Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[KDS]

Curious, GF, do you know how the script was changed? 

I wonder if Part 2 was supposed to be more straight forward, but some suits said "That's boring," "Nobody cares about The Beach Boys after Good Vibrations," or "Let's up the ante on the Brian being mad bit." 

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it wouldn't shock me in the least bit. 

[Emily]

Interestingly, while some similar characterizations as to the background of the band and its members may be found in both the 2000 TV movie and the 2005 lawsuit paperwork, I don't think the court spoke much to the vindictive, inflammatory verbiage of the "background" sections in the 2005 lawsuit, at least in the available appeals courts ruling.

It probably didn't help Mike's case, but that's just a guess. I would think (and certainly hope) that the courts realize that the plaintiff's "background" material is going to be severely subjective and not coincidentally molded to fit the narrative of their lawsuit. I would presume if they were tasked to address those "background" sections, Brian's legal team (and the other plaintiffs' teams) would have easily discredited huge hunks of the background sections. For all I know, they did just that. I don't think we have access to all of the answers to the complaints.

The downfall of Mike's case appears to be, in my opinion, not just a "jurisdiction" issue, but an overall "frivolous" vibe to the whole thing, which the courts clearly picked up on. Numerous defendants appeared to not even be justifiably named as defendants, and were at some point dismissed from the case. Some of the assertions come perilously close, in my opinion, to suggesting that Brian Wilson can't even tour under his own name and perform BB music, because even that could theoretically take business away from Mike's band.

That they then engaged in shenanigans in the course of the case (residence change, the falsified eBay CD purchase debacle) certainly only made things worse as well.

The court just ignored it, which is standard. There are often irrelevancies in complaints because a) the plaintiff has some beef that the lawyers can't get the plaintiff to drop or b) the lawyers are throwing any argument they can at the wall to see what sticks. Most decisions will only address the pertinent legal questions and ignore editorializing in briefs. The stuff in the 2005 complaint is so irrelevant to the law I can only think the lawyers were humoring Mike Love by putting it in. There's no reason for a lawyer to bother with it.

[guitarfool2002]

Curious, GF, do you know how the script was changed? 

I wonder if Part 2 was supposed to be more straight forward, but some suits said "That's boring," "Nobody cares about The Beach Boys after Good Vibrations," or "Let's up the ante on the Brian being mad bit." 

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it wouldn't shock me in the least bit. 

Have you seen the film? If so, is part 2 in your opinion an accurate version of events? One of the producers said that script was "very, very different" as it was broadcast versus earlier versions. He also said not only did Brian Wilson not see part 2 until days before the broadcast, but *he* had not seen it either. It's all on this board.

Why would these execs or any "suits" at ABC shift the narrative to read as millions of viewers watched it in 2000, where most people who commented on it even at the time thought it looked like revisionism in favor of one band member's contributions over others, in some cases running opposite (and false) of what the history actually was?

[Emily]

Curious, GF, do you know how the script was changed? 

I wonder if Part 2 was supposed to be more straight forward, but some suits said "That's boring," "Nobody cares about The Beach Boys after Good Vibrations," or "Let's up the ante on the Brian being mad bit." 

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it wouldn't shock me in the least bit. 

I see where you're going. But it ignores the coincidental effect that the inaccuracies in the movie are so exactly the same as the inaccuracies in the lawsuit.

[guitarfool2002]

That goes to the issue of credibility too, as was recently mentioned. Someone in all these situations had to believe - or wanted others to believe -  some of these things which were written and broadcast that even casual fans would know were factually wrong.

[KDS]

Curious, GF, do you know how the script was changed? 

I wonder if Part 2 was supposed to be more straight forward, but some suits said "That's boring," "Nobody cares about The Beach Boys after Good Vibrations," or "Let's up the ante on the Brian being mad bit." 

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it wouldn't shock me in the least bit. 

Have you seen the film? If so, is part 2 in your opinion an accurate version of events? One of the producers said that script was "very, very different" as it was broadcast versus earlier versions. He also said not only did Brian Wilson not see part 2 until days before the broadcast, but *he* had not seen it either. It's all on this board.

Why would these execs or any "suits" at ABC shift the narrative to read as millions of viewers watched it in 2000, where most people who commented on it even at the time thought it looked like revisionism in favor of one band member's contributions over others, in some cases running opposite (and false) of what the history actually was?

I've seen the film, and even have a copy of it.  I still like Part 1 for the most part.  I know Part 2 is pretty rough in parts. 

Like I said on my post, I'm not saying that's what happened, but merely offering it up as a suggestion.  Why would ABC want to change things?  Sensationalism. 

Brian's surely not the first person who was turned into a bit of a caricature on film.  For the same reason, the surviving members of The Doors not only dismissed the Oliver Stone movie, but produced their own documentary on Jim a year later. 

[guitarfool2002]

Do you think part 2 was accurate? Personal opinion.

[KDS]

Do you think part 2 was accurate? Personal opinion.

On the whole, I thought Part 2 had a lot of inaccuracies. 

[filledeplage]

The awfulness and political fallout from the 2000 movie makes me truly believe (not being sarcastic at all) that John Stamos must be a REALLY nice guy, because I can't imagine why Brian and Al would even want to be on the stage with him as they were in 2012, and Al even had Stamos add some bongos on his solo album as well.

I would tend to think perhaps Stamos actually privately apologized for his part in the debacle.

I think Stamos is probably quite happy for that movie to be forgotten.

The fact that he seemed to be totally oblivious as to the annoying nature of his C50 cameos actually makes more sense considering he didn't see what a political minefield that 2000 TV movie was, and the timing was awful to boot. Band relations were at one of the all-time lows at that point.

Adding to the discussion here is a clipping from November 2001 with John Stamos commenting on the film:

GF - Thank you for that article. It shows you look at both sides.  I do believe that Stamos is sincere in this clip of the article you attached.  It reminds me that the goal was a survey of sorts of the whole BB career.  And it was not, perhaps as nuanced as it could have been.  Partly, it is a function of Stamos' relative age, in my opinion, despite all the time he has put in with this band, and his guesting them on his various TV shows.  

And after trying to sort out this morass of inconsistency from 1966-1967, someone who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, could not possibly have filtered that era as well as possible.  It was easier to show the stereotypical surf scenes, with appropriate clothing, or cars that were built in the exact year.  A costuming department is only going to get so much right, unless they have someone supervising who lived in this era.   And if they got some of the characterization wrong it could have been the idea of cramming 1961 to  the 1990's into a made for TV movie.  It doesn't forgive the alleged inaccuracies but might better explain them.

Pohlad didn't try to do a survey movie on Brian and hyper-focused on time-sections with greater attention to detail, even very cleverly using two characters for Brian.  There was certainly friction with regard the relationship as among the band and Parks.  It came through in both films.  Parks is a very smart guy.  I read in  Carlin's book where there was a continuing problem with proper attribution of his work.  Someone should have fixed that proactively.  A sit-down with him during production might have been helpful.  Likely it was a regret after-the-fact.  

The goal was too large for a TV miniseries.  It is difficult to do everything right, and likely something that Pohlad wanted to avoid by targeting very narrow time windows.  

Thanks again, GF - for the news clip.

        

[guitarfool2002]

Do you think part 2 was accurate? Personal opinion.

On the whole, I thought Part 2 had a lot of inaccuracies. 

You, me, and the overwhelming majority of people who saw it agree. Most importantly, perhaps, the actual people portrayed in the film and those involved who have gone on the record with their opinions agree. With one exception as noted a few pages ago, who thought it was well done.

[Lee Marshall]

So I can't use Jack and the Beanstalk in order to sue Green Giant? Ho.   

 I guess I'll use the first hand experience outlined here as a 'note to self'.  Don't use fiction as foundational material for future court endeavors.  And pretending that the lawyers did it completely and totally on their own and without my knowledge or consent even though I hired them and paid them...but, for a change, chose to remain oblivious won't carry the day either.  Ho.   

If I do I'll look like a Ho.

[Cool Cool Water]

A great ML article.

[guitarfool2002]

GF - Thank you for that article. It shows you look at both sides.  I do believe that Stamos is sincere in this clip of the article you attached.  It reminds me that the goal was a survey of sorts of the whole BB career.  And it was not, perhaps as nuanced as it could have been.  Partly, it is a function of Stamos' relative age, in my opinion, despite all the time he has put in with this band, and his guesting them on his various TV shows.  

And after trying to sort out this morass of inconsistency from 1966-1967, someone who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, could not possibly have filtered that era as well as possible.  It was easier to show the stereotypical surf scenes, with appropriate clothing, or cars that were built in the exact year.  A costuming department is only going to get so much right, unless they have someone supervising who lived in this era.   And if they got some of the characterization wrong it could have been the idea of cramming 1961 to  the 1990's into a made for TV movie.  It doesn't forgive the alleged inaccuracies but might better explain them.

Pohlad didn't try to do a survey movie on Brian and hyper-focused on time-sections with greater attention to detail, even very cleverly using two characters for Brian.  There was certainly friction with regard the relationship as among the band and Parks.  It came through in both films.  Parks is a very smart guy.  I read in  Carlin's book where there was a continuing problem with proper attribution of his work.  Someone should have fixed that proactively.  A sit-down with him during production might have been helpful.  Likely it was a regret after-the-fact.  

The goal was too large for a TV miniseries.  It is difficult to do everything right, and likely something that Pohlad wanted to avoid by targeting very narrow time windows.  

Thanks again, GF - for the news clip.

        

It's not about costumes, it's about rewriting the band's history, well beyond the years 66-67.

[filledeplage]

GF - Thank you for that article. It shows you look at both sides.  I do believe that Stamos is sincere in this clip of the article you attached.  It reminds me that the goal was a survey of sorts of the whole BB career.  And it was not, perhaps as nuanced as it could have been.  Partly, it is a function of Stamos' relative age, in my opinion, despite all the time he has put in with this band, and his guesting them on his various TV shows.  

And after trying to sort out this morass of inconsistency from 1966-1967, someone who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, could not possibly have filtered that era as well as possible.  It was easier to show the stereotypical surf scenes, with appropriate clothing, or cars that were built in the exact year.  A costuming department is only going to get so much right, unless they have someone supervising who lived in this era.   And if they got some of the characterization wrong it could have been the idea of cramming 1961 to  the 1990's into a made for TV movie.  It doesn't forgive the alleged inaccuracies but might better explain them.

Pohlad didn't try to do a survey movie on Brian and hyper-focused on time-sections with greater attention to detail, even very cleverly using two characters for Brian.  There was certainly friction with regard the relationship as among the band and Parks.  It came through in both films.  Parks is a very smart guy.  I read in  Carlin's book where there was a continuing problem with proper attribution of his work.  Someone should have fixed that proactively.  A sit-down with him during production might have been helpful.  Likely it was a regret after-the-fact.  

The goal was too large for a TV miniseries.  It is difficult to do everything right, and likely something that Pohlad wanted to avoid by targeting very narrow time windows.  

Thanks again, GF - for the news clip.

        

It's not about costumes, it's about rewriting the band's history, well beyond the years 66-67.

GF - With all the resources I have looked at (I don't have every single publication but have a lot) the stories are all over the place.  I don't think anyone has the whole story, because everyone's version varies.

That Pet Sounds/Smile/BRI incorporation window appears to me to be a complete mess.   So everyone is writing their own version of BB history.  Even Landy got a version.

[guitarfool2002]

GF - Thank you for that article. It shows you look at both sides.  I do believe that Stamos is sincere in this clip of the article you attached.  It reminds me that the goal was a survey of sorts of the whole BB career.  And it was not, perhaps as nuanced as it could have been.  Partly, it is a function of Stamos' relative age, in my opinion, despite all the time he has put in with this band, and his guesting them on his various TV shows.  

And after trying to sort out this morass of inconsistency from 1966-1967, someone who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, could not possibly have filtered that era as well as possible.  It was easier to show the stereotypical surf scenes, with appropriate clothing, or cars that were built in the exact year.  A costuming department is only going to get so much right, unless they have someone supervising who lived in this era.   And if they got some of the characterization wrong it could have been the idea of cramming 1961 to  the 1990's into a made for TV movie.  It doesn't forgive the alleged inaccuracies but might better explain them.

Pohlad didn't try to do a survey movie on Brian and hyper-focused on time-sections with greater attention to detail, even very cleverly using two characters for Brian.  There was certainly friction with regard the relationship as among the band and Parks.  It came through in both films.  Parks is a very smart guy.  I read in  Carlin's book where there was a continuing problem with proper attribution of his work.  Someone should have fixed that proactively.  A sit-down with him during production might have been helpful.  Likely it was a regret after-the-fact.  

The goal was too large for a TV miniseries.  It is difficult to do everything right, and likely something that Pohlad wanted to avoid by targeting very narrow time windows.  

Thanks again, GF - for the news clip.

        

It's not about costumes, it's about rewriting the band's history, well beyond the years 66-67.

GF - With all the resources I have looked at (I don't have every single publication but have a lot) the stories are all over the place.  I don't think anyone has the whole story, because everyone's version varies.

That Pet Sounds/Smile/BRI incorporation window appears to me to be a complete mess.   So everyone is writing their own version of BB history.  Even Landy got a version.

Do you think the versions of 1966-67 told in the 2000 film and described in the 2005 lawsuit are accurate?

[CenturyDeprived]

Curious, GF, do you know how the script was changed?  

I wonder if Part 2 was supposed to be more straight forward, but some suits said "That's boring," "Nobody cares about The Beach Boys after Good Vibrations," or "Let's up the ante on the Brian being mad bit."  

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it wouldn't shock me in the least bit.  

I see where you're going. But it ignores the coincidental effect that the inaccuracies in the movie are so exactly the same as the inaccuracies in the lawsuit.

Plus the coincidental Uncle Jesse as producer factor. Seems in all likelihood he got used by Mike, but is such a fanboy that he put it behind him.

[filledeplage]

GF - Thank you for that article. It shows you look at both sides.  I do believe that Stamos is sincere in this clip of the article you attached.  It reminds me that the goal was a survey of sorts of the whole BB career.  And it was not, perhaps as nuanced as it could have been.  Partly, it is a function of Stamos' relative age, in my opinion, despite all the time he has put in with this band, and his guesting them on his various TV shows.  

And after trying to sort out this morass of inconsistency from 1966-1967, someone who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, could not possibly have filtered that era as well as possible.  It was easier to show the stereotypical surf scenes, with appropriate clothing, or cars that were built in the exact year.  A costuming department is only going to get so much right, unless they have someone supervising who lived in this era.   And if they got some of the characterization wrong it could have been the idea of cramming 1961 to  the 1990's into a made for TV movie.  It doesn't forgive the alleged inaccuracies but might better explain them.

Pohlad didn't try to do a survey movie on Brian and hyper-focused on time-sections with greater attention to detail, even very cleverly using two characters for Brian.  There was certainly friction with regard the relationship as among the band and Parks.  It came through in both films.  Parks is a very smart guy.  I read in  Carlin's book where there was a continuing problem with proper attribution of his work.  Someone should have fixed that proactively.  A sit-down with him during production might have been helpful.  Likely it was a regret after-the-fact.  

The goal was too large for a TV miniseries.  It is difficult to do everything right, and likely something that Pohlad wanted to avoid by targeting very narrow time windows.  

Thanks again, GF - for the news clip.

        

It's not about costumes, it's about rewriting the band's history, well beyond the years 66-67.

GF - With all the resources I have looked at (I don't have every single publication but have a lot) the stories are all over the place.  I don't think anyone has the whole story, because everyone's version varies.

That Pet Sounds/Smile/BRI incorporation window appears to me to be a complete mess.   So everyone is writing their own version of BB history.  Even Landy got a version.

Do you think the versions of 1966-67 told in the 2000 film and described in the 2005 lawsuit are accurate?

GF  - I have already said that I did not think the pleadings in the suit were related to the film. It is a stretch.   It was a beneficial owner matter, as the standing would have required.  And, in the same way there might have been a sit-down with Parks during the filming, there should have been a sit-down with the Band to keep them in the loop.  Saves aggravation.      

And, no one but those who were eyewitnesses to those events, know.  Not you or I (unless you were there.)  I was not.  

[CenturyDeprived]

GF - Thank you for that article. It shows you look at both sides.  I do believe that Stamos is sincere in this clip of the article you attached.  It reminds me that the goal was a survey of sorts of the whole BB career.  And it was not, perhaps as nuanced as it could have been.  Partly, it is a function of Stamos' relative age, in my opinion, despite all the time he has put in with this band, and his guesting them on his various TV shows.  

And after trying to sort out this morass of inconsistency from 1966-1967, someone who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, could not possibly have filtered that era as well as possible.  It was easier to show the stereotypical surf scenes, with appropriate clothing, or cars that were built in the exact year.  A costuming department is only going to get so much right, unless they have someone supervising who lived in this era.   And if they got some of the characterization wrong it could have been the idea of cramming 1961 to  the 1990's into a made for TV movie.  It doesn't forgive the alleged inaccuracies but might better explain them.

Pohlad didn't try to do a survey movie on Brian and hyper-focused on time-sections with greater attention to detail, even very cleverly using two characters for Brian.  There was certainly friction with regard the relationship as among the band and Parks.  It came through in both films.  Parks is a very smart guy.  I read in  Carlin's book where there was a continuing problem with proper attribution of his work.  Someone should have fixed that proactively.  A sit-down with him during production might have been helpful.  Likely it was a regret after-the-fact.  

The goal was too large for a TV miniseries.  It is difficult to do everything right, and likely something that Pohlad wanted to avoid by targeting very narrow time windows.  

Thanks again, GF - for the news clip.

        

It's not about costumes, it's about rewriting the band's history, well beyond the years 66-67.

GF - With all the resources I have looked at (I don't have every single publication but have a lot) the stories are all over the place.  I don't think anyone has the whole story, because everyone's version varies.

That Pet Sounds/Smile/BRI incorporation window appears to me to be a complete mess.   So everyone is writing their own version of BB history.  Even Landy got a version.

Do you think the versions of 1966-67 told in the 2000 film and described in the 2005 lawsuit are accurate?

GF  - I have already said that I did not think the pleadings in the suit were related to the film. It is a stretch.   It was a beneficial owner matter, as the standing would have required.  And, in the same way there might have been a sit-down with Parks during the filming, there should have been a sit-down with the Band to keep them in the loop.  Saves aggravation.      

And, no one but those who were eyewitnesses to those events, know.  Not you or I (unless you were there.)  I was not.  

I was waiting for the question duck, and there it is. That attitude of possibly accepting an inane portrayal is probably just what Mike wanted from a portion of the audience, and by golly it seems he got his wish.

We weren't there but we accept Murry and Landy acted like abusive d*cks. How does that work?

Is there anything at all that the film could have depicted that would have crossed your believability meter? What if it had Mike walking on water?

[guitarfool2002]

GF - Thank you for that article. It shows you look at both sides.  I do believe that Stamos is sincere in this clip of the article you attached.  It reminds me that the goal was a survey of sorts of the whole BB career.  And it was not, perhaps as nuanced as it could have been.  Partly, it is a function of Stamos' relative age, in my opinion, despite all the time he has put in with this band, and his guesting them on his various TV shows.  

And after trying to sort out this morass of inconsistency from 1966-1967, someone who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, could not possibly have filtered that era as well as possible.  It was easier to show the stereotypical surf scenes, with appropriate clothing, or cars that were built in the exact year.  A costuming department is only going to get so much right, unless they have someone supervising who lived in this era.   And if they got some of the characterization wrong it could have been the idea of cramming 1961 to  the 1990's into a made for TV movie.  It doesn't forgive the alleged inaccuracies but might better explain them.

Pohlad didn't try to do a survey movie on Brian and hyper-focused on time-sections with greater attention to detail, even very cleverly using two characters for Brian.  There was certainly friction with regard the relationship as among the band and Parks.  It came through in both films.  Parks is a very smart guy.  I read in  Carlin's book where there was a continuing problem with proper attribution of his work.  Someone should have fixed that proactively.  A sit-down with him during production might have been helpful.  Likely it was a regret after-the-fact.  

The goal was too large for a TV miniseries.  It is difficult to do everything right, and likely something that Pohlad wanted to avoid by targeting very narrow time windows.  

Thanks again, GF - for the news clip.

        

It's not about costumes, it's about rewriting the band's history, well beyond the years 66-67.

GF - With all the resources I have looked at (I don't have every single publication but have a lot) the stories are all over the place.  I don't think anyone has the whole story, because everyone's version varies.

That Pet Sounds/Smile/BRI incorporation window appears to me to be a complete mess.   So everyone is writing their own version of BB history.  Even Landy got a version.

Do you think the versions of 1966-67 told in the 2000 film and described in the 2005 lawsuit are accurate?

GF  - I have already said that I did not think the pleadings in the suit were related to the film. It is a stretch.   It was a beneficial owner matter, as the standing would have required.  And, in the same way there might have been a sit-down with Parks during the filming, there should have been a sit-down with the Band to keep them in the loop.  Saves aggravation.      

And, no one but those who were eyewitnesses to those events, know.  Not you or I (unless you were there.)  I was not.  

Fine, so for the sake of discussion we'll separate them. Do you think the versions of 1966-67 in either the 2005 document or the 2000 film are accurate? How about the hours of session tapes from 1966-67 that are available to any fan, does any of that audio proof match the versions from the film or lawsuit?

[CenturyDeprived]

Mike is real lucky that the film and lawsuit happened just before the social media age *really* took off. The upcoming book is gonna be up there with the literary classic "If I Did It"

Bargain bin quicker than Summer In Paradise?

[filledeplage]

GF - Thank you for that article. It shows you look at both sides.  I do believe that Stamos is sincere in this clip of the article you attached.  It reminds me that the goal was a survey of sorts of the whole BB career.  And it was not, perhaps as nuanced as it could have been.  Partly, it is a function of Stamos' relative age, in my opinion, despite all the time he has put in with this band, and his guesting them on his various TV shows.  

And after trying to sort out this morass of inconsistency from 1966-1967, someone who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, could not possibly have filtered that era as well as possible.  It was easier to show the stereotypical surf scenes, with appropriate clothing, or cars that were built in the exact year.  A costuming department is only going to get so much right, unless they have someone supervising who lived in this era.   And if they got some of the characterization wrong it could have been the idea of cramming 1961 to  the 1990's into a made for TV movie.  It doesn't forgive the alleged inaccuracies but might better explain them.

Pohlad didn't try to do a survey movie on Brian and hyper-focused on time-sections with greater attention to detail, even very cleverly using two characters for Brian.  There was certainly friction with regard the relationship as among the band and Parks.  It came through in both films.  Parks is a very smart guy.  I read in  Carlin's book where there was a continuing problem with proper attribution of his work.  Someone should have fixed that proactively.  A sit-down with him during production might have been helpful.  Likely it was a regret after-the-fact.  

The goal was too large for a TV miniseries.  It is difficult to do everything right, and likely something that Pohlad wanted to avoid by targeting very narrow time windows.  

Thanks again, GF - for the news clip.

        

It's not about costumes, it's about rewriting the band's history, well beyond the years 66-67.

GF - With all the resources I have looked at (I don't have every single publication but have a lot) the stories are all over the place.  I don't think anyone has the whole story, because everyone's version varies.

That Pet Sounds/Smile/BRI incorporation window appears to me to be a complete mess.   So everyone is writing their own version of BB history.  Even Landy got a version.

Do you think the versions of 1966-67 told in the 2000 film and described in the 2005 lawsuit are accurate?

GF  - I have already said that I did not think the pleadings in the suit were related to the film. It is a stretch.   It was a beneficial owner matter, as the standing would have required.  And, in the same way there might have been a sit-down with Parks during the filming, there should have been a sit-down with the Band to keep them in the loop.  Saves aggravation.      

And, no one but those who were eyewitnesses to those events, know.  Not you or I (unless you were there.)  I was not.  

I was waiting for the question duck, and there it is. That attitude of possibly accepting an inane portrayal is probably just what Mike wanted from a portion of the audience, and by golly it seems he got his wish.

We weren't there but we accept Murry and Landy acted like abusive d*cks. How does that work?

Century Deprived -  I was asked my opinion by a mod whom I respect.  I read the material and responded.  You do not agree.  Reasonable minds can differ.

This is offensive harassment on your end and I don't appreciate it.  I am asking that your haranguing and continuous insulting posts be looked at by the mods.  The "duck" narrative and harangue.  You have an intractable position.  I do not insult you for it.  

Please use the ignore function.  Thank you.

[filledeplage]

GF - Thank you for that article. It shows you look at both sides.  I do believe that Stamos is sincere in this clip of the article you attached.  It reminds me that the goal was a survey of sorts of the whole BB career.  And it was not, perhaps as nuanced as it could have been.  Partly, it is a function of Stamos' relative age, in my opinion, despite all the time he has put in with this band, and his guesting them on his various TV shows.  

And after trying to sort out this morass of inconsistency from 1966-1967, someone who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, could not possibly have filtered that era as well as possible.  It was easier to show the stereotypical surf scenes, with appropriate clothing, or cars that were built in the exact year.  A costuming department is only going to get so much right, unless they have someone supervising who lived in this era.   And if they got some of the characterization wrong it could have been the idea of cramming 1961 to  the 1990's into a made for TV movie.  It doesn't forgive the alleged inaccuracies but might better explain them.

Pohlad didn't try to do a survey movie on Brian and hyper-focused on time-sections with greater attention to detail, even very cleverly using two characters for Brian.  There was certainly friction with regard the relationship as among the band and Parks.  It came through in both films.  Parks is a very smart guy.  I read in  Carlin's book where there was a continuing problem with proper attribution of his work.  Someone should have fixed that proactively.  A sit-down with him during production might have been helpful.  Likely it was a regret after-the-fact.  

The goal was too large for a TV miniseries.  It is difficult to do everything right, and likely something that Pohlad wanted to avoid by targeting very narrow time windows.  

Thanks again, GF - for the news clip.

        

It's not about costumes, it's about rewriting the band's history, well beyond the years 66-67.

GF - With all the resources I have looked at (I don't have every single publication but have a lot) the stories are all over the place.  I don't think anyone has the whole story, because everyone's version varies.

That Pet Sounds/Smile/BRI incorporation window appears to me to be a complete mess.   So everyone is writing their own version of BB history.  Even Landy got a version.

Do you think the versions of 1966-67 told in the 2000 film and described in the 2005 lawsuit are accurate?

GF  - I have already said that I did not think the pleadings in the suit were related to the film. It is a stretch.   It was a beneficial owner matter, as the standing would have required.  And, in the same way there might have been a sit-down with Parks during the filming, there should have been a sit-down with the Band to keep them in the loop.  Saves aggravation.      

And, no one but those who were eyewitnesses to those events, know.  Not you or I (unless you were there.)  I was not.  

Fine, so for the sake of discussion we'll separate them. Do you think the versions of 1966-67 in either the 2005 document or the 2000 film are accurate? How about the hours of session tapes from 1966-67 that are available to any fan, does any of that audio proof match the versions from the film or lawsuit?

Please PM me.  Thanks.

[CenturyDeprived]

GF - Thank you for that article. It shows you look at both sides.  I do believe that Stamos is sincere in this clip of the article you attached.  It reminds me that the goal was a survey of sorts of the whole BB career.  And it was not, perhaps as nuanced as it could have been.  Partly, it is a function of Stamos' relative age, in my opinion, despite all the time he has put in with this band, and his guesting them on his various TV shows.  

And after trying to sort out this morass of inconsistency from 1966-1967, someone who was 3 or 4 years old at the time, could not possibly have filtered that era as well as possible.  It was easier to show the stereotypical surf scenes, with appropriate clothing, or cars that were built in the exact year.  A costuming department is only going to get so much right, unless they have someone supervising who lived in this era.   And if they got some of the characterization wrong it could have been the idea of cramming 1961 to  the 1990's into a made for TV movie.  It doesn't forgive the alleged inaccuracies but might better explain them.

Pohlad didn't try to do a survey movie on Brian and hyper-focused on time-sections with greater attention to detail, even very cleverly using two characters for Brian.  There was certainly friction with regard the relationship as among the band and Parks.  It came through in both films.  Parks is a very smart guy.  I read in  Carlin's book where there was a continuing problem with proper attribution of his work.  Someone should have fixed that proactively.  A sit-down with him during production might have been helpful.  Likely it was a regret after-the-fact.  

The goal was too large for a TV miniseries.  It is difficult to do everything right, and likely something that Pohlad wanted to avoid by targeting very narrow time windows.  

Thanks again, GF - for the news clip.

        

It's not about costumes, it's about rewriting the band's history, well beyond the years 66-67.

GF - With all the resources I have looked at (I don't have every single publication but have a lot) the stories are all over the place.  I don't think anyone has the whole story, because everyone's version varies.

That Pet Sounds/Smile/BRI incorporation window appears to me to be a complete mess.   So everyone is writing their own version of BB history.  Even Landy got a version.

Do you think the versions of 1966-67 told in the 2000 film and described in the 2005 lawsuit are accurate?

GF  - I have already said that I did not think the pleadings in the suit were related to the film. It is a stretch.   It was a beneficial owner matter, as the standing would have required.  And, in the same way there might have been a sit-down with Parks during the filming, there should have been a sit-down with the Band to keep them in the loop.  Saves aggravation.      

And, no one but those who were eyewitnesses to those events, know.  Not you or I (unless you were there.)  I was not.  

I was waiting for the question duck, and there it is. That attitude of possibly accepting an inane portrayal is probably just what Mike wanted from a portion of the audience, and by golly it seems he got his wish.

We weren't there but we accept Murry and Landy acted like abusive d*cks. How does that work?

Century Deprived -  I was asked my opinion by a mod whom I respect.  I read the material and responded.  You do not agree.  Reasonable minds can differ.

This is offensive harassment on your end and I don't appreciate it.  I am asking that your haranguing and continuous insulting posts be looked at by the mods.  The "duck" narrative and harangue.  You have an intractable position.  I do not insult you for it.  

Please use the ignore function.  Thank you.

I didn't realize that pointing out ducking was such a big deal, because if I were to answer "donut" to a question of "what color is the sky", I sure wouldn't be offended if anyone called me out on avoiding a response. I'm sorry my ducking reply was offensive to you, and I'll just meditate and contain this thought when it happens next time. Sincerely not trying to be a jerk, but question avoidance in the middle of a conversation is a pet peeve of far more people than myself, so that must have gotten the best of me.

[HeyJude]

There are only two regular posters in this thread who have an "intractable" position, and guitarfool is not one of them.

[HeyJude]

And really, when we're talking about actual factual evidence, intractability isn't a bad thing. I'm pretty intractable when it comes to disagreeing with the assertion that Brian Wilson didn't do anything but collect royalty checks for 35 years from 1967 to 2002. My intractability on that issue is due to the ample space music produced by Brian during that time frame takes up on my shelf, and ticket stubs to shows I attended featuring Brian during that time period, etc.