Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

General discussion on Twin Peaks not related to the series, film, books, music, photos, or collectors merchandise.

Moderators: Brad D, Annie, Jonah, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne

Post Reply
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Lodge Member
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Audrey Horne »

I was summoned. The Gulf War coverage happened in the Feb episodes of Peaks. I believe it maybe cut off the Hseely, Leo fight episode in some markets… for me it only cut off about thirty seconds of the opening credits.

The long hiatuses between episodes were nothing unusual for any show on tv at the time. Sept, Nov, Feb and May were sweeps months when the big episodes would be shown. December would usually have one maybe two new episodes of a series. January would typically be a void. The difference is Peaks did not show repeats. The dearth from end of Feb until end of March was because the show was pulled… and then the final six were put back on Thursdays at 9:00 against Cheers again. And of course, the last two were pulled yet again due to low ratings. And burned off on a Monday in June as a TV movie if the week,

I believe the Gulf War is revisionist history. The show was already lagging by industry standards in its initial season two time slot. Nothing to do whether or not you think the quality was good or not. The other revisionist history is the network forcing the hand of revealing the killer tanked the show. Again, nothing to do with one’s personal opinion of the quality, but the show had waned from the general public’s interest. In the narrow field of networks, Peaks niche viewers didn’t stand a chance.

Personal opinion, nothing they did could save the show. But they did not do themselves any favors by crafting exciting storylines that would hook viewers. The whodunit of Laura Palmer’s killer was played out and needed resolution based on the TV landscape. They probably needed to overlap new mysteries, and then develop one episode or three episode mini mysteries so the average viewer could tune in. And keep the characters fairly consistent so the average viewer can keep up. Ie. Cooper solves crimes with his trusty Truman sidekick; Audrey Nancy Drew’s; Ben and Catherine do big baddie town things. Not saying it would’ve saved the show, but in 1991 that was the mentality for TV.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3680
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Mr. Reindeer »

Audrey Horne wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:11 am I was summoned. The Gulf War coverage happened in the Feb episodes of Peaks. I believe it maybe cut off the Hseely, Leo fight episode in some markets… for me it only cut off about thirty seconds of the opening credits.

The long hiatuses between episodes were nothing unusual for any show on tv at the time. Sept, Nov, Feb and May were sweeps months when the big episodes would be shown. December would usually have one maybe two new episodes of a series. January would typically be a void. The difference is Peaks did not show repeats. The dearth from end of Feb until end of March was because the show was pulled… and then the final six were put back on Thursdays at 9:00 against Cheers again. And of course, the last two were pulled yet again due to low ratings. And burned off on a Monday in June as a TV movie if the week,

I believe the Gulf War is revisionist history. The show was already lagging by industry standards in its initial season two time slot. Nothing to do whether or not you think the quality was good or not. The other revisionist history is the network forcing the hand of revealing the killer tanked the show. Again, nothing to do with one’s personal opinion of the quality, but the show had waned from the general public’s interest. In the narrow field of networks, Peaks niche viewers didn’t stand a chance.

Personal opinion, nothing they did could save the show. But they did not do themselves any favors by crafting exciting storylines that would hook viewers. The whodunit of Laura Palmer’s killer was played out and needed resolution based on the TV landscape. They probably needed to overlap new mysteries, and then develop one episode or three episode mini mysteries so the average viewer could tune in. And keep the characters fairly consistent so the average viewer can keep up. Ie. Cooper solves crimes with his trusty Truman sidekick; Audrey Nancy Drew’s; Ben and Catherine do big baddie town things. Not saying it would’ve saved the show, but in 1991 that was the mentality for TV.
Thanks for clearing up the Gulf War mystery, Audrey! In the Conversations book, Mark says he believes the show was preempted six out of eight weeks for war coverage (although he admits that he may be misremembering). That just does not appear to be the case. What you said makes much more sense, that the episodes were airing, but local affiliates were periodically cutting in with news footage. Particularly annoying since as you say, the episodes were not being rerun, so if you missed a scene, you’d never see it again.

I think the only thing ABC did to screw the show was give it two terrible timeslots—one of which it actually somehow thrived in, but the hype had already started to die by S2 and the Saturday slot certainly didn’t help matters. I guess the “no reruns” too.
Last edited by Mr. Reindeer on Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:34 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Jonah »

Audrey Horne wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 11:11 am I was summoned. The Gulf War coverage happened in the Feb episodes of Peaks. I believe it maybe cut off the Hseely, Leo fight episode in some markets… for me it only cut off about thirty seconds of the opening credits.

