Subject: Re: SPOILERS Galore
From: xxmartn@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (Jeff Martin)
Date: 1991-06-11, 13:55
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks
Reply-to: xxmartn@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov

In article <1991Jun11.144919.6010@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu>, howie@ivory.cc.columbia.edu (Howie Kaye) writes...
> > 
>> >>  I'm angry that they dropped an extremely interesting plot line (KING ARTHUR 
>> >>  !!) they mentioned it and then *** POOF *** they dropped it.  Maybe 
>> >>  spanning from England to Twin Peaks was too much?  not for me.
>> >>  
>> >>  
> > 
> >No, bringing in a King Arthur plot would have been a lame, unoriginal way of  
> >tying things up.  TP didn't need something like that to make it work.
> > 

I don't think it would have been lame or unoriginal. GRANTED, they probably 
should not devote the entire conflict strictly to Arthurian legend but a more 
than passing mention would have added a little more "depth" or 
"lasting/eternal good/bad struggle" feeling rather than having this whole 
mess restricted to little ole "Twin Peaks".



-----------------

   One word sums up probably the responsibility of any Vice President,
   and that one word is 'to be prepared.'

                            --- Vice President Dan Quayle
-----------------