Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Guardian)   What about Twin Peaks? And other reasons why Emmy voters don't understand good TV   ( theguardian.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Twin Peaks, Andrew Cunanan, Candidate, Gianni Versace, nomination window, Nomination, good chance Emmy, Patrick Melrose  
•       •       •

773 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 12 Jul 2018 at 4:35 PM (7 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



63 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2018-07-12 03:56:31 PM  
I mean,
Twin Peaks - Coop's HELLO-O-O compilation
Youtube tl3OCzeEMFY
 
2018-07-12 04:08:15 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
 
2018-07-12 04:14:26 PM  
I'm just about finished rewatching Twin Peaks, so I'm getting a kick, etc.

Anyway. Technical nominations are nice, but if awards shows meant anything at all (beyond a self-congratulatory circle-jerk) Twin Peaks would have swept every major category.
 
2018-07-12 04:21:04 PM  
The new Twin Peaks was brilliant even by the standards of Peak TV . The Emmy voters need a damn fine cuo of coffee. Kyle Maclaughln was robbed, he was amazing.
 
2018-07-12 04:47:45 PM  
Awards aren't about rewarding talent or excellence, they're about confirming our politics.
 
2018-07-12 04:50:20 PM  
I saw the first few episodes of the new TP on a flight a few months ago and was immediately hooked. My wife and I have since been catching up on the original to provide some context (I saw a few episodes back in the day, but not enough to remember what's going on), and the difference is stark. I like the original but the dialogue and acting are like a junior high production compared to the new one.
 
2018-07-12 04:54:49 PM  
I watched some Twin Peaks show recently. I watched for about 15 minutes and not one word was spoken...which was fine. Something like: "Traveled through a fire corridor for a few minutes and then came to castle and went through the window and two people were in there and then he left the room and floated and she came into a dark empthy theater room a put the moon in a tube and then launched into orbit around the sun as the old dude was floating above the floor and I changed the channel and got up and loaded another bowl because I just wasn't on that level yet.
 
2018-07-12 04:55:31 PM  
sun = Earth

dangit
 
2018-07-12 04:57:55 PM  

Smock Pot: [img.fark.net image 425x320]


yeah it is cause no one cares about any of that
 
2018-07-12 04:58:36 PM  
Ok, I missed the initial run of this show because I was too young. My wife and I tried to watch the new one, but bounced right off it. I can tolerate not knowing wtf is going on to some degree, but is there any cohesion to this show? Do I need to watch the original? How high should I be or not be? I'm willing to try again.
 
2018-07-12 05:02:48 PM  
Twin Peaks was great!

But Twin Peaks: The Return was basically unwatchable.
 
2018-07-12 05:03:52 PM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: Ok, I missed the initial run of this show because I was too young. My wife and I tried to watch the new one, but bounced right off it. I can tolerate not knowing wtf is going on to some degree, but is there any cohesion to this show? Do I need to watch the original? How high should I be or not be? I'm willing to try again.


watching the original would help a lot.

actually watching:

Fire Walk with me, then the original  would help a lot.

but there is never any absolute, coherent, mindless-you-will-follow-it-all type story.  it's surrealism brought to cinema life.
 
2018-07-12 05:06:08 PM  

Leader O'Cola: Occam's Disposable Razor: Ok, I missed the initial run of this show because I was too young. My wife and I tried to watch the new one, but bounced right off it. I can tolerate not knowing wtf is going on to some degree, but is there any cohesion to this show? Do I need to watch the original? How high should I be or not be? I'm willing to try again.

watching the original would help a lot.

actually watching:

Fire Walk with me, then the original  would help a lot.


but there is never any absolute, coherent, mindless-you-will-follow-it-all type story.  it's surrealism brought to cinema life.


No, nooooo, absolutely DO NOT watch Fire Walk With Me before watching the original series. It'll ruin the main mystery and tension that drove most of the original series. Watch FWWM afterthe original series (which is when it was released).
 
