Twin Peaks (2017) [Showtime/Sky Atlantic] [ Spoilers ]

jpm4 · 25-07-2017 8:31pm

This series is probably the biggest s**t biscuit I have ever seen. I'm genuinely in awe of anyone who is still enjoying this at this point.

Guess am hate watching at this point which is pretty sad.

Ursus Horribilis · 25-07-2017 8:32pm

How much of it have you seen?

WinnyThePoo · 25-07-2017 8:33pm

I've enjoyed it so far. Loving Dale coopers arch.

jpm4 · 25-07-2017 9:47pm

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

How much of it have you seen?

All of it.

Ursus Horribilis · 25-07-2017 9:57pm

So if it's "probably the biggest s**t biscuit I have ever seen" why are you still watching? I'm not being a smartass, by the way. I'm genuinely curious. If I'm not enjoying something I just stop watching.

(For the record, I'm really enjoying it)

jpm4 · 25-07-2017 10:24pm

Ursus Horribilis wrote: »

So if it's "probably the biggest s**t biscuit I have ever seen" why are you still watching? I'm not being a smartass, by the way. I'm genuinely curious. If I'm not enjoying something I just stop watching.

(For the record, I'm really enjoying it)

Because it's nearly unprecedented as far as a TV series goes - 18 hours of almost literally any arthouse nonsense the markers can dream up and the money men said "no problem, go for it!" It's fascinating in its own way - how much longer will zombie dale cooper keep going now? Surely the whole thing, anything else would make the thing nearly watchable, which is not the Lynch method.

Other answer is am still fond of the original, lame a reason as that is now.

Hande hoche! · 26-07-2017 8:56am

It's certainly a different show. The rotund woman being rather animated about getting to dinner got a belly laugh from myself.

one armed dwarf · 26-07-2017 9:01am

jpm4 wrote: »

Because it's nearly unprecedented as far as a TV series goes - 18 hours of almost literally any arthouse nonsense the markers can dream up and the money men said "no problem, go for it!" It's fascinating in its own way - how much longer will zombie dale cooper keep going now? Surely the whole thing, anything else would make the thing nearly watchable, which is not the Lynch method.

Other answer is am still fond of the original, lame a reason as that is now.

Same for me but haven't seen latest episode.

This is a really tough watch and I love Lynch usually. This is approaching Inland Empire levels of unwatchable for me right now.

But I do want to know how it ends.

briany · 26-07-2017 10:52am

one armed dwarf wrote: »

Same for me but haven't seen latest episode.

This is a really tough watch and I love Lynch usually. This is approaching Inland Empire levels of unwatchable for me right now.

But I do want to know how it ends.

Nowhere near Inland Empire, for me. Most viewers would have been wondering if there even was a plot beyond the 1st 3rd of that film, whereas you can pretty easily follow the story strands in TP. It's the right side of weird for Lynch, as I thought he went completely overboard on Inland.

one armed dwarf · 26-07-2017 2:33pm

My problem is that a lot of these story strands don't really resolve into a strong central plot which keeps me engaged. It feels like a collage of vignettes. It's probably a symptom of the weird '18 hour movie' thing but it's a big failure imho.

Something like Game of Thrones and original Twin Peaks tells a strong story each week but this feels like a bunch of random stuff which may or may not be important. It's hard to hold interest.

briany · 26-07-2017 6:33pm

one armed dwarf wrote: »

My problem is that a lot of these story strands don't really resolve into a strong central plot which keeps me engaged. It feels like a collage of vignettes. It's probably a symptom of the weird '18 hour movie' thing but it's a big failure imho.

Something like Game of Thrones and original Twin Peaks tells a strong story each week but this feels like a bunch of random stuff which may or may not be important. It's hard to hold interest.

This series is telling at least as strong a main story as the original, and like the original it also has side plots that may or may not relate to the main one.

I think what's aggravating some is that Lynch and Frost's style of storytelling is forcing us to put pieces together retrospectively. Things we see in one episode may not make sense until the week later, or two weeks, or three. That's pretty backwards to how most shows do it. Because of the dissonance this style creates, it keeps you (or at least me) a bit more engaged.

I think it's also this dissonance that Lynch is striving for in those trademark non-sequitur scenes of his. Scenes like the episode just gone with the honking woman and her vomiting child, or Truman's wife, "We're gonna get that black mold, Frank!!!", or even that odd scene in the original where James is singing a strange doo-wop song with Donna and Maddy, as well as Nadine's obsession with silent drape runners. They all just make you say, "....wtf?" and, at least I think, intended to mimic the strangeness of real life, as well as keep you guessing regarding the actual plot.

RainMakerToo · 26-07-2017 6:49pm

I accept it may be hard to watch, but i'm enjoying it as something different.
Last episode there was a scene of a car driving, all the traffic lights were green - which struck me as unusual as we had normally seen red traffic lights in a lot of places.
Also there was a lingering scene of a stair case, think Becky came running up after a few seconds, but that stair case immediately reminded me of the picture from Laura's room in FWWM - the open door picture.
lots of little things you wonder if they are somehow significant or not

briany · 26-07-2017 7:42pm

Woman who plays the strangely affected casino hostess, Candie, is one of our own - Irish actress, Amy Shiels.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1213995/?ref_=nv_sr_1

WinnyThePoo · 26-07-2017 7:45pm

Aaabbbccc wrote: »

Woman who plays the strangely affected casino hostess, Candie, is one of our own - Irish actress, Amy Shiels.

?

mzungu · 26-07-2017 8:14pm

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

?

She is the girl in the middle in that pic. The one who always seems occupied anytime somebody asks her to do something.

jpm4 · 26-07-2017 9:36pm

briany wrote: »

This series is telling at least as strong a main story as the original, and like the original it also has side plots that may or may not relate to the main one.

What is the main story then?

nearzero · 27-07-2017 11:59am

I cant help but love it.
I love all the undertows & commentary & all the messages left everywhere in it about society & life & love & human nature. Its what Lynch does best.

Oh & does anyone else think Diane is a doppelganger! She said she saw the woodsman person leave the car when we saw her witness him go into the car. She is seeing things in reverse - could mean she is a doppelganger like when Evil Coops fingerprints were reversed?

nearzero · 27-07-2017 12:05pm

jpm4 wrote: »

What is the main story then?

The main story is about the return of Cooper. The whole thing is based about returning and how you cannot return to the past, Truman said 'The road is gone now' - you cannot go back, you have to go forward.

It's deliberately called Twin Peaks: The Return. Return is the essence of the show. How you cant return to what you were, you have to return as something different and how things can return & repeat themselves & how sometimes we just dont learn from that or sometimes we do. We all want Cooper to come back to himself but cant go back, you have to go forward - he will return but he will be different.

Look at Shelly in the diner in Episode 11 - her daughter is repeating her mistakes as she repeats her own, running out of the diner like a teenager for another 'bad guy' - same mistakes over & over.

Its about the human condition - about how everyone has a good side & an evil side.

Its exactly what Lynch does - he sets it up & you take from it what you want. Its all a commentary.

jpm4 · 27-07-2017 1:07pm

color_girl wrote: »

The main story is about the return of Cooper. The whole thing is based about returning and how you cannot return to the past, Truman said 'The road is gone now' - you cannot go back, you have to go forward.

It's deliberately called Twin Peaks: The Return. Return is the essence of the show. How you cant return to what you were, you have to return as something different and how things can return & repeat themselves & how sometimes we just dont learn from that or sometimes we do. We all want Cooper to come back to himself but cant go back, you have to go forward - he will return but he will be different.

Look at Shelly in the diner in Episode 11 - her daughter is repeating her mistakes as she repeats her own, running out of the diner like a teenager for another 'bad guy' - same mistakes over & over.

Its about the human condition - about how everyone has a good side & an evil side.

Its exactly what Lynch does - he sets it up & you take from it what you want. Its all a commentary.

You are predominantly talking about themes above, not story. There is very little (save the name) that suggests this is mainly the story of Coopers return, that doesn't get much more attention than the FBI murders investigation, Hawk and Truman's investigation of whatever, the adventures of bad Coop, etc.

In the first and half series - the main/anchor story was Laura Palmer's murder, I think most would agree.

Sad Professor · 27-07-2017 1:52pm

jpm4 wrote: »

You are predominantly talking about themes above, not story. There is very little (save the name) that suggests this is mainly the story of Coopers return, that doesn't get much more attention than the FBI murders investigation, Hawk and Truman's investigation of whatever, the adventures of bad Coop, etc.

In the first and half series - the main/anchor story was Laura Palmer's murder, I think most would agree.

You are talking about plot rather than story. And you are right: it's thin. The original show was quite plot-driven in comparison its true, but once Lynch was directing I think everyone knew what to expect. That said, there's still waay more plot than is typical for Lynch.

one armed dwarf · 27-07-2017 1:59pm

Even pure Lynch can have a strong story hook, like Blue Velvet. Mulholland Dr. was ostensibly a criminal conspiracy before it pulled the rug out.

Twin Peaks season 3 feels like a scrapbook of mini-narratives with nothing really tying it together in a way that makes a week-by-week watch all that satisfying.

I did like a few moments in this week's episode (stuff with Bobby, the casino guys). But it's hard to see how this stuff contributes to a grander vision. It's very scattered and frustrating as a viewer.

nearzero · 27-07-2017 3:54pm

one armed dwarf wrote: »

But it's hard to see how this stuff contributes to a grander vision. It's very scattered and frustrating as a viewer.

I actually dont find it frustrating at all - I feel like its layering & building to something which I find intriguing & compelling!

Fair points on the plot versus story though but I actually like all the varying storylines & how they all interact.

briany · 27-07-2017 4:14pm

jpm4 wrote: »

There is very little (save the name) that suggests this is mainly the story of Coopers return, that doesn't get much more attention than the FBI murders investigation, Hawk and Truman's investigation of whatever, the adventures of bad Coop, etc.

The Twin Peaks police investigations are all about Dale (and Briggs) at this stage. It was the Log Lady specifically telling Hawk about Dale that kicked off their investigation. An 'investigation of whatever' is totally inaccurate.

The FBI are trying to locate Bad Cooper, as well as investigating the Buckhorn murders and the phenomena surrounding them. Although it's not yet obvious to them, we the viewers can clearly surmise some sort of relation to Bad Cooper due to his showing up at the Hastings' home.

Bad Cooper is attempting to stay out of the Lodge.

Cooper is in his Dougie-daze, but is slowly coming to his senses.

It's through these four separate, yet related, components that the plot of the story is laid out, the story being, as given to Cooper through The Arm's imperative, "He must come back...", and it's clear these four components are set on a collision course.

jpm4 · 27-07-2017 4:58pm

briany wrote: »

The Twin Peaks police investigations are all about Dale (and Briggs) at this stage. It was the Log Lady specifically telling Hawk about Dale that kicked off their investigation. An 'investigation of whatever' is totally inaccurate.

The FBI are trying to locate Bad Cooper, as well as investigating the Buckhorn murders and the phenomena surrounding them. Although it's not yet obvious to them, we the viewers can clearly surmise some sort of relation to Bad Cooper due to his showing up at the Hastings' home.

Bad Cooper is attempting to stay out of the Lodge.

Cooper is in his Dougie-daze, but is slowly coming to his senses.

It's through these four separate, yet related, components that the plot of the story is laid out, the story being, as given to Cooper through The Arm's imperative, "He must come back...", and it's clear these four components are set on a collision course.

So basically "hang on, it will all come together in the end"? Grand.

briany · 27-07-2017 5:17pm

jpm4 wrote: »

So basically "hang on, it will all come together in the end"?

It's not even, 'hang on' as if it doesn't make sense right now. It's easy enough to see how the four components to the main story I listed relate to one another, and it's not as if separate story threads that come to a collective head as the series reaches its conclusion is a groundbreaking technique that a viewer shouldn't be able to process.

jpm4 · 27-07-2017 5:32pm

briany wrote: »

It's not even, 'hang on' as if it doesn't make sense right now. It's easy enough to see how the four components to the main story I listed relate to one another, and it's not as if separate story threads that come to a collective head as the series reaches its conclusion is a groundbreaking technique that a viewer shouldn't be able to process.

More like "hang on, am losing my patience with this". I've no doubt the threads relate, the original point I was making was in reply to your comment saying the main story here is as strong as the original. I simply disagree.

briany · 27-07-2017 7:38pm

jpm4 wrote: »

More like "hang on, am losing my patience with this". I've no doubt the threads relate, the original point I was making was in reply to your comment saying the main story here is as strong as the original. I simply disagree.

It's OK if you don't find the story as strong in the sense that it doesn't resonate with you. You may find the idea of a murdered teen girl and the investigation thereof to be more compelling, but in terms of strength of presentation - that is the initial direction being laid out to the viewer and the ensuing narrative which pushes that story forward, I'd say S3 is just as strong as S1 and part of S2. It is in no way a mish-mash of 'arthouse nonsense', although this was probably a criticism leveled at the original series as well.

If anything it's more singular and focused because whereas the original show had several strong side-plots, be it the stuff with Bobby, Shelly and Leo or the dealings with Ben, Catherine, Josie and Pete, most of what's been shown in S3 has related to the collision between Cooper and Bad Cooper, be it through scenes with those characters or the investigations by the FBI and the TP police department.

jpm4 · 27-07-2017 7:58pm

briany wrote: »

It's OK if you don't find the story as strong in the sense that it doesn't resonate with you. You may find the idea of a murdered teen girl and the investigation thereof to be more compelling, but in terms of strength of presentation - that is the initial direction being laid out to the viewer and the ensuing narrative which pushes that story forward, I'd say S3 is just as strong as S1 and part of S2. It is in no way a mish-mash of 'arthouse nonsense', although this was probably a criticism leveled at the original series as well.

If anything it's more singular and focused because whereas the original show had several strong side-plots, be it the stuff with Bobby, Shelly and Leo or the dealings with Ben, Catherine, Josie and Pete, most of what's been shown in S3 has related to the collision between Cooper and Bad Cooper, be it through scenes with those characters or the investigations by the FBI and the TP police department.

Completely disagree, that's OK though I appreciate the opinion.

ixoy · 27-07-2017 10:17pm

Wasn't Laura's death meant really only to be a means to an end - to introduce people into the world and mysteries of Twin Peaks? It just became far more core than intended. This time , with full creative control, Lynch is actually choosing to tell one story albeit in an oddly structured way.

ballyargus · 27-07-2017 10:22pm

ixoy wrote: »

Wasn't Laura's death meant really only to be a means to an end - to introduce people into the world and mysteries of Twin Peaks? It just became far more core than intended. This time , with full creative control, Lynch is actually choosing to tell one story albeit in an oddly structured way.

Yes it was a complete McGuffin. Twin Peaks was always about ideas, in fact the original series spent a lot of time satirising everyday procedural TV. What was the name of the cheesy soap opera that kept playing in the background?

briany · 28-07-2017 1:21pm

I'm on board with Lynch's feelings regarding Laura's killer, but everything happens for a reason. I suppose that in Lynch's vision we'd have gotten a few seasons before wrapping up and the audience appetite would have been sated. However, what we got was that the original series built up a great cult following which has eventually allowed Lynch to come back and do something so purely his stylistic vision that I don't think he'd ever have gotten to do in the original.

CastorTroy · 30-07-2017 12:27am

And I'm up to date. Really enjoying it. It's quirky but not annoyingly so. Definitely not dragging as much as season 2 did.

Would like to see the real Coop return. Dunno how they're having conversations with Dougie. It's like conversations in video games like Zelda where the main character doesn't speak.

Audrey's son is a complete b*stard, probably in the correct sense of the word as well.

And, yeah Shelly is mom to 2 hot daughters in Betty and Becky. Dunno why Shelly doesn't say she was in an abusive relationship as well to Leo. Though at least Leo looked more threatening.

FBI Tammy is easy on the eye. And surprised to see Duchovny.

With Andy and Lucy as parents their son hadn't a hope. Clearly inherited both their stupidity. Though he sounded like a puppet.

So weird that 4 actors have died between the time they filmed their scenes and they aired.

ShaneU · 30-07-2017 1:15am

4 have died? I know Catherine Coulson and Miguel Ferrer died, who else?

Sad Professor · 30-07-2017 7:08am

ShaneU wrote: »

4 have died? I know Catherine Coulson and Miguel Ferrer died, who else?

I assume Warren Frost and David Bowie, though Bowie died before filming his scenes. Michael Parks died as well but afaik he wasn't due to return.

CastorTroy · 30-07-2017 12:33pm

Bowie is in it? The Double R chef. Said his name at the end of the first episode Amanda Seyfried was in. And yeah, Warren Frost

Sad Professor · 30-07-2017 12:36pm

CastorTroy wrote: »

Bowie is in it? The Double R chef. Said his name at the end of the first episode Amanda Seyfried was in. And yeah, Warren Frost

Bowie was supposed to be in it but apparently didn't get to shoot his scenes. His character has still been mentioned several times though so I don't how they will resolve that.

briany · 31-07-2017 2:06pm

Felt like a holding pattern kind of episode but with almost every scene being intriguing.

For example, The Twin Peaks police have co-ordinates, Diane has co-ordinates, and the FBI have co-ordinates. I'm guessing they're all for the same place. Dougie's prints are on file and it remains to be seen if this will let the FBI find him. They now also know that Las Vegas is significant.

Sarah Palmer's scene was the best of the episode. It was very un-nerving.

The return of Audrey - it seemed like her re-introduction has disappointed some people. To be honest, the more I think about it, her being trapped in a loveless sham marriage to a milquetoast accountant makes a lot of sense to me. She was always a sly harpy, deep down, on the original show. The kind who'd marry for security and an easily manipulated partner, while she had men on the side. Explains a thing or two about Richard, as well.

Gordon Cole appears to be treating the investigation as something of an upscale lads' beano.

froog · 31-07-2017 10:12pm

jpm4 wrote: »

You are predominantly talking about themes above, not story. There is very little (save the name) that suggests this is mainly the story of Coopers return, that doesn't get much more attention than the FBI murders investigation, Hawk and Truman's investigation of whatever, the adventures of bad Coop, etc.

In the first and half series - the main/anchor story was Laura Palmer's murder, I think most would agree.

all of these are heavily related. there's a lot of deep lore in this show, established in the first two seasons and the film. the black and white lodges etc.

CastorTroy · 31-07-2017 10:56pm

It was like a continuation of the Fire Walk With Me FBI story mixed with the padding of the tv series. Cooper didn't even put in an appearance in any form, did he? Apart from the text.

Seems the Roadhouse is just being used for small side stories to show there's more happening in the town, when not just showing bands. Just need Xander Berkeley there with his notebook.

It's mean to say, but did Sarah Palmer play the role of Mac in Mac & Me?

seandotcomm · 31-07-2017 10:59pm

CastorTroy wrote: »

Cooper didn't even put in an appearance in any form, did he? Apart from the text.

Got hit in the head by a baseball

ixoy · 31-07-2017 11:00pm

briany wrote: »

Sarah Palmer's scene was the best of the episode. It was very un-nerving.

Plus I was reminded that she has the scariest ceiling fan ever..

briany · 01-08-2017 10:33am

ixoy wrote: »

Plus I was reminded that she has the scariest ceiling fan ever..

I was smiling when I saw that. Really, really wide....

AndrewJRenko · 04-08-2017 3:23pm

I'm loving it. It is clear that Lynch had 100% creative control and has made the most of this - no holds barred at all. It is beautifully surreal at times, and as Homer Simpson said when he watched it, I have absolutely no idea what is going here at all. I'm fascinated by all the interpretations and sub-stories detailed here in these discussions, as that would have gone completely over my head, but I can see where people are coming from.

In the most recent episode, I nearly wet myself laughing with Gordon's turnip joke, just plain wet myself with Sarah Palmer's outbursts, and nearly cried with Gordon's tender moment with Albert - "Sometimes, I worry about you Albert" - when he must have known that Miguel was dying. I'm really enjoying that Albert and Gordon have more face time. It would be great to hear more from Audrey and Donna and others from Series 1 and 2.

But all in all, it's just what I expected from Lynch - to be completely unpredictable.

doxy · 06-08-2017 10:45am

Why is Twin Peaks not scary anymore?

The original was terrifying. I rewatched it last year and quickly found that I had to watch it early in the day, because watching it close to bedtime meant no sleep for me. The new series ranks a zero on the horror scale.

I have more misgivings about it than that alone, but I can't believe the scariest thing I've ever seen is completely devoid of horror anymore. Barring Sarah Palmers scene last week there's no sense of terror that permeated the original series at all.

I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I think it's a very poor reboot.

ballyargus · 06-08-2017 1:14pm

doxy wrote: »

Why is Twin Peaks not scary anymore?

The original was terrifying. I rewatched it last year and quickly found that I had to watch it early in the day, because watching it close to bedtime meant no sleep for me. The new series ranks a zero on the horror scale.

I have more misgivings about it than that alone, but I can't believe the scariest thing I've ever seen is completely devoid of horror anymore. Barring Sarah Palmers scene last week there's no sense of terror that permeated the original series at all.

I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I think it's a very poor reboot.

Episodes 8 and 12 were truly terrifying this time around. Still little comes close to the last episode of season 2 and the episodes were Leland's possession became evident.

ixoy · 06-08-2017 10:48pm

doxy wrote: »

Why is Twin Peaks not scary anymore?

How could you not find sequences of Episode 8 very scary? The Woodsman in particular with their "Got a light?" and the subsequent radio station scene is among the scariest the show has produced.

There was also some unnerving scenes recently with Cole spotting the Woodsmen and the scene outside the diner. And then Mother in the first episode now that I think of it.

I know it's an unpopular opinion, but I think it's a very poor reboot.

Reboot? It's a continuation.

doxy · 07-08-2017 8:16am

ixoy wrote: »

How could you not find sequences of Episode 8 very scary? The Woodsman in particular with their "Got a light?"

Episode 8 was the one episode I genuinely loved this season, but I don't find the woodsmen remotely scary. Not that the show necessarily has to be terrifying to be good, but that was a big part of what made the original so great.

CastorTroy · 07-08-2017 6:18pm

This episode confused me a bit with timelines as if overlapping somewhere. Like Dougie just coming back from his partying with Knepper/Belushi, yet last week he was not playing catch with his son. Then Bobby saying they found things belonging to his father today.

Think it's time for real Coop to come back. I thought the fingerprints may have brought Cole and co.

Looks like Evil Coop and evil b*st*rd will be returning to Twin Peaks.

So should we know who was watching James and crying? Same girl that was in the previous episode asking about him, I know it's Jessica Szohr but wonder what she has to do with anything.

briany · 07-08-2017 7:41pm

doxy wrote: »

Why is Twin Peaks not scary anymore?

The original was terrifying. I rewatched it last year and quickly found that I had to watch it early in the day, because watching it close to bedtime meant no sleep for me. The new series ranks a zero on the horror scale.

Strange, I don't remember the original Twin Peaks being scary as a rule. There was a dark undercurrent, as there is in S3 (and I think more so in the latter), with the camp and dreamy/surreal elements laid on top. Biggest examples of scares I can recall from S1 and 2 are BOB crouched in the Palmers' living room, the interrogations of MIKE and BOB (speaking through human hosts), and even those were on the cusp of being hammy/fun, Ronnette's nightmare, and the finale in the Black Lodge.

Only the last two listed had me taken aback in any way.

It's possible to see how if one is of a certain sensibility, in the sense that some things will push your buttons more than others, the series could induce sleepless nights, but I didn't really interpret the show that way. Mostly, I found the scenes odd, but in a good way that kind of jarred you out of apathy to the overall story, but rarely scary.

CastorTroy · 07-08-2017 7:48pm

Was wondeirng myself what was so scary in the original. Maybe was scary back then.

Twin Peaks (2017) [Showtime/Sky Atlantic] [** Spoilers **]

Comments

Twin Peaks (2017) [Showtime/Sky Atlantic] [ Spoilers ]