Official Thread - TCA Announcement - Twin Peaks on Showtime May 21st

Discussion of Twin Peaks and Fire Walk With Me

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.
Hallelujah
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 12:25 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Hallelujah » Fri Jan 13, 2017 12:44 am

This whole thing was started by one person giving their personal opinion about a work, whilst saying that he did admire other Lynch works more. There's nothing wrong with that. Yet it seems to have somehow been the catalyst of a bunch of people being at each other's throats, with neither being wrong. If a person on here thinks Mulholland Drive falls apart and is a mess, he can think that, there's nothing condescending about that thought. Likewise, if a person loves it, there's nothing wrong with that. This is a place for Twin Peaks after all, not all of Lynch's oeuvre.
User avatar
sneakydave
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:02 am
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby sneakydave » Fri Jan 13, 2017 1:45 am

Can't we all just get along?

:D
*M*A*Y*D*A*Y*
User avatar
Rainwater
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 3:00 am
Location: Under the Sycamore trees

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Rainwater » Fri Jan 13, 2017 3:05 am

sneakydave wrote:Can't we all just get along?

:D

Don't tell me what to do, you condescending little prig!
φ
User avatar
sneakydave
Posts: 195
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2014 9:02 am
Location: Scotland
Contact:

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby sneakydave » Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:22 am

Rainwater wrote:
sneakydave wrote:Can't we all just get along?

:D

Don't tell me what to do, you condescending little prig!


You're my kinda guy.
*M*A*Y*D*A*Y*
TvinPiks
Posts: 14
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2017 7:27 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby TvinPiks » Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:33 am

Dead Dog wrote:Please accept my apology tvinpiks. It's been a long, hard day and this is kind of silly. I've been critical of FWWM before on these boards and never had anyone give me a hard time about it. I should extend you the same courtesy. I need to learn how to not be so protective of the art I hold dear.


What? You mean you dislike FWWM?! That does it, I'm not speaking to you again, like ever! :wink:
User avatar
NightTimeMyTime
Posts: 90
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 7:15 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby NightTimeMyTime » Fri Jan 13, 2017 4:42 am

I've read everything now. Negative opinions about some of the work of David Lynch are shared and a lot of people take this personal. That's classic. Humans take things personal all the time. Let's be constructive and leave ourself out of this? :mrgreen:

There's only one version of David Lynch and it's that version who's directed the new 18 hours.

I think I haven't experienced direct signs of Transcedental Meditation in any of Lynch's film/TV work, except for educational documentaries. How do you see hints of TM as a thing in Inland Empire? TM is just meditation. Just because someone says it's good for you but you may have to pay for it, doesn't mean it's anything more than meditation. I could be critical about how Lynch have used coffee in his work though. You get a feeling coffee is some kind of religious medicine to Lynch. :wink:

The more interesting thing I get out from discussions like the one about Lynch anno Blue Velvet/Wild at Heart/Twin Peaks etc vs Lynch anno Eraserhead/Lost Highway/Mulholland Drive/Inland Empire, is how people are vieweing abstract/surrealistic/suggestive stuff compared to real/direct/narrative stuff. As if they are opposites and compete with each other. "It's strange, but interesting". I don't view one thing as a negative to the other.

"Weird for the sake of being weird" is a phrase I just can't figure out. What does it mean? Many people use this phrase as a way to describe weird stuff as negative, but how do you do something weird for the sake of being anything other than weird? Are weird things only acceptable when a reason is adressed? Doesn't that make it not weird? Weird is something I can't quite understand. I think the phrase "weird for the sake of being weird" is really weird, actually. I guess it has something to do with a rule that something weird needs to be explained, but Lynch doesn't like to explain. And if you can't explain it yourself, then it's your problem and some people really take this as a problem. A personal problem.

When you become trapped in the basics of rules, the work of Lynch are harder to feel. I love the Lynch feel. I like to recommend people to toss away the rule book when experiencing Lynch. The rule book is a distracting thing.

I love to feel a mystery, not understand it. A mystery you understand tends to be something else than a mystery. I love surrealism. Like dreams, surrealism isn't trapped in rules. The work of Lynch is almost like dreams. I don't exactly understand them, but I feel them strongly and if I'm able to remember them, I use to think about them a lot. Sometimes they have narrative and sometimes they are hard to understand. Really weird, emotional stuff. That's what I get from the work of Lynch and I'm OK if other people like other things about his work, which they can't get from every movie in the same way as I do with my liking.
User avatar
Rainwater
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 3:00 am
Location: Under the Sycamore trees

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Rainwater » Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:22 am

sneakydave wrote:
Rainwater wrote:
sneakydave wrote:Can't we all just get along?

:D

Don't tell me what to do, you condescending little prig!


You're my kinda guy.
Attachments
s2e1.gif
s2e1.gif (497.97 KiB) Viewed 702 times
φ
User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Gabriel » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:05 am

Rainwater wrote:It's strange to think there will inevitably be people on this very forum who will hate the new series. I can only hope to find myself in the camp that thinks it's the second coming.


It's always a danger you'll profoundly dislike a belated continuation of a series. I detest modern Doctor Who. I detest all non-Kirk/TOS Star Trek. If I hate the new Twin Peaks, so be it. I'll be massively disappointed, but it won't be the first time. I've got my battle scars! ;)

While I understand a lot of people are married to the 'dark' side of a Twin Peaks, a lot of people love it for something more: charm. The original show was charming and witty. No matter how dark things got, there was something quirky that would happen, be it a fish in a percolator or a barbershop quartet in the Great Northern. Indeed, I think the horror was enhanced by the presence of the humour, 'black as midnight on a moonless night' coffee and damn fine cherry pie.

FWWM, which didn't involve Mark Frost, kind of split a lot of the lighter material into the first section, which balances light and dark beautifully. The stunning, sordid, dark and downright nasty is only in the second part.

I'm approaching the new series as just that: new. For me, I t's season one of a cable show, not season three of the TV show. Just the sight of Lynch dressed as Gordon, stuffing doughnuts tells me it's not all going to be the dark, depressing nightmare show many seem to want. I don't think Lynch and Frost, as a team, are capable of being that nihilistic. There's always a joie de vivre lurking under their work.
User avatar
Pöllö
Posts: 105
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:28 am

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Pöllö » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:21 am

Gabriel wrote:
Rainwater wrote:It's strange to think there will inevitably be people on this very forum who will hate the new series. I can only hope to find myself in the camp that thinks it's the second coming.


It's always a danger you'll profoundly dislike a belated continuation of a series. I detest modern Doctor Who. I detest all non-Kirk/TOS Star Trek. If I hate the new Twin Peaks, so be it. I'll be massively disappointed, but it won't be the first time. I've got my battle scars! ;)

While I understand a lot of people are married to the 'dark' side of a Twin Peaks, a lot of people love it for something more: charm. The original show was charming and witty. No matter how dark things got, there was something quirky that would happen, be it a fish in a percolator or a barbershop quartet in the Great Northern. Indeed, I think the horror was enhanced by the presence of the humour, 'black as midnight on a moonless night' coffee and damn fine cherry pie.

FWWM, which didn't involve Mark Frost, kind of split a lot of the lighter material into the first section, which balances light and dark beautifully. The stunning, sordid, dark and downright nasty is only in the second part.

I'm approaching the new series as just that: new. For me, I t's season one of a cable show, not season three of the TV show. Just the sight of Lynch dressed as Gordon, stuffing doughnuts tells me it's not all going to be the dark, depressing nightmare show many seem to want. I don't think Lynch and Frost, as a team, are capable of being that nihilistic. There's always a joie de vivre lurking under their work.

This is why Twin Peaks was so popular back in the day. I really doubt that the show would have been as popular as it was, if it had been anything like FWWM. This forum is full of hardcore fans, mainstream audience simply wants the quirky humor and charm back.

Like I previously stated, that is nearly impossible to implement. The charm has been amplified trough the the years because of nostalgia and I'm sure that the cinematography will be a lot different too, including the overall tone of the show. We are living in the year 2010's and not the 1990's after all.

I'll be embracing the new show with open arms, but I doubt that many will be satisfied. Majority of people seem to dislike Lynch's surrealism which got pretty hardcore in his later years.
The cow jumped over the moon.
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby mtwentz » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:23 am

Gabriel wrote:
Rainwater wrote: Just the sight of Lynch dressed as Gordon, stuffing doughnuts tells me it's not all going to be the dark, depressing nightmare show many seem to want. I don't think Lynch and Frost, as a team, are capable of being that nihilistic. There's always a joie de vivre lurking under their work.


Having Michael Cera, Matthew Lilliard, Kimmy Robertson and Harry Goaz might be a clue that there will be plenty of humor abounding in the new show :-).
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby mtwentz » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:27 am

Am I the first one to notice or mention Don Murray of Conquest of the Planet of the Apes (he played the bad guy Breck) is on the cast list?

He must be way up there in years- I have not seen him in anything since...Conquest of the Planet of the Apes.
User avatar
Scullydive
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 8:06 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Scullydive » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:36 am

mtwentz wrote:
Gabriel wrote:
Rainwater wrote: Just the sight of Lynch dressed as Gordon, stuffing doughnuts tells me it's not all going to be the dark, depressing nightmare show many seem to want. I don't think Lynch and Frost, as a team, are capable of being that nihilistic. There's always a joie de vivre lurking under their work.


Having Michael Cera, Matthew Lilliard, Kimmy Robertson and Harry Goaz might be a clue that there will be plenty of humor abounding in the new show :-).


There's so much to look forward to in the new series that I constantly forget that Michael Cera and Matthew Lilliard are in it! I only just remembered that David Duchovny's coming back even though I love Denise Bryson and The X-Files. I've hyped myself up a lot but whatever happens it can be guaranteed that it'll be like nothing we've seen before.
User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Gabriel » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:39 am

Dead Dog wrote:It's kind of bad form to come into a Lynch-centric message board and question the quality of movies you haven't even seen and make snide remarks about a film that is universally praised and those that admire it. And Gabriel's comments, while I don't think intentional, did come off pretty condescending, as if he has better taste in film than the rest of us. Maybe you guys know that Mulholland Dr is a mess, the rest of us just haven't caught on yet.


Howard Roark laughed.
User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 754
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Gabriel » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:45 am

Scullydive wrote:
mtwentz wrote:
Gabriel wrote:


Having Michael Cera, Matthew Lilliard, Kimmy Robertson and Harry Goaz might be a clue that there will be plenty of humor abounding in the new show :-).


There's so much to look forward to in the new series that I constantly forget that Michael Cera and Matthew Lilliard are in it! I only just remembered that David Duchovny's coming back even though I love Denise Bryson and The X-Files. I've hyped myself up a lot but whatever happens it can be guaranteed that it'll be like nothing we've seen before.


Yeah, I can't wait. I really hope we get some great 'dopey Andy' moments like when he stepped on the loose plank of wood while looking for Leo's boots or he starts crying at random moments. The crying was brilliant, because the emotion was so honest, yet so inappropriate.
User avatar
Snailhead
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 2:45 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Snailhead » Fri Jan 13, 2017 6:52 am

I find FWWM charming... there's humour there. And Lynch contributed a lot of the humour to the original series. I love Frost but he wasn't the only part of the equation responsible for levity.

So, yeah, there's a good number of fun parts to balance the darkness, I find:

- DEER MEADOW. Carl Rodd, Irene, the awkward interactions between Chet and Sam, lotsa fun stuff.
- Albert.
- Bobby walking around the high school.
- Jacques in the pink room.
- Laura getting into that outfit while on the phone with James.
- Laura laughing after Bobby kills the guy. (ok maybe I have a twisted sense of humour...)
Welcome to Canada...

Return to “Twin Peaks”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 11 guests