Twin Peaks (2017) [Showtime/Sky Atlantic] [** Spoilers **]

Sad Professor

dark crystal wrote: »

What episode are we supposed to be up to now? I have just finished episode 4 - has episode 5 been 'released' yet?

Yeah 4 is the latest. Part 5 airs on Sunday.

Fago123

4 episodes in and it's becoming increasingly clear that this is pure unadulterated Lynch with little or no network interference, totally free to put whatever he wants to put on screen, creatively & artistically unrestricted......and I couldn't be happier!

Brief_Lives

..... yet I also couldn?t be more confused....

froog

sugarman wrote:

It done very poor at the box office, and received pretty mixed criticism at the time. Its only in recent months/years its gained a bit of a cult status, even more so than the series upping its rating on the likes of Rotten Tomatoe.

sugarman wrote:

Its been a few years since I watched it, but I thought it was absolutely rubbish at the time. It felt forced, rushed and pretty much relayed the same story as the series with no new ideas, not to mention the recasting.

Not a great film, but Lynch has said it's very relevant to this season.

mzungu

Brief_Lives wrote: »

..... yet I also couldn?t be more confused....

You just need to go with it

Galwayguy35

The original 2 series were a bit out there so I knew what to expect but there was at least a story to follow.

I'm hoping this series gets back to the real world soon because episodes 2 and 4 were totally bonkers.

Wolverine359

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

The original 2 series were a bit out there so I knew what to expect but there was at least a story to follow.

I'm hoping this series gets back to the real world soon because episodes 2 and 4 were totally bonkers.

There's definitely a story, but it's just being told in a very unconventional way (to say the least) and leaving lots of questions and mysteries to unravel.

batistuta9

sugarman wrote: »

Its been a few years since I watched it, but I thought it was absolutely rubbish at the time. It felt forced, rushed and pretty much relayed the same story as the series with no new ideas, not to mention the recasting.

It done very poor at the box office, and received pretty mixed criticism at the time. Its only in recent months/years its gained a bit of a cult status, even more so than the series upping its rating on the likes of Rotten Tomatoe.

Its definitely not a must see and doesn't hold much bearing on the current series, not of that big a significance anyway.

Watch if it you've nothing better I guess.

Phillip jefferies, The ring, blue rose all from FWWM. Significant enough so far

Achasanai

I thought some of the references and people being mentioned were new to this season, but looks like I'll have to watch the film. It might help trying to figure out what's going on.

I'm not sure how I feel about it after four episodes, but to be honest, I managed to sift through a lot of the crap season 2 episodes, so I'll obviously persevere.

Well, as long as Michael Cera doesn't make a reappearance. Really hope that was just a cameo. I kinda got used to Andy & Lucy becoming these nearly slapstick characters (especially Andy) in season 2, but my heart sinks whenever the two of them come on screen.

ShaneU

As a UFC fan, Michael Bisping showing up in this has got to be one of the most bizarre, unexpected cameos ever.

Wally Brando's scene...I don't know what to make of it, was he intentionally acting terribly? it was painful to watch regardless.

johnny_ultimate

Been a long time since a TV show grabbed me so completely. Adore how it's in no rush whatsoever, happy to indulge every strange, amusing, terrifying or even beautiful idea and aside.

Episode 5 continues being superb. Favourite moment was that spectacular, ecstatic Amanda Seyfried close-up - the sort of expressive, cinematic image that separates Lynch from the pack. Special kudos to Naomi Watts - as Mullholland Drive proved, she is uniquely tuned in to Lynch's wavelength, and she's fitting right into this dream world.

lawlolawl

Shocking amount of blatant product placement in this show.

Suppose it's necessary to Lynchs artistic vision or some ****.

ShaneU

Haven't a clue what's going on but I'm loving it. Spacer Dale is so funny.

Robert Knepper in T-Bag mode was great!

looie

lawlolawl wrote: »

Shocking amount of blatant product placement in this show.

Suppose it's necessary to Lynchs artistic vision or some ****.

What's more shocking is that you hated the first four episodes yet continue to watch it.

Suppose it's necessary as a means for self-punishment or some ****.

oneilla

looie wrote: »

What's more shocking is that you hated the first four episodes yet continue to watch it.

Suppose it's necessary as a means for self-punishment or some ****.

I've seen comments online to the effect "but, but, but... it's an 18 hour movie so don't judge it based on the first few episodes". And then other people saying "why did you watch this far into it if you don't like it". No negative criticism is valid to Lynch fans.

