clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:


Uh, oh. Your local television editor is in a real bad mood again today.

And not just because of the annoying things he and other television viewers have been subjected to, but because he's allowed these annoying things to annoy him.(When your local television editor is cranky, he makes less sense than usual. And he refers to himself in the third person.)

Here, then, are a few topics your local television editor can no longer help but vent his spleen about.

(And where did a disgusting phrase like "vent his spleen" originate?)

- I'm glad "Twin Peaks" was canceled. I'm extremely glad "Twin Peaks" was canceled.

As a matter of fact, if ABC were to air any more episodes they'd be guilty of torturing an already long-suffering audience.

I'm sick of logs, cherry pie and damn fine coffee. I'm sick of murders and evil spirits named Bob.

I'm sick of the White Lodge, the Black Lodge, dwarfs, giants and UFO investigations. I'm sick of weird camera angles, strange lighting, bizarre characters and self-indulgent production.

And I want plot. PLOT, I tell you, PLOT PLOT PLOT. Atmosphere is great, but it's no substitute for understandable action.

Now, many of you are sitting there saying, "It's about time. We got sick of `Peaks' a long time ago."

And you were right.

Not that "Peaks" didn't start out to be a great show. And not that there weren't an awful lot of fun, fascinating stops along the way.

But somewhere along the line producer/creators Mark Frost and David Lynch lost touch with reality. Innovation is great, but being innovative alone wasn't enough.

Frost and Lynch had a great show going - and they blew it. Each week seemed to bring a renewed effort to drive viewers away. At that they succeeded.

After watching Monday's final two hours of "Peaks," I want to smack those guys for blowing it. For letting their viewers down.

- Mostly I'm mad at myself for investing so much time in "Peaks."

And for thinking - right up until the end - that it was possible to figure out what was going on.

I did it again Monday. For a while there it almost looked like we were finally going to see some explanations. But that, of course, never happened.

And I kicked myself for getting sucked into that trap again.

- Speaking of people I'd like to smack, send Delta Burke my way.

Not that it really matters that she may well have ruined her own career with her behavior on and off the set of "Designing Women." But if her departure torpedoes the show, I'd like to torpedo her.

It's ridiculous that anyone as highly paid as a TV star could complain about working conditions.

Wasn't there anyone who knows this woman who could make her snap back to her senses?

- Would someone please explain to me why ABC changed the name of an upcoming sitcom from "The Ray Sharkey Show" to "The Man in the Family?"

Not that there's anything inherently wrong with the new title. It's just that it's incredibly similar to that of another sitcom on CBS - "The Family Man."

"The Man in the Family." "The Family Man." Criminy.

Not only will this add to viewer confusion, but it greatly increases my chances of getting the wrong title with the right show (or is that the right title with the wrong show?) at some point.

And I don't need any help to become confused.

- As if TCI doesn't have enough problems to worry about, what with the Encore marketing fiasco, here are a few more complaints:

- Why don't TCI subscribers in Utah have VH-1? For those of you who have never seen it, VH-1 is the sister-channel to MTV, but it's aimed at viewers 30 and over.

In other words, it's a music video channel without all the heavy metal noise that's on MTV.

A year ago, we were told TCI had no additional channel capacity. But this year, we get a new channel - Encore.

Could the fact that TCI added Encore and not VH-1 have anything to do with the fact that the cable company has ownership in the former but not the latter?

- What in the world is the Discovery Channel doing on Ch. 3? Not that there's anything wrong with Discovery, but all the way down on Ch. 3?

- A recent caller had another complaint about TCI's recent channel-shifting.

Lots of subscribers have a second TV hookup - and lots of those second TVs are not cable ready. (Meaning they can only pick up channels 2-13)

Whereas the subscribers used to be able to watch TNT (Ch. 3) and American Movie Classics (Ch. 8) on a non-cable-ready TV, it's no longer possible - TNT is now Ch. 17 and AMC is Ch. 15.

Sure, subscribers could get a cable converter box - for a monthly fee. And this at a time when TCI is trying to phase out the boxes.