Subject: Re: Twin Peaks _WILL_ be renewed (but should we be happy?)
From: sl@van-bc.UUCP (Stuart Lynne)
Date: 1990-05-22, 02:17
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

In article <136066@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> lemay@lorelei.Eng.Sun.COM (Laura Lemay - Lone Tech Writer of the Apocalypse) writes:

> >Why?  Why why why why?!?!?  I would **hate** to see Twin Peaks
> >relegated to the oatmeal that the rest of network TV has become.  It
> >is new and fresh -- why does the network insist on watering down
> >everything that is interesting???
> >
> >If David Lynch has any sense, he'll tell ABC to $($* themselves and run
> >over to FOX as fast as he can.  Fox seems like the network that doesn't
> >try and tinker with the creator's vision of thier own shows.

Or better yet .. over to PBS. They positively enjoy and encourage quality
shows with plots that take more than an hour to resolve. Not only that but
you can actually put in close to an hour of plot instead of 45 minutes for
each episode.

I think it was NPR's TV critic who first put me onto Twin Peaks about a week
before the first broadcast by saying "Twin Peaks is the most innovative and
interesting show since The Singing Detective!". High praise indeed. 

Twin Peaks will be very uninteresting if folded, spindled and mutilated into
the standard commercial format. It might survive if they continue to have
the plot spread over several episodes. For example like the PBS Mystery
series.

-- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca ubc-cs!van-bc!sl 604-937-7532(voice) 604-939-4768(fax)