I personally loved the first series but this new one to me is just a plotless clusterf**k that is totally incoherent. It's a series of random scenes jumbled up together but people are looking into them as if they have meaning and saying there'll be a payoff. I doubt there will be a satisfying payoff but I stand to be corrected.

one armed dwarf

Yeah, not really loving the new series. Pacing wise and even in tone it's kind of reminding me of late-run Breaking Bad (s4/s5). Very long scenes with drip-fed plot progression which can make watching a single episode kind of a joyless thing if you're not a fan of that kind of narrative style.

I'm interested to see where it all goes but a lot of the scenes aren't very interesting and the kookiness seems less genuine. A lot of the original cast feel reduced to boring cameo roles. A bit inevitable I guess with such a long time between series but it makes me sad. I hope at least Bobby becomes more relevant considering the Major Briggs stuff. I read that this was basically filmed as an 18 hours feature and Lynch 'found' the episodes in editing and that undisciplined free-form approach comes across here I think.

Lynch is best when working within the confines of a single TV episode (as he did several times during the original run of TP) or a feature film. With this much freedom I feel like there's a price to be paid. See Inland Empire. Kind of a sense also that there's not a whole lot of new ideas from Lynch here either. Episode 3 had some heavy Eraserhead vibes. There's been a bit of Mulholland Dr. with the Dougie scenes. A little Blue Velvet in this new episode. Kind of feels like a 'best of' if that makes sense with not a lot that feels genuinely new.

Great scene tho when Coop recognises

Bob is still with him in the mirror

. Still excited to see Twin Peaks get resolved at last.

Anyway that's my hot take on new Twin Peaks.

(Someone let me know the spoiler etiquette for episodes that are just aired)

edit: As an aside I bought the Twin Peaks blurays the other week and they're a fantastic collection. Looks gorgeous and presented very well, comes with the movie and international pilot also.

Sad Professor

Loving it so far. Totally unlike anything else on tv.

Lynch's meandering first act is starting to take shape. I'm thinking Becky (Seyfried) and Richard (the psycho in the bar, whose identity the end credits give away) will prove very important characters. Richard is one of the two people the Giant mentioned to Cooper in Part 1. The other was Linda, who we have yet to meet, but is possibly his twin sister ("two birds with the one stone").

Galwayguy35

But isn't the aim of any TV series to be a commercial success and make money?

I know this series will appeal to die hard Lynch fans but to the wider audience (and I include myself in this group) it's making no sense at all so far after 5 episodes.

one armed dwarf

It's got a bit of The Hobbit about it I feel. I'm not necessarily against showing Coop having a hard time re-adjusting to life in a 3D plane (because I guess he was out of space and time in the Black Lodge) but we've had 3 episodes of it now. That casino scene was a very subjective thing I think. Some people seemed to love it and make loads of memes but it just feels like the creators are wasting your time I feel. Do these scenes have to be so long?

Course it calls to mind the weird scenes with the butler at the start of the season 2 premiere (rewatched just a while ago). But even then that was one episode.

johnny_ultimate

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

But isn't the aim of any TV series to be a commercial success and make money?

For Showtime? Sure, and it seems the show has achieved that to some degree if their boost in online subscribers is to be believed. For David Lynch? **** no. And as a viewer I'd rather a show be a go-for-broke artistic accomplishment over it being guaranteed another season (both would be nice).

This is actually a central reason I find TV a less exciting medium than film, most of the time. TV is an aggressively commercial medium, and even great shows often slot neatly into broad generic markers (even a magnum opus like The Wire is a police / crime thriller at its heart, even if it ultimately transcends that). A few oddities from the continent aside - an Out 1 here, a Dekalog there - TV's serialised nature and multi-writer/director nature can create some terrific drama, but despite the luxurious running times often feels tethered to genre and indeed commercial storytelling norms.

While the situation has improved in recent years with a number of artistically assured programmes - Louis CK's two shows, for example, feel like auteur productions - there is little of the more freeform, formally ambitious fare that is commonplace in cinema. Film has a production environment that allows for the funding and distribution of 'arthouse' film alongside the more commercial fare.

Which is why Twin Peaks season 3 feels like a shot in the arm, and for me a much needed one. It has little regard for the conventions of the medium, instead indulging in the wildest ideas Lynch and Frost can conjure up. It is happy to dedicate 20 minutes to a sequence of relentless surrealism, or bring in Hollywood stars for utterly bizarre one-scene cameos. It is as if not more concerned with mise en scene as it is with providing a weekly narrative hook- and even in a world that gives us great shows like Transparent, Better Call Saul, or Fargo, it exists in its own plain. That this got made in its current form, with a major producer apparently giving one of American cinema's most determinedly non-commercial filmmakers free creative reign, is as unlikely as it is exciting.

All that said, and as someone who finds the abstract nature of this season pretty extraordinary, I don't think it is entirely without traditional hooks either. The Dougie stuff is taking its time, but its moving forward and offering clear resolution to a two-decade old cliffhanger (from a show always known for being a bit weird). Narrative arcs for several characters have emerged, as have a few central mysteries that Lynch and Frost are checking in on (most) episodes. That the show is happier to indulge in sizeable, odd asides is undoubtedly, shall we say, divisive - and I can easily see how this is frustrating to many viewers. But a defiant refusal to adhere to TV norms - commercially and formally - is one of its many pleasures for me so far

Wolverine359

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Been a long time since a TV show grabbed me so completely. Adore how it's in no rush whatsoever, happy to indulge every strange, amusing, terrifying or even beautiful idea and aside.

Episode 5 continues being superb. Favourite moment was that spectacular, ecstatic Amanda Seyfried close-up - the sort of expressive, cinematic image that separates Lynch from the pack. Special kudos to Naomi Watts - as Mullholland Drive proved, she is uniquely tuned in to Lynch's wavelength, and she's fitting right into this dream world.

That was my favourite part of the episode too, the Amanda Seyfried scene with I Love How You Love Me playing was perfection. And yes, we need more Naomi Watts.

Burgo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

All that said, and as someone who finds the abstract nature of this season pretty extraordinary, I don't think it is entirely without traditional hooks either. The Dougie stuff is taking its time, but its moving forward and offering clear resolution to a two-decade old cliffhanger (from a show always known for being a bit weird). Narrative arcs for several characters have emerged, as have a few central mysteries that Lynch and Frost are checking in on (most) episodes. That the show is happier to indulge in sizeable, odd asides is undoubtedly, shall we say, divisive - and I can easily see how this is frustrating to many viewers. But a defiant refusal to adhere to TV norms - commercially and formally - is one of its many pleasures for me so far

The season so far has been fantastic overall imo. As others have said the Amanda Seyfried car scene is fantastic. My main complaint at the moment is the Dougie stuff, it's become very grating at this stage.

mzungu

Lynch tells the story the way he wants. I think it is a good thing that he has been allowed complete artistic freedom, it separates TP from just about every other show out there.

riffmongous

Soul destroying stuff, I feel like I'm wasting my time watching this to the point I've started skipping through scenes. It's just not feeling anything like Twin Peaks to me.

Sad Professor

The darkest episode so far with the irritating sweetness of some characters being cancelled out by the unremitting nastiness of others. If ever this world needed the spiritual optimism of Dale Cooper its now. And yet even in Dougie form, you can see the old Dale shining through. A lot of musical score in this episode which I attribute to the first stirrings of old Dale within Dougie. His unconventional approach to the case files (drawing pictures all over them) is so Dale Cooper. He's even starting to look and dress more like himself.

I'm guessing that the pages Hawk found in the bathroom are extracts from Laura Palmer's diary containing Annie's message about good Dale being trapped in the Lodge.

jpm4

I suppose it's just possible that at the end of 18 hours of this, I will concede that the amount of time taken so far on catatonic state Cooper will be just right. But I doubt it. Complete artistic freedom is not always a good thing - Star Wars Prequels spring to mind.

Sad Professor

My favourite quote:

"Jade gives two rides"
"I bet she did"

Naomi Watts is brilliant in this. I was expecting her to have a cameo but it's looking more and more like she and her son will play into the story in a big way.

doxy

They need to draw a line under this Dougie/Zombie Cooper stuff immediately. It got old 2 episodes ago. It's ruining the entire show.

ixoy

I am enjoying the show and Lynch's approach but I am also now hoping that they move on with the Coop/Duggie-zombie thing. We're a third of the way in and I'd like a bit more time with the Cooper we knew. Will Diane be the trigger to bring him back then?

Sad Professor

I reckon Diane will be more involved with the Mr C storyline. They still don't know that the good Cooper was trapped in the Lodge, but I expect they will find out soon.

Even when old Cooper wakes up I expect he won't be quite himself or a twist will send the story spiralling off in another direction. Lynch's post-Twin Peaks work is defined by the lack of conventionally good and heroic male characters like Cooper. It's not a character that Lynch finds interesting. Even in the original series, Cooper in Lynch's hands was generally ineffective, failing to save anyone and ending up trapped in the Lodge. That doesn't mean 12 more episodes of The Dougie Jones Show, but the series is called The Return. Cooper will get back to Twin Peaks eventually but I don't think it will happen until the third act.

Arcade_Tryer

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

This is actually a central reason I find TV a less exciting medium than film, most of the time. TV is an aggressively commercial medium, and even great shows often slot neatly into broad generic markers (even a magnum opus like The Wire is a police / crime thriller at its heart, even if it ultimately transcends that)

Why is that something to be criticised though? Crime is the natural state of humanity, only circumvented by civilisation and society. It's really not a surprise that the two finest television series ever made surround the inner workings of a New Jersey mafia organisation and a Baltimore drugs operation. The police/crime thriller part is not a problem, or a negative, of its self, but rather how its treated and portrayed by the creators of the show.

Turpentine

Absolutely amazing season so far.

To be honest it feels more like a David Lynch magnum opus of everything he's done so far rather than a straight Twin Peaks follow up, but that's why I love it.

I can understand the quams about the Dougie storyline - I can't wait to see Agent Cooper back myself - but I'm enjoying those Dougie scenes for what they are rather than just as the build up to Cooper's return.

I'm so glad that they have the 18 episode run set in stone.

one armed dwarf

I wonder if a fan-edit could fix the boring scenes.

Read a comment on another message board which said you shouldn't judge it yet because it's only the first third of an 18 hours film...

mloc123

jpm4 wrote: »

I suppose it's just possible that at the end of 18 hours of this, I will concede that the amount of time taken so far on catatonic state Cooper will be just right. But I doubt it. Complete artistic freedom is not always a good thing - Star Wars Prequels spring to mind.

I don't think you can compare Twin Peaks to the money grab prequels that Lucas made..

Sad Professor

one armed dwarf wrote: »

Read a comment on another message board which said you shouldn't judge it yet because it's only the first third of an 18 hours film...

I've seen people say this and it's nonsense. You absolutely can judge the show on the episodes aired to date and if you decide you don't like it you should stop watching it.

I could never understand people who watched Lost until the end despite only liking the first season. What did they think was going to happen in the last episode to make them like the preceding 90 hours? Nobody watches movies this way, yet with tv there seems to be some compulsion to hate-watch stuff.

one armed dwarf

I will watch it but I'm sitting out the next few weeks until reception seems to pick up. Haven't seen this week's yet.

It's just not very interesting right now and not really clear what it's trying to be about. Even the doldrums of season 2 had the black lodge mystery and the guy with the disguises who's name I've forgotten

riffmongous

Turpentine wrote: »

Absolutely amazing season so far.

To be honest it feels more like a David Lynch magnum opus of everything he's done so far rather than a straight Twin Peaks follow up, but that's why I love it.

I can understand the quams about the Dougie storyline - I can't wait to see Agent Cooper back myself - but I'm enjoying those Dougie scenes for what they are rather than just as the build up to Cooper's return.

I'm so glad that they have the 18 episode run set in stone.

And that's why I don't like it. I can understand people appreciating it on it's own merits and see the worth in making it. But I just wish they had never decided to make it 'Twin Peaks' if it's to be like this, in fact I'd even be able to enjoy it if I could treat it as just a stand alone work, but I was expecting Twin Peaks and I want to see the old Twin Peaks.. all the little references and close to pointless cameos of the old characters are just a frustrating tease buried in an hour long slog.

riffmongous

one armed dwarf wrote: »

I wonder if a fan-edit could fix the boring scenes.

Read a comment on another message board which said you shouldn't judge it yet because it's only the first third of an 18 hours film...

Yeah, some self editing is pretty much my plan at this stage, I will just watch it 3-4 episodes at a time and skip through anything boring or dragged out.

riffmongous

Sad Professor wrote: »

I've seen people say this and it's nonsense. You absolutely can judge the show on the episodes aired to date and if you decide you don't like it you should stop watching it.

I could never understand people who watched Lost until the end despite only liking the first season. What did they think was going to happen in the last episode to make them like the preceding 90 hours? Nobody watches movies this way, yet with tv there seems to be some compulsion to hate-watch stuff.

Closure I'd say, tv shows, books and computers games have the space to tell more sprawling and in depth stories than movies and if you get invested at the start you want to know how it ends.

jpm4

mloc123 wrote: »

I don't think you can compare Twin Peaks to the money grab prequels that Lucas made..

There are similarities - both hugely popular originals that both creators had to compromise their vision for (due to budget/technology limitations/studio pressure/whatever). When the makers eventually came back to their creations with essentially a blank cheque to do whatever they wanted, the results IMO are not even close.

Another thought - Mullholland Drive was originally a rejected TV pilot, so Lynch was forced into making it a film. Not his original intention, but ended up with arguably the most critically acclaimed film of the 21st century.

Nervous Wreck

Sad Professor wrote: »

I've seen people say this and it's nonsense. You absolutely can judge the show on the episodes aired to date and if you decide you don't like it you should stop watching it.

I could never understand people who watched Lost until the end despite only liking the first season. What did they think was going to happen in the last episode to make them like the preceding 90 hours? Nobody watches movies this way, yet with tv there seems to be some compulsion to hate-watch stuff.

I hate-watch movies often; it's loadsa fun!

Sad Professor

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I hate-watch movies often; it's loadsa fun!

Yeah but they are probably sequels or adaptations or genre films that you have strong ideas about. Perhaps its the same with tv hate-watching to an extent. But I still think people are more likely to switch off a movie half way through than they are a tv show. Maybe as riffmongous said, the need for closure is stronger with tv because of the time investment. Movies are shorter and can be easily consumed in a single sitting, or you are paying for them and feel obliged to watch to them to the end. They are also more likely to be viewed in a communal setting or in the company of friends where the quality of the film is mostly irrelevant. Where as people are more likely to watch tv alone or in pairs where they could just switch to another station/stream or walk out of the room without it costing them a penny. It takes effort to hate-watch a tv show.

pickarooney

Sad Professor wrote: »

I've seen people say this and it's nonsense. You absolutely can judge the show on the episodes aired to date and if you decide you don't like it you should stop watching it.

I could never understand people who watched Lost until the end despite only liking the first season. What did they think was going to happen in the last episode to make them like the preceding 90 hours? Nobody watches movies this way, yet with tv there seems to be some compulsion to hate-watch stuff.

People absolutely do watch films this way, either due to the sunk costs fallacy or blind optimism that a third act twist will salvage a thus-far mediocre film, particularly when it's a sequel to a film they love.

one armed dwarf

I think it's not that strange that people would be invested enough in Twin Peaks to want to know the outcome even if they hate the new episodes.

But it's probably best to sit it out until a few more are out and wait for some light spoilers or something. I remember hate-watching Dexter up until season 8 and having to tap out because season 8 was such a dip even by Dexter standards. Had like 5 episodes left.

briany

I can see the parallels between people wishing for the story of The Return to pick up, and ABC applying pressure to resolve certain mysteries surrounding Laura Palmer's death in the first two series. Presumably that pressure came about in part because ABC were worried about ratings as it slowly dawned on the audience that the investigations were only one component of the show and not the central focus.

In the same way, in series 3, Coop/Dougie Jones are the main thing of this revival, but maybe not the center. The other Cooper doesn't even appear in episode 6. It's very possible that the tracks being laid - some of them won't even go anywhere and their only purpose is to create a sensory experience for the viewer. Others still will go round and round, and some will go into a dark tunnel where we can't see what's happening.

I'd like to see a resolution to what is shaping up to be the main storyline, but at the same time, maybe neat endings were never the point of Twin Peaks, and in wanting a neat resolution, I'm of the mindset that helped drive TP off the rails back in the early 90s.

Achasanai

I'm amazed at the quality of bands they get to play in a small bar in a tiny town.

Lirange

Don Murray (Dougie's boss) lookin good at 87.

briany

Great stuff this week. Feels like the pieces laid in place are really starting to be put into play. Much more of consecutive scenes that were linked and advancing some plot element and much less of scenes leaving you going, "Wait, what's this got to do with anything?"

riffmongous

I decided to go watch it after hearing it was a good episode and I really enjoyed it, it seemed more focused, and luckily for me it was focused on the stuff I wanted to see. The only thing I didn't like was the floor sweeping scene, but I guessed what was coming so I just skipped it

RainMakerToo

Noticed something at the end of this week's episode!

Song playing in the diner at the end of the episode was a version of this:

Which was also used in a 1992 film Sleepwalkers: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0105428/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1 with Madchen Amick as one of the stars... just thought that seemed pretty cool! May be just coincidence

Really enjoyed the last 2 episodes!