell, Frank Holmes' Smile shop ended up on the freakin' cover for a mid-90s hardcover book on the subject of bootlegs... that's how iconic it was and is.  And yet where is Frank Holmes' artwork in this new documentary?  The Smile shop cover is an utterly iconic piece of Beach Boys lore... and yet it's a no-show in this film?   This was a movie made by people who don't quite "get it."   You can say that "Beautfiul Dreamer" was a promo film, but the story told by the likes of Vosse and Anderle differed significantly from the "crazy," "acid alliteration" narrative told by Mike Love and 1976-ish Brian Wilson.

 This documentary would have done more justice to subject of Smile if they had simply repackaged Capitol's promo interviews from 2011...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot7vCQisW_4
...  where Mark Linett hits the nail on the head on why the Smile legend had grown ("... because the music is so stunning")... and  Mike is full of praise for "Wonderful," "brilliant music, brilliant tracks" etc. and Bruce mentions Brian's description of a "teenage symphony to God" ... and how did *that* iconic phrase not make the cut in this documentary either??     Again, this was a film made by people who just don't get it.

I’m so looking forward to part 2 next year.  That will take us from 1980 to present and also cover the details and unfortunate tim8ngnofmthe deaths of Carl and Dennis. It will detail the Landry years and Brian’s emergence with the help of Melinda

In fact, 'Til I Die is far too sublime to ever be a downer...

Asking the "Baby Blue Bathing Suit" crowd to "get" SMiLE is far too much. I wonder if they really get California Girls, and in particukar WHY it's such a great song. Probably they don't.

This reminds me of a critique leveled at many fans of Bach music. Namely, they don't really love Bach, they just like generic Baroque music because it's so "classic", and they have no idea of what actually makes Bach great (i.e., he was groundbreaking, and his music is not just Barioque, it's universal). That is exactly the problem with the Beach Boys, and Brian Wilson.

I don't know where this would fit in best so I'll just put it here:


"We went blind": The Beach Boys' Al Jardine on recording 'Pet Sounds,' Beatles & Stones, favorite BB song & more

https://www.brooklynvegan.com/we-went-blind-the-beach-boys-al-jardine-on-recording-pet-sounds-beatles-stones-favorite-bb-song-more/?

The documentary is a ‘tasting plate’ for the viewer. Those that want to delve further into the group can now do so. Why anybody expected anything else with a 1.53 play time is beyond me.
If it was made and promoted with 6 episodes over 12 hours (which this group could easily fill), then everything could have been covered. The market however would have been negligible.

I'm not expecting in-depth analysis of, say, the role of Maureen Love's harp on Catch a Wave.
But, I'm sorry, Dennis' drowning death shouldn't be relegated to "deep dive" status. 

Endless Harmony covered 1961 to 1998 in 1hr48mins (less for the TV edit), and felt less rushed than this new doc.

Also, some of the best interview clips in this new thing are literally taken either from actual "Endless Harmony" 1998 interviews and/or from the raw interviews done for EH.

They should have just let Alan Boyd do a re-cut on EH.

On YouTube there is a video titled "The Beach Boys on Disney+: You Need a Mess To Help You Stand Alone". She's way blunter than me, and she HAS seen the documentary.

Agreed. There's also the fact that this was made for Disney streaming. The rough edges were always going to be sanded down.

All your points are good; I'll just highlight this one.

Adding to this: the story of the Beach Boys is also the story of a group that was and continues to be (sadly) never entirely in control of its own story. Or can even agree on what exactly that story is.

About SMiLE 1967's demise, the truth has been known since 1993 (liner notes in GV box): Brian had to can the project to save his own life. He was literally imploding.

TID is my favorite song by any composer, writer, band, artist, etc.

It is an opus in songwriting and highs be on the soundtrack.

The Stephen Desper alt mix is my favorite and has been my favorite song since I heard the air version in 1994.

Ouch! 😉

I think there are a lot of things that screwed the beach boys, especially in the long run, which is why we’re still talking about it to this day.  But there’s a few that stick out for me , First being capital records I feel ever since the Beatles came they Just put the beach boys on the back burner. 2nd was withdrawing from Monterey Festival. Third being the endless summer release yes it brought them back to the top but at what cost?

There are bigger,  more fundamental issues with the doc than simply being a "whitewash."

And again,  this also isn't about not pandering to hardcore fans. 

This was not a well-made doc. There are other "entry level" docs on a myriad of subjects that are done well. 

Recording Pet Sounds and competing with the Beatles made them go blind?
I was told it was something else that would make me go blind!

Also, 1h 53m is not so short if you don't waste your time. The 8 hours by Peter Jackson on the Beatles are an outlier. A lesser director would get very boring on an 8 hour stretch, but Peter Jackson is a master of the long form.

Too much Stamos?

On the EH board there are complaints about a positive review. What a mixed up world we live in.

It sounds like they processed a lot of the clips through audio cleanup software on it's default setting.
Probably just used adobe podcast or some other tool that produces artifacts.
You can hear it a lot in the modern Al Jardine parts.

I read some comments on the other Beach Boys forums about the documentary and noticed something really off, in my opinion. Namely, quite some "fans" seem to think that the docu was right in practically ignoring the 1967-1977 stretch because there were no "hits".
What I think, instead, about this subject.

1) Yes, no hits. I get that, thanks. I was there. In my Italy, my Beach Boys literally DISAPPEARED (no kidding!) starting from 1967. Forever. And there was no helping it in the world of guitar noodling, shirtless frontmen, 20-minute suites, and all that came afterwards. Brian or no Brian.
2) But... the Beach Boys 1967-1977 stretch, artistically, is FANTASTIC. Not perfect, of course, but fantastic. That stuff is timeless, and priceless.
3) This has never been really acknowledged, in any case not enough, by a mile.
4) This 2024 docu was maybe the last chance. There will never be a Peter Jackson for the Boys.
5) Chance TOTALLY missed. Most people will keep on thinking that Good Vibrations was the last good/important thing the Boys, and Brian, did.
6) F..k the damn charts. It seems many people aren't inspired by music, but by charts. And mind you, it's understandable when Brian, Carl, Mike, Al, the artists themselves, worry about the charts. But we, after the facts, in hindsight, should NOT.
7) On the other hand, I understand that nothing will ever sway the chart-smokers. :P

Jerry Garcia, one who knew something about music and owned thousands of albums, said that his second favourite album was... SMILEY SMILE (in case you wonder, the first one was "Folksingers ‘Round Harvard Square" byJoan Baez, Bill Wood and Ted Alevizos).

Well said, agree 100%.

I am watching The Beach Boys film on Disney+. Is it my imagination or did they create some of those sound bites with AI? Some of the Brian sound bites sound like they were computer generated.* Ditto for some of the Bruce sound bites. The one sound bite from Paul McCartney talking about Pet Sounds (the quote was from David Leaf’s interview with McCartney for the first Pet Sounds CD) sounded particularly egregious in the AI department.

*Yes, I get why they used old interview footage of Brian.  The one clip you see of current day Brian in the film was very tough to watch.

If the requisite for what to cover in the doc was that it had to involve hits, or the "hit era", then they wouldn't have burned time amateurishly and kind of offensively discussing the Manson stuff. 

Honestly, a better idea (and maybe a less expensive one, perhaps?) would have been to revisit Endless Harmony, update the audio and the visuals for today’s standards and then do that coda at Paradise Cove to cap Endless Harmony off on a higher note than it did.

But what were the reasons causing him to almost literally implode?  Was it The Boys resistance to the lyrics and the ideas behind the album -- and all the emotional baggage that brought?  His mental health problems?  I think it was a mixture of the two.


Love and merci,
Dan Lega 

Obviously you didn't grow up in a religious home.

Yeah, I don't get the obsession with hits, charts, sales, etc. It's not like they never hit the charts after Good Vibrations. Heroes and Villains, Darlin', Do it Again and I Can Hear Music all hit the top 40 in the late 60's. Surf's Up and Holland did okay on the album charts - but that's not how we should define what is good and what is not. Sunflower was a commercial bomb, but many people love that album. Many people love the equally poor selling Friends. I can honestly say I never, ever heard any Pacific Ocean Blue songs on my radio in the late 70's, yet many people regard it as a masterpiece.
I think the way history will regard the Beach Boys and other groups of their era is pretty much set in stone now. The Beatles continue to attract a level of interest not attained by any act of that - or possibly ANY - era. History will record that the Beach Boys, Kinks, ex-Beatles didn't do any great work after 1973; just as the official history of 60's pop and rock now tells us that after 1966, it was all hard rock and guitar heroes on the charts, even though a look through old issues of Billboard and Cashbox shows that there were plenty of soft rock, pop and MOR acts selling lots of records in that era. Anyone ever heard of Glen Campbell? Carpenters?

I have to ask this.

An American Family was 2 parts. How is it that John Stamos can get a 2 part miniseries about the BB made yet Frank Marshall and Irving Azoff can only get a less than 2 hour doc made?

That McCartney clip sounds so bizarre.  It might be AI, but if it is, then whoever coded that AI algorithm should be fired.  It sounds almost nothing like Macca.  Dana Carvey does a better impression of Paul than that.   Does anyone remember the circumstances of Leaf's interview with Paul? Could it be a situation like Leaf recording an audio interview on some cheapo tape recorder not for broadcast but just for his own notes?  And then said lo-fi recording is later run through some digital filters to enhance it with said "enhancement" utterly massacring it?

Thanks to disagreements within the band, Brian's collaborator had left the project. Van Dyke Parks is not an easy person to replace. And Brian was having huge problems with the sequencing. The pressure was enormous. And then the Beatles released Sgt Pepper.

I think that even if we could see and hear absolutely everything, to the last bit, about what happened in 1966-1967, we would end knowing exactly what we know now. The matter is so complex, and everybody chooses their favourite narrative.
"Brianistas" will tend to blame Mike.
"Mike Lovers" will say he did no wrong (like, ever).
And so on.
My own narrative is that SMiLE "demise" in 1967 was the end result of everything that happened before, and separating the 100 specific reasons is impossible. What is sure, is that Brian got a mess of "help", by literally everybody, in not completing SMiLE in 1967. He was surrounded by too many people, but he was alone.

Exactly!! I haven't seen the documentary, 50/50 chance that I pony up the money to subscribe to Disney+ for a month to watch it (I realize the fee is equal to a few cups of coffee, but that's pretty much how little I care about seeing this). What is sad is that with 'Get Back' I was subscribing to Disney+ within minutes of that documentary being available. The Beach Boys are without a doubt my favorite band ever and yet I can't seem to be the least-bit enthused about watching this thing. I'm sure I'll get around to it at some point.

The trailer just seemed meh - no magic, the same "insert current one-hit-wonder band personality here" interviews to tell us how inspirational and incredible Brian Wilson is (and, as I've said before, a music personality who released the song 'Water Slide' has absolutely no business being in a Beach Boys documentary...I mean come on guys). The reviews are so lukewarm about this thing. Even people who seem to like this thing sound so tepid about it.

And I keep seeing people say "this documentary was not made for us" - but this is exactly the problem. Maybe if they made a movie for the fans, non-fans would be drawn into the storytelling/magic/music itself. I think of Ken Burn's baseball series, that was clearly made for baseball fans, but yet you can read stories/reviews of non-fans being drawn into the subject because of the amazing filmmaking/story. That's like a 24 hour long documentary from 1994 that is STILL talked about and watched to this day. Imagine if Ken Burns had watered down the story of baseball into an hour and half movie - it would have been forgotten about in a year. Which is likely what will happen with this Beach Boys documentary.

This should have been at least two parts, and not stopping at 1980. On the bright side, it'll introduce people to The Beach Boys. The downside is that so much opportunity was wasted yet again in The Beach Boys realm. At least we have an amazing book and some incredible boxsets from the last few years - which is honestly a heck of a lot more than I would expect from this band. So while the documentary may be disappointing, we're still one of the luckiest/blessed fanbases in music!

Just go back to this quote from Al and the direction of this film makes perfect sense. It's the narrative according to Mike Love. If the Smile chapter plays out the way it does, again that makes perfect sense because efforts have been underway for several decades to minimalize the Smile saga and its influence, discredit firsthand eyewitnesses to what was happening, repeat ad nauseum either a whitewashed or false narrative about the how's and why's of what happened, and ultimately dismiss what has been reported and published about it since 1967 by trying to replace it with a narrative which was cartoonishly portrayed on ABC in 2000 via the John Stamos produced biopic...again, the narrative according to Mike. Broadcast twice now by networks owned by Disney.

It's really not hard to suss out why the documentary reads this way and why the narrative is what it is. It's just a shame to see over the past few decades such blatant efforts by some factions to diminish and discredit the individuals who had firsthand, even eyewitness information that would counter the narratives which included Brian being so geeked up on drugs and held back by various leeches and hangers-on that he couldn't do the work and decided to one day wave his hand in the air and scrap everything in his fits of drug-fueled paranoia. It's so laughable, yet if that crap continues to be repeated there are people who will believe it.

And if these narratives go beyond message boards and people with agendas sending false information around the fanbase, and gets broadcast widely to "new" fans on projects like the ABC miniseries and the Disney doc, those new fans will hear it and believe it. Sad.

Unless Taylor Swift is recording/touring with them or dating one of their grandkids, I doubt new fans will care about The Beach Boys.


Jon Stebbins said it best regarding the delayed release of the feel flows set. Look at the history of the band, the answer is obvious. Finding a way to f*** up a beautiful thing. It's in the DNA of the Beach Boys. Sadly this documentary was no exception.

Well, I'm glad that I'm not the only one to see why this 2024 documentary is at best a(nother) missed chance, and at worst... nah, I won't say.
The trailer was enough to understand what kind of "project" is.
But, luckily, it's useless. Truth is there for everybody who wants to see it, and the rest don't count. Their loss. The albums are there, SMiLE is there in multiple incarnations, the legacy is there.
As I said, our Beach Boys, and our Brian, have their place in the History of Music, the one with capital H and M. Taylor Swift fans don't listen to them? They don't listen to Mozart, either. Do you think Mozart fans care? "Amadeus" was a horrible revisionistic movie about Mozart, and it's rightly forgotten.

I said it up above, but this film is regressive and reductive. Set aside the years/eras it didn't cover. Concerning what it *did* cover, it regressed to old narratives, summations, assumptions, etc.

Congratulations, you correctly recounted the personnel changes in the band. (And not even really, then as the departure of Bruce, Blondie, and Ricky was not mentioned).

I'm trying to write up a big grand review of this thing that touches on as many of the issues as possible.

But in the meantime, I'll also add that that Josh Kun guy being interviewed in this thing was extremely obnoxious. It's like someone Google'd "Academic Music Critic" and went with the first hit. The guy reminded me of the news reports where they bring in a doctor to "diagnose" a celebrity that they've never met or treated. This guy just brought in his filters and prisms and tried to squeeze something to do with the Beach Boys through them. This guy doesn't get, and he completely misses the point. I'm sure I'll have more to say concerning that guy.

I don't think the inclusion of "Kokomo" was due to the Disney linkage.

It certainly doesn't really promote their brand; I'm not even sure who knows or cares at this point that the song came from "Cocktail", and certainly there aren't too many people who remember that Touchstone Pictures released that film, and also that Touchstone is a subsidiary of Buena Vista Pictures, which is owned by Disney.

I think someone knew it was a big hit of theirs but that the doc cuts off a zillion years before that song came out, and they shoved it in there. At whose behest this was done, well, let's wait and see on that.

 If they included Kokomo - as mentioned a song with absolutely no historical connection to the timeline nor subject matter covered by the film - but couldn't include 'Til I Die or Surf's Up which are key to the years covered in the film on the soundtrack...there's a major problem here.

I'd also like to hear the backstory of how Kokomo got hammered into the film's content, and which parties may have pushed for it. Any guesses? (sarcasm, there, btw).

I'm in complete agreement.

Someone on Facebook sarcastically suggested they played Kokomo at the end to hurry up the exit. I agreed with that too.

It's still quite possible that Disney requested that "Kokomo" be included in the doc.

Well, "Kokomo" is one of only four no. 1 hits the Boys had, so from my point of view it's ok to use it. But I'd be interested to know if they used "Surf City" in any way. Of course this is one of only four no. 1 hits Brian had.

Huh?

No historical connection?  As Rocker mentions it's their last number one hit and one of their most recognizable songs like it or not.

The fact that the song was just thrown in during the credits should actually dismantle that this was some scheme by Mike the villan which you're insinuating here.   The song and its story would have been part of the actual documentary---as it should be. 

Sure, anything is possible. It's possible Van Dyke Parks called in a favor and asked for "Kokomo" to be included (he played the accordion after all).

I just don't think it's very likely that nobody else brought it up, and somebody at Disney (does anybody working at Disney in upper management in 2024 even remember that "Kokomo" is a soundtrack song from a Disney-owned movie?) insisted on including the song, and did so *because* it's a "Disney song." To what end would this gain Disney anything? It wouldn't gain them any money, as they'd be paying *themselves* to license the composition (and that's assuming Disney full owns the publishing; it indicates as such in the credits of the doc, but old pressings of the song show multiple publishers representing the other writers). They almost surely had to *put out* some amount of money to include the song.

It's not impossible that they made a list of songs that Disney or BRI/Iconic owned, and for which sync rights could theoretically be cheaper.

But there are a zillion logical reasons the directors or some band members would think to add the song to the credits. I'm not even complaining about it. I'm not a detractor of the song. I've always said it's a catchy song and was a great shot in the arm for the band in 1988. It *should* be part of the story!

I do think it's kind of weird to put in at the end of the doc in that it only serves to draw attention to eras they *didn't* cover in the doc, but it's not a big deal that it was in the doc. But I don't think Disney would have insisted on the song being in there.

If Disney really had a burning desire to remind the world that "Kokomo" is a Disney song, then you'd think they would have pushed in the editorial stage for the era in which the song was released to be covered in said doc!

the director also used Kokomo as a tribute to Jimmy Buffett who was one of his best friends. the words 'For Jimmy' appear just as the opening lyric plays: "Off the Florida Keys..."

I'm not saying Mike suggested it be included. But the song being laid over the credits doesn't make me think that scenario is any less likely.

I could easily see a scenario where a bunch of bad decisions and politics led to the project kind of floundering, leading to the decision to cut the doc off early in the late 60s/early 70s, and any number of people (including possibly Mike) pointing out that this time frame would negate the inclusion of "Kokomo", and then someone saying "oh yeah, okay, we'll put it over the credits."

I think the inclusion or exclusion of this song or that song in this doc is semi-moot, because it has more fundamental problems than that. Indeed, the doc barely slows down to play much of any extended piece of music. It often seems to be incapable of stopping and playing more than 5 or 10 seconds of any given song.

A doc would not even live or die by including "Kokomo" and not including "Surf's Up" or "'Til I Die", but that certainly is a *symptom* of a larger issue with this documentary.

Maybe someday Frank Marshall will pay apt tribute to the Beach Boys. If only there were a project where he could have been given a shot to do just that....

One thing I loved about the Brian Wilson Songwriter documentary was that it picked a song or two from each album/era and truly examined it (both musically and culturally). I realize that Disney probably didn't have the budget to make a documentary on par with that one (yes sarcasm), but goodness, 5-10 seconds on any given song? AND IT'S FOR A STREAMING SERVICE! They didn't need to trim the time down for a large-release-theater viewing. They didn't need to trim time down because of blu-ray production costs. It's them slapping this up on a server and letting the world see it. I realize these documentaries take time & money to create, but it's Disney. Last year, Disney made a gross profit of $29,679,000,000. You can push a little more funds into a movie about America's Band, right?

Aside from Kokomo did they play any song entirely through during the doc?

I really just need to get it over with and watch this thing already. *grabs bottle* :beer sigh

I'd love for the phrase "this documentary wasn't made for us!" concerning this film to be retired. Saying this in defense of this film, you'd have to be pretty unfamiliar with the documentary film genre.

COUNTLESS documentary films (and series) have been made for wide/general audiences about a ZILLION topics (music, bands, wars, random events or people, competitive Scrabble, the list is endless) that manage to do the job well.

The problem with this new doc is not that it doesn't have enough footage or audio or information that hardcore fans aren't familiar with. The problem isn't any sort of nit-picking fandom pedantry.

It does a poor job of telling the story. Yes, detailed knowledge of the band's history informs some of that knowledge of what this film gets wrong. But again, this isn't nitpicky stuff. This isn't someone complaining that Hal Blaine's hairdo is off in "Love & Mercy."

This film tells an incomplete and regressive, oversimplified story. Even some novice non-fans have in many cases realized this. Reviews from rogerebert.com and Rolling Stone have noticed the incomplete nature of the film. I watched the film with a non-fan, and they noticed how rushed it felt after about 1967, noticed that it cut off in the early 70s, and then weirdly shows a clip from 1980, and that's it. They asked "Didn't they do a reunion like ten years ago?"

This film falls flat on its face even trying to tell the most simplified, streamlined version of some of these events. It even f**ked up telling the story of "Pet Sounds" and "Smile."

Oh, but Frank Marshall just HAD to make sure they got a Manson segment in there, complete with out of context picture of Dennis looking depressed as they explained how surely Dennis had to have felt guilty about the murders.

The doc can't explain how, despite their public image being what it was, they produced AMAZING music in the 1967-early 70s time period. But the doc went to great lengths to not just discuss that Dennis knew Manson, but actually told the whole story about how he met Melcher, and how the house had been the house Melcher had rented, etc, etc.

The Murry stuff was also confused and did nobody any favors. They weirdly conflate the issue of selling the catalog versus Mike not getting credit on some of the songs. Obviously, those things are not wholly unrelated, but they're two different issues. Then, after they've done their hack, surface-level examination and condemnation of Murry, they circle back around to Murry *again* near the end of the doc for no apparent reason.

Also, as I'm sure others have mentioned, the film mostly avoids discussing Brian's emotional/mental problems that pre-dated any drug use (the "Long Promised Road" doc accomplished this quickly and simply with some on-screen text), and thus feed into the regressive idea that Brian was just an eccentric druggie. They try to indicate Brian had emotional problems, but they don't do the minimum job they easily could have to explain and contextualize it.

Dennis segment? "Meh, f**k it and just play "Forever" and make sure it comes in under five minutes. Blah, blah blah."

I'll stop there for now.

Our best hope at this stage is that after they let some time pass (for everybody to save face concerning this new doc), BRI/Iconic let Boyd go back in and do an extended re-cut of "Endless Harmony." They used "Endless Harmony" footage and audio over and over on this new thing. The only thing the new doc had that an EH re-cut wouldn't have is the new interviews with Mike, Al, and Bruce, (and the ten seconds with Blondie) and I'm sure Boyd covered more than enough in his 1998 interviews.

You can even see that for this new doc they re-scanned the EH interviews in HD. It's like an HD "Endless Harmony" doc is buried in there teasing us.....

I'm about half an hour in (watching it in small bits each night as time allows) and this is my biggest complaint so far.

Unimportant, but because I have a photographic memory of the 7/4/80 DC show, having watched it a million times over the years, it was kind of funny that this new doc actually cut in crowd footage (not even from the same song!) for "Darlin'" that includes the guy angrily flipping the camera off:

(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/445359973_3875104352811628_391675106204220954_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=_c48zi2rrZAQ7kNvgFQf2zW&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=00_AYDylUsDOG-8EuJoptw6tBMtJFDrEZJr6vv5sqXAhOGXVg&oe=665C1A8D)

Here's a larger, less cropped version from a YouTube clip for context:

(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/444500311_3875104876144909_2602112112803919535_n.jpg?_nc_cat=103&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=0UitXkDyuioQ7kNvgFUdq7-&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=00_AYDJcrxA6puFEOExtT3qMugUapDzmD-aQ1FparlZ6sMp2g&oe=665C115B)

Also, again unimportant in the grand scheme, here's a cap from the DC '80 show from YouTube, but taken from the Japanese DVD of the show. The actual DVD still looks much better than this, but even this compressed YouTube clip looks better than what they put in the Disney doc:

(https://scontent-sjc3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/445161319_3875107796144617_3953069323358354070_n.jpg?_nc_cat=109&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=5f2048&_nc_ohc=XDWZhB_jGgUQ7kNvgFUA4K7&_nc_ht=scontent-sjc3-1.xx&oh=00_AYBeMd2qcgdBfDPaCgKrE5n1Vstxya2_x7VXoIduPEd03w&oe=665BFB55)

The clips from the Japanese DVD also sounds *much* better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt2tvNzt1CU

 I just watched this last night. I have many thoughts about it. I'm probably going to watch it a second time and actually take notes to do a full review. My first thoughts are that this is quite a bit better than it's reputation. Lots of details is given to the Al-David-Al again chronology, and the Brian-Al-Brian-Glenn and finally Bruce chronology. I really appreciated the archival interviews with Carl and Brian detailing the Nick Vinet battle with Murry over Brian's role as producer. These are just a few details that actually made portions of this documentary actually better than Endless Harmony for me, personally. I do agree that it kind of really fell apart in the last 15 or so minutes.

Maybe we’ll get the proper documentary for their 70th. 😅

There's a lot of talk in the reddit bb thread that it's generated ai voices, but it's clearly not that simple. 

Imo they've used a blanket setting on an ai audio 'cleanup' tool like Adobe podcast, but barely tinkered with the settings, even on the modern interviews.

I've used Adobe podcast a lot in the last year for archiving old domestic 1/4 inch tape voice recordings, and it does a pretty good job in removing hiss and hum etc, but does produce artifacts that sound like what can be heard in ai covers,
especially if the audio is poor quality.
It sounds like they've not bothered to fine tune anything though.

I wouldn't say it's "lots of details." They do lay out the chronology, including Brian's first break from the road. But there's not much substance or context given beyond "Brian didn't like the road." That isn't good filmmaking. It's like, "Congrats for getting a fact correct."

The "Endless Harmony" doc had a great interview clip from *Brian himself* discussing this moment. This new doc already cribbed tons of stuff from "Endless Harmony", so why not ahead and do it there too?

And they never addressed Bruce's departure (nor Blondie or Ricky's for that matter).

The new doc spends the first approx. 90 of its 106 minutes (not counting end credits) covering 61 to 67, so sure, they are able to slip a bit more detail on a few pieces of the story, including a brief interlude discussing Venet being tossed as producer.

If you have to wade through this doc to find a story here or there that isn't in "Endless Harmony", that's a pretty bad sign.

I think everybody should try this exercise: Review the new doc without mentioning any other doc. Pretend no other documentary exists on the band. Does this new doc do the job? I don't think so. Not even for the "general public." Is it a block of programming featuring BB images and music that gives them some sort of "exposure"? Sure. But this also could have been accomplished by dropping "Endless Harmony" on Disney+, or "Doin' It Again", etc.

This documentary was lazy. It isn't difficult, with cute visual aids to boot, to explain a series of personnel changes and the order in which they happened. It isn't so easy to explain "Pet Sounds" or "Smile" or Murry, or, if you're inclined to get into the Manson stuff, explain/contextualize that correctly.

There are bits and pieces of the *production values* on this doc that are fine, and I suppose if one isn't trying to really pay too close attention, this might provide a bit of a smoke screen for how bad this doc is.

It went into quite a bit of detail about just how much was on Brian's plate and how it was taking a toll on him, and it went into detail about his writing and producing, so I think that's plenty of context regarding why Brian didn't want to tour. It honestly seems like some people are trying to find things to criticize....

I'd say it's more the case that some people are trying to find something, *anything*, to pluck out of this new doc and try to find redeeming.

And, obviously, I'm not saying this documentary is just a front-to-back worthless trainwreck. The story, the music, all of it is too powerful to not elicit some sort of emotional reaction out of the viewer. There are moments during the new doc where it starts to feel like it's gaining some sort of footing, but then it just never gets "there."

I've written more words about this documentary than most (more to come), going into some amount of detail about specific issues with the doc. I've been pretty specific, and at some point I hope to do a more detailed, thorough rundown. But I think I've earned the right to not be labeled as someone "looking for things to criticize." I didn't make this thing, I didn't choose to make it.

Frank Marshall and Disney are the ones that slapped the word "Definitive" on this movie's poster.

I'm not going to give the film much credit for taking two extra minutes to diagram personnel changes on screen.

Some of the stuff the new doc covers is done adequately I suppose. But there's just nothing, zilch, that is remarkable about this film. It never feels like it's even attempting to be great. It's produced like a big, long EPK.  It feels lazy. Even the TITLE of the documentary is lazy.

I've also managed in the last day or so to run through large hunks of the 1998 "Endless Harmony" documentary, and it's immensely more smooth and satisfying. It offers far more pathos, via both the interviews and the editing. The main drawbacks of "Endless Harmony" are mostly just due to its age; it's 4x3, Standard Def, it has some 90s doc trappings (the sort of Dutch angles on some of the interviews, the titles/graphics, etc.).

I said no historical connection to the timeline covered in the film. Was that unclear? If the band and their music is the subject of a documentary whose timeline stops around 1974, why put in a song that wasn't released until 15 years after the documentary ends that focus? Especially when they had many key songs important to *that specific timeline* to use and which got left out, and especially in a case where barely any songs get more than 10 seconds worth of airtime in the film!

It's simple logic, if the focus of this film is the band's history and the band's musical output from 61-74, why jump timelines and include something like Kokomo that charted in 1989, whether it was a hit or not? It doesn't fit the timeline and is an anachronistic way to end the film.

And even more frustrating for me as a fan is how they could have had a perfect, bittersweet ending to the whole thing by ending it with the surviving guys sitting with each other and singing something together for maybe the last time on film and let the whole thing fade into the sunset. But no...we end the film hearing Kokomo instead. Just my opinion, that makes no sense in the timeline or in the art of making a documentary film that draws people in emotionally to the subject matter.

Yeah, I consider this one of the real "tells" regarding this film (i.e., "tell" in the poker sense of tipping the hand).  It goes a long way in reinforcing Al's contention that this is basically a documentary of BB history as seen by Mike Love. Because otherwise it makes near-zero sense that the intertwined "Sea of Tunes" issues are given so  much weight in this doc when so many other huge topics were ignored.

 I guess everybody is supposed to be shocked and saddened that Mike Love and Brian Wilson (and their various spouses, ex-spouses and dependents) are merely multi-multimillionaires rather than centi-millionaires or someting like that.  I can only speak for myself as a fan, but I have never lost even one minute of sleep worrying that Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss got very rich off the BBs' publishing.  Seriously, who the F cares?!  Frankly, I doubt that even Brian Wilson has cried himself to sleep over this more than once either.  At this point, Sea of Tunes is a snoozer topic...  to really anyone other than Mike Love (and perhaps Marilyn and the various Wilson-Love progeny who stand to inherit mere millions rather than hundreds of millions). Boo freakin hoo.

The whole songwriting credits fiasco is very fascinating, and a documentary and director with proper skills could traverse the subject effectively. It is part of the story, and obviously *whether* to dig into it, and *how much* to dig into it, depends on the the scope of the documentary. But if there was ever a time to dig in, it would be for this documentary.

Mike, as the years have gone by, at a point now where more time has passed since he *won* his lawsuit than had passed between writing the songs and the lawsuit being filed, is still as ticked off about it, perhaps even more so. And how these guys feel is how they feel; it's part of the story. As was put in a recent podcast interview, Mike really views this songwriting thing as a sort of "original sin" sort of situation. A good documentary with enough running time could dig into this *in detail*, while still keeping the documentary entertaining for the "masses". It could probe how it happened, how it was about a vindictive, gate-keeping Murry, a passive, cowed Brian, *and* also get into how Mike let it slide for 25-30 years, and how his inaction is part of the story too. Mike was passive for many years as well.

Murry selling the catalog is much more about Murry, and while I don't begrudge a documentary the juicy, if brief, story of how Murry sold the catalog for ten dollars while it's worth 100 zillion dollars now (other docs have done it, I believe the A&E Brian biography for one), that story is simpler on one level (Murry's shortsightedness and greed, and fallout from having involved Murry in the first place) , with a very deep subtext of cruelty and vindictiveness.

What this new Disney doc does is relate a lot of the well-known stories in the same way that they're rattled off quickly in random interviews the guys (mainly Mike) have given over the years. When the doc gets to the songwriting issue, it's just "Murry screwed Mike", and possibly, if Mike is feeling more empathetic, a quick note that *maybe* it's not Brian's fault because he was afraid of his Dad. When it gets to Murry selling the catalog, it's just "Murry was greedy and didn't believe in their music". When it gets to Manson, it doesn't get much past "Hey, did you know that the clean-cut, all-American Beach Boys knew Charles Manson?"

This doc is missing an empathetic narrative voice, which needs to come from the director. Frank Marshall is making an EPK with this thing, not a documentary film with empathy and pathos and a feeling that the person guiding you through this story actually GETS IT.

There are other hallmarks that this thing kind of entered a dispassionate assembly-line approach at some point. Small things that are just symptoms, like multiple reversed photos (whoa, they're all left-handed now), poorly-sourced footage, poor sound mixing (at certain points they're trying to like comp live and studio versions together, and it sounds weird), the weird-sounding audio interview snippets (hrmm, is it possible the people making this don't the guys' voices that well, and don't hear how "off" a lot of the clips sound?). As mentioned before, even the title is lazy.

Something nobody has mentioned is how awful titling the doc "The Beach Boys" is for search engine optimization alone.

I've just been given this link to a UK Telegraph article which is about the documentary but covers a lot more than just that. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/the-beach-boys-brian-wilson-mental-health-drugs/  Some of the information comes from Nick Kent. I've read The Dark Stuff ages ago but I'm a bit distrustful of how much can be taken as the truth.

'If you happen to be one of the people keenly anticipating the arrival of the documentary film The Beach Boys, available now on Disney+, please be advised that this remarkable account fails to occupy a single moment of its near two-hour running time. Never mind that in marrying wild acclaim – from Leonard Bernstein, of all people, not some stoned hack from Creem or Hit Parader – with crushing insecurity, the story handily typifies the triumphs and terrors running wild behind the group’s sun-kissed exterior. For the life of me, I cannot account for such an obvious omission. ...While it wouldn’t be quite fair to accuse Beach Boys of entirely overlooking definitive and sometimes grisly details, it is right to accuse the film of seeking to place a positive spin on even the ugliest moments. Worse still, it seeks to imply that talent of the group’s members was, to some degree at least, evenly spread. But it really wasn’t.'

I could carry on quoting but I wouldn't know where to stop. Well worth a read.

Unfortunately the article is behind a paid subscription firewall at that link, is there another link?

Haven't found one yet - if I do, I'll post of course.

Text of the UK Telegraph article, by Ian Winwood

What Disney’s Beach Boys film doesn’t tell you about Brian Wilson’s broken brain
The pop genius’s many horrific battles with mental health began in the 1960s and continue to this today… Then why gloss over them?

In November 1969, the American network television channel CBS set up their cameras and microphones for the filming of a Beach Boys special introduced by none other than Leonard Bernstein. The timing was less than optimal: the group as a whole were in desperate straits, while their principal songwriter, Brian Wilson, was in the foothills of the kind of mental disrepair that would imperil his wellbeing for decades to come. Even so, when Wilson played an unaccompanied version of the unreleased Surf’s Up on a grand piano, Bernstein described it as being nothing less than “the most brilliant piece of contemporary music [he’d] ever heard”.


This resonant endorsement from America’s most prominent composer blew minds, and not in a good way. According to an 81-page essay in the book The Dark Stuff, by the music writer Nick Kent, “Brian Wilson broke down there and then. Freaked right out and ended up phoning his astrologer, a woman named Genevlyn, who told him to beware hostile vibrations. So he stayed in bed for five days, eating candy bars, smoking pot and brooding to the sound of wind chimes.”

If you happen to be one of the people keenly anticipating the arrival of the documentary film The Beach Boys, available now on Disney+, please be advised that this remarkable account fails to occupy a single moment of its near two-hour running time. Never mind that in marrying wild acclaim – from Leonard Bernstein, of all people, not some stoned hack from Creem or Hit Parader – with crushing insecurity, the story handily typifies the triumphs and terrors running wild behind the group’s sun-kissed exterior. For the life of me, I cannot account for such an obvious omission.


While it wouldn’t be quite fair to accuse Beach Boys of entirely overlooking definitive and sometimes grisly details, it is right to accuse the film of seeking to place a positive spin on even the ugliest moments. Worse still, it seeks to imply that talent of the group’s members was, to some degree at least, evenly spread. But it really wasn’t.



Without wishing to discard notable moments from younger brothers Carl and Dennis, I don’t think it’s a spoiler to note that it was Brian Wilson who shaped their scene. By dragging rock and roll from the American South to the West Coast, he even defined the modern image of California as a sun-kissed idyll ideated the world over. Beat that.

With its devious sleights of hand, though, Beach Boys is practically a magic show. It’s only in the credits, for example, that viewers who have just emerged from comas lasting half a century are informed that Carl and Dennis Wilson are long dead. There’s certainly no mention of the recent conservatorship request filed in a Los Angeles court by family members who described the now 81-year-old Brian Wilson as an “easily distracted” man who is “unable to properly provide for his own personal needs for physical health, food, clothing, or shelter”. Not a word is said about the other times the courts have been asked to rule on who controls his life and estate, either.


Of course, any serious attempt to tell the full story of the life of Brian Wilson would require Beach Boys to clock up more episodes than Coronation Street. Sad to say, though, that the cutting of corners seems to be about more than merely saving time. In one particularly startling omission, the name Eugene Landy, the American psychologist who glommed onto his life, off and on, for three decades of coercive and sometimes brutal treatment, merits not a single mention.



Eventually disbarred from practising in the state of California, Landy charged up to $430,000 a year for his services, as well as a cut of publishing rights. At times, the dominance was total; he reportedly had a minion stood over Wilson with a baseball bat as he tried to write songs. His stricken patient once described the shrink as “my master”, before adding, ominously, that “a good dog always waits for his master”.  

“I want to go places, but I can’t because of the doctor [Landy],” Wilson once stated in a revealing interview in Oui magazine. “I feel like a prisoner and I don’t know where it’s going to end… he would put the police on me and he’d put me in the funny farm.” Eugene Landy even ghost-wrote Wouldn’t It Be Nice, an autobiography from the early 1990s credited to Brian Wilson himself. In a fiercely contested field, it remains the most dishonest and depressing music book I’ve ever read.

 
The most generous interpretation regarding the chaos of the Beach Boys and their stricken artistic engine is that no one really knew what to do for the best. In the entertainment game, people rarely do. A more reputable psychologist than Landy once told me that “the creative mind is a vulnerable mind”, an evaluation which suggests that, for some, talent and instability are inseparable. The music industry doesn’t require people to go mad, but it will certainly tolerate those who do so. Family life, meanwhile, is often less forgiving. In the midst of terrifying drug benders in 1970s, Brian Wilson’s wife insisted he live in the small changing room of their swimming pool so as to avoid contact with their children.



Possibly he was doomed from the start. Raised in the LA suburb of Hawthorne, his childhood home was a place of danger, oppression and alcoholism. Patriarch Murry Wilson was a frustrated but talentless songwriter whose blows to Brian’s head were so frequent as to be creditably identified as the reason he went deaf in one ear at the age of two. The father saw his son’s genius as a means of swapping his lot in the machining business for a hop with the rock biz jet set. When his tyrannical tenure as the Beach Boys’ road manager came to an end after a beating at the hands of singer Mike Love, in 1964, he retained control of the songs. The decision to sell the group’s publishing for a relative pittance saw his eldest son once more retreat to his bed in shattered dismay.



“You go through your childhood and you have a mean father that brutalises you and terrorises you – and Dennis and Carl – [and] he knocked the hell of out of us,” Wilson once said. “In fact, I asked myself, ‘What in the hell was that all about?’ A mean father who turned us into egomaniacs, ‘cos we felt so insecure our egos just jumped up. It was such a scary feeling.”

 
With the seeds of madness germinating early, he was certainly never in any kind of shape to deal with the demands of life on the road. The Beach Boys documentary mentions a nervous breakdown en route to a concert in Houston, in 1964, but fails to acknowledge several other acute episodes in its immediate aftermath.

Brian Wilson never enjoyed playing live; the studio was where he felt most alive. But when bandmates and executives from Capitol Records first heard the songs that would grace the Pet Sounds album, both parties were unconvinced. Despite being a masterpiece, the LP duly underperformed in the US charts.



In a field in which image and marketability are key, inevitably, the reluctance of music executives and creative dependents to fully support Wilson’s progressive instincts dealt a terrible blow to his already fragile sense of self-worth. Tellingly, as was the case with Leonard Bernstein’s remarkable endorsement, effusive encomiums proved equally damaging. When Paul McCartney (on whose talents the principal Beach Boy obsessed) opined that he sometimes believed that God Only Knows was the perfect song, its author swan-dived into yet another plummeting funk at the prospect of being a washed-up has-been who would never write anything as good again.

It should be borne in mind that some of the stories about the eccentricities of Brian Wilson are not that far removed from other “out there” artists and public figures from the laissez-faire 1960s and 1970s. As Carol Kaye, who played session bass guitar for the Beach Boys, told the writer Jeremy Gluck, “There’s a lot of slander going around even yet, many false things that never happened. So what if he was in his robe at his big house? Hugh Hefner lives in his robe. And so what if he wanted to record in the bottom of his empty pool? [Flautist] Paul Horn went to the pyramids for the same reason – great echo.”


Also, it wasn’t as if other members of the family didn’t exhibit their own alarming tendencies. After allowing Charles Manson into the group’s orbit, the always heedless Dennis Wilson (who died in 1983 as a penniless and homeless drunk and drug addict) earned death threats following the Manson Family murders in Los Angeles in 1969. Suitably spooked by the mayhem, brother Carl moved with his own family to his parents’ home, much to the alarm of his alcoholic mother. “I don’t know why you brought them here, son,” Audree Wilson whispered through a thick fog of whisky. “Those Manson people are bound to know our address too.”



Somehow, though, Brian Wilson stood out even in this deranged ecosystem. After filling a recording studio with smoke during sessions for the long-aborted Smile album, he believed he’d “mystically” managed to start a fire in a house two doors away. He once fled a cinema in panic after believing a character onscreen was talking to him directly in the voice of Phil Spector (another musical titan, this one equally troubled, on whom he obsessed). Believing himself underserving of happiness, throughout, he filled his life with troubled parasites and lost ne’er do wells whose sole purpose, it seemed, was limiting his own already diminished circumstances.  

Then there were those who fixated from a distance. “Woodwork squeaks and out come the freaks,” noted the writer Bill Holdship in a 1995 article for Mojo magazine. “There are fans who feel it’s their role in life to protect Brian’s image. Something about the vulnerability of the finest Beach Boys music must act as a beacon for unbalanced people, fans who project their demands onto Brian in a way that’s unique among performer/fan relationships. When I did that 1991 cover story on Brian for BAM [magazine]… I actually received several death threats.”


Throughout it all, of course, whether he wanted them or not, he always had the Beach Boys. “They’re all I’ve got,” he once said. In a relationship that produced transcendental music and (often, at least) acute personal acrimony, they too were unable to wrest themselves free from the teat of Brian Wilson.



“They’re like birds with their mouths open for a worm,” he told Nick Kent. “They’re all so groovy, they’re real good at music, but they also know how to really f___ me over. Mike, Carl and Al [Jardine, the group’s rhythm guitarist] are the three guys that stomped my head in. Over the years they managed to stomp my brains out. They knew the secret formula [of] how to f___ Brian Wilson over. And they still do.”

Not that you’ll hear anything of this kind in the Beach Boys documentary, you understand. What you’ll get, instead, is Mike Love saying that “if I could, I’d probably just tell [the rest of the band] that I love them, and nothing can erase that.” The film ends with the surviving members greeting each other beneath a cloudy sky at the lip of the Pacific Ocean. As music fills the screen, one is left to wonder whether the singer took the opportunity to do even that.

Glad someone else found it.

Ehhhhh, that's all interesting stuff to chew on, but I don't have any problem with the documentary pointing out that the other guys DID pick up the slack in the late 60s and into the 70s and contribute truly great material.

The problem with this doc isn't so much that it's dead set on portraying all the members as equally talented. It's just not a well-made documentary, and when it tries to shift from Brian being the sole leader and driving force, to Brian still being very involved while the other guys start to contribute more, and then into the era where the other guys were more prominent and Brian was still sporadically involved, it does all of that rather poorly.

I think the best way to start to dismantle and diagnose the issues with this doc is *not* to pick one particular story/fact/piece of information that was excluded and cry foul. This film has more fundamental, ground-level problems than that.

That's kind of like saying if I order a California cheeseburger with fries, and it comes out missing the cheese, lettuce, and tomato, and with potato chips instead of fries, there are more fundamental problems than those. No, the missing elements are fundamental problems too! And there is every right to cry foul if they're missing.

I agree. And this particular cheeseburger is even missing some of the burger too. And by that I mean important material that doesn't feature in the sound track or the film.

Yeah, I don't know how deep to go on a food analogy. I wouldn't go with burger I guess, because this documentary has far more than like 5 or 10 ingredients.

This is more like a 50-foot long buffet where like the back 25 feet are shut down, and like 27% of the first 25 feet have all been eaten, but the whole buffet display is built on top of jello instead of a real floor, and the manager of the restaurant is telling me how great the food is.  

I can complain that I'm missing my bacon bits and potato salad, or I can take a step back and point out that the whole thing is on shaky ground and the manager doesn't understand how buffets work.

And all that Nick Kent stuff is very, very interesting. But I'm not sure how one would expect any documentary, unless it was like 10 hours long, to properly contextualize an old Brian quote basically saying "I'm surrounded by a**holes" (the "stomped my brains out" quote). That's like pretty deep-dive stuff that requires a lot of context and qualifications. I wouldn't rush to have them add Brian saying "Van Dyke Parks is the biggest butthole in the world" either. Same with the story of Carl and Mike cornering Brian about "Redwood." These are all important, interesting stories (well, not the VDP quote I guess!). Perfect for a long book, or a long documentary.

But when I watch this new doc, I'm not thinking about how they didn't mention Redwood. I'm thinking about how Frank Marshall just fundamentally doesn't "get it", about how this documentary was fatally wounded the moment they decided to cut it off in essentially 1967, rush through about seven more years in the final  20 minutes, and then ignore the rest of the 70s, 80s, 90s, 2000s, 2010s, etc. I think about how they couldn't muster a title better than "The Beach Boys."

Now I really want some lunch though....

Someone over on the Hoffman board snarkily but kind of aptly summed up the doc:

Buckingham: follow your muse

Movie: we're lost, we're lost, we kept making albums, but... OK, we're making money again! The end.

It's a Disney movie made to plump up their list of titles and sell the channel.  It's fluff.  It's a publicity release to sell the image and the history according to certain band members.  Having the idea that it was ever going to be a proper documentary on the history and the music was naive I suppose but I lived in hope.
The Telegraph article is yet another spin on capitalising on the sad history and takes it's lead and flavour from Nick Kent whose original article was reputedly largely fiction and who in turn was trying to write something juicy to sell.  It is unnecessarily unkind.
Both miss the tragedy of Brian's life and his phoenix like rise from the flames and fail to acknowledge the complexity and beauty of the music through concentrating on chart success.  It misses the decline and fall of the band post Brian leaving and turning it into it's own tribute band but then that wouldn't fit the narative of the publicity department so huge sections of the history is missing.
I suspect you're all going to fall on me like a ton of bricks but that's just my humble opinion.

Not me, Galaxy Liz. On the contrary, thanks for highlighting these OTHER problems. In fact, the Telegraph article misses completely "the point" as abysmally as this 2024 documentary does.
Every narrative about the Beach Boys HAS to talk of phoenix Brian rising from his own ashes. Brian's current predicament is obviously very sad, but does not impair IN ANY WAY the greatness of his "redemption" arc.
That so many people DON'T GET IT HOWSOEVER boggles the mind, and I'd have the temptation to actually swear, in a bad way, about that.
Though I fear that no amount of swearing would suffice...

That Telegraph story could benefit from fact-checking. 1969?

The book is nice, but again, it stops at 1980. Jerry Schilling did manage to get in some comments at the end about Carl's solo career, but that's all.

The good thing about the Telegraph article was this bit: ''While it wouldn’t be quite fair to accuse Beach Boys of entirely overlooking definitive and sometimes grisly details, it is right to accuse the film of seeking to place a positive spin on even the ugliest moments. Worse still, it seeks to imply that talent of the group’s members was, to some degree at least, evenly spread. But it really wasn’t.' I hope the documentary tried to emphasise the good stuff in order to do tribute to Brian but as they had so much about the publishing rights lawsuit (not the others, mind) and even Manson, it;s hard to believe that. Limiting the story to 1980 (to go along with the book but then the same question applies for that) suggests they didn't want to show how unproductive the post 1980 Beach Boys were, except for touring greatest hits. The most interesting things they had done post 1980 were as solo artists until That's Why God Made the Radio and the C50 tour. Both of those things involved Brian and the C50 ended badly. Perhaps not the narrative some in the band wanted.  But for me the real triumph wasn't Endless Summer and a return to greatest hits. It was Brian and his band playing Pet Sounds, completing and premiering SMiLE (and more). But I don't suppose that's the narrative some in the band wanted either.

I would be in favour of just doing a documentary on Brian - which could tell the story including that of his brothers and the group since they were all part of his life.  This would allow the telling of the whole story.
The current owners of the back catalogue wouldn't back it since they are only trying to promote the legend which sells so permissions to use copyright material might be tricky and it's difficult to know if the public would buy it but I think it's important for the actual history to be preserved instead of the fairy story.

Thanks, I agree with everything you said but particularly love these bits!

Out of curiosity I went to Rotten Tomatoes to see what the critics thought of this movie (each of these lines taken from different reviews):


"routine" "deserved better" "not definitive" "cliff-notes version" "a better story could've been told"

And most all of these were from positive reviews! I guess I find it hard to believe that people are "trying" to find fault with this documentary when clearly there are a melange of issues spread across the spectrum - enough so that even positive reviewers can't help but mention the problems.

Just disappointing that this appears to be such a missed opportunity. I don't know if the band deserves better, or if the fans deserve better, but I sure do know that the MUSIC deserves better.

So true, Rab.
I wasted some minutes reading the thread about the documentary in the Hoffman board, ironically named "Music Corner". Ironically, because the guys there seem to have taken solemn vows of talking of anything EXCEPT the music.
Apart from the usual uncanny crazies who behave like Brian has run down several dogs of theirs...

I agree with both Rab's and Zenobi's comments, in particular that the music deserves better.

Who made the decision to limit this story to 1980? What you might call 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'.

Howie Edelson spoke in one of the podcast interviews (I believe it was the "Surf's Up" podcast) about the book and why it stops in 1980. The publisher wanted the book to stop in 1974, and he and the band and Jerry Schilling all disagreed and wanted it to go farther. They ended up settling on 1980 as a compromise, and Howie explains in this interview why that is and how that came about, and it makes total sense. And, I wouldn't say the book is particularly comparable to a documentary film. The book obviously has a chronological flow and covers some biographical details, but it's not meant to be a full-on biography of the band. It's more a very elaborate "In Their Own Words" style book, meant to serve that function and also be a nice coffee table illustrated book.

This Disney documentary was done by a completely different team. And hey, if at some point Frank Marshall or Zimny come out and say "We wanted it to be two parts and cover up to 2024, but X stopped us from doing that", then I'm open to hearing what exactly went down. I think the years that *are* covered in the doc are not done adequately, so I think there were a number of problems baked into that project. But it's certainly possible that external forces outside of the directors also threw a wrench in the gears at various points.

Also concerning the doc, to be clear, it does not stop in 1980. In fact, the ending is so messy that nobody can seem to agree on precisely when it ends. I guess I'd say it ends in 1974, though it mostly ends in about 1967 and then rushes through the late 60s and the early 70s, mainly to briefly point out that the Beach Boys were seen as dorks in the late 60s, to do a rush job featurette on Dennis, and to squeeze in technically mentioning Blondie and Ricky.

But just because they tacked on a 1980 concert clip over the credits, it doesn't mean this thing even technically covers to 1980. There is *zero* reference to anything between 1974 and 1980.

I'm guessing they just picked a concert performance clip to end things, and it happened to be a triumphant, all-American, July 4th gig. And hey, I love that DC 1980 gig, so I won't complain too much about *that* particular choice (though again, as I've mentioned, they used a lousy-looking-and-sounding copy for some reason). I suppose it's possible they were trying to tie the doc into the book (remember again that the book and doc were done by two completely different teams/companies; obviously both with BRI/Iconic involvement) and where the book ends.

I think it's fair to say that the story of the Beach Boys is contested, to some extent, so a comprehensive narrative isn't necessarily a straightforward thing. But this doc has completely missed so much of the story however, with huge portions of the timeline not discussed, ignoring major events, covering others with narrow/warped perspectives etc. T

here are things that I enjoyed, such as the interviews with Marilyn, Al, David, Mike and Don Randi, but it seems a huge shame to have had the opportunity to make this and the availability of masses of content to have then used it so poorly in this doc. There were some interesting things from Don Was, Ryan Tedder and Lindsey Buckingham, but some of the Josh Kun segments didn't resonate with me quite so well.

Personally, I'm quite happy to hear Mike tell his story from his perspective - but not without other perspectives giving balance. I think Mike tells us something about things that happened but a lot more about himself and his attitude etc. I'm left thinking that he's a man who has achieved so much and should be rightfully proud of his life and career but doesn't seem content to stand on that record and focuses instead on things that others are credited with etc. Brian is a master collaborator who great songs with many other writers and lyricists and Mike should be proud to be one of the more prominent ones - yet he doesn't seem content with that at all. Brian's talent need not diminish Mike's, but he seems to see it as a zero-sum thing. The main point is that if Mike is giving his perspective, it should be balanced by other perspectives and that doesn't really happen here.

Al continues to shine as a true friend of Brian's and a man of extraordinary grace and dignity - I'm reminded of one of Brian's slightly odder interviews from the past (amidst the rancour of the Paley era) where he said “Al’s cool, man. He’s not too good a singer, but he’s a pretty nice man.” A pretty odd perspective on Al's singing ability but I think the appreciation for Al as a true friend is clear. I think it's a genuine friendship that has just about survived all of the difficulties and came full circle in Brian's later years where he needed Al's voice and support - I think that's a wonderful part of the story that's left untold in this doc.

The doc misses so much after Smile. Leaving out the deaths of Dennis and Carl is really an astonishing failure - a band of brothers, cousins and friends, founded on a harmony made special by genetics and familial bonds, but no reference to the passing of two of those brothers? What about Brian's resilience throughout some much trauma? Despite everything he continued on, endured beyond so many family members and continued to make special music through decades.

What about C50? That was a triumphant reunion no matter how it ended - a Brian's back tour and album that demonstrated just how extraordinary his role in the band was, even in his later years. When Brian is there, the magic happens.

What about the creative explosion running through the band after Smile? Where is the story of a band pressing on in the increasing absence of their 'genius' leader yet still making some extraordinary music with outstanding vocal sounds etc? To me, the incredible music made during the period from Wild Honey through Holland and that fact it was so often ignored, and the emerging pressure to run the oldies act is a massive part of the Beach Boys story. If you want people to know about the band, tell that story too because it's the bit that is still lesser known.

What about the tensions between the band members, the fights and the arguments, the disputes, the fallings out etc? What about the setting aside of so much of that to still play on stage together night after night? What of Carl the mediator? What of Dennis the tormented creator, bursting with music against the odds?

I don't think it would be possible to cover it all in one doc of this length, so choices have to be made - but I disagree fundamentally with the validity of the choices evident in this doc. Much has been said already, but if you can't tell the story of the band post-67, don't try to squeeze it into 15 minutes or so and fail so badly with it. If you want to talk about some of the darker moment, do it in context and talk about the impact - covering Manson in the way it was covered here just seemed odd. If you want to finish the story with a no.1 hit in Kokomo, fine - but otherwise don't end the doc with a pretty unrepresentative song that is pretty atypical as a piece in both sound and construct. If you can't tell the story, perhaps stick to the music, or if you can't cover the music maybe tell the story of the people instead - I don't really know what the intent with this was, but it fails on both counts.

I was surprised how much it leant on content from Endless Harmony (still the best doc yet, in my opinion) - but I think some segments were slightly extended, so I appreciated that a little I suppose. Why it used so much interview content from Mike/Al from Endless Harmony when they also conducted contemporary interviews is a mystery, but perhaps says something about the quality of those modern interviews.

All of that said, I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing overall - there will be people who watch and learn something about the band and Brian beyond Surfin' USA and that's not a bad thing. If the music hooks people they'll explore and find out more and will find their own way to the story, I think. I wish this had done a better job and I regret that it didn't, but somewhere in it there is still perhaps some good.

The 1993 Good Vibrations box practically redefined the history of music in the last decades for me.
As I said before, after 1967 the Beach Boys disappeared in Italy. There was just one magazine covering pop/rock music, and it covered only mainstream rock, progressive rock and a sprinkling of fusion. The only "info" I had about the Boys was they "had disbanded due to their leader Brian Wilson falling into madness".
So from 1967 to 1993 I believed that what once was my favourite band did not even exist any more.
When I bought the GV box I did not know what I expect... and I was astonished, and delighted. I knew for the first time about SMiLE, and listened to those gorgeous sessions.
And then I marveled at all those other hidden gems... the 1967-to-1977 albums.
I returned, immediately, to being a rabid Beach Boys fan, only 1000%. And, yes, I realized that what I had thought I knew was a lie. An enormous lie.
And, of course, I could not foretell that Brian Wilson would return and sprinkle his magic again upon us.
I did not know that Dennis had penned his own Pet Sounds (Pacific Ocean Blue) and his SMiLE (Bambu).

Oh, what did I want to say?

I mean, there is so much about the Beach Boys, besides "the hits" and Pet Sounds. Insisting, like this 2024 doc, that after 1966 there was practically nothing of importance (maybe excepting Kokomo!) is, imho, unforgivable. A great disservice to the Beach Boys, to the fans and the world of music at large.

Yes, it's possible that 2 or 3 people, after seeing this doc, decide to try listening to, say, "Sunflower". I doubt that. Hope to be wrong.

To those who understand copyright law: would it be foolish to attempt to create your own documentary with footage/pictures/music culled from various sources? There would be no monetization, no distribution other than YouTube.

I realize it's easy for people to throw copyright claims at you on YouTube, but if under "fair use" could such a documentary be determined as "educational" and thus not really be a target for copyright infringement? I realize it is probably a mine-field of problems. But just curious what smarter minds think of this idea.

I bring it up, because we live in a golden age of information. We have every documentary, interview, song, piece of footage at our disposal. We have access to pictures and documents regarding the music. I can totally see someone putting together a well-produced Beach Boys series on YouTube that documents every aspect of their career, culture, lives, etc. Basically, I can totally see some fan in his bedroom making a far better documentary than anything we've gotten.

Well said, and yes that '93 GV box set was a landmark release, and important for a lot of fans and people who would become even more devoted fans in the years after. It was a great time...and yet, even then, you had a yin and a yang situation where the band's music was finally being appreciated as music worthy of praise and attention beyond the hits, while simultaneously existing as a shell of a band whose current album sitting next to the two-fer reissues and the GV box set was Summer In Paradise. And the live shows featured dancing cheerleaders and hula girls existing in front of surfboard and palm tree backgrounds...while some of the best pop music of the 20th century was being performed.

I'll never get over those contradictions, which also happened in my personal life when I would play someone the Smile sessions, or Smiley/Wild Honey, or other similar material, then see them later after they saw or heard the current Beach Boys and were confused if not upset in some cases that the current albums and music from the same band was not on the same track or even the same universe as how the material was presented via the reissues, the box set, the Don Was doc, or even the Malcolm Leo documentary which was still available on VHS if you looked for it. Not saying it was all that way, but I'm hard-pressed to think of another band whose image and persona had such a Jekyll and Hyde existence especially after the public could hear Smile material and the 67-71 albums for themselves and judge that with what was current around 1991-1995.

But one comment you made stands out, when you said I realized that what I thought I knew was a lie, an enormous lie.

One of the bigger tragedies of the saga, particularly in the last 20 years or so but going beyond that, is how many lies were told, repeated, and believed about this band, and Brian Wilson in particular. People who a lot of us fans thought were trusted, honorable people and voices continued to spread lies and rumors that were simply not true. We could list them, but some of us already have been doing that for years. One glaring example out of many is how Brian  stayed in bed after 1967 and was unable to contribute to the music...and THAT truth was finally heard by the general public by way of the actual session tapes and various audio that blew all of that nonsense from before out of the water. People could hear it for themselves via legitimate releases of the sessions, rather than trusting the words being written online by those who knew better yet continued to spread false information.

Why someone would get enjoyment or pleasure out of trying to f*** over Brian Wilson is beyond me. I know that I and many of us fans can eventually fade into the sunset of life without having the issue of trying to f*** over Brian Wilson on our conscience and karma. I wonder if it even registers with some of those people who have tried to f*** over Brian Wilson in their words and actions, and decided to run with the lies and rumors along with other actions versus simply appreciating the man for his music and enjoying the gift which that music has been to us fans.

If anything can come from this documentary, hopefully some new listeners will be able follow up on their own after watching it to get to the truth, sift out the bullshit, and get deeper into the music as a result. It's life affirming and simply beautiful music which people of all backgrounds can connect with, and hopefully those new fans will be able to find the right sources and avoid the liars and the lies to better understand where all of this goodness came from.

I Just Wasn't Made For These Times, Beautiful Dreamer, Long Promised Road, the A&E special....how many documentaries do we need about Brian? Is there an area where those are lacking?

My guess about why there are so many people trying to f... over Brian is simply: envy. Brian is rightly recognized as a genius, and many mediocre, talentless hacks just can't accept that. He has to be "downsized", at all costs.

I wasn't trying to imply the doc and the book compilers/writers/directors/producers were in cahoots with each other; and it's been made clear by other comments here that everything post-Smile is rushed through in the doc.
It's like if The Beatles Anthology had ended with their last concert, in Candlestick Park. Or with a tag at the end that said "with the end of their touring days, the Fabs were able to explore the studio further, and bless the world with masterworks like Dr. Pepper and Shabby Road".
Anyway, I've given up hope that someday someone will do a true career spanning documentary. We're lucky people are interested in the Beach Boys AT ALL in 2024. I look at what's on the charts today, and I don't even know what most of it us, other than Taylor Swift. The 60's are fading into history; it's gotten very difficult to even find that music on the radio; luckily, we have a couple local stations that still play the Beach Boys, the Supremes, Paul Revere and the Raiders, the Monkees, Dave Clark 5, Four Tops, Four Seasons, Fats Domino...okay, I'm rambling.

People are trying to f--- over Brian? Today? 2024?

Doing a Brian-focused documentary is all well and good (although, yeah, I’d say we’ve had like a half dozen of so, if not more, of various flavors at this point).

But I don’t see a need to side-step doing a *group* documentary and *instead* doing a Brian doc and just filter the rest of the band through that. There are huge sections of the story where Brian is not the main focus. He’s always there, and the most democratic group doc is still also about Brian too.

Brian’s 1998-2020s triumphant renaissance has been covered in multiple documentaries and concert films.

The problem with the new Disney doc is not that they didn’t make Brian’s PS or Smile tour the huge defining end moment or anything. Sure, ideally even a “group” documentary would cover the solo stuff. Or rather, more specifically, it would cover how the band splintered post-1998 leading to Mike’s “solo” being the touring BB group, Al doing whatever (a truthful doc would delve into how he was quite marginalized by all sides during that time), and obviously Brian’s 2000s renaissance.

But I find some elements and sentiments in the new Disney doc pretty regressive in how it depicts the story/narrative, and riding the “Brian was the genius, and everybody else is far, far less important” narrative is something I also find regressive. It’s far more complicated than that.

If *I* were given carte blanche to do a documentary, there would be plenty of room for both Dennis’s “Brian Wilson is the Beach Boys. We’re nothing, he’s everything” quote/sentiment (which is very powerful if contextualized correctly), as well as plenty of examination of the point of view of the other members, both the good and the bad, the justified and the unjustified. It is *their* story too. I don’t begrudge any of these guys wanting a say in all the stuff they put out, whether an audio boxed set, a book, or a film.

The idea would be to find a smart and talented filmmaker (in the case of a doc) to be fair and moderate everybody’s point of view. Guess who is both a filmmaker and an expert, and understands all of these guys and is sympathetic to all elements of the story? He’s the guy who made the 1998 “Endless Harmony” doc.

Look, there are obviously, internally in the BB organization, over 60 years of built up politics and history, and that includes sentiments or feelings that are not always sympathetic to Brian, and in some cases unfair.

But I'm not sure how we arrived at there being some sort of current, present-day vast movement of people trying to "f**k over Brian Wilson."

This new doc is not good, and how it addresses Brian is certainly part of that. But it's really a case of the thing being bungled, as opposed to a purposeful conspiracy.

I'm not saying people don't still try to get certain facts/sentiments/points of view into these things. But going around saying in 2024 there is a large movement of people trying to "f**k over Brian Wilson" because they're jealous is, well, I don't know what that is. Like, let's just say whatever we mean. Is this code for Mike Love? Or is this really a case of like trying to regress back to the "everybody else in the band are talentless and would be pumping gas if it weren't for Brian" narrative?

I'm not saying Mike Love doesn't want to still get his story/narrative across, and we've *all always* been aware (or should have been) that we're headed towards a "last man standing" situation with these aging guys where the narrative will never *not* be spun at least a little bit.

But I think people are being pretty conciliatory and sympathetic and compassionate about Brian Wilson in 2024. Mike Love still wants everybody to know Murry boned him over the songwriting issue. But I also think his heart breaks seeing Brian in rough shape, as it does everybody. And like all of us, they all take that in and process it differently. Look at poor Al, on the red carpet seemingly convinced they all still have more songwriting and another album in them. Hey, I hope he's right.

-How many documentaries do we need on The Beach Boys?

Everyone is complaining that much of the story was missing from the new documentary.  The reason parts are missing is because much of it isn't their story, it is for publicity and to write the narrative of some of the band members.

A complete biography of Brian with an in depth look to all of his work and Dennis and Carl's work, not just limiting it to The Beach Boys, would resolve that.

Just to add that I know that the book and documentary are separate entities but both involve the same band and some of the band members seem to have an interest in accentuating a part of the story only - and oddly two of the bits they don't cover are TWGMTR and the C50.  Obviously it can be argued that solo works are not in context.

Listen to Howie Edelson discuss the Genesis book on that "Surf's Up" podcast. He offers a very good explanation for why it becomes a minefield getting into something like C50.

I think everybody would love the biggest book and longest documentary. But there are also practical and logistical considerations for getting something released with approval and/or co-operation.

But I think the documentary missing so much is a much more murky, complicated issue that probably involves elements of the back story we don't know about.

The reason this documentary ended up the way it did is far more involved and complicated than simply parts being missing because some band members have agendas that preclude those things being mentioned. I don't think Mike Love has any problem with mentioning "Keepin' the Summer Alive", or Landy, or "15 Big Ones", or whatever.


Getting more granular and focusing more on Brian doesn't get anybody a "more complete" story. The same could be said for the group as a whole. A "complete" group biography of all them would get you, well, the complete story!

I think people are focusing way too much on the "Mike's agenda" stuff when it comes to this new documentary. The problems with this documentary involve more than non-Wilsons trying to hog too much of the story. Indeed, Al clearly feels marginalized and has issues with the doc. There are more fundamental, ground-level problems with this documentary.

The "solution" would involve getting a different team and ethos in doing the doc, as opposed to, what, tossing the idea and doing a "Wilson Brothers" documentary? How does that tell the whole story? Don't get me wrong, give me all the thorough docs on all the members you want. But the problem with this new Disney doc is not that it's speaking to Mike Love's (or whomever's) agenda too much and not focusing enough on the Wilsons. The problem is the director doesn't get it at all across the board, and something fatally injured this documentary during the process such that it couldn't cover enough years. That's a Disney problem, a director problem, and possibly a myriad or beefs and arguments and politics across multiple people/organizations.

I mean artistically, of course. Refer to the Hoffman board to see that in action.

Well judging by the artwork for the posters we knew the documentary would be 👎🏼👎🏼

(while Zenobi was referring to artistic stuff, I think Guitarfool was spot on about his comments about "fans" and Brian Wilson)

Let's go back to the NPP days and see how many "fans" were treating Brian with kindness and respect. And yeah, no one is doing that publicly today, at least that I can tell - is the lack of snark due to Brian's age? Or that he hasn't released an album in a while? Either way, rewind a few years and the level of sh*t thrown at Brian was unreal. That atmosphere of "brain damaged Brian", or "Brian is the wheelchair bound grandpa forced to give a speech at Thanksgiving dinner", Brian didn't do any production work on Wild Honey, or that stupid Mike Love lawsuit where he claims Brian sat around collecting royalty checks for 40 years LOL, and all the rumors/gossip spread about Melinda Wilson (btw real classy the "RIP" posts after her passing from the same people who spread those rumors) that indirectly were a slap in the face to Brian and his family, and there are many more examples....Do you think all of that stuff disappears overnight?

Rewind a few years and yeah, people were trying to f*** with Brian and his family.

It's not so easily forgotten. So while this very day no one is out directly trying to f*** over Brian Wilson, I don't think those mindsets and perceptions disappear overnight, nor does the memory of how awful "fans" have treated the guy over the years.

The point is if you look at the history of the group post 1980 it shows a qualitative decline and at this time Brian's involvement had reduced.  What happened at the C50 when they did another album and Brian was involved, they had more success.  I'm not sure Mike would be happy with anyone coming to that conclusion especially after having said that he could step in because he was another genius, nor would he be happy covering the disagreement over the tour not continuing.  But it isn't just Mike it is what the current owners of the catalogue think - this is a publicity vehicle for them and they want a positive, uplifting and popular video as do Disney.  Having something about a period where the group was just a touring band with no new music could be covered in 2 minutes and probably not as visually interesting as young people frolicking on a sunny beach.

My point about doing a Brian biography is that this contains the whole story.  Not just the Wilson brothers, not just Brian but the group when it was at it's most popular and Brian's subsequent solo career, finalising SMiLE and his other albums - any Beach Boy biography is not going to cover those things.

Absolutely right.  Though I'm not totally sure of people not trying to F*** Brian over again, or at least get back into working with him again if the opportunity arose.  M&B have been here in England flogging the book and the video and saying things about writing with Brian no doubt for the publicity it generates but if that causes fans to create pressure for it, Brian sadly no longer has Melinda as a buffer.

It is NOT a zero sum game. Recently, I "quarreled" here to "defend" Mike. So, no, what I said in my post above was not code for Mike, nor did I mean that only Brian is talented. I love all the Boys, and think they are/were all remarkably talented, and love particularly the stretch 1967-1977 where their talents shone, not only in singing.
No, I meant exactly with I said: there are STILL people who never spend a good word for Brian, even now - quite the contrary. You find them easily on the Hoffman board.

 Exactly, Rab.And you are right, not only artistically. That has too often trespassed into personal attack zone.

You feel that a group of Brian naysayers on the Steve Hoffman Forums amounts to "people trying to f**k over Brian"? And this relates to the Disney documentary how?

In what way are people "f**king" Brian over? What are they saying?

Every fandom has weird subsets of pro and anti this or that. I read the Hoffman forums pretty often and have been for years; it's a huge sprawling place with thousands of posters. Setting aside the audiophile wankery stuff, the rest of the discussions go down all of the usual paths. Mike Love defenders, weird Brian detractors, and tons of uber Brian fans who will defend him to the death.

Across every sector of the internet that I've ever run across that discusses the Beach Boys (boards, Twitter, Reddit, the Usenet back in the 90s, and so on), the vast majority of people are ardent supporters of Brian. There has always been a weird "Club Kokomo" faction, but it's pretty tiny.

Okay, so now I'm catching on here that what we're mostly talking about is a small faction of fans/posters, I presume mainly including people no longer posting here? How does this relate to the Disney documentary? Even if there is a faction of fans online, past and/or present, trying to say awful stuff about Brian, how did that impact this Disney documentary?

I've of course been on the board for a zillion years, and was here for all of the NPP stuff. It was mostly a series of hundreds of posts (pages?) about the semantics of what "autotune" is, and a discussion (sometimes enlightening, sometimes not so much) about how we go about criticizing artists, including Brian.

This forum, and as I mentioned in a previous post, nearly every place where the Beach Boys are discussed (short of like Mike Love fan forums I guess) features overwhelming support of Brian, occasionally to the point of being overly-forgiving of his flaws. I bow to nobody in my love for Brian Wilson (if anybody wants to look at the hand full of Mike cheerleaders going at it with me for years on old posts here, feel free), and there have been specific times where he's been unfairly maligned. I don't view the fandom as such as a big source of this. The times Brian has most unfairly been maligned or insulted have been things like the ESQ "Is he brain damaged?  Yes" article, or past years of Mike interviews where he raises Brian and the other Wilsons' drug and alcohol abuse of many decades ago. Yes, small subsets of fans have weird axes to grind or agendas that skew anti-Brian for some reason (I don't think it's jealousy, etc., but I'll get to that in a later post), and sure, sometimes that comes in weird unpredictable waves over the years. But Brian has overall been given tons of sympathy and empathy from the vast majority of fans.

I mean, all of that depends on who is making the film, and what they choose to do. Someone could come in and biff a Brian Wilson doc just as easily as a Beach Boys doc.

I don't see how doing another doc on Brian, covering the same stuff his own docs have covered, would fix anything about the problems presented by this Disney doc.

A Beach Boys doc could "contain the whole story" just as much as a Brian doc could. It just takes the right person/people making it. Someone that would broach the 50th anniversary project on all fronts. I have no interest in a Brian doc covering the 50th with no input from the other members, because all of their positions/feelings are part of the story.

And as I mentioned, a well-done BB doc could *absolutely* cover Brian's 2000s triumphs as well. Indeed, a good storyteller could weave that into being estranged from the band and then eventually reuniting in 2012.

There seems to be a feeling that some have that they want Brian and his story more segregated from the rest of the band. I don't think that's needed if a good filmmaker (or writer if we're talking about a biography, etc.) knows their s**t and tackles the WHOLE story. It can be done. It was done in 1998 by Alan Boyd, a guy who is very sympathetic and simpatico with Brian Wilson and his saga.

I think they're just making small talk for the press junkets. Does it seem a bit head-in-the-sand for Mike or Al to suggest they could write new stuff with Brian? Maybe, I dunno. It seems innocent and not cruel in any way. Maybe naive, but I'm not going to burst into the room and tell Al Jardine that he's crazy for thinking Brian might be able to write or record a song again.

I don't think anybody needs to worry that Brian presently feels any pressure based on Mike or Bruce randomly talking on Good Morning Britain or whatever about doing something with Brian in the future. I assure everybody that it's highly unlikely Brian is watching that stuff.

Sure, there are always naysayers/critics for anybody. I don't think that's a huge problem for Brian vis-a-vis the entire fan base.

And, to the degree weird slivers of fandom have a weird axe to grind with Brian or Brian's story, I don't think it comes from jealousy or feeling insecure about not being as talented. I think it comes from more broad sociopolitical and personal politics issues (e.g. some people are predisposed to be less sympathetic towards the "tortured genius" thing, or mental illness in general, etc.), and in some cases just the dumb team sports mentality a small group of fans take when it comes to this band, meaning it's the same small group that not coincidentally is extra critical of Brian and super sympathetic towards Mike.

But more pertinent to the topic of this new doc, I'm confused as to what some "anti-Brian" fans on message boards has to do with this new documentary having problems? I just don't see the connection.

Guitarfool was making a point about how those few in the fandom spreading BS have affected the perception of the band/members to varying degree, and specifically zeroed in on the lawsuit that claimed Brian was doing nothing for 40 years but getting royalty checks. But he made the point that "If anything can come from this documentary, hopefully some new listeners will be able follow up on their own after watching it to get to the truth, sift out the bullshit, and get deeper into the music as a result." Zenobi responded with a post, to which Lonely Summer asked if anyone had actually been trying to f*** over Brian this year. I responded with an overview of the nonsense that Brian has dealt with in previous years.

My post, and to an extent Lonely Summer's question had little/nothing to do specifically with the Disney+ documentary. However given it is a message forum where a multitude of topics can arise in a specific topic thread, it isn't that abnormal for parts of the conversation to meander off the main topic.

Of course Brian has been given a majority of sympathy by the fans. But some people have made it their mission (some publicly admitting to it) to be offensive toward Brian and Melinda which has altered opinions of newer/unknowing fans. And now back to the documentary...

Well, if nothing else this documentary is to praised for revitalizing our forum, which had been a bit "slow" lately...

Thank you Rab for actually reading my post and commenting on what I wrote. It was a direct response to what Zenobi had written, which I found very profound and telling, specifically about feeling like what he had learned and read about the band wasn't the truth until he actually heard things like the GV box set, specifically this: "I realized that what I had thought I knew was a lie. An enormous lie."

Here was a fan who had known from whatever sources were available what they thought was the truth, the story behind all the music and who created it, and it turned out years later not to be the whole story...hell, not even the true story.

And that mirrors almost exactly what happened to many young fans I witnessed come and go from the various online forums and outlets who were sold a false bill of goods by people they thought - in some cases who we all thought - were good, honest sources of information and who had no agendas other than to publish and share information in order for new and older fans to better understand what went into creating all this great music.

That sadly turned out not to be the case. Could we name names? Yes. Could we cite specific cases, both those known publicly and deeper insider stuff that most of the fanbase has no clue even happened to show examples? Yes. But not here, not now. Let's just say there is a choice between spreading rumors and falsehoods or choosing to spread information to foster a better understanding of the band and its music. Let's also say there is a choice between doing the right and honorable thing, or not doing so.

If a fan like Zenobi, who clearly has a passion for this music, felt like all the information they had read and gathered turned out to be false, so too are there many fans who believed certain people and their false information, and who may similarly feel ripped off or cheated. And others simply believe it in spite of the truth. That's their choice.

But my focus wasn't specifically on the fans or the "fan base". It was on those who knew better in some cases, or those who put a greater priority on spreading false information and, yes, trying to f*** over Brian Wilson, his wife, his family, and his reputation, to further whatever causes or agendas they may have been connected with, or whatever personal grudges or issues they may have injected into the process of publishing information for fans to read and consume.

This documentary is what it is: Just read the part that Rab extracted from my post and that's exactly how I feel. I also do not want newer fans to watch this and come away thinking certain things about Smile, the lawsuit(s) and song credits, or anything else that only skims the surface of much deeper issues and circumstances. I hope they dig deeper, go further into the mine in their own searches...hoping too that they don't go down the wrong mine shaft or run across the wrong miners in the process. It's already happened before. And some of those miners should have known better.

So I'm reposting exactly what Zenobi wrote and how I responded to it a few pages back. Hopefully the points will be more clear when they're seen in context and with a little more explanation.

So, for the first time in a couple decades, I just rewatched the "Endless Harmony" documentary.  And, you know what?  The new Disney doc not only doesn't add anything to what was done by Alan Boyd a quarter century ago, it actually subtracts.  EH treats Smile more respectfully and accurately 25 years ago... mind you, that was before BWPS and the 2011 box.  You've got the iconic front and back cover art in there.  You've got Sean Lennon in terms saying how amazing Smile is.   You've got the '70s live H&V in there that shows not only the strength of Smile material but also how it actually was part of the group's live repertoire.

 The Disney doc presents a fundamentally narrower, more pedestrian take on the story with fewer insights and less content, despite a similar runtime.

  And you know what EH has that the new doc lacks?  Humor.  There are some laugh-out-loud moments in EH... .... Steve Desper explaining what Murry was like... "Imagine being in a public library... and then a freight train comes through."  
.... Brian at the piano asking Al to hold his nose while he mimics Mike Love's lead vocal on California Girls...
.... The B&W I Just Wasn't Made for These Times film in which the boys are playing Old Maid and snub Mike Love... who wanders off to polish boots in the woods with a mask-wearing loner... it's a genuinely funny little film.
...  Mike Love in Paris talking about the "Louv-RUH" and mocking the city's outdoor latrines.

I know I'm carrying a considerable amount of bias and anger on Brian's behalf - you'll have to filter it if it shows -

In the Telegraph article just the other day we were told the most important thing about Leonard Bernstein presenting Brian an H&V was that he consulted some sort of clairvoyant (?)took dope and went to bed.  No, the most important thing was this young man had produced an astonishing piece of music which a very well respected composer was comparing somewhat favourably to Mozart.  
We were told the GV chorus was written by Mike - he openly admits he didn't and that he just suggested that they use the bass line Brian composed and which underlies the verse.
We had Brian on record competently and coherently producing an album, writing astonishing music using a theme which was ahead of it's time with a skilled poet and it stopped.  From the band's point of view there had to be some excuse for it stopping other than the lyricist left because the band didn't think the music would sell.
20/20 Brian comes out of his bedroom and effortlessly adds the coda to Surfs Up.
For Holland we learn that "I'm on my way to sunny California" was something Brian sang in the studio just before he went home.
Do I like other music from the band - of course - though I'd argue that Brian had more musical skill than all of them.
What we need is a documentary produced by an independent, journalist to do a thorough investigation and warts and all history in documentary form.  Ignore the steak holders in the business and the band, get footage from others who own copyright to film.  Will we get it - I doubt it - perhaps posthumously in years in the future.  Lets hope that all the evidence of the actual history isn't 'vanished' in the meantime.

I also re-watched Endless Harmony and I completely agree.

I accidentally managed to refer to 'Endless Harm' when I was messaging a friend.  I corrected this - obviously not referring to the video which I like. But there has been quite a lot of harm from some quarters and the title 'Endless Harmony' sometimes seems rather ironic given the band's frequent lawsuits and disagreements. The vocals of course are another matter.

A million percent agreed, ESPECIALLY with the posts re: Melinda. I think it’s a bit rich coming from certain people who did nothing but slander her while she was alive

Still not having watched the documentary (and I continue to see not a big problem with the use of "Kokomo" but that's just a minor thing) but reading your reviews it kinda seems like everything that people like Alan Boyd, Mark Linett, Howie Edelson a.o. worked very hard for in the last years - and may I say decades - was overlooked. I had hoped that especially the critically acclaimed releases of recent years like "The Smile Sessions", "Sunshine Tomorrow", "Feel Flows" and "Sail on Sailor" not to forget the success of the reunion and somewhat of a rediscovery of Dennis' music would give people enough strength to go into those themes. Very disappointing.

Yes, sometimes I have the temptation to relent and "let it go". But when I think about Melinda and the unspeakable yahoos who used to call her "Mel...y", and other such pleasantries, no forgiveness is possible. There is a reason I post in this forum, though I may not agree 100% on everything. My memory is bad and getting worse, but I remember some things which happened in the wonderful world of Beach Boys "fandom" (hence my quote from Voltaire).

Specifically, where on the Hoffman board?

There were some vile things said about Melinda, for sure. I think it was a very, very small sliver of "fandom", but it did happen, yes.

Can someone draw the line to what that has to do with this new Disney documentary? Like, I've been in many a thread that veers. But what prompted a call-out of some fans who said negative stuff about Melinda and Brian, who have nothing to do with the Disney documentary and presumably are not here on this board now?

Is anybody suggesting the filmmakers had the same or similar motives as a few stridently anti-Brian/Melinda fans? If that's the case (and I'm not saying it is), then I'd say that certainly doesn't seem to be the case. As I've probably mentioned before, that type of weird film-based vendetta theory would involve the makers of the film putting in way more effort and having way more focus than they appear to have. I think Frank Marshall's idea of the Beach Boys is far, far too reductive to have any particular agenda beyond getting a product out the door based on remembering he dug some Beach Boys songs.

The first line highlighted in yellow is Zenobi talking about the perception that some fans held that Brian/the band didn't do much after 1967. How it relates to the Disney+ documentary is that Zenobi thought it was sad that the documentary mostly ignores the music that came out after 1967 (thus potentially aiding in the continuation of the false perception of post-1967 Brian). Guitarfool, kinda naturally, pointed out the potential reason for said false perception (or, at least another instance where that perception was carried on further). Guitarfool mentioned in his post that he hopes that this documentary will at least be a catalyst for helping people dig deeper into the band.

Then Lonely Summer asked a question about Brian being f***ed with this year. As I stated previously (a few posts back, seems like you missed it) I responded to his question with examples of Brian being f***ed with in previous years. Lonely Summer has since clarified his question to Zenobi, specifically mentioning the Hoffman board.

Hopefully that clears up your confusion. As I stated before, message boards usually always have threads where the topic veers and meanders. Both Zenobi and Guitarfool mention the documentary in their posts and how it relates to Brian. They are fairly clear in their reasoning for bringing up what they did. NOBODY is suggesting that the filmmakers are anti-Brian or anti-Melinda and honestly I don't even know why you'd ask the question considering everyone posting here has been very clear about why they are posting what they are posting.

I don't want to give the idea that my only problem with this documentary is that it does a disservice to Brian. Also, but the main problem is the disservice to the BEACH BOYS. All of them. To their legacy.
I started loving them in the 60's when I did not even know their personal names. For me, they were just a bunch of guys with great songs and angel voices... except one who had a distinctive, punchy tone when singing lead but was also an unforgettable bass/baritone in the harmonies.
I am now, also, a proud "Brianista", but for me that does not represent some "choice of a faction": it is the logic and natural offshot of being a Beach Boys lover. That it has been used as a kind of insult by some "fans", even distinguished ones, boggles the mind. Luckily, good Scott Totten once said that he is a Brianista himself! Being a Brianista does not mean you think less of the other Beach Boys: it is not a zero sum game. It means only that you recognize who did most of the songwriting etc. work.
(Of course there are extremists, both among the Branistas and the Mike Lovers - I am neither)

Back to the documentary: I don't think there is a conspiracy agaiinst either Brian or the Boys. I guess it's simply ignorance, or laziness. The documentary makers do not seem to realize that the Boys did anything really good after Good Vibrations. After all, there was no smash hit except Kokomo, right? So much for the importance of Art and Music.
And so, the timeline is reset YET AGAIN at "Surfin'", stretches to Pet Sounds, talks superficially of the SMiLE "fiasco" without ever hinting at how things ended in 2004/2011, and dumps down all the other woks of the Boys like a sack of hot potatoes, lest weak minds be troubled by subversive non-charting sounds.

About the questions some asked me: nah, I'm tired of that, and of that parsing of every single word one says. You kiddin' me.

Though he'll always have his own unique baggage, Jack Rieley is probably turning over in his grave at this moment given the shabby contour of the new documentary, and his famous quote still seems to be more appropriate than any of us would wish to be the case.

I think whatever chance we had for a more satisfying documentary was lost roughly a quarter of a century ago, when we were so unfortunate to lose Carl Wilson at such an early age. My sense is that if Carl were still here with us, we would have a much more balanced and more comprehensive film. I think we know that Brian's ongoing ambivalence about the group would preclude him from taking an active role in such a project, if only for the fact that it would mean he would be wrangling with Mike--something we know he prefers to avoid. But Carl would have taken a broader view of the band's history and would have advocated for the type of coverage that included many of the fascinating tangents that were left out.

None of the other band members--Al, Bruce, David--have the clout (or the family standing) to take on the role that disappeared when Carl died. Though he probably would have agreed to the sale to Azoff, I think he would have looked for a way to stay in the loop regarding how the band's legacy would be handled.

The best approach for the future would be for someone (or combination of someones) to focus on doing a documentary on the Wild Honey-Holland era, all the way up to Endless Summer and the Beachago tour. Someone get Desper to discuss the home studio, and someone front the $$ to bring out a new version of this book before his age/health makes that unfeasible. Focus on the period that deserves the coverage, that tells the ironic story about the band became a big deal again but then found themselves trapped in their past. Obviously the first choice for such a project would be Alan Boyd, and there are a slew of experts from the sessionography project who could take us through the period with a great deal of detail...

From day one I have been thinking to myself about how the Grateful Dead had that freaking 5 hour documentary a few years ago, why not The Beach Boys? Not that they necessarily need some crazy mega-marathon feature (5 hours of what we did get would certainly not be what I have in mind), but something with a more ambitious scope at the very least. It's hard to not get more than a little disappointed thinking about some of the incredible moments in this band's 60+ year history that will remain unknown/irrelevant trivia to all but the most ardent of fans.

Thank you.

I agree Don, only I'd reach to Love You. Why exclude it? I know that not everybody likes it, but others consider it a bizarre "cult" gem, much like Smiley Smile. For example, if Jerry Garcia loved Smiley, Patti Smith loves Love You. In any, it's a rather bold artistic statement, like it or not.
Besides, it is both the swan song of the creative period of the Boys before the "singing jukebox" period, and a sort of introduction to Brian's solo career.
And I think there would be an elegant symmetry in bookending the history of the neglected but still artistically great 1967-1977 decade of the group with the two weird avant garde works, Smiley and Love You.

A history is a whole history not just up to this or that album.  And Dennis once said "Brian is the Beach Boys" so it also has to include his solo career.  Only an independent film maker can do this.

The thing that makes zero sense to me is why there'd be no mention of the biggest chart success the Beach Boys had for years - That's Why God Made the Radio. I can understand the reasons for not including Brian's solo material IN A WAY and it has had coverage elsewhere but if you're trying to introduce new fans to the story, some context would be nice.

The band are still in the loop (the corporate members) .  They are partners with Iconic.  They didn't sell 100% of BRI. Plus,  clearly Bruce is consulted when his era is involved. 

This documentary sucks but what can we expect from the last days of The Beach Boys. Brian has dementia this sh*t fucking awful….

I agree that it would be optimal to tell the entire story in one film, but that idea is quite probably blocked for some time due to what's just happened. I was just looking for a remedy that might happen if the right consortium of experts (led by Boyd) made a proposal to Iconic for a followup.

Zenobi, the reason why I left out the 75-80 time frame is that it is actually ripe material for a documentary of its own, as the band goes through so much stuff in that period that trying to put it into the "in and out of the wilderness" story runs the risk of becoming seriously exhausting. I'd tell the third part from the point of view of Brian's return. We might call that part "The Beach Boys 1975-80: Brian Returns...(and Goes Away For Awhile Again...)"

That last part really should be in small type... :3d

As for TWGMTR, it's a story (along with the 50th reunion) that I think has to wait to be told only when all the principals are no longer with us--too much acrimony is still extant (particularly from Mike's viewpoint) for such a project to get green-lighted.


All true, but it's clear from what we just watched that some are more "in the loop" than others. There is no one "in the loop" championing the post-GV phase of the band, and I think only Carl (if he were here) would/could do that. And in that vacuum, Mike is there to fill it up...

Well, you have to differentiate between the Disney doc and everything else.

All of the members, including Mike and Al, have been very involved with and positive about post-GV material, as evidenced by their heavy involvement in and enthusiasm for the "Feel Flows and "Sail on Sailor" boxed sets.

The Disney doc was clearly handed over to people (Disney and Frank Marshall, etc.) and while BRI remained nominally as "producer" on the doc, I don't think any of them had any particular editorial control. Clearly Al is cranky about the doc for instance. Maybe Frank Marshall's sort of regressive, reductive view of the band is less of a frustration-inducing issue for Mike than Al for instance, but I don't think that means any members have been more "in the loop" on the doc.

As for Carl, it's difficult to say what he would have done or thought. I don't know that he was particularly more "championing" the later era stuff, or more progressive material in general, in the 90s for instance. He had some issues with even the "Pet Sounds Sessions" set, he sometimes was nixing certain outtakes ("Soulful Old Man Sunshine"), and he wasn't a big champion of the band doing the Paley tracks. Now, I don't think he had any aversion as a general rule to later-era material. He tended to more granular, specific issues with things. But I can't really sign on to the idea that, as of like 1996 or something, Carl was a way bigger champion of later-era material than the other guys. Carl and Al were clearly into that short run of extended shows in 1993 where they did some deep cuts. Other than that, I don't know if Carl would have gotten away from being as skittish about later-era material. I mean, I'd guess that would be the case, because Al and Mike and the other guys did too. I'd like to think he would have come around and been heavy into sets like "Feel Flows" and "Sail on Sailor." But I can't be sure of that, because Carl's musical tastes got pretty kind of safe/bland/conservative by the 90s.

Mike’s been planning this since the downfall of smile…

Planning what? What is happening?

Truly, check my fifty zillion posts, I've criticized Mike plenty over the years.

But a discussion of this Disney doc has turned into complaining about apparent anti-Brian slivers of fandom either from other boards, or from the distant past, and vague, nebulous statements about some sort of Mike Love agenda.

Make no mistake, Mike has a point of view and an agenda, and it's one I think plenty of people don't agree with. But if you actually stop and try to reverse-engineer what went wrong with this Disney documentary, I don't know how you come out of that railing against "anti Brian" *fans* that aren't even on this board, or spinning vague accusations/references to a Mike Love "plan" or agenda. Watching that Disney doc and immediately complaining about the "anti-Brian" forces out there, and implying, I guess?, that the doc is part of some Mike Love agenda/conspiracy, only plays into the incorrect perception that some fans will always and for-any-reason go after Mike Love, and that they're overly-defensive concerning anything to do with Brian Wilson.

There are a million things to criticize Mike Love for. I don't think this doc is really one of them. The worst I can say about Mike concerning this doc is that he doesn't really seem to be actively trying to help/console Al Jardine about Al's clear ill feelings towards elements of this doc. I think Mike is probably fine with the doc, or certainly ambivalent at worst. But that's not really a *cause* of anything, that's just the outcome of a documentary which, as I mentioned, due to it's regressive and reductive angle, I think just tends to fall more into line with a "narrative" that doesn't particularly bug Mike. But that doesn't mean Mike made it so.

Look, Mike’s narrative of questionable songwriting credits has become a central canon in the group’s history. The rewrite is complete.

There were around 18 posts (5 of which are yours) about anti-Brian fans out of a conversation with 267 posts. If anything, your constant "rebuttals" of the posts are making your supposed problem worse because it keeps dragging this topic on and on. Also making it worse is your apparent disregard of the explanations of those posts.

No one ever even hinted that the reason they brought up anti-Brian fans was because they were attempting to "reverse engineer" what went wrong with the film. I have repeatedly told you specifically how the topic came about, I have posted quotes that show exactly how the topic came up, and yet you keep making these false statements such as where you suggested people were insinuating the filmmakers were anti-Melinda. Good grief.

To put it as simply as I possibly can, the topic was solely brought up because someone hoped that this film wouldn't perpetuate the false narrative that The Beach Boys didn't do much after 1967. A couple people commented specifically on one part of that post. That's it. NO ONE insinuated that the filmmakers are anti-Melinda or that the anti-Brian topic came up because someone was trying to theorize what went wrong with this film.

For the third time, it's a message-board where topics veer/meander. Given that from the start of the "anti-Brian" topic, MOST of the posts have specifically been about the documentary itself, I don't see why this is something worth gatekeeping. Again, 18 (most of them short comments/questions, and 5 posts by YOU) out of 267 posts is nothing to get constantly worked up about.

I'm not going to belabor sharing an alternative count on what may or may not constitute "on topic" of "off topic", nor how *5 posts* somehow constitutes "constantly" getting "worked up."

I've participated, obviously, in many, many threads that have veered off topic.

I appreciate your explanation for *how* it veered off topic. I can see how there were initial misgivings about what narrative the doc would tell. That all makes sense. But I'm still at a loss as to how that veered into fans that aren't on this board having years ago said nasty things about Melinda and Brian. It was either a random complaint I guess, or an attempt to relate *that* to the perceived "anti-Brian" narrative in the documentary. I guess? That's why some of my previous posts honed in on my belief that there's not much of "agenda" on this doc, and it's drawbacks (which we all mostly seem to agree are present) are due, in my opinion, to laziness and the makers being ill equipped to make the doc, rather than any particular agenda.

But I guess my point, to be more direct, is that my question of what this has to do with the Disney documentary is partly sort of rhetorical. That is, I'm not complaining that some posts went "off topic."

Rather, I feel there have been some posts that are trying to draw a line between "the documentary's narrative being anti-Brian" in some way, and other "anti-Brian" figures (fans on other boards, Mike Love I guess?). Because some posts showing concern that the doc might "perpetuate a false narrative" turned into references to other fans on other boards, and a seeming lingering animosity *years after the fact* about what a few fans (who don't post here anymore) said about Melinda many years ago, and even went back to bringing up nearly decade-old complaints about fans who didn't like "No Pier Pressure."

An explanation for how *that* happened remains sort of elusive. It's either that some see a connection between something to do with the doc and those other things, or it was just a random diversion to re-grind axes with people who aren't on the board anymore (and in the case of the Hoffman board, maybe never were?), and to rail against some "anti-Brian" something out there.

The *apparent* line went from "this documentary was unfair to Brian" to "all the people trying to f**k Brian over", which seemed an odd jump, and something I still find as a really odd phraseology to use, especially in reference to fans on message boards. Like, "Mike tried to f**k Brian over on this business issue"; that sort of use of the phrase makes sense. But a vague "all the people trying to f**k Brian over" starts, to be frank, to start sounding conspiracy theory-ish. And that's just kind of weird and embarrassing, in my opinion. And counterproductive in light of incorrect perceptions and misdeeds concerning the BBs that might *actually* need attention, be true, and might actually have a chance to be corrected.

Open your eyes about those guys exiled on Endless Harmony were doing. Their negative posts about BW were vanilla compared to what they sent about the BW/ Melinda Wilson and Al Jardine in PMs. Legendary historians my ass…

I used to regularly have endless back-and-forths with multiple people who I felt regularly engaged in trollish behavior who are no longer on this board and now post on the other board. I get it!

But what does that have to do with this documentary?

I'm not the "on topic" police, really! What I'm trying to say is that from the outside, this thread has a few pages of posts that just look like random, arbitrary axe-grinding against other fans from other boards, and regarding things that in many cases happened like a decade ago. I won't belabor the point; if people want this thread to be that, then that's how it'll be I guess.

I am at a loss as to how you can't go back and read the progression of the comments and see how the conversation veered.

1) someone brought up the "lie" that the post-1967 Beach Boys didn't do much. This poster was VERY clear in how their comments relate to the documentary.
2) someone else saw the "lie" part of that post and made a post relating to a connecting "lie" which related to the anti-Brian/Melinda drama from years past.
3) someone questioned whether Brian was being f***ed with this year.
4) someone responded with an answer that brought up previous posters of this board f***ing with Brian.

I have stated this numerous times, and it is painfully clear just going back and reading the thread, so I very much don't understand how you're "at a loss" at why or how things "veered". Again, it's a message board and topics will veer on threads. I mention that your 5 posts are "constantly" complaining about it, because you keep mentioning the same complaints even after given clear explanation.

So four+ people commented on the anti-Brian thing. Is it necessary to question the existence of those 13 posts 5+ times? Honestly I would argue that your constant questioning of the posts themselves is FAR more off topic than the posts in question - because the original posts at least have a logical progression of existence in this thread relating to Brian Wilson.

The point that you seem to be consciously trying to miss here is exactly the massive difference between Disney's mega-media approach and the mining of the archives by Capitol and Boyd/Linett. Try to recall just how on edge everyone was about the shaky status of FEEL FLOWS--hell, Jude, you don't have to try...just read some of the 171-page thread adjacent to this one that's mostly anxiety/anger about whether it would see the light of day at all. Thankfully, Howie and others prevailed and that set was a significant success, which probably had a lot to do with everyone in the band being muh more supportive from the get-go for SAIL ON SAILOR...where everyone in the Capitol food chain got too greedy and overpriced it. The good news there seems to be that everyone still wants more product, and perhaps Iconic is just focused on trying to max what they can achieve from whatever is available from the various content sources.

Mike hasn't divulged much about his level of involvement re the documentary, but we can infer at least a bit about comparative levels of input and "in the loopness" from Al's remarks. Clearly Bruce is going along for the ride and will defer to Mike whenever it makes sense to do so.

Those points about Carl are reasonable caveats as far as they go, but I think you understate the fact that over the twenty-odd years that we've had "parallel bands", we have no idea how that dynamic would have worked if Carl hadn't died. (And, of course, we never will...) Some have speculated that Brian would have remained reluctant to embark on a solo career with Carl still alive and active. But let's leave those imponderables aside and get to the core of the issue: if Carl were still with us, and the idea of FEEL FLOWS had been broached to him in 2018-19, one strongly suspects that his massive level of involvement in shaping that material and making the bulk of the decisions about it back in the day would have prompted him to support the idea that it should be released and honored as part of the band's legacy.

I can't say that with 100% certainty, of course, as Carl had mostly taken the course after the band's progressive period came to an end that each project was a kind of separate fungible unit in that there could no longer be any "grand design" for what the band as a whole was doing...but in a legacy context, I feel highly confident that Carl would have listened to what was in the archives and decided that it was worthy of seeing the light of day. That was, after all, his period more than anyone else's. And if band members were given some level of input in how the Disney documentary was going to be shaped, a cumulative recognition of the value of the archive materials from that time frame would have been more prominent in his mind than anyone else in the band, for precisely that reason. And that might very well have led to some advocacy for a different "coverage arc" for the documentary...

HeyJude, it was at max 5 specific posts that mentioned the supposed arbitrary "axe-grinding" you speak of. How the heck does that constitute a few pages?? I even wrote in my last post that out of 75 posts there were 18 that talked about the anti-Brian thing. 18 doesn't even make up a page, and again, 5 of those were your posts. Most of the posts in the last 3 pages relate directly to the documentary.

This ridiculous back and forth you and I are having about this is more obnoxious than the posts in question. So I recommend, if you're having an issue with the supposed perception of what these threads look like "from the outside", perhaps don't spend 6+ posts complaining/arguing about the 5 posts you're peeved about.

This is probably at the heart of it. There is no connection. In my opinion, obviously.

My issue has been that a productive dissection/analysis of this documentary goes *completely off the rails* when it draws ANY connection to fan drama bulls**t. And I say that as someone who is *very well versed* in both the history of the band, fandom on the internet for the last nearly 30 years (going back to the Usenet days), and of course specifically this board since 2005. The documentary has serious problems, and I feel that veering into stuff regarding a sliver of "anti-Melinda/Brian" fans from a decade ago COMPLETELY MISSES THE POINT.

But as I mentioned in my previous post, I shouldn't belabor the point much beyond that, and if people want the thread to be that, then that's how it'll proceed.

To be perfectly frank, by saying "people" have been saying this or that, or "recent posts have been saying" this or that, I've really just been trying to avoid making it personal and calling out specific people. THAT'S probably why it seems like I'm talking about more people/posts than I actually am.

I read several posts in good faith thinking there was ANY connection to the documentary, and I did retrace and look at previous posts as well. There was NO connection, so I was left with two options: Those posts were just grinding mostly very old axes (and in the process making generalizations about the band and fandom that I don't always agree with), or they were trying to imply or insinuate that the documentary *is* part of whatever the agenda is they're talking about.

So, Instead of quoting and responding to one person with "what the f**k are you talking about?" and then going on and on, I've been (fruitlessly as it turns out) trying the more broad approach of "Hey folks, I don't think this has anything to do with the documentary."

That's the long (and not so short) of it.

The vast majority of the posts since the initial "Brian f***ed with" post ARE directly about the documentary (whether specific problems with it, or reviews from watchers). So the thread didn't even become close to derailing. Again, most of the posts relating to the anti-Brian thing are back-and-forth between you and other posters. Otherwise, it probably would've stayed at the 5 initial posts and ended there.

As for there being no connection. Guitarfool is painfully clear why he brought up what he did. Zenobi brought up a great point about the false perception of post-1967 Beach Boys and how the documentary kinda perpetuates that perception. Guitarfool brought up instances where that false perception had been perpetuated elsewhere. It's just a progression of a few posts relating to false perceptions within The Beach Boys world. It's really not worth all this back-and-forth.

Anyways, I'm peacing out for some dinner.

Have a nice dinner, Rab. You sure deserve it! :)

You seem to be getting hung up on the number of posts that fall under this category of missing the point. I've explained in a previous post that I understand how, in the process of trying to not call people out individually, my issues with such posts may have given the impression that I thought this was a problem of *volume* rather than of content. Again, refer to my previous post where I was basically trying to say "that doesn't seem related to the documentary" rather than "what the f**k?

To be more specific, my issue was with those posts that aren't about the documentary and veer into weird vendetta/axe-grinding territory about a semi-nebulous group that is out to "f**k over Brian Wilson", etc., regardless of the proportion/volume of such posts in relation to the thread.

Posts like this:

My guess about why there are so many people trying to f... over Brian is simply: envy. Brian is rightly recognized as a genius, and many mediocre, talentless hacks just can't accept that. He has to be "downsized", at all costs.

I'll try in the future to just pinpoint the specific posts I'm talking about and be more direct so I'm not giving the impression of a wider issue than is the case.

As for my post having "prolonged" the contention, I've seen that runaround/back-and-forth a zillion times on message boards. Who's prolonging it? The off-topic posts in contention, or me for continuing to talk about it, or you for talking about me talking about it?

It's all good. I'm working on a review/breakdown of the doc. Hopefully I can post sooner rather than later and we can see how much people are interested in continuing to talk about the documentary itself.

Yeah where would I have gotten the impression that you were referring to volume instead of the content of 2 or 3 posts...


You gotta make up your mind as to what you're actually pissed off about. Because it's really starting to grate on me how you keep ignoring points or moving goalposts.

I really don't understand your argumentative nature lately. You've suggested that posters here are claiming that the filmmakers are anti-Melinda and no one came remotely close to saying that. You've suggested that this "anti-Brian fan" talk was derived from posts theorizing why this documentary sucks when that isn't remotely the case. Between this and the AI-Beach Boys thread I just have no idea why you've been so difficult to interact with lately. And I really don't understand why a couple posts with content you think doesn't belong here deserves a conversation 5-times more obnoxious and distracting than what you're peeved about.

I gotta make a huge apology to any good-hearted fans who just want to read about the documentary and instead have to sift through our back and forth (which again is probably more obnoxious than the 3 posts or 3 pages of posts that HeyJude is pissed off about). Really was not my intention for this to drag on as long as it has.

Anyways, I'm peacing out for some dessert.

"Number" as in quantity.

Beyond that,  I can't add any further clarification beyond what I've written.  If the people whose posts I've been talking about want to discuss,  I'm down for that.

I'm sorry you're not vibing my recent posts.  It happens.  If people are willing to keep the board active and we all keep posting,  I'm sure we'll land on the same wavelength before too long. 

Well, after having been singled yet once more for a sentence which only wanted to support what Craig had much more eloquently said, my only answer is this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ThJcHjCI9j4

DHL has posted a promotional tie in to the documentary:

https://youtu.be/geRkBjhKgVU?si=0X2Mr6Frrg-VYchR

They sent a Beach Boys tape to Abbey Road, for... reasons? Or maybe they didn't even really send anything?

Either way,  DHL!

Most definitely. We agree on a lot of stuff, and I have most always gotten a lot of value from your posts over the years - jeesh nearing two decades for me :o

I know you’re not trolling but I’m also just not clicking with what you’re saying here. Like you say, it happens.

Bruce seems to have chilled out…

Bruce has always been a chill guy. Just give him a Mike... sorry, a mike... to adjust. :)

I finally watched the documentary a couple nights ago.

I went into watching it with extremely low expectations after having read this thread, but I have to say I thought it was far, far better than I was expecting. Maybe that was because the bar was set so low, maybe I'm just a sucker for some of the documentary filmmaking tropes that were used, but it gave me the feels, and I thought it was very well done for what it was.

That said…

I can also completely understand why hardcore fans really don't like it, because it definitely omits so very much, and certainly the band deserves way way better and more comprehensive a documentary.

I think this is probably just the best that we were going to get considering the politics that are involved with the surviving members, and what I presume is the mission of financial stakeholders in the brand to make this a two hour long EPK to try to get more casual fans a bit more invested in the story.

It's definitely a missed opportunity in many ways, but I am able to hold two different truths in my head simultaneously and I can also say that I really quite enjoyed it nonetheless.

The documentary does not just ignore too many things. It also practically states that whatever the Beach Boys did, after 1966, was a failure, and so the general public was right in ignoring them. This, in 2024, is unbelievably regressive, and frankly unforgivable.
I kept on topic this time.

It’s better for business if the 15 big ones era is forgotten….

'To sum it up, they blew it, they blew it consistently, they continue to blow it, it is tragic and this pathological problem caused The Beach Boys' greatest music to be so underrated by the general public.' Jack Rieley (and I know one person here uses this as their quote). Sometimes it may not be the fault of the group themselves - they've had a mess of help to be in that situation.

Reminds me of this quote from a few pages back:


I think the Boys are something angelic - I really do. I think they found/created a sound that connects with so many people on a spiritual/emotional level. So thus, since in my mind I place their music in an almost spiritual realm, and I guess that's why I get disappointed when the realities of earth (the pettiness, greed, etc) get in the way of their music being promoted properly.

I feel like their story and music are brilliant, and thus are worthy of being told in a brilliant way. Being middle-of-the-road just doesn't work with this band, because their music is worth so much more than that.

I think it's definitely possible that if one goes in with rock bottom expectations, there are portions of the early part of the doc that seem okay.

I think it's easier across the board to tell that early era story without nearly as much to get in the way, whether it's disagreement among band members, or a deficit on the part of the filmmakers. There's less to f**k up, and even a director with the most superficial level of interest in the telling the story is usually going to be more into telling the "origin" story.

I do think, though, that the idea that it's just hardcore fans that this doc won't work for is letting this doc off far too easily. If you try to put yourself in the frame of mind of various levels of being a fan, from moderator to zero knowledge, this documentary as *a film*, is problematic. Yes, I think it's true that people who don't know much of *anything* about the story are less apt to know what they're missing. You don't know what you don't know, so you don't know that you're missing important pieces. But again, I've spoken to several super casual fans, and even they can tell the doc gets really messy once it hits like 1966/67.

Unless you literally have no idea who this band is or what era they came from, it's impossible to watch the last 20-30 minutes of the doc and not notice how rushed and clipped it is.

As for guesses or assumptions that the swiss cheese nature of this documentary might be due to the band members/politics/BRI, I don't think we have the full story on that yet. As I've been saying, I *don't* think that's as major of a problem for this doc. The major problem from what I can tell is that they handed this thing over to a company and director team who were the wrong fit for it, across the board. I probably wouldn't have grasped this nearly as well had Frank Marshall not gone out and done the press junkets and showed his hand, expressing his apparent simplistic view of the band/story. As I've probably mentioned, Marshall strikes me as the kind of rich old dude you'd see wearing a polo shirt sitting in the luxury box seating at a Mike Love Beach Boys winery gig.

I'm still working out doing a longer, in-depth breakdown of this thing. But I think the sheen on this thing may kind of cover up how messy and problematic the thing is. Like, I haven't seen it in years, but I think that old "E! True Hollywood Story" on the band may have been more interested in getting in there and actually telling more of the story.

I think, based on what I know right now, I'd say the documentary is less the typical "The BBs always F it up" scenario, and more that the fatal flaw/move/decision may have been the single decision to go with Disney and the director team they went with. I think, from there, it feels like it was much more out of their hands than other f-ups further back in their career.

They need good management/guidance. That situation has been *greatly* improved on many fronts, including finally having an ideal team and setup on the audio side of things, getting things together logistically and then also doing a good job of getting *the members* into it as well. All the guys, including Mike, are interested and cooperative with going deep on lesser-known eras. Mike did a Q&A at the Grammy museum for "Sail on Sailor." But they need someone to instigate it. For the audio releases, they have Howie and Boyd. But if they put a guy like Frank Marshall in charge of a doc, Frank Marshall isn't going to say "Hey guys, I think it's really important to go deep on 'Love You', so....."

I go back to this quote from Al, I think a lot of the shortcomings are spelled out in his few sentences clipped above. One point to consider is that Al spells out clearly that there is a "narrative according to Mike Love" and that sets up an "if...then" scenario, which could read if there is a narrative according to Mike, then there are other narratives which didn't get presented (I'm assuming Al's would be included in that), and of course that's been the case for decades. That alone suggests that a deeper exploration, a longer and more exhaustive project, is necessary to tell the story. And it also explains why more time is somehow dedicated to Mike's songwriting lawsuits than some of the actual music which is key to the story.

I think CD's description of this as an EPK is spot on...but even if it were serving in that capacity, it falls way short because not enough of the music itself (which is what the new corporation ultimately wants to market and sell) got featured in the actual project. I guess we're left to cobble together the missing pieces on our own using existing material, but how many of the new or casual fans who this project was supposed to inspire are going to do that? And how many are going to take what's shown here after the 66-67 segments at face value, or believe things that don't tell the whole story (or in doing so present a distorted view of something) as I'm sure many did in the 80's with the Summer Dreams movie or in 2000 with the American Family film.

This could have been a multi-part series going through the years in hour-long segments, which tried to cover all narratives and which would make for a fascinating A/B comparison on competing version, but as CD said, it's essentially a promotional EPK whose goal wasn't what many fans were looking for.

Mike should reissue “an American family” at this point.

All of this reminds me that I need to see "Echo In The Canyon" again, as I'm remembering the scenes where the musicians are sitting around a coffee table with stacks of records talking about the music and some of those albums included Wild Honey, Pet Sounds, Smile, one of the H&V 45's, etc. And I thought that spirit of enjoying the music on the basic level of having a rap session and playing records with and for your friends is the organic part of it all that I wonder if fans are feeling from this new doc.  Echo In The Canyon also put the Beach Boys and their music at the forefront of music that should be appreciated and heard by a wider audience who may not have listened to, say, Wild Honey all that much, but who may have seen it on that coffee table and thought hey, I need to check this out. It also had a truly fantastic ending scene, which I will not spoil, but let's just say the Disney film could have done something similar and gone out on a joyous and bittersweet note, but instead Kokomo rolls over the end credits.

That doc had a certain spirit to it which is hard to codify, but you know it when you feel it.

I would have loved to see scenes where the surviving Beach Boys sit around a table stacked with records and a turntable, not just Beach Boys records either, and have a bull session talking music with each other. I'd pay to watch 12 hours of that to be honest.

Yes, they always had a mess of help. And not in a good way, sadly... An oasis of beauty surrounded by greed.

Would be great to get a Beach Boys version of that "McCartney 3, 2, 1" thing that Rick Rubin did with McCartney. Although, I don't think Rubin did a particularly great job sort of "moderating" that thing. Would be cool to get like Boyd and Edelson at a mixing desk with Al, Mike, Bruce, and even David and Blondie for their stuff. And of course Brian if possible.

That would be amazing. I'm a huge fan of The Band and they did something similar on the VH1 Classic Albums show in the 1990s... there was a segment with Levon Helm and producer John Simon in a studio walking through Rockin' Chair, one of my favorite Band tracks. The segment is just a few minutes long but has stayed with me for decades. You see Levon really feeling the music and remembering his late comrade Richard Manuel with great emotion, and the part where they break down Richard's vocals really changed the way I think about their music. Very easy to imagine a Beach Boys equivalent with the guys playing back/dissecting some of their classic 60s tracks and talking about what Carl and Dennis brought to the group.

Alan Boyd shot some footage of Brian doing this for "Endless Harmony" in 1998; I'm curious how much of that exists.

Bad Vibrations: ‘The Beach Boys’ Documentary Is Mike Love Propaganda

https://decider.com/2024/06/03/the-beach-boys-documentary-mike-love-propaganda/ (https://decider.com/2024/06/03/the-beach-boys-documentary-mike-love-propaganda/)

Some standout blurbs from the article:

"While the telling of this story deliberately minimizes the internecine tensions that would prove the Beach Boys’ undoing, its arrangement nonetheless channels and relitigates conflicts that left some members with evidently simmering, if unstated, resentments. To put it bluntly, this is Mike Love propaganda."

"This revanchist effort to elevate the other members of the band wouldn’t be all that objectionable if not for its flip side of moderate character assassination against Brian, smeared here as an egotist high on his own supply whose so-called “genius” (which was only ever a market construct anyway) actually held back everyone else’s brilliance."

"Love profiles Brian as a homebody unlaced by his fondness for drugs, missing the point that Brian only took the acid trips as a respite from the extreme anxiety and burgeoning schizophrenia that filled him with fear for the world."

"The main things we learn about [Pet Sounds] are 1. that it’s a real downer, and 2. that it was financially unsuccessful, nowhere near the depth of analysis or height of appreciation enjoyed by the sunnier early works"

"The chummy get-together closing out the film takes on a ghastly and exploitative quality in the hint that, between the lines, there’s an abler man taking advantage of a vulnerable one for the sake of grinding his axes to a finer point. If history books really are written by the victors, then it would appear that in life, the winner is the last one with the presence of mind to hold power of attorney."

I saw this in my news feed today. Haven't seen the movie yet, but thought I'd post it here to see what others think of this take.

I am not crazy.....

I think the writer of this article is assuming or implying that Mike had far more editorial control over the documentary than he actually did.

Again, the fault here lies far more with Frank Marshall and Disney. I believe Marshall is simpatico with a lot of Mike's "version" of the story, but I don't believe it was engineered as "Mike Love propaganda", either by Mike or Marshall. It's arguably worse than that; I think Marshall just has a very simplistic, narrow view and vision and he did a bad job on this thing, and the result was something that was regressive as we've talked about at length. I'm sure Mike was enthusiastic to get *his* points across. But I really feel like it's reductive and over simplistic to just blame this documentary on Mike. I feel that's letting Disney and Frank Marshall (and Zimny), and whomever's decision it was to sign on with Disney and Marshall, off the hook far too much.

As far as Mike being "abler" than Brian now, that is a very sensitive but obvious issue that is rearing its head now, and I think it's totally valid to have a discussion about that. Anybody that's given this some thought over the years as I have has surely thought about what happens if Mike is the "last man standing", versus whomever else. I'm not into just defaulting to going after Mike for anything and everything, but certainly it's fair to have some concern about Mike "controlling" some aspect of the narrative. By just being more verbal and available to, in this case Disney and Marshall, that *is* going to impact the story being told and can result in Brian (and many other topics) not getting a fair shake. But guess what? There *are* filmmakers that could and would make sure something like that doesn't happen. Frank Marshall is not one of those people, and that's why I still feel he's a main issue with this doc, at least until I hear any alternative information about Marshall's hands being tied on anything.

Thankfully, the team back at the *audio archives* doing those archival releases gets it, and I have full faith and trust in them knowing how to tell the *full* story and represent everybody (and truly get everybody enthusiastic and on board).

Don’t f*** with the  (commerce) formula….

Minus some really nice footage I was really disappointed.

Good news is.. it seems to be turning a lot of people on to the band. So that's cool.

Onto Mike’s narrative….

 The end of this will be like this:

"Good Vibrations (DO IT!  DO IT!)" - by Stamos/McGrath

I'm about halfway through the documentary now. I was struck by Al's modern-day quote about the period when the Beatles exploded onto the scene and were featured on Ed Sullivan, eclipsing the Beach Boys. Al says something like "we were just singers... but the Beatles... they were PLAYERS!" There's something really poignant about that.

I think that writer's article connects the dots with my two earlier posts, and I agree with much (but not all) of what was written. That's not the kind of history that should stand in peoples' minds going forward, it leans more toward revisionism than an actual reporting of fact, and yes it is filtered through Mike Love's "narrative" as described by Al Jardine in the Maui newspaper article. The word "downer" has become almost an expletive to my ears and eyes when related to Brian's music, which is why I specifically used it several pages ago. Absolutely ridiculous.

As much as some might want that kind of narrative to follow the band's legacy, it is not the accurate story of this band and their music.

Yes, this is a major issue with this documentary, and if other viewers and fans are also catching those vibes after watching it, it is well worth putting on the table if not trying to bust it entirely.

It's absolutely true though: Just take a look at the amount of live shows The Beatles played in 1962 and 1963 leading up to that Sullivan appearance in February 1964. It is absolutely staggering how many shows those guys played...and that's not even counting the marathon shows that could last anywhere between 8 and 14 hours each night when they made their several trips to Hamburg. And not counting how often they would rehearse at the Cavern during their off hours while still holding a daytime residency there.

It's an amazing work ethic, and a band that plays together that often is going to be a well-oiled machine at that point, also boosting a wide repertoire of material in all styles and tempos which they could literally pull out on demand like a jukebox. Hundreds of songs.

So yes, The Beatles came to the Sullivan show playing with a stacked deck in terms of their experience as a band and all of those hours of experience on stage and in rehearsal. The Beach Boys, instrumentally, did not have that same resume, and it's not their fault, but they just didn't come up in the business the same way the Beatles did and they were not as experienced as stage performers by 1964. Al pretty much nailed it in that quote, but the poignancy might also be in how so many people might not realize how hard the Beatles really worked to get to that point, and how dedicated and driven they were as musicians in order to sound that way and be able to play so tight as a group.

I don't like comparing the two, but I always say there is a reason why The Beatles became who they were, and likewise The Beach Boys. It's just that one group had a lot more experience than the other, and their ultimate goals beyond making good music were two versions of the same thing. The Beach Boys vocals will never be equaled in popular music, and nor will The Beatles as a self-contained band.

Despite the fact that I still quite enjoyed watching the documentary, I can't wholly disagree with the statements from the article below. Perhaps the truth  is somewhere in the middle. It is interesting to have as many documentaries as we do about the band from different perspectives, and we can draw our own perspective.

 It's definitely such a complicated band and as I said before, it's possible for multiple things to be true at the same time.

 One interesting thing about Frank Marshall is that I really did enjoy the Bee Gees documentary that he directed for HBO Max a few years back.

Has anybody here seen that? I'm not nearly the Bee Gees historian that I am when it comes to this band, so it's hard for me to know if there are  legit complaints about how that film turned out, that I may have overlooked.  In that film as well I was able to definitely get quite an emotional response from the filmmaking.

As much as I love the Bee Gees, I'm ultimately a casual fan when it comes to their history, but I did quite love that film. I wonder how people who are huge superfans of the Bee Gees think of that film and Frank Marshall's contributions to it?

For whatever degree anybody wants to rag on Frank Marshall and him being the wrong person for this documentary, there's no doubt in my mind that the filmmaking on this film was influenced/handicapped by the politics of the current stakeholders of the band. There's no way that's not at play here.

I actually agree with much of this article. I don't think of it as "Mike-bashing", though many on other boards will no doubt consider it exactly that. For me, it's just a very blunt and uncompromising take on a real phenomenon, i.e. the ongoing attempt to "revise" history, "downsizing" Brian.
Criticising, even very harshly, Mike or whoever on such realistic and on-topic grounds is perfectly legit imho, whatever is one's personal stance.

What I consider Mike-bashing, and find annoying, are personal attacks on him based on, say, his political stances. I know that in 2024 nobody seems to believe any more in freedom of expression, but it is SAD. Worse, it is terrible. And I am no conservative.

I hope - hope- that this clarifies how can one "defend" Mike and at the same time "attack" him, though I never LIKE "attacking" him.

“Propaganda” is such a loaded word, though. It implies willful deception, which I don’t think fits the description of the film being slanted towards Mike. 

This was not just a bad film. It was a shockingly incompetent film all across the board. It felt like Frank Marshall did the movie because “hey,it would be fun to do a Beach Boys doc!” He knew very little about the subject and it shows in how the principal members were presented.  If it was my film, you would not have current Brian in it at all (it was painful to watch, was completely unnecessary, and it unwittingly highlighted the contrast between current Brian and current Mike).  A more seasoned interviewer with knowledge of their history (like an Alan Boyd or Howie Edelson) could ask Mike good follow up questions that might elicit answers that don’t make him look like a petty asshole.  Don’t get me wrong, Mike Love’s gonna Mike Love. But his side being over represented is the result of Marshall’s and Disney’s incompetence, not the cause of it.

Also, unless I missed something, Irving Azoff was a credited EP and Iconic was among the entitles with vanity cards at the beginning. No Beach Boys were given EP as far as I know.

I think it is telling though that the author of the article cited above is, I assume, someone outside the bubble of the familiar online fanbase, and they're also calling bullshit on the Mike "narrative" slant in this film, outside of the usual online discussions. I disagree with some of the wording he used, but as I said above, I can't disagree with the points he made, in fact some are spot on correct. And it does look like there were attempts made to either diminish or lessen the image of Brian or his role in the band's history in order to boost Mike's profile in the story. The Pet Sounds stuff alone is ridiculous.

I'll say it again, if this writer saw it, Al Jardine saw it, I and others here and elsewhere in various comments saw it...it's a major flaw in this documentary.

I see Frank Marshall getting blamed for the shortcomings. When it comes to including some things while excluding others, whether it be songs or archival clips, then yes that falls on him and the final edit. My question is this: If Marshall isn't as knowledgeable on the deep-dive type of information behind the band, and ultimately it's not up to him to research all of that anyway in his executive role, this project had a team of researchers and staff who did do the digging, who did do the research, and who did the asking around to gather the info and pull it all together.

So what sources did they use, or who did they ask, for that info?

If some feel that the film seems to show favor towards Mike's narrative of events, as Al suggested and which the article's observations back up with examples...without even mentioning the unusual amount of time spent on Mike's songwriting credits lawsuit to boot...where would that information have come from other than Mike's book, Mike himself, or from someone/somewhere else entirely?

Find me another available source of research, of the kind Marshall's research staff would have consulted, where Mike's credit lawsuit is cited as a major part of the band's history, and where Pet Sounds and Smile are viewed that way...I can't think of any except from Mike himself, or his book.

And it gets to what CD was saying above about the politics of the current stakeholders of the band. I agree that's probably more of an influence on the information in the film than Frank Marshall himself, and it always will be a factor unless a project is done by someone truly outside the bubble and removed from the politics of it all, if that's even possible. It is a handicap indeed to have competing narratives existing alongside decades-old grudges and inner-band politics.

Again it should be asked, what sources did the research staff use, or who did they consult for the info used in this film?

I agreed with most of the bits you quoted. I didn't agree that Brian had been 'over-mythologised'. As I wrote elsewhere: ''Overly mythologised'? Is some mythologising OK then? I don't think Brian was driven mad by his talent either.
'The exact causes of schizophrenia are unknown. Research suggests a combination of physical, genetic, psychological and environmental factors can make a person more likely to develop the condition. Some people may be prone to schizophrenia, and a stressful or emotional life event might trigger a psychotic episode.'

Brian surely had plenty of stressful life events with which to contend.

This whole situation is just sad.

The Decider review is coming in for loads of criticism from certain sources. Methinks they protest too much. I'm sure most can guess which sources too.

The writer of that article never stated that Mike Love was in editorial control of the film (or had any control over it), nor did he state that Marshall or Love engineered this to be propaganda (unless I missed something in the article), so I don’t know why that’s even being argued here and elsewhere. While Mike didn’t have any editorial control, he is still in control of his own mouth (unless we want to blame Frank Marshall for that, too). It being “propaganda” doesn’t mean it has to be “engineered” by the makers of the film - much like how an interviewer of a newspaper isn’t engineering propaganda by publishing Mike’s 2014 words “Brian is controlled and still medicated. It used to be the indiscriminate use of street drugs, but now it’s prescribed drugs”, the interviewer/editor is just unwittingly spreading Mike’s bullsh*t propaganda. Propaganda is just bias/misleading information that promotes a certain point of view…which apparently, according to many people (including Al Jardine), this film is full of.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that there are MANY people and factors that are to blame for this film being a dud. But that fact doesn’t conflict with the Decider writer’s point that this film supposedly supports/is Mike Love’s narrative/propaganda. The fact that Al Jardine (who, in case we forgot, is an actual member of the band ‘The Beach Boys’) and many others have said the same thing makes it a hard point to argue with.

The thing I don’t like about the documentary is that it basically retreats to the old trope that the BBs sort of died in 1966 and Endless Summer saved their butts. Thus-it negates Smile to holland as irrelevant. Even if the film does have Mike’s pov more than the others, I cannot imagine that he supports that. It’s only to his interest to have the 67-73 period critically reevaluated. The film should have spent more time discussing smile, Wild Honey, friends, 20-20, Sunflower, Surf’s up and Holland then it did

Love You, too.

All this -- well said! It's just an interesting thought that that 'insecurity', for lack of a better word, was kind of baked into The Beach Boys from the very beginning.

To a casual fan back then these two groups (and other pop groups) were all similar, but The Beatles 100% benefitted from that shared experience of touring over many years prior to 1964. That's true even by the time of the later/thornier Let It Be sessions, and I think you've written about that here before. In the rooftop concert you can feel the muscle memory of their earlier love of playing kick in, with the song "One After 909" as kind of a cherry on top.

Those years of touring also likely helped to forge The Beatles' identity as a group, with some kind of shared vision taking place. What must The Beach Boys have been thinking watching The Beatles on Ed Sullivan? Even in those early years of youth and success, they must have felt some fear, that they couldn't keep up and it would all come to an end soon. From that standpoint the 'don't F with the formula' mentality would have had a powerful allure.

I think one of the best post-1970 Beach Boys moments (and it’s on tape!) is when Mike reacts to Brian’s middle-eight (or whatever) in Brian’s demo of ‘I’ll Bet He’s Nice’. No idea if that was in this documentary. There was nothing but love and admiration in that moment - a moment that deserves to be in any documentary/series labeled “definitive”, imo of course.

Another point may be that the Beach Boys - except probably for Carl - seemingly never were much into their instruments. It's not like Al or Dennis sat down and thought about how to get new sounds out of the drums, find new playing or tuning techniques from foreign influences etc. When it comes to the Beach Boys the focus was more on the recording process, the studio, the harmonies and the songwriting. The Beatles - and this is just my impression as I'm not expert on them - actually tried to imitate the sounds they heard on records and analyzed the guitar parts a.s.o. until they could repliate them

I have a hot take on this, and it's just my observations and opinion of course.

What hook is Mike using to promote his summer concerts this year? The "anniversary" of the Endless Summer album. That's the album which, as you said, was part of the old trope that Endless Summer "saved" the band commercially and otherwise. Mike at various points in the past decade was claiming that he "produced" that collection, heck that claim was even on his website for a time (it may still be, I don't know...). So combining the various tropes, Endless Summer saved the band's butts, Mike has in the past taken producer's credit for Endless Summer = Mike saved the band with that collection, and he's touring to commemorate Endless Summer this year, and lo and behold a new documentary puts more of a focus on Endless Summer than it does roughly 6-7 years of Beach Boys original music and original albums.

So it sounds like there was some cross promotion happening, if the documentary focus essentially stops around Endless Summer as some have said.

And I'm not saying Mike was directly involved in the editorial or historical content of the film, but that's why I was asking who was actually involved in the research and content in order to create a project that some of us feel lays too heavily on the Mike narrative, including the "saving" of the band via the Endless Summer album to the detriment of some great albums between 67 and 73 that got brushed under the rug...instead to highlight Endless Summer which coincidentally Mike is currently promoting and celebrating on his own tour this summer.

While I agree that a film (or any other work) can unintentionally serve as "propaganda", there has to be *intent* on somebody's part to invoke the term "propaganda."

The Decider article, in my opinion, is implying that either the makers of the film, and/or Mike Love had intent to push an agenda. I don't believe Disney or Frank Marshall were competent or put enough effort into this film to have that intent. Their only agenda was laziness and simplicity, and as I've said many times, that simplistic approach to the story absolutely does align at times with Mike's views/agenda. Mike Love certainly has his point of view, an "agenda", and certainly has a vested interest in pushing that in interviews.

So I'm okay with characterizing the doc as a case where the directors/filmmakers' laziness/lack of skill, etc. *allowed* some of Mike's agenda to be aired. And, from there, I think their laziness and lack of craft did most of the work, mostly due to what they *didn't* include.

I don't believe that Decider article makes that type of nuanced point, though. The article is really just sort of telling us what the end result is, and doesn't seem really that interested in trying to figure out *how* this film came out the way it does. I would argue that by inserting the mic-drop line "To put it bluntly, this is Mike Love propaganda", a lot of readers will come away with the impression that Mike Love pushed that agenda *in the making* of the documentary (even though, in fairness, the article doesn't assert or describe a scenario where Mike Love is actually involved in the making of it or the editorial process), and/or that the filmmakers were trying to push a Mike Love agenda.

The writer of the article chose to use the term "propaganda", and that has a pretty good amount of heft to it. I don't even think it's necessarily a term that can't be used in this case, but I think it requires a good amount of context that the article didn't provide.

I guess one of the things I feel after reading an article like this is that I'm not interested in praising an article simply because it's overarching point (the doc is bad) is one I agree with, when the reasons they provide are pretty different from mine (and in *some* cases not accurate in my opinion).

There are other bits in the article I don't agree with more just from a rhetorical point of view. For instance, I wouldn't call this doc a "rosy recounting" of the band's history as the article does; it does still get into drugs/Murry/Manson/lawsuits, disagreements over artistic direction).

There are other bits in the article that are important to point out, but incomplete. For instance, I think it *absolutely* is important to not take the ancient point of view, often put forth by Mike over the years, that Brian did drugs because he decided to be a druggie, and that that drug use is what caused all of his problems. The article does point out Brian tapped into drugs to medicate anxiety and mental illness (the article says schizophrenia, which I don't think is the correct ultimate diagnosis, but the point is important and gets across nonetheless). But the article contends Brian dropped acid "only" as a respite from anxiety and mental illness, and I'm not really sure that's the case. I think he also had an interest in it the way, as Al put it in 1998, many writers/artists did at the time.

I understand the frustration with a doc or Mike Love or anybody pushing the bogus narrative that Brian just wanted to be drug-addled, and that caused all of his (and the group's!) problems. But there's no need to overstate the case in the other direction. For years now I've lamented over and over Mike's penchant for just bringing up the Wilson brothers' drug and alcohol abuse with no empathy or understanding, especially after they've all either died or stopped using drugs. BUT, in a *good* documentary (or book, or whatever), I think there's absolutely room to discuss those things, *including* how they impacted the other band members. Because it wasn't easy I'm sure to be in a band where Brian was sometimes toasted and not able to properly communicate, and certainly it was hard at times to deal with Dennis' drinking, etc. That *is* part of the story as well.

The Decider article serves the purpose of warning people that the documentary has serious issues. It feels like an article where it's kind of "right for some of the wrong (or incomplete) reasons." I guess I just feel like my point of view/outlook/taste would lean towards either backing off the heavy, blunt "propaganda" accusation if they're only going to write a very short article like that, or do a deeper dive and give things more context about the source of said "propaganda."

All good points. This is the long and short of how I feel as well.

And hey, maybe stories will surface that Mike was actually in there counseling Frank Marshall on the edit/scope of the documentary.

I think why, at this moment, I tend to disagree with shunting any heavy responsibility onto Mike Love, even in the case of "Mike propaganda" coming across, is that my feeling about this film changed drastically after seeing and hearing Frank Marshall talk about the band, about making the documentary, etc. To me, it *quickly* became apparent that Mike Love didn't need to actively push any agenda with this, because by happenstance or otherwise, he ended with a filmmaker whose narrow view of the band was going, by default, to be more simpatico more with Mike's point of view of a lot of things.

This is borne out as well in Al Jardine's clear angst about the film. Frank Marshall doesn't seem to understand or care about a lot of fundamental things about the band's history. So is there any way he's going to be able to understand Al Jardine's unique point of view concerning all this stuff? Is Frank Marshall even aware of the on-and-off icy relationship Al and Mike have had for the last 30 years? Does Marshall even cross reference the fact that there are FIVE Beach Boys alive but only TWO of them are in the touring band?

It may also be that Marshall was/is very aware of those things, and BRI politics may have also hampered *him*, which wouldn't help things certainly considering his default disposition on the band. Hopefully we'll learn more as time goes by.

Let me guess: the inclusive guys? ;D

I agree, one of the best BB moments. How I wish things had stayed that way... sigh.

I've often said that that moment and in fact the entire tape is amazing on multiple levels.

It's of course just an astonishing document of Brian writing and performing some amazing songs (and also "Mona"), and it's a great document of Mike Love, Mike's ability to appreciate and recognize important *musical* moments (hear his reaction to the end chord changes on "Let's Put Our Hearts Together"), his enthusiasm for wanting to be the vessel for Brian's music (responding to Brian's performance of "Airplane" by saying he wants the lead on it, and if he doesn't get the lead he'll "quit the f**king group"), and of course his great reaction as Brian hits the bridge on "I'll Be He's Nice." And of course referring to a couple of the songs as "those two are motherfu**kers, are those going on the album?"

Great stuff.

Yes, very good points. I agree 100% that this documentary shows such a "vanilla" view of the Beach Boys history that the result would not need any further conscious effort to register as "Mike Love propaganda". Of course the almost exclusive focus on the "hit era" highlights Mike's importance and accomplishments.

Imho this documentary, more than Mike propaganda, seems yet another lazy take on the enormously flawed mythology surrounding the group.
Outline:
1) The Boys have a series of smash hits, with Brian and Mike at the helm. California etc.
2) Brian starts to get unhinged and so forces the group to release the uncommercial, unsuccessful Pet Sounds.
3) The Brian/Mike team have a last halcyon moment with GV.
4) Brian leads the group to disaster with SMiLE, then goes to bed, never to rise up again.
5) The group releases a miserable bunch of subpar, abysmally unsuccessful albums, until a compilation of their past glories comes to save the day.
6) Kokomo.
7) Add a sprinkling of Murry, drugs, lawsuits and never forget Manson.
That's it. This is the "definitive" history of the Beach Boys, according to the mythology and the House of Mouse.

Said that, it's well possible there is something else behind the curtains, but imho that's not necessary to "explain" this documentary. Would just be a reinforcement.

This is specifically directed to HeyJude and replying to those posts above. But of course anyone can jump in too.

A lot of the blame for lack of a better word is being directed at Frank Marshall. Of course he helmed the project, but there was also a production team, researchers, etc involved in making this doc. Marshall himself wasn't poring through all the facts and figures to get the background on the topic as much as the staff they had in place to do that kind of digging. I've said that before, and the point was ignored mostly, but it is valid.

So I see a big hole and a contradiction in the logic behind putting the bulk of responsibility on Marshall on several points. And it would be cool if you could address or clarify them so we understand more of this.

First: If you suggest Frank Marshall wasn't informed and knowledgeable about the deeper aspects of the band's history, how and where did his team get the information they used to spin the narrative seen in the documentary? That specific of a narrative had to come from somewhere, and it's not surface-level stuff if people are calling out specific nuances that lean toward the narrative Mike himself has put out there for years.

Second: If Marshall's documentary is a result of laziness, lack of skill, etc., wouldn't the end result have been a more jumbled narrative with both a Mike Love and Brian Wilson narrative or "slant" weaving in and out, taken from publicly available sources,  rather than leaning much heavier toward Mike's versions of the story and presenting them cohesively? This film itself isn't a jumbled mess, rather it is cohesive at least and points out a lot of issues and "takes" that lean directly toward Mike's narrative. And there has been intent from Mike for many years now to tell his narrative which does shade certain elements of the band's story toward his perspective, meaning the intent has been there to "tell Mike's side of things" as he said when his book came out, or create his narrative as "the" official history of the band. So there is intent at play after all...

...and a filmmaker and documentary team, who are not amateurs in their trade by any means, do not go into a project like this and either accidentally or coincidentally create a narrative with a bias or focus which leans that heavily on one side of things, in this case Mike Love's narrative over others that are quite easily available to access.

Maybe what you refer to as laziness or lack of skill could mean the creative and research team got hoodwinked by Mike's side of the story and stopped there without going into other versions of events and opinions? I'm genuinely asking, because I'm trying to figure it out too and have been asking who or what were the sources of information for the researchers on this film.

I'll sum it up and say if Marshall and his team were beset by the laziness or incompetence or even lack of knowledge as you and others are suggesting, the film itself would be a total shambles, but it's not. And it features if not promotes specifics direct from Mike's own PR and commentary through the years, i.e. his narrative as Al Jardine described it.

I'd add 8/ They get to No 3 in the charts with TWGMTR but leave that out of the chosen timeline.

You said this much better than I ever could. “He’s right, but for the wrong reasons” is the best way to process that article.

What's TWGMTR? 2012 never happened!  :p

The UK Royal Family have a rule. 'Don't complain. Don't explain.' The Beach Boys can't manage  the first bit! They try hard to manage the second, mainly by evasion.

It's obvious why they weren't anxious to cover this part of the story and also who benefits by not going into it.

By laziness, etc., I don't mean gross incompetence as to the basic level of organizational skill and literal hands-on skills needed to put together the product. And indeed, any director on a project like this is delegating a lot (if not most) of the tasks.

What I mean is that Marshall is essentially fronting a doc by viewing it in the way one of those cheap, cheezy 80s coffee table books on the Beach Boys would approach things. Yes, somebody is collating information, someone is fact-checking stuff, etc, etc. But it's guided by a level of interest/knowledge that cuts off at a certain point. To go beyond that, a director would have to either already have the knowledge to guide it further, or be not just open but *interested* in learning more. I think that's where the cut-off happens with Marshall, if I had to guess. As I mentioned in previous posts, I've seen plenty of documentary directors mention taking on a subject for which they were not experts, and they talk about how much they learned, how their outlook changed, etc. I get none of that from Marshall. I think he thinks about the BBs in 2024 exactly the same way he did before he made the doc.

This thing is first and foremost a film. When we talk about films that have problems, there's obviously only so far down the line we can go to ascribe blame/responsibility or to diagnose what happened. The director (directorS in the case of this BB doc) are ultimately the people in charge, and presumably guiding the flow/narrative/vibe, etc. of the film.

The fatal flaw of the film, as best as I can tell right now, was not anybody pushing "Mike Love propaganda." The fatal flaw was going with Disney and Marshall in the first place. And to the degree BRI/Iconic and/or any individual members agreed to that or were enthusiastic about that, then they do bear some responsibility/blame, whatever we want to call it, for that decision.

They could have strove for excellence with the idea of a new documentary on the band. To do so would have required rethinking everything about how they were going to do it, compared to what they ended up with. It would have required a different team working on it, probably a different studio/distributor, and a different level (and amount) of actual investment in it.

Acts far less famous, with far less sales and revenue, have gotten far more thorough documentaries.

We used to the say the same thing regarding archival releases, that other bands got big deluxe boxes for lesser-known eras, etc., and the BBs didn't. Well, thankfully that side of things was rectified and we have a great team doing right by the band and the fans on the audio/archival side of things.

Somehow, this approach was not how things ended up as far as the documentary.

https://www.avclub.com/beach-boys-jim-henson-idea-man-disney-documentaries-1851514989

Interesting article that explains how the documentary came to be on Disney+. Originally it was going to be on the Epix channel, now called MGM+ - a pretty minor player in the cable/streaming business. But Irv Azoff felt a documentary about the guys deserved a more prestigious and more viewed platform and that’s where Disney came in.

Excellent article. Stay for the end:

"Jim Henson Idea Man and The Beach Boys suffer from their unwillingness to present their subjects as complex, and perhaps even flawed, individuals. Pointing to something and saying, “Hey, remember how great this thing was?” is not the same as saying something insightful about it. Watching both films, it’s pretty clear why neither got a theatrical release: Neither feels consequential enough to see in a theater. They’re just bonus material, like the rest of Disney’s quasi-documentary promo specials for Marvel and Star Wars. They’re just more content for the Disney+ algorithm, more on-screen icons to be suggested when you’ve finished a different movie or TV show, more distractions to keep you from closing the platform and switching to another."

Thanks for the link. This article pinpoints some of the broad problems for these types of documentaries. Props to the writer as well for digging up actual new info about the making.

I'm of two minds regarding Azoff going to Disney. On the one hand. Epix (and even now as MGM+) *is* viewed as a kind of second/third-tier among the streaming services. (They just recently announced a recent movie "Challengers" is going to MGM+ first on streaming, and it opened up a flood of jokes basically amounting to "okay, call us when it arrives on a REAL streaming service"). Disney is much higher prestige, and certainly gets a zillion more eyes on anything than Epix/MGM+ would.

The problem is obviously the execution. The article mentions Epix making the "offer", before the doc was "sold" to Disney. But it doesn't specify at what stage in the process this happened. Based on copyrights/trademarks surfacing over two years ago of a partnership on the doc between Disney and BRI/Iconic, I'm guessing this process happened *prior* to the doc being made, especially because this doc has a copyright notice from Disney, suggesting they own it, which suggests *they* produced it themselves. It doesn't appear that BRI/Iconic produced the doc, finished it, and then just sold it to the highest bidder as if this was a film premiering at Cannes or something.

The guy running Iconic/BRI being able to just call Bob Iger, the CEO of Disney, and sell him a Beach Boys product is a HUGE deal. I just wish that translated to something better on this doc.

Iconic has a great team on the audio archival side of things as I've been mentioning, so I'll remain grateful and optimistic about that.

It actually looks like the AV Club got the Epix bit from an LA Times article:

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2024-05-24/beach-boys-disney-documentary-mike-love-al-jardine-frank-marshall-lana-del-rey-charles-manson

According to Azoff, the veteran music industry insider who manages the Eagles and U2, “The Beach Boys” grew out of an offer from the cable network Epix (now known as MGM+) to make a documentary about the band. Azoff decided “we could do better than Epix” and brought in Marshall, a longtime presence in Hollywood, and together they went to Disney chief Bob Iger, who Azoff says personally made the decision to buy the doc for Disney+.

I'd be curious to see Epix's pitch. Is it possible they would have executed a better documentary? Interesting to ponder....

Yes, the potentially uninformed director is at fault for not being more clued into band politics and drama, no question. However, and I can’t reiterate this enough, you can’t just *accidentally* make a Mike Love biased film. Something/someone HAD to have created the biased information to exist in the first place, right?

Whatever the reason for the “laziness/lack of skill” - be it actual incompetence or that Marshall was making a cheap coffee table book version of a documentary, the fact remains that supposedly information in this film exists in a cohesive and overarching fashion that has a Mike Love bent to it.

In fact, I’d say that if this wasn’t a directly guided attempt at a revision of history, then the fandom has an even BIGGER problem because it means that general information about The Beach Boys collected by your average collator/fact-checker at Disney has a Mike Love bent to it.

I haven’t seen anyone directly address the claims of bias that the Decider writer brings forth. If those claims have merit, then fans should be absolutely concerned that such blatant biases ended up in a “definitive” version of this film. Asking “where did those biases come from and how did they end up stretching across the entire film” are very valid questions.

I don’t think the question Guitarfool is asking is “Why does this film suck?” - there are a million different reasons for that and I think many fans have talked about those reasons (all valid). He is asking “why do Al Jardine, many fans, and a guy from Decider see that there is an overarching Mike Love bias in this film?”

That question shouldn’t and can’t end with “Frank Marshall’s laziness is to blame.”

It's tough, because this is getting pretty granular.

I've run into many casual fans who have *zero* stake/interest/desire to be "pro Mike Love" whose understanding/opinion of the band and its history hue pretty close to what I think Marshall's is, and what falls in line *generally* with the sometimes reductive Mike Love viewpoint.

It's the lazy narrative put across in countless articles/news stories, etc. over many, many years.

I don't think everything "begins and ends" with Frank Marshall sucking. But that's a pretty huge friggin' part of it, and I guess what what I've found is that focusing more on "This is Mike Love propaganda" and less on "Disney and Frank Marshall suck and were a bad pick to do this thing" kind of misses the biggest issue.

I mean, I think we all agree on the biggest issue (and reason for failure) being that Frank Marshall was absolutely the wrong person for the job. But there are problems that arise because of Marshall's direction that should be addressed as well. We're not "missing the biggest issue" by talking about the subsequent problems that arose because of the biggest issue - on the contrary, we're just shedding more light on the multiple points of failure stemming from that big issue.

If the bigger issues need to be discussed, no one is stopping you or anyone else from discussing it. If others want to discuss Mike Love's hand in the disinformation he has helped perpetuate over the years (especially relating to Brian's drug use) and how it is now permeating "definitive" documentaries, they should be able to.

That a lazy narrative was put in a Disney documentary should be talked about - and the people responsible for the continuation of that lazy narrative (whether the tabloid journalist looking to punch out a quick article, or a member of the band pushing a narrative) should be talked about. Because if left unchecked, then this is the history people will remember. The biggest entertainment corporation in the history of the world just created a documentary about our favorite band, and they blew it. And it only makes sense to talk about all the aspects of failure, not just the biggest one in the room.

As a rabid fan of the first six (and ONLY legitimate) Star Wars movies, I was not expecting anything else from the House of Mouse, may Heaven confound them. They treated the Beach Boys exactly like they treated Star Wars, and treat everything else. At this point, being also ML propaganda is just a cherry on the pie.

I agree with you too, but would not be so worried. Anybody who knows anything about music knows the truth about these issues, and the rest count zilch. The self-styled "historians" will be forgotten, the incompetent film directors will be forgotten, the music, and the songs, are immortal. Including the contributions by Mike, even though he seldom seems to "get" himself - and hence the hideous Stamos/McGrath travesty.
But it could be argued that none of the Boys ever really "got" himself or the group, including Brian. Imho, they never really understood how great they were.
It's like a great architect of Gothic cathedrals would worry about what some mud dwellers around thought of their creations.
Elitist? Maybe, but Art is hardly a democracy. The majority is not always right.

And I do mostly agree with this. However, HeyJude's point that he's run into many casual fans who believe the lazy narrative (and now that Disney+ has produced this documentary, that number of casual fans who believe the lazy narrative will be even higher) is alarming - it is tough to think that this is the history that could be carried forth into the future with this music.

Which brings me way back to Guitarfool's point from pages ago, that the best we can hope for is that this documentary is a catalyst for people to truly delve into the actual history of the band.

And yeah, in 200 years this music will be revered, and the history mostly forgotten. But I do think it's important that a "true" history - where any biases are erased and the facts remain - be remembered in the eons to come. And thus it's important to always keep these things in check.

I think this thing has not been a ratings juggernaut and hasn't seemed to garner anywhere near the level of attention that a lot of sort of A-list Disney Plus stuff has. 

So maybe this thing will ultimately just kind of fade away relatively quickly, and I'll be a super extra optimist for no particularly good reason and hope that they let Alan Boyd do a recut of Endless Harmony in a year or 2 or 3 rather than a decade.

Let's all hope that! As Rab said, it's important to keep these thing in check.
But, again, real professional historians will prevail in the end, no matter what. The documents are there.
Wagner has always been always much more controversial than Brian or the Beach Boys, but at the same he is, and always was, considered one of the greatest musical geniuses.Somebody hates him, but haters will hate. Nothing to see here. :)

You mean the kids aren’t making Beach Boys videos on Tik Tok like they did when Get Back came out!

Rogue One really surprised me with how good it was - I’d rank it higher than Episode II. And I thought the Force Awakens had a lot of promise (even though the story was a complete rip of ANH)…until they killed off Han. No reunion between Han, Luke & Leia was the biggest travesty (of many) about the “sequel” trilogy. When Han got killed off I remember how much disappoint I felt with the film - and I remember not even caring about the rest of the film from that point on, and it was at that point I completely lost interest in any of the future sequels. I never saw TLJ or TROS - but heard from way too many people that they are dumpster fires (though with beautiful special effects). Sorry for the off-topic talk!

Back to Disney; I won’t compare ‘Get Back’ with this documentary in terms of story/narrative/etc. However, I was so impressed with ‘Get Back’ that I had high hopes that a Disney helmed Beach Boys documentary would be created with the same care and attention to detail. When The Beach Boys trailer dropped it was like the Han moment all over again. It was so clear what a wasted opportunity this was.

I honestly don't care as much about the quality of Marshall's work via the final cut because honestly the film does have a linear narrative, and as I said before it isn't a complete mess that rambles incoherently. The team he had working on it are not first-timers and have a track record in making documentary films, so it isn't amateur hour. The knocks on that part of it are what was left out, and that it should have been longer, but that's pretty basic criticism.

My problem, which Rab called the elephant in the room, is that this film is putting out information which is biased, slanted toward Mike's narrative in obvious ways, and it is aimed specifically (let me repeat that, specifically) at new fans and casual listeners in order to promote the band's music and sell more product related to the band, and was overseen by a very large corporation whose goal is to sell the brand and move product and...wait for it...make money as a return on investment. The same fans who have been there for decades might watch, but are not going to buy or stream "I Get Around" when they probably already had the 45 or greatest hits CD or whatever in their collection for decades. The Disney audience who might be attracted by a Stephen Sanchez track on the "official soundtrack" is more of the target demographic.

So having said that, I will ask when does the bullshit narrative stuff end anyway? In the 70's, a TV movie showed Jan & Dean in the studio writing and recording Surfin - total BS. In the 80's, a TV movie showed a bearded 1970's era "Brian" clutching a copy of Sgt Pepper, rocking back and forth wearing headphones in his living room as Monterey Pop played on a TV in the background - total BS. In 2000 a TV movie showed the Smile sessions as the equivalent to a 60's opium den, where "Brian" played with squeaky dog toys and various druggies wandered in and out of the scenes in a haze of smoke - Total BS, and that production got served legal papers because of that crap.

What is the connecting thread there? First, they were TV movies based on reality but not documentaries. They did the usual Hollywood thing where characters and actual events are punched up to make for better storytelling. But at least one of those above was billed as "the REAL story", the "official" TV bio about the band, etc.

And how many millions of people watched that crap unfold on their TV's or on rental VHS tapes and actually believe what they saw as the official story, or worse, the "truth"?

So I'd think an actual documentary, with corporate weight behind it, billing itself as the "official" documentary of the Beach Boys, would have been more careful in telling the story, and at least would have checked the bias at the door...if they had done the research and saw what others, including an actual Beach Boys member, are seeing in this film.

It is based too much on Mike Love's narrative, and as that article called it, it is more of the same Mike Love propaganda that we saw in those ridiculous "Smile" scenes in the ABC TV movie.

That is a major problem, as I and others have been saying. I honestly don't care as much about Frank Marshall's shortcomings, because ultimately he made a cohesive film that left out a lot that should have been included, but I do care that both new fans and casual fans are going to watch this and believe Mike's version of these events 100% up and down.

And it's not accurate, it's a naturally biased take on certain key events, and it's not giving these viewers and curious new fans a fair or accurate take on the subject matter.

And whatever the actual viewership numbers are, the fact that we get yet another "official" TV project that paints a narrative which is slanted toward one perspective and opinion is not a good development, and in many cases it's simply not "the real story of The Beach Boys" as the PR hypemasters like to say...it's Mike Love's perspective which excludes the other guys' takes on the same issues.

As has been said, it doesn't seem accidental or coincidental that a pro-level team of documentary filmmakers creates a Beach Boys documentary which leans obviously toward Mike's narrative. There were sources for that, there were people finding and providing that research and information, maybe there were band politics that got into the process and it had to be that way...who knows...and ultimately that's among the biggest shortcomings of this work. It should not stand as an official or definitive documentary of the Beach Boys.

And it's not hardcore fans who are the issue: It's those new fans which Disney-Iconic-Whoever wants to attract who may see this and believe that narrative when it's not 100% the truth or the "real story".

Suffice that Mark Hamill totally lambasted the Disney "sequeĺ" trilogy though acting in it, which is extremely rare. And one can only guess what Carrie Fisher would have said.
The only good thing about the Disney trilogy is that the "prequel" trilogy of Jar Jar Binks & C is much less controversial now. Now real Star Wars fans have looked into the abyss, and old George Lucas is more criticized for selling the franchise to Disney than for doing the prequel trilogy.
Similar situation for the Hobbit trilogy. Amazon's Rings of Powers is so ridiculously bad that the Hobbit will surely be positively reevaluated.
Those yahoos in the big corporations seem to have a sacred mission to try to destroy and ruin everything we loved in our youth.

Sorry, and back to topic. At least the 2024 documentary does not literally spit on the faces of fans like the Disney trilogy, Rings of Power and several other things around. For now, we are not seeing the Beach Boys impersonated by Stamos, McGrath  ( DO IT! DO IT!) and four false cheerleaders with false beards (no offense to true cheerleaders, of course). Whenever one should feel that Beach Boys fans are mistreated, please remember what other fandoms are suffering. Yes, the Beach Boys are still an oasis of beauty in this world.
 

Oh definitely the music of the Beach Boys will always be an oasis of beauty. But it would be nice to get an accurate history, free of talking points and slanted narratives, that fans can reference and enjoy alongside the music without it coloring their impressions of and experiences with the music.

I'll lay out my own experience from years ago: When I first heard a collection of Smile tracks, I thought it was the most beautiful and even stunning music I had ever heard. I played my old cassette of that stuff back in the day for rooms of people, mostly musicians, who were literally dumbstruck by what they were hearing - they couldn't speak after hearing it. That scene repeated itself multiple times. The music is still beyond comprehension for me, even though I gained the knowledge to eventually be able to play it, analyze it, chart it out, figure out the production and orchestration techniques Brian was using...and yet I still don't know how the f*ck a man 24 years old with one deaf ear could create such works of sheer beauty and mystery that sounded unlike any "pop music" of its day, and still in some ways to this day.

That's why the image of people watching this documentary and getting an association of drugs and failure when thinking of Smile music instead of the jaw-dropping beauty and mystery of Smile music that I and others felt when hearing it - I mean really hearing and getting it - for those first times makes me sad and angry.

Unfortunately I don't think this current "narrative" has room for the beauty and ultimate personal redemption that the Smile story offers. So it gets reduced to "drugs", "failure", etc.

Hopefully more listeners will see the beauty and redemption and associate THAT with Smile and ignore this more recent bogus narrative no matter how "official" some would like it to become.

Again, I agree that this documentary is a big pile of disinformation, though it may be cohesive. When you follow the linear, simplistic, and bogus, story I outlined before, it is easy to keep cohesive.
My point is that people so naive and superficial to take such a BS documentary at face value, in 2024, are not likely to like ANY music by the Boys, let alone the likes of Feel Flows, Little Bird or Time To Get Alone.
So, this documentary bleats to sheep, so to say.
Maybe I'm being optimistic. But the horrible "Amadeus", which portraits Mozart as a kind of idiotic clown, though its unwarranted success did exactly zilch to diminish the reputation of the real Mozart. Those taking such a pile of trash at face value do not listen to Mozart anyway.

Good points, definitely. I think the difference with the Mozart film is that it wasn't a documentary, and for lack of a better term than "rock star" I think in some circles they were happy to see a classical composer be portrayed as a rock star, and potentially engage new generations outside the stereotypical classical audience especially in the 80's to get into Mozart's music and buy it, and also buy tickets to see orchestras perform it, let's say 200 years after the man himself died. This Beach Boys project is billed as an "official" documentary using actual footage while members of the band are still alive.

I see your point though, and again I hope that people watching this don't get too influenced by the various narratives to where it colors their experience with the music, as I worry might happen with Smile if these narratives continue, and instead choose to seek out more information on their own.

This is a very beautiful post, Craig. Yes, even among the collection of dazzling gems in the BB music, the SMiLE music shines. I think that Brian, with the help of VDP, came dangerously near to the essence of what music really is. Maybe that doomed SMiLE, at the moment.
Once somebody, I don't remember who, called SMiLE "the amazing album too beautiful to be actually heard by human ears". And I think it's true! To be heard, SMiLE needed to be made somewhat more "down to earth", and that was brilliantly accomplished with BWPS. It all but eliminated the dangerous "dark" undercurrent that still permeates Smiley Smile, particularly the unbelievably creepy Wind Chimes. BWPS is mostly happy and sunny, but I think the complex kind of exhilaration caused by the original sessions is incomparable. There is no music like that.

I think every true fan of the Beach Boys should be grateful to you for your relentless stance against any attempt to "revise" history. The "revised" history which someone would want is a travesty. We see it perfectly in this documentary: they practically reduce the (imho) greatest band ever, with the greatest songwriter and the best vocal harmonies, to a bunch of hits and to the "sunny California" mythology. Even Mike himself is diminished by that revision, whatever he may think. Nobody is ever snatching The Warmth of the Sun or Good Vibrations from him, but where are his later accomplishments? Also he has great contributions, and great leads, in the neglected 1967-1977 period.

Truth will probably prevail, but it's still right to defend the real legacy.

But Frank Marshall was both a producer and director and likely had at least some input in the narrative of the film.  We can't absolve him of all responsibility at the very least he aided and abetted it.

Applaud everything you both wrote!  I hope you are right that the truth will out!

At first when I read Carol Kay’s criticism of the movie showing vocal and instrumental recordings in quick succession thus implying they were done at the same time, without saying so, I thought she was nit picking.  After considering it together with other criticisms I’m re-thinking it. 
The overall narrative was subtle.  I’m not sure if Mike learned his lesson that head on attack (the 2004 lawsuit, the Rolling Stone interview and his biography) only gets you more bad press and more people hating you or if someone with more skill at honing publicity has tailored this.
It includes just enough fact to gain your confidence, then lies (Sea of Tunes - Hoffman has the fully story), accentuates the early chart hits, the reissues  and their importance, underestimates Pet Sounds, SMiLE, Surfs Up, Dennis, Carl, and ignores anything which would undermine the simple narrative, portrays Brian as the drug headed mad man and we get to the end with Mike tearily bemoaning that he doesn’t see Brian.  (A performance worthy of the Disney studio.) Because of the slick production you don’t even query it much at first and write it off as publicity fluff.  But it isn’t it is a deliberate and evil distortion of the truth.
I don’t know who funded the film if there are any contractual limitations or deals and with whom so I can’t be sure that Mike had any involvement in it at all but you can only ask cui bono?

When grievances are continually expressed, even over issues which have been addressed  (the credits lawsuit, for example) it becomes very tedious.

What about things like this? 'The Beach Boys blamed Brian for the Beach Boys’ (i.e., the organization’s) debt — accurately. 7 or 8 months of recording with the best session musicians in the world at the best studios in the world is expensive.
'Brian Wilson, who by far had the most money of them all due to royalties, paid off over a million dollars of the band’s debt directly and saved the band from bankruptcy, which would have resulted in many of them selling their assets.' https://www.quora.com/How-did-Capital-Records-react-when-Brian-cancelled-Smile-and-The-Beach-Boys-put-out-Smiley-Smile-instead-Who-ended-up-paying-for-the-cost-of-The-studio-time-and-musicians-for-the-Smile-Sessions-Capital-or-The-Beach?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1a0V5Y7mLbeTpbZwYiSaDbRKShn7foZQOiD81r78Yl6POSzCBqJFhXiWU_aem_AREduGyibHNCqFQMSVVMXzik5oZ70rKdjxmgPbfpIIyEKWQl37BppvZx8H7KpBpuPhXjtb0AtjDIYYIip1V1F3pn
From quora again - someone had asked what if Brian hadn't a breakdown during SMiLE:
'But first off, I don’t believe he had a breakdown during SMiLE per se.
'It was a certainly a troubling and stressful time for him, but there doesn’t seem to have been time for a breakdown: he went from recording for SMiLE one day to recording for Smiley Smile a couple of weeks later. It’s true that he spent a month or so in the spring not recording, but I think he was just trying to paste “Heroes and Villains” together. That was pre-digital days, and putting together modular recordings was a lot more complicated than just cutting and pasting on a computer: you needed, like, razor blades and scotch tape to do it, and an engineer who knew what he was up to.
'It wasn’t until 1968 that he had the breakdown, after releasing three more albums. Then he was hospitalized.
'As far as taking to his bed: he was always nocturnal, but the mythological retreat to bed didn’t happen until the early seventies.'

And just saw a 2017 Telegraph article which suggested that 'It was when his father died in 1973 that Brian Wilson entered his darkest period: two decades of reclusivity, drugs, mental hospital admissions, drinking, over-eating and chain-smoking.'

This is a bit more complex and nuanced than just putting Brian's problems down to drug abuse.

The Hoffman board is good to see what general fans think outside of our “bubble”.

I read Carol Kaye's complaints about the film, and it kind of just falls in line with her general demeanor of being a truly cranky, unhappy, mean-spirited person.

She doesn't like the doc. I don't like the doc. But I'm not into endorsing or supporting someone's point of view just because they share one overarching opinion. I'm not going to support someone being right for the wrong reasons.

The documentary makes points and implies things (and *doesn't* show things) that we're all agreeing are problematic.

But complaining that the film wants to imply by way of using that "Good Vibrations" studio footage anything purposefully misleading regarding how the songs were recorded is just goofy.

Back over a decade ago, they found a bunch of silent film of various "Good Vibrations" sessions. Essentially "b-roll footage", clearly including stuff shot across more than one day with multiple participants. This footage has already been used in the past in the 2012 "Doin' It Again" PBS/Blu-ray special made to promote the reunion.

Every use of that footage follows the most basic, simple rules of any sort of collage/compilation/music video. Here's a song, and here's some footage of that song being recorded. News flash: They even sometimes use footage of a *different* song! The Beatles "Hey Bulldog/Lady Madonna" being a classic example.

I'm sure the people who have done the hard work to look at all the AFM contracts and then listen to the session tapes still have a cold chill run down their spine just *thinking* about having to actually try to explain to Carol Kaye that her bass is not even on the finished version of "Good Vibrations."

Carol Kaye, ironically, has always struck me as having a very Mike Love-type personality streak running through in that much like Mike Love, she has genuinely achieved a TON of amazing things and is very talented, but will never not still feel aggrieved about something or other and need to complain about something.

Carol Kaye is not important, She is just a crazy old lady that happened to once be 1960s session pro.

I do think seeing how stunningly high-quality "Get Back" was would reasonably lead any fan of any other band into thinking "Hey, maybe we could get something on par with that!"

As I mentioned before, Irving Azoff being able to just call Bob Iger at Disney and make a sale on a BB doc is such a rarefied, high-level, bigwig sort of move, it's hugely frustrating that Azoff and Iger couldn't look at something like "Get Back" or even the "Beatles Anthology", and *insist* on something on par with that.

I will agree with everybody that Mike Love didn't/wouldn't need to work hard to get Frank Marshall to convey what he (Mike) wanted to get across in this documentary.

But, think about this:

Watch that press junket interview with Mike, Frank Marshall, and Al where Al complains right to Marshall's face about the documentary. Then watch as Marshall all but pats Al on the head and laughs at him and blows him off as quickly as possible, while Mike sits by and does nothing.

Now, imagine a Peter Jackson or some other director with major gravitas, talent, skill, and also drive/will to tell the true/full story as it should be, taking on a Beach Boys documentary. Imagine Mike going to that person and wanting the narrative to go a certain way. Then imagine that director politely but firmly blowing Mike off and pushing forward to actually make the film great, accurate, and fair to everybody. Imagine the director saying "Hrmmm, maybe we need to let people know about all the amazing music they made in the late 60s and early 70s rather than making fun of the perception of them as squares."

Imagine a good filmmaker not doing a junior high school-level book report post-script "And in conclusion, Pet Sounds was eventually considered to be one of the best albums of all times!"

Iconic has done such a good job supporting the audio/archival side of things, that I'm somehow extra disappointed with how Iconic and Azoff biffed this documentary by going with the Disney choice (and this Marshall), and apparently not having any major issue with Mike Love coming across as the lead on this thing.

I've previously said I was surprised Al even did the press junkets considering his clear beef with the final product. But maybe he did those junkets so that he could be a counterbalance to Mike and Frank Marshall in those interviews, at least as much as he could. There was only so much he could do, and I don't know if Al got swapped out on purpose with Bruce for the later Mike/Bruce interviews, or if that was just a traveling/logistical thing based on tour schedules.

I have no axe to grind for Carol Kay - I just think what she said, whilst being fairly unimportant in itself, fits into there being a narrative  in play which uses, omission, implication and lies.

I think Kaye's complaints are not justified and are part and parcel of her long-documented pattern of being cranky, unreasonable, and needlessly defensive. So I'm very uncomfortable just taking *any* complaint about the film, however absurd, and "fitting it into a narrative" about the *actual, legitimate* things the film omitted.

I guarantee that even if turns out Mike Love himself was manning the editing bay on this film, whatever Carol Kaye is complaining about has *zero* to do with the slanted narrative of this film.

I think the attitudes toward woman in the workplace back then did a number on Carol Kaye. They weren’t trying to be jerks but they were middle aged men in the 1960s.

FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE.

Carol is being subjected to enough character assassination in the Inclusive Board.
Let's try to be better people and not join in Carol-bashing. It's ugly.
She is a 87 old lady who managed to become a legend in a man-dominated environment. She says some questionable things now and then, so what? Just give her a break.

I said something very similar about Mike, some weeeks ago. As I am no "historian", don't apply two standards.

I agree but Carol’s her own worst enemy and the feud with a certain historian didn’t help a whole lot.

Right, just as Mike has always been his own worst enemy.

 I'm not concerned in the least about the Disney doc having a Mike Love spin to it. We've got several documentaries devoted specifically to telling Brian's story. Did the Love fans complain about those docs having a BW spin to them? Probably.
Brian Wilson is loved and revered the world over as the genius behind the music of the Beach Boys. He's worshipped for the sonic goods he bestowed upon us from 1962 to 1966 - especially 1966. Nothing about the Disney doc is going to change that. Nothing about the Disney doc is going to rob you of the pleasure you got seeing Brian tour as a solo artist from 1999 to 2023; his solo shows were universally praised as musically brilliant, unlike the traveling jukebox Mike leads.
If the result of the Disney doc is that Mike gets a little more credit, how does that take away from Brian?

Well, the theory would be that if a ton of people see this new version, and only this new version, they'll get a slanted point of view.

If this doc had gone "viral" and was like the next "Stranger Things" or "Wednesday" or even other doc series like "Wild Wild Country" or "Making a Murderer" or something, then I'd be far more worried about all of a sudden a zillion "new fans" getting a wonky version of the story.

But I don't think this Disney doc is any sort of ratings juggernaut. For a big new Disney+ doc, it's not getting a lot of attention. It's certainly not "viral" the way the Beatles "Get Back" series was.

I don't think every doc has been either "pro Brian" or "pro Mike". "Endless Harmony" was both fair and also GOOD. That's a very good measuring stick for what a BB doc should be. We would just need a longer, more up-to-date version of THAT.

Can Oldsurferdude handle this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2OF3P4x1v4A&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fforums.stevehoffman.tv%2F&source_ve_path=Mjg2NjY&feature=emb_logo

I was just wondering about OSD. He has been absent for a while now, as far as I know. I hope he's well.

I just want a story told correctly. I don't care if it gives Mike all the credit in the world for the things he has actually accomplished during his life (because he has accomplished a lot worthy of praise). And likewise, I don't care if it paints Brian at times in an unsavory way, because Brian hasn't always been an upstanding role model.

It would've been great for a DEFINITIVE documentary to just tell the story in a truthful and unbiased way where someone wouldn't have to comment "I'm not concerned in the least about the Disney doc having a Mike Love spin to it" when talking about it. For someone to comment that about a documentary that promotes itself as "The Definitive Look at America's Band." shows perfectly (a) that this documentary truly isn't "definitive", and (b) what a wasted opportunity this was for the band.

This documentary wasn't documenting the creation of TLOS or BWPS. It is supposedly the "definitive" look at the band so there shouldn't be ANY spin on it. Again, I go back to Ken Burn's baseball series - it would've been great to have a documentary like that where the people at the helm actually cared about the material. I guess I really expected a company that made 'Get Back' and made 31 billion dollars last year to be able to fund and create a documentary about "America's Band" that is actually worth watching.

And the rest of this is a reply to Hey Jude. Whether 10,000 or 10 million people see this, there are a couple worrisome things relating to this doc:

1) that the research team did their homework and came up with this tabloid-esque overview of the band (is this viewpoint held by so many people that it has become gospel now? or that there is never any official pushback on this lazy narrative that it was given the green-light due to being the easy way to put their story into an hour and a half movie? either way, it's worrisome that this narrative is what was put in a "definitive" documentary)
2) it upholds the viewpoint/understanding that SO many casual fans have about this band, so it's only going to bolster that false viewpoint. Especially when it calls itself "definitive". Regardless of it not going viral, it is now exclusively on a platform with 149 million subscribers (and growing), and from hereon when any casual person watches this film on there, they will walk away with the idea that this is THE official story. To someone who'd just like to have a truthful/beautiful documentary made, that is worrisome to me.

I will say, as Zenobi said above: the music will triumph over all this garbage. But in the meantime it's sad that our outlook is "in 200 years this won't matter" when in an alternate universe we're all on this message board talking about how great the new 5 part unbiased Beach Boys documentary series on PBS is. Sigh.

Brian at that beach meeting has that look of defeat knowing Mike’s got control over everything….

How do you do a book or movie or tv special without having some kind of spin to it? You put it in the hands of whoever, and they are going to mold and shape it in a way that is pleasing to that person. Already, you've got spin.
Then you get the band members involved. Mike says "I don't like that comment, take that out". Al objects to something different. As you get more and more people involved, the entire thing gets more watered down.
I watched Ken Burns' Baseball - including the update that was done later. Honestly, I was ticked off there wasn't more about Ken Griffey, Jr. He made the cover of the book and the dvd, but there was very little about him in it.

Brian looks miserable in every photo of video I've seen of him in recent years.

Whether it's Ken Burns' Baseball, 'National Parks', or 'The War' series ANYONE can find something to nitpick about, but overall those documentaries are REVERED for their content and style. It would've been nice to have the same thing here. Would it be perfect? No. Would it have spin one way or another, yeah probably. But they could TRY to tell the real story without a blatant bias/narrative that every fan who watches this film can see. I have seen nothing but lukewarm reviews about this documentary - even from people who liked the thing! I don't think I've seen one review on any of these forums where someone was actually excited about this thing. I mean, even the Rotten Tomatoes critic reviews - most of them (and most of them being positive) had something negative to say in their main blurb about the film.

I guess I don't see the logic in saying "yeah there will always be a spin so having a Brian Wilson biased film and another Mike Love biased film is a good thing" - is that really the bar we're happy with? Or can we just admit that having a film that puts both Mike and Brian (and more importantly the band) in a truthful light would be the best option (and what this film SHOULD have been from the get-go)?

Suggest you check out his Instagram when he was at the Lakers game in April, he looked quite happy then. Especially with everything going on in his life lately, it's nice to see a smile on his face.

Yeah he looked like was having a good time

I just don't buy the whole "Mike Love POV" like this was told thru his eyes.  Even Al saying that is a little much.  Al was interviewed just as Mike was for this (and Bruce and David and Blondie).  If Al had a certain narrative that he felt needed to be put across, he could have.  I think the bottom line is very much tied to that AV article.  This is a Disney project from Iconic.  Does it benefit Iconic at all to have a "warts and all" story of the Beach Boys produced at this point?  From their perspective, I highly doubt it.  They wanted this thing as pristine as possible for the Disney audience and that means keep the drugs, lawsuits and fights to a minimum, certainly don't cover any sort of activities that may have been covered in the Gaines book and every Disney story needs a villain.  Murry was the obvious choice: he had a negative effect on everyone (abusive to his sons, screwed Mike out of writing credits, bullied David out of the band) so he had to be woven throughout.  Did that tie directly to Mike's big beef about not getting credited?  Of course it did, but I highly doubt that Mike proposed casting Murry as the lone villain for the documentary.  I hear what everyone is saying and that this is essentially a "paint by numbers" sort of program but saying this somehow expands on Mike's narrative history of the band at the expense of Brian just seems a little far-fetched for me.  Iconic wanted this documentary made a certain way and they got it.  It doesn't harm their brand.  The hardcore fans will learn nothing from the documentary and that's the way they wanted it.  We will always have Endless Harmony as a true documentary of the group.  I'm certainly hopeful it does get updated one day with everything that happened post 1998 and covers the reunion and 2012 tour but some how I doubt that will happen while any of the main members are still with us.

I knew I would get this kind of reaction, because to say that Brian looks unhappy implies that his handlers are tormenting him, it's all Melinda's fault, etc.
IMO, Brian is probably in a lot of physical pain these days, and losing his wife isn't going to put a smile on his face, either. But I said what I said, and you can take it anyway you want.

I said before that ignoring the great 1967-1977 era of the Beach Boys diminishes Mike, too. So I asked myself: how much diminished? Here's the answer: A WHOLE LOT. I'm listing all the songs where Mike sang a lead part in that period, marking with three stars the songs where he contributed at least lyrics.

SMiLE:
H&V (Cantina!)
Cabinessence (!)
Love To Say Dada

SMILEY SMILE:
H&V (Sunny Down Snuff!)
Vegetables
She's Goin' Bald***
Little Pad
GV***
Wind Chimes (!)
Gettin' Hungry***
Wonderful (prominent bass in Hey Baba Ruba section, too cool to ignore)
Whistle In
(MIKE IS ALL OVER THE WEIRDEST, LEAST COMMERCIAL BB ALBUM!)

WILD HONEY:
Aren't You Glad***
A Thing or Two***
Let The Wind Blow*** (GREAT)
Mama Says

FRIENDS:
Meant For You*** (SUBLIME)
Wake The World
Anna Lee, the Healer***

20/20:
Do It Again*** (OF COURSE! And without McGrath!)
Bluebirds Over The Mountain
All I Want To Do
Cabinessence

SUNFLOWER (no need to comment...):
Add Some Music to Your Day***
It's About Time
All I Wanna Do***
Cool, Cool Water***

SURF'S UP:
Don't Go Near The Water***
Student Demonstration Time***
'Til I Die (!!!!)

CARL AND THE PASSIONS:
He Come Down***
Marcella
All This Is That***

HOLLAND (ditto Sunflower):
Big Sur***
The Beaks of Eagles
California
Funky Pretty
I'm The Pied Piper (!!!!)

15 BIG ONES:
Rock And Roll Music
It's OK***
Had To Phone Ya***
Everyone's In Love With You***
A Casual Look
Blueberry Hill

LOVE YOU:
Let Us Go On This Way***
Roller Skatin' Child
Johnny Carson
Ding Dang (!)
Airplane (GREAT)
Love Is A Woman
(ALL OVER THE 2ND WEIRDEST ALBUM, TOO... OR IS IT THE 1ST ONE?)

That's 50 (FIFTY) leads in just the 1967-1977 window, and I left out the bonus tracks, and the live albums. He wrote at least the lyrics for 21 of these 50 songs. Of course he wrote also lyrics for songs where he did not sing a lead. And of course his trademark bass is always present, often prominent, in the harmony stacks.
Now, this is impressive. It's a FANTASTIC bunch of work. Not just the quantity, there are several masterpieces in there. Do you really realize this, Mike? Do you really think that your greatest accomplishment after 1966 is Kokomo? Do you think Marshall & the House of Mouse do you justice?
You are great, sometimes sublime. Whoever calls you talentless must be tone deaf.
I may be biased... I "confess" that my favourite among the peerless voices of Beach Boys is Mike's. How he can be punchy and rocking (and nasal, yes, I like also that!), but also so warm and quiet, sometimes gently whispering (THE WHISPERIN' WINDS!).

And talking of the Whisperin' Winds, Mike sang at least a part lead in most of the most "strange" and avant-garde songs by his cousin. In fact, he often helped Brian to f... with the formula. :)

Sorry, double post.

It's relatively easy to guess a possible reason why that period of albums and original music was all but glossed over, even though Mike created some classic music during that era: It doesn't fit the current narrative, or the narrative of the film if they're running into each other.

Endless Summer "saved" the band, according to the narrative. Endless Summer was, according to Mike's PR, something he "produced", something he named, and whatever else. Thus, 2+2=4, Mike and Endless Summer saved the band's fortunes after all that music from '67 to '74 failed to sell and the band was floundering...until Endless Summer bailed them out.

That's the narrative, right? Isn't that what this documentary is suggesting? Coincidentally or not, Mike is touring behind the anniversary of Endless Summer this year. As I said in an earlier post, it all ties in if you can see it.

Focusing on the great music they made during that time would go against that narrative, that they were a floundering band for those 6-7 years until Endless Summer hit the charts.

Of course Al could put his perspective across, and maybe he did...and then had it end up on the cutting room floor along with who knows how many dozens of hours of interview footage they could have used but didn't. It's easy to cut and edit anything to lean a certain way, in this case that seems to have happened. Who knows what Al actually said except Al, the interviewers, the editors, and producers.

Maybe that's why Al got a little salty talking about the footage that wasn't used in the doc.

I agree, let's hope that after touring behind the anniversary of Endless Summer Mike remembers all the great music he helped to create in that period. However, luckily that great music is still there to listen to, whatever the "narrative". Even more after all those wonderful box sets.

Them doing the original tracklist live would actually be cool.

Yes it would. When did they last perform Girls on the Beach? Warmth of the Sun? Wendy? Girl Don't Tell Me? I'd pay to see that show.
And next year will be the 50th anniversary of Spirit of America and Good Vibrations - Best of the Beach Boys. Plenty of gems there to add to the show - The Little Girl I Once Knew, Add Some Music to Your Day, Surf's Up, Salt Lake City, Spirit of America, Please Let Me Wonder.

Some of what Carol has done is steal credits from James Jamerson who is not alive to refute her claims. It’s the BB version of Bernard Purdie claiming to have played on the Beatles records.

Jeesh man, I wrote “especially with everything going on in his life lately, it’s nice to see a smile on his face.” - as in his horrendous back issues, that he’s now gotta use a walker/wheelchair, that so many of his friends and close associates are dying all around him, his wife dying, etc - ie acknowledging that he HAS looked really down lately.

I was merely saying that if you really hadn’t seen an uplifting picture of him recently that you should check out the Lakers game photo, because “it’s nice to see a smile on his face”. All the best to you, Lonely Summer.

There is no hope, Rab. Some people can't help seeing EVERYTHING through the "Beach Boys politics" lens.
That was the main reason for my extremely long, and I guess just as useless, post about Mike Love. Trying to get away from that narrow  and self-defeating mindset.
But, as I said, there is no hope. You show normal human decency to Brian Wilson, so you must be a Brianista. Shame on you!

Ok, I know that very well. That's not my point. My point is that two wrongs do not make a right. The behaviour of some people (in the Inclusive Board) to Carol is totally obnoxious.

'He's worshipped for the sonic goods he bestowed upon us from 1962 to 1966 - especially 1966. Nothing about the Disney doc is going to change that.' No but it could have enlarged upon that.  And rather too much emphasis IMO on the fact that Pet Sounds didn't do that well (in the US) commercially at first. It got to No 2 in the album charts in the UK. And it's shouldn't just be about how well it sold either.

I agree with all of that. It's not a high water mark for this type of documentary to go out to a zillion worldwide subscribers.

But I've also spent a lot of time in non-Beach Boys areas of work/study looking at the media/streaming/cultural landscape, and what I was trying to say in a previous post is essentially to try to be optimistic in pointing out that not only is the doc not seeming to catch on as a pop culture centerpiece, but also that pop culture/entertainment moves *much more quickly* now than it did even ten let alone 20-30-40 years ago.

That things are HUGE and then drop off the face of the earth very quickly these days is not a good thing for some people (e.g. people looking for career longevity), but it might just be an inadvertent fringe benefit when there's something that you want to kind of just go away as quickly as possible. 

Also, I think it's worth noting that a lot of fans, a lot of people on this board surely, probably delved into the Beach Boys with books/videos/articles that were not always accurate or fair. The vast majority of people who become legit *fans* who want to dive into all of the music and learn the whole story usually will find their way to the correct information.

I bow to nobody in my desire and in many cases effort to "guard" the band's legacy as much as any fan can. I've spent tons of posts/threads explaining why I think the Stamos/Full House connection had a definite *downside* to the band's perception/legacy, I have a zillion posts delving into the injurious things Mike (and others) have done to other members, fans, and the band's legacy over the years.

But we also should be able to *not* have to carry that on our backs all the time either. I could spend hours and many pages poring over how hard this Disney doc biffed it, and I probably will do so at some point. But I've lived through many other similar scenarios, and I think we'll all survive and we won't find "Mike Love is a Genius" buttons on sale on Etsy five years from now.

We survived the 2000 Stamos ABC TV movie miniseries (which was far more egregious than even this doc, and may well have been watched by more people in 2000), so I think the story/fandom will survive and thrive, so long as the authors/historians/researchers and the audio archive team we have right now continue to do the great work they do. Actual legit, true fans that want to delve in and learn more about the band, who actually have the attention span to close TikTok and go get some real books and *seek* information out, will be able to find a better, fair, correct narrative.

I would like to bring up the point of the Mike Love songwriting lawsuit and it's considerably larger role in the documentary than what some fans may have expected.

First, are there opinions that Mike's song credit lawsuit took up more time than expected in telling the story of the Beach Boys with this documentary? Do you think it was handled evenly or was it slanted more toward Mike's narrative of the whole situation?

I ask because I went back to a lot of research I had done in 2013, and to discussions on this forum from that time, after thinking how many fans watching this documentary came away knowing more than a surface level summary of the lawsuit. I don't think many do know the deeper details and context, and wonder where they would find such info.

The takeaway I got was "Mike got screwed on these credits, sued and won" and whatever else follows from there.

Do you think enough time was devoted to the fact that Brian also got screwed out of money and credits he deserved, and had to also file multiple lawsuits in order to win that back? Starting a long time ago, Capitol did not pay money due to Brian regarding his production credits and "points" on Beach Boys records. Brian eventually won that settlement to the tune of over a million dollars, and I'm not sure on the exact year that was decided, but in today's money it is a massive amount. So Capitol withheld that money, and Brian had to file suit to get it back. Brian and the band also sued Capitol over non-payment due to the label trying to exploit a "breakage clause" in their standard contracts involving returned product, and the band's win in that case led directly to the formation of the Brother Records label in '67. Brian also won a settlement against Irving-Almo, A&M, and whatever other corporate interests were involved in the sale of Sea Of Tunes in 1969, based on a handful of legal issues and claims of fraud and other misdeeds by the lawyers involved dating back to the inception of Sea Of Tunes when Brian was still legally a minor (i.e. unable to enter into a legal contract agreement) when Murry established the company originally.

That was filed in 1989, and eventually decided in June 1992. In July 1992, Mike filed his lawsuit against the 10 million dollar settlement Brian received, only to the tune of filing a 50 million dollar suit against Brian's 10 million judgement award. The number of songs in question dropped from Mike's original claim of over 70 songs, which got reduced to 48 by July 1992, then reduced further to 35 songs for which he received credit in perpetuity. Mike's suit also hinged on the claim that an agreement was made between their legal teams that Mike would receive 30% of Brian's 10 million settlement, which never happened. The agreement reached in December 1994 was for 5 million and future royalties.

Then in September 1995 Brian filed his own suit against the legal teams representing him during that time, and the lawyer acting in the conservator role for him since December 1991, basically controlling his money and what he could do with it in a legal sense. The suit alleged a variety of misdeeds and violations.

There is much, much more to this, which I will link to for anyone interested, but I wanted to give a surface level take on the case which is featured somewhat prominently in the documentary to show how much more there really is to the story, and how the narrative or takeaway some might see that "Mike got screwed out of money, sued and won" is only the tip of the iceberg. Brian also got screwed out of money (potentially more than Mike considering the production points), sued, and won, quite a few times since the 1960's. Do you think that aspect of the story was or was not highlighted enough in the documentary?

For anyone interested, here are links to the original discussion about the lawsuit. I went into it knowing a little more than average about the details, but through more digging actually came out of it having found some additional details that made the story all the more complete and interesting too. Unfortunately the discussion gets interrupted a lot, but it's a good read from 2013 where you can see several sides of the discussion being offered.

It starts around here:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16619.msg411202.html#msg411202 (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16619.msg411202.html#msg411202)

And ends around here:
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16619.575.html (http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,16619.575.html)


I'm just adding all this to show how even one topic which was aired in the documentary could actually be the subject of a 2-hour documentary on its own, and would probably appeal to all those viewers who watch the legal channels and discuss previous legal and criminal cases, not to mention the band's fans who might want to dig deeper into these topics which only get a surface-level airing. And ironically, pieces of the original case Mike filed and won in December '94 are still winding through the court system, but I'll say no more about that. It's public record anyway if you know where to look. And that's not even getting into the rumors and gossip involving Rocky Pamplin, Stan Love, etc. Topic for other discussions.

It may be interesting too if viewers just read a little bit of the backstories and compare that to what was presented in the new film, and how it was presented.

Brian never complained….

This stuff is all intensely interesting to me and many here, and you've dug up some great stuff over the years on all the facets of the case. It could indeed be its own documentary.

I don't know how much of the story would ever be part of even a multi-part BB doc, but certainly there would be plenty of room to cover all the important points.

One aspect when telling the story in doc (or book) form though is how much one wants it to be a straight historical retelling, versus how much it would be driven by how the people involved feel.

I would again point people to the recent Surf's Up podcast with Howie Edelson where, while he's talking about the Genesis book mainly, they get into Mike's feelings about the songwriting credits. Howie even talks about some of the questions he's asked Mike regarding why Mike didn't say anything sooner, what resources or recourse he felt he had back then, etc. It's very interesting. And I think Howie put it well; Mike views the songwriting issue as a sort of "original sin." Putting it that way helps put into focus the last decade or so in particular of Mike continuing to hammer the issue decades after it was all rectified in his favor. And I think there's room to have understanding and empathy regarding that.

Mike's never going to get over it; there's nobody left to apologize any more than they already have, there's nobody and nothing left to "fix" it more than it has. Mike hasn't, to my knowledge, said that if, say, Brian had apologized for himself and/or on behalf of Murry or something, that that would help.

The 2016 "Ballad of Mike Love" Rolling Stone piece on Mike did a good job of conveying both Mike's insistence on continuing to make it a thing, and also the writer does a good job of conveying how he (and thus we as readers/fans) could easily be frustrated by his immovability on the issue, and of continuing to complain about the issue.

Any decent history/biography of the band should hone in on that "original sin" idea to help explain why Mike is so adamant about it. BUT, yes, it absolutely should tell the *other* parts of the story too. That Brian was cowed by Murry. That Brian never took initiative to fix it, but also that Brian never denied Mike wrote the songs, and wanted to settle rather than go to trial circa 1994, and had crappy lawyers. That Mike has been inconsistent with how much he blames Brian (sometimes it's Brian's fault, sometimes he acknowledges Brian was cowed). And yes, it should trace the genesis of the whole thing, including the Irving-Alamo lawsuit, that Murry screwed everybody over. It should point out that the timing of Mike's 90s lawsuit against Brian was not random, but rather specifically in reaction to Brian having settled the Irving-Alamo lawsuit. It should pose the fair question to Mike of why *he* waited so long to do anything about it. He likes to describe Brian as being cowed by Murry, but I don't think Mike feels like *he* was cowed by Murry. So why didn't he go straight to Murry? Why didn't he put the brakes on the whole thing in like 1966, especially after the success of "Good Vibrations", and say "Okay, this songwriting credit issue needs to be resolved, and I'm not going on stage for a gig until it is." And, in turn, Mike (or others) can offer explanations for why that didn't happen. I think some explanations are valid, maybe others aren't.

A good documentary filmmaker could push through all of that in five or ten minutes. I've seen documentaries diagram out intricate business relationships with military contractors, 87 levels of mob organization, and so on. It could be done.

Everybody agrees that ML penned the words to California Girls. Did he really write everything he got his name added to in the '94 lawsuit?  I'm skeptical.

Tony Asher has said that ML's addition to the "Wouldn't It Be Nice" credits is a joke.  Adding "good night, sleep tight" (hardly an original rhyme) to the outro during the vocal sessions shouldn't have merited songwriting credit.    George and Ringo both commented many times that they added various lines to Beatles songs credited solely to  Lennon-McCartney. Did they sue?

I can understand, I guess, how the "Sea of Tunes" issues are interesting to scholars of the band, but I really don't think they're as interesting to casual viewers of Disney documentaries as Mike Love and Frank Marshall apparently do.  As I mentioned earlier in the thread, even I, a hardcore fan, have never lost a minute of sleep over the fact that Brian, Mike and their various wives and ex-wives aren't even richer than they are because Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss allegedly ate their lunch, courtesy of Murry's antics. 

When I saw Marilyn in the doc incredulously lamenting that Murry unloaded SoT to AlMo in 1969 for $700,000, chump change, right?  But the erstwhile corporate finance student in me is thinking.... "Hmmm, $700k in 1969, invested in the S&P 500... average annual return since then of 10.5%... in 2024: $169 million... not terrible.

Mike said something specific regarding his feelings about the SOT sale that I don't think anybody has mentioned yet(I haven't read this whole thread), and I think it kind of gives a glimpse of the full extent of his hurt over all this. In selling off the songs, Murry not only screwed his children, but his children's children. Murry sold their life's work. Their legacy. Their entire identity.

Apparently Murray wasted the SOT money on home renovations….

With the entertainment industry and in particularly Disney dealing with very difficult financial and business times, I think Bob Iger having the interest, time, or focus to push through an agenda to make this documentary as good as the Beatles documentary was would've been a complete impossibility.

The Beatles film was such a wonderful freak occurrence. 

good question and as guitarfool pointed out, Mike's original claim of 70 co-writes ultimately became just 35. obviously some songs are much more successful than others which I'm sure is why getting his name on Wouldn't It Be Nice and a few others was so important to him.


I've been meaning to chime in about the documentary, which I haven't yet...
I was prepared to hate the thing but I really didn't. obviously the decision was made to make something well under 2 hours and focus on the early years. I'm sure it's been watched by a lot more people due to the shorter length and I imagine the catalog has recieved a significant bump as a result. this doc also did a fine job of portraying the Beach Boys and Beatles as equals, at least for a time, which is important to public perception. overall I really enjoyed it in spite of myself. it's visually fabulous compared to Endless Harmony which looks more like a Behind The Music episode. lots of footage, photos, and quotes I hadn't seen before. it was sad how little we got to hear from current-day Brian but the new interviews (with Al and Dave especially) are very nice.

sure I'm disappointed by what wasn't included, mainly the panning of everything after GV.
it made a real point of saying how unhip they had become by the late 60s but failed to mention how much respect they regained in the early 70s from the likes of RollingStone (who helped spread the "unhip" sentiment in the first place) and folks like Bob Dylan and the Grateful Dead for the quality of their live performances not to mention experimental albums and the hit Sail On Sailor which REALLY should've been included. I do appreciate the gritty live version of Darlin they used to end the film, great tribute to Carl and a Wild Honey classic.

I also think the director was slyly/slightly critical of Mike throughout. like when they talk about him adopting the "lead singer" persona early in the band's career then cut to some of the most obnoxious footage of him on Long Tall Texan. or when they discuss Brian spending 3 months on Good Vibrations in various studios while Mike couldn't be bothered to come up with any lyrics until the day of the vocal sessions, and follow that with Mike complaining he wasn't also labeled a genius for its success (after earlier pointing out that Brian made hits regardless of the lyricist). as in other documentaries, Mike is his own worst enemy. then he wonders why people have such a negative opinion of him. in Endless Harmony it was, "the Beach Boys meant so much to so many because of the positivity... and that was ME!" and in this one it's "I should've been called a genius too!"


I do believe we'll get a sprawling 6+ hour documentary one day that will be exhaustive and much more complete. hopefully it won't be another 25 years from now

In light of many of the issues raised in the discussion here about the Sea of Tunes controversies, due to their prominence in the documentary, I revisited the topic as discussed in Mike Love's "Good Vibrations" autobiography.  After that review, I think it's important to realize that the Sea of Tunes issues and ML's continuing resentment and regressive views of the Smile era are NOT unrelated phenomena.  The nexus between the two is David Anderle.   In his book, ML alleges that Anderle was high-school buddies Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss. And all of them were friends and business associates with Abe Somer, who Love says that Anderle brought in as the Beach Boys' lawyer.  Love sees Somer as a diabolical character who, with an assist from Anderle, basically ripped the BBs off to enrich his buddies and other clients, Alpert and Moss.  (In fairness, ML makes a valid point that there's a basic breach of ethics to be representing both sides of a transaction without disclosing his conflict of interest).  At the same time, in ML's mind at least, there's no daylight between Anderle and the Smile era.  They're one and the same.... all one giant fiasco that resulted in Michael Edward Love being ripped off.

That freak occurrence has a name: Sir Peter Jackson. He has the Midas touch.

And Peter Jackson is amazing! But also it was the perfect storm of everything lighning up right for that film to get made/released in the form that it did and timing is everything.