The long hiatuses between episodes were nothing unusual for any show on tv at the time. Sept, Nov, Feb and May were sweeps months when the big episodes would be shown. December would usually have one maybe two new episodes of a series. January would typically be a void. The difference is Peaks did not show repeats. The dearth from end of Feb until end of March was because the show was pulled… and then the final six were put back on Thursdays at 9:00 against Cheers again. And of course, the last two were pulled yet again due to low ratings. And burned off on a Monday in June as a TV movie if the week,

I believe the Gulf War is revisionist history. The show was already lagging by industry standards in its initial season two time slot. Nothing to do whether or not you think the quality was good or not. The other revisionist history is the network forcing the hand of revealing the killer tanked the show. Again, nothing to do with one’s personal opinion of the quality, but the show had waned from the general public’s interest. In the narrow field of networks, Peaks niche viewers didn’t stand a chance.

Personal opinion, nothing they did could save the show. But they did not do themselves any favors by crafting exciting storylines that would hook viewers. The whodunit of Laura Palmer’s killer was played out and needed resolution based on the TV landscape. They probably needed to overlap new mysteries, and then develop one episode or three episode mini mysteries so the average viewer could tune in. And keep the characters fairly consistent so the average viewer can keep up. Ie. Cooper solves crimes with his trusty Truman sidekick; Audrey Nancy Drew’s; Ben and Catherine do big baddie town things. Not saying it would’ve saved the show, but in 1991 that was the mentality for TV.
Thanks for weighing in , Audrey - I really appreciate your take.

When you say Peaks didn't show repeats, do you mean during this time or ever? Was that unusual for the time (compared to other shows) and if so why do you think that was? Having repeat episodes might have kept keep viewers up to date and helped with the ratings more. Maybe not significantly, but it might have helped. I remember Mark saying on Donahoe that a (bulk) repeat of the first season would air (over the summer maybe?) so it doesn't sound like they happened on a regular, weekly basis even during that first season. I'm guessing Season 2 would have been too long to repeat over a summer break before a Season 3 happened had it been renewed, but they should have aimed to have a weekly repeat on a different night/timeslot, even a late slot. (Was that common practice back then for other shows?)
I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Lodge Member
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Audrey Horne »

Yes, they showed the first season again in the summer of 1990 leading up to the second season premiere. And they aired on Saturday night in the new time slot. The only difference I believe was the pilot was shown on a Sunday (like it originally was) and episode five and six was combined. The week before the premiere we had the Alan Thicke Peaks/Cop Rock special, the Time Magazine cover and the Rolling Stone cover. Kyle hosted SNL Saturday, and the second season premiere was on a Sunday.

It was common practice to show reruns especially during non Sweeps periods. All of the sitcoms definitely. But the hour long dramas I’m having some trouble remembering… Moonlighting, thirtysomething defintiely… but soaps like Dallas and Dynasty, I’m foggy remembering. What a different world, huh?
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Lodge Member
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Audrey Horne »

Um the Hselly, Leo fight??? I think I meant to spell SHELLY.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3680
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Mr. Reindeer »

Audrey Horne wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 8:53 pm Yes, they showed the first season again in the summer of 1990 leading up to the second season premiere. And they aired on Saturday night in the new time slot. The only difference I believe was the pilot was shown on a Sunday (like it originally was) and episode five and six was combined. The week before the premiere we had the Alan Thicke Peaks/Cop Rock special, the Time Magazine cover and the Rolling Stone cover. Kyle hosted SNL Saturday, and the second season premiere was on a Sunday.

