Season 3 is nothing like the old Twin Peaks original - Twin Peaks: The Return (2017) Discussion

[–] keybored (2657) 7 years ago

I think almost everyone here will disagree with you on all the points you make.

Once the finale is over, you will see how much relevance those characters have, as they all seem to be becoming more and more coherent as the season is coming to it's end.

I think Kyle's performances as all the different Coopers has been outstanding and he certainly needs to win lots of awards for them.

I am of the opinion that season 3 is better than the first two in many ways and I actually love how it was long and drawn out to get Cooper back 100%.

I think a lot of people in the industry are going to look back on this season and rethink how they make their shows more interesting (as they did after the original TP was shown).

The only shows that can really compare with TP are Mr Robot and Legion, but while I think both shows are brilliant, TP is the one show to rule them all...

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

Thanks but I am not here to please other people or care if they disagree with me.
That's why this is a public message board for people like us to come and express our
opinions about a show.

What you fail to understand is that season 1 and 2 didn't use characters as props. I am guessing you have forgotten the original series and the narrative line, maybe you should go and see it again and then compare it to this season 3. I didn't need to wait for a season finale to see how the characters of the show contributed to the overall story, this is where you are missing the point.

When you make statement like "I think Kyle's performances as all the different Coopers has been outstanding", could you please try and give some examples of what you call "Outstanding"?
is playing some macho tough guy something that you call "Outstanding"?
Is playing the muted "Dougie" also outstanding?
Do you even remember what made Twin Peaks peculiar curious FBI agent Cooper, who really was what carried the show most of the time?.

You seem to think and assume a lot about the other people or the industry's opinion, but yet you don;t support your own opinion of when you say "that season 3 is better than the first two in many ways", again, any expository statement like requires some kind of example to support your statement.

I never said Season 3 was totally bad, but it does not have the same Lynch touch that it did with the first two season, mostly because there are a few narratives running that do not have any connection to the arc of the story, where as the original every piece was a piece that had something to do with Laura', in a way Laura was mirror of Twin Peaks, the more we found about the secrets of Twin Peaks, the more it reflected back to the theme of Laura's death.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Hey, hey take it easy dude, she simply disagreed with you.

I get what you're saying and i've been thinking about the same thing a lot this season. I watched the show when it first aired also, and i will always hold the first 2 seasons closest to my heart.
That being said, it is 26 yrs. later and of course it has to be different. Twin peaks has graduated from cocaine to heroin. It's much darker and more complex this season,but it's still cool af.
I think it will always be different for the people who originally watched it. Our minds were blown the first time, it was just time for the next generation to get their minds blown.

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

Listen "Dude", I think she can speak for herself, FYI, she started her rant with disagreements on what I wrote. I was not attacking her, but just wanted more clarity as to why this season is so "great"?

Ofcourse I agree that yes its 26 years later and it will be different, yes its darker, but again as I stated before, its the story, the narrative line that is just all over place?. The story is actually is more to do with the movie "Twin Peaks: Fire walks with me", but even that film was not as incoherent as this season 3. This is not like the Lynch I remember who did "Mulholland Drive".

The characters of this new season are shuffled in a way that do not serve the story in the same way that Lynch did the first two seasons. There is a huge difference, using the old Twin Peaks cast to just as props, by placing them in scenes that just don't go any where but to fill the hour is kind of lame. What was "Audrey" dance about?.. what is her purpose in this season story?

Lynch is using the name of Twin Peaks but we really are not in the woods like we were to be involved with the characters. This is kind of darker but also more confused story as to drag the show. It took almost the entire Season for Cooper to become Cooper, that to me is was just waste of time.

Anyway, I am not here to argue, I have seen everything Lynch has done and know his work very well. I think he is more involved with music now that films and lot of it you can see in the end of each episode.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Sorry, you're right, she can. I was about to respond to your thread and i read that and got a little pissy like who the fuck is this guy. I'll mind my business though.
Listen, you're preaching to the choir with most of what you say. I've said similar things throughout the season. In fact, i was mad about it until they brought it home to the actual town of twin peaks. As far as the storyline, i have speculated that lynch had more to do with it than frost, i think frost is the natural story teller.
You've come this far, might as well see what happens for the finale. I just can't even wait.

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

Yes, ofcourse I will watch it to the end. I am glad Cooper is finally woken and he is on his way to Twin Peaks. This is what I kind of disappointed that Lynch would mute his most interesting character. Cooper was what defined the show "Twin Peaks", because the irony of his fascination with this small town where he felt it was where decency and caring actually existed, yet there was also these dark strange things that went on below it, that is so Lynch and goes all the way back "Blue Velvet".

I don't think is really Frost?..I think Lynch is not as focused as he was back in the 1990's. I have heard he is focused on creating Music and his art, not so much film writing. He just went with the trend of the old shows and movies making come back, frankly I am even surprised they gave him the green light to do this because even back in the 90's a lot of people thought it was strange show and didn't like it. Lynch and Frost are both collaborative team, trust me Twin Peaks is more Lynch than Frost, if you have seen all of Lynch's film, one in particular "Blue Velvet", which I consider his masterpiece then you will know how it ties into Twin Peaks's theme.

I think they didn't work hard this time on the story line, the end of "Fire walks with me" is where Cooper changes and they tagged on that and threw a whole bunch of monkey wrenches into the narrative, only because someone like Lynch can get away with that kind of thing because people think :"well, its Lynch, we are not suppose to make sense out of everything", but that's where I think he is relying on and he shifts into characters of old Twin peaks as a way of diversion.

You mentioned the new generation, where they don't even read a book and buried in their handheld devices would even have the attention span to watch the first two seasons, let alone this Season 3?...these Millennials find anything with depth that requires thinking boring, so I really wonder how they'll digest a show like "Twin Peaks"?..Lol

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

No, no i think you misunderstood what i meant. I think frost had more to do with the first 2 seasons, and lynch this one. Hmm...is he too focused on his music, or too focused on tammy's ass? I wonder.
Even though it's not the same, it's still exciting as hell for me to watch. I mean, back then, did you ever really imagine we'd be seeing a s3 almost literally in 25 yrs?! It's so cool i just can't believe it. Btw, did you go see fwwm in theatres?
As far as the millennials, lol i know, i know. But they can't all be like that right? I thriw down hints of authors like burroughs and such, in hopes one will become interested enough to go read naked lunch or something. It has been a cool group on this board, i think you'd be surprised.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Also, you didn't like audrey's dance? That was one of my favorite moments all season.

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

Again, I never said I didn't like it?.. I just think it had no purpose into the current story. Audrey didn't even appear until just a few episodes ago, which again ties into what I said about using the old cast as props. You liked it because it reminded you of the old dance she did in the restaurant when she was with "Donna", yes I love that scene, but at that time, her dance was an action to kind of define part of her character. Here is just used a gimmick to get the old audience a little reminder of of that Audrey we knew.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Yeah that's exactly what it felt like, but i looked at it more as a dedication to old fans, and i appreciated every second.

reply

[–] keybored (2657) 7 years ago

Lynch/Frost were never going to please everyone with what they did in season 3, but they had a mammoth task on their hands of how to bring back a show whose intended storyline was ruined by people wanting a quick-fix answer, without looking at the deeper levels of the show.

All actors and actresses are only ever props to the storyline in any show and in season 3, as it approaches the ending, it becomes more obvious that each character was a single jigsaw piece being placed down here and there until a final bigger picture is starting to emerge. The random people and their irrelevant conversation in the 'Roadhouse' now look to be part of Audrey's 'insert whatever Audrey's dilemma is here'. We hopefully will find that answer tomorrow. Even Wally's appearance has some unanswered questions (re: the photo and "Oh boy!")

Audrey's dance was not a prop but a catalyst to waking her up from wherever she has been and back to 'reality'. How else should she 'come to'?

Keeping Dale Cooper out of the majority of the storyline may have been Lynch portraying how many years we, as fans, have had to do without him. Absence makes the heart grow fonder and now he is back, we can get down to the real nitty gritty of the final two episodes. It also may spur on an additional series which is all Dale Cooper.

L & F have brought TP into the 21st century instead of remaining insular by staying only in TP, and shown there is a bigger world out there that has been affected by the Black Lodge in the passing years. It doesn't matter what out memories of the past were - you can never go back.

It took a long, long time for Lynch's media work to be recognised for it's brilliance. Not everybody liked things he did when they first came out but that changed over time.

Considering the shortness of season one and the lack of involvement in season 2 by Lynch, there were several characters that were definitely used as props then - Evelyn, Dick, Lana, Andrew, Ernie, to name but a few.

reply

[–] keybored (2657) 7 years ago

For some reason I cannot add any more text to that last post so am posting it as is (is there a text count limit?).

I have to go out now so will continue it later anyway.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Lol yeah, she can speak for herself.

Truth about audrey's dance, i wouldn't have figured out the whole coma thing until that moment had i not read it on here. At the same time, i took it as a gift to some of the oldtimers for staying loyal.

It has taken some adjustments for me to get comfortable with the season, as it is so different. I still just can't agree with twin peaks existing in our world, i just don't like it. But overall i agree, they couldn't please everyone, and overall i think it's been quite a season. I just have no idea what to expect for sunday!!

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

Thank you again for what you posted and I like a lot of it and also disagree with a lot of it, but this is what exactly Lynch wants to people to interpret his work.

I can't quiet see the "jigsaw puzzle" analogy as you are so sure of it, because of the way the narrative line and how Lynch throws in these old characters into the scene. I remember the scene with Laura's mother Sarah in her living room, she was watching the the old boxing match in a loop, that she even walked out of the room and the TV kept playing. I could not make any sense out of that other than maybe that her life has become just routine as the way the tv thing was looping over and over. That scene at the bar when she killed that guy was even more bizarre?

I doubt we get all the answers by the finale because then it wouldn't be Lynch !

reply

[–] keybored (2657) 7 years ago

I'll have more time to finish off my thoughts and explanations tomorrow as I am off to sleep now.

reply

[–] keybored (2657) 7 years ago

By jigsaw puzzle, I meant that we had an idea of what the final jigsaw 'might' look like and we might even have recognised many of the pieces being placed down, but we have no idea of what the final picture will be.

There have been characters introduced that seemed to have no relevance to anything or anyone, but as more pieces get placed, most of them are fitting into the larger picture and have a relevant role, however small.

Some pieces we still have no clue about eg. 911 girl, and some may not even have been real but part of Audrey's (insert whatever here). Even pieces we first thought "aha! those two pieces fit there" (when Ed is sitting with Norma and we assume they are together) turned out not to be the case because they fit in another part of the jigsaw instead.

The Roadhouse turns out to maybe not be the Roadhouse after all, or at least not all parts of it because we still don't know which performance is real and which is down to Audrey (song lyrics by those performers seem now to play a part in that now too).

Even though the finale picture of season 3 is about to be revealed, the problem remains that it wouldn't really be Lynch if the finale all makes sense. We are assuming that it is all going to be wrapped up with a neat little bow, but that has never been his style.

In some ways, I feel Lynch has been playing a Windom Earle style game of chess with us. You can see now how the characters have been manoeuvred into position around the board, and how some pieces that may have looked harmful like Richard at first, turned out to have been just a pawn after all.

In closing, I hope to at least have one more season of Twin Peaks but I will just say this about the finale... "'I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange".

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

applause and cheers✌

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

You said a lot in your post and most of it assumptions, but I think you are giving Lynch way too much credit for season 3. I don't think Lynch is playing a chess game at all, he just seems to be banking on the name of Twin Peaks and his own reputation to draw us into a very incoherent maze where he again rely on his style to cover this mess.

I urge you to go back and watch season 1 and 2 and you may realize that your reasoning above may be more relevant because every character into those seasons had a part on the so-called chess board.

reply

[–] keybored (2657) 7 years ago

I have rewatched seasons 1 & 2 recently and will watch them yet again when it is all complete, but I still think that season 3 is more cleverly constructed than the previous 2 seasons. Rewatching it again won't change that for me - we will just have to disagree with how we perceive the seasons

Incidently, I watched Twin Peaks when it first aired. Did you? Just curious.

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

Yes, I did when it first aired and also recently, because of Season 3. I also watched the Movie recently "Fire Walk with me", which Season 3 is tied into that more. There is a lot of references to "Phillip Jeffries" who was played by David Bowie. I think Season 3 is actually a continuation of that, because that's when Agent Cooper changed at the end.

I like some of Lynch's work but I can't say "Twin Peaks" ranks very high among them. I prefer his other films like "Blue Velvet", that can stand the test of time. Even Twin Peaks's first two seasons just seem so tedious at times; when i watched them recently again, I had the same reaction and didn't find them that interesting as I do with Rod Sterling's "Twilight Zone", which I have seen so many times but I still think those were amazing.

I think Season 3 started good but then it just became a mess and if you are a hardcore Lynch fan, you tend to just go with the flow and I guess accept it. I think Lynch is also very over rated, he is not a director like Fellini, whose work do ties into a lot of universal cultural themes. Lynch is more of acquired taste. I understand "Blue Velvet" and "Mulholland Drive" because both had a very interesting take and thesis I guess about America and Hollywood.

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

Well, as I predicated the last two episodes had nothing to do with any of the characters who were used as props. I guess that poked a hole in your "jigsaw" theory..huh?.lol..As I told you before most of what Lynch did was scene fillers, I didn't expect at all Lynch would waste any time with the old cast in the last two episodes because of the way he was using them in the narrative; the real story began was when Cooper became Cooper.

Although I did like episode 17 but 18 was almost a waste of screen time until the 10 minutes of the end. I knew from the first episode when we saw "Laura Palmer" and "Leyland" telling Cooper to find Laura, it must have something to do with this season 3. Gordon Cole, also explained a lot about the "Phillip Jeffries" who was in the Twin Peaks movie "Fire walk with me", in fact all the clues to the 3rd season were in that movie, as Gordon explained it.

I think the obsession with Laura Palmer, never ended with Cooper, it was his love for Twin Peaks and the people who cared about this girl and how her death touched everyone in this little town that Cooper fell in love with. I guess by finding the the doorway to go back in time to save Laura also altered the future. It was probably the most moving scene in the entire episode when he went back in time, but what was interesting was that Laura that lived in the present was still involved with the wrong people, like the dead man in her house. Maybe the clue we didn't hear was what Laura was whispering to cooper in the alternate universe, that was the last shot Lynch left us with. It was very a sad ending, yet it tied into who Cooper really was, a decent and honorable person who always wanted to do the right thing, even though it didn't work out the way he hoped for. I am guessing Laura's last scream was when she woke up to who she was?.

In closing I will say this 3rd season may not have been as good as first two, but these last episodes were brilliant; it was what made Lynch to be Lynch again. I don't know there will be a Season 4 but I sure hope so ?

reply

[–] Darren (1195) 7 years ago

Actually, no, I agree with him completely.

reply

[–] Kazak (2031) 7 years ago

Jesus Harold Christ, another half-wit mistaking his vapid inner dialog for something interesting to say. "Where's Cooper?!! Entertain MEEEEE!!" This "dude" is emptier than the millennials he lazily minimizes. I swear, among the most enjoyable things in this season has been seeing Lynch masterfully play these peabrains like a fiddle.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

God forbid people having opinions huh?

reply

[–] Kazak (2031) 7 years ago

Maybe if their self-reflected imaginary God did forbid it (but, probably not even then).

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

You sound way too triggered.

reply

[–] Kazak (2031) 7 years ago

Well, I never have been known to suffer idiocy quietly that's for sure, but your use of the emotionally charged buzzword to try to wind me up was kinda cute.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

I'm not the one showing "emotions" when describing other people's opinions as [and I quote]:

"another half-wit mistaking his vapid inner dialog for something interesting to say".
"Where's Cooper?!! Entertain MEEEEE!!"
"This "dude" is emptier than the millennials he lazily minimizes."
"I swear, among the most enjoyable things in this season has been seeing Lynch masterfully play these peabrains like a fiddle."

That's a lot of triggered emotions right there.

reply

[–] Kazak (2031) 7 years ago

I never said I wasn't being emotional and you were though, I said your use of the emotionally charged buzzword was cute. Why are you suddenly setting up strawmen? What's the point of this tangential exchange anyway? Are you going to show me the error of my ways? I said what I said to the OP and ugly as it may be, I'm not budging from it. I actually am tired of left-brained nimwits making the same tired complaints and presenting it unironically as if they're saying something new. "What is this, kindergarten?"

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

Good, you recognize you are triggered. That's half way to enlightenment.

