Part 5 - Case files (SPOILERS)

[dronerstone]

The most important thing about the shovels, at least to me anyway, is the fact that they're gold. Gold conducts electricity. The lodge denizens transmute themselves into reality through electricity.

Plus, they're in the woods.

[counterpaul]

This is kind of off-topic, and not really important, but, to Jerry Horne: I notice that you have added the episode descriptions from the Showtime site to the names of each Part's thread, implying that they're episode titles. They are not titles, they are descriptions.

This is admittedly a silly pet peeve, but every time I see episodes from the original run referred to by their phony German titles, I cringe, and now it seems like we're doing it again with these descriptions. Lynch/Frost specifically never wanted either iteration of Twin Peaks to have episode titles!

I present as evidence this screencap from Showtime.com:

TPTR Descriptions.png (436.33 KiB) Viewed 9678 times

Note the layout of the two different shows. The "titles" for Twin Peaks are simply "Part 1," Part 2," etc. For episode descriptions, wanting to keep things vague, Lynch/Frost pulled a short, evocative but ambiguous snippet of dialogue from each Part rather than give away any story developments.

I know this is a stupid thing to get my head in a tizzy about, but can we, as a community, agree not to impose titles on the Parts of this new series? Is it too late?

[Rudagger]

This is kind of off-topic, and not really important, but, to Jerry Horne: I notice that you have added the episode descriptions from the Showtime site to the names of each Part's thread, implying that they're episode titles. They are not titles, they are descriptions.

To be fair, there's a dash between "Part 5" and "Case Files", which to me indicates that it's separate things (title and descriptor).

I think having the descriptor is good just because it's going to make retroactively discussing episodes a bit easier (in figuring out what episode is what).

[Jasper]

So, how do we know that Jerry isn't simply including these as short descriptions to go along with the "Part" titles? They're really like little bits of poetry or something, and the fact that they're written this way, as something very different than what other shows put in that spot, shows a conscious effort to think of them as something different. Furthermore, these are clearly coming from the writers, so they can't be compared to the silly German titles.

Maybe they're neither show titles nor descriptions, but something else, like little pieces of poetry that accompany the titles.

Maybe, just maybe, Jerry did nothing wrong.

[counterpaul]

This is kind of off-topic, and not really important, but, to Jerry Horne: I notice that you have added the episode descriptions from the Showtime site to the names of each Part's thread, implying that they're episode titles. They are not titles, they are descriptions.

To be fair, there's a dash between "Part 5" and "Case Files", which to me indicates that it's separate things (title and descriptor).

I think having the descriptor is good just because it's going to make retroactively discussing episodes a bit easier (in figuring out what episode is what).

But what if they had done more conventional descriptions:

PART 1
Twenty-five years after the events of Season 2, Hawk gets a call from the Log Lady, a young man watches a mysterious glass box in New York, and police investigate a horrific crime scene in South Dakota that seems to be connected to Agent Cooper's doppelganger.

That isn't a very good description, but my point is that that wouldn't be included in the subject header for the thread. People are confusing the new descriptions for titles just because they're short.

I really don't know why this bothers me so much. I just remember reading an interview back in 1990 (I've been a fan since the very start) with Mark Frost (I have no idea which publication it was--I bought up tons of magazines with TP coverage in those days, but--with apologies to the collectors out there--I lost nearly all of them over the years) in which he talked about how, once the show was picked up for the first season, they sat down and specifically talked about how they didn't like the idea of episode titles. Each episode was just a day in the town, so it seemed wrong to give them titles like you would with more self-contained shows. He also talked about how (this was in the days before the internet was really a thing) viewers of most shows never even knew what the titles of episodes were so a lot of TV shows made jokes out of episode titles, but that also rubbed them the wrong way. So they decided that the titles would simply be "Episode 1," "Episode 2," etc.

I remember reading that and just loving it--loving that they cared enough to even think that through. It always seemed to me one of the many things that made Twin Peaks different.

[counterpaul]

So, how do we know that Jerry isn't simply including these as short descriptions to go along with the "Part" titles?

Sure. Whether it's a mistake on Jerry's part or not (and you're right--I'm sure Jerry knows they're descriptions and not titles), I think including them in the subject headers does further perpetuate the mistaken impression a lot of other people have, though, that these are titles.

They're really like little bits of poetry or something, and the fact that they're written this way, as something very different than what other shows put in that spot, shows a conscious effort to think of them as something different. Furthermore, these are clearly coming from the writers, so they can't be compared to the silly German titles.

Well, they're all (at least so far) snippets of dialogue from the show. It is an interesting approach to descriptions. And, yes, not nearly as awful as those silly German titles. Still, I have this strange attachment to the idea that each episode of the original run and part of The Return is presented as a section of the whole and not as an entity in and of itself.

I've officially spent way too much space on this trivial issue, haven't I? Apologies.

[Mr. Reindeer]

I like using the descriptors as "subtitles," as it were. Unlike the regrettable German titles, these feel like a distinctly L/F touch, as with everything else about the show's promotion.

[wxray]

Description for Episode 6 up on Uverse!!!

So I'm looking at my "upcoming recordings" on Uverse, and they have an actual description up for Episode 6! I kid you not. Episode 7 says the well known Showtime title passed around

Spoiler:

"There's a body all right."

But for Episode 6, it is not using the well known title seen on Showtime.

I am pretty sure the Episode 6 description is an inside joke to us fans, from a fan working at Uverse control. It has to be! But in case you are wondering, I have it at the bottom of this page hidden with spoiler tags. This description is either the biggest reveal, or one of the best jokes around -- considering how Season 3 has gone.

Here's the description:

Spoiler:

Agent Cooper must stop by the Double R dinner for another cup of coffee before he heads out for the night.

[KyleRickards]

So, how do we know that Jerry isn't simply including these as short descriptions to go along with the "Part" titles?

Sure. Whether it's a mistake on Jerry's part or not (and you're right--I'm sure Jerry knows they're descriptions and not titles), I think including them in the subject headers does further perpetuate the mistaken impression a lot of other people have, though, that these are titles.

They're really like little bits of poetry or something, and the fact that they're written this way, as something very different than what other shows put in that spot, shows a conscious effort to think of them as something different. Furthermore, these are clearly coming from the writers, so they can't be compared to the silly German titles.

Well, they're all (at least so far) snippets of dialogue from the show. It is an interesting approach to descriptions. And, yes, not nearly as awful as those silly German titles. Still, I have this strange attachment to the idea that each episode of the original run and part of The Return is presented as a section of the whole and not as an entity in and of itself.

I've officially spent way too much space on this trivial issue, haven't I? Apologies.

All the TV guides in the U.K. And Sky are referring to the episode 'titles' rather than 'episode 1' etc


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[dronerstone]

Here's the description:

Spoiler:

Agent Cooper must stop by the Double R dinner for another cup of coffee before he heads out for the night.

Did they spell it wrong or did you?

Spoiler:

it's "diner", not "dinner"

[wxray]

Here's the description:

Spoiler:

Agent Cooper must stop by the Double R dinner for another cup of coffee before he heads out for the night.

Did they spell it wrong or did you?

Spoiler:

it's "diner", not "dinner"

Me! Not enough coffee.

[Bookworm]

I watched part 5 last night and again that was a great episode. A few insights:

1. -I didn't realize right away the careers counselors was Mike. I did a double take just after the scene played out.

• -Steve is a junkie looser and I'm afraid for Becky.

• -Funny moment: the statue showing Coop Dougie the way to his work place.

• -Not funny moment: Coop Dougie all alone by himself, in front of the statue, looking more lost than ever. I wanted to reach trough the screen and give him a bear hug.

• -Also Coop Dougie following the coffee.

• -The boy in the Bang Bang Bar, near assaulting and insulting that poor girl. I don't know who he is but I already hate him. He remembered me of Leo, a young Leo in the making maybe.

• -DoppelCoop: I enjoy him more and more with each episode. His little shenanigan with the phone was pure gold. And who the hell is that Mr.Strawberry?

• -That poor casino's manager tough.

• -The whole Jacoby's scene, complete with the add, had me on the floor.

[dronerstone]

Me! Not enough coffee.

Haha! Still interesting... I doubt they'd play jokes on us just like that. We'll know in a few days. And I don't believe Copp will be back in action in only 1 more hour.


btw, about that statue - someone pointed out it looked like Bowie, dunno if this is an important clue or just coincidence (bah! that word).

Opinions on that?

[chrisfil]

I have a feeling that insurance salesman will come back to the Sherrif's Office, see a photo of Cooper somehow and say 'Hey, that's Dougie!'.

[dronerstone]

I have a feeling that insurance salesman will come back to the Sherrif's Office, see a photo of Cooper somehow and say 'Hey, that's Dougie!'.

Same here. I hope it happens soon and triggers bigger stuff.