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

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

Post by Gordon »

TP has never been a Lynch-only thing, even though he gets more merit than any of the other people involved... Frost was co-creator and people like Engels, Peyton and more did a lot of wonderful stuff for the show, subplots, characters, pieces of dialogue, etc. Even in Greg Olson's book BEAUTIFUL DARK (which is great) he mentions things in Lynch's life and similar stuff appearing in TP, linking the two, and I thought while reading it "Are you sure Lynch wrote/created that?"... I don't want a 100 % Lynch TWIN PEAKS, it has never been that...

And about the flaws, well, some of it I've really come to appreaciate over the years (Ben's civil war, agent Bryson,...) and now I consider them as brilliant parts of the show... The *really* bad stuff (Evelyn, Little Nicky) is part of it too, like it or not... Pilot, Pilot with alternate version, episode 1 to 29, Log Lady intros, FWWM, Missing pieces, deleted scenes, the future season 3 and more things I probably forget is all the same thing to me and I love everything about it... Yeah, even Evelyn... :D
Ajax Rules
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:56 am

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

Post by Ajax Rules »

LostInTheMovies wrote: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.
I thought I read somewhere that also in the case of FWWM, there was a disagreement and commercial issues. In other words: I thought that DL wanted FWWM to be a much longer film, but that contract obligations forced him to narrow it down to its current length.

But you say that Lynch is happy with FWWM as it is. Couldn't it be both true? He is happy with FWWM (it is a briljant film), but he would have been even happier if there hadn't been a length constraint?
Last edited by Ajax Rules on Sat Nov 22, 2014 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ajax Rules
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:56 am

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

Post by Ajax Rules »

Gordon wrote:TP has never been a Lynch-only thing
True. And I would understand when some other directors are not happy about TP being a Lynch show and their episodes being re-edited. However, I speak for my myself and my interests. I am a fan of Lynch and not of those other directors, and it is my subjective opinion that Lynch is far more talented than those other people involved. So, I am very happy that S3 WILL in fact be a Lynch-only (and Frost of course) thing.
Ajax Rules
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:56 am

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

Post by Ajax Rules »

LostInTheMovies wrote: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.
Thanks for this long and very interesting post!

Your analysis seems to be based on the assumption, though, that TP was really HIS show, that the flaws were HIS flaws, etc. But is that a fair assumption? And does Lynch really see it like that? Sure, he had some influence. But to me it seems clear that he is frustrated that he didn't have more. In "A slice of Lynch", he talks about the sadness of having to identify Laura's killer. He was defnitely not in charge. Sure, he takes responsibility for his own work (even when flawed), but not for what other writers, directors, etc. do?
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

Post by LostInTheMovies »

Ajax Rules wrote:
LostInTheMovies wrote: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.
Thanks for this long and very interesting post!

Your analysis seems to be based on the assumption, though, that TP was really HIS show, that the flaws were HIS flaws, etc. But is that a fair assumption? And does Lynch really see it like that? Sure, he had some influence. But to me it seems clear that he is frustrated that he didn't have more. In "A slice of Lynch", he talks about the sadness of having to identify Laura's killer. He was defnitely not in charge. Sure, he takes responsibility for his own work (even when flawed), but not for what other writers, directors, etc. do?
No, not at all - sorry if that was unclear. I understand that Lynch was absent/disengaged for a lot of the show's creative decision-making. By the same token, he takes "responsibility" for Dune even though he didn't have final cut (in the sense that he has left his name on it, and considers it HIS mistake, unlike the TV cut of Dune which is credited only to "Alan Smithee" because Lynch had nothing to do with its re-cutting and demanded his name be taken off). In both cases the decision to get involved with the project was his and in Twin Peaks, unlike Dune, he had even conceived of the project (with Frost). I think that sense of creative ownership is very important to Lynch. That's probably why he won't talk about Dune in-depth with interviewers. It's too painful because he feels its HIS failure.

Now, all of that said...Lynch DID have control over Twin Peaks, shared equally with Frost. The problem was a bit different from Dune in that sense - there was nobody standing over him telling him "do this" or "do that" (part of the deal with ABC was that they could not really interfere with Lynch/Frost at all). Pressure from the network was just that: pressure. It must have been unbearable at times, but it carried no actual weight (as far as I know, revealing Laura's killer was not a condition of renewing the second season but maybe I'm wrong about that...Brad, care to clarify?). So I've never understood when people (and I think Lynch says this too) claim that they were "forced" to reveal the killer. I'll admit I use that language sometimes too, it's convenient, but is it really accurate?

Although Frost has said he regrets revealing the killer today, reading interviews from 1990 - and even interviews from years later - it's clear that he felt it was a wise move at the time. He spoke of the Laura case distracting viewers from other characters and stories on the show, and seems to have worried about the intensity of that mystery burning out enthusiasm too quickly. Indeed, this proved prescient since viewers abandoned the show when they thought the killer WOULDN'T be revealed, not when he was. (But personally I think the show would have been damned if it did, damned if it didn't: WKLP was way too ingrained in its fabric to successfully move on from that mystery, into a more leisurely-paced weekly series.)

Of course Frost and Lynch were equal partners so they had to both be on board with the reveal. Lynch has always said he didn't like the idea of ending the mystery, and Frost has confirmed this, even said that it was a point of contention between them. I would LOVE to be a fly-on-the-wall for the conversation(s) where Frost and Lynch finally agree on this. Was it just a matter of Lynch passively acquiescing because Frost seemed so certain about it? Was there a sort of well, we'll do that, but let's try this thing you want to do as a trade-off (it certanly doesn't seem this way since Lynch went MIA after the mystery)? Did Frost just set the wheels in motion in story conferences with Peyton & Engels while Lynch was distracted (Wild at Heart had already premiered, but may he was promoting it abroad - I dunno), and then Lynch returned and uneasily went along with what was already in motion? Or, at a certain point, was Lynch actually convinced it was a good idea, something he's only backtracked on later (take his revisionism on the Wild at Heart thing, which he claims - impossibly - he was shooting during season 2)? Unfortunately, none of us will probably ever really know the nature or dynamics of the Lynch-Frost collaboration so those details will always be speculative!

What IS clear enough is that Lynch went along with the decision on some level. After all, he did not angrily storm away from the show, he directed half of the first 8 hours of the season, including the episode in which Laura's killer is revealed! (Another fly-on-the-wall moment I would love: who decided Cooper should get the wrong man, and that Maddy should be murdered onscreen.) Only afterwards does the reality/tragedy of the situation seem to have sunk in for him, to the point where he disengaged from the show for a time. But while he didn't like where the show was going, he also didn't put his foot down about turning it in another direction. So yes (long answer!), in that sense, I think Lynch was response for/"owns" what happened on Twin Peaks and I think he knows it, and would never try to erase the past.
Ajax Rules
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:56 am

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

Post by Ajax Rules »

I think you convincingly prove that he accepts some responsibility, but I believe that there are different degrees of responsibility. Being executive producer and allowing yourself to be persuaded is another level of responsibility than writing and directing all episodes yourself.

But even if Lynch takes full responsibility, still I wonder what is the problem with a re-edit? The film-industry works with extended versions all the time, so why not release a shortened version?

That is also my reply to people who interpret my proposal as a kind of blasphemy. To be clear about it: I do not propose to rewrite TP-history. I'm fine with the fact that a Japanese guy once visited TP, that Audrey had a boyfriend, etc. Just as I'm fine with the fact that Ben Horne is shaving every day and Norma probably buys bagels in the supermarket and watches the news at night. But I don't necessarily want to see all those things. A re-edited version of S2 could exist in harmony besided the original one. Both versions could/would be 100% identical in terms of what happened to everyone in TP.

Some people would like to (re)watch the original version, where others (such as myself) would have much more fun watching the quality material only and have a better feeling about the show as a whole.
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

Post by LostInTheMovies »

Ajax Rules wrote:
LostInTheMovies wrote: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.
I thought I read somewhere that also in the case of FWWM, there was a disagreement and commercial issues. In other words: I thought that DL wanted FWWM to be a much longer film, but that contract obligations forced him to narrow it down to its current length.

But you say that Lynch is happy with FWWM as it is. Couldn't it be both true? He is happy with FWWM (it is a briljant film), but he would have been even happier if there hadn't been a length constraint?
I don't think so. First of all, I don't know about the contract obligations - I wouldn't be surprised if there was a stipulation with the French company (can't remember its name, too lazy to look up!) that said his films had to run under 2 1/2 hours or something. But I'm not sure.

I do know, however, that he's stated in numerous interviews that Fire Walk With Me is the film it's supposed to be and he's happy with that. Plus if he had wanted to create a director's cut in 2014 he certainly could have done so. Look, adding 15-20 minutes might not hurt the movie (people have mentioned the expanded convenience store scene, the Hayward living room, Leland approaching the house at night, Laura under the fan and a few other scenes as adding something to FWWM). But adding another 90 minutes? Now that we've all seen these scenes, which are wonderful on their own, I think we can agree that most don't really form part of a larger tapestry. The two-decade-old myth that this excised material is the reason why FWWM appears choppy and uneven at times can probably be put to rest: including it would have made the film MORE choppy/uneven, not less. And restoring the footage would dilute the focus on Laura, which is what the final 2/3 of the film (and arguably even the first 1/3, indirectly) are all about.

There's a few factors to consider here - and keep in mind some of this is just educated guesswork on my part, so take with a grain of garmonbozia.

1) Although Lynch tackled a lot in FWWM, the decision to tell Laura's story was clearly the motivating factor. He's stated this later ("I fell in love with Laura Palmer, I wanted to see her live, move, and talk") and it's implicit in the decision to make a prequel rather than a sequel.

2) That said, the real power of the Laura story seems to have emerged more in production than pre-production. Engels' accounts of the writing are full of wacky anecdotes of creamed-corn planets and Eisenhower's inauguration but once Lynch got into shooting in the Snoqualmie/North Bend area everyone (from the British journalist writing the production diary to Director of Photography Ron Garcia, who is very eloquent on the subject) seems most taken with Sheryl Lee's performance. This is pure speculation on my part, but I would guess that the gravity of the story, already suggested on the page, didn't really sink in until the material was being shot and especially until Lee committed to the character so ferociously. Stories from the set - like Phoebe Augustine's conversation with Lynch about the screenplay's pessimism, and the subsequent elaboration of the angels motif - seem to bear out this conclusion. I've also wondered if the extra material wasn't included, in part, to protect against the possibility that Sheryl Lee, mostly untested as a film actress, wasn't up to the task. Hence when she knocked it out of the park, that precaution may have no longer seemed necessary.

3) Here we get into really speculative waters because what happens in Lynch's editing room is sacred and neither he nor Sweeney, to my knowledge, have talked in any detail about the what, when, why of reshaped film. But we do know that Lynch and Sweeney were beginning a close creative and professional (and personal, to the extent that's relevant) collaboration that would continue for a decade. Perhaps not coincidentally, the first "slice of Lynch" Sweeney ever edited was episode 14 of the show, with Maddy's murder. This part of his career is when his work becomes most committed to diving all the way into the darkness (even Blue Velvet holds back a bit) while also embracing a female point of view. This is something that Sweeney clearly valued, since she later told an interviewer that Lynch had a very rare empathy for female experience - and I would not at all be surprised if she encouraged Lynch to go in the direction he was already heading, stripping away nearly everything that didn't relate to Laura's personal struggle. Wrapped in Plastic editor John Thorne has also speculated that the use of the ring in the finale, which contradicts its build-up throughout the film, and seems to provide some kind of cryptic cathartic release for Laura, was not added until post-production, with inserts and tricky cutting. (It is true that there are no shots including both Lee's face and the ring, but there is a shot where she seems to be looking at her finger, so I'm not sure.)

With all that in mind, I think Lynch shot the extra footage for many reasons but that he knew it would be a mistake to include it in a finished film. Personally, I'm very happy with the presentation we've got - Fire Walk With Me and The Missing Pieces as dual perspectives of the last days of Laura's life (sometimes even dual perspectives on the same scene!).
Last edited by LostInTheMovies on Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:26 am, edited 9 times in total.
User avatar
Brad D
Global Moderator
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:56 am
Contact:

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

Post by Brad D »

I also think any George Lucas revisions should be left to fan edits. cant we just be happy S3 is happening? Would much rather Lynch and Frost focus on the future than revising the past. To my knowledge Lynch has never revised or re-cut his work anyway so it's a pretty moot topic.
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

Post by LostInTheMovies »

Ajax Rules wrote:I think you convincingly prove that he accepts some responsibility, but I believe that there are different degrees of responsibility. Being executive producer and allowing yourself to be persuaded is another level of responsibility than writing and directing all episodes yourself.
This is just what I'm able to tease out from interviews, of course, but for Lynch I don't think there ARE different degrees of responsibility. You either own it or you don't, full-stop.
Some people would like to (re)watch the original version, where others (such as myself) would have much more fun watching the quality material only and have a better feeling about the show as a whole.
I can't speak for others, but personally I wouldn't mind watching such a re-edit purely as a fun experiment. Hell, I'd even be fascinated to watch the subplots - even the weaker ones - as their own units, which would not be terribly enjoyable on an entertainment level but would be fun to pick apart and analyze, to see how they worked separate from the rest of the show. Not that I'm in any rush to do so (there actually IS a James & Evelyn-fanedit out there on YouTube, believe it or not, and I can't say I've summoned up the fortitude to check it out yet lol). I'm all for multiple perspectives on angles on the material we've got. Among other things, it gives you a greater appreciation of the whole.

But the idea of reconceiving what's "canon" strikes me as wishful thinking at best and downright destructive at worst. Twin Peaks exists as it exists and anything else would just be revisionist history.
Ajax Rules
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:56 am

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

Post by Ajax Rules »

LostInTheMovies wrote:But the idea of reconceiving what's "canon" strikes me as wishful thinking at best and downright destructive at worst. Twin Peaks exists as it exists and anything else would just be revisionist history.
I cannot see how this could be destructive. If scenes from the RR were eliminated, than of course TP-fans would be angry and discuss what is canon and what is not.

But if you eliminate the scenes about Audrey's boyfriend and the plots that obviously go nowhere, how could that be destructive? How is it relevant if this is or isn't part of the canon? You can show this material or not, but either way, it is not related to anything, so it doesn't matter in terms of canon.
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

Post by LostInTheMovies »

Ajax Rules wrote:
LostInTheMovies wrote:But the idea of reconceiving what's "canon" strikes me as wishful thinking at best and downright destructive at worst. Twin Peaks exists as it exists and anything else would just be revisionist history.
I cannot see how this could be destructive. If scenes from the RR were eliminated, than of course TP-fans would be angry and discuss what is canon and what is not.

But if you eliminate the scenes about Audrey's boyfriend and the plots that obviously go nowhere, how could that be destructive? How is it relevant if this is or isn't part of the canon? You can show this material or not, but either way, it is not related to anything, so it doesn't matter in terms of canon.
Well you said earlier that you would like to see a streamlined season 2 become "canon" so that's what I was referring to. I just don't think any such experiment should be presented as an "official", director-encouraged way to view the series, and I don't think it would be. But the experiment itself is fine as a curio (or a way for fans familiar with the show to enjoy their favorite scenes/storylines).

EDIT: And to clarify "canon," perhaps this is just me hijacking the term for my own purposes, but I consider "canon" to be as much as a matter of filmmaking as storytelling. Few shows are as formally-driven as Twin Peaks and its good/bad complexity is stylistic as well as narrative. What we SEE is as/more important as what we KNOW.

I think this is most evident in the episodes Lynch directed. Sure, he changes some dialogue or action here or there (seldom as notably as in the Lodge sequence) but mostly he re-sets the tone through composition, lens choice, camera angle, lighting, cutting, pacing, blocking, line delivery, and so forth (I'd throw camera movement in there, but Lynch's camera moves very little in Twin Peaks).
Last edited by LostInTheMovies on Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ajax Rules
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 1:56 am

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

Post by Ajax Rules »

LostInTheMovies wrote:Well you said earlier that you would like to see a streamlined season 2 become "canon" so that's what I was referring to.
You're right. That was a confusing remark. Later I realized that you don't need to say "This is canon" of "This is the one and only true version". You can simply say "Both versions tell exactly the same story, use the same material", but this is a shorter version (leaving out some characters and plots) that some viewers might like better.
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

Post by LostInTheMovies »

Ajax Rules wrote:
LostInTheMovies wrote:Well you said earlier that you would like to see a streamlined season 2 become "canon" so that's what I was referring to.
You're right. That was a confusing remark. Later I realized that you don't need to say "This is canon" of "This is the one and only true version". You can simply say "Both versions tell exactly the same story, use the same material", but this is a shorter version (leaving out some characters and plots) that some viewers might like better.
Yes, it's a tangled conversation, but an interesting one! Btw, I just re-edited some of the comment above for further clarification, in terms of film style. As if the conversation needed to get more tangled haha...
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Lodge Member
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

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

Post by Audrey Horne »

It's not going to happen, so debating it seems just an exercise in typing on a keyboard. One can't remove it from one's mind. And can you imagine someone dissatisfied with season three and then complaining if Lynch hadn't spent all that useless time tinkering with season two, etc. and it seems disrespectful to the writers, directors and crew who did produce those episodes.

If you look at countless other television shows, and especially daily soap operas, they contain eras when they weren't in their glory. It will be okay. I doubt Lynch is even watching the back half of season two anyway. At least not too closely. Frost might be reminding him some of the events, and Lynch could easily be saying, "Mark, that doesn't matter."

I think they are going to study, study, study their first season blueprint, and come up with a basic soap plot line to define a structure... And then go to town with their visual and aesthetic vision.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
User avatar
dugpa
Site Admin
Posts: 1254
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:45 am
Contact:

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

Post by dugpa »

Interesting points by all. I wonder if they decide to air the original series as a lead up to the new series how the Second Season will be received by new viewers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Post Reply