A new beginning.

The garveys move to sleepy eye to run a business.They were robbed few times.Jonathan decides to become deputy sheriff to help the town be safe.


I don't really like this episode too much. I think what jonathan did was good getting them bad people. He sure did help make the town a bit safe.He wasn't scared to try to catch them.

Any episode that doesn't focus on Walnut Grove isn't a favorite of mine, but it was good to see the Garveys move on after Alice's death.

bethandmanly wrote:

Any episode that doesn't focus on Walnut Grove isn't a favorite of mine, but it was good to see the Garveys move on after Alice's death.

Same with me. Some episodes are boring.

This was just ok at best

Instead of having Jonathan and Andy move to Sleepy Eye, they should of written them out completely. The Lost Ones are the last time you saw them. My heart broke for Andy when he started crying about the loss of his mother. Jonathan was only in 4 episodes in season 7. He was in A New beginning, Silent Cry, The In-Laws and part 1 of The Lost Ones.

bethandmanly wrote:

Any episode that doesn't focus on Walnut Grove isn't a favorite of mine, but it was good to see the Garveys move on after Alice's death.

I agree. I do like The In-Laws.

I'm not sure if I even ever saw this episode all the way through before. I remembered that part about Andy being angry at Mary and Adam, but I didn't remember the rest of the episode much, if at all. I did though suspect right near the start that the security guard guy (former lawman, whose name I don't remember) was no good. I was thinking that he maybe got the thieves to rob people to get him more business, i.e. make them feel they had to hire him.

I actually quite liked this episode, although it was sort of an atypical LHOTP episode. I like that they didn't just forget about what happened with Adam, Jr. and Mrs. Garvey, and that they showed Andy still grieving his mother's death. Of course, Charles still is a bit of the hero even in an episode that doesn't feature him, as he is the one who discovered who was behind the ring of thieves. I kind of wish the relationship between Tim and his father was examined a bit more....what did drive Tim to do the things he did? Was he trying to get his father's attention? Had his own mother passed away and was he somehow acting out because of that? Or was he just a "bad seed"?

Shell wrote:

Instead of having Jonathan and Andy move to Sleepy Eye, they should of written them out completely. The Lost Ones are the last time you saw them. My heart broke for Andy when he started crying about the loss of his mother. Jonathan was only in 4 episodes in season 7. He was in A New beginning, Silent Cry, The In-Laws and part 1 of The Lost Ones.

bethandmanly wrote:

Any episode that doesn't focus on Walnut Grove isn't a favorite of mine, but it was good to see the Garveys move on after Alice's death.

I agree. I do like The In-Laws.

I didn't realize that Jonathan and Andy are only in a few more episodes after this one. While I did like this episode, I also prefer for the majority of action to take place back in Walnut Grove. That's one reason I don't like that Laura and Almanzo got married in Sleepy Eye instead of Walnut Grove. I wish that Adam and Mary and Jonathan and Andy all stayed in Walnut Grove instead of living off in this other nearby town. I also would not want very many episodes to feature what is going on in Sleepy Eye rather than Walnut Grove. I didn't like the episode in Winoka and was very glad when they moved back to Walnut Grove.

Oh, I want to add that I loved how Nels described those "while you were out" telephone pads.....he guesses people like to feel important! However, I really kind of doubt those even existed back then. And even if they did, why would Walnut Grove need or want them? Does anyone even still have a phone in Walnut Grove? Or maybe Harriet wants to take messages for people from the switchboard?

Reading reviews on IMDB, two of the reviewers had major issues with the "gun control" aspect of the episode. I do think that back in those days, a banker carrying a gun would not be that big of a deal, but Jonathan does seem quite upset by it, which seems a bit odd. And yes, it seems that one point of the show is that "laymen" ought not to be carrying guns, and someone could get hurt, which of course happens to Tim. However, I'm not convinced Tim would not have shot the banker. If the banker had not had a gun, then presumably Tim's robbery would have succeeded as Tim pulled a gun on the banker. And then would Tim take off with the money and never be heard from again? Or would he have been captured? Or would he have freaked out and shot the banker, knowing that the banker would clearly identify him? So it's hard to say. I'm not a proponent of people carrying guns, but I also think back then there may not have been quite as many safeguards against theft in banks and certainly no federal insurance to pay the bank back all the money if it got stolen.