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 29, 2024, 12:12:42 AM

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

Mister Six

But the evil is out of the woods and has infected the world beyond. Twin Peaks is now more like Deer Meadow, it's ghastly twin from FWWM. Pushing the evil back would be putting the world to rights, I'd say.

NoSleep

That's why there's a constant battle. There's no winning. It's always been out of the woods.

QDRPHNC

Quote from: NoSleep on July 28, 2017, 03:26:56 PM
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.

I sometimes find you tediously literal.

Mister Six

Quote from: NoSleep on July 28, 2017, 07:09:06 PM
That's why there's a constant battle. There's no winning. It's always been out of the woods.

It was a battle to keep it contained/limited in its capacity for damage. It is no longer contained. The town of Twin Peaks is substantially more damaged than it used to be. Violence is out in the open. Bullets are flying through the windows of the R&R. There are no more places of refuge.

NoSleep

Quote from: QDRPHNC on July 28, 2017, 07:31:02 PM
I sometimes find you tediously literal.

There is a clear difference. You were inferring that The Experiment is a mother of sorts and you connected that to Crowley's sex magick. However, in the only scene involving the creature and sex it would have been Tracy who was "Babylon" or "Babalon" whose sexual activity attracted or summoned the Experiment.

As The Secret History of Twin Peaks connects Crowley and (at least one of) his pupils to the story (rocket scientist Jack Parsons) it's probably worth seeing how the whole thing relates to your analogy.

This whole "mother of BOB" thing (which you decided to defend there) is a little tedious.

NoSleep

Quote from: Mister Six on July 28, 2017, 07:39:53 PM
It was a battle to keep it contained/limited in its capacity for damage. It is no longer contained. The town of Twin Peaks is substantially more damaged than it used to be. Violence is out in the open. Bullets are flying through the windows of the R&R. There are no more places of refuge.

Yeah it's happening all the world in places as far flung as Tahiti and St Lucia, too, so I doubt very much it's all going to be down to BOB. Or that Twin Peaks is immune (it was always implied that it wasn't).

NoSleep

I'd say the source that has been clearly identified as the centre of any emerging evil was that first nuclear test. Remember that only two devices have actually been used militarily; at Hiroshima & Nagasaki. However the shadow of fear (upon which the denizens of the Black Lodge nourish themselves) that it has cast has been immense. I don't see Twin peaks ending with international nuclear disarmament. Whatever the Experiment was doing, I'd say there's a strong chance that BOB was simply attracted to the event (and may well have come from the woods way back before nuclear weapons or even Europeans were there).

Ja'moke

Quote from: Mister Six on July 28, 2017, 07:06:22 PM
But the evil is out of the woods and has infected the world beyond. Twin Peaks is now more like Deer Meadow, it's ghastly twin from FWWM. Pushing the evil back would be putting the world to rights, I'd say.

Yep. I think The Log Lady pretty much spelled this out in Part 10. The glow has gone out but there's a few good guys remaining.

BlodwynPig

Quote from: Natnar on July 28, 2017, 05:36:23 PM
Bob said he'd only done it because they had his bollocks in a vice


Ivan Vandelay Dobsky flies out of Twin Peaks on a spacehopper saying the red neon rooster made him kill those girls.

QDRPHNC

Quote from: NoSleep on July 28, 2017, 07:52:01 PM
There is a clear difference. You were inferring that The Experiment is a mother of sorts and you connected that to Crowley's sex magick. However, in the only scene involving the creature and sex it would have been Tracy who was "Babylon" or "Babalon" whose sexual activity attracted or summoned the Experiment.

As The Secret History of Twin Peaks connects Crowley and (at least one of) his pupils to the story (rocket scientist Jack Parsons) it's probably worth seeing how the whole thing relates to your analogy.

This whole "mother of BOB" thing (which you decided to defend there) is a little tedious.

I was more interested in her as the mother of prostitutes (ie. Ronette).

Mister Six

That character was played by the girl who played Ronette but she was credited as American Girl. So while there's very possibly something there about her being symbolic of prostitutes in general, she isn't - or doesn't seem to be - Ronette Pulaski herself.

Quote from: NoSleep on July 28, 2017, 08:10:11 PM
I'd say the source that has been clearly identified as the centre of any emerging evil was that first nuclear test. Remember that only two devices have actually been used militarily; at Hiroshima & Nagasaki. However the shadow of fear (upon which the denizens of the Black Lodge nourish themselves) that it has cast has been immense. I don't see Twin peaks ending with international nuclear disarmament. Whatever the Experiment was doing, I'd say there's a strong chance that BOB was simply attracted to the event (and may well have come from the woods way back before nuclear weapons or even Europeans were there).

It seems to me that the explosion opened up the door between two worlds, allowing things - the Woodsmen in particular - through, and causing BOB to be "born".

It's not just about fear, it's about fire - certain types of which are used by spirits to travel to and around our world. Electricity is one form of this fire, according to Hawk in the latest episode. And sure enough electricity (and TV static) is linked visually to the Room Above the Convenience Store in FWWM and the passage of the dead boy's soul after Richard hits him.

Note that the Woodmen's flickering appearance around the gas station/convenience store in episode 8 is compared visually with static during the Threnody to the Victims of Hiroshima sequence.

Rev

Quote from: popcorn on July 28, 2017, 12:10:11 PM
I'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.

Those kind of reactions can fuck off, but there are also fake criticisms along the lines of 'this isn't Twin Peaks' that are also wrong-headed.  Saying that it it doesn't have the feel or approach of original series is just a statement of the obvious that carries the inevitable 'which is what I wanted'.

There are loads of things that can be criticised about the new series, but disliking it for being different is a reaction, not a valid criticism.

BlodwynPig

After watching Biggy's recommendation: a documentary on Night Trap game, I am sure the Woodsmen are actually Augs.

Howj Begg

Quote from: Rev on July 28, 2017, 11:35:17 PM
Those kind of reactions can fuck off, but there are also fake criticisms along the lines of 'this isn't Twin Peaks' that are also wrong-headed.  Saying that it it doesn't have the feel or approach of original series is just a statement of the obvious that carries the inevitable 'which is what I wanted'.

There are loads of things that can be criticised about the new series, but disliking it for being different is a reaction, not a valid criticism.

I just want to note again that the reason I think it's not Twin Peaks, is not because I wanted a direct return to the original feel/atmsophere/soap opera of the first two seasons, it's because it seems obvious to me that Lynch bolted on the scripts and ideas he was already developing onto Twin Peaks. This is why there is little about the town or inhabitants of Twin Peaks so far. The meat of the story so far has happened in Las Vegas, New York, Buckhorn, with entirely other characters and plot arcs. This is despite any 'convergence' that happens in the next few eps.

I think post-series documentary evidence will bear out my assertion about this.

Anyway, leaving that aside, I'm preferring a good half of what I'm seeing here, especially the more far-out stuff, to a lot of original TP, which I love, but do not desire to go back to again regularly. It has indeed had its time, but I couldn't have predicted what kind of magic Lynch may have used to partially resurrect it. He didn't, and that's fine. It disappointed me at first but that's because of the use of the name. This was used to get funding to put what Lynch wanted to see on screen. And that tricking of the TV execs and of us is ultimately something I'm grateful for. It's for our own good, he's giving us what we didn't know we wanted.

newbridge

This season is so much better than the original Twin Peaks, what is even the point of this debate.

Howj Begg

Quote from: newbridge on July 29, 2017, 12:10:09 AM
This season is so much better than the original Twin Peaks, what is even the point of this debate.

I don't think that is the debate, but if it was, I'm guessing comparing people's tastes of the original vs the The Return would be the point of that debate. 

newbridge

Quote from: Howj Begg on July 29, 2017, 12:24:13 AM
I don't think that is the debate, but if it was, I'm guessing comparing people's tastes of the original vs the The Return would be the point of that debate.

I meant what is the point of debating whether this is the "real" Twin Peaks or not. First, Twin Peaks is obviously whatever its creators say it is. Second, this season is so much better what does it even matter if it's showing appropriate fealty to a 25-year-old show.

Howj Begg

Quote from: newbridge on July 29, 2017, 12:29:49 AM
I meant what is the point of debating whether this is the "real" Twin Peaks or not. First, Twin Peaks is obviously whatever its creators say it is. Second, this season is so much better what does it even matter if it's showing appropriate fealty to a 25-year-old show.

The point, if I can put it even more succinctly,  is that you and I are posting to a message board, where people discuss these things. When you're discussing a work of art, I don't understand how you can possibly avoid questions of quality, of differing tastes among different viewers, of comparisons with a previous artists' work (especially relevant in the case of a sequel to a much-loved work; look up public reactions to Alice Through the Looking Glass or Women in Love, for example). I really fail to understand how you can think such questions or thoughts are illegitimate.

And you know  I don't think it's not TP literally. That's a facile point.

Rev

Quote from: Howj Begg on July 28, 2017, 11:52:16 PM
it seems obvious to me that Lynch bolted on the scripts and ideas he was already developing onto Twin Peaks. This is why there is little about the town or inhabitants of Twin Peaks so far.other characters and plot arcs..
I think post-series documentary evidence will bear out my assertion about this.

It's not really a spoiler to say that an insider estimated that 40% of the series takes place in Twin Peaks.  That's not as much as many would want, but we have to accept that it has a wider focus at this point.  I'm guessing, though, that we'll be there and nowhere else for the last few episodes.

Howj Begg

Quote from: Rev on July 28, 2017, 11:35:17 PM
Those kind of reactions can fuck off, but there are also fake criticisms along the lines of 'this isn't Twin Peaks' that are also wrong-headed.  Saying that it it doesn't have the feel or approach of original series is just a statement of the obvious that carries the inevitable 'which is what I wanted'.

There are loads of things that can be criticised about the new series, but disliking it for being different is a reaction, not a valid criticism.


Quote from: newbridge on July 29, 2017, 12:29:49 AM
I meant what is the point of debating whether this is the "real" Twin Peaks or not. First, Twin Peaks is obviously whatever its creators say it is. Second, this season is so much better what does it even matter if it's showing appropriate fealty to a 25-year-old show.


I just wonder if people who say this kind of stuff have ever been in a literature or film or media studies class/seminar? Cos discussing differing tones of works of art, why that might be, people's visceral and considered reactions, and the motivations of the artists are like basic discussion points. I can only think if you tried to bring up some of the antagonistic stuff quoted above in classes your fellow students would swiftly tell you to fuck off for trying to repress their viewpoints and responses.

Almost feels as if you're afraid of reading other people's reactions, as it may somehow make you like this show less; or perhaps you're overegging your responses to internally crush any doubts you might have about what you've seen. Other people's views, opinions and doubts are not going to make this show any less of what it is for you. And admitting doubt about some aspect while still acknowledging its scorching brilliance (as some here are doing, like me) is not something you should be reacting so badly to. It's not healthy as well as being inane.

newbridge

<insert equally pedantic post about how maybe you could just try enjoying a piece of art for once and letting it wash over you rather than attempting to invent flaws to fulfill your duty as "critic">

Howj Begg

Quote from: newbridge on July 29, 2017, 12:56:56 AM
<insert equally pedantic post about how maybe you could just try enjoying a piece of art for once and letting it wash over you rather than attempting to invent flaws to fulfill your duty as "critic">

remember the format we're on.

Twed


Rev

Right, side issue, but let's get this settled.  Floor of the Red Room.

It's brown and cream.  Coffee and cream.  Why does every bastard including people making merchandise think it's black and white?

Captain Z

What? I saw it as white and gold.

JimFromTheMoon

  I did always think it was black and white, but upon closer inspection it does seem to have sepia-tone about it.

  I also agree that we should be able to discuss all aspects of the show and have our own opinions, while being aware that it is a new piece of art, both tightly and loosely linked to the original series, while also being aware that it is unfinished.  It's exciting to dissect and speculate, but at the end of the day we are still a ways away from the climax, and we should be aware of that.  I don't mind people saying they don't like it, or don't like whatever aspects of it, but it seems a bit silly to have such a solid opinion one way or the other at this stage of the game.  It also seems like sometimes this thread can be a bit "bitchy" for lack of a better word.  Jumping at each other, getting too literal, showing off, blah blah whatever.  Just seems like there are some unnecessary bad vibes sometimes.  Anyway, those are my two cents (worth every penny).  Though, I do love coming here and deconstructing this most amazing of TV events with you freaks. [end of transmission]

Ja'moke

Quote from: Howj Begg on July 28, 2017, 11:52:16 PM
I just want to note again that the reason I think it's not Twin Peaks, is not because I wanted a direct return to the original feel/atmsophere/soap opera of the first two seasons, it's because it seems obvious to me that Lynch bolted on the scripts and ideas he was already developing onto Twin Peaks. This is why there is little about the town or inhabitants of Twin Peaks so far. The meat of the story so far has happened in Las Vegas, New York, Buckhorn, with entirely other characters and plot arcs. This is despite any 'convergence' that happens in the next few eps.

I think post-series documentary evidence will bear out my assertion about this.

The problem with this is you keep forgetting about Mark Frost, as if he didn't co-write the entire thing and a whole tie-in book (which Lynch had no part in) that covers many of the same themes and topics as in the new series. I think this is the story both men wanted to tell and it is still very much tied to the world of Twin Peaks. It's not just a Lynch film using the Twin Peaks name.
]

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quote from: newbridge on July 29, 2017, 12:29:49 AM
this season is so much better what does it even matter if it's showing appropriate fealty to a 25-year-old show.

This unqualified assertion certainly made me change my mind...

mothman

Quote from: Captain Z on July 29, 2017, 01:50:18 AM
What? I saw it as white and gold.

Surely it's black and... blue..?

Can we stop arguing about whether it's "proper" Twin Peaks, please? It's like watching Biggy in the Who thread, I'm seeing the same arguments over again. "It's NOT just Lynch's latest weirdfest ... because Frost's name is on it too." "It doesn't matter if it's not what YOU think TP should be - because it's THE BEST THING EVARRRRR and *I* like it more than anything in the universe, so there."

I think even we doubters would agree that, on the balance of probabilities, for better or worse, for richer or ... poorer? ... it is TP. And we can ALL agree that it is an incredible artistic achievement. So, in return, could the fanatics agree that, when a TV show is revived due to people's love of it (and all sorts of people loved different things about it) and the revival is heavily promoted to play on that fondness, they might then be justified in feeling just a TINY bit put out that they didn't get what they thought they were being promised?

Quote from: mothman on July 29, 2017, 09:31:42 AM
I think even we doubters would agree that, on the balance of probabilities, for better or worse, for richer or ... poorer? ... it is TP. And we can ALL agree that it is an incredible artistic achievement. So, in return, could the fanatics agree that, when a TV show is revived due to people's love of it (and all sorts of people loved different things about it) and the revival is heavily promoted to play on that fondness, they might then be justified in feeling just a TINY bit put out that they didn't get what they thought they were being promised?

I'm sure everyone will be relieved to know I think they can feel any way they like about Twin Peaks. Hell, I bought the Showtime app just for Twin Peaks, and I'm not exactly rolling in dough, so I get that some people are justifiably upset if they felt mislead. But at the same time (and maybe paradoxically) it's the consumerist attitude towards art that often gets under my skin. Even the most challenging and provocative works of art require an admission fee at some stage. So is it morally wrong to ask people to pay money for something if the aim isn't to please them completely and utterly? Or is it just that it's misleading to take a recognizable brand like Twin Peaks and not make something for general audiences?

The comments that annoy me are the ones that paint it as if Lynch and Frost set out to make something for general audiences but failed, due to incompetency. But that's just a vibe. It's hard to criticize a vibe because people can easily say that's not what they meant.