Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

Moderators: Brad D, Annie, Jonah, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne

IcedOver
RR Diner Member
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by IcedOver »

Daliz wrote: Yes I thought exactly this.
Maybe what we're seeing is a kind of "prologue" to the actual, 9-part Twin Peaks.
I wouldn't call it a prologue, but it seems like it may be introducing some characters that could be more important down the stretch even though they don't have a place at the moment or are under utilized -- Becky, Richard, Red, Chad, even returners like James, Bobby, Shelly. Something's got to change, though. The quarter has run out on Dougie. I love the guy, but the sleeper must awaken. We have to move on in some way.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
User avatar
HagbardCeline
RR Diner Member
Posts: 143
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 12:53 am

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by HagbardCeline »

Twin Peaks Podcast wrote:It doesn't seem to be a widely established fact. There's been confusion in the past so if I am indeed wrong, then I think you'll have to go a little easier on me.
Fair enough, but here's what we have to go on. In the Twin Peaks pilot, Cooper addresses the townspeople and talks about Theresa Banks and that she was murdered in the "Southwest corner of THIS state."

In the Fire Walk With Me screenplay, it is identified as "Deer Meadow, Washington."

In the Autobiography of Dale Cooper, My Life My Tapes (not really canon) Cooper says that Deer Meadow is "One Hour North of Portland." Which puts it near Castle Rock, Washington.

And Secret History ices it by placing it "One county over" from Twin Peaks.

You also have to remember that it has to be close enough that Mike and Bobby can use the Deer Meadow deputy as a source for Canadian cocaine. Also it has to be close enough that Leland, Laura, and Ronnette can all drive there easily.
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by Gabriel »

Alright- I remind you that I mentioned Better Call Saul ( shot on digital ) and how different it looked from Breaking Bad ( shot on film ). I was much more disappointed between how those two series looked- Breaking bad looking stellar, and Btter Call Saul looking flat and digital- I got used to the way " Saul " looked ( I think the series must have upgraded on equipment between season 1 and 2 ) but I think the difference was a much great disparity than that between the old and new TP. Hence my reasoning that it is the technology used to shoot the series that accounts for the differing looks.
http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/ne ... ies/608600
Worth a read...
User avatar
David Locke
RR Diner Member
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:24 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by David Locke »

I've been thinking about the original series & FWWM vs. The Return a lot lately, how they diverge, and I think it can be reduced to basically one aspect...

The original series (and also FWWM but ESPECIALLY S1 and S2) were not just artful, but amazing escapism. And not in a cheap sense but in the best sense. You felt like you lived in Twin Peaks each episode. It was a warm and comfortable and cozy place, with a sinister and ominous core, but even the evil in it made it no less enjoyable to spend time in. Darkness was always enticing in its own way, or at least balanced out by Angelo's immersive score and the orange/red-tinted, earthy, eye-candy surroundings, and the sense that Good existed just as darkness did.

And that's a big part of the appeal and why I, and many, return to those episodes and that film, from 1990-1992. It feels all of a piece despite FWWM obviously having a different approach.

Now here comes TP:TR 25+ years later, and naturally it's completely different. And you have to accept this to get any enjoyment out of it. And I have accepted it. And I do enjoy it... but, I doubt I will ever hold it on the same level as the original Peaks material. It's just not got that special something to it, that escapism or that Romantic spirit Gabriel has described (which Lynch has also abandoned too often since the turn of the century in favor of a cheap nihilism).

Basically, TP:TR reflects well where Lynch is at now in his artistic evolution... and it's just not the same place, of course, as it was back then. And whether you adore TR is partly down to how much you enjoy MD and IE and Lynch's more recent efforts. I personally am in the camp of loving his work most from about 1986-2000, from Blue Velvet to Straight Story or Mulholland Drive (though MD displayed some troubling aspects that'd come back tenfold in IE).