"I said your use of the emotionally charged buzzword was cute." - can you show me where I was being emotional by using a random word that is not even in my own native language?

"Why are you suddenly setting up strawmen? " - do you understand what a "straw man argument" is? Because there is no straw-man from what I said. I simply pointed out a fact [that you are emotional and triggered and don't respect people's opinions, by resorting into insulting them]

"What's the point of this tangential exchange anyway?" - care to show what is tangential in me saying "god forbid people having opinions?" It's pretty much a straight forward criticism of you insulting someone who has different opinions from you. Nothing tangential there.

"Are you going to show me the error of my ways?" - I did. If you can't even recognize it, you are seriously brain damaged.

"I said what I said to the OP and ugly as it may be, I'm not budging from it." - in other words, you enjoy being an idiot to an absolute stranger for no reason. That makes of you an asshole.

"I actually am tired of left-brained nimwits making the same tired complaints and presenting it unironically as if they're saying something new. "What is this, kindergarten?" - Not only you didn't understand what the OP wrote, you also decided to make a bold statement on the OP's character when you know nothing about him/her [even just now, by calling him/her "left-brain nimwats"] for no apparent reason other than your self-entitled truth carrying.

It would be just as simple as for you to admit you just badmouthed someone you don't even know, by not understanding what that person said to begin with. You are a perfect example of trolls on the internet.

PS - And I agree with 90% of what the OP said. Want to call me some bad names?

reply

[–] Kazak (2031) 7 years ago

I actually did understand the OP though, and it is merely a variation on the same tired complaints. From the OP title, "It's not the same, blather." From the third paragraph of the OP, "Where's Cooper? Blather." Add to that the OP's broken English, presumably a native English speaker, I conclude that we're dealing with a mental midget here. Also, you've gone to strawmen, and you're now beginning to throw insults at me, just so we're clear. I'm a big boy, I can take it, I just thought you might want to roll that back since in the same breath you're criticizing me for the same thing. These are not generally the tactics one goes to when one is embroiled in an ongoing argument that one genuinely feels they are on the winning side of.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

Are you a professional victim by any chance? TrigglyPuff is that you?

Care to show where the strawman is mr. Kettle?

If you did understand the OP, and you still insult him, you are furthermore proving not only you are not a "big boy" but a child who can't live with other people's opinions. But you clearly did not understand what the OP wrote, and you still don't.

I am indeed criticizing you. Not because you have opinions, but because you attacked a stranger who has different views than you [and for no reason at all] and now you are playing the victim.

There's no rhyme or reason in such action. You are a free person, you may act whatever way you so desire, just don't expect me or any other person - for that matter - not to call you on your BS.

I don't agree with what most people say in the board regarding Twin Peaks, but that is no reason to attack them, insult them, or derive conclusions about them the same way you did. You are just acting like an idiot for no sane reason whatsoever.

You need to grow up dude.

reply

[–] Kazak (2031) 7 years ago

Care to show where the strawman is mr. Kettle?

It was a minor point which you surely used a strawman argument to try to refute, and I thought I did adequately explain it, but, somewhat tediously, I'll make another attempt. I criticized your lazy use of an emotionally charged buzzword to try to score cheap points. You implied that I was arguing instead that I was not being emotional, but you were, which certainly was not my argument. I readily admit to being emotional, but I do try to avoid using buzzwords to score cheap points.

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

You really need to Bounce off this thread dude, you are just pissing people off and its obvious you don't know how to conduct yourself as an adult. I remember when IMDB message board shut down, I happen to know some of the staff, it was mostly because of TROLLS like you who come here to start a fight or an argument, because that;s the only excitement you can find in your miserable life.

reply

[–] Kazak (2031) 7 years ago

I don't think we're connecting healthily anymore, I suspect due to misconceptions as a result of our having different native languages and not fully understanding the nuances of each other's minds, therefore I am going to respectfully back out of this thread now, which will with any luck sink off the front page. Have the last word if you wish, I will not reply. For what it's worth, I do think the OP is a lamebrain and offer him no apologies, but I've never gotten the impression that you were one, TA. I do think as a non-English speaker you're maybe not as familiar with some of the many pitfalls littered throughout the English language landscape. I would caution you to tread carefully, there be dragons.

reply

[–] Bobby Briggs Briganza (485) 7 years ago

Just don't forget that his auteur style of incoherence is what makes Lynch to be Lynch. It is an acquired taste and full of a charm and essence that is not for the average viewer.

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

That's because he has nothing else to do in mother's basement with his little tablet to get online and act tough...Lol
Most insecure little men, who is most probably a "millennial", get triggered over the most mundane things..Lol...it's just a TV show for God's sake.

reply

[–] keybored (2657) 7 years ago

Wouldn't it be nice if this thread could stay about the topic of Twin Peaks instead of being ruined by insulting other members and fighting?

It's getting to be like some bad version of the roadhouse here !

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

I agree with you, but I think you should be addressing this advice to the rude infantile poster "Kazak" who made the comments below toward me first:
(259) 2 days ago
"Jesus Harold Christ, another half-wit mistaking his vapid inner dialog for something interesting to say. "Where's Cooper?!! Entertain MEEEEE!!" This "dude" is emptier than the millennials he lazily minimizes. I swear, among the most enjoyable things in this season has been seeing Lynch masterfully play these peabrains like a fiddle."

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Ha! The roadhouse thread! I like it. I think it's funny that kazak said he wanted this thread to go away like 10 posts ago lol so im gonna be a little trouble maker and bump it again. The roadhouse thread lives!

reply

[–] Bobby Briggs Briganza (485) 7 years ago

I really want to brawl and fight on the Kazak side, perhaps with DDL (Daniel Day-Lewis, for the n00bs) alongside us. DEATH TO THE LEFT-BRAINED EUROTRASH SCUM! DEATH TO THE L.A. HIPSTERS!! RARARARAWW!

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Ha! Is this the pope's new army? A few crusty bitches and a handful of ragtags?

reply

[–] Bobby Briggs Briganza (485) 7 years ago

We need to settle FOR GOOD AND AWLL who holds sway over the TP Board: Us Natives, born RIGHTWISE to this fine board.... or the FOREIGN HORDES defiling it!

reply

[–] Bobby Briggs Briganza (485) 7 years ago

Ya'll can have Poodles, when she returns from her holiday in Spain, and Melodica when he gets back from the Labor Day BBQ.

I'ma take Kazak and k737dhd7382 guy; they seem like good Spartans.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Lol i forgot about poodles!

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

ATTICA!

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

I guess I triggered something personal that you have to insult and be immature about it on this board, so that really makes you the "half-wit" to react to someone's opinion on a message board...Lol
I am guessing you are a "millennial" and that's you are offended and going on your little rant without even contributing or even expressing any opinion as to why "Lynch masterfully play these peabrains like a fiddle"?..
FYI, I met David Lynch twice, not that I want to drop names and or impress anyone here. I met him at the screening of "Blue Velvet" and also at a event for his show in LA, which was few years after he made made Twin Peaks. If you have even read his interviews then you would know that he wants the audience to make up their own mind about his work, he even welcomes opinions and very open to be criticizing his work. So if you really think you understand what Lynch has masterfully has done here, you are sadly mistaken but he does a lot of stuff in the moment he is shooting. When he made "Mulholland Dr", he barely had a full script and did a lot of things in the day of the shoot that, he even talked about in a interview in the LA Times Sunday Calendar.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

This Season is very different from the former 2 in many different ways, for sure. To be clear, there was a lot on the originals that I didn't like or find interesting. To me - and IMHO - Twin Peaks is about the supernatural elements and strangeness that follows them. I don't care for who is in love with who, who is the richest, who can take the highest dose of coke and who is a relative to who. Those sub-plots [soap opera 101] I see as irrelevant to the main story [who killed Laura Palmer, how and why].

But given that that portion of the Twin Peaks series has already been solved, there are some elements that haven't been addressed yet [such as Chester Desmond] and some I wish it was done differently [the Doppelganger shenanigans, the "importance of Laura Palmer", and Cooper].

As for Dougie, yeah I get the joke on making the fans wait for his return while they themselves are watching the dude right in front of them, expecting him to be normal "the next episode", but it's way too prolonged [there's a reason for it obviously, but if we don't get some stuff resolved - hint: such as Chester Desmond - there's really no point in making Cooper come out of the Lodge at all].

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

I liked your replies and i enjoyed reading the characters you commented on and soap opera 101..lol. After watching the last two episodes, I must say it really moved me and made up for almost what came before it. I think you were right on about this season being about the supernatural because it was actually continuation of Twin Peaks: "Fire walk with me", where Cooper gets trapped in the alternate universe at the end and Bad cooper takes over. There is 25 years of gap we don't know what happened and how Bad Cooper went missing from FBI.

I think Lynch did give us the clues in the first episodes when I saw Laura and Leyland, especially when Leyland said "Find Laura"?. that was so odd to me as to why we are still dealing with Laura?. There was also other things about Laura mentioned when the missing pages of her diary showed up in the bathroom door but none of it made think we will get an ending like this where Cooper actually goes back in time. I already did a post on what I felt the ending and I really loved the last two episodes, even though I didn't quiet understood the ending, but I felt it was Lynch at his best, it very sad with the last shot of Cooper in the dark backdrop with Laura whispering to him. Agent Cooper is what defined Twin Peaks the show and I just we had spent more time with him in season 3.

I am curious to hear your thoughts about the last two episodes and how Lynch ended it ?

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

Man that finale had lots of problems from the story resolve point of view. I get the traveling back in time to undo Laura's death idea, given that the Lodges themselves are free of such concept as time. But it felt forced and ended in another cliff-hanger with no actual resolve.

There's a portion of that time travelling shenanigans that don't make much sense either: when we see Sarah Palmer bashing Laura's photo we are seeing Sarah in the present... but if Laura had been saved, there would be no reason for Laura to be a drunk possessed bitch smashing Laura's photo in the present.

Also, Laura is now someone else who seems to remember she was once Laura but not anymore...? And that is because she was saved...? It doesn't add up.

Part of me felt true delight when Cooper was in the past and we see that FWWM part where Laura screams at the wilderness. In this case she screamed because she thought she saw someone there [and she did, Cooper]. It was a fun twist, but again, felt forced.

Naido being Diane was quite interesting, but... why? Was she forced by DoppelCoop to be incarcerated like that on The Other Place? And why would she, when DoppelCoop has no need for her; he could simply had killed her and be done with it.

The Bob fight was hilariously bad. Interesting that Bob says what he said in the European version "my death bag"; but the fight itself was atrocious. Also, where did he go...

We got no resolve for Sarah and no further sight of "Jewday".

The sex moment between Coop and Diane was interesting as an attempt from Coop to erase DoppelCoops' rape and to extract more information from Diane regarding the Blue Rose case. Using an Orgasm to channel info from the spirits.... seems legit :D

I guess we ended up where we started. All that we saw was Laura's whispering into Cooper. So... Cooper is still inside the Lodge...? At least that's what I took from it.

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

I agree with almost everything you stated, however, again I think based on the style of the narrative line of this season 3, I had a feeling a lot it of would not make sense at the end either.

There was so much this season 3 that didn't make sense from the very beginning, when I did mention some of it, some of you came to defend Lynch and his "auteur style " or "It's his auteur style of incoherence that makes Lynch to be Lynch", but that is really what Lynch wants us to believe and I totally disagree with that because if you do not question what you are watching then you are nothing but a FANBOY, a person who does not think while watching.

I was focusing on the character of Cooper who always wanted to do the right thing, that's why I kind of liked the ending but I really was not expecting a lot of answers, because of how Lynch was using the old cast as props, because of the new characters that would suddenly pop up with no connection.

You mentioned Sarah Palmer, of all the weird scenes her killing that guy at the bar when she took of her face was the most weirdest scene of them all?....so when did Sarah's mother change into one of them?. can you try and explain that ?

I think Diane is the girl that Cooper use to talk to his little tape recorder in season 1 and 2, but this time in season 3 we actually got to see her. Now, how she got locked in the other universe that didn't make sense, but she was the one who helped Cooper leave that alternate world when he became Dougee.

This ending was more of Lynch than Frost, that's my guess because as much I like and respect Lynch, but when he only sees things from his perspective that make sense to him then it does get self-indulgent. I was really glad Cooper went back in time to save Laura and did find her, but why would changing the past change the identity of Laura Palmer?...I could see it could change the future for his parents or mother selling the house but Laura being someone else that was kind of confusing.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

Yeha the Diane thing didn't make any sense. Andy said that Naifdo/Diano had someone tryng to kill her. But we never got to see it from anyone. Not even DoppelCooper. He could had killed her when he made the Diane Tulpa, but didn't.

Also Sarah's thing is mind boggling. Why would she be possessed?

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

But Diane was the Diane who Cooper use to talk to in his tape recorder, that's why Gordon went to find her, because they were close at one but we never got to see that in season 1 or 2.

Did you read this article? I just sent it by email through this site:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/twin-peaks-finale-how-showtime-revival-ended-1034888

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

Yes, she's that Diane. But why would she be in the paralel universe? For what reason exactly? And why would anyone want to kill her?

I just read it. It seems I was not the only one having problems with how the finale went.

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

I asked the same exact questions about Diane from the moment she got into the show and how did she got into parallel universe just as Sarah who took off her face in the bar to kill that guy?.

I really don't think the finale last night made sense or sat right with a lot of Lynch fans, maybe this is the kind of effect Lynch was going for to make everyone discuss to make sense of his chaos; when there is really nothing to make any sense from.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

I'm quite a Lynch fan. I enjoy his twisted way of showing stuff. But this Season felt so sub-par to his usual stuff it made me somewhat sad.

Firstly I hated the VFX. Lynch has a cool way of showing stuff with very "hands on" methods. Even childish camera tricks sometimes. But they work perfectly and grounds the absurd into a more "believable" frame. The VFX in this Season were so crappy I chuckled quite a few times.

The writing also has a lot of problems and gets lost in it's many [unimportant] threads. They lost way too much time with characters that are irrelevant and had no real message attached to them. Lynch and Frost should have focused their attention on the Blue Rose case. They could still use the other Twin Peaks characters, but either reduce their appearance or make it all fall into them.

reply

[–] Birdmant7 (202) 7 years ago

I am also a Lynch fan, but more of fan of his films than Twin Peaks series. If you recall my first thread here about the 3rd season, when I said almost the same thing you are saying now about the this 3rd season was not received well by other Lynch fans. To me the writing was on the wall from the very beginning, the incoherent became even more incoherent, irrelevant random scenes and characters that had nothing to do with the story line, the use of old cast as just to fill the screen time and make the audience reminisce the old Twin Peaks, all the musical ending in the road house and those random conversations from characters whom none were part of the story, using the old cast also was another kind of manipulation and distraction to story that at the end was much ado about nothing.

As far as the VFX, well, that's just Lynch's signature goes back all the way to "Eraserhead" and yes it does seem cheesy and crappy, because we are in a different time period, 25 years gap, where this kind of VFX seems dated. I thought when Cooper's entire face became like the water mark in the Sheriff station was even more weird?.. I wanted to understand the purpose as to why Lynch did that?.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

yeah, I'm pretty much on the same boat. A big fan of most of his films... not so much of the way Twin Peaks went along.

There are pretty good ideas and images throughout the seasons. Some quite memorable. But as a whole the writing is poor.

reply

[–] Bobby Briggs Briganza (485) 7 years ago

What made Lynch to be Lynch? Is it his auteur style of incoherence in such work as "Eraser head"? Or is it his masterful use of actors such as "Kyle MacLachlan" and "Michael Ontkean"? Surely, the collaboration with "Mark Frost" had something to do with the very charm and essence of it all. Although they were an acquired taste and not for the average viewer, characters like "Audrey" and "Major Briggs" helped the original rise above dull cliché.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

If anything, Frost is the one that dilutes the story to be understood. Imagine if Lynch was given full reign in the first season of TP. It would have played like Inland Empire [nothing wrong with it, but people wouldn't stick around to even ask "wtf is going on"]

reply

[–] Bobby Briggs Briganza (485) 7 years ago

It's his auteur style of incoherence that makes Lynch to be Lynch.

reply

[–] TwistedAcrobat (1725) 7 years ago

indeed.

reply

[–] krl97a (5619) 7 years ago

Yes it is. It's different in some ways, but it's got the atmospherics, the characters, the weirdness, the mystery, the morality, and even the quirkiness. It's still Twin Peaks in its essence.

reply

[–] modica (4169) 7 years ago

I think the OP is in the minority, but that is what art does, polarizes people and brings theories and discussions to the forefront.

reply