Subject: Re: Later Episodes? was Debating Ratings) From: giovin@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) Date: 1991-09-02, 14:40 Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks In article <1991Sep2.024505.1124@ulkyvx.bitnet> cksvih01@ulkyvx.bitnet writes: > >In article , barb@zurich.ai.mit.edu (Barb Miller) writes: >> >> In article giovin@risky.ecs.umass.edu (Rocky J Giovinazzo) writes: >> >> >> >>In article cksvih01@ulkyvx.bitnet writes: >> >> >They should have ended the >> >> >series after Leland's death, the quality of the late episodes wasn't up to >> >> >the earlier snuff. >> >> That's your opinion and it's wrong! :) You forgot to write "IMHO"-- >> >> the idea that TP should have ended here is probably not the consensus >> >> of this group. > >I'm trying to cut down on traffic, so let me respond to Rocky's comment even > >though this is Barb's post. First of all, of course it was my opinion, but > >that goes without saying, doesn't it? Umm. Did you miss my smiley face? Of course it was your opinion. > >Secondly, I have never liked the > >tendency of American TV to drag shows out long after their vitality has been > >dissipated. Leland's death made a logical stopping point for the show - in > >terms of the story and in terms of the apparent decline in the creative juices > >of the writers. There were some diverting moments in the post-Leland era - > >Annie was a nice character, for example - but there was a lot of sludge as well. I sort of think of the pre and post-dead Leland episodes almost as 2 different shows. What's the difference between altering the characters and plot of an established show and starting from scratch? It's not always true that a new show will have even the vitality of a show with "sludge." Anyway, the point of wanting to drag out Twin Peaks is the fact that _we_, the audience, know that we may never see anything like Twin Peaks on television again and might as well take what we can now. > >I could go on. So much of what happened in the later episodes was unoriginal. > >The dialogue wasn't nearly as sharp and the repetitive use of some of the > >earlier motifs began to approach self-parody: BOB began popping up so often > >he began to resemble a homicidal Waldo, and they really ran the backwards > >talk into the ground in the season ender. Before Leland died, BOB appeared in Coop's dreams. Then we saw him in the railroad scene. We saw him posses Leland, scare Maddy, and kill Maddy. After Leland died, am I mistaken or did we only see BOB when Josie died and then in the Black Lodge? If you didn't like BOB's appearances, then maybe the show should have ended even before Leland's death (according to your logic). > >They painted themselves into a > >corner with the Black Lodge plotline and Windom Earle was about as scary > >as my Aunt Martha. The most compelling moments in the show (my list > >includes Laura in the train car, Maddie's murder, and Leland's death) involved > >the death or murder of major characters. Wait a minute... you just said BOB appeared too often, yet the "compelling moments" were ALL BOB scenes. I agree with you about Windom Earle however. There were some good scenes like the chaos going on when WE was going crazy with his computer while Leo and the major were drugged and making weird noises & faces. I did like the Black Lodge plotline and was completely shocked to actually _see_ the Black Lodge in the end. Rocky Giovinazzo