2018-07-12 05:06:28 PM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: but is there any cohesion to this show? Do I need to watch the original?


yes and yes. skip the James parts in season 2. you'll know when, trust me, no spoilers necessary

The Return also heavily references Fire Walk With Me but don't watch that until you are done with the show because even though it's a prequel it spoils 1 and 2.
 
2018-07-12 05:07:16 PM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: Ok, I missed the initial run of this show because I was too young. My wife and I tried to watch the new one, but bounced right off it. I can tolerate not knowing wtf is going on to some degree, but is there any cohesion to this show? Do I need to watch the original? How high should I be or not be? I'm willing to try again.


Watch the original. It's great, at least for the first season. I made it about halfway through the new season. I wanted to like it, but just couldn't get into it.
 
2018-07-12 05:08:06 PM  
Twin Peaks... WHAT ABOUT THE GOOD PLACE?! Holy crap, how did they overlook Kristen Bell, D'Arcy Carden, the writing for "Dance Dance Resolution" and the whole friggin show!? Most of the nominated "outstanding comedy" shows aren't even funny! Give me a break.
 
2018-07-12 05:10:10 PM  

Leader O'Cola: Occam's Disposable Razor: but there is never any absolute, coherent, mindless-you-will-follow-it-all type story.  it's surrealism brought to cinema life.


Despite my previous post: This could not be more accurate if you tried.

A great deal of David Lynch's work is meant to be experienced and felt, rather than deconstructed into digestible Wikia articles. Twin Peaks 2017 is Lynch writ large; it's an 18-hour surreal movie.
 
2018-07-12 05:11:20 PM  
I was a huge Twin Peaks fan before season 3. I can tolerate surreal weirdness and I definitely don't need everything explained away... hell, I was satisfied with season 2 ending on a crazy cliffhanger and never expected that cliffhanger to ever be resolved.

I was super-stoked for season 3. I started counting down the days on my calendar months before the premiere.

But God, The Return was the worst. I tried to like it and wanted to love it. But one good episode out of 18 means it's 17/18ths a stinker. I could go on and on about the different ways I thought it was terrible, but I'll just shut up for now. It was incredibly disappointing.
 
2018-07-12 05:13:42 PM  

shut_it_down: Twin Peaks... WHAT ABOUT THE GOOD PLACE?! Holy crap, how did they overlook Kristen Bell, D'Arcy Carden, the writing for "Dance Dance Resolution" and the whole friggin show!? Most of the nominated "outstanding comedy" shows aren't even funny! Give me a break.


The Trolley Problem was brilliant, so Chidi will kill 5 William Shakespeare's to save one Santa Clause.
 
2018-07-12 05:17:11 PM  
In this Golden Age of Television, you can't have an important series without regular "Which beloved character will die this week?" speculation on HuffPost and other centers of intellectual influence.
 
2018-07-12 05:17:39 PM  

thatguyoverthere70: I was a huge Twin Peaks fan before season 3. I can tolerate surreal weirdness and I definitely don't need everything explained away... hell, I was satisfied with season 2 ending on a crazy cliffhanger and never expected that cliffhanger to ever be resolved.

I was super-stoked for season 3. I started counting down the days on my calendar months before the premiere.

But God, The Return was the worst. I tried to like it and wanted to love it. But one good episode out of 18 means it's 17/18ths a stinker. I could go on and on about the different ways I thought it was terrible, but I'll just shut up for now. It was incredibly disappointing.


I feel just the same as you. I would sorely like to be intellectual enough to enjoy what I believe was likely superb craftsmanship - but it's just beyond me. I don't know if I'm lacking the IQ points or the patience but it just wasn't fun for me. I'm ultimately watching tv to escape or be entertained and the latest installment of twin peaks provided neither for me. I wanted to like it.
 
2018-07-12 05:19:42 PM  
I know some old Twin Peaks fans hated the new one and that was sort of the point, you can't go home again and that doesn't exist anymore. Agent Cooper's struggle to find his old self is essentially the plot of the show, and he ends up failing. It deconstructs nostalgia, except maybe the parts with Big Ed and Norma, which was super sweet even by Lynch standards.
 
2018-07-12 05:29:17 PM  

Tom_Slick: shut_it_down: Twin Peaks... WHAT ABOUT THE GOOD PLACE?! Holy crap, how did they overlook Kristen Bell, D'Arcy Carden, the writing for "Dance Dance Resolution" and the whole friggin show!? Most of the nominated "outstanding comedy" shows aren't even funny! Give me a break.

The Trolley Problem was brilliant, so Chidi will kill 5 William Shakespeare's to save one Santa Clause.


I loved the Trolley Problem, but the " 'THIS' is the bad place!" montage gets me absolutely every time. Also, "catch that magic panda and use its powers..."
 
2018-07-12 05:32:42 PM  

JohnBigBootay: thatguyoverthere70: I was a huge Twin Peaks fan before season 3. I can tolerate surreal weirdness and I definitely don't need everything explained away... hell, I was satisfied with season 2 ending on a crazy cliffhanger and never expected that cliffhanger to ever be resolved.

I was super-stoked for season 3. I started counting down the days on my calendar months before the premiere.

But God, The Return was the worst. I tried to like it and wanted to love it. But one good episode out of 18 means it's 17/18ths a stinker. I could go on and on about the different ways I thought it was terrible, but I'll just shut up for now. It was incredibly disappointing.

I feel just the same as you. I would sorely like to be intellectual enough to enjoy what I believe was likely superb craftsmanship - but it's just beyond me. I don't know if I'm lacking the IQ points or the patience but it just wasn't fun for me. I'm ultimately watching tv to escape or be entertained and the latest installment of twin peaks provided neither for me. I wanted to like it.


Spoilers
I liked watching it, but I don't appreciate tv that deliberately hides information out of view for me and then calls itself brilliant because it didn't let me have all the cards.

I loved the ending, especially the part where I thought that Cooper was going to save Laura Palmer's life by going into the past. I thought that was amazing. It kind of happened!
 
2018-07-12 06:01:47 PM  

busy chillin': I watched some Twin Peaks show recently. I watched for about 15 minutes and not one word was spoken...which was fine. Something like: "Traveled through a fire corridor for a few minutes and then came to castle and went through the window and two people were in there and then he left the room and floated and she came into a dark empthy theater room a put the moon in a tube and then launched into orbit around the sun as the old dude was floating above the floor and I changed the channel and got up and loaded another bowl because I just wasn't on that level yet.


The Aristocrats.
 
2018-07-12 06:09:13 PM  
(1) It was released just outside of the normal window where you can get nominated, so pretty much by definition it was old news for the season after.

(2) It wasn't particularly good.  Not bad, either, but the overall critical response seemed to have been, "Yeah, sure.  Why not, I guess.  It's probably fine.  Who cares."

(3) Netflix doesn't release reliable viewership data (as in, they don't actually provide enough for context on what a number means on the few occasions they do release a number), so there's not really any actual way to tell if audiences saw something the critics didn't that might merit further consideration.
 
2018-07-12 06:11:26 PM  
To paraphrase things, it's damn fine television.

If you're new to it, your order should be

Season 1
Season 2
Fire Walk with Me
Season 3

Understand that when you hit FWWM, Lynch was finally freed of the shackles of major network TV and being meddled with. What you get is a lot more intense, deep and disturbing. In many ways coming off SE1 and 2, it miiiiiiiiiight piss you off. Stay with it. Let go of any preconceptions and jump in. 

Then Season 3 comes along and makes FWWM look like kindergarten.
 
2018-07-12 06:15:44 PM  
Also be aware that none of Twin Peaks after Season Two is "Super Happy Fun Time", but "visceral, makes you feel things, uncomfortable things you didn't really know were possible" time.
 
2018-07-12 06:16:04 PM  
I need shows I watch to win Emmys to validate my TV choices because choosing to watch content based on my personal preferences is absurd.
 
2018-07-12 06:16:45 PM  

NeedlesslyCanadian: Leader O'Cola: Occam's Disposable Razor: Ok, I missed the initial run of this show because I was too young. My wife and I tried to watch the new one, but bounced right off it. I can tolerate not knowing wtf is going on to some degree, but is there any cohesion to this show? Do I need to watch the original? How high should I be or not be? I'm willing to try again.

watching the original would help a lot.

actually watching:

Fire Walk with me, then the original  would help a lot.

but there is never any absolute, coherent, mindless-you-will-follow-it-all type story.  it's surrealism brought to cinema life.

No, nooooo, absolutely DO NOT watch Fire Walk With Me before watching the original series. It'll ruin the main mystery and tension that drove most of the original series. Watch FWWM afterthe original series (which is when it was released).


i was answering in the sense that he wanted to minimize mystery and make it as "followable" as possible.

with that said, I agree with your other post; this defeats the purpose Lynch is intending artistically.
 
2018-07-12 06:23:00 PM  

BretMavrik: I saw the first few episodes of the new TP on a flight a few months ago and was immediately hooked. My wife and I have since been catching up on the original to provide some context (I saw a few episodes back in the day, but not enough to remember what's going on), and the difference is stark. I like the original but the dialogue and acting are like a junior high production compared to the new one.


That's partly by design, as the original series is - partly - a pastiche of soap operas.

I like both the original and the Return. As someone else noted up thread, it helps to see the Return as - partly - a meta commentary on reboots and nostalgia (note that one of the main plots is literally Lynch - who had previously been a minor character - searching for his main character in a surreal narrative terrain). You can never go home again, and all that jazz. The last two episodes, in particular subvert the idea that we could ever have a satisfying return to and conclusion of the original show 25 years later.
 
2018-07-12 06:30:14 PM  

shut_it_down: Twin Peaks... WHAT ABOUT THE GOOD PLACE?! Holy crap, how did they overlook Kristen Bell, D'Arcy Carden, the writing for "Dance Dance Resolution" and the whole friggin show!? Most of the nominated "outstanding comedy" shows aren't even funny! Give me a break.


Danson got a nod because voters still think he's on Cheers.

/The Good Place is the new Tatiana Mansaly
 
2018-07-12 06:53:10 PM  
I thought the Return was excellent, definitely a culmination of many of Lynch's creative themes and symbolism over the years.

McLaughlin definitely deserves at least a nomination for his work on the show. Maybe Dern too. IMO she was snubbed by the Oscars for Inland Empire.
 
2018-07-12 06:54:40 PM  
I keep writing posts and deleting them.

Spoilers.

Okay, I have to say that I'm just arguing this for the hell of it, killing time before dinner, and sorta interested in following the overall debate. I know I've probably posted some of this before on previous Twin Peaks threads, so sorry if this seems like a repeat. I don't expect anyone to change their minds on season 3 and I don't begrudge anyone for liking it. I wanted to like it too. So, I don't want to piss anyone off or get into a fevered argument. This is just debate for fun.

-

Dale Cooper was a cool character. Sherlock Holmes has plenty of fans, but I'd wager that a few of them were dying to see Sherlock re-imagined as someone that couldn't even remember how to go to the bathroom by himself, and who could only speak the last words someone else spoke to him. I assume that the entire Dougie Jones storyline was supposed to be adorable and hilarious, and all the time he was on the screen (90% of the season) I was missing seeing the actual Dale Cooper. That's frustrating.

The job of killing Bob - arguably the most important task in the whole Twin Peaks mythology - was given to a C list character with a magic rubber glove and who had only previously appeared in one brief scene where he gave his backstory as an exposition monologue. Come on.

I don't see how the message of the season is interpreted and praised for being anti-nostalgia and having a "you can't go home again" theme, when at the same time the season ends by literally going back to the very night of Laura's murder. Subverting the subversion?

I also don't see how season 3 constantly gets praise for allegedly subverting expectations and not engaging in fan service, when IMHO the Big Ed/Norma/Nadine was nothing but fan service and shoehorned in at the very end at that. What did Nadine do the entire season beyond watching Dr. Jacoby's vapid and ultimately meaningless webcasts? Then she pops in at the very end to say "Big Ed, you're free." and boom, that's it. For that scene to have any meaning at all for a viewer, that viewer had to have seen the previous seasons, because Big Ed, Norma, and Nadine had zero things to do of any consequence during season 3. So... absolutely nothing but fan service.

Sorry for the rant! Viva le TV arguementes!
 
2018-07-12 07:14:57 PM  
"This is low point..."
 
2018-07-12 07:35:23 PM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: How high should I be or not be?


NeedlesslyCanadian: A great deal of David Lynch's work is meant to be experienced and felt, rather than deconstructed into digestible Wikia articles. Twin Peaks 2017 is Lynch writ large; it's an 18-hour surreal movie.


I'm hearing "pretty damn high"
 
2018-07-12 07:48:09 PM  

thatguyoverthere70: I keep writing posts and deleting them.

Spoilers.

Okay, I have to say that I'm just arguing this for the hell of it, killing time before dinner, and sorta interested in following the overall debate. I know I've probably posted some of this before on previous Twin Peaks threads, so sorry if this seems like a repeat. I don't expect anyone to change their minds on season 3 and I don't begrudge anyone for liking it. I wanted to like it too. So, I don't want to piss anyone off or get into a fevered argument. This is just debate for fun.

-

Dale Cooper was a cool character. Sherlock Holmes has plenty of fans, but I'd wager that a few of them were dying to see Sherlock re-imagined as someone that couldn't even remember how to go to the bathroom by himself, and who could only speak the last words someone else spoke to him. I assume that the entire Dougie Jones storyline was supposed to be adorable and hilarious, and all the time he was on the screen (90% of the season) I was missing seeing the actual Dale Cooper. That's frustrating.

The job of killing Bob - arguably the most important task in the whole Twin Peaks mythology - was given to a C list character with a magic rubber glove and who had only previously appeared in one brief scene where he gave his backstory as an exposition monologue. Come on.

I don't see how the message of the season is interpreted and praised for being anti-nostalgia and having a "you can't go home again" theme, when at the same time the season ends by literally going back to the very night of Laura's murder. Subverting the subversion?

I also don't see how season 3 constantly gets praise for allegedly subverting expectations and not engaging in fan service, when IMHO the Big Ed/Norma/Nadine was nothing but fan service and shoehorned in at the very end at that. What did Nadine do the entire season beyond watching Dr. Jacoby's vapid and ultimately meaningless webcasts? Then she pops in at the very end to say "Big Ed, you're free." and boom, that's it. For that scene to have any meaning at all for a viewer, that viewer had to have seen the previous seasons, because Big Ed, Norma, and Nadine had zero things to do of any consequence during season 3. So... absolutely nothing but fan service.

Sorry for the rant! Viva le TV arguementes!


I totally respect these arguments and the good natured tone in which they are made...

But you're wrong! Heretic!!!! Burn!!!

Just kidding, but seriously, my rebuttals:
1. The lack of Cooper is - for lack of a better term - intentionally frustrating. There's never going to be a way of getting the old Cooper back that doesn't feel frustrating, as it would be kitsch.
2. Having a magic gloved, British guy defeat a terribly rendered cgi effect that is Bob is also intentionally frustrating as it deflated any sense of accomplishment (also, it's damn funny). Also, it didn't get rid of all the other evil that's been revealed in this world.
3. Yes, he goes back to save Laura, and nothing good comes of it. As a result, he apparently breaks the universe. Laura doesn't remember who she is and the Palmers apparently have never lived in their house. And what year is it, again?  (His search for her mirrors Cole/Lynch's search for him, the result being an existential crisis even in apparent victory).
4. Ed and Norma, well, you have a point there, but while it is happy they get together, it is bittersweet knowing they've spent the past 25 years apart. They've essentially wasted all but their final years. There's a profound sense of melancholy that accompanies their reuniting.
 
2018-07-12 08:09:47 PM  

Smock Pot: [img.fark.net image 425x320]


No, Kyle McLaughlin's excellent performances (5 different aspects of the same character) not getting nominated is definitely a snub.
 
2018-07-12 08:11:08 PM  

BretMavrik: I saw the first few episodes of the new TP on a flight a few months ago and was immediately hooked. My wife and I have since been catching up on the original to provide some context (I saw a few episodes back in the day, but not enough to remember what's going on), and the difference is stark. I like the original but the dialogue and acting are like a junior high production compared to the new one.


You also need to watch Fire Walk With Me. It's a bridge between the original TV show and the Return.
 
2018-07-12 08:13:21 PM  

Occam's Disposable Razor: Ok, I missed the initial run of this show because I was too young. My wife and I tried to watch the new one, but bounced right off it. I can tolerate not knowing wtf is going on to some degree, but is there any cohesion to this show? Do I need to watch the original? How high should I be or not be? I'm willing to try again.


Yes, you need to watch most of the original show (about half of season 2 can be skipped) and the movie to understand the Return.
 
2018-07-12 08:24:36 PM  

thatguyoverthere70: I keep writing posts and deleting them.

Spoilers.

Okay, I have to say that I'm just arguing this for the hell of it, killing time before dinner, and sorta interested in following the overall debate. I know I've probably posted some of this before on previous Twin Peaks threads, so sorry if this seems like a repeat. I don't expect anyone to change their minds on season 3 and I don't begrudge anyone for liking it. I wanted to like it too. So, I don't want to piss anyone off or get into a fevered argument. This is just debate for fun.

-

Dale Cooper was a cool character. Sherlock Holmes has plenty of fans, but I'd wager that a few of them were dying to see Sherlock re-imagined as someone that couldn't even remember how to go to the bathroom by himself, and who could only speak the last words someone else spoke to him. I assume that the entire Dougie Jones storyline was supposed to be adorable and hilarious, and all the time he was on the screen (90% of the season) I was missing seeing the actual Dale Cooper. That's frustrating.

The job of killing Bob - arguably the most important task in the whole Twin Peaks mythology - was given to a C list character with a magic rubber glove and who had only previously appeared in one brief scene where he gave his backstory as an exposition monologue. Come on.

I don't see how the message of the season is interpreted and praised for being anti-nostalgia and having a "you can't go home again" theme, when at the same time the season ends by literally going back to the very night of Laura's murder. Subverting the subversion?

I also don't see how season 3 constantly gets praise for allegedly subverting expectations and not engaging in fan service, when IMHO the Big Ed/Norma/Nadine was nothing but fan service and shoehorned in at the very end at that. What did Nadine do the entire season beyond watching Dr. Jacoby's vapid and ultimately meaningless webcasts? Then she pops in at the very end to say "Big Ed, you're free." and boom, that's it. For that scene to have any meaning at all for a viewer, that viewer had to have seen the previous seasons, because Big Ed, Norma, and Nadine had zero things to do of any consequence during season 3. So... absolutely nothing but fan service.

Sorry for the rant! Viva le TV arguementes!


I guess you missed that Nadine was inspired to free Ed due to Jakobie's broadcasts. The whole reason his character was there was to act as the impetus for getting Ed and Norma a happy ending (the only characters that really ended up with one). And yes, part 3 of a two season show + movie expects you to have seen them and understand who the characters are, it isn't a standalone event.
 
2018-07-12 09:07:34 PM  

shut_it_down: Tom_Slick: shut_it_down: Twin Peaks... WHAT ABOUT THE GOOD PLACE?! Holy crap, how did they overlook Kristen Bell, D'Arcy Carden, the writing for "Dance Dance Resolution" and the whole friggin show!? Most of the nominated "outstanding comedy" shows aren't even funny! Give me a break.

The Trolley Problem was brilliant, so Chidi will kill 5 William Shakespeare's to save one Santa Clause.

I loved the Trolley Problem, but the " 'THIS' is the bad place!" montage gets me absolutely every time. Also, "catch that magic panda and use its powers..."


Don't know if you heard or not, but ennnnnnbecee just started doing a Good Place podcast hosted by Sean, Ted Danson's demon boss.  Well worth your motherforking time.

https://art19.com/shows/the-good-plac​e​-the-podcast
 
2018-07-12 10:38:43 PM  

elvisaintdead: Don't know if you heard or not, but ennnnnnbecee just started doing a Good Place podcast hosted by Sean, Ted Danson's demon boss.  Well worth your motherforking time.


The weird thing about seeing Mark Evan Jackson in anything - and he's a character actor so he pops up all over the place - is that I'm never not going to think "Sparks Nevada, Marshall on Mars" when I hear his voice.
 
kab
2018-07-12 11:37:10 PM  
What about it... I certainly give credit to those who stuck with it

The first run of it more or less fell apart once you learned who the killer was, The most recent continuation seemed like it was just trying too hard, with a bunch of fan service thrown in.  Just my .02

YMMV, but there's a lot of really good TV out there, and the same (if not less) amount of digestion time.
 
2018-07-13 12:00:34 AM  

phlegmjay: thatguyoverthere70: I keep writing posts and deleting them.

Spoilers.

Okay, I have to say that I'm just arguing this for the hell of it, killing time before dinner, and sorta interested in following the overall debate. I know I've probably posted some of this before on previous Twin Peaks threads, so sorry if this seems like a repeat. I don't expect anyone to change their minds on season 3 and I don't begrudge anyone for liking it. I wanted to like it too. So, I don't want to piss anyone off or get into a fevered argument. This is just debate for fun.

-

Dale Cooper was a cool character. Sherlock Holmes has plenty of fans, but I'd wager that a few of them were dying to see Sherlock re-imagined as someone that couldn't even remember how to go to the bathroom by himself, and who could only speak the last words someone else spoke to him. I assume that the entire Dougie Jones storyline was supposed to be adorable and hilarious, and all the time he was on the screen (90% of the season) I was missing seeing the actual Dale Cooper. That's frustrating.

The job of killing Bob - arguably the most important task in the whole Twin Peaks mythology - was given to a C list character with a magic rubber glove and who had only previously appeared in one brief scene where he gave his backstory as an exposition monologue. Come on.

I don't see how the message of the season is interpreted and praised for being anti-nostalgia and having a "you can't go home again" theme, when at the same time the season ends by literally going back to the very night of Laura's murder. Subverting the subversion?

I also don't see how season 3 constantly gets praise for allegedly subverting expectations and not engaging in fan service, when IMHO the Big Ed/Norma/Nadine was nothing but fan service and shoehorned in at the very end at that. What did Nadine do the entire season beyond watching Dr. Jacoby's vapid and ultimately meaningless webcasts? Then she pops in at the very end to say "Big Ed, you're

I totally respect these arguments and the good natured tone in which they are made...

But you're wrong! Heretic!!!! Burn!!!

Just kidding, but seriously, my rebuttals:
1. The lack of Cooper is - for lack of a better term - intentionally frustrating. There's never going to be a way of getting the old Cooper back that doesn't feel frustrating, as it would be kitsch.
2. Having a magic gloved, British guy defeat a terribly rendered cgi effect that is Bob is also intentionally frustrating as it deflated any sense of accomplishment (also, it's damn funny). Also, it didn't get rid of all the other evil that's been revealed in this world.
3. Yes, he goes back to save Laura, and nothing good comes of it. As a result, he apparently breaks the universe. Laura doesn't remember who she is and the Palmers apparently have never lived in their house. And what year is it, again?  (His search for her mirrors Cole/Lynch's search for him, the result being an existential crisis even in apparent victory).
4. Ed and Norma, well, you have a point there, but while it is happy they get together, it is bittersweet knowing they've spent the past 25 years apart. They've essentially wasted all but their final years. There's a profound sense of melancholy that accompanies their reuniting.
...


Soo...
1. - It is intentionally frustrating
2. - It is intentionally frustrating
3. - Is useless
4. - Is just fans service

And people like this?
 
6 days ago  

delathi: phlegmjay: thatguyoverthere70: I keep writing posts and deleting them.

Spoilers.

Okay, I have to say that I'm just arguing this for the hell of it, killing time before dinner, and sorta interested in following the overall debate. I know I've probably posted some of this before on previous Twin Peaks threads, so sorry if this seems like a repeat. I don't expect anyone to change their minds on season 3 and I don't begrudge anyone for liking it. I wanted to like it too. So, I don't want to piss anyone off or get into a fevered argument. This is just debate for fun.

-

Dale Cooper was a cool character. Sherlock Holmes has plenty of fans, but I'd wager that a few of them were dying to see Sherlock re-imagined as someone that couldn't even remember how to go to the bathroom by himself, and who could only speak the last words someone else spoke to him. I assume that the entire Dougie Jones storyline was supposed to be adorable and hilarious, and all the time he was on the screen (90% of the season) I was missing seeing the actual Dale Cooper. That's frustrating.

The job of killing Bob - arguably the most important task in the whole Twin Peaks mythology - was given to a C list character with a magic rubber glove and who had only previously appeared in one brief scene where he gave his backstory as an exposition monologue. Come on.

I don't see how the message of the season is interpreted and praised for being anti-nostalgia and having a "you can't go home again" theme, when at the same time the season ends by literally going back to the very night of Laura's murder. Subverting the subversion?

I also don't see how season 3 constantly gets praise for allegedly subverting expectations and not engaging in fan service, when IMHO the Big Ed/Norma/Nadine was nothing but fan service and shoehorned in at the very end at that. What did Nadine do the entire season beyond watching Dr. Jacoby's vapid and ultimately meaningless webcasts? Then she pops in at the very end to say "Big ...


Look, it's impossible to explain David Lynch to someone who doesn't like Lynch. The new Twin Peaks was 18 hours of Lynch going wild with his surrealism and wacky ideas and either you're on board for that sort of thing or you want out. It's not wrong to dislike Lynch but it's not wrong to like him either. His stuff is like one of those paintings you stare at and suddenly get, or you don't.
 
6 days ago  

Confabulat: His stuff is like one of those paintings you stare at and suddenly get, or you don't


That's a good read.

And, not for nothing, it's been said that his visual impetus is "moving paintings." While that's often the case in Lynch, I found it especially true of Twin Peaks 2017. Hours and hours of the show can be paused, and the framing and texturing of what's on screen are so vivid it could be a framed painting on the wall.
 
6 days ago  

Znuh: Understand that when you hit FWWM, Lynch was finally freed of the shackles of major network TV and being meddled with. What you get is a lot more intense, deep and disturbing.


Bit of a sidenote here...if there are any other Twin Peaks diehard fans here, I recommend seeking out the "Q2" fan edit of FWWM at least once. It's not strictly Lynch's vision of the movie (he did create the true/real cut, after all), but what this "Q2" fan did was get a copy of the original script, and use it to splice all of the "Missing Pieces" scenes that are on the FWWM Blu-ray into the movie itself, as was originally written in the script.

At around 4 hours long it's a bit of a daunting watch, but I really like it.
 
6 days ago  

NeedlesslyCanadian: Znuh: Understand that when you hit FWWM, Lynch was finally freed of the shackles of major network TV and being meddled with. What you get is a lot more intense, deep and disturbing.

Bit of a sidenote here...if there are any other Twin Peaks diehard fans here, I recommend seeking out the "Q2" fan edit of FWWM at least once. It's not strictly Lynch's vision of the movie (he did create the true/real cut, after all), but what this "Q2" fan did was get a copy of the original script, and use it to splice all of the "Missing Pieces" scenes that are on the FWWM Blu-ray into the movie itself, as was originally written in the script.

At around 4 hours long it's a bit of a daunting watch, but I really like it.


Oh I have to find that.
 
6 days ago  

Occam's Disposable Razor: Ok, I missed the initial run of this show because I was too young. My wife and I tried to watch the new one, but bounced right off it. I can tolerate not knowing wtf is going on to some degree, but is there any cohesion to this show? Do I need to watch the original? How high should I be or not be? I'm willing to try again.


The last season was terrible.
 
Displayed 50 of 63 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report