ViceFanMan Posted April 28, 2021 Report Share Posted April 28, 2021 15 minutes ago, RedDragon86 said: 1-3 they knew what they were doing, and to write. They must have borrowed the wacky "Quantum Leap" writers for season 4. I like that show but some of the episodes in season 4 felt like you watching QL at times. 3 was still pretty good...but they made some changes that didn’t go over as well as they’d hoped. I remember Quantum Leap, I’ve seen a few episodes back when it was on, but I was never really that much of a fan and didn’t watch that much of it. With Seasons 4-5 on MV, they just started getting as wild or bizarre as they possibly could to try and desperately get back the ratings and viewers any way they could. Sadly, this all backfired and had the opposite results. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolfie1996 Posted April 28, 2021 Report Share Posted April 28, 2021 2 hours ago, ViceFanMan said: I might, as I’m going through the show again...but I’m usually doing something else & not really paying that much attention. I’ve seen it enough times before. The episode I skip all together is “Missing Hours”...sadly I’ve seen it enough times before, too. Can only agree..... 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlemFan Posted April 29, 2021 Report Share Posted April 29, 2021 Very strong performances by Dennehy et al in this one. Bizarre and indulgent but has a lot to offer, including the ambiguity of Proverb's works. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdiegolo78 Posted April 29, 2021 Report Share Posted April 29, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, FlemFan said: Very strong performances by Dennehy et al in this one. Bizarre and indulgent but has a lot to offer, including the ambiguity of Proverb's works. Love his monologue at the beginning! One of the best intros ever. They should have used B.Dennehy more throughout the series. Edited April 29, 2021 by sdiegolo78 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 10, 2021 Report Share Posted July 10, 2021 (edited) I'm sorry, but this episode was stupid! The plot and how it was carried out/executed was pathetic and ridiculous. Interesting guest-stars...from Brian Dennehy, Anita Morris (who will always be the evil witch Jezebel in Dolly Parton's TV Movie A Smoky Mountain Christmas to me ), James Tolkan (who will always be the jerk principal in Back to the Future to me), a young Ben Stiller, etc... There also were a few more pastels again with Crockett and Tubbs' clothes. But, despite the star power (or a few pastel shirts), this one was a turd...and no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. This episode seems to take a stab at the "fakiness", misleading, and somewhat fraudulent aspects of many TV evangelists (though not all). It's very reminiscent of the whole Jimmy Swaggart and Jim & Tammy Fae Bakker scandals--with prostitutes, drugs, fraud, etc... However, this episode I believe was right before those real-life scandals were exposed. Overall, I'm not sure what the point of the plot and episode is really supposed to be? The acting was bizarre and pretty bad (although I think the guest-stars did what the script called for...so maybe we should blame the writers), there was hardly any action, and I hate episodes where one of the main characters is blamed for a crime and the episode is spent trying to clear them. This one was just kind of all over the place with no real purpose, and left you going...what?? I'm sorry, but I originally gave this little butt-nugget of an episode a 3. Still do. Edited July 10, 2021 by ViceFanMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedDragon86 Posted July 10, 2021 Report Share Posted July 10, 2021 (edited) 10 hours ago, ViceFanMan said: I'm sorry, but this episode was stupid! The plot and how it was carried out/executed was pathetic and ridiculous. Interesting guest-stars...from Brian Dennehy, Anita Morris (who will always be the evil witch Jezebel in Dolly Parton's TV Movie A Smoky Mountain Christmas to me ), James Tolkan (who will always be the jerk principal in Back to the Future to me), a young Ben Stiller, etc... There also were a few more pastels again with Crockett and Tubbs' clothes. But, despite the star power (or a few pastel shirts), this one was a turd...and no matter how hard you try, you can't polish a turd. This episode seems to take a stab at the "fakiness", misleading, and somewhat fraudulent aspects of many TV evangelists (though not all). It's very reminiscent of the whole Jimmy Swaggart and Jim & Tammy Fae Bakker scandals--with prostitutes, drugs, fraud, etc... However, this episode I believe was right before those real-life scandals were exposed. Overall, I'm not sure what the point of the plot and episode is really supposed to be? The acting was bizarre and pretty bad (although I think the guest-stars did what the script called for...so maybe we should blame the writers), there was hardly any action, and I hate episodes where one of the main characters is blamed for a crime and the episode is spent trying to clear them. This one was just kind of all over the place with no real purpose, and left you going...what?? I'm sorry, but I originally gave this little butt-nugget of an episode a 3. Still do. It's truly horrible. The televangelist wife, omg she was terrible. That scene when she was acting all upset in the interrogation room at the beginning was shockingly bad. The only good thing about this was Jan's theme for the episode. Edited July 10, 2021 by RedDragon86 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pahonu Posted July 10, 2021 Report Share Posted July 10, 2021 (edited) 45 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said: This episode seems to take a stab at the "fakiness", misleading, and somewhat fraudulent aspects of many TV evangelists (though not all). It's very reminiscent of the whole Jimmy Swaggart and Jim & Tammy Fae Bakker scandals--with prostitutes, drugs, fraud, etc... However, this episode I believe was right before those real-life scandals were exposed. Overall, I'm not sure what the point of the plot and episode is really supposed to be? This definitely aired before Swaggart made his crying mea culpa but I believe James Bakker had resigned earlier in the year. Both men were definitely under investigation by the authorities already, including the IRS for Bakker. He literally kept two sets of books like the mob! I think, however, the episode’s plot has more to do with Swaggart and another evangelist named Marvin Gorman a few years earlier. The two had a downright feud going on for several years. It’s a fascinating, almost unbelievable, story if you want to look it up. They really went after each other and it really seems like the inspiration here. Some of the character’s behaviors in the episode pale in comparison to the real actions of those two men. I don’t seem to dislike this episode as much as you but it is quite convoluted. The hypocrisy of it all was a draw to many I think, and it was absolutely topical at the time. Edit: I was interested in the details and just looked it up myself. Here are a couple of paragraphs from Wikipedia a copied. They actually call it a feud! Feud with Marvin GormanEdit Swaggart's first exposure was in retaliation for an incident in 1986 when he exposed fellow Assemblies of God minister Marvin Gorman, whom he accused of having several affairs. Once he was exposed, Gorman was defrocked from the Assemblies of God, and his ministry was all but ended. Gorman filed a successful lawsuit against Swaggart for defamation and conspiracy to ruin his reputation… However, as a retaliatory measure, Gorman hired his son Randy and son-in-law Garland Bilbo to watch the Travel Inn on Airline Highway in Metairie, near New Orleans. A camera with a telephoto lens was placed in the window of the motel's Room 12, and draped with a black cloth. When Swaggart arrived, he reportedly went into Room 7. Randy Gorman and Garland Bilbo let the air out of the tires on Swaggart's vehicle. They called Marvin Gorman, whose church was located nearby. Randy Gorman and Garland Bilbo had taken photos of Swaggart outside Room 7 with Debra Murphree, a local prostitute. Gorman arrived at the Travel Inn a short while later and confronted Swaggart, although on details accounts from both sides differed. Edited July 10, 2021 by pahonu 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 10, 2021 Report Share Posted July 10, 2021 1 minute ago, pahonu said: This definitely aired before Swaggart made his crying mea culpa but I believe James Bakker had resigned earlier in the year. Both men were definitely under investigation by the authorities already, including the IRS for Bakker. He literally kept two sets of books like the mob! I think, however, the episode’s plot has more to do with Swaggart and another evangelist named Marvin Gorman a few years earlier. The two had a downright feud going on for several years. It’s a fascinating, almost unbelievable, story if you want to look it up. They really went after each other and it really seems like the inspiration here. Some of the character’s behaviors in the episode pale in comparison to the real actions of those two men. I don’t seem to dislike this episode as much as you but it is quite convoluted. The hypocrisy of it all was a draw to many I think, and it was absolutely topical at the time. I guess...but this plot and episode just seemed totally unrelated to MV (other than Proverb’s wife was a junkie). It was just ridiculous & pointless...a definite Season 4 dud! But, that’s just me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pahonu Posted July 10, 2021 Report Share Posted July 10, 2021 (edited) 5 minutes ago, ViceFanMan said: I guess...but this plot and episode just seemed totally unrelated to MV (other than Proverb’s wife was a junkie). It was just ridiculous & pointless...a definite Season 4 dud! But, that’s just me. I just added some details above. The junkie wife was the point of entry to the story in terms of Vice. The attempt to save the ministry and cover it up by framing Tubbs was the central story and the rival evangelists a very topical sub plot. Edited July 10, 2021 by pahonu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted July 10, 2021 Report Share Posted July 10, 2021 49 minutes ago, pahonu said: I just added some details above. The junkie wife was the point of entry to the story in terms of Vice. The attempt to save the ministry and cover it up by framing Tubbs was the central story and the rival evangelists a very topical sub plot. Yeah, the wife being a junkie was a good entry...but, then in my opinion they took the episode into the whole ministry fraud angle, and for MV it just came across ridiculous. By this time “we” were needing some awesome episodes to try and revamp some ratings...and this was the total opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Gretsky Posted September 21, 2021 Report Share Posted September 21, 2021 (edited) Stupid, awful, offensive, lazy. The most unwatchable MV episode? Could be! Makes me yearn to get to "Missing Hours." (One take-home scene: Becker. Great location work and cinematography.) Edited September 21, 2021 by Jack Gretsky 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted September 21, 2021 Report Share Posted September 21, 2021 1 hour ago, Jack Gretsky said: Stupid, awful, offensive, lazy. The most unwatchable MV episode? Could be! Makes me yearn to get to "Missing Hours." (One take-home scene: Becker. Great location work and cinematography.) “Missing Hours” over this?? Uh...No!! “Missing” is the worst episode of the entire show...as well as the art of television itself!! However, I agree that this episode is pretty lazy and awful. Ridiculous & poor plot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpaul1 Posted August 9, 2022 Report Share Posted August 9, 2022 Dennehy, and Tolkan were really great.and i certainly won't forget Anita Morris who was fighting a cancer back then (don't like the fighting word much) and made an amazing play too there are good things and less good into the plot the good it brings a contradictory debate into the religion which shouldn't be exempt of it the flaws, i don't buy the BB Proverb 'i sell my soul to save millions'. no way a good people like Dennehy is supposed to play will sell his soul to the devil. No way. but the rest is very good. an episode full of funny scenes 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted August 9, 2022 Report Share Posted August 9, 2022 (edited) 22 minutes ago, jpaul1 said: Dennehy, and Tolkan were really great.and i certainly won't forget Anita Morris who was fighting a cancer back then (don't like the fighting word much) and made an amazing play too there are good things and less good into the plot the good it brings a contradictory debate into the religion which shouldn't be exempt of it the flaws, i don't buy the BB Proverb 'i sell my soul to save millions'. no way a good people like Dennehy is supposed to play will sell his soul to the devil. No way. but the rest is very good. an episode full of funny scenes Totally my opinion...but, for me the only somewhat interesting aspect to this episode is Anita Morris, and her over-the-top, humorous “dramatic” portrayal of a wife of a fake, scam-artist television so-called preacher. She was a fake & scam artist herself, but, to me she’ll always be ‘Jezebel’...the evil (somewhat humorous) witch in the 1986 TV movie A Smoky Mountain Christmas. Ironically, Jezebel is known as possibly the most corrupt & destructive/evil woman in the Bible. But, Anita was a talented & humorous actress...sadly she succumbed to her fight with ovarian cancer in 1994. But, other than her performance, I can barely stand this episode. But, my opinion...that’s just me. Edited August 9, 2022 by ViceFanMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpaul1 Posted August 9, 2022 Report Share Posted August 9, 2022 i don't see her as a jezebel. we don't really know who was jezebel, what she exactly did, and in which context. but i stop it there not to become too religion speaking. i see her role more as a junkie. a junkie that has enough money to purchase good make up, but still a plain good ol' junkie. so yeah she lives into the lie, but just because she wants her dope. And she does a really good acting performance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted August 9, 2022 Report Share Posted August 9, 2022 4 hours ago, jpaul1 said: i don't see her as a jezebel. we don't really know who was jezebel, what she exactly did, and in which context. but i stop it there not to become too religion speaking. i see her role more as a junkie. a junkie that has enough money to purchase good make up, but still a plain good ol' junkie. so yeah she lives into the lie, but just because she wants her dope. And she does a really good acting performance Jezebel used lies to get what she wanted, and caused corruption of all kinds, and destruction of others. That was Anita’s character name (on purpose I’m sure ) in “Smoky Mountain Christmas”, as that’s what she was like in that, too. I just found the irony in both ‘characters’ (not Anita in real life ). Definitely good & humorous acting job on MV! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon48 Posted January 11, 2023 Report Share Posted January 11, 2023 (edited) I found this episode to be a little below average. My main problem was the complete lack of closure. We never find out what happened with Leona's drug case, and more importantly, we never find out what happened with Tubb's rape allegations. We do find out in the next episode, "Death and the Lady," that Tubbs has been reinstated as a detective on active duty, so presumably he was never charged, and Internal Affairs backed off, but c'mon, that had to be dealt with here. There was a little too much going on here. I was glancing at previous posts, and see that a number of writers got involved, which explains the unnecessary (IMHO) tangents. Side note: In the scene on Crockett's boat, Sonny is drinking beer for a bottle. I can't get a good screenshot, but it appears to me to be a Lowenbrau. I'm not a drinker, but I've got a good long-term memory. Take a look. Did I get the label right? Edited January 11, 2023 by dragon48 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie C. Posted January 11, 2023 Report Share Posted January 11, 2023 That or Coors were the beers of choice, and since it's a green bottle with the silver foil I'd say you were correct. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadrian Posted January 11, 2023 Report Share Posted January 11, 2023 (edited) I’m no beerologist, but most of the attributes suggest Lowenbrau, although not completely. There are many beer bottles in MV where the label is altered slightly (to avoid infringements, I guess?). This is maybe one of them. Sometimes the Budweiser logos just say “Beer”. Then again sometimes alcohol labels are blatantly authentic in some scenes… Now I want a beer. Thanks a lot. Edited January 11, 2023 by Dadrian 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViceFanMan Posted January 11, 2023 Report Share Posted January 11, 2023 (edited) 33 minutes ago, Dadrian said: I’m no beerologist, but most of the attributes suggest Lowenbrau, although not completely. There are many beer bottles in MV where the label is altered slightly (to avoid infringements, I guess?). This is maybe one of them. Sometimes the Budweiser logos just say “Beer”. Then again sometimes alcohol labels are blatantly authentic in some scenes… Now I want a beer. Thanks a lot. Yeah, there’s some shows or movies where it’s clearly a Budweiser or Coors beer, but the name & label are altered some (usually just saying “beer”). I’m sure it’s because they don’t have legal permission to showcase or use their product—although in my opinion you’d think the beer companies would like the free advertisement or promotion, especially if it was a popular or iconic show like MV! Advertising for companies isn’t cheap. What they pay to have just one commercial during the Super Bowl is beyond stupid! Edited January 11, 2023 by ViceFanMan 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbie C. Posted January 11, 2023 Report Share Posted January 11, 2023 (edited) They may have altered the label, but the foil top wrapping was pretty unique to Lowenbrau at that time (as was the green bottle). Back in the '80s you just didn't have the variety you do now. There may have also been some regulatory things about product placement when it came to alcohol. TV can be funny that way. Edited January 11, 2023 by Robbie C. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pahonu Posted January 11, 2023 Report Share Posted January 11, 2023 8 hours ago, ViceFanMan said: Yeah, there’s some shows or movies where it’s clearly a Budweiser or Coors beer, but the name & label are altered some (usually just saying “beer”). I’m sure it’s because they don’t have legal permission to showcase or use their product—although in my opinion you’d think the beer companies would like the free advertisement or promotion, especially if it was a popular or iconic show like MV! Advertising for companies isn’t cheap. What they pay to have just one commercial during the Super Bowl is beyond stupid! TV shows and films are/were different in this respect. By the 70’s, company’s were paying for product placements in films. On of the earliest and most obvious that I recall was in a James Bond film, Moonraker or The Spy Who Loved Me, if I recall correctly. Bond opens up a drawer while searching for something and an envelope with British Airways is prominently shown. Television was very different. There were no laws against showing a product but producers were very aggressive about showing none, to keep future advertising revenues open. To use the beer example. If a popular character is clearly drinking a prominently displayed Coors during a scene, Budweiser wouldn’t buy ad space during that show. Why would they pay for it when their competition is being highlighted for free? This has relaxed a lot today, but was very much the norm in the past. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedDragon86 Posted January 11, 2023 Report Share Posted January 11, 2023 It is Lowenbrau in "Death and the Lady" Lowenbrau was the choice of beer in "To Live and Die in LA" as well. Sonny drinks it in "Phil the Shill" also. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragon48 Posted January 11, 2023 Report Share Posted January 11, 2023 4 hours ago, RedDragon86 said: It is Lowenbrau in "Death and the Lady" Lowenbrau was the choice of beer in "To Live and Die in LA" as well. Sonny drinks it in "Phil the Shill" also. I got my crappy image by pausing my laptop's VLC player and using the built in Windows snipping tool. How do you get your good pictures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedDragon86 Posted January 11, 2023 Report Share Posted January 11, 2023 15 minutes ago, dragon48 said: I got my crappy image by pausing my laptop's VLC player and using the built in Windows snipping tool. How do you get your good pictures? I put blu-rays in my laptop and screenshot them 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.