Parts 3 & 4 - Call for help & ...brings back some memories (SPOILERS)

Discussion of each of the 18 parts of Twin Peaks the Return

Moderators: BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne, Brad D, Annie

User avatar
Hercousin
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2016 6:38 am

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby Hercousin » Sat May 27, 2017 3:52 pm

So, I binged all four hours at once on Monday, and woke up with something like an emotional hangover. It was incredible seeing new Twin Peaks, spoken as an original viewer so gutted by the cancellation I didn't even like to talk about it in the 90s. I love all of Lynch's films, even Inland Empire, and having rewatched most of his filmography and all of the original episodes in the past year, I can safely say that I wasn't prepared for any of it.

I'm loving it so far, even though I'm panicking that 18 parts might not be enough for all of the lines that have been cast. The beginning of episode 3- reddit's calling it the Mauve Zone, are we?- was so beautiful, and the endless sea and the dark tower show some of the indescribable vastness I always felt was at the heart of tiny Twin Peaks. I was on the verge of disappointment after the first two hours, but then I remembered that we'll always have the original, why not see where this takes us? People are saying it's too different and I completely understand their gripes, but if the "passage of time" is a major theme, the way actors have aged and changed is actually quite a commentary. Almost like "you can never go home again". So either we'll go home again with Coop, or we'll find out that time is a brutal mistress and nothing will ever be the same. As someone that has gone from starry-eyed 10 year old to 37 year old working mother of 3 since 1990, this is unbearably poignant to me.

I don't have much to add. Wondering if Beverly's (Ashley Judd) husband is Balthazar Getty's finger pistol guy. Tammy P doesn't really bug me that much, jury's still out on whether she'll get some real work to do, and frankly, I didn't realize what a good actor DL was until episode 4.
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby yaxomoxay » Sat May 27, 2017 3:55 pm

Hercousin wrote:So, I binged all four hours at once on Monday, and woke up with something like an emotional hangover. It was incredible seeing new Twin Peaks, spoken as an original viewer so gutted by the cancellation I didn't even like to talk about it in the 90s. I love all of Lynch's films, even Inland Empire, and having rewatched most of his filmography and all of the original episodes in the past year, I can safely say that I wasn't prepared for any of it.

I'm loving it so far, even though I'm panicking that 18 parts might not be enough for all of the lines that have been cast. The beginning of episode 3- reddit's calling it the Mauve Zone, are we?- was so beautiful, and the endless sea and the dark tower show some of the indescribable vastness I always felt was at the heart of tiny Twin Peaks. I was on the verge of disappointment after the first two hours, but then I remembered that we'll always have the original, why not see where this takes us? People are saying it's too different and I completely understand their gripes, but if the "passage of time" is a major theme, the way actors have aged and changed is actually quite a commentary. Almost like "you can never go home again". So either we'll go home again with Coop, or we'll find out that time is a brutal mistress and nothing will ever be the same. As someone that has gone from starry-eyed 10 year old to 37 year old working mother of 3 since 1990, this is unbearably poignant to me.

I don't have much to add. Wondering if Beverly's (Ashley Judd) husband is Balthazar Getty's finger pistol guy. Tammy P doesn't really bug me that much, jury's still out on whether she'll get some real work to do, and frankly, I didn't realize what a good actor DL was until episode 4.


Perfectly stated!
I went from being an 11yo boy to a 36yo husband and father of two, living in a different continent.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
chromereflectsimage
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:03 am

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby chromereflectsimage » Sat May 27, 2017 3:56 pm

That guy who made a quip about talking to his pine find sounded more like Albert than Albert did.
User avatar
wxray
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 5:04 am

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby wxray » Sat May 27, 2017 6:54 pm

Hercousin wrote:So, I binged all four hours at once on Monday, and woke up with something like an emotional hangover. It was incredible seeing new Twin Peaks, spoken as an original viewer so gutted by the cancellation I didn't even like to talk about it in the 90s. I love all of Lynch's films, even Inland Empire, and having rewatched most of his filmography and all of the original episodes in the past year, I can safely say that I wasn't prepared for any of it.

I'm loving it so far, even though I'm panicking that 18 parts might not be enough for all of the lines that have been cast. The beginning of episode 3- reddit's calling it the Mauve Zone, are we?- was so beautiful, and the endless sea and the dark tower show some of the indescribable vastness I always felt was at the heart of tiny Twin Peaks. I was on the verge of disappointment after the first two hours, but then I remembered that we'll always have the original, why not see where this takes us? People are saying it's too different and I completely understand their gripes, but if the "passage of time" is a major theme, the way actors have aged and changed is actually quite a commentary. Almost like "you can never go home again". So either we'll go home again with Coop, or we'll find out that time is a brutal mistress and nothing will ever be the same. As someone that has gone from starry-eyed 10 year old to 37 year old working mother of 3 since 1990, this is unbearably poignant to me.

I don't have much to add. Wondering if Beverly's (Ashley Judd) husband is Balthazar Getty's finger pistol guy. Tammy P doesn't really bug me that much, jury's still out on whether she'll get some real work to do, and frankly, I didn't realize what a good actor DL was until episode 4.

I agree. Even about the DL acting. He can act! Frankly, I hated his acting in the original. I'm pleased with what I've seen here.

I'm a bit older than you, so let me say that even so, EP 3 is one of those events in TV history that will last forever. I think it transcends age and experience, which will make it a classic forever.

Other events in my history of TV which are different than EP 3, but were world shaking are: Pilot of 24, and Pilot of Roots. After that, Pilot of TP Season 1 and Ep 3 of S1, and final episode of s2.

"24" is a great example of what NOT to do. "24" this year was crap. I'm so glad Twin Peaks went in a different direction. Same with Roots. Roots first season was incredible TV. Most people on this board don't remember it, or were not born. It was incredibly ground breaking. It doesn't get enough credit. And then they had a follow up, and it was pure crap.

Frost and Lynch are doing what needs to be done. I'm sorry for my friends on the "disappointed" thread. I understand, but EP 3 in my mind convinced me The Return is right.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2891
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Sat May 27, 2017 7:56 pm

So my understanding of the "blue" scene is that Albert authorized Phillip to tell Coop the name of the man in Colombia AFTER Coop disappeared, right? So Albert communicated with an agent who had disappeared, who in turn claimed to be in contact with ANOTHER missing agent...and Albert didn't alert his superiors, AND conveyed classified data to these two individuals who presumably were no longer active agents? I hope we get more background on this, because no matter how much Albert may personally trust Jeffries and Cooper, that is a serious security breach. I got some sense (from Gordon's relative lack of shock at Jeffries's name) that maybe Jeffries has periodically been in touch with the Bureau, and maybe is even acting as "our man in the Black Lodge."
User avatar
crash_and_burn
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 8:10 pm
Location: Two worlds and inbetween
Contact:

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby crash_and_burn » Sat May 27, 2017 8:09 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:So my understanding of the "blue" scene is that Albert authorized Phillip to tell Coop the name of the man in Colombia AFTER Coop disappeared, right? So Albert communicated with an agent who had disappeared, who in turn claimed to be in contact with ANOTHER missing agent...and Albert didn't alert his superiors, AND conveyed classified data to these two individuals who presumably were no longer active agents? I hope we get more background on this, because no matter how much Albert may personally trust Jeffries and Cooper, that is a serious security breach. I got some sense (from Gordon's relative lack of shock at Jeffries's name) that maybe Jeffries has periodically been in touch with the Bureau, and maybe is even acting as "our man in the Black Lodge."


This is exactly the point I was trying to make. I think Gordon knows that Albert is still hiding something. The first time he says "Albert" it's shock, the second time it's disappointment, the third time, it's almost as if he has added his name to a list of those that can't be trusted.

He says "Albert" with what seems to be reluctant acceptance of where they both stand, yet Gordon also knows he can't let Albert know that he suspects him of anything, he will probably share this only with Tammy and only insinuate that she needs to keep her eyes on EVERYONE from here on out.

I'll stand by this, Albert is up to no good.
User avatar
Wonderful & Strange
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 10:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby Wonderful & Strange » Sat May 27, 2017 8:22 pm

Hercousin wrote:So, I binged all four hours at once on Monday, and woke up with something like an emotional hangover. It was incredible seeing new Twin Peaks, spoken as an original viewer so gutted by the cancellation I didn't even like to talk about it in the 90s. I love all of Lynch's films, even Inland Empire, and having rewatched most of his filmography and all of the original episodes in the past year, I can safely say that I wasn't prepared for any of it.

