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.
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 9:38 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?


You said that (we wouldn't question them), not I. As far as I'm concerned, the same problem (of including a character just on the basis of an actor/actress who embodies him/her or on the basis of fan service) lies with Sam/Sutherland, Chet/Isaac and Phillip/Bowie, not only with Denise/Duchovny.
User avatar
laughingpinecone
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:45 am
Location: D'ni
Contact:

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

Postby laughingpinecone » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:41 am

DonnieB wrote:
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.

His breakdown is a government cover-up because he saw too much while following up on Teresa and Desmond. Different aspects of the shadier sides of various agencies' involvement with the supernatural are part of the main plot, retroactively explaining so much of TSHOTP's focus. If Sutherland were in the cast list, as the plot progresses it would be all too easy to predict that Sam would eventually come up among the involved characters and maybe relay whatever terrible truths he learned back then.

In general, he's not in an altogether different situation than Harry. His partner disappeared in a Blue Rose case and he's officially lost to alcohol, but who the hell knows what he's been up to.

Ross wrote: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.

In a hilarious twist, it turns out that Ontkean's original large role was... Sheriff Frank Truman, the world's laziest psychogenic fugue, who kept the same face & same job, just changed his name and adjusted his jacket and oh he's married now. Once Ontkean dropped out, Lynch and Frost reportedly commented "well okay, if you want to be BORING about it" and assigned the part to a different actor. Balthazar Getty's role is just to carry a sign with the words "I did that before it was cool" in the background of Forster's scenes. The end.
] The gathered are known by their faces of stone.
User avatar
AXX°N N.
Posts: 383
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:47 pm

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

Postby AXX°N N. » Wed Apr 19, 2017 9:56 am

I for one am thrilled Denise is back, not only because I liked her character, but because it means they're drawing from latter season 2 -- which, depending on your feelings, we can all agree some pay-off for that span is always in order, and I say this with TSHOTP in mind -- I would hate to see that portion of the show, for all its faults, just totally steamrolled out of existence, the odd mystery around Annie's existence notwithstanding.
Recipe not my own. In a coffee cup. 3 TBS flour, 2 TBS sugar, 1.5 TBS cocoa powder, .25 TSP baking powder, pinch of salt. 3 TBS milk, 1.5 TBS vegetable oil, 1 TBS peanut butter. Add and mix each set. Microwave 1 minute 10 seconds. The cup will be hot.
User avatar
Jerry Horne
Posts: 4533
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Private Portland Airport
Contact:

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

Postby Jerry Horne » Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:06 am

For those wanting to marathon the original series one episode per night, you would start tonight with the Pilot. This leaves two nights for FWWM & Missing Pieces/Between Two Worlds.
User avatar
krishnanspace
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:15 am

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

Postby krishnanspace » Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:12 am

Jerry Horne wrote:For those wanting to marathon the original series one episode per night, you would start tonight with the Pilot. This leaves two nights for FWWM & Missing Pieces/Between Two Worlds.

Aw fuck. I was also thinking the same but these are exams are stopping me from doing it
Dalai Cooper
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:15 am

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

Postby Dalai Cooper » Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:20 am

pfft marathon *sprints*
sp.agent.dalecooper
Posts: 41
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 6:28 pm

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

Postby sp.agent.dalecooper » Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:59 am

Rainwater wrote:
Jerry Horne wrote:Watch it at the Roadhouse:

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/twin-peaks ... 3282963239

I wouldn't want to first experience the new series in a restaurant with a crowd of a hundred.. but to each their own. I'm sure it will be sold out pretty quickly.


Normally I would prefer a solo immersive experience with a big screen, dark room, and headphones or good surround system, but in this case I was already going to be up there watching with 6 other people so this just seemed like a unique experience and I imagine the full 100 people in attendance will be solely focused on and lovers of the show.

After that, all the weekly watches will be alone in the dark!
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 12:02 pm

Yeah, I'm feeling conflicted as I have a few friends that really want to watch the premiere with me, but I'd much rather watch it in the dark by myself, wife and kids in bed, surround sound cranked (hoping they sleep through it).
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 1:21 pm

laughingpinecone wrote:
DonnieB wrote:
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.

His breakdown is a government cover-up because he saw too much while following up on Teresa and Desmond. Different aspects of the shadier sides of various agencies' involvement with the supernatural are part of the main plot, retroactively explaining so much of TSHOTP's focus. If Sutherland were in the cast list, as the plot progresses it would be all too easy to predict that Sam would eventually come up among the involved characters and maybe relay whatever terrible truths he learned back then.



And? So what? I fail to see how that constitutes a surprise or how knowing he's in the show would ruin this at all. You could come up with similar scenarios for Denise as well. We'll probably be able to predict her involvement once we get into the plot as well. Does knowing that Duchnovy is back ruin anything that you? Same for numerous others.

The reality is if Sutherland had been on the cast list, not one person would have said, "Whoa, I wish they would have kept that a secret!" You're retroactively contriving a scenario wherein his character's appearance is a surprise solely because we have every reason to believe he's *not* in the show.
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 1:29 pm

DonnieB wrote:And? So what? I fail to see how that constitutes a surprise or how knowing he's in the show would ruin this at all. You could come up with similar scenarios for Denise as well. We'll probably be able to predict her involvement once we get into the plot as well. Does knowing that Duchnovy is back ruin anything that you? Same for numerous others.

The reality is if Sutherland had been on the cast list, not one person would have said, "Whoa, I wish they would have kept that a secret!" You're retroactively contriving a scenario wherein his character's appearance is a surprise solely because we have every reason to believe he's *not* in the show.

I'm in agreement. I honestly think the only two real possibilities are Ontkean and Graham. And in theory, with the amount of "mystery" they are trying to keep, it would seem pretty anti-climactic to have no surprises at all cast-wise.
"I can see half my life's history in your face... And I'm not sure that I want to."
http://twinpeakssoundtrackdesign.blogspot.com/
Jaipeur
Posts: 9
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 5:13 pm

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

Postby Jaipeur » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:42 pm

Didn't the countdown clock start around 120 days or so? It seemed so far away (not 27 years far away, but still!) and now here we are, roughly 75% of the way through it. The next 30 ishdays are going to fly by, excited that I get to watch these episodes live so so soon.
User avatar
laughingpinecone
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:45 am
Location: D'ni
Contact:

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

Postby laughingpinecone » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:44 pm

DonnieB wrote:And? So what? I fail to see how that constitutes a surprise or how knowing he's in the show would ruin this at all. You could come up with similar scenarios for Denise as well. We'll probably be able to predict her involvement once we get into the plot as well. Does knowing that Duchnovy is back ruin anything that you? Same for numerous others.

The reality is if Sutherland had been on the cast list, not one person would have said, "Whoa, I wish they would have kept that a secret!" You're retroactively contriving a scenario wherein his character's appearance is a surprise solely because we have every reason to believe he's *not* in the show.

I could if Denise were not in the cast list. She is, so self-evidently her presence isn't being treated as a surprise.
Clearly, most characters who are not listed are simply not there, we're all on the same page here. But if (if!) there are gonna be surprise appearances, they are gonna be (guess what) surprises. I think we can more or less all agree that this is the case with Annie: either she's not in or her presence is being treated as a reveal. I am using my imagination to make the case that the same could be true for other characters. Your insistence that there can be no such thing as an impactful surprise appearance by certain characters honestly strikes me as bizarre. We know nothing about their present whereabouts, their role in the overall story nor the overall story itself.

I don't even expect Sutherland to be in. But as long as we're in this complete state of flux, very few things can be ruled out altogether.
] The gathered are known by their faces of stone.
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 1:44 pm

AXX°N N. wrote:I for one am thrilled Denise is back, not only because I liked her character, but because it means they're drawing from latter season 2 -- which, depending on your feelings, we can all agree some pay-off for that span is always in order, and I say this with TSHOTP in mind -- I would hate to see that portion of the show, for all its faults, just totally steamrolled out of existence, the odd mystery around Annie's existence notwithstanding.


I'm all for FINALLY showing the criminally underrated later part of S2 some much-needed appreciation (I hate how the majority of things in Frost's book points towards some ardent retconning in that direction), though I'd much rather the new season did it with a nod to Windom Earle and the Packards, for instance (I wouldn't be opposed to some exploration of Ben Horne as Donna's father, either); still, I guess Denise, though definitely belonging to the "silly" aspect of the post-Laura Palmer phase of the show, is better than Little Nicky (I'd love to say Nadine, Andy and Lucy, too, but it seems they're back, much to my chagrin).
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 1:56 pm

laughingpinecone wrote: Your insistence that there can be no such thing as an impactful surprise appearance by certain characters honestly strikes me as bizarre. We know nothing about their present whereabouts, their role in the overall story nor the overall story itself.

I don't even expect Sutherland to be in. But as long as we're in this complete state of flux, very few things can be ruled out altogether.



Never said it's impossible or that I'm ruling it out. I'm simply arguing against it. And if the best counter anyone has is, "Nothing's impossible", well, then I think that says it all.
User avatar
Mordeen
Posts: 706
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Near Mr. Gerard's Cabin

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

Postby Mordeen » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:59 pm

DonnieB wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
Mordeen wrote:Yep. And that's entirely possible because I heard a lot of "absolutely not in" comments from "folks," but with Ontkean, Graham, Bowie, Isaak and Sutherland the comments are "I'm not sure" or "I honestly don't know."


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.

It’s been the best television I’ve ever seen in the last 10 years. Fargo is wonderful, and True Detective was probably one of the best things I’ve ever seen, Game of Thrones… And I thought, you know, will the fans be disappointed?

About three days into doing it, I went, no… no they won’t! There’s NOBODY like David […] and shout-outs to Mark too.




And Mordeen, that scenario you described with Cooper/Truman: That's fine, but would a scene like that really be ruined at all by listing Ontkean on the cast list? Is it really worth it to go through all this, have people literally lying in interviews, have Michael lie to Brad Dukes, so we're a bit surprised for one little insignificant scene?

He didn't lie to Brad. He said "I'm not going to Washington."

As for if it would be ruined at all by listing Ontkean on the cast? Yes it would. A lot. Imagine my hypothetical final scene. Consider that Truman was the first person Cooper met in Twin Peaks. Now, you're assuming MO isn't in The Return when suddenly, in the final scene, he appears and we fade to black with Coop and Truman sharing a hot cup of joe. Full circle. Lynch loves circles. Would you not be looking for your socks that just got knocked off? I'm not saying it has to be that scenario, but any scenario in which you want to have a surprise and impact full cameo, you don't mention the actor with the cameo.

Referring to another member's comment about Sam Stanley, if you wanted to keep at least Desmond's appearance a secret, you keep Sutherland off the list because that might be revelatory.

Why not do it? What harm does it do to surprise people despite releasing a "full" cast list? I actually think they released that list on purpose so people would stop trying to uncover who was going to be in it just for the purpose of protecting the secret appearances, of which there are certainly more than one.

-Mordeen
Moving Through Time. . .

Return to “Twin Peaks Movie, TV, Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests