6. The Monkees After 1968 -- They're Gone! 

Well, not just Bob but Bert too. I think Bert might have seen how attached Bob was to the Monkees project. He'd lived with it since 1962 when he first had the idea. So perhaps Bert knew that the film had to destroy the Monkees as a commercially viable project in order for Bob to sever the apron strings.

Why? They were so successful

Because Bert and Bob had other plans. They produced Easy Rider, Bob directed Five Easy Pieces, etc. In order for them to be taken seriously as creators of serious films they had to cut any connection to the Monkees, seen as a silly TV show for kids and not legitimate by the music industry. I believe the idea was to make enough money off of the Monkees (and they made a ton) so that they could finance Easy Rider, which they did. Nesmith and Peter have recently said that they realize now the plan was to destroy them as a commercial entity. But at the time? They were clueless.

This really pisses me off

Oh that's funny, Ken! Exactly the problem.

Is your book still in print? I'd love to read the Monkees' entry.

Bert & Bob didn't set out to make a film that would be savaged by the critics. They thought they were making a movie for the art house crowd and therefore to impress serious film makers that they were one of them. Rafelson has said they knew it wouldn't make much money. That was the plan. Because what Head could not be was a money maker, a hit, because then they'd have to make another movie with the Monkees. The Monkees had to be destroyed as a money making project. So a film not aimed at attracting the fans, and if they did see it, would be turned off. And Columbia financed Head, but Easy Rider was financed, a good chunk of it, by the proceeds B&B amassed off the hard work of the Monkees.

Yes, true in the later ads. But the initial ads were Bert and Bob's doing not the studios. That was their plan for the marketing. Michael in recent times has stated that they thought the film would be a tremendous success and the first of many. And he also has admitted, as has Peter, that they now understand B&B were out to destroy them.

Monkee Mythbusters Yes, I've heard Peter say that recently. Interesting stuff!

Not for nothing, but the Monkees get the last laugh over B&B. A very funny film was born, with great music. Nothing could be done to "remove" The Monkees from our culture. They are still in our hearts, almost 52 years on.

Who is bob rafelson? 😎

@@johngrauman4208 Bob Rafelson is the producer who had the original idea for The Monkees telvision series. Along with Bert Schneider, created RayBert productions. He went on the produce and direct films.

Well no. The belief that the Monkees were all for Head destroying the Monkees so they could move on is the myth I'm busting here. Here's a more recent quote from Nesmith: “We thought that this was the beginning of our film career,” said Mike Nesmith in 1989, “and that this was really going to be a tremendous hit movie. Boy, did we get that one wrong.” (source: Total Control: The Monkees Michael Nesmith Story). And even more recently Nesmith has admitted that it looks like B&B used Head to ensure the Monkees were no longer a commercially viable entity. Again it's clear the Monkees had no idea they were about to be left in a desert without a drop of water to drink, metaphorically speaking.

I meant to say HEAD was a perfect exit out of the TV show style. I didn't realize the Monkees were expecting a film career. Thanks for pointing that out. It's a shame that it didn't happen as the Monkees are quite talented and Mike Nesmith became a leader in video production later on. I for one thought HEAD was a good movie. They were taking a big risk releasing it aimed at older teenagers and not the Monkees core audience, but then I guess the 1960's was an era where anything was possible and it could just as easily have been a big hit.

Interesting take on that

Then again, if the Monkees did go on to have a career in film, would it have been any more successful than what the Beatles did? Of course The Beatles had "A Hard Day's Night" and "Help," but after those, none of the individual Beatles had success in film. Anything any of them did was a flop such as "Caveman" with Ringo Starr, and "Give My Regards To Broadstreet" with Paul McCartney. Recording artists who have been successful in making music don't cross the bridge to being successful in film. The Who's Roger Daltry had a bit of a success in "Tommy" but then bombed in "Lisztomania." I read a review of the movie "Crossroads" in which Britney Spears acted, and though the critic said that Spears has acting potential, the movie stank to high heaven.

Good point. Musicians just don't seem to get a movie career going any more after they've been successful in the music industry. The days of conquering both worlds are long gone. You've have to go back to Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra and Dean Martin to see a successful transition and the last singer to have success as an actor would be Elvis.

You're missing the point, Mark. I know all about what they did in 1969 NOW. I'm an ORIGINAL fan. I didn't buy the HEAD soundtrack, Instant Replay, Monkees Present, several of the singles because I didn't know they existed. Yes, I saw 33 1/3 and said "what the hell is this? This isn't the Monkees." And yes, I saw them perform in Toronto in 1969 and said, "What the hell is this? This isn't the Monkees." But most of my friends, after the HEAD disaster, had NO interest at all. None. They thought of them as no talent, flash in the pans, because their film had tanked and they didn't go on to GREAT, VISIBLE solo careers. As for the conspiracy bit? The conspiracy was all Bert and Bob's. Just before the premiere of Head Micky asked the producers what was next for the Monkees. He got a cold shoulder, because it had been planned, long planned to make Head the last thing they'd do with the guys. It took awhile, but Micky finally got that. And Bert stated that Head was supposed to destroy the Monkees. Peter believes that "destroy" meant more than their bubblegum image. Michael has expressed the same thought. No, this wasn't the plot to The Producers; the bad reviews were not part of their plan. It was more like, "let's make a film that will turn off the fans" so the film won't be monetarily successful and that way we can walk away. This is pretty much accepted by the inner circle so what's your problem?

Monkee Mythbusters : I didn't think that the clip would focus so much on Head being calculated to "destroy" the image as I thought it would be about the group's activity after 1968. I think it is also the delivery of the narrator (is that you?) sounding SO serious. Either way, like Peter has stated, The Monkees were kind of predetermined to always only have a half life. I think they were going to burn out soon even without Head. I am a big fan, by the way. They weren't really interested in recording together anymore anyway so how could that have helped? Their vision of Headquarters was grand but short lived.

One point to make in the producers obvious deceit is no singles were released from the album Headquarters. This would have promoted and given legitimacy to the band. The producers did not want them to have legitimacy

@@monkeemythbusters3279 As I say elsewhere, this was the perfect film for them to make. They were complicit in the "destruction", as it was a means for them to sever them from the manufactured image so they could go on to pursue things that were truer to who they were as artists/performers. On the deeper levels, success isn't based on how popular you are, how many fans you have, how many records (or whatever) you sell, but what your truth is. That's what they sought. That's what they eventually got in a wider sense, finally winning some long overdue respect and recognition. (Btw, there were some great reviews of the film at the time of the film's release, which is somehow always overlooked, and even better reviews and commentaries about it made in later years. The fact that something "bombs" often has nothing to do with the quality, the value of something. Good work is often misunderstood and underappreciated when it first appears. Quality isn't a popularity contest. Quality is that which withstands the passage of time, which leaves a mark. (Recent screening of the film in LA was wonderfully received by a packed audience/received standing ovations.