tbaangel-d Digest Volume 97 : Issue 64 Today's Topics: Re: Historical TBAA Re: Historical TBAA I want to see re: Re: Historical TBAA I want to see John on PL (minor rant) Civil War Daydreams and Ponytails Androoling Comment by Michael Medved Re: John on PL (minor rant, support) Re: Historical TBAA I want to see Re: Historical TBAA I want to see Quick Admin reminder: Me too's Re: John on PL (minor rant) RE: John on PL (minor rant) Re: John on PL (minor rant, support) Andrew Re: Andrew settings Where's the wild feed? Della on ET tonight? Della on ET (Entertainment Tonight) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 13:16:18 +0000 From: "Ray Simard" To: TBAAngel @ . .addy.com Subject: Re: Historical TBAA Hmm... I'm a bit leery of this one. While slavery and related issues were certainly the primary drivers of the attempt by the South to secede and the resulting Civil War, nonetheless there was, and still is, a distinct, unique culture in the South. At the time the Civil War was being prosecuted there were, in no small measure, nationalistic as well as ideological motivations for the leaders and armies of the South, and even, to some extent, the North as well. Unique forms of art, music, customs and other traits of a cultural unit exist in the South today. This is not an anti-American, neo-secessionist attitude, nor necessarily racist, beyond a certain number of misguided souls. But the vestiges of that certain loyalty to Old Dixie, though subordinate to loyalty to the United States, still remain. If an episode of TBAA were to delve into that time and portray the South as morally beneath the North, I think there would be a tremendous alienation in the South, not because of a vestigial love of slavery, but because of culture and geography and a visceral sense of having been personally attacked. It would have to be handled very, very delicately. The moral wrong of slavery itself, of course, could and would be confronted directly and unequivocally. But the association between slavery and the motives of the South, however apparent to us today, would have to be minimized. If a very strong, conscious and careful effort were made to construct the show to deal with slavery itself and with the often tormenting experiences of human individuals on either side following what they thought was right, often against friends and even family, to show the horror of war in general and the divisiveness of this one in particular (Andrew could become a very powerful presence in that part, but as the Angel of Death concerned with the deaths on both sides), include the fact that quite a few of the plantation owners in the South at that time morally opposed slavery and did not keep slaves, show the courage of the members of the Underground Railroad and other, similar efforts, point out the many black soldiers who fought for the North and were never properly recognized and, in general, avoid any blanket condemnations, then the show could be very powerful and most likely acceptable to all. One thing Andrew might do here is to appear at events where rabble-rousers are inciting crowds into frenzies of the sort that led to the kindling of the war, showing how what begins as anger and ideologically-driven emotion evolves so easily into war and death. I am not saying this in defense of anything that has happened or is happening today, and there is much of both that is reprehensible, nor am I at all sympathetic to the motives of the South that led to the Civil War. I am only pointing out that viewers are people with their own ideas and personal loyalties and it would be tragic for TBAA to become shunned and vilified by a large part of its audience because the attempt to address one kind of issue has backfired by inadvertently stirring up an entirely separate one. It could be done, but it would be a very demanding and delicate project. -- Ray Simard rsimard @ . .addy.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 16:27:54 -0400 (EDT) From: AMarsh8597 @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Re: Historical TBAA I want to see As to what the angels might be wearing and who's side they'd be on, I see them in the "putting on the full armor of God....with the belt of truth,.......breastplate of righteousness,.......and with your feet fitted with readiness,.....shield of faith, .....helmet of salvation,....and sword of the Spirit. (Eph.6:12-17) :) O:) "Miss Wings" O:) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 97 17:36:40 EDT From: "Michael Miller" To: Subject: re: Re: Historical TBAA I want to see AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ************************************************************* Only the individual sender is responsible for the content of this message, and the message does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the National Education Association or NEA Member Benefits. ************************************************************* ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 19:25:00 -0500 (CDT) From: gryphon @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: John on PL (minor rant) On Wed, 7 May 1997, Tina Goin wrote: > On a slightly different note - as I watched PL this week, the whole >time I was trying to figure out who Andrew was there for. His fans. I didn't want to be the first to say this, but Andrew's part was so obviously superfluous to the plotline that I'd strongly suspect they wrote him into a pre-existing story just to sucker TBAA/Andrew fans into watching PL again. OK, you've been warned. Here I go. I wish they'd just admit that some of us who really like TBAA simply aren't attracted to PL, and no amount of token guest appearances by John, Della, and Roma will change that. I'm told this episode was one of PL's better ones, and it was so heavy-handed I got very annoyed before it was over. From the stereotypical "selfish rich guy" (ignores his wife, neglects his kids, drives recklessly, racist, obnoxious, etc, etc-- the only thing they left out was his kicking a puppy or evicting a widow.) to the "love interest" who just *happens* to have lost a family member in the most spectacular public disaster in recent history (and was coughing up blood off-camera, but could hold extended conversations shortly thereafter?) to... Well, I don't want to incite the PL fans on this list, but I found it very predictable, poorly written, and very disappointing. And as I said, after the build up CBS gave John's guest spot, his whole role just had a "slapped in at the last minute" feel to it. Just as one example, when Andrew got out of the car at the accident site, he asked, "How can I help?" And do we find out? Is there *any* indication he did *anything*? No, the next thing we see is his "sudden" appearance in the hospital to talk to Dinah. I wonder what the rich guy thought of this man who shows up, offers to help, and then disappears as soon as they get to the hospital, if not sooner? I also agree with what someone else said yesterday: Andrew seems to have showed up, thereby terrifying Dinah, so he could reassure her that she didn't have to be afraid. 'Scuse me? This is supposed to make *sense*? Diane E # "Hydrogen. A light, colorless, odorless gas which, given # # enough time, turns into people." _The Astronomers_ # # D Echelbarger gryphon @ . .addy.com # # WWW HomePage: . # ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 08 May 1997 20:25:43 -0500 From: Jenna Mead To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Civil War Daydreams and Ponytails Hello all, SarahB1 wrote: > Regarding the question as to whether Andrew would wear Confederatre > grey in a Civil War episode...since God doesn't take sides, Andrew > probably wouldn't either, so I see him in a nice civilian outfit of > the period. Probably beige! :-) Works for me. I agree that since God doesn't take side, Andrew could be a Confederate, it's not like he'd be there to back-up a pro-slavery position or anything. Maybe Monica could be working S&R on the Union side and that's why they never meet. But why would we need to have a flashback or historical episode...??? We need to put our creative juices to work on that. Diana Seals-Hopkins wrote: > As for the ponytail .... well it's better than cutting those beautiful locks. True!!!!! The hair down and hat on looked great for those outdoor scenes, just make sure it's off for the angel-glow scenes. It was hard to even tell the angel-glow (I think it was there) in the PL scene with Dinah at the end. Not like the really nice angel-glow from the rape episode! :-) No JD on the Cosby/ET segment. Not even in the background. :( Bummer. Judging from the ep previews, I doubt we'll be seeing him much this weekend. Sunday's ep looks like it'll be a pretty full house with all the guest angels, and that won't leave much screen-time for our regulars, especially third on the list... Well, maybe we'll all be pleasantly surprised. Take care, Jenna ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 22:29:32 -0400 (EDT) From: GoPack111 @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Androoling \ / \____/ <-------got my bucket! ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 19:30:13 +0000 From: "Ray Simard" To: TBAAngel @ . .addy.com Subject: Comment by Michael Medved I enjoyed this and I thought you might like to see it. It's from an interview with film critic Michael Medved, who is also a strong advocate of higher values and very critical of film and TV as they are. The interview was printed in the San Diego Union-Tribune; I don't know who the questioner was or when it occurred. Here is one of the questions: Q. "What is it with Hollywood and religion?" A. "This is a sickness, frankly. This is the most profoundly religious country in the West. Every once in a while you have a phenomenon that comes along like 'Touched by an Angel' that shows the American people, when given a chance, will respond to entertainment fare that affirms the more traditional religious values." Thanks for the good word, Mike! (Anyone interested in the full interview, just drop me an note and I'll pass it on.) -- Ray Simard rsimard @ . .addy.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 19:27:04 -0700 (MST) From: Dorothy E Tinkler To: tbaa Subject: Re: John on PL (minor rant, support) Dearest Diane and everyone: Rock on, or should I say rant on!! I totally agree with everything you said!! I would like to add that it seems that this particular family has had more that it's share of angel encounters. On TBAA we are supposed to believe that angels appear at the cross roads in peoples lives, and help them to choose the right path. The Greenes are meeting up with them on a regular basis. I think that having the angels appear on PL cheapens them and their appearances. I also agree that the producers are obviously trying to get more people to watch (and rightly so), but is the show doing so poorly that this kind of popularity spreading (sorry what do you call it when they put popular actors from one show on another to boost the ratings?) necessary? By the way did it work? How were the ratings? Dorothy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 23:42:53 -0400 (EDT) From: AmilynH @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Re: Historical TBAA I want to see Someone wrote: >>Hmmm... Convincing Pickett not to charge up that hill? (That would put >>Andrew in Confederate uniform.) Kevin Ashman replied >I think that was actually Lee's idea (Maybe not). If Longstreet couldn't talk >him out of it, Andrew wouldn't stand a chance. I think it might be interesting to see the "something" just be what seems very mundane to us. They might easily be there to prevent someone from deserting (and then regretting it the rest of his life), or to prevent someone from killing a friend whom he could avoid killing, or to help someone not lose their faith as a result of the carnage they witness. I've always gotten the impression that big historical events are things that either the angels stay out of or that another department altogether handles. Actually, the first idea 2 paragraphs up sounds more like a Quantum Leap episode. :-) Did anyone see the 4th season episode, "It's a Wonderful Leap"? I keep thinking it seems like a hint of TBAA; there's a lady Sam meets who claims she's an angel, and who can see Al. Neither of them believe her until the very end when she knows Sam's real name....and tells him she came for him, not for the guy he had leaped into. I've been saying for a while now that TBAA is basically just like QL except that instead of "putting right what once went wrong", TBAA is "putting right what might go wrong". :-) Bright Blessings, Amilyn ---- I could confuse them to death; you know I could do that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 23:46:06 -0400 (EDT) From: AmilynH @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Re: Historical TBAA I want to see In a message dated 97-05-08 13:02:25 EDT, Sarah writes: >Andrew >probably wouldn't either, so I see him in a nice civilian outfit of >the period. Probably beige! :-) Or Red Cross (to be....Clara hadn't quite gotten official chapters started yet then, had she?). That would be more neutral, and being a doctor would give him best access to the wounded to do A.O.D. duties. Amilyn ---- I could confuse them to death; you know I could do that. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 23:46:14 -0400 (EDT) From: Finabair @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Quick Admin reminder: Me too's I just saw two me-too posts in the past day. Let me remind you all that posting a note simply to agree with something someone said is not allowed. You need to be adding some new opinion, information or insight to post. Otherwise you can just send a quick note privately to the sender if you particularly want to respond. The reason this is important is that as the list gets larger the signal-to-noise ratio needs to be as good as possible to get the most useful discussion possible with a minimum of clogged systems and full mailboxes. Although I have to say, neither one quoted extensively when they made their statements so at least they made them as short as possible. :-) But that still needs to be avoided if at all possible. :-) Take care, Jennie (who *loves* the Philly area...there are already leaves! And all the flowering azaleas and dogwoods...*sigh*) ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 21:39:24 +0000 From: "Ray Simard" To: TBAAngel @ . .addy.com Subject: Re: John on PL (minor rant) On 8 May 97 at 19:25, tbaangel @ . .addy.com wrote: > From: gryphon @ . .addy.com > > ... [comments about last PL snipped for brevity] > Diane E Those points are quite well-taken, but my reaction was quite different. Maybe it's some kind of inner choice of mine to deliberately overlook flaws such as these when watching these two particular shows. As an acting student I should probably learn to be more critical, but when it comes to TBAA and PL I tend to put that on hold. There's enough out there to study and criticize, so maybe in this case I just don't want to see the flaws. A personal quirk, I guess. I'll get into the last PL in the PL group, but one thing that occurs to me: For both TBAA and PL, there is one particular kind of intrinsic and unavoidable predictability. These are shows that, in the end, are about God's love for us and all He's created, and that love is constant and therefore, in a certain sense, predictable, even if its manifestations often aren't. As an example, we can look at Carl, the rapist in last Sunday's episode. As Diane put it very well in another post: >IMHO, TBAA is at its best when it does this. Takes a theme or story >that has practically become a TV cliche (violent criminal let out of >prison by an uncaring system to prey on innocent victims again) and >stands it on its head. The average viewer would find that treatment very unusual. But God never gives up on anyone, and that means the kind of ending we saw is the only kind that would make sense. Without trying to elicit sympathy or understate the great damage his crimes had caused and the rightful consequences he would have to face because of them, it showed that God can love even the likes of him. That's something you don't see very often on TV, and even less in real life. -- Ray Simard rsimard @ . .addy.