So I do very much like TP:TR, it has had a lot of great stuff, but I suspect that the best is yet to come... and even that I'm not sure I'll ever hold in the same regard as the 1990-1992 TP. We'll see, I guess. But I'm somewhat surprised, based on reading Reddit and other forums, just how quickly people are embracing this, 7 episodes in, as not only better than the original Peaks stuff but even Lynch's greatest work ever!

I mean... wow, no problem with opinions, but I'm baffled about thinking such based on only 7 hours which are very much set-up for the next 2/3rds of the story. I almost feel like just the idea of Lynch + premium cable TV/full creative freedom, has made some perhaps think that TP:TR has to be amazing/better than the original. After all, TP aired on ABC with all its commercials and censorship and stuff. And Lynch and Frost didn't get full control and there were production problems and mistakes as we all know.

And yet I still can't say I have a love for any of these 7 episodes that's greater than the love I have for all of S1 and S2... OK, possibly excepting Episodes 21 and 22 there. But it's hard to let go of the warm, comfortable, uplifting, familiar past and embrace the cold, cerebral, nihilistic, dark, cruel, challenging present....
baxter
Great Northern Member
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:12 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by baxter »

Your post is interesting David. My wife used to love Lynch for the indescribable "romantic" feel generated by his films, but she has lost interest in recent years with the decline of that feeling. I think much of what you say is true, and it will forever separate the old and new series.

I haven't tried watching any of the original series since the new one, and I have a feeling I'll find it very cloying after the stark presentation of the new series (until I get used to it again).
User avatar
counterpaul
RR Diner Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:06 am

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by counterpaul »

David Locke wrote:I've been thinking about the original series & FWWM vs. The Return a lot lately, how they diverge, and I think it can be reduced to basically one aspect...

The original series (and also FWWM but ESPECIALLY S1 and S2) were not just artful, but amazing escapism. And not in a cheap sense but in the best sense. You felt like you lived in Twin Peaks each episode. It was a warm and comfortable and cozy place, with a sinister and ominous core, but even the evil in it made it no less enjoyable to spend time in. Darkness was always enticing in its own way, or at least balanced out by Angelo's immersive score and the orange/red-tinted, earthy, eye-candy surroundings, and the sense that Good existed just as darkness did.
I'm most definitely not immune to this feeling, but I also think it's important to note that Twin Peaks, as a piece of art, was always (at it's best, at least) about complicating, rather than embracing, that cozy warmth the town exuded. I think it's absolutely crucial to always remember that, at its core, Twin Peaks is the story of a town that essentially let a young victim of abuse die so that it could hold on to its denial. "All you good people," as Bobby says at Laura's funeral.

It's built into the story from the very beginning. It essentially is the story.

Of course, that doesn't invalidate the charm. And it doesn't mean that everyone in Twin Peaks is rotten at the core. It's not that simple. The tension between the truth, the fact that BOB basically manifested out of everyone's inability to state it (and, thus, their inability to help Laura before it was too late), and the fact that most of the people in town are in fact genuinely good people, and that the charm of the town is also genuine, is what defines the brilliance of the show.

But to watch it and not acknowledge that tension--to let the charm stand uninterrogated--seems dishonest to me.
Now here comes TP:TR 25+ years later, and naturally it's completely different. And you have to accept this to get any enjoyment out of it. And I have accepted it. And I do enjoy it... but, I doubt I will ever hold it on the same level as the original Peaks material. It's just not got that special something to it, that escapism or that Romantic spirit Gabriel has described (which Lynch has also abandoned too often since the turn of the century in favor of a cheap nihilism).
I do feel the need to address this charge of nihilism I keep seeing leveled at Lynch's more recent work. I profoundly disagree. I just don't see it at all.

Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive certainly delve into some extremely dark places, and explore the feeling of hopelessness (especially MD), but that does not make them nihilistic. They are tragedies. Insomuch as nihilism rears its head, it is depicted as a destructive force and not at all as an inevitability. Lost Highway is the tragedy of a man who is unable to experience love and Mulholland Drive is a tragedy about a woman who gives up on her dreams. These are films about empathizing with characters who are suffering and who cannot find the light, but that act of empathy is the opposite of nihilism to me.

And to characterize INLAND EMPIRE as nihilistic is just plain confusing. It is anything but! It is a celebration of the human impulse to make art! It is about how glorious it is to lend yourself totally to an idea--to dive deep into sometimes painful and buried places in order to bring an idea to life. Sure, Nikki has to expose a lot of wounds and endure their pains anew to find Susie, but she does it because Susie needs to live. Actors are artists and Lynch honors that. IE is entirely about honoring the sacrifices we make to create beautiful and truthful art. How is that possibly nihilistic?

As for TPTR, all signs point to this being a story of redemption and transcendence. Yes, the world of Twin Peaks is in a dark place right now (and, yes, dark in a way things weren't in 1989), but this is a story about slowly moving toward the light. I'm sure that the destination will not be simple (like the bug in the robin's mouth in Blue Velvet--Lynch's happy endings are seldom untroubled), but I have a feeling that Lynch is working toward something fundamentally hopeful.
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
RR Diner Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by LurkerAtTheThreshold »

David Locke wrote:I've been thinking about the original series & FWWM vs. The Return a lot lately, how they diverge, and I think it can be reduced to basically one aspect...

The original series (and also FWWM but ESPECIALLY S1 and S2) were not just artful, but amazing escapism. And not in a cheap sense but in the best sense. You felt like you lived in Twin Peaks each episode. It was a warm and comfortable and cozy place, with a sinister and ominous core, but even the evil in it made it no less enjoyable to spend time in. Darkness was always enticing in its own way, or at least balanced out by Angelo's immersive score and the orange/red-tinted, earthy, eye-candy surroundings, and the sense that Good existed just as darkness did.

And that's a big part of the appeal and why I, and many, return to those episodes and that film, from 1990-1992. It feels all of a piece despite FWWM obviously having a different approach.

Now here comes TP:TR 25+ years later, and naturally it's completely different. And you have to accept this to get any enjoyment out of it. And I have accepted it. And I do enjoy it... but, I doubt I will ever hold it on the same level as the original Peaks material. It's just not got that special something to it, that escapism or that Romantic spirit Gabriel has described (which Lynch has also abandoned too often since the turn of the century in favor of a cheap nihilism).

Basically, TP:TR reflects well where Lynch is at now in his artistic evolution... and it's just not the same place, of course, as it was back then. And whether you adore TR is partly down to how much you enjoy MD and IE and Lynch's more recent efforts. I personally am in the camp of loving his work most from about 1986-2000, from Blue Velvet to Straight Story or Mulholland Drive (though MD displayed some troubling aspects that'd come back tenfold in IE).

So I do very much like TP:TR, it has had a lot of great stuff, but I suspect that the best is yet to come... and even that I'm not sure I'll ever hold in the same regard as the 1990-1992 TP. We'll see, I guess. But I'm somewhat surprised, based on reading Reddit and other forums, just how quickly people are embracing this, 7 episodes in, as not only better than the original Peaks stuff but even Lynch's greatest work ever!

I mean... wow, no problem with opinions, but I'm baffled about thinking such based on only 7 hours which are very much set-up for the next 2/3rds of the story. I almost feel like just the idea of Lynch + premium cable TV/full creative freedom, has made some perhaps think that TP:TR has to be amazing/better than the original. After all, TP aired on ABC with all its commercials and censorship and stuff. And Lynch and Frost didn't get full control and there were production problems and mistakes as we all know.

And yet I still can't say I have a love for any of these 7 episodes that's greater than the love I have for all of S1 and S2... OK, possibly excepting Episodes 21 and 22 there. But it's hard to let go of the warm, comfortable, uplifting, familiar past and embrace the cold, cerebral, nihilistic, dark, cruel, challenging present....
I felt a bit more warmth from Episode 7, hopefully it picks up, but I definitely agree.

There's a different kind of comfort in this series, like listening to a whiny old grandpa, it affords some kind of honesty not usual in television.

Also in some ways it's nice to see themes of drug abuse, teenage prostitution and molestation treated with coldness. In some ways the inviting quality of one eyed jacks etcetera was slightly on the nose. But Ben Horne etc were characters so cartoonishly villainish they kind of got away with more than they should have.

In the end maYbe the balance is good. Twin peaks of emotion if you will, we will always have the old seasons anyway to look back on
User avatar
sylvia_north
RR Diner Member
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:41 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by sylvia_north »

David Locke wrote:
Basically, TP:TR reflects well where Lynch is at now in his artistic evolution... and it's just not the same place, of course, as it was back then. And whether you adore TR is partly down to how much you enjoy MD and IE and Lynch's more recent efforts. I personally am in the camp of loving his work most from about 1986-2000, from Blue Velvet to Straight Story or Mulholland Drive (though MD displayed some troubling aspects that'd come back tenfold in IE).

So I do very much like TP:TR, it has had a lot of great stuff, but I suspect that the best is yet to come... and even that I'm not sure I'll ever hold in the same regard as the 1990-1992 TP. We'll see, I guess. But I'm somewhat surprised, based on reading Reddit and other forums, just how quickly people are embracing this, 7 episodes in, as not only better than the original Peaks stuff but even Lynch's greatest work ever!

I mean... wow, no problem with opinions, but I'm baffled about thinking such based on only 7 hours which are very much set-up for the next 2/3rds of the story. I almost feel like just the idea of Lynch + premium cable TV/full creative freedom, has made some perhaps think that TP:TR has to be amazing/better than the original. After all, TP aired on ABC with all its commercials and censorship and stuff. And Lynch and Frost didn't get full control and there were production problems and mistakes as we all know.
Pop culture is a funny thing. Geek culture, too. That is "has to be better" is the status quo that we've been sold

The second I heard that Twin Peaks was coming to San Diego Comic Con when it was announced, I thought OK this is going to be a behemoth of epic proportions. Merchandising, major social networking buzz, the domination of Netflix and Hulu one click binge watching as opiate of the masses instead of the effort it took to tuning in prime time network tv or taping - and Twin Peaks was the seed of that addictive cinematic tv form.

It had grandfather clause all over it, Plus it has a contemporary presence every few-several years with a new DVD or digital release, regenerating the cult following until it surpassed cult and became ubiquitous.

There was no way that you could not market Return as manna from pop culture heaven. Just subversive enough to be edgy but still mainstream AF. It has Mass mass appeal to neohipster generations starving for old stuff and for novelty , and then the oldster nerds are suckers for nostalgia.

Trends DO seem to come back in style every 25 years. If lynch/frost really planned this to align with predictable cultural patterns that guaranteed 90s cool "peak" relevance again, it was genius marketing.
Too Old to Die Young > TP S03
LateReg
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by LateReg »

I also want to echo Counterpaul regarding the claims of nihilism in Lynch's later work. I actually came back to this thread to address it, and I was pleased that Counterpaul already did. Like him, I don't see Inland Empire as nihilistic in the slightest. It's triumphant, and it has Lynch's happiest ending! Lost Highway and Mulholland Drive are both made by the same director who made The Straight Story in between those films...a passionate director who believes in life, connection and transcendence. He may get sad about the world and represent that sadness onscreen, but I don't see that as nihilism at all.

So I'm curious, for those who see nihilism, where do you see it and how do you define it within Lynch's later work?
User avatar
mtsi
RR Diner Member
Posts: 253
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:56 pm

Re: RE: Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by mtsi »

HagbardCeline wrote:
Twin Peaks Podcast wrote:It doesn't seem to be a widely established fact. There's been confusion in the past so if I am indeed wrong, then I think you'll have to go a little easier on me.
Fair enough, but here's what we have to go on. In the Twin Peaks pilot, Cooper addresses the townspeople and talks about Theresa Banks and that she was murdered in the "Southwest corner of THIS state."

In the Fire Walk With Me screenplay, it is identified as "Deer Meadow, Washington."

In the Autobiography of Dale Cooper, My Life My Tapes (not really canon) Cooper says that Deer Meadow is "One Hour North of Portland." Which puts it near Castle Rock, Washington.

And Secret History ices it by placing it "One county over" from Twin Peaks.

You also have to remember that it has to be close enough that Mike and Bobby can use the Deer Meadow deputy as a source for Canadian cocaine. Also it has to be close enough that Leland, Laura, and Ronnette can all drive there easily.
This has always been troublesome and now aggravated by the Secret History location change...

In the series pilot, Cooper states the location of TP being where current Metalline Falls is located, 8 hours from where the FWWM version of Deer Meadow is located, so....yeah....it's always been a huge gap of storytelling to overcome.

It makes it easier to suggest it's quite close for a number of reasons but it still doesn't mean the other references are wrong. Just that Lynch and Frost have changed their minds about the story.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
We live inside a dream.
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: RE: Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by Gabriel »

mtsi wrote: This has always been troublesome and now aggravated by the Secret History location change...

In the series pilot, Cooper states the location of TP being where current Metalline Falls is located, 8 hours from where the FWWM version of Deer Meadow is located, so....yeah....it's always been a huge gap of storytelling to overcome.

It makes it easier to suggest it's quite close for a number of reasons but it still doesn't mean the other references are wrong. Just that Lynch and Frost have changed their minds about the story.
My view is that TV shows have a reasonably strong continuity, but pilots have to be given a bit more leeway because they're finding their path. Remember how Troi could communicate telepathically with Riker... and Picard had an American accent in the Captain's logs (Commaaander Ryekerrrr) in the Star Trek TNG pilot or Saul Tigh's bit of profanity in the 2003 Battlestar Galactica miniseries ('Jeeesus!') almost 150,000 years too early!

So I'd generally give the Twin Peaks pilot a little space on the pernickety details; otherwise we'd have to wonder how so many of the actors aged dramatically before the first regular episode, changed hairstyles and so on. ;)
User avatar
Adolphus
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 3:19 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by Adolphus »

Gabriel wrote:
Alright- I remind you that I mentioned Better Call Saul ( shot on digital ) and how different it looked from Breaking Bad ( shot on film ). I was much more disappointed between how those two series looked- Breaking bad looking stellar, and Btter Call Saul looking flat and digital- I got used to the way " Saul " looked ( I think the series must have upgraded on equipment between season 1 and 2 ) but I think the difference was a much great disparity than that between the old and new TP. Hence my reasoning that it is the technology used to shoot the series that accounts for the differing looks.
http://www.creativeplanetnetwork.com/ne ... ies/608600
Worth a read...
Interesting article- it was probably the Panasonic Lumix shots that I was noticing.
Cairon
New Member
Posts: 2
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 8:25 am

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by Cairon »

Good day to you all.

So, after searching long and hard, I finally found a place to voice my concerns and read those of others. My days of wandering in the dark are over.

I was looking forward to Season 3, I swear, I was one of those poor souls who bought Season 1 on DVD the moment it came out, only to have to wait an eternity for season 2 to get released. So when Season 3 was announced I allowed myself to get excited, I went out and bought the Secret History the moment I saw it collecting dust at my local bookstore. All to get me back in the game. I struggled for a bit after the first couple of episodes. I didn't know what to think of this new season. I went online, it is 2017 after all, only to discover people being insanely enthousiastic about the whole thing. The reviews were overwhelmingly positive, the recappers all talked about how tremendously clever every episode was, and endless flow of gushing praise seemed to dominate the discussion surrounding Season 3. Articles came out telling me that this new season blows the first two out of the water. People told me their wild theories, I listened to heated debates about how awesome everything was... but I just felt empty.

Here is the thing. I want to like the new season, there are elements that I really like, but I just don't seem to connect to any of the characters. I still have episode 6 and 7 to go... so who knows... I might be wrong.

Seeing Lucy and Andy felt like I was watching a mean-spirited parody of the original seasons. These two characters might have always been a bit odd, but they were never this odd. Odd isn't the right word, Lucy and Andy seemed to be parodies of themselves. That one characteristic they shared, blown up and dominate their persons. They're idiots, dangerously idiotic to the point where I'm not watching adults capable of taking care of themselves. At first it seemed like a short joke, but it's the same deal every time they show up on camera. Lucy and Andy are played for laughs, but the joke isn't good-natured, it feels hostile and mean-spirited.

Hawk gets a similar treatment where he's there, but nothing has been done with the character except simplify him to a parody of himself. You see the old hawk in there, but the outside is just flat and lifeless, a caricature of a character.

Shelly and James at the bar have the same sort of commentary running through their incredibly brief scene. Shelly commenting on a supposedly brain-damaged James that he's always been cool... just seems mean-spirited. Having her show up as a waitress standing next to Norma staring into the distance as her daughter does coke with a very unsavory boyfriend, feels like Shelly as a character hasn't progressed one bit. As if the sins of her youth weigh so heavily on her shoulders, they actually carried over to the next generation.

I've gotten a lot of comments from people when I bring up my discomfort with how the old cast is being treated, and they all boil down to "you can't expect them to stay the same!" The thing is, I never expected them to stay the same. I expected them to have moved on with their lives. It's been 25 years, 25 long years in which old lives ended and new ones began. I don't expect Shelly to still be standing next to Norma, feeling regret about the road not taken. I expected Shelley to be 25 years older. Same goes for Hawk, same goes for Andy, same goes for Lucy.

So far the only character in Twin Peaks who seems to have aged 25 years, and who seems to have lived a life that changed him, is Jacoby. I wanted to see the other characters get the same treatment as Jacoby, the same sort of change that Jacoby got.

Which brings me to the point where characters become part of why I don't feel anything for this new version. I'm not invested in any of the new characters, I'm not invested in any of the old ones. I have no warm feelings for anyone on the show. This is something that isn't just an issue for Twin Peaks, if I'm watching a show, I really need to get involved with the characters. If I don't care about the characters, then why should I care about the things that are happening to them and around them? Twin Peaks isn't an exception to this. Do I want new characters? Yes, it's been 25 years, there should be a whole new generation. I want new characters, but I also want to connect to those new characters. I want to actually see them, watch them, understand them, get a sense of who they are and where they're going or where they came from. With Season 3 I'm getting a whole bunch of characters, but none of them sticks around. They show up and vanish, or they show up and gets swept aside by the wave of other characters out for their 4-minute-scene.

Why name a show Twin Peaks, when 95% of the show has nothing to do with Twin Peaks?

For all the camp of the original seasons, at least it felt genuine. That soap-opera Lucy was obsessed with, that felt like a fun little comment on daytime soaps and the people who watch them, it gave a little bit of depth to the world of Twin Peaks, but it didn't feel mean-spirited.

I was going somewhere with this... but I think I lost my train of thought...

oh well...
mlsstwrt
RR Diner Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:35 am

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by mlsstwrt »

David, I made the same point earlier in the thread, glad someone else feels like this. You said it better than I did but I think this is exactly it for me. I wanted to live in Twin Peaks, it would probably have been my one wish if a genie had come along.

I wouldn't want to live in THIS Twin Peaks, not at all.

Clearly this isn't the barometer of whether The Return is a success or not, I loved Breaking Bad and The Sopranos but wouldn't necessarily want to live in Albuquerque or New Jersey. But it is one reason for my disappointment, not getting to go back to that wonderful place again.
User avatar
Hockey Mask
RR Diner Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Post by Hockey Mask »

Cairon wrote:Good day to you all.

Why name a show Twin Peaks, when 95% of the show has nothing to do with Twin Peaks?
Sorry you feel that way, I believe Lynch will introduce Twin Peaks more and more as the season goes on. Can't say you'll love it once the season is over but where the show stands in Part 5 will most likely be a very different place than Part 18.

Welcome to the board.
Post Reply