new article with some interesting tidbits

[filledeplage]

But I don't think FDP is saying Mike gave credit. That's her statement, not Mikes. At least that is how I read it.
 

Juice Brohnston, I think you may have misread my post. I'm under no impression that FDP is saying Mike gave Melinda credit in the interview. Mike obviously doesn't give Melinda or Gloria credit in the interview, and obviously FDP knows that too - FDP, if you're reading this post, before you chime in, it's not a matter of "interpretation"... Mike simply does not give her credit based on his words in the interview.

My question "Where does Mike give any credit to Melinda and Gloria for heroically starting the wheels in motion?" was a rhetorical one to point out the blatant LACK of credit that Mike bestows upon them... which is in direct contradiction to FDP's correct assertion that Melinda and Gloria deserve credit (and that god must be thanked for Melinda's actions - not a minor thanks by any stretch, FDP means it!)... and to highlight the bizarre disconnect/contradiction in FDP having a viewpoint in direct opposition to what Mike has stated, yet FDP being unable to either admit to the differences in viewpoints between her statement and Mike's interview... or to heaven forbid do the unthinkable and criticize Mike.

Whether or not Mike gives Melinda *some* credit privately is up for debate, but in the interview none is given. Nobody but nobody can walk away from that interview believing that Mike gives Melinda and Gloria any credit whatsoever based on what he said, because of the very simple fact that he said no such thing, despite going out of his way to directly give credit to others.

Giving credit to others where credit is due is fine, of course. But doing that AND simultaneously snubbing Melinda/Gloria ain't cool. And this is the guy who complains ad naseum about being snubbed of credits. I don't really believe that Mike truly privately feels Melinda had no role in getting Brian out of that situation. He just can't bring himself to publicly positively credit a person he seems to detest.

CD - we are here to "discuss" not "admit" positions are "wrong" - the movie was not intended to cover the whole life of Brian. It was targeted specifically to cover "well" certain periods of Brian's life and why they chose two actors to do those time-periods well.

The period that is largely unknown is that period after "Help was on the way."  That is what FOLLOWS the intervention.  

You are asking all kinds of rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with anything except looking to elicit vicariously a band member's position or reflection.  I am not vicariously responsible for anyone else's comments.   I am responsible for my own comments.  

There is a whole segment of what happened that appears to be "closed to the public" with that sealed case.  There is more to the story than what was in the film.  

Think nothing happened in 19 months in court?   Think again.  

Melinda and Gloria "caused" the chain reaction.  We don't know the details of the chain reaction which followed. The court sessions, specifically.  

That is my point.  I have no idea how much clearer I can make that.    

[LostArt]

CD - we are here to "discuss" not "admit" positions are "wrong" - the movie was not intended to cover the whole life of Brian. It was targeted specifically to cover "well" certain periods of Brian's life and why they chose two actors to do those time-periods well.

The period that is largely unknown is that period after "Help was on the way."  That is what FOLLOWS the intervention.  

You are asking all kinds of rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with anything except looking to elicit vicariously a band member's position or reflection.  I am not vicariously responsible for anyone else's comments.   I am responsible for my own comments.  

There is a whole segment of what happened that appears to be "closed to the public" with that sealed case.  There is more to the story than what was in the film.  

Think nothing happened in 19 months in court?   Think again.  

Melinda and Gloria "caused" the chain reaction.  We don't know the details of the chain reaction which followed. The court sessions, specifically.  

That is my point.  I have no idea how much clearer I can make that.    

So, to be brief, the movie shows Gloria contacting Melinda about the will.  Melinda then contacts Audree or Carl, and tells them about the will.  At that point, Melinda is out of Brian's life until Brian steps in front of her car many months later, after Brian has been freed from Landy's clutches.  The movie did not deal with Brian's extraction from Landy in any great detail after Melinda's phone call.  Of course, we know that Carl and Audree and others then took the ball and ran with it, but that wasn't shown in the movie.  I think we can all agree that what is shown in the movie is pretty much how things went down.        
  
Ray Lawlor, Brian's and Melinda's good friend, says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.  Debbie KL says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal.  Brian and Melinda Wilson, who were in the middle of all this crap, say that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.

Mike Love, who has admittedly not seen the movie, and who also was not around Brian during Landy's reign, while answering an interview question regarding the movie, says that Melinda saving Brain from Doctor Landy is one of the film's worst inaccuracies.  

Right?  

Sounds to me like Mike is calling Brian and Melinda liars.

[filledeplage]

CD - we are here to "discuss" not "admit" positions are "wrong" - the movie was not intended to cover the whole life of Brian. It was targeted specifically to cover "well" certain periods of Brian's life and why they chose two actors to do those time-periods well.

The period that is largely unknown is that period after "Help was on the way."  That is what FOLLOWS the intervention.  

You are asking all kinds of rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with anything except looking to elicit vicariously a band member's position or reflection.  I am not vicariously responsible for anyone else's comments.   I am responsible for my own comments.  

There is a whole segment of what happened that appears to be "closed to the public" with that sealed case.  There is more to the story than what was in the film.  

Think nothing happened in 19 months in court?   Think again.  

Melinda and Gloria "caused" the chain reaction.  We don't know the details of the chain reaction which followed. The court sessions, specifically.  

That is my point.  I have no idea how much clearer I can make that.    

So, to be brief, the movie shows Gloria contacting Melinda about the will.  Melinda then contacts Audree or Carl, and tells them about the will.  At that point, Melinda is out of Brian's life until Brian steps in front of her car many months later, after Brian has been freed from Landy's clutches.  The movie did not deal with Brian's extraction from Landy in any great detail after Melinda's phone call.  Of course, we know that Carl and Audree and others then took the ball and ran with it, but that wasn't shown in the movie.  I think we can all agree that what is shown in the movie is pretty much how things went down.        
  
Ray Lawlor, Brian's and Melinda's good friend, says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.  Debbie KL says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal.  Brian and Melinda Wilson, who were in the middle of all this crap, say that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.

Mike Love, who has admittedly not seen the movie, and who also was not around Brian during Landy's reign, while answering an interview question regarding the movie, says that Melinda saving Brain from Doctor Landy is one of the film's worst inaccuracies.  

Right?  

Sounds to me like Mike is calling Brian and Melinda liars.

Lost Art - Right down to the jumping off the boat, (one of the coolest scenes) I believe the movie is accurate.  I have zero reason to believe otherwise.

That said, what we don't know is not unimportant.  In some BB related book, I have read that BRI was covering the cost of treatment.  Someone will correct me if that is incorrect.  When you pay for what you believe in good faith is appropriate, you have every right (standing) to inquire into those matters. 

That may be one point where the court wrestled with the treatment (maybe the matter of not inquiring into the prescribing doc) and the unethical business interference. It also appears that there was some settlement to get rid of Landy who I think should have gone to jail, along with his co-conspirators.  Maybe that kind of public trial would have been too stressful all around so it was handled behind closed doors.

The movie did not cover in depth Murry getting away with selling the SOT catalog.  Other things were deemed to be more important and kept the movie going at a riveting pace. 

But it means that the legal Landy take-down must have been ugly.  I highly doubt that Landy went down with a whimper and had plenty of negative things to say about everyone involved.  The movie leaves that alone, while showing Landy's vitriol towards Melinda in the car dealership.  Think he behaved like that when around the band or in public?  I don't think so.

Mike, while on tour, during those years absolutely did have the opportunity to witness Landy who was likely on his "best behavior." That is where the observation ended because of the way in which Landy micromanaged the situation. No one without Landy's permission, was allowed contact.

And there are Youtubes around where Landy can be seen either on-stage or close by. 

It may be that there is plenty behind-the-door in that 19 months that is significant in a way that means there is also an equally important story which was court-sealed.   If I were paying for health care for a family member and found out there was fraud, medical malpractice, extreme manipulation, self-dealing, and who knows what else, there would be a big problem, as most people would react in the same way.  That part of the story, would be as the late Radio Hall of Famer, Paul Harvey would say, "And, Now, The Rest of the story."

It may sound like lying to you.  What it sounds to me is that there may be a part 2, that was also highly inflammatory and contentious, as it related to the family and the business, that the world has not heard and may not ever, hear because of the sealed case.  JMHO 

That comment suggests to me that there was more that happened, to completely get rid of Landy, in a legal context, by dissolving that fraud partnership, physically removing him, having him lose his credentials and many other factors.   

     

[Chocolate Shake Man]

CD - we are here to "discuss" not "admit" positions are "wrong" - the movie was not intended to cover the whole life of Brian. It was targeted specifically to cover "well" certain periods of Brian's life and why they chose two actors to do those time-periods well.

The period that is largely unknown is that period after "Help was on the way."  That is what FOLLOWS the intervention.  

You are asking all kinds of rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with anything except looking to elicit vicariously a band member's position or reflection.  I am not vicariously responsible for anyone else's comments.   I am responsible for my own comments.  

There is a whole segment of what happened that appears to be "closed to the public" with that sealed case.  There is more to the story than what was in the film.  

Think nothing happened in 19 months in court?   Think again.  

Melinda and Gloria "caused" the chain reaction.  We don't know the details of the chain reaction which followed. The court sessions, specifically.  

That is my point.  I have no idea how much clearer I can make that.    

So, to be brief, the movie shows Gloria contacting Melinda about the will.  Melinda then contacts Audree or Carl, and tells them about the will.  At that point, Melinda is out of Brian's life until Brian steps in front of her car many months later, after Brian has been freed from Landy's clutches.  The movie did not deal with Brian's extraction from Landy in any great detail after Melinda's phone call.  Of course, we know that Carl and Audree and others then took the ball and ran with it, but that wasn't shown in the movie.  I think we can all agree that what is shown in the movie is pretty much how things went down.        
  
Ray Lawlor, Brian's and Melinda's good friend, says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.  Debbie KL says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal.  Brian and Melinda Wilson, who were in the middle of all this crap, say that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.

Mike Love, who has admittedly not seen the movie, and who also was not around Brian during Landy's reign, while answering an interview question regarding the movie, says that Melinda saving Brain from Doctor Landy is one of the film's worst inaccuracies.  

Right?  

Sounds to me like Mike is calling Brian and Melinda liars.

Lost Art - Right down to the jumping off the boat, (one of the coolest scenes) I believe the movie is accurate.  I have zero reason to believe otherwise.

That said, what we don't know is not unimportant.  In some BB related book, I have read that BRI was covering the cost of treatment.  Someone will correct me if that is incorrect.  When you pay for what you believe in good faith is appropriate, you have every right (standing) to inquire into those matters. 

That may be one point where the court wrestled with the treatment (maybe the matter of not inquiring into the prescribing doc) and the unethical business interference. It also appears that there was some settlement to get rid of Landy who I think should have gone to jail, along with his co-conspirators.  Maybe that kind of public trial would have been too stressful all around so it was handled behind closed doors.

The movie did not cover in depth Murry getting away with selling the SOT catalog.  Other things were deemed to be more important and kept the movie going at a riveting pace. 

But it means that the legal Landy take-down must have been ugly.  I highly doubt that Landy went down with a whimper and had plenty of negative things to say about everyone involved.  The movie leaves that alone, while showing Landy's vitriol towards Melinda in the car dealership.  Think he behaved like that when around the band or in public?  I don't think so.

Mike, while on tour, during those years absolutely did have the opportunity to witness Landy who was likely on his "best behavior." That is where the observation ended because of the way in which Landy micromanaged the situation. No one without Landy's permission, was allowed contact.

And there are Youtubes around where Landy can be seen either on-stage or close by. 

It may be that there is plenty behind-the-door in that 19 months that is significant in a way that means there is also an equally important story which was court-sealed.   If I were paying for health care for a family member and found out there was fraud, medical malpractice, extreme manipulation, self-dealing, and who knows what else, there would be a big problem, as most people would react in the same way.  That part of the story, would be as the late Radio Hall of Famer, Paul Harvey would say, "And, Now, The Rest of the story."

It may sound like lying to you.  What it sounds to me is that there may be a part 2, that was also highly inflammatory and contentious, as it related to the family and the business, that the world has not heard and may not ever, hear because of the sealed case.  JMHO 

That comment suggests to me that there was more that happened, to completely get rid of Landy, in a legal context, by dissolving that fraud partnership, physically removing him, having him lose his credentials and many other factors.   

     

I am unconvinced, though, that this information works as a credible defense to the charge that Mike Love probably shouldn't condemn what happens in a movie without having actually seen it.

