new article with some interesting tidbits

[Debbie KL]

Is Stan Love ever mentioned in Love & Mercy?  I've only seen it once and don't remember it.

I don't believe he was mentioned.  I did reference this in my previous post.  Stan's suit went nowhere, so why would it be included in a film that wasn't about him and did address the suit that actually freed Brian?  Given time restraints and the flow of the film, I can't imagine why it would be necessary to mention.

[CenturyDeprived]

Did I say that Melinda was not an integral part? No I didn't.

No, and you must not be reading my posts, FDP. I never, ever said that you said Melinda was not an integral part.

I keep pointing out that you said that Melinda WAS an integral part.

I also keep pointing out how Mike completely, 100% OMITS Melinda's part.  

What is unclear in this?  

[Cam Mott]

Is Stan Love ever mentioned in Love & Mercy?  I've only seen it once and don't remember it.

It's not the filmmakers' obligation to include every single person who was part of the story.

There's not enough space in a narrative film format for that.

The film, however, DOES have an obligation to NOT make a statement where a character says to the camera "Stan Love had no part whatsoever in Brian's extraction from Landy".

And guess what? The film never did that.

Yet Mike did exactly the inverse of that in the interview when it came to Melinda. He didn't just talk about what Stan did... he prefaced that by NEGATING 100% of what Melinda did. THAT very specifically is the heart of why it's an inexcusable thing for Mike to have said or to have implied.

So, your answer is no, Stan's role in saving Brian from Landy wasn't mentioned in the film?  Anybody else remember Stan being mentioned in the film?

[CenturyDeprived]

Is Stan Love ever mentioned in Love & Mercy?  I've only seen it once and don't remember it.

It's not the filmmakers' obligation to include every single person who was part of the story.

There's not enough space in a narrative film format for that.

The film, however, DOES have an obligation to NOT make a statement where a character says to the camera "Stan Love had no part whatsoever in Brian's extraction from Landy".

And guess what? The film never did that.

Yet Mike did exactly the inverse of that in the interview when it came to Melinda. He didn't just talk about what Stan did... he prefaced that by NEGATING 100% of what Melinda did. THAT very specifically is the heart of why it's an inexcusable thing for Mike to have said or to have implied.

So, your answer is no, Stan's role in saving Brian from Landy wasn't mentioned in the film?  Anybody else remember Stan being mentioned in the film?

Do you want to actually address the points I just made?

Stan wasn't mentioned in the film. So what? What's the point you're trying to make?

[filledeplage]

Okay, I'm confused about how we got to this point.  Now we're speculating as to why Mike, who says he hasn't seen the film, says it's inaccurate in saying that Melinda saved Brian, but that it was Carl and Stan (and Stan's efforts went nowhere, so that's odd in itself), and how he might be justified in this?  

I can't imagine how anyone knowing the situation could honestly dispute Melinda's extensive efforts in getting the attention of the people who could take legal action to get Brian away from Landy (the family), then providing the material that would get them to act.  Since Melinda provided the impetus to get this action to happen, it's ridiculous to deny her role.   And yet this was clearly done in that Lubbock interview.

I honestly don't care how long the legal action took.  Clearly the attorneys were handling that with input and approval from Brian's family.  I'm not dismissing the family's role in this part of the equation by any means - I'm thrilled that they finally chose to act and I'm certain that it probably wasn't cheap.  But then, it was the family who hired Landy, so there's some responsibility there.  There's no indication that the family would have done anything until it was too late without Melinda.  To deny that Melinda had the key role saving Brian, much less denying her any role at all, is pretty indefensible.

As far as dear Filledeplage's comments, I really don't have a problem with her unwillingness to say anything negative about certain members of the Beach Boys.  That's her choice.  I only have a problem with the derailing arguments that totally deny the facts at hand and seem to be so often contradictory in nature.  We aren't supposed to speculate, yet the whole argument being offered seems to be that a legal action took 19 months - a legal action we know nothing about - and we're supposed to speculate how that would cause Mike to entirely dismiss Melinda's role in getting Brian away from Landy.

There are people I prefer not to publicly criticize (but I will if it gets to that point), but I can handle that easily by simply not commenting when they've made a pretty horrendous public blunder.  There's no need to create these sidetracks that have little or nothing to do with the discussion about that public blunder to attempt to deflect criticism.  It's bound to annoy serious posters.  I guess the interesting thing about this tack is that it probably keeps a thread going that the blundering public figure would rather have disappear.  There's a bit of irony there, I think.  

Debbie KL - the suit that resulted from Melinda's intervention and was reported on periodically in the LATimes, at least provides a timeline that is useful, as to the framework of the legal action. It is impossible, in my view to separate the two.  

The ultimate goal was to get into court to get Landy out of Brian's life. How is that timeline a distractor?  It went to the heart of the matter.  Only the court had the power to change the status quo.  

How that is marginalized in the discussion is beyond me.  It was the essence of the intervention.

[Debbie KL]

Okay, I'm confused about how we got to this point.  Now we're speculating as to why Mike, who says he hasn't seen the film, says it's inaccurate in saying that Melinda saved Brian, but that it was Carl and Stan (and Stan's efforts went nowhere, so that's odd in itself), and how he might be justified in this?  

I can't imagine how anyone knowing the situation could honestly dispute Melinda's extensive efforts in getting the attention of the people who could take legal action to get Brian away from Landy (the family), then providing the material that would get them to act.  Since Melinda provided the impetus to get this action to happen, it's ridiculous to deny her role.   And yet this was clearly done in that Lubbock interview.

I honestly don't care how long the legal action took.  Clearly the attorneys were handling that with input and approval from Brian's family.  I'm not dismissing the family's role in this part of the equation by any means - I'm thrilled that they finally chose to act and I'm certain that it probably wasn't cheap.  But then, it was the family who hired Landy, so there's some responsibility there.  There's no indication that the family would have done anything until it was too late without Melinda.  To deny that Melinda had the key role saving Brian, much less denying her any role at all, is pretty indefensible.

As far as dear Filledeplage's comments, I really don't have a problem with her unwillingness to say anything negative about certain members of the Beach Boys.  That's her choice.  I only have a problem with the derailing arguments that totally deny the facts at hand and seem to be so often contradictory in nature.  We aren't supposed to speculate, yet the whole argument being offered seems to be that a legal action took 19 months - a legal action we know nothing about - and we're supposed to speculate how that would cause Mike to entirely dismiss Melinda's role in getting Brian away from Landy.

There are people I prefer not to publicly criticize (but I will if it gets to that point), but I can handle that easily by simply not commenting when they've made a pretty horrendous public blunder.  There's no need to create these sidetracks that have little or nothing to do with the discussion about that public blunder to attempt to deflect criticism.  It's bound to annoy serious posters.  I guess the interesting thing about this tack is that it probably keeps a thread going that the blundering public figure would rather have disappear.  There's a bit of irony there, I think.  

Debbie KL - the suit that resulted from Melinda's intervention and was reported on periodically in the LATimes, at least provides a timeline that is useful, as to the framework of the legal action. It is impossible, in my view to separate the two.  

The ultimate goal was to get into court to get Landy out of Brian's life. How is that timeline a distractor?  It went to the heart of the matter.  Only the court had the power to change the status quo.  

How that is marginalized in the discussion is beyond me.  It was the essence of the intervention.

The suit was necessary, yes, as I indicated.  It still doesn't address why Mr. Love totally dismisses Melinda as the impetus of the entire suit. (editing typo)

[filledeplage]

Okay, I'm confused about how we got to this point.  Now we're speculating as to why Mike, who says he hasn't seen the film, says it's inaccurate in saying that Melinda saved Brian, but that it was Carl and Stan (and Stan's efforts went nowhere, so that's odd in itself), and how he might be justified in this?  

I can't imagine how anyone knowing the situation could honestly dispute Melinda's extensive efforts in getting the attention of the people who could take legal action to get Brian away from Landy (the family), then providing the material that would get them to act.  Since Melinda provided the impetus to get this action to happen, it's ridiculous to deny her role.   And yet this was clearly done in that Lubbock interview.

I honestly don't care how long the legal action took.  Clearly the attorneys were handling that with input and approval from Brian's family.  I'm not dismissing the family's role in this part of the equation by any means - I'm thrilled that they finally chose to act and I'm certain that it probably wasn't cheap.  But then, it was the family who hired Landy, so there's some responsibility there.  There's no indication that the family would have done anything until it was too late without Melinda.  To deny that Melinda had the key role saving Brian, much less denying her any role at all, is pretty indefensible.

As far as dear Filledeplage's comments, I really don't have a problem with her unwillingness to say anything negative about certain members of the Beach Boys.  That's her choice.  I only have a problem with the derailing arguments that totally deny the facts at hand and seem to be so often contradictory in nature.  We aren't supposed to speculate, yet the whole argument being offered seems to be that a legal action took 19 months - a legal action we know nothing about - and we're supposed to speculate how that would cause Mike to entirely dismiss Melinda's role in getting Brian away from Landy.

There are people I prefer not to publicly criticize (but I will if it gets to that point), but I can handle that easily by simply not commenting when they've made a pretty horrendous public blunder.  There's no need to create these sidetracks that have little or nothing to do with the discussion about that public blunder to attempt to deflect criticism.  It's bound to annoy serious posters.  I guess the interesting thing about this tack is that it probably keeps a thread going that the blundering public figure would rather have disappear.  There's a bit of irony there, I think.  

Debbie KL - the suit that resulted from Melinda's intervention and was reported on periodically in the LATimes, at least provides a timeline that is useful, as to the framework of the legal action. It is impossible, in my view to separate the two.  

The ultimate goal was to get into court to get Landy out of Brian's life. How is that timeline a distractor?  It went to the heart of the matter.  Only the court had the power to change the status quo.  

How that is marginalized in the discussion is beyond me.  It was the essence of the intervention.

The suit was necessary, yes, as I indicated.  It still doesn't address why Mr. Love totally dismisses Melinda as the impetus of the entire suit. (editing typo)

Perhaps Mike is looking at "the village," and the "collective action" both pre and post intervention.  I'd say that window of time, suggests that it was contentious and not a cut-and-dry routine matter.  The timeline suggests the complexity of the issues.

The whole group may have made a very regrettable mistake in rehiring Landy but after losing Dennis who slipped through the cracks, it may have been more desperate than anything else. And Landy was the "devil they knew."

But, you do understand my absolute reluctance to be critical of those whose music has been such a universal gift.  They get the benefit of the doubt.

[Juice Brohnston]

If I had to gamble my house on whether Mike has seen this film or not. I would choose to bet that he has.

[Debbie KL]

Okay, I'm confused about how we got to this point.  Now we're speculating as to why Mike, who says he hasn't seen the film, says it's inaccurate in saying that Melinda saved Brian, but that it was Carl and Stan (and Stan's efforts went nowhere, so that's odd in itself), and how he might be justified in this?  

I can't imagine how anyone knowing the situation could honestly dispute Melinda's extensive efforts in getting the attention of the people who could take legal action to get Brian away from Landy (the family), then providing the material that would get them to act.  Since Melinda provided the impetus to get this action to happen, it's ridiculous to deny her role.   And yet this was clearly done in that Lubbock interview.

I honestly don't care how long the legal action took.  Clearly the attorneys were handling that with input and approval from Brian's family.  I'm not dismissing the family's role in this part of the equation by any means - I'm thrilled that they finally chose to act and I'm certain that it probably wasn't cheap.  But then, it was the family who hired Landy, so there's some responsibility there.  There's no indication that the family would have done anything until it was too late without Melinda.  To deny that Melinda had the key role saving Brian, much less denying her any role at all, is pretty indefensible.

As far as dear Filledeplage's comments, I really don't have a problem with her unwillingness to say anything negative about certain members of the Beach Boys.  That's her choice.  I only have a problem with the derailing arguments that totally deny the facts at hand and seem to be so often contradictory in nature.  We aren't supposed to speculate, yet the whole argument being offered seems to be that a legal action took 19 months - a legal action we know nothing about - and we're supposed to speculate how that would cause Mike to entirely dismiss Melinda's role in getting Brian away from Landy.

There are people I prefer not to publicly criticize (but I will if it gets to that point), but I can handle that easily by simply not commenting when they've made a pretty horrendous public blunder.  There's no need to create these sidetracks that have little or nothing to do with the discussion about that public blunder to attempt to deflect criticism.  It's bound to annoy serious posters.  I guess the interesting thing about this tack is that it probably keeps a thread going that the blundering public figure would rather have disappear.  There's a bit of irony there, I think.  

Debbie KL - the suit that resulted from Melinda's intervention and was reported on periodically in the LATimes, at least provides a timeline that is useful, as to the framework of the legal action. It is impossible, in my view to separate the two.  

The ultimate goal was to get into court to get Landy out of Brian's life. How is that timeline a distractor?  It went to the heart of the matter.  Only the court had the power to change the status quo.  

How that is marginalized in the discussion is beyond me.  It was the essence of the intervention.

The suit was necessary, yes, as I indicated.  It still doesn't address why Mr. Love totally dismisses Melinda as the impetus of the entire suit. (editing typo)

Perhaps Mike is looking at "the village," and the "collective action" both pre and post intervention.  I'd say that window of time, suggests that it was contentious and not a cut-and-dry routine matter.  The timeline suggests the complexity of the issues.

The whole group may have made a very regrettable mistake in rehiring Landy but after losing Dennis who slipped through the cracks, it may have been more desperate than anything else. And Landy was the "devil they knew."

But, you do understand my absolute reluctance to be critical of those whose music has been such a universal gift.  They get the benefit of the doubt.

So how is he justified in excluding Melinda from the "Village" when she got the whole suit rolling?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Perhaps Mike is looking at "the village," and the "collective action" both pre and post intervention. 

He's not because he's talking about what's represented in the film as being inaccurate.

[filledeplage]

Okay, I'm confused about how we got to this point.  Now we're speculating as to why Mike, who says he hasn't seen the film, says it's inaccurate in saying that Melinda saved Brian, but that it was Carl and Stan (and Stan's efforts went nowhere, so that's odd in itself), and how he might be justified in this?  

I can't imagine how anyone knowing the situation could honestly dispute Melinda's extensive efforts in getting the attention of the people who could take legal action to get Brian away from Landy (the family), then providing the material that would get them to act.  Since Melinda provided the impetus to get this action to happen, it's ridiculous to deny her role.   And yet this was clearly done in that Lubbock interview.

I honestly don't care how long the legal action took.  Clearly the attorneys were handling that with input and approval from Brian's family.  I'm not dismissing the family's role in this part of the equation by any means - I'm thrilled that they finally chose to act and I'm certain that it probably wasn't cheap.  But then, it was the family who hired Landy, so there's some responsibility there.  There's no indication that the family would have done anything until it was too late without Melinda.  To deny that Melinda had the key role saving Brian, much less denying her any role at all, is pretty indefensible.

As far as dear Filledeplage's comments, I really don't have a problem with her unwillingness to say anything negative about certain members of the Beach Boys.  That's her choice.  I only have a problem with the derailing arguments that totally deny the facts at hand and seem to be so often contradictory in nature.  We aren't supposed to speculate, yet the whole argument being offered seems to be that a legal action took 19 months - a legal action we know nothing about - and we're supposed to speculate how that would cause Mike to entirely dismiss Melinda's role in getting Brian away from Landy.

There are people I prefer not to publicly criticize (but I will if it gets to that point), but I can handle that easily by simply not commenting when they've made a pretty horrendous public blunder.  There's no need to create these sidetracks that have little or nothing to do with the discussion about that public blunder to attempt to deflect criticism.  It's bound to annoy serious posters.  I guess the interesting thing about this tack is that it probably keeps a thread going that the blundering public figure would rather have disappear.  There's a bit of irony there, I think.  

Debbie KL - the suit that resulted from Melinda's intervention and was reported on periodically in the LATimes, at least provides a timeline that is useful, as to the framework of the legal action. It is impossible, in my view to separate the two.  

The ultimate goal was to get into court to get Landy out of Brian's life. How is that timeline a distractor?  It went to the heart of the matter.  Only the court had the power to change the status quo.  

How that is marginalized in the discussion is beyond me.  It was the essence of the intervention.

The suit was necessary, yes, as I indicated.  It still doesn't address why Mr. Love totally dismisses Melinda as the impetus of the entire suit. (editing typo)

Perhaps Mike is looking at "the village," and the "collective action" both pre and post intervention.  I'd say that window of time, suggests that it was contentious and not a cut-and-dry routine matter.  The timeline suggests the complexity of the issues.

The whole group may have made a very regrettable mistake in rehiring Landy but after losing Dennis who slipped through the cracks, it may have been more desperate than anything else. And Landy was the "devil they knew."

But, you do understand my absolute reluctance to be critical of those whose music has been such a universal gift.  They get the benefit of the doubt.

So how is he justified in excluding Melinda from the "Village" when she got the whole suit rolling?

You would need to ask him.  But he may have been suggesting that there was a whole "village."

And a whole part 2 that is not on peoples' radars...

The articles tell me that the legal action was part 2.

[SMiLE Brian]

This online PR managing for Mike is a fools errand....

[Custom Machine]

If I had to gamble my house on whether Mike has seen this film or not. I would choose to bet that he has.

Yes, rather unlikely that Mike has not seen L&M. But it's quite common for public figures to claim that they haven't seen a movie, read a book, listened to an album, etc, in order to avoid answering questions concerning their thoughts about said project, although in this case for some reason Mike felt compelled to make a comment about the film.

[CenturyDeprived]

This online PR managing for Mike is a fools errand....

If there's one good thing that maybe, just maybe, could come about from this... it's that maybe word gets back to Mike that COMPLETELY dismissing Melinda is a no-no.

I noticed in this interview that Mike backtracked on his own previous wishy-washy "probably" notion that he not too long ago was spouting (regarding if Landy went too far)... in this interview, Mike says "Landy was, in fact, over-reaching.”

Nice to know that Mike finally considers it overreaching that Landy tried to reap huge rewards from Brian's will, and that he caused irreparable cognitive issues with Brian. Mike previously got a TON of blowback online for his "probably" comments. Coincidence?

Since Mike's preposterous "probably" has evolved to "in fact"... that's a GOOD thing, of course, that Mike's softer stance on Landy of just months earlier has hardened. Perhaps this is just a matter of chance, but if he says stuff that gets LOTS of blowback online (ie. more than just the usual blowback which is the norm), perhaps an alert goes off which encourages him to backtrack just a bit in a subsequent interview. Maybe he's even got an iPhone app for it.

I predict that in a future interview, Mike might just grit his teeth and allow for Melinda's role to be acknowledged (which will of course be followed by oodles of minimization), but that'll be better relatively speaking than him shutting her out completely.

Negating Melinda's role to null will never, ever be considered acceptable, and the amount of crap he's gonna get for denying Melinda gets ANY credit may not eventually compute as worth it to him, ESPECIALLY when he's trying to garner renewed public sympathy for him not being credited. It's yutz city.

[HeyJude]

Mike's mention of Carl and Stan isn't even germane to the original issue and point of contention for some readers of the article. So it's just another diversion to start incredulously asking "Was Stan mentioned in the film?" It truly doesn't matter. Neither the film nor Mike mentioned EVERY person who played a role, nor should anyone expect either to do so. It's a long list, and I've never seen ANYBODY on those lists try to take ALL of the credit.

The point of contention was the simple, SPECIFIC mention of Melinda saving Brian as being inaccurate.

The point here is not any person or detail that was omitted, but rather that Mike singles out a specific person and, to my interpretation, implies they DID NOT play a role. It shows, to me, a specific modus operandi of singling one person out and diminishing them and their role out of spite.

That all of this was done in the course of a discussion about a film that Mike claims not to have seen only makes the whole thing more ridiculous.

The Stan Love issue is an interesting, though unrelated sidebar. How much DID he really help? Can anybody provide contemporary reports of anyone else in the family or the Beach Boys standing beside Stan during his press conference and supporting Stan? Was it Stan's petition that, functionally, led to freeing Brian? Or was his dropped in favor or someone else's? I know a bunch of this is covered in various books (White, Carlin, etc.). The impression I always got was that Stan was seen by all sides as kind of a weird interloper in the whole situation. Perhaps his high profile press conference (subsequently made more high profile when Brian awkwardly showed up, gave a stilted speech, and was then aggressively served with court papers on camera, etc.) helped shine a light on the whole thing. But is anyone prepared to say that Stan either passively or directly helped Brian MORE than Melinda?

