A Twin Peaks Continuation - For or Against

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
Jerry Horne
Posts: 4485
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Private Portland Airport
Contact:

Postby Jerry Horne » Tue Oct 23, 2007 10:42 pm

2008: Return to Twin Peaks (USA network)

2011: TWIN PEAKS (a JJ Abrams film)

2029: FWWM deleted scenes released
User avatar
Teopeaks
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:32 am
Contact:

Postby Teopeaks » Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:17 pm

Kingsofprano178,

First, I don't seem to deem myself the final word on the subject, I just add my point of view.

Second, Lynch never walked away nor regretted having ever made Twin Peak. I don't know where you got that information, but this is absolutely untrue. Lynch loves Twin Peaks and its world and always will, and he keeps repeating it over and over, check the bonus to the Gold Box for instance.

Then, I've read almost any interview available and never once did he refuse to answer any question about Twin Peaks, he just never discusses the meaning of the plot and reveals any secrets.

So, your conception of Lynch as an arrogant and pretentious person is totally wrong, you have an idea of what he thinks which has nothing to do with what he actually thinks. I don't know where you get your information.
User avatar
GeekBoyEric74
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:36 pm
Location: Long Beach, CA
Contact:

Postby GeekBoyEric74 » Wed Oct 24, 2007 12:05 am

Audrey Horne wrote:but Lynch didn't walk away from Twin Peaks. He was featured in episodes, and he directed the finale. And most of the cast and crew knew that the series was not going to be picked up again. The network cancelled the series, not Lynch.
The series finale had been finished for less than a few weeks when the announcement that a movie would be made with Lynch at the helm. And it wasn't even entirely decided it would be a prequel.

I'm all for Twin Peaks to continue if it could be done. But in practical terms, it can't. Lynch cannot bankroll it, it's far too expensive. A network is not going to touch it, and the actors have aged too much.


Ya know, in the 90's I would have agreed with you, but since the days of Twin Peaks merely being "the experiment that failed" it has since gained a reputation as the show that changed tv, and led to many of the shows we have now. Also, it's nostalgia now...and people love nostalgia. Would a major network bankroll this now? Hell no, but we live in a world of 500 channels. I could easily see Sci-Fi Channel or Bravo or even Showtime doing a mini series of some sort. People say Lynch couldn't get money to make anything related to Twin Peaks now...well, that might have been true in the mid to late 90's, but of all the things Lynch has done since, Twin Peaks is STILL the thing he is most famous for in the mainstream popular culture. Believe me, if he was trying to get financing today for Twin Peaks: 25 Years Later or Inland Empire 2: The 5 Hour Version, what do you think someone would put up money for? Also, it's not like anything Lynch has done since FWWM has lit the box office on fire...Lost Highway made $3 mil, Straight Story made $6 mil, and Mulholland Dr. made $7. Adjusted for inflation, they are all about the same as FWWM. He just needs a less infllated budget. Assuming it's for film and not tv. Believe me...the only person keeping Lynch from returning to Twin Peaks is Lynch.
User avatar
kingsoprano718
Posts: 76
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:06 am

Postby kingsoprano718 » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:39 am

GeekBoyEric74 wrote:
Audrey Horne wrote:but Lynch didn't walk away from Twin Peaks. He was featured in episodes, and he directed the finale. And most of the cast and crew knew that the series was not going to be picked up again. The network cancelled the series, not Lynch.
The series finale had been finished for less than a few weeks when the announcement that a movie would be made with Lynch at the helm. And it wasn't even entirely decided it would be a prequel.

I'm all for Twin Peaks to continue if it could be done. But in practical terms, it can't. Lynch cannot bankroll it, it's far too expensive. A network is not going to touch it, and the actors have aged too much.


Ya know, in the 90's I would have agreed with you, but since the days of Twin Peaks merely being "the experiment that failed" it has since gained a reputation as the show that changed tv, and led to many of the shows we have now. Also, it's nostalgia now...and people love nostalgia. Would a major network bankroll this now? Hell no, but we live in a world of 500 channels. I could easily see Sci-Fi Channel or Bravo or even Showtime doing a mini series of some sort. People say Lynch couldn't get money to make anything related to Twin Peaks now...well, that might have been true in the mid to late 90's, but of all the things Lynch has done since, Twin Peaks is STILL the thing he is most famous for in the mainstream popular culture. Believe me, if he was trying to get financing today for Twin Peaks: 25 Years Later or Inland Empire 2: The 5 Hour Version, what do you think someone would put up money for? Also, it's not like anything Lynch has done since FWWM has lit the box office on fire...Lost Highway made $3 mil, Straight Story made $6 mil, and Mulholland Dr. made $7. Adjusted for inflation, they are all about the same as FWWM. He just needs a less infllated budget. Assuming it's for film and not tv. Believe me...the only person keeping Lynch from returning to Twin Peaks is Lynch.



THANK YOU!!!

I wish to see these interviews where he proclaims love for Peaks, outside of ANY promotional material FOR Peaks.

I have read many an interview and all he ever states is Peaks is done. Never professes love, unless it is for an ad or promo for something he can make money from. Provide me links, outside of anything promoting a Peaks DVD, where he states he loves Peaks.

People give Lynch too much leeway on Peaks. Yes he was the driving force, but he also let it die as well.

There was even a report around FWWM DVD release for the first time in US where he stated he was done with Peaks and would never revisit deleted scenes because they were delted for a reason. Of course, the almighty buck seems to call out to him so he may now release those scenes overseas.

He has to find a way to bankroll a new photo project and what better way to do so then take Peaks fan's money and use it in a way Peaks fans will never receive any payoff too.

As for CIBY not paying him for the 3 pic deal, you best also mention what those three pics were to be....a prequel with Laura, a prequel with Earle and a sequel to the show to wrap it all up.....maybe, just maybe, he choose the WRONG script to produce first when EVERYONE knew the killer of Laura but WANTED a resolution to the cliffhangers. You ever consider the possibility it is his own stubborn fault those pics were never produced??

Bonus material on a Peaks DVD? HAH! let's see what he says when he is alone in Cannes for another of his films.....oh wait we did when he said he had no interest in ever revisiting Peaks or it's citizens..... then announced there would be a Peaks Golden Box set.... Maybe it is me, but i am tired of being jerked around after all these years have proved that Peaks is STILL alive and kicking....just waiting for his attention again!
User avatar
Evenreven
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:11 am

Postby Evenreven » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:10 am

About the prequel thing, wasn't that very specifically because some actors didn't want to be involved? Anyway, I think it was a very good choice, considering FWWM is my favourite film of all time. And similarly, Kyle not wanting to be involved was a good choice too, since it gave birth to the brilliant Chet Desmond.

About the almighty buck being responsible for him revisiting FWWM deleted scenes - do you really think he's going to make a lot of money off of it? He's been wanting to it for years now, but he's not given the opportunity. He's also been pretty vocal about the main reason for doing it is because Jack Nance is in it. Selfish reasons?

And just let me state this for the record: the series (and the film) is the work. It is out on DVD in some form, and in better form in a week. The creators of the show owe us nothing more than availability. Twin Peaks is no longer a work in progress, just like other old shows like Dragnet, Dynasty and Dallas. Just let it go.
"Who's the towhead? Those drugs are LEGAL!"
User avatar
Teopeaks
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:32 am
Contact:

Postby Teopeaks » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:41 am

Thank you Evergreen, I must agree with everything you wrote.

Painting Lynch as a person mainly interested in money is just not getting him at all. If he were like that, he would have never had such a career with movies like Lost Highway and especially INLAND EMPIRE.

Lynch was quite depressed by the way the movie was received, it put him down, and I'm sure that might be the reason why he did not want to go back to it, in the same way he does not want to talk about Dune. But today, Lynch does talk about Twin Peaks, is it just for commercial reasons?

Absolutely not, it's because time have given reviewers the opportunity to get a closer look at the film, and now, mainly since the success of Mulholland Drive in Europe, FWWM has been completely reestimated. And that's why Lynch now talks about it, nothing to do with money.

When Lynch wants money, he makes coffee, not movies.

When Lynch says "Peaks is done", it does not mean he walks away from it or denies it, it means "it's done", as I previously stated, the story of Twin Peaks is over. Lynch loves Twin Peaks, but the story is over. It's a simple as that.
User avatar
Evenreven
Posts: 741
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 2:11 am

Postby Evenreven » Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:54 am

Also, I'd like to add one thing... Except for MAYBE (and just maybe) the various Star Trek spin-offs and Doctor Who, can any of you think of one - 1 - television series that has been half as good in a reunion incarnation several years later?

The logic being used in this thread is the same logic that's responsible for the 1980s version of Mission: Impossible and various other abominations: "There's an audience for it".

At some point, the momentum's gone and the actors get too old. Even FWWM a year after the cancellation was pushing it; if you take Twin Peaks chronologically, James Hurley looks five years younger the day after Laura dies. I don't think the 25 years later part is viable either. Kyle today looks nothing like the old made-up dream-Kyle of 1989.

A graphic novel is about the only thing that could have worked. And I'm somewhat skeptical even of that one. Not a big fan of "planet of creamed corn" type of ideas. And like I've said before, a big reason the series ran out of steam was the simple fact that too many of the major characters got killed. After the carnage of ep. 29 that would be even worse in a third season - unless SEVERAL new characters were introduced. I like the Cooper/Desmond/Cole/Stanley/Jeffries axis a lot more.

(And just for the record, this has nothing to do with Lynch fanboyism. I think criticising him for abandoning the ship after episode 14 is perfectly legitimate. The planning of Twin Peaks, with 2-3 writers seemingly making it up as they go along, seems almost spectacularly bad in retrospect. Bob was Lynch's creation, but he left everything in Frost's hands. THAT hurt the series.)
"Who's the towhead? Those drugs are LEGAL!"
User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Postby Gabriel » Wed Oct 24, 2007 2:58 pm

Lynch works by gut feeling: he's a great improviser. Unfortunately, in a high-speed, commercial TV environment, turning up to direct the odd episode and throwing out the script, making up something completely different, throws the next several shows out of whack.

I'm fascinated to know how the Audrey romance was vetoed, though. Surely when actors sign a contract for a series, they do as they're damn well told!

Also, the Cooper/Audrey romance should have been perfectly feasible: had Cooper realised his feelings for Audrey late in season two, he could have gone into the lodge after her, then in season three, ten years later, he would have been able to be with Audrey legitimately!

As for this business about TP being 'about' Laura Palmer, I never thought that! Laura Palmer's murder set off a chain of events. It's like saying all history is insignificant after the big bang! The film allowed us to dig deeper into the core mystery at the start of the show. But the whole reason it was shown in the cinema was that it was simply a story that couldn't comfortably be shown in the TV version of TP! It was really a sidestep, rather than a prequel or sequel.

I think there are many reasons FWWM tanked, some fair, some not. There was film critic snobbery about a cinema film being based on a TV show - not so common in the 1990s, outside of Star Trek - critics who wouldn't have any truck with a film that ideally requires knowledge of the series it's based on, leading to gormless remarks about the film being incomprehensible (funny how 'obscure' films such as Lost Highway and Mulholland Dr. didn't get blasted for that, eh?) and a large cabal who felt that Lynch had had enough praise for the likes of Blue Velvet and Wild at Heart and now deserved a bit of a kicking! In this era where the TV and movie industry's lines have blurred, we tend to forget that TP was probably at the forefront of this change! Indeed, TP changed TV!

As for audiences, many people had drifted away from the show, many people wanted to see Coop, Audrey and the gang and were disappointed to see a cast list that excluded the majority of the TV show's cast and many simply didn't want a 'prequel,' when they wanted to find out what happened after the final episode! Sadly, because of the messy season two of the show, kicking TP was a popular passtime for a while in the media, until they found something else to bleat on about.

I know I was hellishly disappointed when I first heard FWWM was a prequel. I loved every second of the actual movie, though. I think it was utterly true to the series, in part because it was so unlike the series. My parents, who both liked the show had mixed opinions when I showed it to them on (a hideous) VHS though.

My Dad watched it having seen the likes of Eraserhead, Dune and Blue Velvet, so knew what to expect. He was disappointed not to see some stuff closer to the show, but thought it was a good film, if a touch too arthouse in places. My Mum really hated it at the time and hasn't seen it since. I'm hoping to import a Gold Box to the UK, then rewatch the lot with them along with my recent FWWM DVD.

A lot of years have passed, but I wouldn't have a problem with returning to TP once more. It's been more than 'rehabilitated' with the passing of time. As long as it's well made and faithful to the spirit of the original I'm all for it.

As for Kyle not looking like his 'older' self, Evenreven, that's probably because he still looks so damn young! And my argument isn't that there's an audience for it (although I think there would be one for a cable miniseries!) Rather I think there are still good Twin Peaks stories to be told!
User avatar
Teopeaks
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:32 am
Contact:

Postby Teopeaks » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:17 pm

Laura Palmer sett off a whole series of events almost all connected to Laura Palmer during the first season. Everything Lynch created in Twin Peaks was connected to Laura Palmer, the Red Room dream from second episode, Bob, she even comes back in the last episode, and finally, though he does not know it, she is the reason why Coop gets into the black lodge in the end etc. The whole reason why the film was made was because Lynch returned to the axis he fell in love with in the world of Twin Peaks, that is: the mystery surrounding Laura Palmer.
User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Postby Gabriel » Wed Oct 24, 2007 3:51 pm

It boils town to how you look at it: for me, the movie was about Laura, but the series was because of Laura and about the people of the town.

Laura's death was the cause and the show documented the effects on the characters who knew her and the ripple effect her death had on more and more people.

Laura's mysteries and her presence obviously haunt the show and the town, but the show is about the consequences of the death of this tragic girl and the impact of the gradual revelation of her secrets.

In the series, she is a ghost, like a movie icon, long-dead, but still a palpable presence along the lines of Daphne du Maurier's Rebecca. The movie makes her a real person: a terrified woman-child caught in hideous circumstances!
User avatar
Teopeaks
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:32 am
Contact:

Postby Teopeaks » Wed Oct 24, 2007 4:42 pm

That's true.
DirkG
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:04 pm

Postby DirkG » Thu Oct 25, 2007 2:04 pm

FOR!


There's nothing to lose. Could it possibly get worse than the worst episodes of Season 2? Hardly! Inland Empire didn't click for me (MD is one of my favourites though) and if that's what all his future projects will look like from now and onwards i would much much rather have another season of Twin Peaks. I think for it to work not only Lynch but Frost and a few more of the most important writers/directors should have to be in on it. FWWM was a dissapointment cause it abandoned too much of the concept of the series.
A new movie would of course be better than nothing but the proper way to go would be a new true season 3 in TV-format. Many fans seam to be very afraid of the thought of a new series but to me it's the only proper way to do it. I don't know why fans are so afraid of experimentation. TP had nothing of it. *oh that irony* :D

MY IDEAS (previously posted at imdb):
It would take place, not necceserely exactly 25 years, but as-many-real-life-years later that now has passed. Original cast.. if it's not possible ignore that specific character.
It could incorporate two new main characters working for an organisation trying to find out the truth about Project blue book. That would be a great way to get into the lodge story again after all these years in a natural way that wouldn't seem to rushed and wanna-beish. The first episodes shouldn't take place in Twin peaks at all but in a larger city or anything but slowly the story would transcend towards it. There we would learn the fates of all the old characters. Coop being inprisoned or mental hospitalized. Truman a retired alcoholic. Major Briggs could learn something from the new characters that he needs to enter the lodge to rescue Cooper. To cause tension for the story Cooper could escape from the prison in his dangerous condition. And Andy's and Lucy's kid should be the new sheriff and be as intelligent as two rocket scientists together, (totally over-the top Twin peaks-style intelligent). Audrey would be in charge of the Great Northern.

The story should focus on the lodges and the good vs. evil-theme.
User avatar
Jerry Horne
Posts: 4485
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Private Portland Airport
Contact:

Postby Jerry Horne » Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:47 pm

From a new interview with Lynch:

EW: In your imagination, is the Twin Peaks story still going?
LYNCH: Well, yes and no. Obviously, there is a lot more. And there are clues, not only in the series, but in the feature film, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me [the poorly received 1992 prequel], that indicate something more, but I've never had a chance to go there.

EW: Is there a chance that we could go there again?
LYNCH: I don't think so. On the Internet, maybe, but it's a big deal. It's a hungry medium, and it would take 100% focus to go there.

www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20154190,00.html
User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Postby Gabriel » Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:58 pm

'On the internet . . .'

It's an interesting idea. I really like the Battlestar Galactica webisodes released to promote season three and Razor.

A short TP episode once a week, building into a bigger narrative could be marvellous. David Lynch could run it on his website and periodically release stories on DVD. I reckon subscriptions to his site would rocket! Hell, I'd be there like a shot!

It would fit with my belief that there are more stories to be told about Twin Peaks, if not an out-and-out continuation. In a different medium you could focus on smaller stories. You could have a 10x5" series shot on HD video about, say, Major Briggs and Bobby Briggs that runs over ten weeks and gets DVD/HDDVD/Bluray release through the site, down the line, followed by a story about a couple of new characters, followed by a story about Audrey or whatever.

The fact that David Lynch is even vaguely considering this makes sense of why he might not want a graphic novel out there!
User avatar
Coffee
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:43 pm

Postby Coffee » Fri Oct 26, 2007 5:33 pm

The problem is though, in all of these new Lynch interviews popping up because of the new DVD set, he's saying "No" to a continuation but then saying "but if I did do it, it would be on the Internet..." - that for me is not a positive.

I always thought that Lynch would return to the series and get Coop out the Lodge around 2014, but it's not going to happen unfortunately and it's a damn shame too, because from all the interviews it seems that Lynch still has a grasp on what made Twin Peaks so great. :cry:

Return to “Twin Peaks Movie, TV, Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LateReg and 19 guests