And furthermore, while I agree that there is much that we don't know and that that should be taken into account, I am ultimately doubtful that the things we don't know could prove it to be inaccurate that Melinda played a role in saving Brian from Landy.

[LostArt]

CD - we are here to "discuss" not "admit" positions are "wrong" - the movie was not intended to cover the whole life of Brian. It was targeted specifically to cover "well" certain periods of Brian's life and why they chose two actors to do those time-periods well.

The period that is largely unknown is that period after "Help was on the way."  That is what FOLLOWS the intervention.  

You are asking all kinds of rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with anything except looking to elicit vicariously a band member's position or reflection.  I am not vicariously responsible for anyone else's comments.   I am responsible for my own comments.  

There is a whole segment of what happened that appears to be "closed to the public" with that sealed case.  There is more to the story than what was in the film.  

Think nothing happened in 19 months in court?   Think again.  

Melinda and Gloria "caused" the chain reaction.  We don't know the details of the chain reaction which followed. The court sessions, specifically.  

That is my point.  I have no idea how much clearer I can make that.    

So, to be brief, the movie shows Gloria contacting Melinda about the will.  Melinda then contacts Audree or Carl, and tells them about the will.  At that point, Melinda is out of Brian's life until Brian steps in front of her car many months later, after Brian has been freed from Landy's clutches.  The movie did not deal with Brian's extraction from Landy in any great detail after Melinda's phone call.  Of course, we know that Carl and Audree and others then took the ball and ran with it, but that wasn't shown in the movie.  I think we can all agree that what is shown in the movie is pretty much how things went down.        
  
Ray Lawlor, Brian's and Melinda's good friend, says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.  Debbie KL says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal.  Brian and Melinda Wilson, who were in the middle of all this crap, say that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.

Mike Love, who has admittedly not seen the movie, and who also was not around Brian during Landy's reign, while answering an interview question regarding the movie, says that Melinda saving Brain from Doctor Landy is one of the film's worst inaccuracies.  

Right?  

Sounds to me like Mike is calling Brian and Melinda liars.

Lost Art - Right down to the jumping off the boat, (one of the coolest scenes) I believe the movie is accurate.  I have zero reason to believe otherwise.

That said, what we don't know is not unimportant.  In some BB related book, I have read that BRI was covering the cost of treatment.  Someone will correct me if that is incorrect.  When you pay for what you believe in good faith is appropriate, you have every right (standing) to inquire into those matters. 

That may be one point where the court wrestled with the treatment (maybe the matter of not inquiring into the prescribing doc) and the unethical business interference. It also appears that there was some settlement to get rid of Landy who I think should have gone to jail, along with his co-conspirators.  Maybe that kind of public trial would have been too stressful all around so it was handled behind closed doors.

The movie did not cover in depth Murry getting away with selling the SOT catalog.  Other things were deemed to be more important and kept the movie going at a riveting pace. 

But it means that the legal Landy take-down must have been ugly.  I highly doubt that Landy went down with a whimper and had plenty of negative things to say about everyone involved.  The movie leaves that alone, while showing Landy's vitriol towards Melinda in the car dealership.  Think he behaved like that when around the band or in public?  I don't think so.

Mike, while on tour, during those years absolutely did have the opportunity to witness Landy who was likely on his "best behavior." That is where the observation ended because of the way in which Landy micromanaged the situation. No one without Landy's permission, was allowed contact.

And there are Youtubes around where Landy can be seen either on-stage or close by. 

It may be that there is plenty behind-the-door in that 19 months that is significant in a way that means there is also an equally important story which was court-sealed.   If I were paying for health care for a family member and found out there was fraud, medical malpractice, extreme manipulation, self-dealing, and who knows what else, there would be a big problem, as most people would react in the same way.  That part of the story, would be as the late Radio Hall of Famer, Paul Harvey would say, "And, Now, The Rest of the story."

It may sound like lying to you.  What it sounds to me is that there may be a part 2, that was also highly inflammatory and contentious, as it related to the family and the business, that the world has not heard and may not ever, hear because of the sealed case.  JMHO 

That comment suggests to me that there was more that happened, to completely get rid of Landy, in a legal context, by dissolving that fraud partnership, physically removing him, having him lose his credentials and many other factors.   

No, it doesn't sound like lying to me.  It sounds like Mike is calling Brian and Melinda liars by saying that what is depicted in the film, that is, Gloria and Melinda getting the ball rolling to get the family to take action, is the worst inaccuracy of the film.  Mike wasn't asked about the court case, he was asked about the movie.  What is shown in the movie is accurate, and Mike says that it is not. 

[HeyJude]

Unless this "19 months" during which the court proceedings ran their course, they created a time machine at some point and jumped into it, kept Melinda from meeting Brian or contacting his family regarding Landy's abuse, then I don't see how any of the court proceedings would impact what had happened prior, e.g. Melinda playing a role in the saga.

Thus, the original point of contention and discussion, ignored by a few, stands. Which is that Mike is unfairly minimizing (and when I say minimizing, I mean obliterating) Melinda's role in the saga.

It comes across as just generic vitriol in my opinion, from someone who doesn't like a movie he hasn't seen, and who clearly has a truckload of disdain for Melinda. That's what was being discussed here. Frustratingly, I've even gone to some lengths to acknowledge that a thread lamenting yet another inflammatory Mike interview quote has become somewhat rhetorical in nature.

There are some, SOME, interviews with Mike where I think potentially inflammatory comments are open to some amount of interpretation. Obviously, anything is open to interpretation. But I've seen instances where it seems like maybe Mike was trying to make a specific point and it sort of came out poorly. But this recent interview where Melinda is mentioned doesn't strike me as such a case. It's a guy who has contempt for the L&M film and Melinda in my opinion, and I think it's counterproductive in a thread specifically about said interview, to either ignore Mike's comments about Melinda or somehow try to imply an interpretation that ignores simple grammar and syntax. Claiming the interview misquoted Mike would be a stronger argument at this stage.

[filledeplage]

CD - we are here to "discuss" not "admit" positions are "wrong" - the movie was not intended to cover the whole life of Brian. It was targeted specifically to cover "well" certain periods of Brian's life and why they chose two actors to do those time-periods well.

The period that is largely unknown is that period after "Help was on the way."  That is what FOLLOWS the intervention.  

You are asking all kinds of rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with anything except looking to elicit vicariously a band member's position or reflection.  I am not vicariously responsible for anyone else's comments.   I am responsible for my own comments.  