Definitely wish Ray Lawlor could sign on and shine more light on the implications of Mike's comments about Melinda.

[18thofMay]

To summarize for all you late to the scene, No Melinda= No intervention.
 After that fact is absorbed the enormity of her involvement should be understood.

[HeyJude]

Mike seems quite happy to go negative about the L&M film. I think this dismissive comment about Melinda is where two different things he seems to have a grudge about have come together: The film and Melinda.

Back in June, 2015, he again seemed, to me, so anxious to invalidate the L&M film (despite professing to not having seen it) that he had this now infamous exchange:

Q: I also read that Dr. Landy is portrayed as a pretty villainous character. Do you have a comment on that portrayal?

A: The interesting thing to read is on Evan Landy. He is Landy’s son and spent years with Brian in a very intimate way. He has a whole different perspective of Landy and his motivation. Was he [Dr. Landy] overreaching? Probably. Did he cost a lot of money? Hell yeah. Did he want to be producer and the writer and stuff with Brian? Yes, he did. Did he go beyond the bounds of therapy? Probably. But, guess what? He also saved his life. So to read Evan Landy’s dissertation on it is very, very interesting because you get an intimate look at someone who was with Brian everyday for a few years. So it’s a whole different story that came out on Love and Mercy.

There are also a number of, of course, very circumstantial, open-to-interpretation indications that Mike isn't a fan of Melinda. Indeed, he named Melinda specifically (not just Brian and other companies, but also Melinda personally) in his 2005 lawsuit. I'll let the 2010 appeals court characterize the outcome of Mike's action against Melinda:

The court dismissed Melinda Wilson from the suit
with prejudice, as Love had not been given permission to add
her as a defendant, and because the complaint alleged no facts
that would support keeping her in the lawsuit.

There are also interview quotes going back over a decade of Mike portraying people "around" Brian in a negative fashion.

So again, Mike's comments combine apparent, in my opinion, disdain for the film and Melinda into a stew of, well, whatever you want to call that interview comment. I'm surprised he didn't work the songwriting lawsuit into the answer too.

[Debbie KL]

Mike seems quite happy to go negative about the L&M film. I think this dismissive comment about Melinda is where two different things he seems to have a grudge about have come together: The film and Melinda.

Back in June, 2015, he again seemed, to me, so anxious to invalidate the L&M film (despite professing to not having seen it) that he had this now infamous exchange:

Q: I also read that Dr. Landy is portrayed as a pretty villainous character. Do you have a comment on that portrayal?

A: The interesting thing to read is on Evan Landy. He is Landy’s son and spent years with Brian in a very intimate way. He has a whole different perspective of Landy and his motivation. Was he [Dr. Landy] overreaching? Probably. Did he cost a lot of money? Hell yeah. Did he want to be producer and the writer and stuff with Brian? Yes, he did. Did he go beyond the bounds of therapy? Probably. But, guess what? He also saved his life. So to read Evan Landy’s dissertation on it is very, very interesting because you get an intimate look at someone who was with Brian everyday for a few years. So it’s a whole different story that came out on Love and Mercy.

There are also a number of, of course, very circumstantial, open-to-interpretation indications that Mike isn't a fan of Melinda. Indeed, he named Melinda specifically (not just Brian and other companies, but also Melinda personally) in his 2005 lawsuit. I'll let the 2010 appeals court characterize the outcome of Mike's action against Melinda:

The court dismissed Melinda Wilson from the suit
with prejudice, as Love had not been given permission to add
her as a defendant, and because the complaint alleged no facts
that would support keeping her in the lawsuit.

There are also interview quotes going back over a decade of Mike portraying people "around" Brian in a negative fashion.

So again, Mike's comments combine apparent, in my opinion, disdain for the film and Melinda into a stew of, well, whatever you want to call that interview comment. I'm surprised he didn't work the songwriting lawsuit into the answer too.

Well said.

[Emily]

So how is he justified in excluding Melinda from the "Village" when she got the whole suit rolling?

You would need to ask him.  But he may have been suggesting that there was a whole "village."

And a whole part 2 that is not on peoples' radars...

The articles tell me that the legal action was part 2.

Just because I'm a fool I'm going to try this.
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.
FdP, to me, and I think to several others on this thread, this sounds like (due to the wording "That was my brother... Who stepped in") Mike is saying that Melinda did NOT step in; others did. To me, your interpretation would require words like "and". Such as "That Melinda alone saved Brian. It was Melinda AND my brother..." Or, for your timeline, "It was Melinda THEN my brother..."
Though actually Stan did not play a part. His suit turned out to be an irrelevant sideshow.
So it sounds like he's saying Melinda played no part.

[CenturyDeprived]

So how is he justified in excluding Melinda from the "Village" when she got the whole suit rolling?

You would need to ask him.  But he may have been suggesting that there was a whole "village."

And a whole part 2 that is not on peoples' radars...

The articles tell me that the legal action was part 2.

Just because I'm a fool I'm going to try this.
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.
FdP, to me, and I think to several others on this thread, this sounds like (due to the wording "That was my brother... Who stepped in") Mike is saying that Melinda did NOT step in; others did. To me, your interpretation would require words like "and". Such as "That Melinda alone saved Brian. It was Melinda AND my brother..." Or, for your timeline, "It was Melinda THEN my brother..."
Though actually Stan did not play a part. His suit turned out to be an irrelevant sideshow.
So it sounds like he's saying Melinda played no part.

It is impossible to read the article, and to walk away thinking that Mike wants people to give Melinda a single morsel of credit whatsoever.   I think that ultimately, rage is clouding his judgment.  It happens. Rage clouded Murry's judgment. Rage probably clouded Brian's judgment when he punched Mike.  And of course there would be many examples for Dennis as well. The guys are human, and they are not immune to doing and saying very stupid things.

I truly believe Mike deeply wants to say a gigantic f-you to her, and he probably really wishes he could say those exact words publicly, without getting crucified for it. 

But because he can't actually publicly say that, we instead get interviews like this.

[guitarfool2002]

Apart from the grandstanding and making press appearances, can anyone explain exactly what Stan Love did? If he was not next of kin for Brian, what could he even do under the law?

[18thofMay]

Apart from the grandstanding and making press appearances, can anyone explain exactly what Stan Love did? If he was not next of kin for Brian, what could he even do under the law?

I think if you ask around the answer may come.

[Juice Brohnston]

Apart from the grandstanding and making press appearances, can anyone explain exactly what Stan Love did? If he was not next of kin for Brian, what could he even do under the law?

Good question, and in the years between his term as Brian's bodyguard and the press conference, did he have any involvement with the band, or Brian?

It's sort of been revealed in the Rocky thread that the Steve/Stan/Rocky team splintered at one point. Did that mean Steve and Rock were out, while Stan stayed in the circle somehow?

[Bittersweet-Sanity]

I thought it was explained fairly thoroughly in Peter Carlin's book that Stan got involved because Audree called him. She was depressed over not having access to Brian.

I also seem to recall reading somewhere that Carl took over Stan's suit cause he didn't want Stan to be Brian's conservator.

[Debbie KL]

So how is he justified in excluding Melinda from the "Village" when she got the whole suit rolling?

You would need to ask him.  But he may have been suggesting that there was a whole "village."

And a whole part 2 that is not on peoples' radars...

The articles tell me that the legal action was part 2.

Just because I'm a fool I'm going to try this.
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.
FdP, to me, and I think to several others on this thread, this sounds like (due to the wording "That was my brother... Who stepped in") Mike is saying that Melinda did NOT step in; others did. To me, your interpretation would require words like "and". Such as "That Melinda alone saved Brian. It was Melinda AND my brother..." Or, for your timeline, "It was Melinda THEN my brother..."
Though actually Stan did not play a part. His suit turned out to be an irrelevant sideshow.
So it sounds like he's saying Melinda played no part.

That seemed pretty clear to me, as well.  Why do I have a feeling that you'll get the same response as the one I received above?  I personally don't feel the need to give Mike a call to clarify his statement (like I could).  It seemed pretty obvious to me, and apparently the majority of the people here, what he was saying.