Documentary!

[Jay]

Mike said something specific regarding his feelings about the SOT sale that I don't think anybody has mentioned yet(I haven't read this whole thread), and I think it kind of gives a glimpse of the full extent of his hurt over all this. In selling off the songs, Murry not only screwed his children, but his children's children. Murry sold their life's work. Their legacy. Their entire identity.

[SMiLE Brian]

Apparently Murray wasted the SOT money on home renovations….

[CenturyDeprived]

Back to Disney; I won’t compare ‘Get Back’ with this documentary in terms of story/narrative/etc. However, I was so impressed with ‘Get Back’ that I had high hopes that a Disney helmed Beach Boys documentary would be created with the same care and attention to detail.

I do think seeing how stunningly high-quality "Get Back" was would reasonably lead any fan of any other band into thinking "Hey, maybe we could get something on par with that!"

As I mentioned before, Irving Azoff being able to just call Bob Iger at Disney and make a sale on a BB doc is such a rarefied, high-level, bigwig sort of move, it's hugely frustrating that Azoff and Iger couldn't look at something like "Get Back" or even the "Beatles Anthology", and *insist* on something on par with that.

With the entertainment industry and in particularly Disney dealing with very difficult financial and business times, I think Bob Iger having the interest, time, or focus to push through an agenda to make this documentary as good as the Beatles documentary was would've been a complete impossibility.

The Beatles film was such a wonderful freak occurrence. 

[Lonely Summer]

Brian at that beach meeting has that look of defeat knowing Mike’s got control over everything….

Brian looks miserable in every photo of video I've seen of him in recent years.

Suggest you check out his Instagram when he was at the Lakers game in April, he looked quite happy then. Especially with everything going on in his life lately, it's nice to see a smile on his face.

I knew I would get this kind of reaction, because to say that Brian looks unhappy implies that his handlers are tormenting him, it's all Melinda's fault, etc.
IMO, Brian is probably in a lot of physical pain these days, and losing his wife isn't going to put a smile on his face, either. But I said what I said, and you can take it anyway you want.

Jeesh man, I wrote “especially with everything going on in his life lately, it’s nice to see a smile on his face.” - as in his horrendous back issues, that he’s now gotta use a walker/wheelchair, that so many of his friends and close associates are dying all around him, his wife dying, etc - ie acknowledging that he HAS looked really down lately.

I was merely saying that if you really hadn’t seen an uplifting picture of him recently that you should check out the Lakers game photo, because “it’s nice to see a smile on his face”. All the best to you, Lonely Summer.

[bossaroo]

Everybody agrees that ML penned the words to California Girls. Did he really write everything he got his name added to in the '94 lawsuit?  I'm skeptical.

good question and as guitarfool pointed out, Mike's original claim of 70 co-writes ultimately became just 35. obviously some songs are much more successful than others which I'm sure is why getting his name on Wouldn't It Be Nice and a few others was so important to him.


I've been meaning to chime in about the documentary, which I haven't yet...
I was prepared to hate the thing but I really didn't. obviously the decision was made to make something well under 2 hours and focus on the early years. I'm sure it's been watched by a lot more people due to the shorter length and I imagine the catalog has recieved a significant bump as a result. this doc also did a fine job of portraying the Beach Boys and Beatles as equals, at least for a time, which is important to public perception. overall I really enjoyed it in spite of myself. it's visually fabulous compared to Endless Harmony which looks more like a Behind The Music episode. lots of footage, photos, and quotes I hadn't seen before. it was sad how little we got to hear from current-day Brian but the new interviews (with Al and Dave especially) are very nice.

sure I'm disappointed by what wasn't included, mainly the panning of everything after GV.
it made a real point of saying how unhip they had become by the late 60s but failed to mention how much respect they regained in the early 70s from the likes of RollingStone (who helped spread the "unhip" sentiment in the first place) and folks like Bob Dylan and the Grateful Dead for the quality of their live performances not to mention experimental albums and the hit Sail On Sailor which REALLY should've been included. I do appreciate the gritty live version of Darlin they used to end the film, great tribute to Carl and a Wild Honey classic.

I also think the director was slyly/slightly critical of Mike throughout. like when they talk about him adopting the "lead singer" persona early in the band's career then cut to some of the most obnoxious footage of him on Long Tall Texan. or when they discuss Brian spending 3 months on Good Vibrations in various studios while Mike couldn't be bothered to come up with any lyrics until the day of the vocal sessions, and follow that with Mike complaining he wasn't also labeled a genius for its success (after earlier pointing out that Brian made hits regardless of the lyricist). as in other documentaries, Mike is his own worst enemy. then he wonders why people have such a negative opinion of him. in Endless Harmony it was, "the Beach Boys meant so much to so many because of the positivity... and that was ME!" and in this one it's "I should've been called a genius too!"


I do believe we'll get a sprawling 6+ hour documentary one day that will be exhaustive and much more complete. hopefully it won't be another 25 years from now

[juggler]

In light of many of the issues raised in the discussion here about the Sea of Tunes controversies, due to their prominence in the documentary, I revisited the topic as discussed in Mike Love's "Good Vibrations" autobiography.  After that review, I think it's important to realize that the Sea of Tunes issues and ML's continuing resentment and regressive views of the Smile era are NOT unrelated phenomena.  The nexus between the two is David Anderle.   In his book, ML alleges that Anderle was high-school buddies Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss. And all of them were friends and business associates with Abe Somer, who Love says that Anderle brought in as the Beach Boys' lawyer.  Love sees Somer as a diabolical character who, with an assist from Anderle, basically ripped the BBs off to enrich his buddies and other clients, Alpert and Moss.  (In fairness, ML makes a valid point that there's a basic breach of ethics to be representing both sides of a transaction without disclosing his conflict of interest).  At the same time, in ML's mind at least, there's no daylight between Anderle and the Smile era.  They're one and the same.... all one giant fiasco that resulted in Michael Edward Love being ripped off.

[Zenobi]

Back to Disney; I won’t compare ‘Get Back’ with this documentary in terms of story/narrative/etc. However, I was so impressed with ‘Get Back’ that I had high hopes that a Disney helmed Beach Boys documentary would be created with the same care and attention to detail.

I do think seeing how stunningly high-quality "Get Back" was would reasonably lead any fan of any other band into thinking "Hey, maybe we could get something on par with that!"

As I mentioned before, Irving Azoff being able to just call Bob Iger at Disney and make a sale on a BB doc is such a rarefied, high-level, bigwig sort of move, it's hugely frustrating that Azoff and Iger couldn't look at something like "Get Back" or even the "Beatles Anthology", and *insist* on something on par with that.

With the entertainment industry and in particularly Disney dealing with very difficult financial and business times, I think Bob Iger having the interest, time, or focus to push through an agenda to make this documentary as good as the Beatles documentary was would've been a complete impossibility.

The Beatles film was such a wonderful freak occurrence. 

That freak occurrence has a name: Sir Peter Jackson. He has the Midas touch.

[CenturyDeprived]

Back to Disney; I won’t compare ‘Get Back’ with this documentary in terms of story/narrative/etc. However, I was so impressed with ‘Get Back’ that I had high hopes that a Disney helmed Beach Boys documentary would be created with the same care and attention to detail.

I do think seeing how stunningly high-quality "Get Back" was would reasonably lead any fan of any other band into thinking "Hey, maybe we could get something on par with that!"

As I mentioned before, Irving Azoff being able to just call Bob Iger at Disney and make a sale on a BB doc is such a rarefied, high-level, bigwig sort of move, it's hugely frustrating that Azoff and Iger couldn't look at something like "Get Back" or even the "Beatles Anthology", and *insist* on something on par with that.

With the entertainment industry and in particularly Disney dealing with very difficult financial and business times, I think Bob Iger having the interest, time, or focus to push through an agenda to make this documentary as good as the Beatles documentary was would've been a complete impossibility.

The Beatles film was such a wonderful freak occurrence. 

That freak occurrence has a name: Sir Peter Jackson. He has the Midas touch.

And Peter Jackson is amazing! But also it was the perfect storm of everything lighning up right for that film to get made/released in the form that it did and timing is everything.

[HeyJude]

Mike said something specific regarding his feelings about the SOT sale that I don't think anybody has mentioned yet(I haven't read this whole thread), and I think it kind of gives a glimpse of the full extent of his hurt over all this. In selling off the songs, Murry not only screwed his children, but his children's children. Murry sold their life's work. Their legacy. Their entire identity.

As someone who has learned to empathize with Mike on the issue to some degree, I don't weight this very heavily.

If Murry hadn't sold the catalog, I'm guessing all the owners would have sold the rights themselves by now, as Brian and Mike (and BRI) have spent recent years cashing out various catalogs/ownership.

And, if the idea is people were screwed financially, well, I think there's *plenty* of money for everybody involved that was ever going to get any sort of inheritance or get money kicked down to them in one form or another.

The Marilyn lawsuit from a year two ago against Brian attempting to account for various royalties owed in their divorce settlement gave some harder numbers than we've seen on some of that stuff, and Marilyn has made MILLIONS, like TENS of millions. So all the children of these members have multiple parents that could kick them down plenty of money if they so chose.

None of this minimizes that Murry's move was both an obviously short-sighted business move, but also filled with a weird level of animus and contempt.

[HeyJude]

Everybody agrees that ML penned the words to California Girls. Did he really write everything he got his name added to in the '94 lawsuit?  I'm skeptical.

Tony Asher has said that ML's addition to the "Wouldn't It Be Nice" credits is a joke.  Adding "good night, sleep tight" (hardly an original rhyme) to the outro during the vocal sessions shouldn't have merited songwriting credit.    George and Ringo both commented many times that they added various lines to Beatles songs credited solely to  Lennon-McCartney. Did they sue?

I can understand, I guess, how the "Sea of Tunes" issues are interesting to scholars of the band, but I really don't think they're as interesting to casual viewers of Disney documentaries as Mike Love and Frank Marshall apparently do.  As I mentioned earlier in the thread, even I, a hardcore fan, have never lost a minute of sleep over the fact that Brian, Mike and their various wives and ex-wives aren't even richer than they are because Herb Alpert and Jerry Moss allegedly ate their lunch, courtesy of Murry's antics.  

When I saw Marilyn in the doc incredulously lamenting that Murry unloaded SoT to AlMo in 1969 for $700,000, chump change, right?  But the erstwhile corporate finance student in me is thinking.... "Hmmm, $700k in 1969, invested in the S&P 500... average annual return since then of 10.5%... in 2024: $169 million... not terrible.

While I have said I empathize with Mike and the idea that he views the songwriting issue as an "original sin", I certainly don't think it should be ignored that getting the f**k over it after he won the lawsuit and got everything rectified is a concept that is also worth suggesting to Mike.

I think we have to accept how Mike feels about it. But that doesn't mean we're all going to agree it's *reasonable* for him to still be upset about it. Accepting how he feels about it and working within that framework is not the same thing as finding it reasonable.

Having said all of that, I don't think any of Mike's songwriting claims have been refuted with the exception of some questions about the nature of giving a credit to Mike for the ending couplet on WIBN. I haven't read any claims from Brian or others that Mike is making up having co-written some portion of the songs he eventually won on. (I have a recollection, as another post above suggested, that there was a *larger* list of initial claims that got whittled down, but I'd have to look all of that up again). But on the songs he was granted co-authorship on, I don't think there's any major claims that he didn't co-write those.

Also, as has been pointed out in old threads over the years, just because he got his name added doesn't mean he got 50% of the royalties. I suspect on some of those, it's more like Brian writing all the music, and the lyrics being co-written by both, even if all the songs just say "Words & Music by...." So I think it's possible if not probable that Mike isn't collecting 50% of the royalties on those songs.

[Jay]

I keep seeing vague hints at, and downright insinuations, that Mike has no right to bitch and moan about being ripped off at this point, because his children and grandchildren are multimillionaires. You aren't getting the point. It's not about money.  I don't care if they're all trillionaires. When Murry sold their life's work and legacy he may as well have stuck in a needle and drawn out each of their blood.

And yes, the rights may well have ended up being sold by now anyway. But guess what? It would have been THEIR CHOICE and right, being the rightful owners.

[HeyJude]

I keep seeing vague hints at, and downright insinuations, that Mike has no right to bitch and moan about being ripped off at this point, because his children and grandchildren are multimillionaires. You aren't getting the point. It's not about money.  I don't care if they're all trillionaires. When Murry sold their life's work and legacy he may as well have stuck in a needle and drawn out each of their blood.

And yes, the rights may well have ended up being sold by now anyway. But guess what? It would have been THEIR CHOICE and right, being the rightful owners.

Yeah, I've made like 97 posts about this subject and have been very clear about having a LOT of empathy for Mike. I've further gone on to try to explain to people WHY Mike is still aggrieved and disgruntled, etc. about it even 30 years after it was rectified in his favor. I'm the only person who has been trying to point people to that idea of Mike viewing it as an "original sin" as mentioned in the Surf's Up podcast.

I think Mike has a right to feel however he wants to, and to say whatever he wants, complain about whatever he wants, etc. AND, I think it's very important to understand that "original sin" idea when trying to figure out why he's STILL complaining about it as if it happened yesterday and he never won the lawsuit.

I, in turn, can weigh in with my *opinion* on the matter. I don't think it's unfair to draw on very common life experience about grudges/vendettas/ill feelings, etc. and ask "At this point, what can be done to correct this and make you feel better about it? What do YOU want at this point?" The answer as best as I can tell is that nothing else can be done, and Mike doesn't want anything other than to continue to complain about it. There are MANY others in his position that WOULD be able to get over it, and the ZILLION dollars everybody made off all this stuff certainly wouldn't hurt that process. None of that is to ignore the OBVIOUS that Mike clearly doesn't care about the money at this point nearly as much as he cares about the fact that he was ripped off.

I think the tragedy of the HEIRS to their estates not having full ownership of the copyrights on their songs is about 37th on the list of tragedies that came out of Murry's actions. I also question much Mike or Brian have been offended by Murry's actions specifically because their kids can't own the songs. I think Mike takes it very personally, and I feel like when he's talking about Murry screwing over future generations, it sounds *to me* like he's talking more about Murry selling the catalog and the "family" missing out on the *value* of it, rather than the sentimental or ethical issues involved.

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

Finally finished the documentary tonight. In broad strokes, I didn't hate it, didn't love it. There definitely needed to be more complete songs... you could palpably feel the film 'lose interest' when a song started playing... and the last 20-30 minutes did feel rushed. Definitely needed some time in the 80s-to-present era and ideally more time with Carl and Dennis. FWIW, I didn't think the selling-of-the-songs subplot was that big of a deal. Overall, solid B/B-, but yeah, it should have been so much better.

[Zenobi]

I think that the main problem with Mike is that everybody, when talking of him, talks only of money, lawsuits, litigations, quarrels, etc. Nobody seems to think of him primarily as an artist.
Not the Mike Haters, obviously.
Not the Mike Lovers.
Not the "neutral" observers.
Not the Beach Boys fans.
Not the other Beach Boys.
And sadly, neither Mike himself (and hence the Stamos travesty).
That's, imho, the real original sin about him.

Some posts above I posted a maybe too long message extolling his artistic accomplishments. No comments by anyone: I'm not complaining, I was expecting exactly that. But a stray joke about say, his having been seen with a glass of beer in hand, may generate pages upon pages.

[Jay]

I think that the main problem with Mike is that everybody, when talking of him, talks only of money, lawsuits, litigations, quarrels, etc. Nobody seems to think of him primarily as an artist.
Not the Mike Haters, obviously.
Not the Mike Lovers.
Not the "neutral" observers.
Not the Beach Boys fans.
Not the other Beach Boys.
And sadly, neither Mike himself (and hence the Stamos travesty).
That's, imho, the real original sin about him.

Some posts above I posted a maybe too long message extolling his artistic accomplishments. No comments by anyone: I'm not complaining, I was expecting exactly that. But a stray joke about say, his having been seen with a glass of beer in hand, may generate pages upon pages.

Excellent point. I can think of a good example of this, regarding his song Ram Raj. I thought it(along with All The Love In Paris) was his best work since the 70's, but all anybody wanted to talk about was a dumb throwaway joke at the end.

[SMiLE Brian]

Mike’s his own worst enemy…

[HeyJude]

Finally finished the documentary tonight. In broad strokes, I didn't hate it, didn't love it. There definitely needed to be more complete songs... you could palpably feel the film 'lose interest' when a song started playing... and the last 20-30 minutes did feel rushed. Definitely needed some time in the 80s-to-present era and ideally more time with Carl and Dennis. FWIW, I didn't think the selling-of-the-songs subplot was that big of a deal. Overall, solid B/B-, but yeah, it should have been so much better.

The last 20-30 minutes of the film is truly strange. It just smells like 87 people had their hands in it, they kept trying to figure out where to stop and how much to cover, and at some point they just gave up, picked an arbitrary cut-off, and then rushed that finish line. Like, how do you sum up everything after "Holland" up into the 90s and beyond in like 60 seconds?

Regarding the songwriting and publishing issues, somehow this film manages to both understate and overstate it at the same time. It doesn't help conflating the selling of the catalog with Murry leaving Mike's name off songs (again, not wholly unrelated, but this film certainly isn't interested in anywhere near that level of nuance to explain THAT).

The whole deal with documentary films, well any films really, is that it has to have some kind of pace and flow. When this film *does* manage to get into "controversial" topics, it doesn't segue in or out of them well at all. It either screeches to a halt for Mike to complain about it with little other context from others, or it's so comically vague (e.g. the 90s lawsuits) that it defeats the purpose. Like, if you're not going to do the bare minimum to explain these things and provide a decent amount of context, then why bother?

This film has in some circles been called a whitewash. But it's messier than that. A whitewash would at least feel like a more clean, concise film. This is like a brown-wash. They start relatively streamlined, but then all the colors start being added at random intervals, and we're left with brown. Not happy or clean enough to be a whitewashed EPK, but not detailed enough to explain any of the sad/controversial/contentious stuff. So you're just left with not a lot of information, but a slightly icky feeling because they still bring up Murry and Manson and vague allusions to lawsuits.

[SMiLE Brian]

Selling the messy history is hard to 21st century people.

[MyDrKnowsItKeepsMeCalm]

Finally finished the documentary tonight. In broad strokes, I didn't hate it, didn't love it. There definitely needed to be more complete songs... you could palpably feel the film 'lose interest' when a song started playing... and the last 20-30 minutes did feel rushed. Definitely needed some time in the 80s-to-present era and ideally more time with Carl and Dennis. FWIW, I didn't think the selling-of-the-songs subplot was that big of a deal. Overall, solid B/B-, but yeah, it should have been so much better.

The last 20-30 minutes of the film is truly strange. It just smells like 87 people had their hands in it, they kept trying to figure out where to stop and how much to cover, and at some point they just gave up, picked an arbitrary cut-off, and then rushed that finish line. Like, how do you sum up everything after "Holland" up into the 90s and beyond in like 60 seconds?

Regarding the songwriting and publishing issues, somehow this film manages to both understate and overstate it at the same time. It doesn't help conflating the selling of the catalog with Murry leaving Mike's name off songs (again, not wholly unrelated, but this film certainly isn't interested in anywhere near that level of nuance to explain THAT).

The whole deal with documentary films, well any films really, is that it has to have some kind of pace and flow. When this film *does* manage to get into "controversial" topics, it doesn't segue in or out of them well at all. It either screeches to a halt for Mike to complain about it with little other context from others, or it's so comically vague (e.g. the 90s lawsuits) that it defeats the purpose. Like, if you're not going to do the bare minimum to explain these things and provide a decent amount of context, then why bother?

This film has in some circles been called a whitewash. But it's messier than that. A whitewash would at least feel like a more clean, concise film. This is like a brown-wash. They start relatively streamlined, but then all the colors start being added at random intervals, and we're left with brown. Not happy or clean enough to be a whitewashed EPK, but not detailed enough to explain any of the sad/controversial/contentious stuff. So you're just left with not a lot of information, but a slightly icky feeling because they still bring up Murry and Manson and vague allusions to lawsuits.

Yep yep. All this.

I tried to imagine what a non-fan or casual fan would think of the last few minutes. "The Beach Boys did really big concerts in the 1970s! And kept doing really big concerts forever! And Mike and Brian don't speak to each other for some reason. Oh wait, all the guys are still together, here they are at the beach! Oh wait, some of them died! Kokomo!"

