Main Menu

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 10:59:24 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Twin Peaks season 3!

Started by Mister Six, July 27, 2017, 12:57:24 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

NoSleep

Quote from: popcorn on July 28, 2017, 12:10:11 PM
Yep, I know that, but whatever their methods and intentions, the end result is an episodic TV series. The very act of separating them into episodes changes the fabric of the story they're telling - and the way the audience interprets them.

So, by that it "fails" because it doesn't work in the usual way that episodes do? I think this was even anticipated by the makers because four parts were released simultaneously at the outset, to give the audience some perspective on the whole.

QuoteI've really enjoyed the new show so far, but it bothers me how any criticism someone like Shoulders makes is quickly deflected with versions of "your expectations are wrong", "that's not what Lynch intended", "this is not a TV show but in fact a profound stuffed moose", etc.

There is no deflection; not on my part at least, let others speak for themselves. And I think it's fair to give the series a chance beyond criticisms that it isn't like the original series or other TV series, because we have been warned that its structure is not episodic.

QuoteI think Twin Peaks is being protected by an extraordinary degree of goodwill from viewers. The show isn't finished yet so who knows I guess, but I think Shoulders is on the money when he says the focus is confused, particularly about characters. I said in the last thread it was nice to finally see Shelly used, for example; will the same be true of James in future episodes? If not, why is he in the show? It being an 18-hour-movie isn't much of a justification for redundant elements.

Is it protection to state that, thus far, this has been a remarkable thing for a TV series, possibly the best and most original thing I've ever seen on TV and that all the loose ends and questions that have emerged are not a problem for me (particularly given that its structure has been declared an 18-hour movie by its creators) as it hasn't ended yet? That's simple benefit of the doubt.


Ja'moke

Quote from: popcorn on July 28, 2017, 12:10:11 PM
I think Twin Peaks is being protected by an extraordinary degree of goodwill from viewers. The show isn't finished yet so who knows I guess, but I think Shoulders is on the money when he says the focus is confused, particularly about characters. I said in the last thread it was nice to finally see Shelly used, for example; will the same be true of James in future episodes? If not, why is he in the show? It being an 18-hour-movie isn't much of a justification for redundant elements.

But isn't a lot of this just tied to your expectations of what a TV show should do and look like? One of the things I love about this new series is that it forgoes standard TV conventions. It really is unpredictable in the sense you don't know where you'll end up one scene to the next or what character will pop up or play an important role. To some that might be confusing, to me that's thrilling.

popcorn

Quote from: Ja'moke on July 28, 2017, 01:08:50 PM
But isn't a lot of this just tied to your expectations of what a TV show should do and look like?

I don't know how to respond to this.

Um. Well, for example, I think the scene with Michael Cera was boring and pointless, and I'd happily cut it on the basis that you should remove things that are boring and pointless. Someone might then respond "Oh but that's just because it doesn't fit with your expectations of what a TV show should be". What do you say then? "I suppose I should open my mind"?

I'm aware that I'm a rather large fan, so I'm trying to be objective. Loving the intensity, plus the fact all the soap-opera filler stuff has been culled. This has been truly immersive, tense, horrifying and with a few chuckles.

For balance, it's a shame these CGI special effects are so bad.

I actually didn't want Twin Peaks to return. I thought it would be much, much worse but still blindly defended in every way by Lynch zealots. I really didn't want a catchphrase-fest. I knew this would be hailed as amazing even it it's rubbish. Maybe I'm doing that now ahhhhhh. Seriously though, it's fab. Agent Cooper is essentially absent for the entire thing, who saw that coming?

Mister Six

#34
Quote from: NoSleep on July 28, 2017, 06:20:09 AM
Mothers do not puke their young.

People do not turn pain and sorrow into creamed corn. She's a grotesque mockery of womenhood and femininity, like Grendel's mum in Beowulf.

She's also, I suspect, the "Mother" who was hammering at the door in the Purple Room.

Quote from: popcorn on July 28, 2017, 11:24:55 AM
Yes there is, they're called TV series.

I don't know why everyone is going "oh this isn't a TV series it's an 18-hour movie". The episodes are... episodic. They're episodes.

They're not episodic at all though. They don't have the structure or form of epsiodes. Plotlines and characters - prominent ones, too, like Bad Cooper this week - disappear for weeks at a time (like Lillard, who spent the best part of two months offscreen). Many of the eisodes also lack any kind of traditional act breaks or build-ups to climaxes.

It makes more sense as a very long film that has been chopped up and reassembled into parcels than as an episodic TV show. (Or a serialised one, which is what you really mean - "episodic" is something like CSI or Red Dwarf or something, with largely self-contained episodes.)

Even something like Game of Thrones, which adapts a novel with a large cast and has supporting characters that come in and out of the story is the comparable - that show still tries to build to a cliffhanger each week, and has a core cast that appear in practically every episode.

Also Wally Brando was great, so you're wrong there too, you wrongly wrongo.

Quote from: popcorn on July 28, 2017, 12:10:11 PM
I think Twin Peaks is being protected by an extraordinary degree of goodwill from viewers. The show isn't finished yet so who knows I guess, but I think Shoulders is on the money when he says the focus is confused, particularly about characters. I said in the last thread it was nice to finally see Shelly used, for example; will the same be true of James in future episodes? If not, why is he in the show? It being an 18-hour-movie isn't much of a justification for redundant elements.

This is exactly what they mean by an 18-hour movie though. If this were a two-hour movie following a traditional three-act structure, we'd be somewhere in the middle of act two right now - building up to things going horribly wrong for our heroes, and their eventual comeback.

I don't think Lynch is using a three-act structure, obviously, but my point is that in that context Shelly only now being put in peril wouldn't be unusual. It's because it's a massive movie with network-mandated cutoff points - and because you're criticising it like it's a traditional serialised show - that it seems "off".

As for James being redundant - firstly we don't know if he is, because there's still the equivalent of the Lord's of the Rings movies left to go, and secondly this is Lynch, who is more about mood and feeling than taut plots. The warmth and recognition felt in that first Roadhouse scene might be all the purpose he needed.

Also, season two should have taught you that it's better to deploy a character in small amounts for a specific purpose (even if that purpose is just to say "hey, here's what this character is up to now") than to try to wring a plotline out of someone who has no mileage left in them just so they can have a "purpose". That way lies Nadine in high school, Ben Horne as a Confederate general and James Hurley's Dime Store Double Indemnity.

Mister Six

Quote from: Captain Z on July 28, 2017, 12:23:08 PM
May be nothing, but I am drawn to the scratches on the card which suggest it has been pinned up many times. Toward the end of Series 2 Windom Earle has a series of playing cards (replaced with the faces of Shelley, Audrey and Donna as Queens, Coop as a King, himself as the Joker) pinned above the fireplace in his hideout.

Another random thought - "119" could be a date - just over a month after 10/1, 10/2.

Ooh good call on 119.

Someone on Reddit tracked down the exact brand of cards - the scratches are covering up a bit of text saying "made in China".

Hangthebuggers

Quote from: popcorn on July 28, 2017, 12:10:11 PM
I think Twin Peaks is being protected by an extraordinary degree of goodwill from viewers. The show isn't finished yet so who knows I guess, but I think Shoulders is on the money when he says the focus is confused, particularly about characters. I said in the last thread it was nice to finally see Shelly used, for example; will the same be true of James in future episodes? If not, why is he in the show? It being an 18-hour-movie isn't much of a justification for redundant elements.

I fully agree with Popcorn and Shoulders here.

Don't get me wrong - it's very good television. Intriguing, scary, heart-warming, bewildering and amusing - but for whatever reason it doesn't 'FEEL' the same as the original series, which was much more akin to a very strange soap drama. Now this isn't a criticism, but it seems to have lost something (whilst gaining something else) - I guess it's lost the cosy, small town feeling and expanded into this big world now - with less time for many of the characters that inhabited the original world. For some reason - Some of the characters just seem like they've been brought in for nothing more than nostalgia purposes, rather than anything to do with the plot or story. Or just brought in for a quick scene that doesn't really matter much....

It's still fucking amazing, but like Popcorn says, people should still be able to be critical of what is missing.

TheManOne

It's just not for you as much this time round. That's all.
It seems a strange point to be making on here, but it's entirely subjective. Your refusal to accept that people can be enjoying this more than the original is strange. Why is everyone wrong not to want what you wanted from it?

Hangthebuggers

Also another thought - Someone has mentioned how it's far more violent than original, which could be a statement of how crazy America is getting these days, maybe these shocking acts of violence are there for just that reason - to show how disturbing the modern world can be sometimes? Quite often they're punctuated between scenes of clarity and peace (such as Carl playing the guitar and then seeing the window get smashed or when Carl is chilling on the park bench and then sees that kid get run over) - It's a big leap from twee scenes of cherry pie and fish in the percolator.
Now we're witnessing nasty murders, violent assaults on women, people having their skulls crushed and gory woodsmen rubbing blood on corpses...

I just think it's a deliberate observation of how the world has changed.

Hangthebuggers

Quote from: TheManOne on July 28, 2017, 02:27:28 PM
It's just not for you as much this time round. That's all.
It seems a strange point to be making on here, but it's entirely subjective. Your refusal to accept that people can be enjoying this more than the original is strange. Why is everyone wrong not to want what you wanted from it?

Actually to be honest, once I've gotten over that gold tinted nostalgia, I'm finding this new series utterly fascinating, brilliant, amazing, surreal - I wasn't saying it's not for me, far from it, more so that it feels almost like a different place and maybe, just maybe some characters have just been brought back in as fan service perhaps?

NoSleep

#40
Quote from: Mister Six on July 28, 2017, 01:36:33 PM
People do not turn pain and sorrow into creamed corn.

That isn't really a good reason to call her the mother of BOB; there hasn't been a mention in the show about the Experiment's motherhood (only fan theorising, alongside all the "he's lost BOB" musings). The only other scene we've seen her in she was eating fresh human brains from a couple who were engaged in sex. At best, some kind of puking crucible.

QuoteShe's also, I suspect, the "Mother" who was hammering at the door in the Purple Room.

Blumf had a very good theory about the whole Purple Room sequence; that it was the exact opposite of Major Briggs' dream about Bobby, that he recounts to his son in the Double RR in season 2 (the central facts of it being that his son is knocking at the door, everything being wonderful and Bobby's future being rosy). Of course, Major Briggs shows up in the Purple Room sequence, as a disembodied head who says "Blue rose". And Ronette Pulaski specifically says it's her mother coming (and presumably knocking) in the Purple Room. So, if you are right, is Ronette the offspring of the girl in New Mexico? Probably not, as she's meant to be a schoolmate of Laura, so that would make her too young.


NoSleep

Quote from: Hangthebuggers on July 28, 2017, 02:19:06 PM
people should still be able to be critical of what is missing.

In the middle of a film? They should question why things are "missing", just as anyone would, halfway through a cinematic experience; reveals are at the director/writer's discretion. But that isn't criticism.

Ja'moke

Quote from: Hangthebuggers on July 28, 2017, 02:19:06 PM
It's still fucking amazing, but like Popcorn says, people should still be able to be critical of what is missing.

I think the difference is, some people are dissatisfied with what's missing, but others don't care or are happier with the series since those things are missing. The soap-opera stuff worked well (mostly) in the original series, but I don't think that would have played now, and it's certainly not what I personally wanted from the new series - I wanted an 18 hour FWWM, which I think is pretty close to what we've got.


Hangthebuggers

Quote from: NoSleep on July 28, 2017, 02:43:42 PM
In the middle of a film? They should question why things are "missing", just as anyone would, halfway through a cinematic experience; reveals are at the director/writer's discretion. But that isn't criticism.

A fair point, but I still think it's fair to say this isn't the cosy, golden and quirky twin peaks of yesteryear - This is a colder, bolder, sharper twin peaks isn't it? Either I didn't explain myself properly or you missed the point slightly?

Not having a pop at you, just merely trying to put my thoughts onscreen. Hope you kind of know where I'm coming from?

And yes - it's quite exciting that there's still loads more episodes left. A real treat for the senses. If anything I want more of the Eraserhead type stuff. That absolutely blows my mind.

NoSleep

Yeah I didn't mean criticism of it "not being a soap opera" as it makes no sense to add that stuff back as I suspect it wouldn't have even been put in the original series if they had known how the network was going to fuck with them. If they had known it would all come tumbling down after only two seasons and that they would have to reveal the one thing that propped all else up halfway through the 2nd season I'm sure a lot of the soap would not have made it in.

And yes... more Part 8 weirdness, please.

QDRPHNC

"Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes and Abominations of the Earth."

Wasn't it Crowley who tried to summon her with sex rituals?

TheManOne

I think one of the things which is making this series for me is the fact it feels like it belongs to Lynch and Frost in its totality. For me that's more rewarding than the multiple writers/directors etc of the original.
Perhaps that's what's making it sing to me more.

NoSleep

Quote from: QDRPHNC on July 28, 2017, 03:18:45 PM
"Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes and Abominations of the Earth."

Wasn't it Crowley who tried to summon her with sex rituals?

No. He identified his female sexual partners, when engaged in sex magick, with Babalon (sp), The Scarlet Woman, so she didn't need to be summoned.

Natnar

Quote from: Mister Six on July 28, 2017, 01:36:33 PM

As for James being redundant - firstly we don't know if he is, because there's still the equivalent of the Lord's of the Rings movies left to go, and secondly this is Lynch, who is more about mood and feeling than taut plots. The warmth and recognition felt in that first Roadhouse scene might be all the purpose he needed.



I wonder if we'll get any scenes with Bobby and James. It'd be interesting to see what their relationship is like now. Are they friends now or is there still bad blood about Laura between then?

NoSleep

We've yet to see the Bookhouse Boys and I suspect they are both members. I see Ed Hurley was at that Comic Con event and we've yet to see him up to Part 11, so that will probably be Bookhouse Boys business, too.

The guy who plays James is not a well man, though, so we may have had his token appearance.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Captain Z on July 28, 2017, 12:23:08 PM

Another random thought - "119" could be a date - just over a month after 10/1, 10/2.

Bob flies into the Twin Towers, a look of glee on his face. Major Briggs has a lucky escape at the Pentagon

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Mister Six on July 28, 2017, 01:41:33 PM
Ooh good call on 119.

Someone on Reddit tracked down the exact brand of cards - the scratches are covering up a bit of text saying "made in China".

Someone on Reddit doesn't have much of a life.

Captain Z

Quote from: BlodwynPig on July 28, 2017, 03:51:25 PM
Bob flies into the Twin Towers Peaks, a look of glee on his face. Major Briggs has a lucky escape at the Pentagon

Or, in reverse, maybe he flies out of the Twin Peaks, in a helicopter, which is what that symbol means. And if you convert that symbol in wingdings it comes out as 253.

BlodwynPig

Bob flies out of Twin Peaks on a spacehopper and is accused of murder, but says that Laura's mother just fell down the stairs.

Natnar

Quote from: BlodwynPig on July 28, 2017, 05:02:27 PM
Bob flies out of Twin Peaks on a spacehopper and is accused of murder, but says that Laura's mother just fell down the stairs.

Bob said he'd only done it because they had his bollocks in a vice

Thursday

Honestly I appreciate how it seems like this show has a get-out clause for every criticism, I've had issues with certain things, but it really is difficult to compare it to anything else.
So I do think a lot of judgement has to be reserved  and even then it's some pretty new territory, so it's hard to really talk about it through the same lens I usually would.

But there are also scenes that feel like they're there because Lynch and Frost got to do Twin Peaks again, so they wanted to check in with certain characters even if it doesn't add a huge amount. (Again, yes 18 hour movie, but I'm pretty sure that's going to end up being the case) And I don't even have an issue with that, and I think they also add as levity to the main plot threads. But it'd be interesting if they did a 4th series whether it would be more focused and if they'd do some things differently.

Mister Six

Quote from: Hangthebuggers on July 28, 2017, 02:27:34 PM
It's a big leap from twee scenes of cherry pie and fish in the percolator.
Now we're witnessing nasty murders, violent assaults on women, people having their skulls crushed and gory woodsmen rubbing blood on corpses...

Everyone always forgets that Twin Peaks was fucking brutal though - like Maddy being bloodily beaten to death on camera then having her body stuffed in a bag. Or Ronette walking like a zombie down the railroad tracks in the pilot after being beaten and raped.

The scenes here are more graphic than what came before, certainly, but they're not more graphic than a lot of other shows on the air today, like Game of Thrones - or even the very bloody Hannibal, which was shown on a network!

It's also important to remember that Twin Peaks was a lot harder, in terms of violence, sexuality and themes, than anything else seen before on American network TV. The quirky tone helped mask it a bit, but the content was decades ahead of its time. NYPD Blue still managed to shock audience's with some slightly salty language and softcore sex scenes, and that came out three years later.

The new series is absolutely more graphically violent than before, and gloomier and more oppressive in tone, but I think people think Twin Peaks was softer than it actually was - and don't appreciate how far it pushed the envelope.

QuoteI just think it's a deliberate observation of how the world has changed.

This I agree with. The town of Twin Peaks is darker and more dangerous than it used to be. The facade has crumbled and now kids are firing guns in the streets and people are barely reaching to children being run down in accidents.

I suspect this is all intended to show the world being "wrong" as something ghastly has happened.

The Giant said "it is in our house now" in the first epsiode. His house appears to be The White Lodge - it's almost certainly the same place Cooper went to in the Purple Room scenes. And there was certainly something nasty behind that  door.

If The White Lodge has been infiltrated by something nasty (I'm saying it's the Experiment/BOB's Mother) then the world in general going bad would make sense.

I think one of the returns of the title is some sense of rightness returning to the world at the end of this season.

TheManOne

Again, I think one of the reasons I'm enjoying this is because of the above. I like the way the plot is secondary to the atmosphere. But I also love that despite not really giving a fig about how it ends and where it goes, it clearly is all in there. Or at least clues for you to wrap your own understanding around.
I'm absolutely ridiculously in love with this show aren't I?
It's embarrassing.

Mister Six


NoSleep

It doesn't make sense to "put the world to rights" or even Twin Peaks, as "there's always been an evil in the woods", so to speak. That was the reason for the Bookhouse Boys, to fight the evil, constantly. That appears to be the role of the FBI, at least Gordon's wing of the FBI, too. There'll always be "something evil in the woods".