NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

[laughingpinecone]

I might be late to realizing this and I might be wrong. But with the Twin Peaks sign population 51,201. Does the number 1 represent Laura?

No, it represents ABC. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098936/tri ... =tr0794594

And according to the Access Guide, the number was supposed to be 5120.1, which begs the question: who or what is the 0.1? A beloved pet? A ghost in the attic?

[Dead Dog]

Most Twin Peaks fans are bothered by things like James, Little Nicky, Evelyn Marsh, or Lana. I actually don't mind any of that. That damn population sign is the thing that has always made me irate, ha ha ha. Seriously though, I grew up in a tiny little town just like Twin Peaks and always felt, even before I knew about the ABC interference, that they had to have meant for the town to have 5,000 people not 50,000 people. While a town of 50,000 residents is still relatively small, it is a stark contrast to a town of 5,000---which Twin Peaks clearly is. Wonder why they didn't correct that for the upcoming series?

[LateReg]

Most Twin Peaks fans are bothered by things like James, Little Nicky, Evelyn Marsh, or Lana. I actually don't mind any of that. That damn population sign is the thing that has always made me irate, ha ha ha. Seriously though, I grew up in a tiny little town just like Twin Peaks and always felt, even before I knew about the ABC interference, that they had to have meant for the town to have 5,000 people not 50,000 people. While a town of 50,000 residents is still relatively small, it is a stark contrast to a town of 5,000---which Twin Peaks clearly is. Wonder why they didn't correct that for the upcoming series?

I guess they could always chalk up the sign to a mistake, anyway. Like the whole town knows it's wrong but it just isn't high on anyone's priority list to fix. Or maybe somehow with worlds stacked upon worlds, it's actually true and no one realizes it.

[Dead Dog]

Yeah, I know it's not anything that amounts to a hill of beans. I think it only bothers me because I grew up in a tiny farm town surrounded by even tinier farm towns and know better.

[euclid]

Most Twin Peaks fans are bothered by things like James, Little Nicky, Evelyn Marsh, or Lana. I actually don't mind any of that. That damn population sign is the thing that has always made me irate, ha ha ha. Seriously though, I grew up in a tiny little town just like Twin Peaks and always felt, even before I knew about the ABC interference, that they had to have meant for the town to have 5,000 people not 50,000 people. While a town of 50,000 residents is still relatively small, it is a stark contrast to a town of 5,000---which Twin Peaks clearly is. Wonder why they didn't correct that for the upcoming series?

I guess they could always chalk up the sign to a mistake, anyway. Like the whole town knows it's wrong but it just isn't high on anyone's priority list to fix. Or maybe somehow with worlds stacked upon worlds, it's actually true and no one realizes it.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Frost weave the sign mistake into the meta-narrative of TSHOTP?

[euclid]

And according to the Access Guide, the number was supposed to be 5120.1, which begs the question: who or what is the 0.1? A beloved pet? A ghost in the attic?

Whoops! Just realized you'd already mentioned the population sign mistake is "canon" from The Access Guide.

Literally on the first page, ha!

[TwinsPeak]

I knew the number was meant to be 5,120.1 but I was referring to last number, the number 1 at the end....i still think the 1 might be Laura

twinsign.jpg (46.67 KiB) Viewed 9134 times

[Rainwater]

The .1 is the log. Margaret insisted it be counted as a citizen.

[laughingpinecone]

The .1 is the log. Margaret insisted it be counted as a citizen.

Headcanon accepted, thank you for this.

Speaking of the population sign, anyone else was delighted when they unveiled the one they used for the new episodes and it was still as brazenly wrong as it was before? I think it's hilarious, it reinforces the fact that the number was wrong to begin with, and it may be indicative of the mood of the town somehow... I can't think of a better way to go about it.

[mtwentz]

Would a town with only 5,000 residents have its own Sheriff's dept? Wouldn't it use the County Sheriff instead?

[Dead Dog]

It absolutely could. They may be the largest community in the county and be the Sheriff's Department, or just have their own.

[krishnanspace]

Happy Twin Peaks Day!!!!Hope we get something new!!!

[nonemoreblack]

That's a good way of describing it. More sinister is spot on.

With Twin Peaks we were looking at everything through Cooper's eyes of finding it a charming and quirky town, and everything with Laura was implied, so the audience didn't have to really think about just how messed up her situation was. FWWM forces you to deal with the horrifying truth. I'm wondering how Bad Cooper will be handled because they might go in a campy direction with him, in which case we might just be dealing with a darker sense of humour. Something like the Joker. I hope they make him scary though.

If you think about it there's a weird kind of humor in Bob and bad Cooper (how's Annie?). Bob finds almost everything he does hilarious, it's a huge part of what makes him terrifying. Just like bad Coop finds asking how's Annie hilarious. I think the quirky charm and humor of the town which we can safely assume will very much be there based on the returning characters. I also believe the new episodes will build on the assumption that the audience was faced with the horrible truth as depicted in FWWM so i'd expect both but again from a different angle.
I'm not worried they'll go campy with Coop because the season is a completed piece of work. Things usually go campy when writers don't know what they're doing and need too much filler material.
Other than that i''m not sure what to expect from Cooper. For some reason I don't see him being his bad self throughout the season. It just doesn't make sense to me for him to not revert to his familiar self early enough for good Coop to be the version of him we'll end up seeing the most.

There definitely is - that's why he reminded me of the Joker. And that's a good point about the campiness not being as much of an issue since it's already completed. I'm sure some of the new characters will add humour as well, given that there's people like Michael Cera in the cast.

I agree that he probably won't be bad throughout the whole season. However, with everything good Coop has been through, I can't see him being the same person he used to be. Hence the serious look on his face in the trailer, but maybe I'm wrong.

[mine]

There definitely is - that's why he reminded me of the Joker. And that's a good point about the campiness not being as much of an issue since it's already completed. I'm sure some of the new characters will add humour as well, given that there's people like Michael Cera in the cast.

I agree that he probably won't be bad throughout the whole season. However, with everything good Coop has been through, I can't see him being the same person he used to be. Hence the serious look on his face in the trailer, but maybe I'm wrong.

And Jim Belushi. I think it's a safe bet he isn't playing a nuanced dramatic part.

That's the thing. For him to be able to face whatever he may have done, he has to snap out of the bad mode. But I can't ignore the fact that in Leland's case snapping out of it meant death. Generally everyone who dealt with Bob ended up dead so I wonder if this includes Coop.

[mtwentz]

There definitely is - that's why he reminded me of the Joker. And that's a good point about the campiness not being as much of an issue since it's already completed. I'm sure some of the new characters will add humour as well, given that there's people like Michael Cera in the cast.

I agree that he probably won't be bad throughout the whole season. However, with everything good Coop has been through, I can't see him being the same person he used to be. Hence the serious look on his face in the trailer, but maybe I'm wrong.

And Jim Belushi. I think it's a safe bet he isn't playing a nuanced dramatic part.

That's the thing. For him to be able to face whatever he may have done, he has to snap out of the bad mode. But I can't ignore the fact that in Leland's case snapping out of it meant death. Generally everyone who dealt with Bob ended up dead so I wonder if this includes Coop.

One thing I'm interested in knowing is this: can there be both a good and a bad coop in the 'real world' at the same time? Or if good Coop escapes, does that only happen if Bad Coop is brought back into the Lodge?

If it's the former, much of the series might be Good Coop hunting down Bad Coop. If it's the latter, it could be Good Coop, once he gets back in the real world, trying to undo all the damage that's been done in his name.