There is a whole segment of what happened that appears to be "closed to the public" with that sealed case.  There is more to the story than what was in the film.  

Think nothing happened in 19 months in court?   Think again.  

Melinda and Gloria "caused" the chain reaction.  We don't know the details of the chain reaction which followed. The court sessions, specifically.  

That is my point.  I have no idea how much clearer I can make that.    

So, to be brief, the movie shows Gloria contacting Melinda about the will.  Melinda then contacts Audree or Carl, and tells them about the will.  At that point, Melinda is out of Brian's life until Brian steps in front of her car many months later, after Brian has been freed from Landy's clutches.  The movie did not deal with Brian's extraction from Landy in any great detail after Melinda's phone call.  Of course, we know that Carl and Audree and others then took the ball and ran with it, but that wasn't shown in the movie.  I think we can all agree that what is shown in the movie is pretty much how things went down.        
  
Ray Lawlor, Brian's and Melinda's good friend, says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.  Debbie KL says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal.  Brian and Melinda Wilson, who were in the middle of all this crap, say that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.

Mike Love, who has admittedly not seen the movie, and who also was not around Brian during Landy's reign, while answering an interview question regarding the movie, says that Melinda saving Brain from Doctor Landy is one of the film's worst inaccuracies.  

Right?  

Sounds to me like Mike is calling Brian and Melinda liars.

Lost Art - Right down to the jumping off the boat, (one of the coolest scenes) I believe the movie is accurate.  I have zero reason to believe otherwise.

That said, what we don't know is not unimportant.  In some BB related book, I have read that BRI was covering the cost of treatment.  Someone will correct me if that is incorrect.  When you pay for what you believe in good faith is appropriate, you have every right (standing) to inquire into those matters. 

That may be one point where the court wrestled with the treatment (maybe the matter of not inquiring into the prescribing doc) and the unethical business interference. It also appears that there was some settlement to get rid of Landy who I think should have gone to jail, along with his co-conspirators.  Maybe that kind of public trial would have been too stressful all around so it was handled behind closed doors.

The movie did not cover in depth Murry getting away with selling the SOT catalog.  Other things were deemed to be more important and kept the movie going at a riveting pace. 

But it means that the legal Landy take-down must have been ugly.  I highly doubt that Landy went down with a whimper and had plenty of negative things to say about everyone involved.  The movie leaves that alone, while showing Landy's vitriol towards Melinda in the car dealership.  Think he behaved like that when around the band or in public?  I don't think so.

Mike, while on tour, during those years absolutely did have the opportunity to witness Landy who was likely on his "best behavior." That is where the observation ended because of the way in which Landy micromanaged the situation. No one without Landy's permission, was allowed contact.

And there are Youtubes around where Landy can be seen either on-stage or close by. 

It may be that there is plenty behind-the-door in that 19 months that is significant in a way that means there is also an equally important story which was court-sealed.   If I were paying for health care for a family member and found out there was fraud, medical malpractice, extreme manipulation, self-dealing, and who knows what else, there would be a big problem, as most people would react in the same way.  That part of the story, would be as the late Radio Hall of Famer, Paul Harvey would say, "And, Now, The Rest of the story."

It may sound like lying to you.  What it sounds to me is that there may be a part 2, that was also highly inflammatory and contentious, as it related to the family and the business, that the world has not heard and may not ever, hear because of the sealed case.  JMHO 

That comment suggests to me that there was more that happened, to completely get rid of Landy, in a legal context, by dissolving that fraud partnership, physically removing him, having him lose his credentials and many other factors.   

I am unconvinced, though, that this information works as a credible defense to the charge that Mike Love probably shouldn't condemn what happens in a movie without having actually seen it.

And furthermore, while I agree that there is much that we don't know and that that should be taken into account, I am ultimately doubtful that the things we don't know could prove it to be inaccurate that Melinda played a role in saving Brian from Landy.

CSM - I like to think of Melinda's role in sort of a romantic context...that she went "undercover" (along with Gloria - Melinda - both - probably would have made good private investigators) for Brian.  Sort of a romantic heroine.  

But, I am looking at the comment in the context of what followed and, thinking there could very well be a p.s. to the story, and the 19 month court sessions window leads me to believe that there is an untold "sequel" to the events.  

And, I think that Melinda "started' it and the family "finished" it.  It is maybe like that omnipresent "Wanted" poster.   An eyewitness/es (Melinda and Gloria) alerts the authorities as to the actions of the criminal, and then the authorities (and the family) do the prosecution of the criminal.    

[LostArt]

I am unconvinced, though, that this information works as a credible defense to the charge that Mike Love probably shouldn't condemn what happens in a movie without having actually seen it.

And furthermore, while I agree that there is much that we don't know and that that should be taken into account, I am ultimately doubtful that the things we don't know could prove it to be inaccurate that Melinda played a role in saving Brian from Landy.

I am not convinced, despite what Mike said in interviews, that he has not seen the movie.  If he has not seen the movie, he should not be commenting on the movie.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

CD - we are here to "discuss" not "admit" positions are "wrong" - the movie was not intended to cover the whole life of Brian. It was targeted specifically to cover "well" certain periods of Brian's life and why they chose two actors to do those time-periods well.

The period that is largely unknown is that period after "Help was on the way."  That is what FOLLOWS the intervention.  

You are asking all kinds of rhetorical questions that have nothing to do with anything except looking to elicit vicariously a band member's position or reflection.  I am not vicariously responsible for anyone else's comments.   I am responsible for my own comments.  

There is a whole segment of what happened that appears to be "closed to the public" with that sealed case.  There is more to the story than what was in the film.  

Think nothing happened in 19 months in court?   Think again.  

Melinda and Gloria "caused" the chain reaction.  We don't know the details of the chain reaction which followed. The court sessions, specifically.  

That is my point.  I have no idea how much clearer I can make that.    

So, to be brief, the movie shows Gloria contacting Melinda about the will.  Melinda then contacts Audree or Carl, and tells them about the will.  At that point, Melinda is out of Brian's life until Brian steps in front of her car many months later, after Brian has been freed from Landy's clutches.  The movie did not deal with Brian's extraction from Landy in any great detail after Melinda's phone call.  Of course, we know that Carl and Audree and others then took the ball and ran with it, but that wasn't shown in the movie.  I think we can all agree that what is shown in the movie is pretty much how things went down.        
  
Ray Lawlor, Brian's and Melinda's good friend, says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.  Debbie KL says that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal.  Brian and Melinda Wilson, who were in the middle of all this crap, say that what is shown in the movie is an accurate portrayal of what happened.

Mike Love, who has admittedly not seen the movie, and who also was not around Brian during Landy's reign, while answering an interview question regarding the movie, says that Melinda saving Brain from Doctor Landy is one of the film's worst inaccuracies.  

Right?  

Sounds to me like Mike is calling Brian and Melinda liars.

Lost Art - Right down to the jumping off the boat, (one of the coolest scenes) I believe the movie is accurate.  I have zero reason to believe otherwise.

That said, what we don't know is not unimportant.  In some BB related book, I have read that BRI was covering the cost of treatment.  Someone will correct me if that is incorrect.  When you pay for what you believe in good faith is appropriate, you have every right (standing) to inquire into those matters.  

That may be one point where the court wrestled with the treatment (maybe the matter of not inquiring into the prescribing doc) and the unethical business interference. It also appears that there was some settlement to get rid of Landy who I think should have gone to jail, along with his co-conspirators.  Maybe that kind of public trial would have been too stressful all around so it was handled behind closed doors.

The movie did not cover in depth Murry getting away with selling the SOT catalog.  Other things were deemed to be more important and kept the movie going at a riveting pace.  

But it means that the legal Landy take-down must have been ugly.  I highly doubt that Landy went down with a whimper and had plenty of negative things to say about everyone involved.  The movie leaves that alone, while showing Landy's vitriol towards Melinda in the car dealership.  Think he behaved like that when around the band or in public?  I don't think so.

Mike, while on tour, during those years absolutely did have the opportunity to witness Landy who was likely on his "best behavior." That is where the observation ended because of the way in which Landy micromanaged the situation. No one without Landy's permission, was allowed contact.

And there are Youtubes around where Landy can be seen either on-stage or close by.  

It may be that there is plenty behind-the-door in that 19 months that is significant in a way that means there is also an equally important story which was court-sealed.   If I were paying for health care for a family member and found out there was fraud, medical malpractice, extreme manipulation, self-dealing, and who knows what else, there would be a big problem, as most people would react in the same way.  That part of the story, would be as the late Radio Hall of Famer, Paul Harvey would say, "And, Now, The Rest of the story."

It may sound like lying to you.  What it sounds to me is that there may be a part 2, that was also highly inflammatory and contentious, as it related to the family and the business, that the world has not heard and may not ever, hear because of the sealed case.  JMHO  

That comment suggests to me that there was more that happened, to completely get rid of Landy, in a legal context, by dissolving that fraud partnership, physically removing him, having him lose his credentials and many other factors.    

I am unconvinced, though, that this information works as a credible defense to the charge that Mike Love probably shouldn't condemn what happens in a movie without having actually seen it.

And furthermore, while I agree that there is much that we don't know and that that should be taken into account, I am ultimately doubtful that the things we don't know could prove it to be inaccurate that Melinda played a role in saving Brian from Landy.

CSM - I like to think of Melinda's role in sort of a romantic context...that she went "undercover" (along with Gloria - Melinda - both - probably would have made good private investigators) for Brian.  Sort of a romantic heroine.  

But, I am looking at the comment in the context of what followed and, thinking there could very well be a p.s. to the story, and the 19 month court sessions window leads me to believe that there is an untold "sequel" to the events.  

And, I think that Melinda "started' it and the family "finished" it.  It is maybe like that omnipresent "Wanted" poster.   An eyewitness/es (Melinda and Gloria) alerts the authorities as to the actions of the criminal, and then the authorities (and the family) do the prosecution of the criminal.    

I appreciate your point of view on Melinda but that's not what this conversation is about. You were not retorting to anybody's comments about your own personal point of view on Melinda's role, rather you were responding to comments that called into question Mike's claims about the accuracy of the film.

And as for the context of what followed, Mike was talking about the context of what happens in the film, not what followed. So while I understand that stuff happened that wasn't shown in the film, Mike is specifically talking about what we see in the movie and noting that what we see is inaccurate. He did not say that what we see in the movie is accurate in terms of what it portrays but isn't the full story. He says flat out that the film is inaccurate.

Again, I'm not sure how this works as a defense to the criticism that Mike shouldn't critique a film without having seen it. If anything, I think it bolsters that argument.

[Juice Brohnston]

But I don't think FDP is saying Mike gave credit. That's her statement, not Mikes. At least that is how I read it.
 

Juice Brohnston, I think you may have misread my post. I'm under no impression that FDP is saying Mike gave Melinda credit in the interview. Mike obviously doesn't give Melinda or Gloria credit in the interview, and obviously FDP knows that too - FDP, if you're reading this post, before you chime in, it's not a matter of "interpretation"... Mike simply does not give her credit based on his words in the interview.

My question "Where does Mike give any credit to Melinda and Gloria for heroically starting the wheels in motion?" was a rhetorical one to point out the blatant LACK of credit that Mike bestows upon them... which is in direct contradiction to FDP's correct assertion that Melinda and Gloria deserve credit (and that god must be thanked for Melinda's actions - not a minor thanks by any stretch, FDP means it!)... and to highlight the bizarre disconnect/contradiction in FDP having a viewpoint in direct opposition to what Mike has stated, yet FDP being unable to either admit to the differences in viewpoints between her statement and Mike's interview... or to heaven forbid do the unthinkable and criticize Mike.

Whether or not Mike gives Melinda *some* credit privately is up for debate, but in the interview none is given. Nobody but nobody can walk away from that interview believing that Mike gives Melinda and Gloria any credit whatsoever based on what he said, because of the very simple fact that he said no such thing, despite going out of his way to directly give credit to others.

Giving credit to others where credit is due is fine, of course. But doing that AND simultaneously snubbing Melinda/Gloria ain't cool. And this is the guy who complains ad naseum about being snubbed of credits. I don't really believe that Mike truly privately feels Melinda had no role in getting Brian out of that situation. He just can't bring himself to publicly positively credit a person he seems to detest.

But this comes off as you wanting FDP to say that she commends and acknowledges Melinda's role, and therefore she should denounce Mike. Why the hell would you care? Can't she like/admire/respect Mike, and still acknowledge Melinda's role in getting Brian away from Landy? If Mike plays a certain 'word game' in interviews to get digs in at Melinda, well that makes him look like a douche in most people's eyes. BUT, FDP I think is sticking to the factual truth that Melinda could help get the ball to the goal line, but by law, a Family member had to put it across. So in the legal sense, Melinda wasn't the person to extricate Landy from Brian. Mike uses that 'legal' angle to take a swipe at the Movie.
Your question, I misread as being direct instead of rhetorical, as you quoted her, then simply replied with the question. Others (Smile Brian) may have misread this as well as they reponded (crickets) expecting FDP to respond.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But I don't think FDP is saying Mike gave credit. That's her statement, not Mikes. At least that is how I read it.
 

Juice Brohnston, I think you may have misread my post. I'm under no impression that FDP is saying Mike gave Melinda credit in the interview. Mike obviously doesn't give Melinda or Gloria credit in the interview, and obviously FDP knows that too - FDP, if you're reading this post, before you chime in, it's not a matter of "interpretation"... Mike simply does not give her credit based on his words in the interview.

My question "Where does Mike give any credit to Melinda and Gloria for heroically starting the wheels in motion?" was a rhetorical one to point out the blatant LACK of credit that Mike bestows upon them... which is in direct contradiction to FDP's correct assertion that Melinda and Gloria deserve credit (and that god must be thanked for Melinda's actions - not a minor thanks by any stretch, FDP means it!)... and to highlight the bizarre disconnect/contradiction in FDP having a viewpoint in direct opposition to what Mike has stated, yet FDP being unable to either admit to the differences in viewpoints between her statement and Mike's interview... or to heaven forbid do the unthinkable and criticize Mike.

Whether or not Mike gives Melinda *some* credit privately is up for debate, but in the interview none is given. Nobody but nobody can walk away from that interview believing that Mike gives Melinda and Gloria any credit whatsoever based on what he said, because of the very simple fact that he said no such thing, despite going out of his way to directly give credit to others.

Giving credit to others where credit is due is fine, of course. But doing that AND simultaneously snubbing Melinda/Gloria ain't cool. And this is the guy who complains ad naseum about being snubbed of credits. I don't really believe that Mike truly privately feels Melinda had no role in getting Brian out of that situation. He just can't bring himself to publicly positively credit a person he seems to detest.

But this comes off as you wanting FDP to say that she commends and acknowledges Melinda's role, and therefore she should denounce Mike. Why the hell would you care?

People care because she entered into the discussion with a direct response to the remarks that Mike's criticisms of the film were off-base and shouldn't have been made without having seen it, thereby appearing as support for a comment that she also appears to not support with her own comments. This whole conversation is simply a matter of trying to comprehend this contradiction.

[filledeplage]

But I don't think FDP is saying Mike gave credit. That's her statement, not Mikes. At least that is how I read it.
 

Juice Brohnston, I think you may have misread my post. I'm under no impression that FDP is saying Mike gave Melinda credit in the interview. Mike obviously doesn't give Melinda or Gloria credit in the interview, and obviously FDP knows that too - FDP, if you're reading this post, before you chime in, it's not a matter of "interpretation"... Mike simply does not give her credit based on his words in the interview.

My question "Where does Mike give any credit to Melinda and Gloria for heroically starting the wheels in motion?" was a rhetorical one to point out the blatant LACK of credit that Mike bestows upon them... which is in direct contradiction to FDP's correct assertion that Melinda and Gloria deserve credit (and that god must be thanked for Melinda's actions - not a minor thanks by any stretch, FDP means it!)... and to highlight the bizarre disconnect/contradiction in FDP having a viewpoint in direct opposition to what Mike has stated, yet FDP being unable to either admit to the differences in viewpoints between her statement and Mike's interview... or to heaven forbid do the unthinkable and criticize Mike.

Whether or not Mike gives Melinda *some* credit privately is up for debate, but in the interview none is given. Nobody but nobody can walk away from that interview believing that Mike gives Melinda and Gloria any credit whatsoever based on what he said, because of the very simple fact that he said no such thing, despite going out of his way to directly give credit to others.

Giving credit to others where credit is due is fine, of course. But doing that AND simultaneously snubbing Melinda/Gloria ain't cool. And this is the guy who complains ad naseum about being snubbed of credits. I don't really believe that Mike truly privately feels Melinda had no role in getting Brian out of that situation. He just can't bring himself to publicly positively credit a person he seems to detest.

But this comes off as you wanting FDP to say that she commends and acknowledges Melinda's role, and therefore she should denounce Mike. Why the hell would you care?

People care because she entered into the discussion with a direct response to the remarks that Mike's criticisms of the film were off-base and shouldn't have been made without having seen it, thereby appearing as support for a comment that she also appears to not support with her own comments. This whole conversation is simply a matter of trying to comprehend this contradiction.

CSM - I entered the discussion with an unknown factor to add and not speculate about anything...The 19-month court sessions as a "sealed" case as reported in the LA Times.  I just didn't jump in with no facts. I backed-up what my impression was, with that time-line suggesting that there was a part 2 to the story. 

And as Juice Bronston used the analogy, "Melinda could help get the ball to the goal line, but by law, a Family member had to put it across."  Exactly my point.     

Getting the ball to the goal line is what is depicted in the movie. 

[HeyJude]

CSM - I entered the discussion with an unknown factor to add and not speculate about anything...The 19-month court sessions as a "sealed" case as reported in the LA Times.  I just didn't jump in with no facts. I backed-up what my impression was, with that time-line suggesting that there was a part 2 to the story. 

I would tend to disagree with the idea that what you've discussed was/is an "unknown factor", as if you have information about the case that nobody else does.

In any event, the issue isn't whether the information was/is "unknown", but rather whether it was/is germane to the discussion into which you entered. It was not. It may be germane to any number of other discussions, but not this one.

If someone wants to turn on blinders to Mike's inflammatory interview comment and instead discuss the known or unknown ins-and-outs of the Landy case, then there's always the option of starting another thread. But to cut into a conversation about the potential veracity of a Mike interview comment with a DIFFERENT topic ends up, well, off-topic! It also gives at least the appearance of an attempt to divert a thread's attention away from the topic at hand (Mike's lamentable comments).

[LostArt]

Getting the ball to the goal line is what is depicted in the movie. 

Right.  And Mike said that that is one of the worst inaccuracies of the movie.

[Emily]

Tbh, when I read FdP's first post in this exchange, I was interested because it read to me like she was agreeing with and supporting Hey Jude's and Century Deprived's position.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But I don't think FDP is saying Mike gave credit. That's her statement, not Mikes. At least that is how I read it.
 

Juice Brohnston, I think you may have misread my post. I'm under no impression that FDP is saying Mike gave Melinda credit in the interview. Mike obviously doesn't give Melinda or Gloria credit in the interview, and obviously FDP knows that too - FDP, if you're reading this post, before you chime in, it's not a matter of "interpretation"... Mike simply does not give her credit based on his words in the interview.

My question "Where does Mike give any credit to Melinda and Gloria for heroically starting the wheels in motion?" was a rhetorical one to point out the blatant LACK of credit that Mike bestows upon them... which is in direct contradiction to FDP's correct assertion that Melinda and Gloria deserve credit (and that god must be thanked for Melinda's actions - not a minor thanks by any stretch, FDP means it!)... and to highlight the bizarre disconnect/contradiction in FDP having a viewpoint in direct opposition to what Mike has stated, yet FDP being unable to either admit to the differences in viewpoints between her statement and Mike's interview... or to heaven forbid do the unthinkable and criticize Mike.

Whether or not Mike gives Melinda *some* credit privately is up for debate, but in the interview none is given. Nobody but nobody can walk away from that interview believing that Mike gives Melinda and Gloria any credit whatsoever based on what he said, because of the very simple fact that he said no such thing, despite going out of his way to directly give credit to others.

Giving credit to others where credit is due is fine, of course. But doing that AND simultaneously snubbing Melinda/Gloria ain't cool. And this is the guy who complains ad naseum about being snubbed of credits. I don't really believe that Mike truly privately feels Melinda had no role in getting Brian out of that situation. He just can't bring himself to publicly positively credit a person he seems to detest.

But this comes off as you wanting FDP to say that she commends and acknowledges Melinda's role, and therefore she should denounce Mike. Why the hell would you care?

People care because she entered into the discussion with a direct response to the remarks that Mike's criticisms of the film were off-base and shouldn't have been made without having seen it, thereby appearing as support for a comment that she also appears to not support with her own comments. This whole conversation is simply a matter of trying to comprehend this contradiction.

CSM - I entered the discussion with an unknown factor to add and not speculate about anything...The 19-month court sessions as a "sealed" case as reported in the LA Times.  I just didn't jump in with no facts. I backed-up what my impression was, with that time-line suggesting that there was a part 2 to the story. 

And as Juice Bronston used the analogy, "Melinda could help get the ball to the goal line, but by law, a Family member had to put it across."  Exactly my point.     

Getting the ball to the goal line is what is depicted in the movie. 

Just to repeat the above point made by LostArt to some degree, while I certainly believe that the part 2 as you describe it is certainly relevant to the discussion of the whole saga, it is not particularly relevant to the elements of the interview under discussion. As was mentioned, yes, "getting the ball to the goal line is what is depicted in the movie" and Mike Love believes that that depiction of getting the ball to the goal line was an inaccurate one. The discussion was about how that point of view is unfair and is rendered even more unfair in light of the fact that Mike hasn't even seen the film. So, again, the "part 2" details are relevant but it is not a response to the conversation in this thread.

[guitarfool2002]

Go back to the original article and quotes in question:

Even so, he would have to live in a vacuum not to know how he was portrayed in the film. While the movie is admirable on many levels, Love says accuracy is not one of them. Indeed, “Love and Mercy” never was meant to be misconstrued as a documentary.

“It’s all Hollywood and made to be entertaining, not accurate,” Love said.

Asked for the film’s worst inaccuracies, Love responded, “That Melinda (played by Elizabeth Banks) saved Brian from Dr. Landy (played by Paul Giamatti). That was my brother (Stan Love) and Carl (Wilson) who stepped in. Landy was, in fact, over-reaching.”


So there is a challenge to this film's accuracy made via a public (or published) comment, putting aside for the purpose of discussion the fact that the person challenging said he had not seen the actual film. Although it has been answered already, let's ask again: What about the Landy era as shown in this film is inaccurate, and is anyone able to show specifically how or why something in the film was depicted inaccurately?

[filledeplage]

CSM - I entered the discussion with an unknown factor to add and not speculate about anything...The 19-month court sessions as a "sealed" case as reported in the LA Times.  I just didn't jump in with no facts. I backed-up what my impression was, with that time-line suggesting that there was a part 2 to the story. 

I would tend to disagree with the idea that what you've discussed was/is an "unknown factor", as if you have information about the case that nobody else does.

In any event, the issue isn't whether the information was/is "unknown", but rather whether it was/is germane to the discussion into which you entered. It was not. It may be germane to any number of other discussions, but not this one.

If someone wants to turn on blinders to Mike's inflammatory interview comment and instead discuss the known or unknown ins-and-outs of the Landy case, then there's always the option of starting another thread. But to cut into a conversation about the potential veracity of a Mike interview comment with a DIFFERENT topic ends up, well, off-topic! It also gives at least the appearance of an attempt to divert a thread's attention away from the topic at hand (Mike's lamentable comments).

A "sealed file" is done generally under a court order.  And, maintained apart from public records which may be inspected during business hours.

Why would a fan have information from a sealed record? It is sealed to the public, which means the public has no access to the files.

And 19 months of court sessions is germane, in my opinion.

Maybe not for you.  

[KDS]

I still want to know why in the world, in Love and Mercy, was Landy grilling one burger patty at a time.

You have three other people to feed.  Why not have at least four burgers on the grill?  

Or was this a part of his therapy to try to get Brian to control his urges to overeat?  

[Emily]

CSM - I entered the discussion with an unknown factor to add and not speculate about anything...The 19-month court sessions as a "sealed" case as reported in the LA Times.  I just didn't jump in with no facts. I backed-up what my impression was, with that time-line suggesting that there was a part 2 to the story. 

I would tend to disagree with the idea that what you've discussed was/is an "unknown factor", as if you have information about the case that nobody else does.

In any event, the issue isn't whether the information was/is "unknown", but rather whether it was/is germane to the discussion into which you entered. It was not. It may be germane to any number of other discussions, but not this one.

If someone wants to turn on blinders to Mike's inflammatory interview comment and instead discuss the known or unknown ins-and-outs of the Landy case, then there's always the option of starting another thread. But to cut into a conversation about the potential veracity of a Mike interview comment with a DIFFERENT topic ends up, well, off-topic! It also gives at least the appearance of an attempt to divert a thread's attention away from the topic at hand (Mike's lamentable comments).

A "sealed file" is done generally under a court order.  And, maintained apart from public records which may be inspected during business hours.

Why would a fan have information from a sealed record? It is sealed to the public, which means the public has no access to the files.

And 19 months of court sessions is germane, in my opinion.

Maybe not for you.  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

And 19 months of court sessions is germane, in my opinion.

Germane to what?

[filledeplage]

And 19 months of court sessions is germane, in my opinion.

Germane to what?

The follow-up of closing out Landy and restoring the civil liberties (association rights, etc. ) that Landy apparently deprived Brian of, as well as the mistreatment, self-dealing, the will, etc.  

Absent the court sessions, Landy would still have been in the driver's seat. He had to be stripped officially of those powers.

[CenturyDeprived]

But I don't think FDP is saying Mike gave credit. That's her statement, not Mikes. At least that is how I read it.
 

Juice Brohnston, I think you may have misread my post. I'm under no impression that FDP is saying Mike gave Melinda credit in the interview. Mike obviously doesn't give Melinda or Gloria credit in the interview, and obviously FDP knows that too - FDP, if you're reading this post, before you chime in, it's not a matter of "interpretation"... Mike simply does not give her credit based on his words in the interview.

My question "Where does Mike give any credit to Melinda and Gloria for heroically starting the wheels in motion?" was a rhetorical one to point out the blatant LACK of credit that Mike bestows upon them... which is in direct contradiction to FDP's correct assertion that Melinda and Gloria deserve credit (and that god must be thanked for Melinda's actions - not a minor thanks by any stretch, FDP means it!)... and to highlight the bizarre disconnect/contradiction in FDP having a viewpoint in direct opposition to what Mike has stated, yet FDP being unable to either admit to the differences in viewpoints between her statement and Mike's interview... or to heaven forbid do the unthinkable and criticize Mike.

Whether or not Mike gives Melinda *some* credit privately is up for debate, but in the interview none is given. Nobody but nobody can walk away from that interview believing that Mike gives Melinda and Gloria any credit whatsoever based on what he said, because of the very simple fact that he said no such thing, despite going out of his way to directly give credit to others.

Giving credit to others where credit is due is fine, of course. But doing that AND simultaneously snubbing Melinda/Gloria ain't cool. And this is the guy who complains ad naseum about being snubbed of credits. I don't really believe that Mike truly privately feels Melinda had no role in getting Brian out of that situation. He just can't bring himself to publicly positively credit a person he seems to detest.

But this comes off as you wanting FDP to say that she commends and acknowledges Melinda's role, and therefore she should denounce Mike. Why the hell would you care? Can't she like/admire/respect Mike, and still acknowledge Melinda's role in getting Brian away from Landy? If Mike plays a certain 'word game' in interviews to get digs in at Melinda, well that makes him look like a douche in most people's eyes. BUT, FDP I think is sticking to the factual truth that Melinda could help get the ball to the goal line, but by law, a Family member had to put it across. So in the legal sense, Melinda wasn't the person to extricate Landy from Brian. Mike uses that 'legal' angle to take a swipe at the Movie.
Your question, I misread as being direct instead of rhetorical, as you quoted her, then simply replied with the question. Others (Smile Brian) may have misread this as well as they reponded (crickets) expecting FDP to respond.

It's very simple. One (FDP, or anyone for that matter) can't "thank god" for Melinda's actions, obviously be very much of the opinion that they played an important role in a matter... and then think it's fine for someone else (Mike) who has a known major grudge against Melinda (I challenge *anyone* to dispute this is the case) to eradicate that person from being deserving of any praise (certainly no thanking "god" for Melinda by Mike... or even Mike mentioning that Melinda performed one single praiseworthy action in the Landy saga).

It's bloody preposterous. This whole "19 months! 19 months!" crapola is a diversion. REGARDLESS of what happened during that 19 months... it's COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the discussion that Melinda did play a role. Period. Mike won't acknowledge it. That sucks. Nobody should say it doesn't suck for him to insinuate that, least of all a person who thanks "god" for Melinda's actions.

No more of this 19 months BS. It's not what we are talking about here.

The simple fact is that some posters cannot bring themselves to say anything bad about a band member, and also bizarrely can't even admit that's the case; it's the diversionary tactics (19 months! Let's chant it from the top of a hill! 19 months! If I keep saying it, people will forget about Melinda not getting any credit whatsoever from Mike!) that are so incredibly frustrating as well as patronizing, in insinuating that it's relevant to the discussion of the ONLY thing we are talking about: what Mike didn't say about Melinda.

FDP was so grateful that I defended Carl. Yeah, I defended Carl when he deserved defending, and I've also defended Mike when he deserved defending.  But when Mike essentially despises Melinda (I've heard multiple insiders say as much), there's no way in the world that this grudge is not going to influence his complete and utter diminishing of her role in the Landy saga. And that is simply not cool or defensible, no matter which way one slices it. It is unfortunate.

It very simply would have been preferable for Mike to have acknowledged Melinda had a role, even if he thinks the film is lopsided and that there's more to the story than what the film shows. I have NO problem with Mike or anyone saying that, and does anyone really think that would have been a *bad* thing for Mike to have said? This thread would be a helluva lot shorter! Isn't that what is desired? Less bickering and some compromise, even from the stubborn and bitter Mr. Love.

But yeah, that's a dream world. In Mike's world, Mike gets to complain about his credits until the end of time, but gets to also completely discredit Melinda's role ENTIRELY, and thinks that is an okay way to behave. It is hypocritical and ridiculous.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike almost seemed content that BW was in semi-retirement with Landy and only was pissed about the cost in dollars.

[CenturyDeprived]

Tbh, when I read FdP's first post in this exchange, I was interested because it read to me like she was agreeing with and supporting Hey Jude's and Century Deprived's position.

FDP wants to have it both ways, and it doesn't work.

It is not right for Mike to continually, over and over again, complain about being not credited on songs, and then to turn around give ZERO credit to Melinda for her undeniable role in a very important matter... a matter that's far more important in fact than any song. Brian's life.