Subject: Re: More premiere comments
From: c2h5oh@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (Idealistic Bibliomystic)
Date: 1990-10-02, 18:50
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

In article <1990Oct1.180306.33779@eagle.wesleyan.edu> lmiller@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
> >
> >The two characters who really captured my attention this time out were Leland
> >and Donna.  Leland's hair...well, I'm sure you understand.  And I loved Donna's
> >devil woman routine, but I can't agree with the several posters who think that
> >Laura's spirit has possessed her.  Sure, she's "becoming" Laura, but I think
> >it's intentional.  Think of the expression on her face when she put on the
> >sunglasses - it all kinds of reminds me of the transfer of command in the movie
> >"Heathers".  (Yes, I know, totally different, it's just an analogy. 
> >Overshadowed friend greedily trying on the limelight of sin, etc.)  

The phrase "there's a new sherrif in town" certainly ran through MY
mind. I think it's going to back-fire though...James was obviously *not*
thrilled. I think he likes Donna as an innocent; I also thought she
was doing a pretty lousy job of it (being Laura). Maybe I just like her 
as an innocent myself. ;-)

> >BTW, I've stubbornly pegged Donna as the killer since the beginning, for
> >ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD REASON, I admit it.  Does anyone who's analyzed every
> >episode five times know a good reason why she DIDN'T do it?  I'm genuinely
> >curious.
> >-Laura

Well sheesh Laura, if you don't know, who does? ;-)

Donna certainly seems extremely reluctant to tell anyone the truth
about anything. And she has one (or possibly two) of the classic
murder motives. I wonder how much alibi checking has been done?
I don't remember hearing anything much abou it.
-- c2h5oh@ucscb.ucsc.edu | "And they all got rich without working, which | is very wrong; but the dragon had never been | to school, as you have, so he knew no better."