Jonah wrote: ↑Wed Jul 07, 2021 9:40 am
15 and 16 are both mixed episodes especially after 14 but they're a lot better than 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and probably 23 (though I have a bit of a soft spot for that episode). They might be better than 24 and 26 too. Definitely better than 28, Maybe on par with 27 (aside from its great closing scenes) or 25 (aside from the diner scene)? Anyway, if people had a big problem with 16, what did they think of 17, 18, 19, 20 and beyond?
I see what you're getting at there and I can also see enumbs suggestion on how it might work for some people. For the record, I like 15 and 16 and probably believe that they are better than 17 thru, well, 28, probably. That said...I've mentioned this before, but the only episodes I'd qualify as truly bad are 20 - 22 (I know that 22 has its fans because it at least attempts to engage with style, but on recent viewings I've not cared for it). I agree that 23 has a little something to it--for me it has a wonderful sort of spark or lightness that signals the series is busting out of its slump.
Similar to the current conversation, I will also risk ridicule and admit that I had never realized how poorly some fans felt about episode 17 until a few years ago. In and of itself, I think it's a perfectly fine comedown of an episode. Obviously, I never thought it was up to par with what came before it, but I enjoyed the atmosphere of the town returning to "normal." Hell, I even enjoy the funeral gathering! But, similar to what enumbs has said about 15/16, it was at some point brought to my attention that 17 may just well be one of the worst episodes when thought of in context of the series up to that point--just as that funeral gathering might be thought of as one of the most misguided moments in the entire series. That type of easy-going denouement to such a horrific tale of incest just three days after such shocking revelations would NEVER happen on even the worst drama in today's television landscape. But therein lies the key to why I don't think I've ever really had much of a problem with the episode. Because while the storyline and the potential to delve deeper into the town's grief is horrendously bungled, I guess I kind of just looked at it from the perspective of TV at the time, how it operated and how Twin Peaks was still in some sort of uncharted longform territory and had to move forward without its guiding force--and I'm not talking about Lynch, but rather about the mystery surrounding Laura. I guess I sort of just accepted it all as perfectly normal, in other words, and it was only in the past five years that I began to think of it from a more modern vantage point.
I'm sure that plenty of you thought poorly of it from the first time you saw episode 17, but I'm specifically curious about those who remained on board with the series back in 1991 all the way through episode 16. I wonder how many who were still on board immediately found great fault with episode 17 back in 1991? I'd also be curious how people might have felt about episode 17 who had grown weary of the supernatural reveals of 14 - 16 and might have viewed episode 17 as a reset. Have the advancements in TV throughout the years altered the way we look back at Twin Peaks, and made us any more or less forgiving?