Wishes...Hopes...& Dreams

[euro]

I'm actually hoping the new season will be more FWWM, less pie and coffee. It should be both, but I expect the humor to be more dry and less obvious.

Coffee and Pie belongs to Agent Cooper and Agent Cooper is in the Lodge. So, no Pie, no Coffee. Will Twin Peaks work without the Good Agent Cooper ?

[Framed_Angel]

How could I not add Gordon Cole, Lynch himself, to the endless list of returning characters I'd like to see in S3?

I always had a thing for Deputy Hawk, too. Not just that he was attractive to me, but for the purposes of wanting him back, he seemed like a conduit from the perceived world to the mystical realm, such that I'd like to have his insights back, even sparingly.

Either somewhere here, or maybe on the AV Club review comments, it was suggested a "daughter of Log Lady," although not referenced in much of any TP thus far, might be cast now that Coulson has passed away. I'm rewatching TP into S2 now, and while I haven't seen Naomi Watts in anything lately, it strikes me that she & Coulson have similar jawline, and almost an underbite? Resemblance enough for me!

[Sidgwick]

Ultimately, I want to luxuriate in that otherworldly, dreamlike haze - the full immersion into a world that I'd never experienced before or have since. That is my principle concern.

Beyond that, I hope the relationship between the two worlds is dealt with more in the symbiotic manner of FWWM than the series, which largely exonerated Leland.

I'm thrilled with Knepper's casting - I hope his role is a big one. He is a perfect fit for a Lynch project.

I also hope, if Silva does make a CGI-asssisted appearance, that it's dealt with far more subtly than the infamous Livia Soprano scene in S302 of the Sopranos. That was brutal.

In Lynch I trust. He and Frost had spent four years on this thing before it was even announced. I just refuse to believe it won't be incredible.

[Ajax Rules]

- I hope for an approach that is as abstract as FWWM of Mulholland Drive. I would even be thrilled with an Inland Empirish-approach.
- No recasts, no matter what.
- I would like to see Frank Silva and Michael J. Anderson
- I would not like Sheryl Lee to be a new character. Unless it is done very differently than the Madeleine Ferguson fiasco.
- I would like to see connections to earlier movies, e.g. Naomi Watts, Laura Dern, The cowboy.

I hate when people say that TP is or should be basically a soap opera. I hope for a very ambitious and pretentious approach that says "This is my (DKL's) magnum opus"

[Audrey Horne]

But is was a soap opera. That is precisely the premise Lynch and Frost pitched to the network. It was a well known genre that they played with and subverted. But then again, Mad Men and Breaking Bad are also a soap opera. Charles Dickens' work is a soap opera. Serial is probably the best term. But soap is the term from housewives able to do a load of laundry in during an episode... And featured heightened love triangles, plots, etc. and then the night time soap spun out of that.

I thought it worked best playing around with those well known cliched tropes and then surprising us within the format. (Bobby crying to Jacoby, etc). Or mostly taking the ridiculousness of Laura being involved with a million activities with half the town that would take twenty three hours if the day... It's a heightened stylized soap world. And within that surprises us with great moments of humanity. When it strays to justify the actions to a normal world (FWWM) it falls apart for me.

There should be a light touch to Peaks, with dark overtones. And then when it strikes, it all the more effective. Otherwise it falls under the weight of its own heavy-handedness. My opinion.

[Ross]

But is was a soap opera.

Exactly.

I mean I guess in a way ALL serialized shows are soap operas. But it was exactly that subversion of the soap opera genre that first drew Lynch and Frost to the concept.

[N. Needleman]

Lynch himself has said it was a soap opera.

[Ajax Rules]

Well, maybe that explains why I'm so much less enthusiastic about S1 en S2 than so many others here.

All the soapy elements work only for first viewing (if they work at all). It's only the non-soapy parts of the show that have stood the test of time.

A soap can get away with Tojamura or the food-critic plot (who is it?) or the father of Lucy's child or James' adventures outside of town or Jacoby's videotape message, but after two, three or more viewings it becomes apparant how bad these plots are.

So, if Lynch and Frost view TP as a soap-opera, it proves to me that even these men have flaws. But it makes me optimistic that Lynch wants to shoot S3 as one complete movie. I'm sure that the soapy approach and the weaknesses that come with it, will be absent in the new season.

[LostInTheMovies]

The question of Twin Peaks being a soap opera is interesting because I feel to a large extent that was a function of the times. In 1990, nighttime soaps were a relatively new trend and by creating a show that was part soap/part soap parody, Lynch and Frost were contributing to a culturally relevant form. But is this really the case in 2015? Obviously there are still popular nighttime soaps like Nashville or Grey's Anatomy. But to take the latter example, it's the kind of show that gets good ratings (I think) and has a devoted following but doesn't get *talked about* the way it did 10 years ago. In that sense, maybe nighttime soaps are where daytime soaps used to be - popular and sustainable but not "hot" in terms of commentary the way Dallas and Dynasy were. Meanwhile the idea of serialized storytelling is no longer limited to the soap genre - it's pretty much a staple of all the hip, acclaimed shows that are on right now. In 1990, if you wanted to tell a serialized narrative you basically had to work in the soap genre. Even mixing something with that - as Lynch hoped to do with the ongoing mystery - led to trouble.

All of which is to say that if Lynch/Frost adopt the soap format again the gesture may feel like an anachronism. I know that they are not overtly trying to be cutting-edge or trendy but it feels like with Twin Peaks, especially where Frost was concerned, there was definitely a feeling of being a part of, and especially a twist on, larger phenomena in the television world. In 2015 the works that Twin Peaks will be playing off of are Breaking Bad, True Detective, Mad Men etc. Maybe Mad Men could be considered a soap opera of sorts, albeit one very grounded in a less exaggerated approach to storytelling, but for the most part the material TP will be contextualized with is darker, more focused and even narrow in its storytelling, and also more masculine-centered - something else that will be interesting to see how they deal with (especially given Lynch's fondness for female protagonists from FWWM on).

Aside from all this meta-consideration, which may or may not be relevant, the type of story they seem to be focused on - which the scant details from set hint at, and which the conclusion of the series points toward - doesn't seem particularly soap-oriented. It seems to be more Coop-centered and globetrotting. My probably unfounded suspicion is that a huge chunk of the show won't even take place in Twin Peaks and isn't one of the hallmarks of soaps an emphasis on a contained location within which a sprawling story takes place?

All of this should be seen more as conjecture, speculation even, than some sort of airtight argument. Obviously none of us knows what's in store yet. But I won't be surprised if Twin Peaks 2017 has mostly lost the predominantly soap-ish flavor of the original series. (Another factor I haven't mentioned is that the series SEEMS to be conceived for a limited run; yes season 1 was short, with no follow-up guaranteed, but it could still afford to be open-ended in a way that maybe the new show can't.)

[Sidgwick]

The question of Twin Peaks being a soap opera is interesting because I feel to a large extent that was a function of the times. In 1990, nighttime soaps were a relatively new trend and by creating a show that was part soap/part soap parody, Lynch and Frost were contributing to a culturally relevant form. But is this really the case in 2015? Obviously there are still popular nighttime soaps like Nashville or Grey's. Anatomy. But to take the latter example, it's the kind of show that gets good ratings (I think) and has a devoted following but doesn't get *talked about* the way it did 10 years ago. In that sense, maybe nighttime soaps are where daytime soaps used to be - popular and sustainable but not "hot" in terms of commentary the way Dallas and Dynasy were. Meanwhile the idea of serialized storytelling is no longer limited to the soap genre - it's pretty much a staple of all the hip, acclaimed shows that are on right now. In 1990, if you wanted to tell a serialized narrative you basically had to work in the soap genre. Even mixing something with that - as Lynch hoped to do with the ongoing mystery - led to trouble.

All of which is to say that if Lynch/Frost adopt the soap format again the gesture may feel like an anachronism. I know that they are not overtly trying to be cutting-edge or trendy but it feels like with Twin Peaks, especially where Frost was concerned, there was definitely a feeling of being a part of, and especially a twist on, larger phenomena in the television world. In 2015 the works that Twin Peaks will be playing off of are Breaking Bad, True Detective, Mad Men etc. Maybe Mad Men could be considered a soap opera of sorts, albeit one very grounded in a less exaggerated approach to storytelling, but for the most part the material TP will be contextual ides with is darker, more focused and even narrow n it's storytelling, and also more masculine-centered - something else that will be interesting to see how they deal with (especially given Lynch's fondness for female protagonists from FWWM on).

Aside from all this meta-consideration, which may or may not be relevant, the type of story they seem to be focused on - which the scant details from set hint at, and which the conclusion of the series psjes toward - doesn't seem particularly soap-oriented. It seems to be more Coop-centered and globetrotting. My probably unfounded suspicion is that a huge chunk of the show won't even take place in Twin Peaks and isn't one of the hallmarks of soaps an emphasis on a contained location within which a sprains story takes place?

All of this should be seen more as conjecture, speculation even, than some sort of airtight argument. Obviously none of us knows what's in store yet. But I won't be surprised if. Twin Peaks 2017 has mostly lost the predominantly soap-ish flavor of the original series. (Another factor I haven't mentioned is that the series SEEMS to be conceived for a limited run; yes season 1 was short, with no follow-up guaranteed, but it could still afford to be open-ended in a way that maybe the new show can't.)

Excellent points, which I'm in pretty much full agreement with.

I think we'll see some semblance of pastiche, given some of the recurring characters. I don't think it's a spoiler at this point (but consider that fair warning) to note that we'll revisit the love triangle between Ed, Norma and Nadine. I can't imagine that will be played straight - I think or at least hope the nightmarish take on soap is much in the spirit of the original series. As long as we see that sort of playful, on-the-right-side-of-nostalgiac subversion of soap tropes, and nothing at all in the Evelyn vein, I'll be happy. Though I'm assuming there is zero chance of the latter.

[james]

Maybe a possessed Big Ed will take Nadine and Norma to a train car? That would be epic if filmed and directed in the style of FWWM. Only James could save the day, since he is the only one who knows how to release the good Cooper with the flames from his Harley igniting Glastonbury Grove's oil puddle.

[N. Needleman]

So, if Lynch and Frost view TP as a soap-opera, it proves to me that even these men have flaws.

All it proves to me is you don't like soap opera. And that's certainly your prerogative but it's got nothing to do with TP and how they choose to make it.

[Ross]

So, if Lynch and Frost view TP as a soap-opera, it proves to me that even these men have flaws.

All it proves to me is you don't like soap opera. And that's certainly your prerogative but it's got nothing to do with TP and how they choose to make it.

Exactly...

The whole soap opera debate is basically about semantics. I mean any serialized drama is basically a soap opera in nature. Life itself is a soap opera. People fall in love, get married, have families. I guess what we are discussing though is the use of the cliches and tropes of the classic TV soap opera. Which is what TP was born from.

[LiAnn]

I hope for a very ambitious and pretentious approach that says "This is my (DKL's) magnum opus"

To quote Entertainment Weekly's 1990 review of Season 1, "Twin Peaks is different from most other shows that have striven to be innovative. For one thing, Peaks is good -- engrossing and funny; for another, it doesn't carry those shows' stink of smugness." Despite his myriad eccentricities, Lynch has never -- at least, in my opinion -- come across as pretentious. Surreal, visceral, inscrutable, bizarre... but never pretentious. One of the things that made Twin Peaks so great was that it didn't condescend the average TV viewer. It expected more of him or her, yes, but it didn't turn up its nose and say, "I'm too good for you."

There's a fine line between ambitious and pretentious, and I highly doubt Lynch -- or anyone else involved in Season 3 -- is aiming for the latter. After all, pretentious, by definition, means "trying to affect greater importance or talent than you actually possess." To me, that sounds more like Hannibal (I love it to pieces, but it's hilariously ostentatious and preachy) than Twin Peaks.

I hate when people say that TP is or should be basically a soap opera.

It is a soap opera, and there's nothing wrong with that. Implying that Twin Peaks is somehow lesser because Frost and Lynch chose to model it after a popular TV format of the day is incredibly narrow-minded.

So, if Lynch and Frost view TP as a soap-opera, it proves to me that even these men have flaws.

This makes absolutely no sense. Just because you don't like soap operas doesn't make Frost and Lynch any less brilliant. That's like saying Michael Jackson is a bad singer because he sang pop songs. Um... no. It just means you, the singular individual, don't like pop music.

I'm not a fan of French New Wave, but that doesn't mean I'm arrogant enough to think Godard's movies are bad just because they don't align with my specific tastes. Sometimes, a certain genre/medium just isn't your cup of tea. That doesn't mean it's inherently flawed.

[Ajax Rules]

Come off it, Twin Peaks is NOT a soap opera. And yes, I know what Lynch and Frost said about it. But I can't believe that people take this literally and don't see the provocative and ironic nature of this statement.

If it were a soap opera (of 18 episodes, what is already self-contradictory), no one (absolutely no one) would be talking about it two years in advance.

However, there are some soapy elements in s1 and s2. And it is precisely these elements that make the show so much less powerful than it could have been.