Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

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

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

User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby yaxomoxay » Tue Jun 20, 2017 8:57 pm

mtwentz wrote:I am hoping you are right and there is more to Beverly than meets the eye. Maybe there are possibilities in that prolonged look she gave Ben as she was leaving. And the fact her husband is dying...it does seem to set up the possibility she could be so desperate for money that she would work for some unsavory characters.


Why money? Maybe she just like the attention that her husband clearly doesn't give her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
crash_and_burn
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 8:10 pm
Location: Two worlds and inbetween
Contact:

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby crash_and_burn » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:07 pm

mtwentz wrote:
Venus wrote:
Wonderful & Strange wrote:
Sure, but there wasn't apparently a giant Chen bandwagon for people to jump aboard.

I'm sure everyone has an actor or two they like for whatever reason even if the acting isn't amazing. Twin Peaks is full of these average to bad actors. Warren Frost was sometimes horrible. Sherilyn Fenn was often bad but boy, people love her style.

But the hate for Chrysta Bell is strange because she's just as good as any of these people. These Youtube posers need to stop ganging up on her and bullying her. Weak weak pathetic human beings.


I can only speak for myself in that I do not hate Chrysta Bell at all or really have any opinion on her as a person. It's just that, as a viewer watching her on a tv show, she can't actually act.

I've never had a problem with any of the actors acting in TP1 and TP2 apart from Bellina Logan who I also thought just couldn't act and Kenneth Welsh who actually could act but acted way over the top at times (even though I suspect he was directed to do that so is rather a moot point).


Why would you single out Bellina Logan. I think she had a total of two minutes of screen time? I thought she was funny.

I think the thing with Chrysta Bell is not so much her acting as her persona. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a bad actor, but he has a likable persona so people pay good money to go see his movies. There is something about Chrysta that turns a lot of people off.


No there's not.

There's something about Chrysta Bell that turns a lot of people on.

See, two can play that game.

I love shitty statistically inaccurate statements like "a lot of people" too.

You should try the word 'some' - it works wonders.
User avatar
Rudagger
Posts: 315
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby Rudagger » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:08 pm

Agent Earle wrote:
Yeah, right - one of the main guys of this universe changes the name of a character that went under another name before our very eyes and ears, and I'm the sloppy one (I think we can now safely drop the "alternative timeline" theory that some here have clinged on to when confronted with many many many inconsistencies in the book). True, that was the tie-in book, this is the series, but still - it came from the SAME creative team and if that devil-may-care attitude towards previously established facts will eventually prevail in the new series, well, sorry, but that's just S L O P P Y, moreover, it's L A Z Y in my book, I don't care how you justify it. Frankly, what baffles me is that you're apparently okay with that kind of poor work one would expect from some cheap fan fiction (or not even there). And don't give me "TP has always had a checkered history when it came to consistency" routine as an excuse - they had 25 friggin' years to get their act together. Well, or at least 3 or thereabouts years that reportedly took them to write the third season. Didn't watch the old series except for the Pilot and the Finale? Back to the old drawing board, say I.

Who's talking about exposition dump??? A name here and a reference to an event there would hurt no-one, except totally fresh viewers, and I stand by my previous statement that they shouldn't proceed with what's more than clearly marketed as continuation of a franchise without arming themselves with knowledge of what came before. And now that you mention it, I don't see a thing wrong with acknowledging Earle, in fact, I damn well expect it. This new season puts Cooper front and center - how credible can it be without doing justice to the man who was probably the single most important person in his life outside his parents? Or should we just forget he existed just because some fans don't like him? Again, SLOPPY and FAN SERVICE-Y.


You're talking about an exposition dump. You want characters to sit there talking in full specificity events we have already seen simply to get your name drops in. It's funny to see you complain about fan service, when you're begging for it (" I don't see a thing wrong with acknowledging Earle, in fact, I damn well expect it!" .. uh?). Hawk gave a reasonable explanation of the events that happened twenty-five years earlier, and didn't go into a 5 minute explanation of how everyone related to each other .. which feels *right* given that the events were 25 years ago!

