Would Showtime Edit Original Series for Twin Peaks 2016

General discussion on Twin Peaks not related to the series, film, books, music, photos, or collectors merchandise.

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

Ajax Rules
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:56 am

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Ajax Rules » Fri Nov 21, 2014 7:54 am

Of course, we are all extremely excited about S3, especially since we can reaonably expect a season of the very highest quality.

But shouldn't it even be more of a top priority (both for fans and Lynch) himself to undo the damage to the show than to add new (high quality) material? If Lynch is motivated for TP2016 because of his dissapointment with the declining quality of S2, doesn't it make more sense to do something about S2?

I'm extremely happy with this new season. But at the same time, it is so much easier/cheaper/more rewarding to undo the damage done to the show. Even a brilliant S3 could not completely make up for S2. As long as S2 exists in its current form, one will always know in the back of ones head that Tojamura, Little Nicky en Audrey's new boyfriend are also part of this universe. One will always know that Twin Peaks is not the perfect show. That the wonderful illusion is interupted. It destroys so much. On the other hand, even 2 hours (Mulholland Drive) or 3 hours (Inland Empire) quality material can be highly satisfactory. What I'm saying is, new brilliant material is great, but removing the bad material and restoring the excitement and ambition that is associated with the perfect show, is even more important.

S1 consists of 9 episodes (1 double episode and 7 normal ones). S3 will consist of 9 episodes as well. Wouldn't it be great of S2 is reduced to 9 fantastic episodes? Lynch directed one double episode en 3 normal ones, which makes a total of 5. Leave them as they are! Couldn't he re-edit S2E03, S2E04, S2E05 and S2E06 to two really great episodes and re-edit S2E08 to S02E21 also to two fantastic episodes? If you just use the fantastic material that already exists, S2 could not only be so much better than it now is, it could almost be as good as S1!

Please Mr. Lynch, use 2015 not just for writing and shooting S3, but also for repairing S2. Let Showtime broadcast the new S2 and let this new and improved S2 (focussed on Laura Palmer, the lodges, the ghosts, and all of the mystery and supernatural elements) be part of the canon. For those, who like to think that Evelyn and all this uninteresting characters and plots exist, there is no reason that they can't (the same goes for the different books that exist). The new S2 shouldn't have to be inconsistent with the current S2, it should just use and show the interesting material only.

And if you have any spare time, use 2015 to re-edit FWWM and the Missing Pieces and combine them. I know that this has already been done by a fan, but this task is too important for a fan to be owrthy of it.

Does anyone know if David Lynch ever thought about such a project or the possibility was ever brought to his attention? Could it be (legally or otherwise) possible?
User avatar
Gordon
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Dec 26, 2011 12:21 am
Location: Reus, Spain

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Gordon » Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:13 pm

Remake season 2? No way! Even with its flaws I consider it absolutely perfect...
User avatar
kafard
RR Diner Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 7:14 am
Location: France
Contact:

Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby kafard » Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:47 pm

And why not remake season 1 AND season 2 with a all brand new cast, new musics and sounds and make also a season 4 in 25 years (2041) ? [SMILING FACE WITH SMILING EYES]
A french little guy named : Dam.
User avatar
Jerry Horne
Global Moderator
Posts: 4583
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Private Portland Airport
Contact:

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Jerry Horne » Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:05 pm

Gordon wrote:Remake season 2? No way! Even with its flaws I consider it absolutely perfect...


This exactly.
Ajax Rules
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:56 am

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Ajax Rules » Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:16 pm

Gordon wrote:Remake season 2? No way! Even with its flaws I consider it absolutely perfect...


You cannot be serious, can you? You'd rather have a show that is only 20% Lynch and 80% really, really, really inferior quality than a smaller running time of top notch Lynchian quality and a coherent script?

I respect your opinion, of course, but it's so strange to me.
Ajax Rules
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:56 am

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Ajax Rules » Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:24 pm

kafard wrote:And why not remake season 1 AND season 2 with a all brand new cast, new musics and sounds and make also a season 4 in 25 years (2041) ? [SMILING FACE WITH SMILING EYES]


I'm not talking about a remake or altering the story, but simply about leaving out redundant material of dubious quality that has no relationship whatsoever to either the LP-storyline or the mythology of the TP-universe (or to anything interesting for that matter).

