LostInTheMovies wrote:Good points. I'll qualify my worries by saying I don't think there's any way the show would slip as badly as it did back in 1990-91. So even if it continues with Lynch/Frost as EP's we'll end up with something definitely better than the middle of season 2 and probably better than late season 2 as well. But I think my biggest concern at this point would become not so much quality as end-game.
True, although I think the town and its secrets offer many opportunities for different standalone stories with different characters.
Again, there are definitely personal, subjective reasons for this in addition to concerns about how things could go wrong.
1) I am a movie person much more than a TV person; as much as I appreciate good serialized long-form storytelling (which offers many opportunities a 2-hour feature does not) I want it to have a clear, strong end point and an overarching narrative that carries it all the way. I remember being frustrated by Sopranos building up an ominous mood that at times just seemed to be diverted in season-long arcs that ended patly when the season was over to make way for the next hook (of course, they faced something not unlike WKLP when Nancy Marchand died unexpectedly early in s3 I think). I just feel let down at the end of a series when it's a collection of good episodes but nothing quite leads anywhere.
I understand that view, although, like it or not, this is
a TV show.
At its best, a show can tie up most threads without overtly dropping a 'hook bomb' in the last frame. Look at how Fargo set up season two during its first season.
2) I watched Twin Peaks years later on DVD, in quick succession, rather than while it unfolded in real time in the early 90s. That's one big thing separating me from you & James, and others who are probably more eager for multiple seasons than I am (which is why James & Showtime have banned us youngsters, along with hipsters, from the new series
). As such, I've never really experienced Twin Peaks as an ongoing show without an end in sight. It's possible that after watching the new show unfold that way my mind will be changed and I'll be craving more Twin Peaks fix! But part of the reason I love Twin Peaks so much is knowing that Lynch came back in the end with the finale (which I know you feel differently about - viewing it much more as a temporary, and somewhat cheap, cliffhanger) and the film to give the original cycle a strange but effective sort of conclusion, so that I could look at it as a cohesive whole. If they keep the show going perpetually, and (God forbid) something happens to one of the creators we are left with an incomplete Twin Peaks instead of one that tells a complete story.
Oh, God forbid it goes on forever! I rather like the way Fargo is being treated as a ten chapter novel, a la Swedish police stories, with the movie and first season representing two chapters. I remain unsure how I'll deal with Twin Peaks and The X-Files here in the UK. I've picked up an iTunes series pass for the French show The Returned, but only plan to watch it when all eight episodes are available. I suspect I'll do the same with The X-Files, given it's only six episodes. I've fallen out of the habit of waiting for an episode a week. Twin Peaks might be too much of a temptation though, so I might watch the series pass version, week by week (I'd never watch a broadcast version with commercial breaks or turn on the BBC!) Incidentally, I hated watching TP on broadcast TV. At one point, season two went off air for three weeks in favour of coverage of snooker!
I actually rewatched the whole first season in one day over the Christmas break on my old Betamax in the period between the two seasons' broadcast. But no, I never considered the ending to be anything more than Picard's Locutus of Borg moment in Star Trek TNG.
On another note, it's really hard for me to envision a world where Lynch actually effectively performs the role of showrunner. The evidence of his career so far - and especially the first run of the show - suggests he needs to be directly hands-on to really feel invested in the material and that otherwise his involvement would be more in the nature of calling in occasional suggestions, vetoing stuff he doesn't like, and maybe popping up as Gordon Cole! That's just how his creativity rolls. As such I think a Lynch executive-produced show would be very, very different from a Lynch-directed one and we would get some of the dilution we got the first time. Which isn't the end of the world: something I really love about the show is how various writes and directors evoke Lynch indirectly, carving out their own thing in his shadow. But I feel we've gotten that, and now I'm ready for a straight-Lynch Twin Peaks or nothing.
Fair enough, although the Laura Palmer saga worked well for me even with multiple directors and writers across those 17 episodes. It was only in the absence of the guiding hand show's creators that things went to pieces. Those episodes all felt consistent, tonally.
It's all hard to say right now without the experience of watching the new series, seeing how it goes & how it feels watching it unfold week-to-week. But my gut says that Lynch/Frost have an almost miraculous window of opportunity to conclude Twin Peaks with grace and power and that anything beyond that has a high risk of diminished returns and overstaying its welcome. Perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic.
No, you're being justifiably and sensibly cautious.
Trust me: watching the show meander was deeply frustrating! However, shorter seasons with Lynch and Frost overseeing everything and ensuring that each wraps things up properly should work. And we all know that Twin Peaks is an interesting enough place to explore in any period and that there'll always be something or someone to intrigue us!