It is a continuation, we've seen a pretty staggering amount of connections to the previous work. But, to complain about that it's not going far enough in an episode where we had Doc Hayward talk about the night Coop and Annie came out of the Lodge, Truman briefly talk about Harry, Hawk talk about Laura Palmer's missing diaries, subtle Josie referencing, Diane's role and more? At some point, there's really no pleasing a viewer like you, because unless they include *everything* then they'll always be missing someone's favourite character. And, I guess you're being intentionally hyperbolic, because there are references to far more in The Return than just the pilot and finale (like, seriously?)

And I don't hold anything against any creators for wanting to be given some creative leeway with the mythos of the show, especially since the general consensus is that the series had writing issues in the second season. The broad strokes are all there, and no one wants to be shackled to something they (or someone else on their behalf) wrote 25 years earlier in their career.

And again, I don't see how *this* is cheap "fan-fiction", when your complaint is that the show doesn't go *farther* into referencing it's own past.

I really think the new series might just not be for you, if this stuff is causing problems. And that's alright! We don't have to all like it! But to call them sloppy or lazy? Yikes. Or to have the expectation that every minutiae and character is going to be rolled out in a line-up and name dropped in a single scene, without any thought to how it affects the scene? I wouldn't want to watch that show. *That* is fan fiction writing, and I don't need Hawk to explain that Annie showed up x days after Laura Palmer disappeared, lived at a covenant, slit her wrist, was sisters with Norma, moved to Twin Peaks, knew the kind of bird Harry was talking about, is sisters with Norma, won Miss Twin Peaks blah blah blah. Get to the meat and move on.
User avatar
crash_and_burn
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri May 26, 2017 8:10 pm
Location: Two worlds and inbetween
Contact:

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby crash_and_burn » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:13 pm

Rudagger wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
Yeah, right - one of the main guys of this universe changes the name of a character that went under another name before our very eyes and ears, and I'm the sloppy one (I think we can now safely drop the "alternative timeline" theory that some here have clinged on to when confronted with many many many inconsistencies in the book). True, that was the tie-in book, this is the series, but still - it came from the SAME creative team and if that devil-may-care attitude towards previously established facts will eventually prevail in the new series, well, sorry, but that's just S L O P P Y, moreover, it's L A Z Y in my book, I don't care how you justify it. Frankly, what baffles me is that you're apparently okay with that kind of poor work one would expect from some cheap fan fiction (or not even there). And don't give me "TP has always had a checkered history when it came to consistency" routine as an excuse - they had 25 friggin' years to get their act together. Well, or at least 3 or thereabouts years that reportedly took them to write the third season. Didn't watch the old series except for the Pilot and the Finale? Back to the old drawing board, say I.

Who's talking about exposition dump??? A name here and a reference to an event there would hurt no-one, except totally fresh viewers, and I stand by my previous statement that they shouldn't proceed with what's more than clearly marketed as continuation of a franchise without arming themselves with knowledge of what came before. And now that you mention it, I don't see a thing wrong with acknowledging Earle, in fact, I damn well expect it. This new season puts Cooper front and center - how credible can it be without doing justice to the man who was probably the single most important person in his life outside his parents? Or should we just forget he existed just because some fans don't like him? Again, SLOPPY and FAN SERVICE-Y.


You're talking about an exposition dump. You want characters to sit there talking in full specificity events we have already seen simply to get your name drops in. It's funny to see you complain about fan service, when you're begging for it (" I don't see a thing wrong with acknowledging Earle, in fact, I damn well expect it!" .. uh?). Hawk gave a reasonable explanation of the events that happened twenty-five years earlier, and didn't go into a 5 minute explanation of how everyone related to each other .. which feels *right* given that the events were 25 years ago!

It is a continuation, we've seen a pretty staggering amount of connections to the previous work. But, to complain about that it's not going far enough in an episode where we had Doc Hayward talk about the night Coop and Annie came out of the Lodge, Truman briefly talk about Harry, Hawk talk about Laura Palmer's missing diaries, subtle Josie referencing, Diane's role and more? At some point, there's really no pleasing a viewer like you, because unless they include *everything* then they'll always be missing someone's favourite character. And, I guess you're being intentionally hyperbolic, because there are references to far more in The Return than just the pilot and finale (like, seriously?)

And I don't hold anything against any creators for wanting to be given some creative leeway with the mythos of the show, especially since the general consensus is that the series had writing issues in the second season. The broad strokes are all there, and no one wants to be shackled to something they (or someone else on their behalf) wrote 25 years earlier in their career.

And again, I don't see how *this* is cheap "fan-fiction", when your complaint is that the show doesn't go *farther* into referencing it's own past.

I really think the new series might just not be for you, if this stuff is causing problems. And that's alright! We don't have to all like it! But to call them sloppy or lazy? Yikes. Or to have the expectation that every minutiae and character is going to be rolled out in a line-up and name dropped in a single scene, without any thought to how it affects the scene? I wouldn't want to watch that show. *That* is fan fiction writing, and I don't need Hawk to explain that Annie showed up x days after Laura Palmer disappeared, lived at a covenant, slit her wrist, was sisters with Norma, moved to Twin Peaks, knew the kind of bird Harry was talking about, is sisters with Norma, won Miss Twin Peaks blah blah blah. Get to the meat and move on.


+315
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby yaxomoxay » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:19 pm

Rudagger wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
Yeah, right - one of the main guys of this universe changes the name of a character that went under another name before our very eyes and ears, and I'm the sloppy one (I think we can now safely drop the "alternative timeline" theory that some here have clinged on to when confronted with many many many inconsistencies in the book). True, that was the tie-in book, this is the series, but still - it came from the SAME creative team and if that devil-may-care attitude towards previously established facts will eventually prevail in the new series, well, sorry, but that's just S L O P P Y, moreover, it's L A Z Y in my book, I don't care how you justify it. Frankly, what baffles me is that you're apparently okay with that kind of poor work one would expect from some cheap fan fiction (or not even there). And don't give me "TP has always had a checkered history when it came to consistency" routine as an excuse - they had 25 friggin' years to get their act together. Well, or at least 3 or thereabouts years that reportedly took them to write the third season. Didn't watch the old series except for the Pilot and the Finale? Back to the old drawing board, say I.

Who's talking about exposition dump??? A name here and a reference to an event there would hurt no-one, except totally fresh viewers, and I stand by my previous statement that they shouldn't proceed with what's more than clearly marketed as continuation of a franchise without arming themselves with knowledge of what came before. And now that you mention it, I don't see a thing wrong with acknowledging Earle, in fact, I damn well expect it. This new season puts Cooper front and center - how credible can it be without doing justice to the man who was probably the single most important person in his life outside his parents? Or should we just forget he existed just because some fans don't like him? Again, SLOPPY and FAN SERVICE-Y.


You're talking about an exposition dump. You want characters to sit there talking in full specificity events we have already seen simply to get your name drops in. It's funny to see you complain about fan service, when you're begging for it (" I don't see a thing wrong with acknowledging Earle, in fact, I damn well expect it!" .. uh?). Hawk gave a reasonable explanation of the events that happened twenty-five years earlier, and didn't go into a 5 minute explanation of how everyone related to each other .. which feels *right* given that the events were 25 years ago!

It is a continuation, we've seen a pretty staggering amount of connections to the previous work. But, to complain about that it's not going far enough in an episode where we had Doc Hayward talk about the night Coop and Annie came out of the Lodge, Truman briefly talk about Harry, Hawk talk about Laura Palmer's missing diaries, subtle Josie referencing, Diane's role and more? At some point, there's really no pleasing a viewer like you, because unless they include *everything* then they'll always be missing someone's favourite character. And, I guess you're being intentionally hyperbolic, because there are references to far more in The Return than just the pilot and finale (like, seriously?)

And I don't hold anything against any creators for wanting to be given some creative leeway with the mythos of the show, especially since the general consensus is that the series had writing issues in the second season. The broad strokes are all there, and no one wants to be shackled to something they (or someone else on their behalf) wrote 25 years earlier in their career.

And again, I don't see how *this* is cheap "fan-fiction", when your complaint is that the show doesn't go *farther* into referencing it's own past.

I really think the new series might just not be for you, if this stuff is causing problems. And that's alright! We don't have to all like it! But to call them sloppy or lazy? Yikes. Or to have the expectation that every minutiae and character is going to be rolled out in a line-up and name dropped in a single scene, without any thought to how it affects the scene? I wouldn't want to watch that show. *That* is fan fiction writing, and I don't need Hawk to explain that Annie showed up x days after Laura Palmer disappeared, lived at a covenant, slit her wrist, was sisters with Norma, moved to Twin Peaks, knew the kind of bird Harry was talking about, is sisters with Norma, won Miss Twin Peaks blah blah blah. Get to the meat and move on.


Standing Ovation!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
secretlettermkr
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:14 am

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby secretlettermkr » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:22 pm

FELLINI, Nino Rota

Not Rammstein... :roll:

Twin Peaks Pt 7-2.png
Twin Peaks Pt 7-2.png (789.81 KiB) Viewed 3418 times


User avatar
krishnanspace
Posts: 916
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:15 am

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby krishnanspace » Tue Jun 20, 2017 9:44 pm

yaxomoxay wrote:
mtwentz wrote:I am hoping you are right and there is more to Beverly than meets the eye. Maybe there are possibilities in that prolonged look she gave Ben as she was leaving. And the fact her husband is dying...it does seem to set up the possibility she could be so desperate for money that she would work for some unsavory characters.


Why money? Maybe she just like the attention that her husband clearly doesn't give her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Her husband looked exactly like the Cop from Part 2(the cop who is next to Mackley just before Hastings is Interrogated)
User avatar
PeteMartell
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:50 pm

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby PeteMartell » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:33 pm

My wife noticed that cooper's room in the great Northern is 315 (= 9) which is the same as bad Coop's cell number in South Dakota: 27 (also equals 9). Possible coincidence or maybe a reference to 9 in numerology which is the number of "wisdom and initiation...holding the path towards mystical knowledge". Seems relevant for Cooper.

Also...janie-E Jones...isn't there a song by the Clash called "Janie Jones"? I think the lyrics even mention something about a "government man".
User avatar
BigEd
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 9:50 pm

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby BigEd » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:42 pm

PeteMartell wrote:
Also...janie-E Jones...isn't there a song by the Clash called "Janie Jones"? I think the lyrics even mention something about a "government man".


It would be great if you would check these out and let us know for sure!
User avatar
PeteMartell
Posts: 24
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:50 pm

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby PeteMartell » Tue Jun 20, 2017 10:52 pm

BigEd wrote:
PeteMartell wrote:
Also...janie-E Jones...isn't there a song by the Clash called "Janie Jones"? I think the lyrics even mention something about a "government man".


It would be great if you would check these out and let us know for sure!



"Janie Jones"

He's in love with rock'n'roll woaahh
He's in love with gettin' stoned woaahh
He's in love with Janie Jones
But he don't like his boring job, no...

An' he knows what he's got to do
So he knows he's gonna have fun with you
You lucky lady!
An' he knows when the evening comes
When his job is done he'll be over in his car for you

An' in the in-tray lots of work
But the boss at the firm always thinks he shirks
But he's just like everyone, he's got a Ford Cortina
That just won't run without fuel
Fill her up, Jacko!

An' the invoice it don't quite fit,
There's no payola in his alphabetical file
This time he's gonna really tell the boss
Gonna really let him know exactly how he feels
It's pretty bad!

Let them know - how you feel
douglasb
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: Exiled in England
Contact:

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby douglasb » Tue Jun 20, 2017 11:29 pm

The real Janie Jones was a minor celebrity in the UK during the 60s. She was jailed for activities related to prostitution.
User avatar
DeepBlueSeed
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:32 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby DeepBlueSeed » Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:36 am

crash_and_burn wrote:
DeepBlueSeed wrote:
asquideatingdough wrote:
I love that the Twin Peaks PD has made some great technological advances but, in 25 years, there's been no attempt to fix that loose panel on the toilet door.


Not true, rewatch it, the top corner rivet is missing, yes, yet the two top rivets are new and not painted the same as the rest, evidence that the door was fixed.

However, the top rivet could have popped back out on its own, because, in my experience with rivets, whenever there is synchronicity involved, rivets don't stay in the same place for too long.

Okay?


That makes a lot more sense! :-)
"The stories that I wanna tell you about... "
User avatar
DeepBlueSeed
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:32 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby DeepBlueSeed » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:04 am

mtwentz wrote:So does anyone have a sense of where the Tom and Beverly Paige storyline might be going? At first glance it doesn't seem to hold much promise. An attractive assistant Ben is considering sleeping with whose husband is dying of cancer: will it tie in to the larger storyline?


I'm intrigued by Ben. To me it seems like he's actually become a changed man and yet it's hard to believe a leopard can change its spots. In the scene between him and Beverly I get the impression that she is waiting for him to give her an excuse to stay at work longer - she doesn't leave until he tells her it's well after hours. I suspect she's much more interested in Ben than the other way around, maybe not just to sleep with but to give her a reason to be away from her husband and the responsibilities of looking after him. It reminds me a little of Shelley being forced to looks after Leo, or Ed looking after Nadine when he'd rather be with Norma. In many ways it's repeating a Twin Peaks tradition, but putting the woman in the position of responsibility (I suppose you could also see similarities with Laura or Donna's relationship with house-bound Harold).
"The stories that I wanna tell you about... "
User avatar
DeepBlueSeed
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:32 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby DeepBlueSeed » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:11 am

mtwentz wrote:
Blackasmidnight wrote:Anyone have a problem with the three pages of Laura's pages being found? In FWWM, Laura had already given the diary to Harold Smith BEFORE she encountered Annie in her dream later in the movie. Therefore, she never had a chance to write Annie's message/warning in her 'secret diary.' Any theories?


Maybe that was the second time she had that dream- I have had repeat dreams before.

And in the series, Laura does not give Harold the diary until the day before she dies, so finding those pages is consistent with the series' timeline.


Also, as this series goes on, I'm getting used to the idea that scenes in the FWWM film might be played somewhat out of order (such as when Cooper appears in the glass box during a scene we've already seen, where the only potential witnesses are just outside the room trying to find where the security guard has disappeared to). It's probably not as intended, but it's a possibility.

The dream tells her to write it in her diary, doesn't it? There should've, perhaps, been a scene where she met Harold to do that, but I can't believe she'd have a dream to tell her that and then Lynch wouldn't give her the opportunity to do so, unless being denied access was a really significant part of the story.
"The stories that I wanna tell you about... "
User avatar
DeepBlueSeed
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:32 am
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Part 7 - There's a body all right (SPOILERS)

Postby DeepBlueSeed » Wed Jun 21, 2017 1:16 am

Cappy wrote:Also, I found it somewhat unlikely that Beverly had never heard of Laura Palmer before. I get that maybe she is relatively new to Twin Peaks, but Laura's murder is probably one of the only newsworthy events to transpire in that corner of Washington State during the last 50 years. That would be almost like someone saying they didn't know about the OJ Simpson case or something.

It's possible that Beverly sincerely doesn't know, especially considering how reluctant people in town might be to talk about Laura, but I somehow don't buy it.


It depends how much of it went public. There had been a string of murders and, okay, it was revealed that her father had killed her (and her cousin), but unless you'd lived through those events there probably wouldn't have been a great reason for people to bring it up. Particularly if a lot of other noteworthy things have happened in 25 years. It doesn't look like Twin Peaks has been idle all that time, even if many of the new things have a familiar echo of things past.
"The stories that I wanna tell you about... "

Return to “Parts Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests