Subject: Re: ny times article From: joe@zitt (Joe Zitt) Date: 1991-05-08, 19:55 Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks fi@grebyn.com (Fiona Oceanstar) writes: > > On a more substantive note, what did y'all think of his notion that > > TV series should become shorter--not run for so many seasons--in order > > to maintain a higher aesthetic standard? I must admit, the prospect of > > "Twin Peaks" succumbing to what was called "the Norman Lear syndrome"-- > > endless spin-offs, endless attempts to milk more money from a dying cow, > > is quite dismal. I agree. I think if one were to take Twin Peaks and re-edit into some sort idealised version, it would have run about thirteen episodes. It looks like the show was only preplanned in any detail up through the WKLP climax; for all the intriguing stuff that's passed since (the whole Lodge business, for example), the show has been a whole lot less taut since WKLP was revealed. Frankly, I don't think the planners had any idea how to continue, other than some idea of the Good/Evil issues. Even Windom Earle feels like an afterthought. Most forms of fiction are finite and shaped. That TV shows tend to go on until they fall over is a peculiarity of the medium, and may well be a bug not a feature. Of course, they could pull a coup in the closer that would reveal that everything was significant, and that the key figure in the whole mess was Evelyn Marsh... but I doubt it. It is happening again. It is happening again. It is happening again. Joe Zitt ...cs.utexas.edu!kvue!zitt!joe (512)450-1916