It was common practice to show reruns especially during non Sweeps periods. All of the sitcoms definitely. But the hour long dramas I’m having some trouble remembering… Moonlighting, thirtysomething defintiely… but soaps like Dallas and Dynasty, I’m foggy remembering. What a different world, huh?
It was indeed. I wasn’t an original Peaks viewer, but I certainly remember 1990s TV. A simple blackout or brownout in your neighborhood meant that your TV and VCR were out of commission and you missed an episode and were hopelessly lost forever, if it was a serialized show! It was very frustrating. I also remember duly setting the VCR to record a show while I was out, but a half-hour power loss would mess up the VCR clock and cause it to record the wrong show/timeslot. Try explaining that to kids today, with their streaming.
User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Jonah »

I remember those days, putting the little sticker over the hole in the VHS tape to record it - taking it off so it wouldn't be recorded over. I did watch Twin Peaks but I was a child and my memories of it are dim. I'm not even sure how much of it I watched. I remember saying "wasn't she lovely?" or something about the picture of Laura Palmer in the closing credits and having a fascination with her, I remember the Maddy-being-murdered scene, I remember Leland adjusting his tie in the mirror and it showing Bob, I remember being scared of Bob (still am), and I remember buying the Secret Diary (though to this day I've only read a little bit of it) and also being fascinated by the cover image (UK Penguin paperback edition) and many years later tracking down the same copy and buying it again. It's possible that back in the day I only ever saw Episode 14 and 15 or even just 15, but I probably saw a few more - but the above stuff is all that sticks out in my memory from back then. It's highly probable I never saw Season 1 at all. It also might have aired later in Europe than the US. Anyway, that's all I really remember. Oh and the UK cover of the VHS tape of the international pilot, which I previously had as my profile pic on here - but not sure if I came across that at the time or a few years later.
I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.
IcedOver
RR Diner Member
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by IcedOver »

Mr. Reindeer wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:21 pm It was indeed. I wasn’t an original Peaks viewer, but I certainly remember 1990s TV. A simple blackout or brownout in your neighborhood meant that your TV and VCR were out of commission and you missed an episode and were hopelessly lost forever, if it was a serialized show! It was very frustrating. I also remember duly setting the VCR to record a show while I was out, but a half-hour power loss would mess up the VCR clock and cause it to record the wrong show/timeslot. Try explaining that to kids today, with their streaming.
Back then shows were "appointment TV". You had to set your tape or be in front of the set. Made things feel more valuable. Today I procrastinate so much that I never watch shows that interest me. For instance, I watched three episodes of "The Good Doctor" when it started, fell off, kept meaning to watch them On Demand (I don't "stream" anything) and never did, and currently it's on season 4. So for me it and many other series are a lost cause.

I was an original "Peaks" viewer when it aired, and our ABC affiliate aired a Bundle Up telethon in the place of episode 16 (the case solving). I'm sure fans were freaking out, and they must have announced something in the paper or the news that it would be airing on a Saturday morning (or Sunday; can't recall). I think the TV Guide listing was corrected to that as well. So we had to get ourselves set to watch it on Saturday morning.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3680
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Mr. Reindeer »

IcedOver wrote: Tue Jun 08, 2021 5:58 pm
Mr. Reindeer wrote: Sun Jun 06, 2021 9:21 pm It was indeed. I wasn’t an original Peaks viewer, but I certainly remember 1990s TV. A simple blackout or brownout in your neighborhood meant that your TV and VCR were out of commission and you missed an episode and were hopelessly lost forever, if it was a serialized show! It was very frustrating. I also remember duly setting the VCR to record a show while I was out, but a half-hour power loss would mess up the VCR clock and cause it to record the wrong show/timeslot. Try explaining that to kids today, with their streaming.
Back then shows were "appointment TV". You had to set your tape or be in front of the set. Made things feel more valuable. Today I procrastinate so much that I never watch shows that interest me. For instance, I watched three episodes of "The Good Doctor" when it started, fell off, kept meaning to watch them On Demand (I don't "stream" anything) and never did, and currently it's on season 4. So for me it and many other series are a lost cause.

I was an original "Peaks" viewer when it aired, and our ABC affiliate aired a Bundle Up telethon in the place of episode 16 (the case solving). I'm sure fans were freaking out, and they must have announced something in the paper or the news that it would be airing on a Saturday morning (or Sunday; can't recall). I think the TV Guide listing was corrected to that as well. So we had to get ourselves set to watch it on Saturday morning.
I agree with you that it added more value to the experience in a certain way, but also so much stress! I was always terrified during any given broadcast that the reception would go out, or my power, and that was always in the back of my mind making me anxious and detracting from my concentration and enjoyment. We had an antenna on the roof, and during inclement weather it would really screw with the reception, making the shows really staticky and unwatchable. I remember standing outside during thunderstorms, getting drenched and holding the grounding cable for the antenna, trying to stabilize it. The VCR was recording so I could watch the show once it ended. I’d yell in the window to my sisters, “BETTER OR WORSE?” “WORSE!!!” I’d yank the cable the other way and see if that fixed it. It was a lot of work to enjoy a show!
User avatar
eyeboogers
Great Northern Member
Posts: 729
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by eyeboogers »

Sometimes that buggy early tech was for the better. Once I had gone away on summer holiday and pre-programmed the VCR to record something. When I returned I discovered that I had accidentally programmed the wrong weekday to record, and what I now had on tape, instead of whatever I had intended to watch, was "Fire Walk With Me". As I started watching I desperately hoped that the whole film had been captured (it had), and instantly became a fan.
User avatar
AXX°N N.
Great Northern Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by AXX°N N. »

eyeboogers wrote: Wed Jun 09, 2021 1:20 am Sometimes that buggy early tech was for the better. Once I had gone away on summer holiday and pre-programmed the VCR to record something. When I returned I discovered that I had accidentally programmed the wrong weekday to record, and what I now had on tape, instead of whatever I had intended to watch, was "Fire Walk With Me". As I started watching I desperately hoped that the whole film had been captured (it had), and instantly became a fan.
That's so wonderful. :) Random misfortune can reward long-lasting delight. Although my reaction to head colds is always 'no, my work!' nonetheless I've had many a lifelong love affair begin because of being so energy-zapped that all I can do is channel-flip for days.
Recipe not my own. In a coffee cup. 3 TBS flour, 2 TBS sugar, 1.5 TBS cocoa powder, .25 TSP baking powder, pinch of salt. 3 TBS milk, 1.5 TBS vegetable oil, 1 TBS peanut butter. Add and mix each set. Microwave 1 minute 10 seconds. The cup will be hot.
User avatar
mtwentz
Lodge Member
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by mtwentz »

Wait, I’ve been watching Peaks longer than Mr Reindeer? How dis mmd that happen?

I watched the Pilot when it first aired, and I expected the murder to be solved by the end of that episode. I was extremely frustrated instead if intrigued and did not watch again until the Season 1 finale, because I expected by then the murder would be solved.

Again I was frustrated, but was visiting my mom in Chicago and she wanted to watch so we tuned in, and it was that opening scene that dragged on forever that finally got me hooked.

Yep most of America got off the bus with a bumbling old waiter and a smiling bag, but I got on it, really for the first time.

But dang I forgot to record the reveal episode as I was going out that night to meet some girls or something and I read about the episode in the SF Chronicle the next day!

And that to me really is what killed the show. Even someone who was enjoying it as much as I was had a hard time keeping up with TP while it aired on Saturday nights.

But hey, all is well that ends well. We got FWWM in ‘92 and The Return in 2017. And in 2022....who knows
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
Brad D
Global Moderator
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:56 am
Contact:

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Brad D »

My head is cloudy at the moment, but there was a veiled promise to reveal the killer with ep 8. I think Lynch said “you will see the killer?” The traincar scene left too much ambiguity I guess. It’d be super interesting to see the ratings broken down by the quarter-hour.
User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Jonah »

I've asked this before, but I'm still wondering who/what viewers at the time thought Bob was at that stage before the big reveal? I mean, the show pretty much did reveal him as some sort of drifter who was the killer - what more were people waiting for/how did they know there would be more to it and what were they thinking, that someone hired Bob or something?
I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.
User avatar
AXX°N N.
Great Northern Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by AXX°N N. »

Jonah wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 6:10 am I've asked this before, but I'm still wondering who/what viewers at the time thought Bob was at that stage before the big reveal? I mean, the show pretty much did reveal him as some sort of drifter who was the killer - what more were people waiting for/how did they know there would be more to it and what were they thinking, that someone hired Bob or something?
I think it's more that the show, by that point, had also heavily suggested/promised a significance to BOB beyond normal reality. It went from "who did it?" to "what did it?"
Recipe not my own. In a coffee cup. 3 TBS flour, 2 TBS sugar, 1.5 TBS cocoa powder, .25 TSP baking powder, pinch of salt. 3 TBS milk, 1.5 TBS vegetable oil, 1 TBS peanut butter. Add and mix each set. Microwave 1 minute 10 seconds. The cup will be hot.
Post Reply