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 23:01:15 -0700 From: Kevin Brown To: "tbaangel @ . .addy.com" , "'gryphon @ . .addy.com'" Subject: RE: John on PL (minor rant) MSG.dns.addy.com> > From: gryphon @ . .addy.com[SMTP:gryphon @ . .addy.com] > > And as I said, after the build up CBS gave John's guest spot, his > whole > > role just had a "slapped in at the last minute" feel to it. Just as > one > > example, when Andrew got out of the car at the accident site, he > asked, > > "How can I help?" Agreed. When he asked, my wife and I in unison screamed "GO AWAY!" as his answer ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 02:45:26 -0400 (EDT) From: IDyeForYou @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Re: John on PL (minor rant, support) In a message dated 97-05-09 00:01:16 EDT, tbaangel @ . .addy.com writes: << I think that having the angels appear on PL cheapens them and their appearances. I also agree that the producers are obviously trying to get more people to watch (and rightly so), but is the show doing so poorly that this kind of popularity spreading (sorry what do you call it when they put popular actors from one show on another to boost the ratings?) necessary? By the way did it work? How were the ratings? >> If I get the chance...I intend to find out John's feelings on this issue... As for the ratings...the ones for this week won't be out till next week..but I do know that the only times PL has broken the top 20 has been during angel appearances. The only time aside from angel appearances that PL even made a mark at all was in it's one time in the Saturday slot - so time will tell. Susan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 08:17:46 -0400 (EDT) From: Kevin To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Andrew I just want you all to know that I am sitting here smugly and will not say anything about Andrew on PL; except maybe I TOLD YOU SO! This is the second line so Jennie won't get mad at me :) Kevin IWAAOTRTICH ============================================ Kevin D. Ashman Phone: BEEP! Department of Chemistry Fax: BEEP! .addy. e-mail: kda1 @ . .addy.edu .addy. .addy. .addy. *** The opera ghost really existed. - G.L. *** ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 08:41:07 -0400 (EDT) From: IDyeForYou @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Re: Andrew In a message dated 97-05-09 08:19:00 EDT, you write: << I just want you all to know that I am sitting here smugly and will not say anything about Andrew on PL; except maybe I TOLD YOU SO! >> Glad this makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, Kevin Sigh, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 07:24:13 -0700 From: dazzlin @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: settings set tbaangel digest ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 12:43:57 -0600 (MDT) From: stitcher @ . .addy.com (Mary Pat Owens) To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Where's the wild feed? Hi, Just new to the list and enjoying all the posts. Question, is there anyone else out there watching with a big satellite dish like me? If so have you found a current wild feed for TBAA or PL lately? G4-21 at 1:20am EDT on Friday doesn't work anymore. Never found one for PL so far. I know it's out there somewhere but where? Thanks Pat Owens Stitchers @ . .ABQ home page Phone 1-800-410-4514 Email Stitched Together Needlework 12500 Montgomery NE Albuquerque, NM 87111 ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 16:10:22 -0400 (EDT) From: DelanySis1 @ . .addy.com To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Della on ET tonight? My local radio station just played a ET commercial that said Della was going to be on tonight's show. Anyone else hear this? Guess I'll have to check it out! Sue ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 9 May 1997 15:28:00 -0500 (CDT) From: Darla Bradley To: tbaangel @ . .addy.com Subject: Della on ET (Entertainment Tonight) Sue wrote: >My local radio station just played a ET commercial that said Della was going >to be on tonight's show. Anyone else hear this? Guess I'll have to check it >out! > I've never watched ET. Can anyone tell me when it's on (Central Daylight Time), and what channel? (Major network affiliate) Thanks, Darla :) -------------------------------- End of tbaangel-d Digest V97 Issue #64 **************************************