One reason to worry about the quality of Season 3 (SPOILERS)

[mlsstwrt]

I made a post above that I don't like the idea of celebrities in Twin Peaks. But I like FWWM at least as much as the series, probably more, in spite of the presence of Bowie and Isaak. I wonder if I'd feel differently if those guys had been in the town of Twin Peaks, rather than just the universe of Twin Peaks. I don't know.

Those of you saying you're fine with known names being in the TP universe, I'm curious, is there any limit? If Tom Cruise/Brad Pitt/Angelina Jolie were cast would you not find that seeing those names would pull you out of the experience? It's a hypothetical I know, I'm just curious.

Perks of being faceblind as a faceblind bat, I guess, these things bother me a lot less than average (as do recasts). BUT may I point to this litmus example, which worked, so, really, anyone else probably would and will work just as well:

I really like Cage generally and liked him in Wild at Heart but at that time he hadn't quite become the self parody that he now is (no offence to Cage, it's just I pretty much burst out laughing just at the sight of him these days). Loved Bad Lieutenant New Orleans and Leaving Las Vegas but glad that he hasn't been cast in Twin Peaks!

[dugpa]

I'm in the school of if it's anything like FWWM (which all signs point to), then it will definitely be to my liking. I have no worries about it in the least. But yeah, if you consider FWWM to be an artistic failure, you're in for a rough ride...

Agreed

[underthefan]

The original series relied on very strong actors who were not necessarily mainstream and I think that was very important for the immersion aspect.

That is very true. Even though a couple of the actors in the original series weren't completely unknown, they were not mainstream celebrities.

What worries me more though is the shoehorning in of a very old cast, where the original had total freedom to create the ideal show.
There were no obligations if terms of loyalty to actors who may not even fit certain roles anymore, no element of fan expectations etc.
The original series could therefor cast a series that came with an energy and a degree of mass appeal that I think is out of the question this time.

Another concern is Cooper. I really look forward to following him during this series, but as Kyle has said, Cooper is a different guy in this new series.
He has changed as a person.
From that it would be logical to conclude that he wont be the same as the wide eyed, fresh faced optimistic detective that every Twin Peaks fan fell in love with over those exact character traits. Imagine the first series without those traits in Cooper, and you have a WAY less appealing show.

Also I do worry about the gray, cold digital look of the show that we've seen from the teaser featuring actual footage from the show.
Polar opposite of the original series.
One of the main reasons why TP is dear to many people's hearts, is the mix of that 'rosy' film aesthetic, combined with terrifying horror and mystique.
The most beautiful dream and the most terrible nightmare at once.
Removing that warm saturated organic film look will make that house of cards collapse in terms of overall appeal.

All in all, I feel the show will be an experience, and I really can't wait to have that experience. Counting the days!

I just don't think it will become a "watch again and again" kind of treasure that the original was, due to some of the choices mentioned.

Even though this is a 'worries' thread, I will just add that one thing that makes me feel good:

The dumb, unnecessary, boring and artistically lazy elements of the 4-5 bad episodes from the original series season 2 will be totally absent.
Those were within a certain genre of missteps that WILL not occur show under Lynch's control.

If you want my advice, you'd be much better off letting go of preconceived notions of what the new show should be and instead just enjoy and appreciate it for what it is and what it is trying to do. There is no way the show will have the same feeling it had quarter of a century ago for many reasons, including the passage of time, creative development/maturation of its creators and cast, the technology used in the making, as well as the time and culture in which it is being made. Also, after Cooper was "possessed" by BOB, there is no way he would once again be the same wide-eyed, fresh-faced optimistic detective that every Twin Peaks fan fell in love with. That transformation from light to dark was the trajectory of the character and the series from the beginning, and even if the third season was made in 1991, Cooper would not have been the same in it. It is that very transformation that is the heartbreak of his character, and why we are all rooting for him to face his dark side and come out victorious.

I would venture so far as to say that anyone who has these kinds of preconceived expectations of what new TP should be will come out of it severely disappointed, just like many fans were with FWWM when they didn't get what they hoped/expected out of it. Lynch has never been in the business of fulfilling others' expectations, and I appreciate and respect him all the more for it. I am looking forward to being taken wherever Lynch and Frost think the story should go, and letting yourself go with their flow is the best way to experience the new season in my opinion.

[Agent327]

I feel like that's a massive leap in conjecture based on very slim material available you -- also, wouldn't a star-studded cast, at the time, have been 'mass appeal'? Twin Peaks was a sleeper hit, and its employment of unknown names back then was treated as unconventional.

I'm excited about the show. But my concerns are quite logical and based on material available. Just to plant a flag here; The nature of speculation is that you can always go "You don't know that". That is a given. But let's look at your claims regarding a massive leap.....

For instance, in theory it is possible that the teaser trailer was meant to mislead completely, and visually it will be treated with a different filter for the real show to create the old visual feel, but this is, as I'm sure you will agree extremely unlikely. Therefor it's not a great leap to assume that this is likely to be the show's look.

When Kyle says Cooper is a different guy in the new series, and you combine that with Coop's experiences, my concerns about him are pretty logical in relation to his original appeal as mentioned.
In fact, it would be more of a leap to assume that Kyle is lying for the heck of it, and in addition to that, Lynch would treat the character as the same wide eyed guy who first visited the town. I'm excited to see the new Cooper, but I am concerned about what might be lost since it was so unique and defining for the show.

About the age thing, that is purely a question of screen time available. The first show was very youth oriented. Unless 90 % the old actors are simply cameos, things will be quite different this time around.

So the overall leap I made, regarding this season possibly not having the same brand of re-watchability as the old show, simply depends on how much weight you attribute to the elements I just mentioned. For me these things matter, and were fundamental parts of the true 'lightning in a bottle' nature of the original series that makes it so re-watchable.

Regarding your celebrity cast comment....
Perhaps a start-studded cast back then could have created some mass appeal and initial interest, sure. But mass appeal isn't an important quality in itself, which is why I mentioned the beneficial energy the mainly youthful cast brought to the table as well as the mass-appeal of it.

A "Star-studded cast" would in my opinion simply have taken away from the discovery of a new world that was central to the show, and hurt the immersion aspect mentioned by the OP.
It doesn't matter if it was seen by some as "unconventional" to have a large number of unknown actors in a series. It made perfect sense to people given the narrative and the nature of the show. Plus that kind of casting is generally a quality I like, which is why I agree with the OP on that.

[Mr. Reindeer]

The fact that the new show is inevitably going to have different elements and focus doesn't have any bearing on its rewatchability, unless the only type of program you consider de facto rewatchable is one containing the exact mix of elements in the original show. Even in that case, I'm not exactly sure how you would define that mix, since the show went through at least 2, arguably more, fairly extreme paradigm shifts throughout its brief original run.

One of my favorite guilty entertainment pleasures is the 007 series. There are days when I feel like watching Goldfinger, and other days when I'm in a Casino Royale mood. They're totally different films, bit I love both. We have the original TP and we always will, anytime we want to revisit it. The new series is going to be similar in some ways, very dissimilar in others. It's baffling to me that some people aren't elated about the possibilities.

[Agent327]

If you want my advice, you'd be much better off letting go of preconceived notions of what the new show should be and instead just enjoy and appreciate it for what it is and what it is trying to do. There is no way the show will have the same feeling it had quarter of a century ago for many reasons, including the passage of time, creative development/maturation of its creators and cast, the technology used in the making, as well as the time and culture in which it is being made.

The irony is that you are critical of preconceived notions, and yet your entire posts consists of preconceived notions.

Notions that are well thought out and that I actually agree with - nonetheless you are assuming that the new show will be a certain way, and that it will NOT be a certain way. However logical, making a claim about what the show probably wont be is a preconceived notion.
We are all engaging in a game of preconceived notions here.

My post pointed out that I was fairly certain it would be quite different from the original, just like you went on to do.
So in that case our assumptions or preconceived notions align.

Where we part ways is that your post reads mostly like it is all inevitable, which I don't think is a precise characterization of the situation. I think some of the elements I mentioned can /could have been steered in a different direction given choices, in terms of casting, technology, visual treatment etc, to capture some of the magic of the first series.

There are speculative concerns to be had if you are a big fan of elements of the old series.
And it's perfectly okay to have those concerns in addition to being really excited about the new possibilities of this season, excited about things completely detached from anything to do with old TP. That is how I feel.

The one thing that truly is an inescapable element is the changed Cooper, where you basically simply laid out the reason for my concern in your description.

Of course his transformation as a result of experiences is at the heart of the original series, no one is arguing or questioning that. One of the things that made the original series great.
But that doesn't make a slight concern about where it stands now in the new season unreasonable; the transformation of a central character who was highly likable for specific reasons and utterly instrumental in the show's success and longevity.

Of course if someone assumes this will be just like the old TP they will be setting themselves up for disappointment. But that warning seems like a straw man, as I haven't seen a single post making this assumption on this forum.

[Agent327]

The fact that the new show is inevitably going to have different elements and focus doesn't have any bearing on its rewatchability, unless the only type of program you consider de facto rewatchable is one containing the exact mix of elements in the original show. .

It is possible that Lynch can cook up a brand new dish, and that it will be as fascinating, long lasting and re-watchable as the first.
No one is saying that is completely impossible.

But the original had an extremely unique mix of elements, that I don't think Lynch's other work has to the same degree.
That quality is not an easy thing to recreate, not even for Lynch.
Even with the same artist, once you remove one of the main pillars, that will affect things.

[AXX°N N.]

I'm excited about the show. But my concerns are quite logical and based on material available. Just to plant a flag here; The nature of speculation is that you can always go "You don't know that". That is a given. But let's look at your claims regarding a massive leap.....

See but this is exactly why I said you're taking massive leaps. Every single one of your points is assuming something very narrow based on less than 2 minutes of material and brief comments from the cast, so much so that you're not considering a vast pool of alternatives.

For instance, in theory it is possible that the teaser trailer was meant to mislead completely, and visually it will be treated with a different filter for the real show to create the old visual feel, but this is, as I'm sure you will agree extremely unlikely. Therefor it's not a great leap to assume that this is likely to be the show's look.

I did not mean that you were leaping to a conclusion in assuming the show will look like the teasers, but that the new show looking how you think it will look really has no positive or negative indication on if it will be re-watchable. Looking like the old show has zero bearing, as far as either of us can tell, on if it will be re-watchable, addictive, etc. Isn't it possible it will be all those things, but in a different way? Perhaps the effect it will have, and will strive for, will be in the opposite direction, even, and be sobering or uncomfortable to watch? Like, I don't know, the beginning of s2e1 or FWWM was?

When Kyle says Cooper is a different guy in the new series, and you combine that with Coop's experiences, my concerns about him are pretty logical in relation to his original appeal as mentioned.
In fact, it would be more of a leap to assume that Kyle is lying for the heck of it, and in addition to that, Lynch would treat the character as the same wide eyed guy who first visited the town. I'm excited to see the new Cooper, but I am concerned about what might be lost since it was so unique and defining for the show.

Yes and but again, what does his original appeal have anything to do with what his new appeal will be, especially when you don't know what that appeal is or isn't?

So the overall leap I made, regarding this season possibly not having the same brand of re-watchability as the old show, simply depends on how much weight you attribute to the elements I just mentioned. For me these things matter, and were fundamental parts of the true 'lightning in a bottle' nature of the original series that makes it so re-watchable.

Which is missing the idea that two different equations can both equal watch-ability factor. You're playing a zero sum game when you lack any of the variables for one side aside from material as thin as a razor's edge.

Regarding your celebrity cast comment....
Perhaps a start-studded cast back then could have created some mass appeal and initial interest, sure. But mass appeal isn't an important quality in itself, which is why I mentioned the beneficial energy the mainly youthful cast brought to the table as well as the mass-appeal of it.

A "Star-studded cast" would in my opinion simply have taken away from the discovery of a new world that was central to the show, and hurt the immersion aspect mentioned by the OP.
It doesn't matter if it was seen by some as "unconventional" to have a large number of unknown actors in a series. It made perfect sense to people given the narrative and the nature of the show. Plus that kind of casting is generally a quality I like, which is why I agree with the OP on that.

And this time around, perhaps the narrative and nature of the continuation calls for an elderly cast, or cast that intertextually references Lynch's past work? As I've been saying, his works have always done that. How does Jack Nance from his debut film and Kyle from his previous two films being in Twin Peaks, and Sheryl Lee obviously playing Laura's cousin, not break the 'immersion'? Is immersion broken only with a Michael Cera or Nicolas Cage? Where's the dividing line?

I don't think it matters if the show refers your mind to talent you recognize elsewhere when his work refers to his own work elsewhere -- his movies are hypertext.

There are plenty of reasons to feel uneasy about going for established talent or celebrity power over the right person for the right part-type casting, but you have zero reason to believe that's not exactly how Lynch casted it. And I believe 100% his intention when he casted the original was not to create lightning in a bottle or make something infinitely rewatchable, he was just going with his gut per usual.

[underthefan]

If you want my advice, you'd be much better off letting go of preconceived notions of what the new show should be and instead just enjoy and appreciate it for what it is and what it is trying to do. There is no way the show will have the same feeling it had quarter of a century ago for many reasons, including the passage of time, creative development/maturation of its creators and cast, the technology used in the making, as well as the time and culture in which it is being made.

The irony is that you are critical of preconceived notions, and yet your entire posts consists of preconceived notions.

Notions that are well thought out and that I actually agree with - nonetheless you are assuming that the new show will be a certain way, and that it will NOT be a certain way. However logical, making a claim about what the show probably wont be is a preconceived notion.
We are all engaging in a game of preconceived notions here.

My post pointed out that I was fairly certain it would be quite different from the original, just like you went on to do.
So in that case our assumptions or preconceived notions align.

Where we part ways is that your post reads mostly like it is all inevitable, which I don't think is a precise characterization of the situation. I think some of the elements I mentioned can /could have been steered in a different direction given choices, in terms of casting, technology, visual treatment etc, to capture some of the magic of the first series.

There are speculative concerns to be had if you are a big fan of elements of the old series.
And it's perfectly okay to have those concerns in addition to being really excited about the new possibilities of this season, excited about things completely detached from anything to do with old TP. That is how I feel.

The one thing that truly is an inescapable element is the changed Cooper, where you basically simply laid out the reason for my concern in your description.

Of course his transformation as a result of experiences is at the heart of the original series, no one is arguing or questioning that. One of the things that made the original series great.
But that doesn't make a slight concern about where it stands now in the new season unreasonable; the transformation of a central character who was highly likable for specific reasons and utterly instrumental in the show's success and longevity.

Of course if someone assumes this will be just like the old TP they will be setting themselves up for disappointment. But that warning seems like a straw man, as I haven't seen a single post making this assumption on this forum.

Well, to be fair, my own preconceived notions come from all the information about the new season we have available so far (interviews, teasers, etc.), rather than from comparison to the original series. Lynch's contention that FWWM will be very important to the new series does in some ways color my expectations, but admittedly all of the information we have so far is rather limited.

I totally agree with you that it is perfectly acceptable to have speculative concerns if you were a big fan of elements of the old series. In fact, if I was looking for the new series to be like Season 1, I have a feeling I would end up disappointed, too. I think the original series captured magic in a bottle and I find that it is very, very hard to repeat that, especially if your intention is to do so. In fact, I think the more you go for that, the more it could lead to disastrous results, as evidenced in many recent show revivals (like The X Files or... shudder... Fuller House). The new series might create magic just as well, but perhaps in a different way. At the end of the day, it doesn't take anything away from appreciation of the original.

But I do think you will find on board many people who are expecting/hoping for/wishing for return to Season 1 (even if it's sometimes stated covertly or in between the lines), and I think those are the ones who will end up most disappointed. I have been through this once before with FWWM, so it's not like I'm talking out of my ass. To this day, I still have to hear people bashing FWWM for no reason other than that it didn't fulfill their hopes/expectations of what the movie should be. And so I fully expect to get a very vocal crowd doing the same with the new season.

I primarily consider myself a Lynch fan, and TP fan secondary, so I am just thrilled to see what he and Frost are cooking up this time, and I just want to immerse myself in their world and appreciate it for what it is, not what I wish for it to be.

[Mr. Reindeer]

The fact that the new show is inevitably going to have different elements and focus doesn't have any bearing on its rewatchability, unless the only type of program you consider de facto rewatchable is one containing the exact mix of elements in the original show. .

It is possible that Lynch can cook up a brand new dish, and that it will be as fascinating, long lasting and re-watchable as the first.
No one is saying that is completely impossible.

But the original had an extremely unique mix of elements, that I don't think Lynch's other work has to the same degree.
That quality is not an easy thing to recreate, not even for Lynch.
Even with the same artist, once you remove one of the main pillars, that will affect things.

See, we're coming at this from different angles. I'm a Lynch fan first and TP fan second; it sounds like you're the reverse. Both are valid viewpoints. I think this is going to end up being the Great Divide when it comes to the new series. Frankly, if the Return feels too much like the original show, I'll be disappointed. For me, Lynch has captured lightning in a bottle every time he's made a film, with the exception of Dune. (OK, I also find The Elephant Man kinda generic and parts of Wild at Heart misguided...but all of his other major works sing to my soul.)

I think every one of Lynch's films has been a unique recipe while keeping certain recurring ingredients in play. That's why I love him as an artist. If he did the exact same thing every time, he'd become stagnant very quickly and I'd lose interest.

I'm curious: what are your thoughts on Episode 29? People tend to point to FWWM as the divide between "series TP fans" and "Lynch TP fans," and I understand why. Psychologically, the film takes the world to an uncomfortable extreme, devoid of the "coffee & cherry pie" comfort food. Stylistically, however, I think Episode 29 is a much more radical demarcation point. I think it's still one of the most subversive and strange hours of television ever produced, and possibly my favorite thing Lynch has done. The "series fan vs. FWWM fan" phenomenon is oft-addressed, but I'm always curious to gauge "series fans"' reactions to Episode 29, and I'd love to read yours.

[underthefan]

The fact that the new show is inevitably going to have different elements and focus doesn't have any bearing on its rewatchability, unless the only type of program you consider de facto rewatchable is one containing the exact mix of elements in the original show. .

It is possible that Lynch can cook up a brand new dish, and that it will be as fascinating, long lasting and re-watchable as the first.
No one is saying that is completely impossible.

But the original had an extremely unique mix of elements, that I don't think Lynch's other work has to the same degree.
That quality is not an easy thing to recreate, not even for Lynch.
Even with the same artist, once you remove one of the main pillars, that will affect things.

See, we're coming at this from different angles. I'm a Lynch fan first and TP fan second; it sounds like you're the reverse. Both are valid viewpoints. I think this is going to end up being the Great Divide when it comes to the new series. Frankly, if the Return feels too much like the original show, I'll be disappointed. For me, Lynch has captured lightning in a bottle every time he's made a film, with the exception of Dune. (OK, I also find The Elephant Man kinda generic and parts of Wild at Heart misguided...but all of his other major works sing to my soul.)

I think every one of Lynch's films has been a unique recipe while keeping certain recurring ingredients in play. That's why I love him as an artist. If he did the exact same thing every time, he'd become stagnant very quickly and I'd lose interest.

I'm curious: what are your thoughts on Episode 29? People tend to point to FWWM as the divide between "series TP fans" and "Lynch TP fans," and I understand why. Psychologically, the film takes the world to an uncomfortable extreme, devoid of the "coffee & cherry pie" comfort food. Stylistically, however, I think Episode 29 is a much more radical demarcation point. I think it's still one of the most subversive and strange hours of television ever produced, and possibly my favorite thing Lynch has done. The "series fan vs. FWWM fan" phenomenon is oft-addressed, but I'm always curious to gauge "series fans"' reactions to Episode 29, and I'd love to read yours.

All great points, Mr. Reindeer. I am in complete agreement with you.

[mtwentz]

The fact that the new show is inevitably going to have different elements and focus doesn't have any bearing on its rewatchability, unless the only type of program you consider de facto rewatchable is one containing the exact mix of elements in the original show. .

It is possible that Lynch can cook up a brand new dish, and that it will be as fascinating, long lasting and re-watchable as the first.
No one is saying that is completely impossible.

But the original had an extremely unique mix of elements, that I don't think Lynch's other work has to the same degree.
That quality is not an easy thing to recreate, not even for Lynch.
Even with the same artist, once you remove one of the main pillars, that will affect things.

See, we're coming at this from different angles. I'm a Lynch fan first and TP fan second; it sounds like you're the reverse. Both are valid viewpoints. I think this is going to end up being the Great Divide when it comes to the new series. Frankly, if the Return feels too much like the original show, I'll be disappointed. For me, Lynch has captured lightning in a bottle every time he's made a film, with the exception of Dune. (OK, I also find The Elephant Man kinda generic and parts of Wild at Heart misguided...but all of his other major works sing to my soul.)

I think every one of Lynch's films has been a unique recipe while keeping certain recurring ingredients in play. That's why I love him as an artist. If he did the exact same thing every time, he'd become stagnant very quickly and I'd lose interest.

I'm curious: what are your thoughts on Episode 29? People tend to point to FWWM as the divide between "series TP fans" and "Lynch TP fans," and I understand why. Psychologically, the film takes the world to an uncomfortable extreme, devoid of the "coffee & cherry pie" comfort food. Stylistically, however, I think Episode 29 is a much more radical demarcation point. I think it's still one of the most subversive and strange hours of television ever produced, and possibly my favorite thing Lynch has done. The "series fan vs. FWWM fan" phenomenon is oft-addressed, but I'm always curious to gauge "series fans"' reactions to Episode 29, and I'd love to read yours.

I consider myself more of a series fan than a Lynch fan (though I love BV, FWWM and to a lesser extent MD), and I loved Episode 29. You're right, it is a more radical departure from the rest of the series than is FWWM

[mtwentz]

In my mind, the main reason to have concern about the quality is that Lynch has never filmed an 18 hour movie in a little over 6 months. And we know from Kyle MacLachlan, a lot of stuff was done on the fly.

[John Justice Wheeler]

My own concerns are much simpler and more basic/fundamental. As I've mentioned here a few times before, I'm not a big fan of later Lynch (post-Lost Highway) so that does give me pause. Beyond that, though perhaps related to it, for awhile now I've been mulling over whether the profound level of secrecy surrounding this project is necessarily, inherently wise. I guess if the series is perceived as a success than this probably will be regarded so as well in retrospect. But my concern about it is that it really does raise the bar of expectation (not just anticipation) to perilous and delirious heights. In short, what could measure up to the levels of expectation brought about by such secrecy? For those who have not been following the production all this time and speculating incessantly about the possibilities of what we will see it may likely be much easier. And for those of us who don't have Showtime and thus will have to catch up with it later it may also be easier as we'll be able to ease into it with some more reasonable set of expectations perhaps. For the rest of you, it may be more of a directly confrontational challenge.

[Agent327]

See but this is exactly why I said you're taking massive leaps. Every single one of your points is assuming something very narrow based on less than 2 minutes of material and brief comments from the cast, so much so that you're not considering a vast pool of alternatives.

That is simply not true. I just went over my points one by one for you, and in turn you end up misrepresenting what I say.

You claim that every SINGLE one my points assume something very narrow based on less than two minutes of material and brief comments from the cast.
How is my point about casting a lot of the old actors either of those things? This is information we do have. That has nothing to do with your time frame of 2 minutes of anything, or comments from anyone, so you're flat out getting it wrong there.

"Very narrow" is also a straw man from you. My assumptions are ironically of broad nature. They are all the exact opposite of minute details no one should possible dare to speculate about.

When I commented on the look of the new series (where you just agreed that I made no great leap to assume that the latest 'actual footage' teaser is probably a good indication of how it will look) why does it matter if that teaser had gone on for 2, 5 or 10 minutes, when we are talking about the overall color scheme, the digital look of it etc?
These things are immediately noticeable. The look is present in all the scenes.

Again your "the two minutes of material" is completely irrelevant to my point, and serves as a quick and cheap way to discredit the substance of what I said.
That is not an honest way of engaging.

And "brief comments from the cast"?
I mentioned one thing. One thing. By Kyle. A comment of his, that didn't even stand alone in my argument, but served to support the point regarding the status quo of Cooper as a somewhat changed man due to time and experiences.
That is hardly a massive leap given that exact context.
But that somehow simply gets represented simply as "Brief comments from the cast" in your version. You see the problem here?

You cannot misrepresent my statements, do these straw men, and based on that label my speculation and theories "MASSIVE leaps".

I did not mean that you were leaping to a conclusion in assuming the show will look like the teasers, but that the new show looking how you think it will look really has no positive or negative indication on if it will be re-watchable. Looking like the old show has zero bearing, as far as either of us can tell, on if it will be re-watchable, addictive, etc. Isn't it possible it will be all those things, but in a different way? Perhaps the effect it will have, and will strive for, will be in the opposite direction, even, and be sobering or uncomfortable to watch? Like, I don't know, the beginning of s2e1 or FWWM was?

You use the words "Isn't it possible." Of course it is possible. I need to repeat........we are speculating here. Surprises of all kinds, shapes and sizes are technically possible.
So the minute you do the "Isn't it possible" rhetoric, you're not arguing against my speculative points.

Instead, there is a discussion to be had regarding whether something is likely.

And re-watchability is naturally subjective. Some people find "Show Girls" re-watchable.

So keeping in mind the subjective nature of that topic, for ME the warmth and the look of the old series add to that, and is an addicting contrast to the darkness of the world.
Removal of that element can therefor be cause for concern. And it's important to point out that a concern in one area doesn't mean that you close your mind to possibilities of other qualities presenting themselves.

And this time around, perhaps the narrative and nature of the continuation calls for an elderly cast, or cast that intertextually references Lynch's past work?

Just in order to feel right, I assume it's crafted that way. So at a bare minimum I would hope so.

And I believe 100% his intention when he casted the original was not to create lightning in a bottle or make something infinitely rewatchable, he was just going with his gut per usual.

We agree there. And that in itself could be cause for some concern, in addition to excitement, about the new series!