Twin Peaks

Discuss TV shows old and new.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
hearthesilence
Posts: 4148
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Twin Peaks

#526 Post by hearthesilence » Mon May 22, 2017 2:15 pm

soundchaser wrote:I will say that
SpoilerShow
Naomi Watts
- unsurprisingly - has this thing totally nailed. Looking forward to seeing more of that character in particular.
YES! Of all the new performers, this may have been the most welcome appearance, and from the very first frame, just great. I like Robert Forster quite a bit as well and it's been a while since I've seen him in anything, so I can't wait to see how his performance unfolds over the series.
SpoilerShow
Hearing Phillip Jeffries mentioned over and over is a bit sad just for reminding us that David Bowie was never able to film his planned appearance before he died...perhaps those reports will be proven wrong, but I doubt it. Also to see Catherine Coulson so ill and knowing Ferrer was fighting cancer, it's bittersweet to see their return.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Posts: 5839
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Twin Peaks

#527 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon May 22, 2017 2:50 pm

I've only seen the first two so far, but they were magnificent, just beautiful and horrifying. I can't imagine who the audience for this is, tho'. Much like FWWM, anyone hoping to continue their fondness for the tv show is going to be disappointed and irritated. This season forgoes almost all conventional pleasures. It's confounding, bizarre, and aggressive, with no nostalgia and little warmth. It is, however, gripping and pitch-perfect, tonally, with Lynch having lost none of his power either to elicit great performances or invent surreal images and situations. The approach here is more or less what I was expecting--an uncompromisingly weird, disjointed, and frightening series of scenes and moments loosely revolving around images and characters we'd seen before--tho' the specifics I was unprepared for. That scene with the glass box was unnerving as anything in Lynch, the Arm may well be his craziest image, and the final scene with the Chromatics was perfect and beautiful, both entirely Twin Peaks and feeling nothing like it. That we get eighteen hours of Lynch doing whatever he wants to do is overwhelming and I am so happy I'll get to watch it.

I'll watch the second two episodes tonight, probably.

User avatar
PfR73
Posts: 625
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 6:07 pm

Re: Twin Peaks

#528 Post by PfR73 » Mon May 22, 2017 3:16 pm

Mr Sausage wrote:This season forgoes almost all conventional pleasures.
The next 2 episodes have many hysterically funny moments. My friends who came over to watch & I were cracking up at certain points.

EDIT: And now that I think about it, the first episode did have that hilarious sequence with the police needing to obtain the key to an apartments. I feel like that sequence wouldn't have been out-of-place in a Coen Brothers film.

User avatar
Mr Sausage
Not PETA approved
Posts: 5839
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 9:02 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Twin Peaks

#529 Post by Mr Sausage » Mon May 22, 2017 3:25 pm

It'd be very unlike a Lynch film not to have absurdist humour.

calculus entrophy
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:32 am

Re: Twin Peaks

#530 Post by calculus entrophy » Mon May 22, 2017 3:46 pm

Since watching the original back in its original broadcast, what I was most worried about was not any of the various Lynch(isms), it was the loss of the plodding, sleepy pace of 90's TV.

And much to my amazement, Lynch has not deviated on that count at all. It has kept all the space, pauses, asides, and peripheral atmosphere of the original. I really felt watching 1 & 2 that aside from a higher resolution, how these two series, 25 years apart, could end up to be amazingly seamless.

25 years of TV, bridged with credible, ethical transition. That's a miracle from my point of view.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Posts: 11701
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Twin Peaks

#531 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon May 22, 2017 4:05 pm

My only complaint was that Showtime insisted on having a network logo in the corner for the entirety of the series (on Hulu by way of PS4 and Roku - not sure if this was the case on all platforms).

dda1996a
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Twin Peaks

#532 Post by dda1996a » Mon May 22, 2017 4:34 pm

I think the biggest surprise to me was expecting something and getting something else entirely, but that ended rather fast. I'm really interested to hear how well the show is doing worldwide and not just our and critics reaction. I don't think anyone not familiar with the prior seasons can really understand anything

User avatar
Roger Ryan
Posts: 1879
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:04 pm
Location: A Midland town spread and darkened into a city

Re: Twin Peaks

#533 Post by Roger Ryan » Mon May 22, 2017 4:43 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:My only complaint was that Showtime insisted on having a network logo in the corner for the entirety of the series (on Hulu by way of PS4 and Roku - not sure if this was the case on all platforms).
During the actual cablecast on Showtime, the logo cropped up briefly at the 10:30 p.m. mark (that was the only time I noticed it).

As for laugh out loud moments...
SpoilerShow
The reveal of Sarah Palmer watching mountain lions devour a bison on her huge flat-screen TV now taken prominence in her still-quaint living room gave me the biggest kick of the night - probably because my own huge flat-screen TV takes the same position of honor (to think I watched the entire original series on a 14" TV!).

cdobbs
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:45 am

Re: Twin Peaks

#534 Post by cdobbs » Mon May 22, 2017 5:09 pm

I'm seeing a lot of positive feedback for the show tempered by concern that surely very few can be enjoying it.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Posts: 11701
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Twin Peaks

#535 Post by mfunk9786 » Mon May 22, 2017 5:17 pm

While I agree with your observation that vocal praise has far outweighed vocal dissent, I do think that the first two episodes likely scared off anyone who wasn't 100% invested in the idea of a Twin Peaks continuation - either because they never clicked with anything beyond the reveal of who killed Laura Palmer, or because the show just hasn't been on their radar much for 25 years. Showtime is likely banking on the idea that if only a small fraction of the huge audience that the show had back in the day continues on to subscribe and watch this, it'll be a winner for them. And I'm sure that fraction will only get smaller as the season continues.

cdobbs
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:45 am

Re: Twin Peaks

#536 Post by cdobbs » Mon May 22, 2017 5:38 pm

mfunk9786 wrote:While I agree with your observation that vocal praise has far outweighed vocal dissent, I do think that the first two episodes likely scared off anyone who wasn't 100% invested in the idea of a Twin Peaks continuation - either because they never clicked with anything beyond the reveal of who killed Laura Palmer, or because the show just hasn't been on their radar much for 25 years. Showtime is likely banking on the idea that if only a small fraction of the huge audience that the show had back in the day continues on to subscribe and watch this, it'll be a winner for them. And I'm sure that fraction will only get smaller as the season continues.
I suspect the show's success hinges more on holding onto the original diehard fans plus the subsequent, premium cable-loving generations that discovered the show on DVD, Netflix, etc. I don't know how large or how quantifiable that audience is but I have a hunch they won't be so quick to abandon a boundary-pushing and patience-testing show as feared, and will make this at least a modest success.

calculus entrophy
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2014 11:32 am

Re: Twin Peaks

#537 Post by calculus entrophy » Mon May 22, 2017 5:53 pm

Seeing 1 & 2, I felt that Lynch and team were setting the stage for a much broader Twin Peaks future, with the settings and cast in
SpoilerShow
NYC and South Dakota
but at the same time, trying to throw some love to the nostalgic crowd with "cameos" (my term) from the old cast. It's an extremely fine line they are treading, but I couldn't find any flaws with that strategy.

User avatar
AK
Posts: 158
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 7:06 am

Re: Twin Peaks

#538 Post by AK » Mon May 22, 2017 7:29 pm

Holy shit! Just finished, had to watch the four episodes in one sitting. Absolutely love every second of it. It's just as insane as I expected from a post-Inland Empire Lynch point of view, but still nothing quite compares. I love love love Inland Empire, and I've always wondered how he might top that, or which direction he might take. Well, now I know.

I can't believe my luck that this is going on until September. I'd love to hear reactions from the fans who watched Twin Peaks when it aired, but haven't really followed Lynch's feature films since then. I'd imagine it might come as a shock.

Terrifying, I mean really terrifying images. And then some of the most laugh-out-loud funny moments. In fact I can't remember the last time I've laughed so hard and so often. Especially Episode 4 runs riot. I have to show these to my wife before the next episode – she wants to see Twin Peaks too, but mostly because I want to see these again.

User avatar
Finch
Posts: 2762
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: Twin Peaks

#539 Post by Finch » Tue May 23, 2017 2:35 pm

I watched Episodes 3 and 4 of Twin Peaks Season 3 last evening, and I think people who did not like the first two episodes are likely to enjoy this next batch much more (I personally thought 1 & 2 were very good).

Episode 3, however, is another ballgame altogether. I thought it was an absolutely sensational hour, with the first twenty minutes in particular being among the very best work that David Lynch has done in his entire life. I was GOBSMACKED. Awed. Beautiful images. It was like the most disturbing silent film aesthetically. So inspiring. And it was on television. Unbelievable. Episode 3 immediately joined Episode 14 and 29 from season 2, episode 3 from season 1 and the Pilot as the finest work in the Twin Peaks canon for me.

Episode 4 is a drop off in quality to the perfection of 3 but still a lot to enjoy and appreciate in 4, with one exception. I'm not going to spoil it but let's just say that a guest star makes an appearance that I found really misjudged, and I can't quite decide if it's Lynch and Frost's writing or the performance. It stops the episode dead in its tracks. The episode recovers with a chilling finish, and original fans who didn't like eps 1 & 2 are probably going to enjoy this episode the most yet, as it feels the closest to the first two seasons. One thing though that I thought I'd never say, the Lucy/Andy act is starting to get on my nerves.

Bring on episode 5 in two weeks. For my money, Season 3 has been a home run so far. And yeah, episode 3. We are not worthy.

User avatar
mfunk9786
Posts: 11701
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Twin Peaks

#540 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue May 23, 2017 2:45 pm

Finch wrote:I'm not going to spoil it but let's just say that a guest star makes an appearance that I found really misjudged, and I can't quite decide if it's Lynch and Frost's writing or the performance. It stops the episode dead in its tracks.
SpoilerShow
It's a total absurdity that I think likely amused Lynch to have someone who is very much the meek offspring of those two characters do their best Marlon Brando impression. It's a strange, strange idea and I doubt we'll be seeing Wally again, but nothing that feels dishonest to the vibe the series has always had, particularly the tendency of young people from Twin Peaks to be plucked right out of the 50s in terms of demeanor, and often wardrobe. It also didn't feel like a big "celebrity cameo," or at least not any moreso than Naomi Watts, or the eventual appearance of Laura Dern (my money is on her playing Diane, and being the person that Albert and Gordon need to track down to figure out what's up with Cooper - Dern just seems like the exact person who Lynch would cast in that role. [If he cast anyone. Again, just a guess.])

dda1996a
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Twin Peaks

#541 Post by dda1996a » Tue May 23, 2017 2:56 pm

Dunno, found that scene so awkwardly hilarious. I feel confident that person is Audrey but your guess seems more probable.
Also what's up with every episode ending with a music performance?

User avatar
mfunk9786
Posts: 11701
Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 4:43 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Re: Twin Peaks

#542 Post by mfunk9786 » Tue May 23, 2017 3:04 pm

Audrey is definitely the other possibility, and probably the more likely one.
dda1996a wrote:Also what's up with every episode ending with a music performance?
The series was not written with episode breaks in mind, but rather as one very lengthy film script. This was probably a pretty elegant and striking solution to there not being cliffhangers or pat final shots in mind for each episode (although I thought the credits for Episode 1 worked just fine and revisiting a striking image from each episode would've been a nice touch, too).

dda1996a
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Twin Peaks

#543 Post by dda1996a » Tue May 23, 2017 3:14 pm

Yeah it just feels a bit funny, ending every episode in that bar with a dreampop band playing. At least the second episode had actual characters there

cdobbs
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 12:45 am

Re: Twin Peaks

#544 Post by cdobbs » Tue May 23, 2017 3:34 pm

Gordon would not know who Audrey is though, and I don't think Albert met her either. In the timeline of the show, she's someone Cooper knew for less than two months of his life.

I personally found Wally to be maybe the funniest thing in any iteration of Twin Peaks, and I had hated every Lucy and Andy scene of this new series up to that point.

dda1996a
Posts: 676
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 6:14 am

Re: Twin Peaks

#545 Post by dda1996a » Tue May 23, 2017 3:46 pm

Well it was hinted that it's a character we know, and both of them visited Twin Peaks so they are aware of who she is. Plus they had the "thing". But Diane also makes a lot of sense. Audrey just popped to my head when they said that

User avatar
hearthesilence
Posts: 4148
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Twin Peaks

#546 Post by hearthesilence » Tue May 23, 2017 4:51 pm

Re: that ridiculous cameo (which was immediately preceded by the introduction of another new but familiar face, making the whole thing seem a bit much), it was indeed hilarious and ludicrous, but I'm not sure if it really did the show any favors.

User avatar
Finch
Posts: 2762
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 5:09 pm
Location: Edinburgh, UK

Re: Twin Peaks

#547 Post by Finch » Tue May 23, 2017 5:17 pm

I will say that I found the scene kind of funny the longer it went on but perhaps it felt too on the nose as a reference?

I also think it's likely to be Diane, and that Laura Dern plays her. Would be very meta in that she's obviously worked with MacLachlan before in Blue Velvet and get along very well.

Take Five was a perfect choice for the scene of Dougie/Coop eating pancakes with the kid. I wonder if the sparse use of Badalamenti cues so far is intentional, and that his new music only comes into play when Good Coop returns to Twin Peaks? His score was used almost the entire time in seasons 1 & 2, and the lack of Badalamenti cues in Season 3 has been really noticeable, and very uncomfortable for some fans of the ABC seasons. Me, I like it. I think music is too often used as a comfort blanket.

beamish13
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2007 5:31 am

Re: Twin Peaks

#548 Post by beamish13 » Tue May 23, 2017 5:27 pm

I really liked Wally (nice reference to Wally Cox, too). He definitely fits within the show's universe, and hey, it was a more fun homage/parody of The Wild One than Shia LaBeouf's introduction in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull!

User avatar
hearthesilence
Posts: 4148
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Twin Peaks

#549 Post by hearthesilence » Tue May 23, 2017 5:57 pm

Finch wrote:"Take Five" was a perfect choice for the scene of Dougie/Coop eating pancakes with the kid. I wonder if the sparse use of Badalamenti cues so far is intentional, and that his new music only comes into play when Good Coop returns to Twin Peaks? His score was used almost the entire time in seasons 1 & 2, and the lack of Badalamenti cues in Season 3 has been really noticeable, and very uncomfortable for some fans of the ABC seasons. Me, I like it. I think music is too often used as a comfort blanket.
The fact that so little music has been used within the show really gave "Take Five" a bit more impact. (Using the credits as showcases for Lynch's favorite new-and-not-yet-well-known music was not a bad idea.) Another reason the original series seemed fairly conventional compared to Lynch's feature work was the wall-to-wall music - Lynch's films have usually been the gold standard for sound design, and that aspect of his work was diluted in the original show. I imagine fans of Twin Peaks who aren't really Lynch fans will complain, but I dig what he's doing - it seems to be a good balance that rightfully favors his ear for striking sound design.

User avatar
hearthesilence
Posts: 4148
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 4:22 am
Location: NYC

Re: Twin Peaks

#550 Post by hearthesilence » Tue May 23, 2017 6:00 pm

beamish13 wrote:...it was a more fun homage/parody of The Wild One than Shia LaBeouf's introduction in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull!
Hah! Good point - LaBeouf's is a bigger joke because of Spielberg's wrongheaded belief that he could live up to Brando. It works much more in Lynch's favor that he does something so intentionally outrageous.

Post Reply