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.
I'm really in a spot of trouble here, because I promised to OneEyedJack after his very nice "bonsai" post that I'll shut up about the subject. But since you're continuing to call me on it, I must answer with a reply that I'll try to make as conflictless as possible.
First of all, I never said I was disappointed to not get all the references I'm after in this exact part (no. 7). I agree it was pretty dense exposition-wise, certainly the densest of all the aired parts so far. My initial post which got your reaction was a response to a forum member (don't remember his nickname) who suggested mentioning Annie was Norma's sister could come across as a bit heavy on the new viewers unfamiliar with the original plot - I made a point (by which I still stand) that writers of what's supposed to be a continuation shouldn't be concerned with the new viewers when the previous material is readily available to watch any way and time that they chose. And I certainly don't think Hawk mentioning Annie's relation to Norma would mean he'd then have to launch on a 5 minutes-long tirade about everything that happened in the last third of the second season; Norma's in the new show, she's a well-known town resident and hearing that she is a sister of "the girl who went into the Black Lodge with Cooper" wouldn't require of a viewer to be a rocket scientist to get it. It would, however, be a nice touch (that would take maybe 5 seconds worth of running time) that would show us the creators care enough to connect some of the little details when the scene is practically screaming at them to do so.
Unless, of course, they have another idea, the one which goes towards simply erasing those aspects of the show's history they retrospectively feel are redundant or badly made, in short, towards retconing. Frost's book seems to suggest as much, though I agree with LateReg who says it's still a bit early to make definite conclusions in that regard. Here's where we differ, I guess, and in a crucial way: you think it's fine for the creator to change previously established facts any way that he chooses just 'cause he feels like it, I take it as a kind of sacrilege that pulls me out of the viewing experience in a way that I don't care for. Who's to say whose view is more valid? I certainly haven't got any pretensions to do so, I'm merely expressing my own fears and worries in regards to what we're watching. You can argue that it's premature to fret and worry, but I wouldn't say I'm the only member of the forum who's talking about things from the new series before it's concluded, making predictions of what's to come and expressing his fears and wishes in regards to what the future may bring. If you'd pay closer attention to what I said, you'd notice a lot of it (including the part about sloppiness and laziness that so stirred your juices) was conditional; namely, there's 11 hours of the show (and a book) left, so I'm giving the creators the full benefit of the doubt to include the aspects of the universe that are important to me. If they are less important or unimportant to you, hey, I'm glad it's working out for you so far and that it'll probably continue to do so; but I don't see why I should be the one justifying my preferences to you or anyone else here who doesn't share what he hates and what he loves about the old and the new show with me.
Regarding the fan service and Windom Earle. I think it's practically scientifically established fact that about 80-90 percent of fans detest the character (and that Lynch has been said to, though I've yet to hear his quote on the subject); so, I don't see how mentioning (I can't stress this enough: I'm well aware the Earle stuff was satisfyingly resolved in the Finale and I don't expect him to get a whole new story arc this time around, not even as a Black Lodge inhabitant; I'd settle for a lousy mention) a character who was the driving force of the entire third of the original show but is universally loathed could be interpreted as a fan service - I do see how avoiding him like the plague could be, though. And here's another big difference between the two of us: if they go the latter route, I will take that as weak credibility of what they're trying to achieve with the third season, namely thoroughly exploring Cooper's state and possibly resolving his story altogether. Here's a guy who was his professional mentor, who murdered the woman he loved (which also happened to be the guy's wife), who showed up in Peaks to get his revenge and in so doing not only destroyed Cooper's second romance but caused his downfall, though by forces beyond his control - he's the main reason Cooper is the way he is now! Now, you tell me, is it credible that this character should be completely ignored when talking about Cooper's fate and about what happened to him? Not in the light of someone as marginal a character as Denise Bryson getting her own scene and not in the light of the fact that the guy had ample history with Gordon Cole and Albert Rosenfield as well, both hugely important players in the new season.
Regarding my accusation that the creators only watched the Pilot and the Finale as they prepared for the new series. It was clearly a caricature and an exaggeration, made to get my point regarding the feared sloppiness across; you're no stranger to both, as you're accusing me of wanting the new show to take hours so that everything that went on before can be verbally repeated for old and new viewers to hear. I'd say there's a pretty big difference between one mention of a name and taking the time to explain everything the person (and other persons in any way connected to him) previously did. Moreover, I was propelled to make the statement about them and the Pilot/Finale by certain remarks from Lynch, given in recent interviews, where he heavily implied the Pilot is practically everything he takes as an accomplished part of the franchise, and where he explicitly said the whole of season two sucks. You may be fine with it but I'm not (I've been carrying that season around with me for 25+ years as one of the most perfect things on television of all times) - again, why should I be the one justifying myself to you? And one other thing: his careless attitude towards other people's work really doesn't do him any services personality-wise. When it comes to the old series, no-one did nothing "on their behalf" - they, Lynch especially, were the ones who actively put themselves in that position and have no-one but themselves to blame if the result wasn't up to their standards. Now, in light of his current statements, it not only looks Lynch agrees with the network abolishing the show, it looks like he'd do it himself and the suits were ready-made scapegoats for us halfwits who actually wanted it to continue back in '91.
At the end, there wasn't any need for your patronizing tone in your last post. I really don't need an okay from you if
I decide I don't like what they're doing this time around.