The Supernatural, Silva and the Season 2 Problem

[FrightNight]

@ Eater of Iguanas (mostly)

Well, to scetch my position or fan pedigree, if you prefer: I'm practically a life-long TP addict, seeing it for the 1st time back in '91 (I was 10-11 years old) when it originally aired in my country. And even though I missed the tight, Laura Palmer mystery-focused storytelling we have up untill E 17 (or 16, according to the official numeration; you've probably noticed that I stick to my own which lists Pilot as E 1 and all other eps accordingly) upon my initial viewing, I was still held in trance by the latter phase of S 2 and wouldn't miss an episode for the world; the fact that it "concluded" the way it has, ie. without the proper (or at least intended) ending, has elevated the whole thing to the unreachable artistic levels to me.
I should also mention that I'm a devout horror and all kinds of unconventional cinema fan, so the creepy (S 1) or downright terrifying (S 2) aspects of the show went down like a charm with me (you can imagine what parts with Bob did for my imagination ). Now that I think of it, there's a very clear/simple line along which my preferences for the subplots, story arcs, themes and occurences in the series can be divided: I like practically all of the "heavy", serious stuff (the Lodges and their denizens, the Palmers, Windom Earle, the Renault brothers, Hank Jennings, Leo Johnson, Harold Smith, the Packards and Eckhardt, Marjor Briggs and the Project Blue Book, even James' noir-ish Evelyn Marsh arc) while I don't much care for anything humorous (and S 2 truly brims with it: Little Nicky, Nadine the Superwoman, the Milford brothers and Lana, Andy-Lucy-Dick hodgepodge, Ben Horne's craziness etc.).

I also share your surprise over the generally positive tones with which S 2 is spoken about on this thread, as I was driven mad for a good number of moons with this "scientific" truth - at least that's how the media and various TV/film critics regularly presented it - that everything that came post-S 1 is shit; that view is still heard from time to time, but maybe not so much from the fandom, more from the "professional" side of the cultural landscape (I expect most of it is just lazy warming over of the old stereotypes by the people who didn't even see the show in its entirety, or maybe not ever).

I agree that some aspects of TP do, much as I hate to admit it, look a little dated, but that's just because there's been this enormous progress of the ways TV is made and consumed since TP came out - while most of these changes had been really good quality-wise and I wouldn't have it any other way, I sometimes do miss the earlier, simpler days when something like TP could stand far apart and above everything else that was being produced, like this unreachable beacon. Seriously, I was initially so infected with the virus of TP that for a decade and a half since it was over, I just couldn't bring myself to watch any other show (with the exception of Northern Exposure), as my mind was constantly comparing and degrading it in light of my favourite series (for instance, when I tried to watch Six Feet Under when it was fresh, I went in expecting TP /there were a lot of comparisons made between the two at the time/ and I absolutely hated it so I called it quits after just a few eps; I recently gave it another chance and devoured it in a few months, aghast at how excellent a show it is); thankfully, I gave The Sopranos a chance in 2007 (when the last season was airing, I started to watch it from the beginning and finished it about a year later) and from then on, I've been on this great, endless journey through fantastic televison (The Wire, The Shied etc.). So while I'm extatic at the prospect of the new season of TP (its announcement seemed to me like a dream for the first year and it sometimes still does!), I'm also fretting over what it will do to me as a TV viewer, how it will screw with my mind and viewership so nothing could ever go "back to normal" afterwards

[Eater of Iguanas]

Dammit, FrightNight - there you go screwing up my elegant theory with facts!

"Facts are meaningless. Using facts, you could prove anything that's even remotely true." -Homer Simpson

Not surprisingly, I had the opposite kind of TP hangover - I was so heartbroken over the 2nd season and then the cancellation without a chance at S3 redemption that I didn't watch it again until well into the 2000s, except for the occasional dip into a S1 episode. For years, the sound of the melancholy opening theme was to my ears the sound of lost potential - a blend of nostalgia and bitterness that ached almost unbearably.

For what it's worth, I still know a high percentage of folks who agree with me on S2 among friends and family in the offline world. My little cousin who was a toddler when it first aired can now trade TP-related inside jokes with me, but as far as I know he still hasn't made it to the end of 2. I'll have to tell him, if I haven't, that the finale is worth getting to.

...its announcement seemed to me like a dream for the first year and it sometimes still does!

Amen, comrade!

[bob_wooler]

---
I agree. This was a brilliant scene, with its retro styling, aggressive red colors notorious in TP, sweetness of melody, and the merciless dark turn at the end. Absolutely perfect. This also serves as Maddy's only (if memory serves me right) supernatural warning for what is about to happen to her.
---

She also, earlier, had the experience with the shadow moving over the carpet in the Hayward livingroom (or was it at the Palmers'?). Can't remember which episode.

[StealThisCorn]

Although I personally find the piecemeal mythology which emerged in Twin Peaks to be one of the most fascinating elements of the property that elevates it above most conventional and genre media for me(barring some eye-roll inducing missteps involving Windom Earle and Project Bluebook post-Leland Season 2), I can definitely see where you're coming from here, Eater.

It's interesting to note that most mainstream critics share your assessment of the show's decline, starting around the time shortly after Season 2's premiere in late 1990. And if one reads the old usenet alt.tv.twin peaks boards, web-savvy hardcore fans of the show make no qualms about airing their frustrations with Season 2 almost right from the beginning. The touch of the overtly supernatural is very light in Season 1: mostly a few visions by Sarah Palmer, the ritualistic aspect of the train car crime scene, and Cooper's reliance on his dreams to help solve the crime.

Though Lynch is responsible for the uniquely bizarre imagery of BOB, the Little Man, the Red Room and One-Armed Mike, it's undoubtedly Mark Frost who did his damnedest to take that surrealism and mold it into more conventional fare that appeals to genre fans of occult, supernatural horror and even some science fiction. This is what gives Twin Peaks mythology its weird sense of mish mash and for some fans like myself, we enjoy trying to parse out imagining the in-universe mythos without kidding ourselves that it in any way reflects the real world production processes which created it. Though this board is definitely weighted toward the cult fans of the show.

I do, however, LOVE Frank Silva as BOB. It's not even that he particularly scares me but he just conveys this idea of pure predatory menace. He's also such a great personification of the sense of dread lurking beneath the town. He's definitely misused by non-Lynch directors to be sure, but with Lynch directing I can't get enough of seeing him prowl around and flash his grin. He's a perfect foil to mask the amiable refined evil of Leland and his whole look fits in with Lynch's penchant for somehow conveying the uncanny using utterly pedestrian elements like head to toe denim.

[N. Needleman]

Make no mistake: All the sci-fi mythology in countless genre shows since (X-Files, Lost, you name it) starts with the mytharc Frost and co. hammered out while transmuting Lynch's dream logic to viable text. Is it perfect, maybe not. But I don't think much or any of it got away from Lynch - he and Frost have talked at length about sitting down and working a lot of this stuff out together as it happened, and we know Lynch worked with Bob Engels on much the same stuff that did not end up in the final film of FWWM. I think if most of that aired today we'd see it as par for the course of every other show that's been made in the intervening 25 years, but especially the last 16. And I have no doubt we'll see even deeper dives into it in both the book and the upcoming series.

I had no problem with the Project Blue Book, etc. linkages because it was made clear that all of that was about the government trying and failing to understand the unknowable mysteries within Twin Peaks, within the forest, and that everything was going to go back to Lynch's art. The expository dialogue could talk a good game but in the end it came down to the dreamer going back into the dream, all impulse, emotion, sensation and experience. There may be a pulp sci-fi architecture, but it's still leading you into the same place - the two halves of the whole suit each other.

[Rudagger]

I've often found the best way to really see throw any clouds of nostalgia or personal interest in regard to media is to sit and watch it with someone who has never seen it before.

A friend of mine had just finished Season 1, and we sat and watched the Season 2 premiere, and even at that point she was asking "Why is everyone acting .. so weird?". They really hit you over the head with slap stick pretty quick, and even the episodes that Lynch/Frost were directly involved with did this.

I've found that Dugpa is a bit more generous to Season 2, as a Lynch focused site would tend to be, wheras when I see Twin Peaks talk on more mainstream sites the consensus is mostly "Yeah, it's great .. but Season 2 gets really bad, but, the finale is worth it". And I don't disagree at all, I think it's a pretty necessary pitch when selling the show, as we're in the Golden Age of TV, and someone is pretty likely to drop the show midway through Season 2 when you have so many great, currently running shows vying for your time.

And I generally agree with almost all your issues; BOB was never scary to me, Kenneth Welsh plays a weak and silly villain, and a ton of the subplots are subpar. Yes, Harold Smith is pretty dull and it's almost insultingly bad with Nick/Evelyn/Milford and some later season 2 stuff, but, even in the days before everyone sort of agrees that the show starts spinning tires, you have Piper Laurie playing an Asian businessmen, which feels out of place and .. well, probably a tad racist (I can't see it flying today, but, even back then, didn't anyone find it to be a bit .. Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffanies?)

I am hoping though that we do get something that is as terrifying and repulsive as the Mystery Man, or the woman behind the Diner in this new season. I think the only time BOB really worked for me was during the cross cutting in the Maddy murder, but, a large part of that is that scene is still, even by today's standards, pretty shocking in its brutality.

Having said that, some of the highest highs are also tucked in the season, so, it's hard for me to hate (the killer reveal, the finale, the Premiere, etc.)

I find the lore in some aspects very compelling, and some of it a bit clunkier. But, I can't hold it too much against it, it's of it's time. As others said, mythology wasn't really done in any serious manner until post-Peaks with X-Files/Lost etc., and even those shows managed to get it bungled. The main aspect of the lore that falls off for me is the Owl Cave stuff. It feels just too .. convenient, literal and tidy. I like a more ambiguous mysticism, which I think FWWM has in spades. I don't need a map or talk of aligning the skies with Jupiter, or levers tucked away in a cave that conveniently Andy finds despite it being a well-known archeological dig (as I recall, I start my next rewatch when my Blu-ray comes in). But, at least that stuff, as heavy handed as it is, does give a driving force to the narrative again. It's why I can suffer through Earle; he's a terrible villain, but, at least it gives shape to the plot, as opposed to Coop getting kicked out of the FBI or any of that stuff that felt like it was struggling to come up with any reason for him to stay in Twin Peaks.

But a lot of stuff feels a bit slapdash in season 2; I don't particularly like how murder is dealt with later on in the season. Laura Palmer's death rocks the town to it's core. While it's because she's has intimate connections to many townspeople, I also expected it was because murder isn't particularly common in a town like Twin Peaks. And then Windom Earle is stuffing .. Ted Raimi (shudder) into a giant paper mache chess piece. Where is the danger in that? That bit is my single most hated part of the series, both because Raimi pulls me out completely, and because it's played so silly. How can I take a villain seriously when the victim is mugging at the camera, when everyone forgets he's dead five minutes after the episode ends, and nobody cares to begin with?

I really really hope that the new season, whatever it does with the supernatural, has a proper sense of urgency, and that no matter how weird it gets, it keeps at least a toe on the ground.

Frost, back when they initially announced the continuation said something along the lines of "We've learned that you can have detours, but, ultimately you need a clear and dangerous path through the forest", which sounds to me like they realized the stakes really got lost at some point in Season 2. So, I've got a lot of hope, and the whole Cooper cliffhanger seems like a pretty damn good hook to do it, combined with whatever else they've cooked up.

[djerdap]

I never understood the whole "season 1 is flawless" thing. I had always thought that the momentum and a sense of tension after Lynch's episode 2 started to sizzle out, the pacing started to get more uneven (or perhaps after the funeral scene in the next episode), even glacial in some episodes, and Frost's final episode was far more flawed on the rewatch (Andy shooting his gun and saving Truman is a terribly executed scene for instance). I also never saw Twin Peaks as a supernatural-free show. It's there from the start, mainly in the form of Sarah Palmer visions, and I considered Cooper's dream to be prophetic and not only intuitive even before I saw season 2. I do agree that season 2 takes up that aspect a couple of notches above everything in season 1, and the whole mythology is deeply flawed and takes Lynch's ideas way too literally.

But when comparing the seven episodes of season 1 and the first seven episodes of season 2, I think they're on pretty much the same level quality-wise. Both are flawed, season 2 arguably more so, but the highs of episodes 8 and 14 are only matched by the brilliant episode 2 in season 1, still my favourite and quintessential Twin Peaks hour.

After episode 14, I'm pretty much siding with the consensus here. I may be even more harsh on episode 16, which gets worse on every rewatch and it is by far and away the most disappointing episode. Much has been said about the script, which tries really hard to strip away any sense of mystery and the surreal from the show with the cheesy dialogue (I'm still surprised Lynch was completely hands-off on this episode), but Tim Hunter's direction is an equal misfire. You can tell something is off from the first cheesy slow motion shot of Cooper and co., and it just gets more silly with the absurd amount of Dutch angles which completely take me out of the story. MacLachlan's performance also gets significantly worse after episode 16, where you can just sense he's getting bored with the material.

The only thing worth saying about the infamous episode 17-28 segment is that I think Windom Earle is a complete failure, both from a writing and performance perspective. The only stuff I can watch again from that period are the Duchovny scenes and an occasional Albert joke.

Until episode 29 of course, which is just stunning in every respect. I don't think it recycles ideas at all, I think it gives them new, deeper meanings and takes us on an insane ride that will never be repeated on TV... Or will it in the hands of the same master next year? I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[FrightNight]

After episode 14, I'm pretty much siding with the consensus here. I may be even more harsh on episode 16, which gets worse on every rewatch and it is by far and away the most disappointing episode. Much has been said about the script, which tries really hard to strip away any sense of mystery and the surreal from the show with the cheesy dialogue (I'm still surprised Lynch was completely hands-off on this episode), but Tim Hunter's direction is an equal misfire. You can tell something is off from the first cheesy slow motion shot of Cooper and co., and it just gets more silly with the absurd amount of Dutch angles which completely take me out of the story. MacLachlan's performance also gets significantly worse after episode 14, where you can just sense he's getting bored with the material.

What the hell??? We must've watched a different episode here ... Quality-wise, I find this particular ep practically on par with everything Lynch has done through the series and sometimes have trouble reminding myself that he had nothing to do with its writing and/or direction.
And as for MacLachlan's "performance getting significantly worse" - not only are your implications about his acting never being much to begin with totally off the mark, what you claim about it getting worse simply isn't true. The actor consistently holds his own during the course of the show and is, in my view, even better during the later half of it, when we get to delve into his personal background and demons.

The only thing worth saying about the infamous episode 17-28 segment is that I think Windom Earle is a complete failure, both from a writing and performance perspective. The only stuff I can watch again from that period are the Duchovny scenes and an occasional Albert joke.

What's really worth saying about that "infamous" episode cycle is that a number of S 1 characters have been degraded to caricatures of their former selves or vaguely interesting passers-by and thus it really was no sense and purpose in having them in the series anymore - and that certainly DOESN'T go for Cooper, our main steady anchor all the way to the end. If anything, I feel a majority of S 1 characters should've been just dropped in the post-Laura Palmer phase of the show, with more time given to developing Cooper's backstory, the mythology of the "evil in these old woods", the oh-so-slowly emerging intriguing stuff like the Project Blue Book (and Major Briggs!) and S 2's shady newcomers, such as Windom Earle, Packard and Eckhardt. Duchovny's character is an unimportant footnote in the grand scheme of things (on the farcical level of, say, Dick Tremayne, Lana Milford and Nadine Hurley) while Albert had really served his purpose (him initally being a cynical, obnoxious antipole to Ontkean's aw-shucks country-bumpkin naivete and eventually redeeming himself by developing into this loveably grumpy teddybear of a person) by the time he disappeared from the series (though I'm eager to see what he's been up to in the intervening years).

[djerdap]

What the hell??? We must've watched a different episode here ... Quality-wise, I find this particular ep practically on par with everything Lynch has done through the series and sometimes have trouble reminding myself that he had nothing to do with its writing and/or direction.
And as for MacLachlan's "performance getting significantly worse" - not only are your implications about his acting never being much to begin with totally off the mark, what you claim about it getting worse simply isn't true. The actor consistently holds his own during the course of the show and is, in my view, even better during the later half of it, when we get to delve into his personal background and demons.

What's really worth saying about that "infamous" episode cycle is that a number of S 1 characters have been degraded to caricatures of their former selves or vaguely interesting passers-by and thus it really was no sense and purpose in having them in the series anymore - and that certainly DOESN'T go for Cooper, our main steady anchor all the way to the end. If anything, I feel a majority of S 1 characters should've been just dropped in the post-Laura Palmer phase of the show, with more time given to developing Cooper's backstory, the mythology of the "evil in these old woods", the oh-so-slowly emerging intriguing stuff like the Project Blue Book (and Major Briggs!) and S 2's shady newcomers, such as Windom Earle, Packard and Eckhardt. Duchovny's character is an unimportant footnote in the grand scheme of things (on the farcical level of, say, Dick Tremayne, Lana Milford and Nadine Hurley) while Albert had really served his purpose (him initally being a cynical, obnoxious antipole to Ontkean's aw-shucks country-bumpkin naivete and eventually redeeming himself by developing into this loveably grumpy teddybear of a person) by the time he disappeared from the series (though I'm eager to see what he's been up to in the intervening years).

I think you misunderstood, in more ways that one. After the killer is revealed, MacLachlan doesn't seem to have that energy and exuberance as he did in the golden age of the show. The writing doesn't help either, drowning the character more and more as the episodes go in tedious, occasionally self-righteous monologues and pointless non sequiturs. The artificial love interest certainly didn't help matters. That said, I think MacLachlan has, along with Ray Wise, the finest acting performance on Twin Peaks bar none. Cooper is an amazing character. If any writer has issues and finds it a challenge to depict a memorable good guy and making his as compelling as (or more than) the villain, Twin Peaks should be the golden bar for this. What I implied there is that I'm not a fan of MacLachlan's performance in episode 16 - but I blame the writing there more than him. Perhaps this is controversial, but the "Into the light!" speech never did it for me, and served as an introduction to the "swept under the carpet" routine of the following episode, which is the antithesis of what made Lynch's Twin Peaks so great - murder and incest have horrifying consequences not just on the victim, but on the family and the entire community, putting it in a position to take a long, hard look at itself. Episode 16 is way too rushed for Leland to have that kind of a moment, even in the moment of death, since his crimes are way too grave. Luckily enough, Fire Walk With Me makes these slightly cheesy moments completely moot.

As far as episode 16 goes, it tries way too hard and fails to be even near the level of Lynch's installments. It's rushed, aesthetically incongruous, both in composition and in atmosphere (sunny California was never as dominant as here), cheesy and oddly uncompelling for such a major and important episode plot-wise. It has a "let's get this over with" feel all over it. Its literalism and stylistic over-the-topness are pretty much the opposite of Lynch's approach to the show. But I guess that is a matter of opinion.

What I meant to say about episodes 17-28 is that Albert and Denise are the only things that I like. Precisely their insignificance to the overall plot and themes at that point are indicating to how little I care about anything going on in that part of the show.

[laughingpinecone]

fwiw, I also feel a decline in Cooper's character, but I wouldn't know whether to point my finger at Kmac's performance or the writing or both.
I know there are specific things that bug me about his role in the Annie romance (and not coming from an 'opposite shipper' point of view, I like the Annie romance, just details I noticed on subsequent viewings that I feel are out of place in Coop's overall characterization) but in order to make a cohesive statement about it and see if it's connected to the general reasons I feel late s2 went off the rails I'd have to think more about it... and frankly I'd rather not...

As for the general topic of this thread, I was never scared by Silva's performance but like someone else said, I think he's perfect at portraying a repulsive primal force so that's great as far as I'm concerned.
And I don't like it when the series tries to over-explain things. It takes the whole mythos down a notch for me. I love to see it expanded, interconnected, but never ever taken out of its symbolic realm and explained in plain terms. And this is one of late s2's big failures in my book. Though s1's insistence on using the red room dream as a sum of clear-cut hints is a little guilty of this as well.
Dunno. It's an interesting topic.

[djerdap]

I loved Silva. Probably the most terrifying TV villain ever. He was misused on a couple of occasions (such as, surprise, episode 16) but BOB is a force of a nature, and Silva played that part to a tee.

[StealThisCorn]

I think the point of this thread (or rather the controversial element perhaps), is Eater's opinion that the show's decline started much earlier in Season 2 than most fans on these boards usually consider. Basically, right after the Season 2 premiere. And this is when viewership really began steadily declining in the show's original run. Mainstream critics began panning it in their articles and hardcore fans were venting some of their frustrations and on the alt.tv.twin peaks Usenet boards.

Episode 9 might be my favorite episode of the whole series, even over the finale. Except for the extended hospital sequence which does feel like it drags a bit, it just seems to really hit all the best elements of the show for me, culminating in the terrifying rendition of Laura's murder. But I also think Episode 10, which some people forget was also directed by Lynch, is really compelling, with so many scenes that stand out over the course of the entire series like BOB climbing over the couch, the outrageous teen music demo, the teleporting creamed corn, etc.

But after that I definitely see problems with the story's content and execution, well before the solution to Laura's murder comes. Some examples I still find frustrating:

--So much is made out of Laura's "Secret Diary", almost as a way to tie-in the companion merchandise which had already been released and widely read over the summer break of 1990, but it ultimately amounts to very little. Harold Smith is presented as mysterious and charming but also suspiciously odd (a bit of Hitchcock's Norman Bates really). We get a tiny bit more of Laura's past through him, but he's mostly a love interest for Donna during her romantic troubles with James. The Secret Diary becomes this maguffin hinted to reveal huge secrets that will help solve the mystery, and Donna's quest to get it from Harold during Episodes 11-13 becomes one of the main plot lines. But it just feels like a disappointing waste of our time when the diary ends up shredded and mutilated and Harold unceremoniously commits suicide.

--The story about ABC pressuring Lynch and co to solve the murder mystery already (and Frost wanted to take the story in new directions at the time as well) feels nowhere more apparent than the start of Episode 11. It appears the Killer has left a clue to put our heroes hot on the trail again, in the form of a new letter placed under Ronnette's fingernail. But so much about this set up still leaves me baffled and, despite all the Twin Peaks podcasts I've listened to, I still hear people either struggle with this or brush past it and move on. If anyone on these boards has figured this out, help me out here. Who put the letter "B" under Ronette's fingernail? If it was Leland/BOB, why did he not also kill her as all previous letter-nail victims had been? Truman wonders aloud how they got past the guard he had posted *at the door* to her room. Good question, Harry.

Ronnette's IV has also been tainted blue and I believe we later learn it had been dosed with the mysterious haloperidol mixture which attains significance as the drug keeping Philip Gerard from transforming into MIKE and "pointing" Cooper towards his next clue. Is the implication that Ronette was dosed to protect her from BOB or some other spirit? Was Phil Gerard really the one who went into her room then? There's a scene in Episode 2 (I think) where Hawk sees Gerard around Ronnette's room and attempts to follow him but he only gets as far as the morgue/ICU room before losing him in a room of stark blue light. He's just gone and Hawk doesn't pursue. With the One-Armed Man's increasing narrative importance as some kind of supernatural figure, did the writer's take from that he could literally materialize and disappear and were they implying that this ability is how he got past the guard into Ronette's room? Ben from the Twin Peaks Unwrapped Podcast has spoken on the air before how as a child watching the show he thought that the One-Armed Man had the magical ability to literally transform his body into an owl and fly away! I've even read a theory before that BOB possessed Ronnette to put the letter under *her own* fingernail! If MIKE did jam the letter "B" under Ronette's fingernail, was it just to help put the investigators on the right track?

In short, another dramatic action by the Killer (possibly) at that time in the story is something pretty significant but it isn't explained well at all and quickly gets treated as an afterthought.

--The Packard Sawmill's transformation into the object of a now GLOBAL conspiracy feels so farfetched and too big for the small town character of the show, with Josie's mysterious handler from Hong Kong sending an agent to speed things along while at the same time reinforcing some nasty stereotypes.

--The iconic One Eyed Jacks, which seemed so mysterious and significant in Season 1, is ultimately brushed aside with a few lines from Emory Battis when it turns out that Laura only worked there for a few days but was kicked out "for using drugs". Really? At an illegal underage brothel where the Madame herself does heroin? Jerry telling Ben about how "there's a new girl at OEJs" in Episode 2 felt like one of the mysterious ripples resulting from Laura's death (someone replacing her), but the way it was written just makes it a random aside. Audrey Horne, whose character felt so dynamic and engaging in Season 1, feels tied up at Jack's for such a long time that it completely kills her momentum in the story in a way that she ultimately never recovers from. I've heard before that Sherilyn Fenn was very ill at the time of filming those episodes though, so it might have been out of their hands.

That's probably enough for now.

[N. Needleman]

You present a compelling case I almost completely disagree with. I also think that this forum and the contemporary reaction to mysticism and the supernatural in storytelling circa 1990 aside, the more casual audience opinion today usually agrees that the show doesn't really go off the rails until after the Laura mystery ends. But to each their own.

Yes, those audiences were frustrated at the time. They felt they were sold a bill of goods. I wasn't and didn't. I think the supernatural outgrowth - mess and all - is so much of what makes TP what it is.

[Agent Sam Stanley]

It's weird, a friend of mine is watching TP for the first time now, and when I asked him about the post Laura murder episodes, he said "everyone keeps saying they're SO BAD, I was expecting something atrocious. In my opinion they're not that bad, just inferior".

Last time I watched I didn't think they were so bad either. I guess it's starting to grow on me.

[StealThisCorn]

No, mid to late Season 2 definitely has its own sort of charm. And as a first time viewer, the bizarre non-sequitur side plots can be fascinating because you have the sense that though yoy have no idea what is going on, somehow they are all going to fit together and pay off somehow. It isn't until the end of the series that they become disappointing because you look back and realize there was no meaning or payoff.