NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Discussion of Twin Peaks TV Series, Fire Walk With Me, and Books

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

Forum rules
Welcome to the forum. We know our members are passionate about their love for all things Twin Peaks. You wouldn't be here if that wasn't the case. Despite having differing viewpoints it is a policy that we all treat each other with mutual respect.

Posting abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated, or any material that may violate any laws be it of your country or the country where this forum is hosted will get you permanently banned.

Posting of spoilers are allowed as long as you indicate (Spoilers) in the topic name and use the Spoiler Tag.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2855
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:08 am

Dead Dog wrote:
madeleineferguson wrote:
Dead Dog wrote:While I think it's possible we'll see Harry, Annie, or maybe even Josie, I can't imagine why they'd bring back Sam Stanley. He really means nothing to the mythos and if he were returning for some bizarre reason, why would it be a secret?


A surprise appearance by Kiefer Sutherland would generate a ton of extra publicity for the show.

That's a really bad reason to do something like that, IMO.


Why? I see nothing wrong with withholding a celebrity's name from the cast list to get a surprise promotional bang when he showed up. The release of the cast list in and of itself was a calculated promotional move, and I think if anyone was withheld, it's likely to be either Ontkean (for one surprise scene) or a major celebrity whose surprise appearance could generate headlines. Sutherland, Bowie and Graham are the only people who I think have that level of name recognition -- but I really doubt that Bowie shot anything, and Graham's presence would have been so expected (for at least a scene) that her absence makes me uneasy and confused.

I'm confident that L/F wouldn't include Sam without a solid story reason. But if they did, it makes perfect sense that they would withhold Sutherland from the cast list.
User avatar
Dead Dog
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:25 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Dead Dog » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:21 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
Dead Dog wrote:
madeleineferguson wrote:
A surprise appearance by Kiefer Sutherland would generate a ton of extra publicity for the show.

That's a really bad reason to do something like that, IMO.


Why? I see nothing wrong with withholding a celebrity's name from the cast list to get a surprise promotional bang when he showed up. The release of the cast list in and of itself was a calculated promotional move, and I think if anyone was withheld, it's likely to be either Ontkean (for one surprise scene) or a major celebrity whose surprise appearance could generate headlines. Sutherland, Bowie and Graham are the only people who I think have that level of name recognition -- but I really doubt that Bowie shot anything, and Graham's presence would have been so expected (for at least a scene) that her absence makes me uneasy and confused.

I'm confident that L/F wouldn't include Sam without a solid story reason. But if they did, it makes perfect sense that they would withhold Sutherland from the cast list.

What I meant was that if (hypothetically) they include the Sam Stanley character just because Sutherland's name would generate publicity, I would be disappointed, as I can't see David Lynch doing something like that. It's a business, I get it, but I can't see him saying "you know, I think we should bring Kiefer and Sam Stanley back because it would generate buzz." But I think I misinterpreted Madeleine's comment a bit, as she/he was giving me a reason why keeping Sutherland's involvement under wraps may not be a bad idea. I can't even agree with that reasoning though, as I think including him in the original cast list would be sufficient to attract viewers.

I can't wait for this thing to get started. I want to talk about TP, so I come here, but these speculative conversations are getting so tiresome (I'm as guilty as anyone).
DonnieB
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:44 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby DonnieB » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:23 am

laughingpinecone wrote:DonnieB, while the assumptions you are making about the relative importance of certain cast members are certainly grounded and sensible, they are based on what we know so far, ie a raindrop in an ocean.
Based on what we know, there is no reason to hide Sam's presence, but if you can't think of six scenarios that would make such a choice meaningful (...before breakfast, even), well, tough luck.


Okay, so give me one.
DonnieB
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:44 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby DonnieB » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:26 am

Agent Earle wrote:
DonnieB wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
And let's not forget Michael Horse's "You won't be disappointed" reply when asked about the possible absence of Michael Ontkean in a pretty recent promo interview about the show.


That's not the context of the quote at all.




Oh, yes, it is.

INTERVIEWER: Speaking of the Twin Peaks police, Ontkean did not return for this 18-episode run. Was it a bit different not having him there and what would you say to fans who are worried the show won’t be the same without his presence?

MH: All I’m going to tell the fans, I will guarantee you that you will not be disappointed (laughs). That’s a personal guarantee from the Hawk (laughs).

LINK TO THE ENTIRE INTERVIEW: http://ihorror.com/deputy-hawk-a-twin-p ... ael-horse/


And he then went on to speak in very general terms about how the show won't be disappointing. That's the part of the question he was answering. He wasn't making some (blatantly obvious) wink wink comment about Ontkean. Again, that wouldn't square with the theory that it's this massive secret that everyone is conspiring to keep.
DonnieB
Posts: 32
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 5:44 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby DonnieB » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:29 am

madeleineferguson wrote:
Dead Dog wrote:While I think it's possible we'll see Harry, Annie, or maybe even Josie, I can't imagine why they'd bring back Sam Stanley. He really means nothing to the mythos and if he were returning for some bizarre reason, why would it be a secret?


A surprise appearance by Kiefer Sutherland would generate a ton of extra publicity for the show.


So would at least a dozen other names that they put on the cast list (many of whom probably have small roles). Why not keep them secret too?
Agent Earle
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Agent Earle » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:42 am

DonnieB wrote:
And he then went on to speak in very general terms about how the show won't be disappointing.


Emphasis on then.

That's the part of the question he was answering.


Yeah, the part of the question that he wasn't asked. Now, why would he specifically not answer the one thing that he was asked in the question?

He wasn't making some (blatantly obvious) wink wink comment about Ontkean.


And you know this how? You're Horse's familiar or agent, maybe?
Agent Earle
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Agent Earle » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:45 am

Dead Dog wrote:What I meant was that if (hypothetically) they include the Sam Stanley character just because Sutherland's name would generate publicity, I would be disappointed, as I can't see David Lynch doing something like that. It's a business, I get it, but I can't see him saying "you know, I think we should bring Kiefer and Sam Stanley back because it would generate buzz."


That's the reason I'm fretting they brought "Denise" back for.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2063
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby N. Needleman » Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:57 am

Why is Denise the character who has to be vetted for approval to appear?
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
Cappy
Posts: 472
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:27 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Cappy » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:00 am

I'm really not expecting to see Agents Desmond and Stanley back at all, and I really can't see how the story would call for it.

Unless of course Chet and Sam somehow represent two halves of Cooper's fractured psyche/soul, in keeping with the theory that the Teresa Banks investigation part of FWWM is somehow Cooper's dream. Maybe when Cooper gives into fear and is trapped in the Black Lodge he manifests as two barely competent FBI agents in the real world? I just the idea of Chet and Sam possessing strengths similar to Cooper, but being bad detectives because they lack a sort of unity between reason and empathy that Dale embodies.

I do sincerely expect to see Piper Laurie in S3 though. The mention of Catherine in Secret History as a mysterious recluse leads me to suspect she will either return in disguise or pop-up as a Lynchian prophet of doom, a la the "someone is in trouble" woman from Mulholland Drive.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2063
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby N. Needleman » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:04 am

Pretty sure Piper is not back, sadly. At this point Desmond or Stanley are more likely.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
Ross
Posts: 2204
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:04 pm
Contact:

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Ross » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:20 am

I honestly think people holding out hope for Piper are going to be disappointed. Things just didn't work out there, unfortunately.

As for speculation on the others, we don't really know.
I doubt we will see Isaak or Sutherland- even though I would love to.

We know there were plans for Bowie, but sadly I don't think his scenes were shot. They may have scrapped ideas for Jefferies.

Chen is a possibility. And I'm praying for Ontkean and Graham, who were the two people I wanted back the most. I can certainly see them keeping those a secret. But they really would have had to gone out of their way to film those in a very secretive way, without many people knowing at all, including crew. The Ontkean one is a bit different, since we know that Truman was originally planned for a large role. One that most likely shifted to Forster. I have no idea on the time frame for Ontkean dropping out and any rewrites happening. Whether they were able to write something in for Ontkean and actually film something is anyone's guess.

As for Graham, we have no idea what their plans are for Annie. Obviously the book raises questions about her absence. So who knows?
"I can see half my life's history in your face... And I'm not sure that I want to."
http://twinpeakssoundtrackdesign.blogspot.com/
Agent Earle
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Agent Earle » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:27 am

N. Needleman wrote:Why is Denise the character who has to be vetted for approval to appear?


It doesn't have to be and that's not what I meant. What I meant was, clearly he/she was played by someone who has since become a household name and carries with himself a certain amount of fanfare (similar as in Sam Stanley's/Kiefer Sutherland's case). Hence, my worriment that Denise's inclusion is propelled by the actor's recognition factor (and the fan approval factor, while at it) rather than the story's necessity.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2063
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby N. Needleman » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:29 am

Agent Earle wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:Why is Denise the character who has to be vetted for approval to appear?


It doesn't have to be and that's not what I meant. What I meant was, clearly he/she was played by someone who has since become a household name and carries with himself a certain amount of fanfare (similar as in Sam Stanley's/Kiefer Sutherland's case). Hence, my worriment that Denise's inclusion is propelled by the actor's recognition factor (and the fan approval factor, while at it) rather than the story's necessity.


But we wouldn't question them using Sam or Chet given their roles in FWWM, or David Bowie. So why worry about them deciding they enjoyed Denise and want to bring her back?
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
Dead Dog
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:25 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Dead Dog » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:32 am

DonnieB wrote:
madeleineferguson wrote:
Dead Dog wrote:While I think it's possible we'll see Harry, Annie, or maybe even Josie, I can't imagine why they'd bring back Sam Stanley. He really means nothing to the mythos and if he were returning for some bizarre reason, why would it be a secret?


A surprise appearance by Kiefer Sutherland would generate a ton of extra publicity for the show.


So would at least a dozen other names that they put on the cast list (many of whom probably have small roles). Why not keep them secret too?

Exactly.
User avatar
Dead Dog
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:25 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Dead Dog » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:35 am

N. Needleman wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:Why is Denise the character who has to be vetted for approval to appear?


It doesn't have to be and that's not what I meant. What I meant was, clearly he/she was played by someone who has since become a household name and carries with himself a certain amount of fanfare (similar as in Sam Stanley's/Kiefer Sutherland's case). Hence, my worriment that Denise's inclusion is propelled by the actor's recognition factor (and the fan approval factor, while at it) rather than the story's necessity.


But we wouldn't question them using Sam or Chet given their roles in FWWM, or David Bowie. So why worry about them deciding they enjoyed Denise and want to bring her back?

Just my own personal opinion, but I think Denise Bryson is much more interesting than Desmond, Stanley, or Jeffries. Of the four, he'd/she'd be the only one I'd care to see return.

Return to “Twin Peaks Movie, TV, Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests