Cooper in season 3: good Coop or evil Coop?

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

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

1derpalm
New Member
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2017 8:39 pm

Re: Cooper in season 3: good Coop or evil Coop?

Postby 1derpalm » Sun Mar 05, 2017 9:22 pm

I think that most people are looking at in in too black and white of a situation. There has always been an "evil" Cooper. In his book it is implied that he killed someone for fun during a blackout. Bob has been after him since he was a child and his mom knew him. He had a friend who loved him and died. Caroline love him and died. Josie tried to kill him and died. Wyndam tried to kill him and died. He was already Bob's. "I have a hing fro knives, just like what happened to you in Pittsburgh" and "does Leland know what you've done?" are left ambiguous enough that unless you are really really looking critically, you'll miss it. That's my call. And i think we''ll get both aspects of Cooper.
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Cooper in season 3: good Coop or evil Coop?

Postby Gabriel » Mon Mar 06, 2017 4:24 pm

I just hope they get a move on and return Cooper to his normal state in good time. Had the show gone on to a third season, there's no way the chortling ninny seen at in the end-of-season cliffhanger would have lasted more than a few episodes before Major Briggs brought the 'real' Cooper back.

Twin Peaks is Cooper and his 'damn fine coffee and cherry pie' no matter how much some people want it to be some kind of depressing horror show and thus sneer at the beloved lighter aspects of the old series. Twin Peaks was never a purely David Lynch series and the new show is a collaboration that has Mark Frost in there front and centre too. If anything, look to the episodes of the show that Messrs Frost and Lynch wrote and directed (and throw editor/director Duwayne Dunham in there too as he was a significant behind-the-camera force) and look towards this as a course correction from the weird excesses of part of season two to the often razor-sharp wit and focus of the Lynch/Frost/Dunham episodes. The episodes these guys made plumbed plenty of levels of darkness, but there was still light and humour in there. Indeed, the darkness had far more impact because of the sweeter scenes.

David Lynch might well be director of the whole season, but I don't think 18 episodes of unrelenting bleakness, c-words, f-words, rape, torture, drug and sexual abuse at the hands of a possessed, mass-murdering, psychotic Dale Cooper are something anyone would manage to sit through. As far as I'm concerned, Cooper is the lead character and hero of Twin Peaks until I know otherwise. Hopefully they'll get bring him back out of the darkness by the end of episode two at the latest and pick up on whatever the rest of the show is about.

I'd rather have a show where something happens that necessitates Dale being brought back to being his old self, then having an 18-hour adventure, than a story consisting of 18 hours of trying to bring back Dale.
dronerstone
RR Diner Member
Posts: 494
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:31 pm

Re: Cooper in season 3: good Coop or evil Coop?

Postby dronerstone » Tue Mar 07, 2017 2:34 am

I assume we'll see BOTH Coops, along with a lot of mix-up "jokes" and similar mischief, at least that's what'd probably float my boat the most.

Just imagine the horror of starting out the first couple (or four of them?) episodes with what you'd believe to be "good" Dale, only to end in a MAJOR cliffhanger that has him rearing his head with an evil smirk...
User avatar
laughingpinecone
Great Northern Member
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:45 am
Location: D'ni
Contact:

Re: Cooper in season 3: good Coop or evil Coop?

Postby laughingpinecone » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:08 am

dronerstone wrote:I assume we'll see BOTH Coops, along with a lot of mix-up "jokes" and similar mischief, at least that's what'd probably float my boat the most.

Just imagine the horror of starting out the first couple (or four of them?) episodes with what you'd believe to be "good" Dale, only to end in a MAJOR cliffhanger that has him rearing his head with an evil smirk...

That's kind of my wish too... uncertainty about which Coop it is would, imho, serve the double function of sustaining narrative tension and reminding us that they are all aspects of Dale Cooper in the end.
But I wonder about the, ah, logistics involved? And the kind of audience they would be writing for, in order to present that as a twist? TSHOTP readers know that 'Coop' went AWOL 25+ years ago and is not an agent presently. How would you go about creating a situation that would be ambiguous both for this crowd and for the general public who doesn't even know the book exists?
All I can think of is a Deer Meadow-like open, with |Coop| meeting all-new characters who don't know him and therefore can't bring up his past?
] The gathered are known by their faces of stone.
User avatar
ProjectBlueBook
New Member
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 8:07 am

Re: Cooper in season 3: good Coop or evil Coop?

Postby ProjectBlueBook » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:30 am

1derpalm wrote:I think that most people are looking at in in too black and white of a situation. There has always been an "evil" Cooper. In his book it is implied that he killed someone for fun during a blackout. Bob has been after him since he was a child and his mom knew him. He had a friend who loved him and died. Caroline love him and died. Josie tried to kill him and died. Wyndam tried to kill him and died. He was already Bob's. "I have a hing fro knives, just like what happened to you in Pittsburgh" and "does Leland know what you've done?" are left ambiguous enough that unless you are really really looking critically, you'll miss it. That's my call. And i think we''ll get both aspects of Cooper.

How does this is implied in the "Autobiography"? What are the circumstances? I didn't read it yet, but I'm curious about this.

I think that at least in the start, we will see "Evil Cooper". However, I'm not certain if they're going to follow his actions most of the time or if they're going to focus on another plot firstly - maybe some agent entering Peaks to investigate another murder? Anyway, I guess that ambiguity over Cooper's "internal state" should be hinted. That can be an excellent plot device: most of the time you see him, he acts as the "Good Coop", and then in a private and brief moment you see him smiling like Leland did at mirrors or even alone. In fact, this can be achieved by just making him more serious sometimes or with lightning tricks.
Agent327
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:12 pm

Re: Cooper in season 3: good Coop or evil Coop?

Postby Agent327 » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:55 pm

laughingpinecone wrote:That's kind of my wish too... uncertainty about which Coop it is would, imho, serve the double function of sustaining narrative tension and reminding us that they are all aspects of Dale Cooper in the end.
But I wonder about the, ah, logistics involved? And the kind of audience they would be writing for, in order to present that as a twist? TSHOTP readers know that 'Coop' went AWOL 25+ years ago and is not an agent presently. How would you go about creating a situation that would be ambiguous both for this crowd and for the general public who doesn't even know the book exists?
All I can think of is a Deer Meadow-like open, with |Coop| meeting all-new characters who don't know him and therefore can't bring up his past?


Funny you mention it, I keep thinking along these lines.
A big problem for sequels in general is that the world is not as clearly laid out as the first movie, not as well defined;
It is harder for an audience to empathize with characters and the world itself. Think, without laughing too much about the differences of genre or lack of quality at display, of the first Independence Day vs. the one that came out last year. For the first, you're along for the ride and the world is clearly understood, which engages the audience. For the second, too much consequential strangeness has happened, and the rules of the game in the sequel are hard to identify with, resulting in lack of interest.
That illustrates the fundamental problem pretty well, despite both genre and expectations being different.

And Twin Peaks will actually be facing this phenomenon to a uniquely large extend.
In the first season, as a viewer, you were basically a visitor to Twin Peaks, experiencing things pretty much like Cooper did.
The new season has the difficult task of dealing with abstract circumstances of the main character, Cooper, that even fans to this day seem somewhat confused about or have difficulty fully grasping....

When that is the case, the offset.....then how do you drag in a new audience and invoke the empathy required to capture their imagination?
That is going to be extremely tricky, and aside from the aging cast, probably the most likely reason that the new season, regardless of external circumstances, is bound to be be a much, much smaller show in terms of reach, than the first.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests