Twin Peaks Usenet Archive


Subject: Re: ABC Did Not Kill Twin Peaks
From: webb@CS.CMU.EDU (Jon Webb)
Date: 1991-05-15, 05:38
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

In article <74096988E0002EBE@UMAECS>, GIOVIN%PRIAM@ecs.umass.edu (Rocky
Giovinazzo) writes:
|> 	Are you saying that the "hiatus" around Christmas was because
|> new shows weren't ready to be aired?  I don't think that this is the
|> case,
|> but if it were, re-runs could certainly have been aired instead of
|> Ghostbusters.  If anything, audiences could be better maintained by 
|> showing re-runs than by waiting 6 weeks to show a new episode.

Traditionally, TV shows take some time off around Christmas and reruns
are aired.  With Twin Peaks, re-running previous shows doesn't make
sense for two reasons.  First, the show is serial, with each show
depending strongly on the previous; airing shows out of order would have
confused a lot of people.  Second, the entire first season has already
been rerun just prior to the start of the second season -- so rerunning
it once again seems excessive.

If Twin Peaks were in its third season, say, then rerunning part of the
first season, in sequence, might make sense if some of the plot threads
could have been brought to a satisfactory close in that time.  But it
doesn't make much sense to show the first season for the third time in
two years, or repeat shows from the second season only a few months
later.

-- J


Return