I'm loving it so far, even though I'm panicking that 18 parts might not be enough for all of the lines that have been cast. The beginning of episode 3- reddit's calling it the Mauve Zone, are we?- was so beautiful, and the endless sea and the dark tower show some of the indescribable vastness I always felt was at the heart of tiny Twin Peaks. I was on the verge of disappointment after the first two hours, but then I remembered that we'll always have the original, why not see where this takes us? People are saying it's too different and I completely understand their gripes, but if the "passage of time" is a major theme, the way actors have aged and changed is actually quite a commentary. Almost like "you can never go home again". So either we'll go home again with Coop, or we'll find out that time is a brutal mistress and nothing will ever be the same. As someone that has gone from starry-eyed 10 year old to 37 year old working mother of 3 since 1990, this is unbearably poignant to me.


Beautiful post. And yes, "time is a brutal mistress and nothing will ever be the same." No one knows it better than Lynch, who has lost so many of his original actors.

That's what I find so poignant about the series: these wonderful moments between the Log Lady and Hawk, and Albert and Cole.

It's our mortality rising up before us on screen, and we have hope of a return home now that Cooper is free. It will feel slightly different when we get there, but I suspect we will have moments of the old, and many that are completely new.

We're all very lucky for this experience.
Member of the Agent Tammy Preston Defense Lodge
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2891
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Sat May 27, 2017 8:24 pm

crash_and_burn wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:So my understanding of the "blue" scene is that Albert authorized Phillip to tell Coop the name of the man in Colombia AFTER Coop disappeared, right? So Albert communicated with an agent who had disappeared, who in turn claimed to be in contact with ANOTHER missing agent...and Albert didn't alert his superiors, AND conveyed classified data to these two individuals who presumably were no longer active agents? I hope we get more background on this, because no matter how much Albert may personally trust Jeffries and Cooper, that is a serious security breach. I got some sense (from Gordon's relative lack of shock at Jeffries's name) that maybe Jeffries has periodically been in touch with the Bureau, and maybe is even acting as "our man in the Black Lodge."


This is exactly the point I was trying to make. I think Gordon knows that Albert is still hiding something. The first time he says "Albert" it's shock, the second time it's disappointment, the third time, it's almost as if he has added his name to a list of those that can't be trusted.

He says "Albert" with what seems to be reluctant acceptance of where they both stand, yet Gordon also knows he can't let Albert know that he suspects him of anything, he will probably share this only with Tammy and only insinuate that she needs to keep her eyes on EVERYONE from here on out.

I'll stand by this, Albert is up to no good.


But based on what Albert is seemingly confessing to here, Gordon should have suspended him on the spot pending investigation. I sort of feel the opposite of you -- that Albert and Gordon have more information than the audience, and there's some reason the behavior Albert is confessing to isn't as serious a breach of security as it appears.
User avatar
crash_and_burn
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 8:10 pm
Location: Two worlds and inbetween
Contact:

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby crash_and_burn » Sat May 27, 2017 8:27 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
crash_and_burn wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:So my understanding of the "blue" scene is that Albert authorized Phillip to tell Coop the name of the man in Colombia AFTER Coop disappeared, right? So Albert communicated with an agent who had disappeared, who in turn claimed to be in contact with ANOTHER missing agent...and Albert didn't alert his superiors, AND conveyed classified data to these two individuals who presumably were no longer active agents? I hope we get more background on this, because no matter how much Albert may personally trust Jeffries and Cooper, that is a serious security breach. I got some sense (from Gordon's relative lack of shock at Jeffries's name) that maybe Jeffries has periodically been in touch with the Bureau, and maybe is even acting as "our man in the Black Lodge."


This is exactly the point I was trying to make. I think Gordon knows that Albert is still hiding something. The first time he says "Albert" it's shock, the second time it's disappointment, the third time, it's almost as if he has added his name to a list of those that can't be trusted.

He says "Albert" with what seems to be reluctant acceptance of where they both stand, yet Gordon also knows he can't let Albert know that he suspects him of anything, he will probably share this only with Tammy and only insinuate that she needs to keep her eyes on EVERYONE from here on out.

I'll stand by this, Albert is up to no good.


But based on what Albert is seemingly confessing to here, Gordon should have suspended him on the spot pending investigation. I sort of feel the opposite of you -- that Albert and Gordon have more information than the audience, and there's some reason the behavior Albert is confessing to isn't as serious a breach of security as it appears.


That's a valid point. Frankly, I hope you're right, because I love Albert and don't want to see him go bad.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2891
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Sat May 27, 2017 10:11 pm

Apropos of nothing: Gordon's difficulty hearing seems to be fairly arbitrary, played for laughs when convenient and otherwise ignored in more serious/expository scenes. The "Cossacks" line is his funniest so far, but Part 3 ends on a couple of decent ones: "Seriously?" / "We can't put this on the radio!" (presumably a reference to Sirius), and "Rushmore" / "It's good that you want to hurry!" It's no "vicuna," but it'll do for now.

And I love the moment where he cranks his hearing aid to the max and the gravel shifting is painful.
User avatar
counterpaul
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:06 am

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby counterpaul » Sat May 27, 2017 10:56 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:Apropos of nothing: Gordon's difficulty hearing seems to be fairly arbitrary, played for laughs when convenient and otherwise ignored in more serious/expository scenes. The "Cossacks" line is his funniest so far, but Part 3 ends on a couple of decent ones: "Seriously?" / "We can't put this on the radio!" (presumably a reference to Sirius)


I totally missed the "Seriously"/Sirius joke! I thought that "radio" bit was one of Cole's coded-language things--but you're 100% right. That's hilarious!

As to the Albert thing, my gut tells me he has not gone "bad." The key to their exchange at the end of Part 4 is the phrase "years ago." How many years ago? Could Albert even be referring to the time before Jeffries and Coop disappeared--circa 1986 or so? Possibly. Lots of unknowns.
User avatar
Normonaut
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:18 am

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby Normonaut » Sat May 27, 2017 11:07 pm

Gordon Cole can hear everyone perfectly fine when they use normal voices. Everyone except Alfred, he has to shout.
Agent Cooper. Listen to the sounds.
It is in our house now. It all can not be said aloud now.
Remember 4 - 3 - 0
Richard and Linda. Two birds with one stone.
You are far away.
User avatar
NewShoes
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:28 pm
Location: Ghostwood Development Project

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby NewShoes » Sat May 27, 2017 11:34 pm

Apologies if this idea has been posted before...if DougieCoop is back in time in '03 and the NYC box is in '15 or so...what if DougieCoop were to win enough over the 12 or so years in Vegas and become the billionaire who builds the box...in order to try and catch himself before he is put into Dougie's body?
User avatar
Normonaut
Posts: 78
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:18 am

Re: RE: Re: Parts 3 + 4 (SPOILERS)

Postby Normonaut » Sun May 28, 2017 12:20 am

NewShoes wrote:Apologies if this idea has been posted before...if DougieCoop is back in time in '03 and the NYC box is in '15 or so...what if DougieCoop were to win enough over the 12 or so years in Vegas and become the billionaire who builds the box...in order to try and catch himself before he is put into Dougie's body?

Love the theory, but wouldn't that mean he failed and has to keep reliving 03-15? Also, I think we'd need more than 18 episodes to fully explain that.
Agent Cooper. Listen to the sounds.
It is in our house now. It all can not be said aloud now.
Remember 4 - 3 - 0
Richard and Linda. Two birds with one stone.
You are far away.
User avatar
Radiatorlady
Posts: 9
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:50 am

Re: Parts 3 + 4 (Spoilers)

Postby Radiatorlady » Sun May 28, 2017 3:14 am

brett wrote:[...]My only two gripes so far have been: Is there a bunch of product placement or am I nuts?.

Love the new show, the product placement is the only thing that I really do not like. There are very visible logos and products from Apple, Microsoft, Samsung, Dell, Lincoln and Mercedes-Benz. Based on David Lynch's outspoken resistance to product placement, this seems a bit odd. Product placement is common in all other mainstream television productions and blockbuster movies these days. The difference between TPS3 and regular shows is that this is a piece of art and not a industrial entertainment product. I can not remember seeing this in any other Lynch film. There is such things as the Mercedes in Lost Highway, but that seems a bit different.

Return to “Parts Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests