I'm waiting for someone to mock up a "Movie Poster" for the film adaptation of Mike's book.  

What's perplexing is that it appears Mike isn't living in an insulated bubble or anything. He talks about reading stuff on the internet. He talks about reading THIS very board. Obviously, a person will filter information in countless different ways.

But does he realize he reinforces what those critical of him often say by doing an interview like this?

The whole thing with discussing Evan Landy is what is most telling, in my opinion. It totally reeks of having feelings of jealousy (or annoyance, or inadequacy, or whatever) about the "Love & Mercy" film (and whatever other deep-seeded stuff is going on with his feelings about Brian), then seeking out a dissenting voice about the film to present as an "alternate" viewpoint. I'm just astounded that the person he went with was Evan Landy. Is this really a "enemy of my enemy is my friend" sort of thing? Even with Landy's son?

It reads very similar to the "assuming it doesn't have autotune, I'm sure it'll be great" comment about Al and Brian's "The Right Time" track. There's a standing grudge or whatever with Brian and Al, so the response is to *seek out* critical commentary and use that as a sort of passive aggressive weapon.

Seriously, Mike's interviews continue to give me bad feelings about his upcoming book. I strongly suggest Brian wait until *after* Mike's book comes out, because I sense there's going to be a need for some clarifications, rebuttals, etc.

Mike *still* is chalking up Brian's deal disproportionately to his drug use. And again, just my opinion, but his words no longer seem to feel like true sympathy or empathy for Brian. Rather, they read much more like a weird sort of selfish, patronizing pity towards Brian.

I scraped together my review and it’s up on my blog. http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com (Links to my blog and facebook page are in my signature below). As usual, I wrote and rewrote and ended up just going with a sort of blurted out, stream of consciousness review to once avoid spending weeks writing it for five minutes per day. Long story short, the film is highly recommended!

If you go back and watch the 1991 “Primetime Live” Diane Sawyer piece on YouTube, she adds at the very end after the piece some additional bits they had dug up, one of which was that they found evidence that Landy allegedly had been receiving therapy for HIMSELF during the 80’s for his own problems, an issue which Sawyer says Landy refused to talk about on camera.

I’m guessing it’s not super uncommon for a therapist to also seek out therapy themselves, but it was still a rather telling additional bit of information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t want to turn this into a thread about Mike’s upcoming book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The big question will be whether he takes a more understanding approach (through hindsight) or will be on the attack about the negative influence that it took on their personal and professional lives.

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

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

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

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

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

The big question will be whether he takes a more understanding approach (through hindsight) or will be on the attack about the negative influence that it took on their personal and professional lives.

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

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

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

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

I hate to say it but I like An American Family a little better...

You could easily win that Unpopular Beach Boys Opinions thread. 

haha ya prolly but C'MON the casting was horrible. The actors who were portraying Al and Bruce are obviously much taller then the actual  Al and Bruce. ALSO... the scene on the plane when Brian has his breakdown.. Bruce is in that scene. But wasn't in the band at that time. Dec 23 1964 was the breakdown. Bruce joined april 9 1965. ooh the inaccuracies!!

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but I don't recall Bruce being in the airplane scene. They only briefly flash on the other members, but it appeared to be Al next to Brian (which I believe is how other reports and depictions have shown it), and then Carl and Dennis sitting next to each other, with Mike behind them.

It would not only be factually incorrect, but also a continuity error within the film itself, as Bruce is "introduced" later.

As for the actors, I'm pretty sure every "Al" actor in all of these movies was taller than Al actually is.

The only inaccuracy that slightly irks me is Murry selling Sea of Tunes to A & M during the Smiley Smile period — so soon after Good Vibrations? We all know it was two years later.

I thought they said it was 1969 during that scene, but I could be wrong.

The scene has Brian staring at a wall of "Smile" tapes, and talking to Murry about how the other guys were going to do "Smiley Smile." So that would put it in 1967 in the movie's timeline. Not a huge deal that they moved it forward; they clearly wanted to get that bit about selling the songs into the film but weren't going to take the "early" era much past 1967.

Does anyone know if there were any legal agreements/settlements (similar to what eventually occurred with removing Landy’s name from songwriting credits) after 1992 which dictated Eugene Landy not give any interviews or discuss Brian? He was alive for 14 years after being removed from Brian, and appears to have never given an interview or otherwise discussed Brian. Given his bravado and willingness to go to farcical lengths to defend himself (e.g. the Primetime Live interview from 1991), I always wondered why he didn’t continue to defend himself in all those later years.

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

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

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

I hate to say it but I like An American Family a little better...

You could easily win that Unpopular Beach Boys Opinions thread. 

haha ya prolly but C'MON the casting was horrible. The actors who were portraying Al and Bruce are obviously much taller then the actual  Al and Bruce. ALSO... the scene on the plane when Brian has his breakdown.. Bruce is in that scene. But wasn't in the band at that time. Dec 23 1964 was the breakdown. Bruce joined april 9 1965. ooh the inaccuracies!!

Maybe I'm remembering incorrectly, but I don't recall Bruce being in the airplane scene. They only briefly flash on the other members, but it appeared to be Al next to Brian (which I believe is how other reports and depictions have shown it), and then Carl and Dennis sitting next to each other, with Mike behind them.

It would not only be factually incorrect, but also a continuity error within the film itself, as Bruce is "introduced" later.

As for the actors, I'm pretty sure every "Al" actor in all of these movies was taller than Al actually is.

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

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

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

We do have in the archives partial vocals for "Good Vibrations," from a copy of an original 4 track master.  This 4 track (which now exists only in a vintage 8 track copy) only had some of the vocal parts, none of them doubled, and was apparently copied to a separate, now missing 8 track onto which Brian would have then added all of the rest of the vocal parts and layers heard in the final mix. 

Thanks for the info! Can we assume it is these bits that they used in the film?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m curious if the director (or writers or the actors) were given the Gary Usher book as reference. That may have the most detailed account of the vibe Landy’s operation gave, at least for that period of time, 1986-87-ish.

The most detailed account would have to be the mysterious videotapes of this era, right? I recall reading that there were dozens and dozens of them, as Brian was filmed daily. I'd tend to think there'd be many, many hours of documented Landy/Brian footage on there, showing just how twisted Landy was in his actions.

Certainly hundreds of hours of footage would be the most direct source, although it would take a lot of time to wade through (and would perhaps have a lot more of Brian than Landy if the idea was for Landy to keep tabs on Brian when Landy wasn’t there).

The Usher book simply might be the most detailed published source.

I’m not sure how much Landy material they actually went through. I’ve seen a number of references to the Primetime Live 1991 interview with Diane Sawyer. Sounds like that was a major source, at least in terms of getting Landy’s persona. I think Giamatti has referenced listening to other “tapes”, though I’m not sure what tapes those are.

Possibly from a live version multitrack?

Again, I’m open to my brain just being caught up the film and not remembering accurately, but it certainly sounded like the vocals from the finished, “master take” in terms of phrasing and whatnot. Without getting to hear it again, I’d be more open to the possibility of a really good precise soundalike re-recording as opposed to a live take vocal being isolated.

Things are also garbling in my brain a bit, because I do recall one of the scenes also showing “Brian” recording some vocals with the “alternate” lyrics. I remember this because they *didn’t* work that into the plot, meaning they didn’t show Brian cutting those lyrics and *then* going to Mike for new lyrics. I believe they showed Brian approaching Mike about lyrics, and *then* showed scenes including Brian cutting the early, alternate lyrics. 

I’m curious if the director (or writers or the actors) were given the Gary Usher book as reference. That may have the most detailed account of the vibe Landy’s operation gave, at least for that period of time, 1986-87-ish.

Going back to all of the discussions in the past concerning the lost GV vocal multi-tracks, was it ever indicated that different partial segments might exist on separate tapes, thus allowing for the possibility that some but not all might be discovered?

That's a possibility but I don't think it's how Brian normally operated in 66/67 when he was recording modularly.  He recorded a backing track in sections, edited those sections together for a final mono master and then recorded all vocals over that.  The "hum de dum" section of GV appears to be an exception to that, but it was also scrapped for the final track.  Here's a mix of GV floating around that is essentially a work in progress of the vocals, still missing many overdubs. I hope this is OK to post for educational purposes.

https://soundcloud.com/smileyhoneyfriends-1/gv-alt

I have yet to see the film, but how clean do the vocals sound?  They could very well be extractions, but they also keep finding missing tapes all the time.

I’m going off my recollection having seen and heard the film yesterday, but as others have said, it certainly *sounded* too clean to be an extraction. It sounded pretty dry and upfront as I recall as well. They certainly didn’t *have* to isolate those vocal parts for the film. I would imagine if they didn’t have those vocal elements to work with, they would have just used the finished mono (or partial stereo) mix. I can’t imagine them desperately needing just those little bits isolated, and then commissioning a digital extraction. But you never know of course.

As I’ve said elsewhere, if it is a digital extraction, it’s amazing.

I’m trying to remember if they used Carl’s line “close my eyes”, which might give an indication of whether they have his lead vocal isolated from the backing vocals, as the backing vocals of course nearly obliterate the “close” part of Carl’s vocal.

Going back to all of the discussions in the past concerning the lost GV vocal multi-tracks, was it ever indicated that different partial segments might exist on separate tapes, thus allowing for the possibility that some but not all might be discovered?

It's an awesome interview.  

My favorite bit is:

It’s always longer, the question is how much longer?
 
MOVERMAN: I think the first cut as opposed to the rough cut, the first cut where you’re sort of like, “Let’s have people watch it,” was like 2 hour and 20 minutes.

The finished film is slightly over 2:01 with end credits included.  Would be really nice to have a jampacked Blu-Ray/DVD release.  Lionsgate bought the U.S. distribution rights and I believe they own "Brian Wilson: I Just Wasn't Made For These Times".  I could see them including that as part of a deluxe release.  I don't know that the documentary is currently in print, although you can purchase an SD version on iTunes.

I would be pleased with something like...

- LOVE & MERCY theatrical film
- 4 or 5 Deleted Scenes
- Full commentary by Bill Pohlad and Oren Moverman
- 20 to 30 minute Featurette about the Making Of
- BRIAN WILSON: I JUST WASN'T MADE FOR THESE TIMES theatrical film

That would be a stellar package.  Sorry, just daydreaming.

Lionsgate (than under the “Artisan” label) put out a DVD of the “I Just Wasn’t Made for These Times” documentary back in the late 90’s. It went out of print, but eventually Artisan did a “Double Feature” DVD with that doc and the “An American Band” doc both on one disc. That version is still in print.

Unfortunately, while the IJWMFTT doc is widescreen, both DVD versions are non-anamorphic. A new Blu-ray release of the documentary, if it was to be in true HD quality (looks like they shot the film on 16mm B&W), would have to have a new HD scan done (and would look much better). I think such a film should get its own separate release, if they can do a new HD scan. They would also hopefully have some interview outtakes to work with as well (the documentary is pretty short on its own; I think it’s something like 69 minutes long).

I thought this thread was for posting news releases and "official" information while the other is for member reviews and discussion, but maybe now they should be merged or something.

I suppose in theory, but folks are posting thoughts/reviews/dissections of the film on this thread too. A thread of just “official” stuff would amount to maybe a few dozen posts announcing trailers and showtimes and whatnot. After one sees the film, wouldn’t any thoughts that spring from that go in the other thread?

Like the “Good Vibrations” vocals. Where does that discussion go? In both at this stage. Ten threads on the film are fine. But these two threads read virtually identically at this stage. We’re seeing thoughts and analysis springing from both “mainstream media” reviews and member reviews/viewings. I just thought it might help to combine them or lock one or something. Perhaps I’m alone in this thought.

Can we perhaps lock/retire this thread and move all discussion on the film to the other newer thread? (Or vice versa?) I and probably several others feel like we might want to post the same thing to both threads to reach all readers and get more thoughts (e.g. the possible “Good Vibrations” isolated vocals).