Documentary!

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Zenobi]

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

Let me guess: the inclusive guys?

[Zenobi]

Love You, too.

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

Great stuff.

[Zenobi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[guitarfool2002]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Angela Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Robbie Mac]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Zenobi]

What's TWGMTR? 2012 never happened! 

[Angela Jones]

What's TWGMTR? 2012 never happened! 

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rn57]

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

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

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

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

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

Excellent article. Stay for the end:

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rab2591]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[rab2591]

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

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

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

[Zenobi]

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

[Zenobi]

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

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

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

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

[rab2591]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HeyJude]

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

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

[Zenobi]

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

[Robbie Mac]

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

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

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