Even like another 5-10 minutes covering the last few decades (and jeez guys, let's at least budget 20 seconds for Brian's big Smile comeback) could have made that coherent, and could have made the Mike/Brian relationship even more interesting/thought-provoking/dramatic, teasing out how they were kind of the yin and the yang of the group through all its ups and downs and various incarnations. As you say, it felt like at the end the film just gave up.

[Zenobi]

Finally finished the documentary tonight. In broad strokes, I didn't hate it, didn't love it. There definitely needed to be more complete songs... you could palpably feel the film 'lose interest' when a song started playing... and the last 20-30 minutes did feel rushed. Definitely needed some time in the 80s-to-present era and ideally more time with Carl and Dennis. FWIW, I didn't think the selling-of-the-songs subplot was that big of a deal. Overall, solid B/B-, but yeah, it should have been so much better.

The last 20-30 minutes of the film is truly strange. It just smells like 87 people had their hands in it, they kept trying to figure out where to stop and how much to cover, and at some point they just gave up, picked an arbitrary cut-off, and then rushed that finish line. Like, how do you sum up everything after "Holland" up into the 90s and beyond in like 60 seconds?

Regarding the songwriting and publishing issues, somehow this film manages to both understate and overstate it at the same time. It doesn't help conflating the selling of the catalog with Murry leaving Mike's name off songs (again, not wholly unrelated, but this film certainly isn't interested in anywhere near that level of nuance to explain THAT).

The whole deal with documentary films, well any films really, is that it has to have some kind of pace and flow. When this film *does* manage to get into "controversial" topics, it doesn't segue in or out of them well at all. It either screeches to a halt for Mike to complain about it with little other context from others, or it's so comically vague (e.g. the 90s lawsuits) that it defeats the purpose. Like, if you're not going to do the bare minimum to explain these things and provide a decent amount of context, then why bother?

This film has in some circles been called a whitewash. But it's messier than that. A whitewash would at least feel like a more clean, concise film. This is like a brown-wash. They start relatively streamlined, but then all the colors start being added at random intervals, and we're left with brown. Not happy or clean enough to be a whitewashed EPK, but not detailed enough to explain any of the sad/controversial/contentious stuff. So you're just left with not a lot of information, but a slightly icky feeling because they still bring up Murry and Manson and vague allusions to lawsuits.

Yep yep. All this.

I tried to imagine what a non-fan or casual fan would think of the last few minutes. "The Beach Boys did really big concerts in the 1970s! And kept doing really big concerts forever! And Mike and Brian don't speak to each other for some reason. Oh wait, all the guys are still together, here they are at the beach! Oh wait, some of them died! Kokomo!"

Even like another 5-10 minutes covering the last few decades (and jeez guys, let's at least budget 20 seconds for Brian's big Smile comeback) could have made that coherent, and could have made the Mike/Brian relationship even more interesting/thought-provoking/dramatic, teasing out how they were kind of the yin and the yang of the group through all its ups and downs and various incarnations. As you say, it felt like at the end the film just gave up.

The documentary undersells the Beach Boys as a band, and undersells every single member of the band.

It undersells the band because it presents them just as the "sun in the fun" (switched words intended) guys heralding the California Dream.
I am Italian, and to say it bluntly I could not care less about the California Dream. We have plenty sun, beaches, girls and cars in Italy, but we never had anything remotely comparable to the Boys. So, why are they my favourite band (and, for the chronicle, my 2nd is not the Beatles, but the MOODY BLUES)? Because they make fantastic music, superbly performed by six exceptional singers, with great instrumental tracks.
There is so much more about the Boys than California, and in 2024 that SHOULD be highlighted. Otherwise, what are we waiting for? Year 4000?

About the single members...
Brian is still depicted as the once-talented but crazy guy who fried himself and went to bed. No "redemption arc", no reclaiming of SMiLE, no long solo career.
Dennis and Carl as essential creative forces in the post-1967 period follow the lamentable plight of the corresponding albums.
Al is so undersold that he is obviously disgruntled about the documentary.
Even Mike is undersold, and I wrote a long post about that. If one was convinced at start that Mike is just a troublemaker with very little talent but a great penchant for blowing his "few" accomplishments beyond measure, I doubt the documentary will do very much to modify that opinion.
Heck, they undersold Bruce, too.

But, of course, they found the time to talk of Manson, among other things. Sigh.

[Zenobi]

This is from 1977. Maybe off-topic, but maybe not as an example of why I think the Boys are undersold.

https://youtu.be/BS1QyOH-PNY

This always gets a big smile out of me.

[Jay]

Finally finished the documentary tonight. In broad strokes, I didn't hate it, didn't love it. There definitely needed to be more complete songs... you could palpably feel the film 'lose interest' when a song started playing... and the last 20-30 minutes did feel rushed. Definitely needed some time in the 80s-to-present era and ideally more time with Carl and Dennis. FWIW, I didn't think the selling-of-the-songs subplot was that big of a deal. Overall, solid B/B-, but yeah, it should have been so much better.

The last 20-30 minutes of the film is truly strange. It just smells like 87 people had their hands in it, they kept trying to figure out where to stop and how much to cover, and at some point they just gave up, picked an arbitrary cut-off, and then rushed that finish line. Like, how do you sum up everything after "Holland" up into the 90s and beyond in like 60 seconds?

Regarding the songwriting and publishing issues, somehow this film manages to both understate and overstate it at the same time. It doesn't help conflating the selling of the catalog with Murry leaving Mike's name off songs (again, not wholly unrelated, but this film certainly isn't interested in anywhere near that level of nuance to explain THAT).

The whole deal with documentary films, well any films really, is that it has to have some kind of pace and flow. When this film *does* manage to get into "controversial" topics, it doesn't segue in or out of them well at all. It either screeches to a halt for Mike to complain about it with little other context from others, or it's so comically vague (e.g. the 90s lawsuits) that it defeats the purpose. Like, if you're not going to do the bare minimum to explain these things and provide a decent amount of context, then why bother?

This film has in some circles been called a whitewash. But it's messier than that. A whitewash would at least feel like a more clean, concise film. This is like a brown-wash. They start relatively streamlined, but then all the colors start being added at random intervals, and we're left with brown. Not happy or clean enough to be a whitewashed EPK, but not detailed enough to explain any of the sad/controversial/contentious stuff. So you're just left with not a lot of information, but a slightly icky feeling because they still bring up Murry and Manson and vague allusions to lawsuits.

It really feels like funding was cut, and they had 24 hours to figure out how to end it.

[CosmicDancer]

While I totally agree that Mike would be best served to just leave well enough alone and move on from the songwriting credit/stolen $$ thing, I also feel as if I somewhat understand why he keeps it up, at least from a psychological standpoint.  I think Mike has a tremendous ego (shocking, right?) as most artists do to some extent.  I'm not saying that makes him a bad person, just that it exists.  I think that alongside any financial loss, the loss or non-existence of respect due to the incredible success of songs he co-wrote (I do believe that he indeed wrote those songs) not being credited to him is a massive deal to Mike.  All of the group has had to deal with 60+ years of the narrative that "Brian is the one true genius of the band and the rest of you underlings were only there by his grace and really weren't necessary".  That is an extreme telling of the narrative, but not that far off from the way some view it.  Now, I'm not making the case that any of the other members of the Beach Boys are equal to Brian, but they certainly weren't bit players either and I think that Mike in particular takes the well worn narrative personally.  The fact that his name is listed on the credits of every one of their #1 singles and countless other big hits and classic songs is a big deal for him that he feels validates him and his artistry. I just think he wants to be taken more seriously and uses the songwriting as his vehicle for that. Has he done plenty of other things over the decades that has made it all the more difficult to take him seriously? Absolutely.  Should he leave it alone and accept the credit and money he received via the lawsuit as his validation?  Maybe, but if legacy is important to you and your ego, that is difficult. Does his continued fixation on it do him any favors?  No.  The history books have already been written and public opinion is pretty solidified at this point. He's not doing himself any favors.  I guess the point of this post that is as pointless as Mike still arguing for validation is that I don't think he really has any chance in healing his image, but I also totally understand why he continues to fight the fight for artistic credit that he deserves, at least in my opinion.

[HeyJude]

Empathy isn't only about agreeing with someone else's feelings, it's about simply understanding them.

BB fans have been very empathetic and sympathetic towards Brian, and overall I think this has always been a great attribute of fans. I think it has occasionally led to fans being overly forgiving of flaws and/or needing to create something to sort of extract sympathy from as a consequence. But overall, I've always found it poignant that fans have that level of empathy.

To understand something like Mike's songwriting credits gripe, you need to sort of use a more intellectual type of empathy. You don't have to agree with his demeanor, or the volume of his complaints, in order to understand by putting yourself in his shoes, and perhaps drawing on things that someone has done to you that hurt you, in order to empathize with and understand why Mike is still upset about it, and always will be.

Check my zillion posts, I've said many, many times, especially over the last decade or so where it has seemingly gotten more pronounced, that it seems puzzling that Mike is still THAT upset about something that was rectified in his favor in 1994, and that in some cases it has seemed he has become MORE angry/upset about it over the last decade or so. And, I stand by the idea that it's valid to stop and point out that "getting over it", especially after the issue was FIXED as much as it possibly can be, is maybe a better/healthier path and that when people still rant about such things, it can in turn hurt others around them.

Having said all that, while I can't really like "approve" of Mike's continued anger about the issue in the present day (not that anybody needs my approval obviously), and I think his sometimes nasty interview comments are open to criticism, I think in more recent years I've come to UNDERSTAND it better from an intellectual standpoint, which in turn allows me to not rail against the griping as much.

Most of us have some friend or relative that will NEVER get over something, and I think there's a point where people have to accept that, whether they think the person is justified or not.

[Zenobi]

While I totally agree that Mike would be best served to just leave well enough alone and move on from the songwriting credit/stolen $$ thing, I also feel as if I somewhat understand why he keeps it up, at least from a psychological standpoint.  I think Mike has a tremendous ego (shocking, right?) as most artists do to some extent.  I'm not saying that makes him a bad person, just that it exists.  I think that alongside any financial loss, the loss or non-existence of respect due to the incredible success of songs he co-wrote (I do believe that he indeed wrote those songs) not being credited to him is a massive deal to Mike.  All of the group has had to deal with 60+ years of the narrative that "Brian is the one true genius of the band and the rest of you underlings were only there by his grace and really weren't necessary".  That is an extreme telling of the narrative, but not that far off from the way some view it.  Now, I'm not making the case that any of the other members of the Beach Boys are equal to Brian, but they certainly weren't bit players either and I think that Mike in particular takes the well worn narrative personally.  The fact that his name is listed on the credits of every one of their #1 singles and countless other big hits and classic songs is a big deal for him that he feels validates him and his artistry. I just think he wants to be taken more seriously and uses the songwriting as his vehicle for that. Has he done plenty of other things over the decades that has made it all the more difficult to take him seriously? Absolutely.  Should he leave it alone and accept the credit and money he received via the lawsuit as his validation?  Maybe, but if legacy is important to you and your ego, that is difficult. Does his continued fixation on it do him any favors?  No.  The history books have already been written and public opinion is pretty solidified at this point. He's not doing himself any favors.  I guess the point of this post that is as pointless as Mike still arguing for validation is that I don't think he really has any chance in healing his image, but I also totally understand why he continues to fight the fight for artistic credit that he deserves, at least in my opinion.

I agree with this very balanced assessment. I still think that it's a pity that he can't "let go", particularly for his own sake, but it's what it is.
But, imho, it's still more a pity that he looks, paradoxically, INSECURE.
Borrowing from a friend of mine, he's waging a lifelong war to get CREDIT for his accomplishments, but he himself does not feel enough PRIDE for them.
It seems that he's really proud only of his #1 hits, and much less of the rest of his impressive work.
I am sure that if Smiley Smile, thanks to some miracle, had shot to become  #1 album, and Gettin' Hungry to #1 single, Mike would LOVE them and would always play Smiley in his concerts.
The same for the great albums in 1967-1977.
He should tell himself: "Mike, you are great. You are a legend, and nobody will take that away. You do not need to prove anything to anyone. And you are much more than just your greatest hits."
I know, often he acts like he thought exactly this. But... does he really believe it? I doubt.