I've seen Mulholland Drive 15 times, Inland Empire 10 times, FWWM 8 teams, Season 1 about 10 times, Lost highway a couple of times, so I'm really a huge fan. But the second half of season 2 (apart from the season finale) is a complete bore and even seeing it once felt like a challenge.
Ajax Rules
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:56 am

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Ajax Rules » Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:28 pm

Jerry Horne wrote:
Gordon wrote:Remake season 2? No way! Even with its flaws I consider it absolutely perfect...


This exactly.


Still, it is a FACT that Lynch agrees with me that it is a big dissapointment. So although you happen to like S2 a lot (even consider it to be absolutely perfect), we might both be curious why Lynch never made an attempt to do anything about S2.
User avatar
FauxOwl
RR Diner Member
Posts: 151
Joined: Sun May 18, 2014 3:08 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby FauxOwl » Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:21 pm

I agree there are flaws in Season 2, but they are what they are, and they are on record. The task of re-editing all those episodes down to nine or so is hardly easy... it'd be almost impossible. No matter how superfluous many of those story lines seem, they were written that way and removing huge chunks of narrative would make other scenes that are necessary incoherent. And secondly there are flaws in Season 2 that even cutting out a bunch of scenes wouldn't fix... so what's the point? The narrative is picking up again after 25 years. That's as close to a clean slate as it gets, and all they need to do is avoid the same mistakes . The fact that Frost and Lynch are writing all episodes and Lynch is directing them is all the assurance I need they will do just that.
mujubuju
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2014 1:45 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby mujubuju » Fri Nov 21, 2014 2:34 pm

A remake of season 2 would be harder pill for me to swallow than some of the cringey non sequiturs thrown in after episode 16. Because ultimately, when you think of twin peaks, you don't think of the James/Evelyn storyline (the nadir of the entire show in my opinion), . Season 2 has plenty of things going for it, and here's a golden opportunity to take those moments that worked in S2 and knock it out of the park, all while keeping the core story, mythology and cast together after 25 years. In a world littered with remakes today, that's pretty remarkable.
User avatar
LostInTheMovies
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby LostInTheMovies » Fri Nov 21, 2014 4:45 pm

ALL THE STUFF ABOUT RE-EDITING SEASON 2


Well, this whole discussion fascinates me. I don't know where to begin, so how about with this (perhaps unnecessary proviso - obviously I can't read Lynch's mind and am basing this on observation of his work and reading interviews/biographies):

Yes, David Lynch does apparently dislike the post-Laura Twin Peaks episodes. But the idea that he would ever re-edit the show to exclude them is completely antithetical to how he works. I'm hard-pressed to think of an artist who has more respect for the limitations and hindrances he is handed. In the script stage, sure, anything goes and during production and post-production accidents and mistakes can become sources of inspiration (although that in itself is part-and-parcel of his "work with what you've got" ethic). But once he finishes a film it's like putting his signature on a painting. That's it, finito. Done. And he's stuck with what he's got.

That's probably why he will not do a director's cut of Dune; he refuses to discuss the film in depth but it's there, it's his, and he owns it. This is one reason he would NEVER re-edit Fire Walk With Me to include the Missing Pieces (this, and the fact that he doesn't think FWWM needs fixing - he's happy with it the way it is and I agree, but that's another discussion). And although the circumstances are somewhat different with the Mulholland Drive pilot which he allowed himself to tinker with in subtle ways (since it was never properly finished), it's worth noting that even in that case he largely kept the shape of the original pilot and conceived an ending that fit in with what came before instead of radically recutting it to fit a new feature idea.

In Twin Peaks, Lynch chose to more or less take a walk when Laura's mystery was solved. We know that Wild at Heart was long over, so it probably had more to do with dissatisfaction and disappointment than any real distraction. But it was still his show - his name was on it as Executive Producer and more importantly, he had committed to it passionately in the beginning. He knew that even if he was dismayed with the new direction, the show still belonged to him in some sense and he was responsible for it. And so, come episode 29, he took control once again: wrenching the show back to a tone, style, and theme that he approved of. He did so by redirecting the various subplots (discovering new levels of pathos or pushing the ridiculousness to near-operatic levels) rather than flatly contradicting or ignoring them. By improvising the Lodge sequence he was able to re-invest Twin Peaks with all the things that mattered to him: Laura Palmer, the sense of mystery and the uncanny, the connection to a dream world (via the Red Room), the sense of conflict coming from within. But he held to the storyline already established by the Frost-Peyton-Engels script - that Cooper ends the episode by seeing Bob in the mirror. He just made sure that it worked for him.

Everything that follows, for the next 23 years, shows Lynch taking what he was given, adding to it, coloring around the edges, reframing and re-contextualizing it, but never attempting to abandon the stuff he didn't like. Fire Walk With Me, the Log Lady intros, the presentation of the Missing Pieces, Between Two Worlds, even the title and design of "The Entire Mystery" boxset ret-con Twin Peaks as a "complete" show with Laura Palmer at its center - but without attempting to hide the elements which complicate this reading. I really respect this, and I think it's an important lesson: instead of trying to make things perfect (impossible) or re-invent the past, you find a way to work with and around it.

Besides, nothing Lynch does can "undo" season 2. It happened. It's there. It's over with. Re-editing the show and saying "hey, I've decided that THIS is now Twin Peaks" will not erase the memories of all the people who've seen it, nor prevent the curious from seeking out the original episodes, and it would not honor the actual circumstances of how the show was made. Such revisionism would eliminate the important ground from which episode 29 and Fire Walk With Me arose. For that reason, I would advise anybody trying to get a full sense of the show from skipping between episode 16 and the finale. For entertainment purposes, sure, I can get why you'd want to do that. But you are missing out on a crucial part of what makes Twin Peaks, warts and all.

A bit of context is in order here: I do understand where you're coming from. The first time I watched the series I was appalled by the turn the show took on episode 17 (I actually found #16 a letdown too, but there's no way to skip/fix that, really!). Immediately after completing the show and finishing the film, I decided to write an episode guide to the show on my blog. And what did I do? I skipped everything in between episode 16 and the finale! ;) So I get it.

But falling back into Twin Peaks this year I realized part of what makes the show so compelling is that it contains such highs and lows, such wildly differing tones and levels of achievement. It is a fascinating mess. Add to this that as bad as mid-season 2 gets, there is still consistency in terms of production value and performance - so that even the most cringeworthy moments have a weird continuity with the most powerful moments (which only makes their numerous incongruities all the more startling). I agree that Mulholland Drive and (yes, even) Inland Empire are much more satisfying works in totality but it's Twin Peaks I keep returning to and thinking about and the messiness of it is a big part of that. Plus the fact that we wouldn't have episode 29 if not for some of the crappy stuff before it, that Lynch might not have been compelled to make Fire Walk With Me if he hadn't been soured on the show for a spell, and finally that Lynch's dramatic return is all the more powerful when we subject ourselves to the weaker material before it (the view from the top of a mountain is all the more exciting after a long, tedious climb). I think it is a mistake to attempt to separate the good and the bad because they are deeply intertwined. If Lynch films teach us anything, it's that.

Just my 2 cents (and then some).

Anyone enjoying my ramblings on the topic stay tuned, because the next part of my video series covers precisely this patch of Twin Peaks. I'm working on it now (and it IS tough to tease a coherent thread out of the mess of mid-season 2), so the subject is very much on my mind!
Last edited by LostInTheMovies on Fri Nov 21, 2014 5:04 pm, edited 14 times in total.
User avatar
LostInTheMovies
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby LostInTheMovies » Fri Nov 21, 2014 4:54 pm

By the way, I mentioned above that it's another discussion - so I'll start it here. I have to admit I really dislike the idea of combining the Missing Pieces and Fire Walk With Me. It seems completely unnecessary: if we're viewing FWWM as a standalone film, it's clearly damaged by including most of these scenes. And if we're viewing FWWM and Missing Pieces as part of the larger Twin Peaks saga, why not keep them separate chapters within it? Although their "stories" unfold simultaneously, they represent wildly different perspectives and even filmmaking styles. They stand as two separate works with very different purposes. I love the Missing Pieces so I don't say this is a criticism of the content - but these scenes were cut for a reason. The movie is about Laura Palmer's subjective take on her final days. Throwing in a bunch of miscellaneous, distracting scenes with townspeople dilutes this focus and lessens the powerful of one of the most wrenching films I've ever seen. Hell, it's even debatable if the Deer Meadow/Phillip Jeffries stuff should be FWWM (I originally thought no, now I'm inclined to say yes though it's certainly complicated).

While I think the works should remain completely separate (see above post) I could understand the desire to insert this or that scene in FWWM (and maybe remove some stuff as well). But the idea that there should be a 3 1/2-4 hour version of FWWM I just don't get, frankly. At best, it's a curious experiment but would not represent any improvement on the movie we've got.

Just my 3 cents.
Last edited by LostInTheMovies on Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
David Locke
RR Diner Member
Posts: 304
Joined: Fri Jul 09, 2010 4:24 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby David Locke » Fri Nov 21, 2014 5:21 pm

LostInTheMovies wrote:By the way, I mentioned above that it's another discussion - so I'll start it here. I have to admit I really dislike the idea of combining the Missing Pieces and Fire Walk With Me. It seems completely unnecessary: if we're viewing FWWM as a standalone film, it's clearly damaged by including most of these scenes. And if we're viewing FWWM and Missing Pieces as part of the larger Twin Peaks saga, why not keep them separate chapters within it? Although their "stories" unfold simultaneously, they represent wildly different perspectives and even filmmaking styles. They stand as two separate works with very different purposes. I love the Missing Pieces so I don't say this is a criticism of the content - but these scenes were cut for a reason. The movie is about Laura Palmer's subjective take on her final days. Throwing in a bunch of miscellaneous, distracting scenes with townspeople dilutes this focus and lessens the powerful of one of the most wrenching films I've ever seen. Hell, it's even debatable if the Deer Meadow/Phillip Jeffries stuff should be FWWM (I originally thought no, now I'm inclined to say yes that it's certainly complicated).

While I think the works should remain completely separate (see above post) I could understand the desire to insert this or that scene in FWWM (and maybe remove some stuff as well). But the idea that there should be a 3 1/2-4 hour version of FWWM I just don't get, frankly. At best, it's a curious experiment but would not represent any improvement on the movie we've got.

Just my 3 cents.

Agreed. What's most fascinating about the Missing Pieces is how well they stand alone, how different their aesthetic is from FWWM (as you've pointed out many times, there's an abundance of static medium/wide shots which recall the series, as opposed to the visceral close-ups of FWWM). And, of course, the reason why they feel so different is largely due to the work Lynch put into putting them together for a coherent 95-minute piece in 2014. So to suddenly insert these various scenes, shot in 1991 but having the aesthetic "feel" of 2014/post-IE Lynch, into a film that was completely made in 1991/1992... it'd be wrong, and it wouldn't feel right, I think. Actually, okay -- there is one scene I really would like to put into FWWM, and that's the terrifying brief scene of Leland seeing Laura in the bushes just before she rides off with James. That's one of the scariest bits out of all the TP saga, and it's brief enough, and stylistically in keeping with FWWM enough, that it'd work (plus the cut in FWWM from Laura at the bushes to Laura getting on James's bike feels jarring). But that's all.

I'm extremely happy with FWWM, and I also love the hell out of the Deer Meadow scenes -- wouldn't change a second. I often watch just the first section when I don't have enough time or am not feeling emotionally up to the task of going through Laura's last days. But I love how having this prologue plus the Laura Palmer tale gives the feeling of "two films in one" (connected though they are, the tone and narratives feel separate enough that the feeling sticks, for me). I really like that, for some reason -- I think it works even better than the double or triple-narrative Lost Highway, or the zillion-narrative IE. What's interesting about the Deer Meadow section is how it manages to both impart a totally Twin Peaks-ian tone and style (of sound, of humor, of visual style), while also of course being much darker and angrier as well as totally subversive in depicting the exact inverse of Twin Peaks, foreboding and nasty instead of warm and welcoming. It's still Peaks, just a different flavor: black licorice instead of cherry pie. Deer Meadow is basically Twin Peaks's shadow-self, and it couldn't be any more wonderfully seedy and murder-iffic. Maybe it's weird but I'd almost like to spend some time in Hap's. Nice little late-night atmosphere they got goin' there... (and what's the deal with the pretty French chick who whispers exclusively and dresses like it's 1948? Those shots of her and "shit from shinola"-man look like they just stepped out of an Edward Hopper painting).

Another great, subconsciously unsettling touch is how the Deer Meadow sheriff's station seems to be just a regular house converted into one. It's truly bizarre, for some reason, to notice how Sheriff Cable's office is actually just a bedroom. It all adds to the feeling that there's something seriously "off" about this town.
User avatar
LostInTheMovies
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby LostInTheMovies » Fri Nov 21, 2014 7:38 pm

David Locke wrote:Another great, subconsciously unsettling touch is how the Deer Meadow sheriff's station seems to be just a regular house converted into one. ... It all adds to the feeling that there's something seriously "off" about this town.


I loved reading this whole post - and agree with everything you said - but this in particular is one of my favorite things about Deer Meadow. It reminds me of the "This is It" scene in Blue Velvet. For a long time, I thought Ben's apartment was supposed to BE the bar! Recently I found out that he actually just lives ABOVE the bar, but I like my interpretation better. ;)

It's truly bizarre, for some reason, to notice how Sheriff Cable's office is actually just a bedroom.


Ha, wow - I never thought about that so specifically. It is great, and oddly appropriate. There's a weird thing going on with Fire Walk With Me where on the one hand it feels more visually expansive than the movie (that shot inside the airplane as it's flying, in particular always makes me feel like, "ok, we're in cinema-land not TV-land now") and on the other it feels more slapdash, almost a home movie-like passion project (which I personally love). "Hey guys, let's shoot the sheriff scene right here in this bedroom!" Or should I say, "HEY GUYS, LET'S SHOOT THE..."
Last edited by LostInTheMovies on Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
sugarhigh
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2014 7:44 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby sugarhigh » Fri Nov 21, 2014 7:54 pm

I think a great way to handle the mess that was the 2nd season of TP is to start the 3rd season with Cooper waking up from being shot. The 2nd season could be written off as a dream.
I loved the pilot and most of the first season (the goofy aspects though just kind of killed a good thing, imo), but the second season is too painful to watch. Story lines, casting, acting....I'm interested to see what they have in store, but I just can't forget how bad it all went.
User avatar
LostInTheMovies
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby LostInTheMovies » Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:02 pm

sugarhigh wrote:I think a great way to handle the mess that was the 2nd season of TP is to start the 3rd season with Cooper waking up from being shot. The 2nd season could be written off as a dream.
I loved the pilot and most of the first season (the goofy aspects though just kind of killed a good thing, imo), but the second season is too painful to watch. Story lines, casting, acting....I'm interested to see what they have in store, but I just can't forget how bad it all went.


Wait...you consider the first 9 episodes of season 2 to be in the same league as the post-mystery stuff?! :shock: Episode 14 alone is better than anything in season 1.

Your solution would eliminate the best part of the Laura Palmer mystery. Season 1 is wonderfully consistent and lots of fun, but the first part of season 2 goes much deeper, is far more terrifying and haunting, and has many more unforgettable moments. In other countries, apparently, the seasons were divided by Leland Palmer's death. That makes a hell of a lot more sense to me than lumping episodes 8-29 into one single category simply because that's the way ABC aired them.

EDIT: Also worth noting, by writing off season 2 you are eliminating the majority of Lynch-directed episodes.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests