General Discussion on Season 3 (All Opinions Welcome)

Moderators: Brad D, Annie, Jonah, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne

User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3680
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by Mr. Reindeer »

SoCalPeaksFan wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:
SoCalPeaksFan wrote:Well, as with any true art, it's open to interpretation. And that's regardless of the supposed intent of the creators. Plus, I think it's a given that my opinions are my own. 'The Return' has indeed stripped enough defining elements out of Twin Peaks that it's something else entirely. Now, one can still appreciate the new work, absolutely, but does anyone deny the disconnect with the original series/film?
I think an argument can be made TP:TR's experimental, unpredictable quality is truer to the first season than most of the safe-and-comfy sitcom stuff in much of season 2.
In a meta sense that might be true, but as far as form and function of the work itself, not so much. 'The Return' is bold, but when you take risks sometimes it's a wild success as with the original Twin Peaks and sometimes it's a failure, which, so far, 'The Return' has been (in my opinion). Failure in the sense that this has NOT reached the level of Twin Peaks original run and really hasn't tried to create much continuity with that show in any substantial way. Obviously this is subject to change and maybe the next 12 episodes will put the first 6 in their proper context.
I dunno. Watch the Pilot and the first season. Then watch Nadine's cheerleading tryouts and the scene of the guys fawning over Lana. I strongly believe that that stuff is a bigger stylistic departure from what the show was originally about than the new series. YMMV.
User avatar
AgentEcho
RR Diner Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:57 am

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by AgentEcho »

laughingpinecone wrote:The way I see it, every entry in the Twin Peaks universe has already had its very distinctive personality - usually following what was best for its story. I've always found the differences between vanilla Peaks and FWWM to be not unlike the differences between either of those and TSD, MLMT, Access Guide and more recently TSHOTP. TPTR is, once again, its own thing, different from everything else that came before but well within the established range of differences. imho.
Yeah I agree with this completely. And there's always been a segment of fans who have objected every step of the way that it's deviating from what they define as "Twin Peaks". I've pointed this out before and a poster responded noting this is a common occurrence among fans, citing the example of fans who vehemently object when a band tries out a new style. I think there are some fans who would have been more happy if TPTR was a Star Wars: The Force Awakens style piece of derivative fan fiction instead of something new created by Mark Frost and David Lynch, and that's sad. It's no wonder creative freedom is so rare in this medium given the entitled expectations fans place on new works.

And I mentioned earlier in the thread, I believe there is an intentional distancing taking place in this first act. I do think eventually Lynch and Frost ultimately are interested in returning to some of the more familiar elements, but they've constructed a journey to get there that is mirroring Coop's journey to rediscover himself. But even if that didn't happen, like it or not, this series is and will forever by part of the Twin Peaks universe.
SoCalPeaksFan
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:53 pm

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by SoCalPeaksFan »

AgentEcho wrote:
SoCalPeaksFan wrote:
AgentEcho wrote:
I started a thread about this myself, but what makes you more qualified to determine what is and what isn't Twin Peaks than Mark Frost and David Lynch?
Well, as with any true art, it's open to interpretation. And that's regardless of the supposed intent of the creators. Plus, I think it's a given that my opinions are my own. 'The Return' has indeed stripped enough defining elements out of Twin Peaks that it's something else entirely. Now, one can still appreciate the new work, absolutely, but does anyone deny the disconnect with the original series/film?
Obviously you are entitled to your opinion, but what "Twin Peaks" is IMO is not subjective. It's very objective. It's a series of fictional works created by Mark Frost and David Lynch, and they define what it is. Would you go so far as to say they should call this new series, which is objectively called "Twin Peaks", something different because it doesn't meet what is in your opinion the defining characteristics? You don't need to like what they create, but whatever you think this is objectively part of the Twin Peaks franchise.
Well all true art allows subjective interpretation, especially when it's given to the public for mass consumption. No doubt "The Return" is a part of the "Twin Peaks" franchise, I think you're taking me a bit too literal here. I mean, technically, they could turn Twin Peaks into a superhero show and it'd still be a part of the franchise. So it that sense, sure, the creators define it. My whole premise is that it's such a departure from the original show and movie, it can barely be defined as Twin Peaks as it was originally conceived.

Kind of like ordering a hot dog and getting a hamburger instead, then having the cook tell you he was taking things in a new direction. There are certain criteria that makes a hot dog a hot dog.
User avatar
AgentEcho
RR Diner Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:57 am

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by AgentEcho »

Comparing a creative work of art to a food product says a lot about your perspective. A hot dog is a food product, and generally it can be customized to your taste. You don't want ketchup, but you want relish? You got it. That's not how art works. You experience art on the terms that the art was created with.
SoCalPeaksFan
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:53 pm

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by SoCalPeaksFan »

AgentEcho wrote:Comparing a creative work of art to a food product says a lot about your perspective. A hot dog is a food product, and generally it can be customized to your taste. You don't want ketchup, but you want relish? You got it. That's not how art works. You experience art on the terms that the art was created with.
I think a lot of chefs would disagree! Heh. You're missing the point of my analogy, you got caught up in the specific analogy I was making, instead of the broader point. Why call it "Twin Peaks: The Return" and radically diverge from the original source material?
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
RR Diner Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by LurkerAtTheThreshold »

AgentEcho wrote:
laughingpinecone wrote:The way I see it, every entry in the Twin Peaks universe has already had its very distinctive personality - usually following what was best for its story. I've always found the differences between vanilla Peaks and FWWM to be not unlike the differences between either of those and TSD, MLMT, Access Guide and more recently TSHOTP. TPTR is, once again, its own thing, different from everything else that came before but well within the established range of differences. imho.
Yeah I agree with this completely. And there's always been a segment of fans who have objected every step of the way that it's deviating from what they define as "Twin Peaks". I've pointed this out before and a poster responded noting this is a common occurrence among fans, citing the example of fans who vehemently object when a band tries out a new style. I think there are some fans who would have been more happy if TPTR was a Star Wars: The Force Awakens style piece of derivative fan fiction instead of something new created by Mark Frost and David Lynch, and that's sad. It's no wonder creative freedom is so rare in this medium given the entitled expectations fans place on new works.

And I mentioned earlier in the thread, I believe there is an intentional distancing taking place in this first act. I do think eventually Lynch and Frost ultimately are interested in returning to some of the more familiar elements, but they've constructed a journey to get there that is mirroring Coop's journey to rediscover himself. But even if that didn't happen, like it or not, this series is and will forever by part of the Twin Peaks universe.

The band analogy is an interesting one.
But seriously, if you went to see a band that peaked and had one or two great albums then dissapeared for twenty five years...

Would you want to see them perform their old stuff well? Or some strange experimental album thy just made that just showed how these guys who were cutting edge in their youth, have lost touch with the medium and popular culture.

Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the new series more that I know what it is. It's like listening to. Jarvis cocker solo album, rather than listening to Pulp. Or a rare, late Frank Black B side instead of the Pixies.

That's ok. But let's not pretend that a bit of fan service is totally out of the question.

The fact that these guys have been a long time I. Hiatus DOES show. To be honest, it would be a totally different story if they'd both been honing their skills all this time, maybe creating mediocre fan service series. Then they came back with one more finely tuned fuck you to apathy, showing they could still create something totally fresh - that packs as much as a punch as the old series did.

I'm not convinced that's what this is.

Theres still a lot to enjoy though
User avatar
AgentEcho
RR Diner Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:57 am

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by AgentEcho »

SoCalPeaksFan wrote:
AgentEcho wrote:Comparing a creative work of art to a food product says a lot about your perspective. A hot dog is a food product, and generally it can be customized to your taste. You don't want ketchup, but you want relish? You got it. That's not how art works. You experience art on the terms that the art was created with.
I think a lot of chefs would disagree! Heh. You're missing the point of my analogy, you got caught up in the specific analogy I was making, instead of the broader point. Why call it "Twin Peaks: The Return" and radically diverge from the original source material?
I understand your broader point, my issue with the analogy speaks to why we disagree. But let's run with that food analogy shall we? If you are eating food from one of these chefs, you gotta eat it on their terms don't you? What would the chef say if a he was preparing a fine dish that he invented and he decides to prepare it with different spices and garnishes, and you told him he should no longer call the dish by the name he gave it?

To your last question I've presented theories as to why a couple of times in this thread. We're in the opening act of this series. What if Lynch and Frost are keeping us distant and disconnected so we can journey back to the familiar with Cooper? I'm sure you are willing to let this thing play out and assess it at the end right? I'd be willing to bet there will be plenty of these "defining elements" you are talking about before this thing is over.

Even then the basic crux of where we disagree is who has the right to define what "Twin Peaks" is. I say it's Mark Frost and David Lynch, 100%. They are the only ones who have any control over it, like it or not. It's theirs to do with as they please. If they put super heroes in it, guess what? There are now super heroes in Twin Peaks, whether you like it or not. And that's how it should be. You can clarify your opinion, but you seem to be saying you have the right to define what "Twin Peaks" is, even though you have no control over it and your idea of the defining elements may be at odds with other fans or even the actual creators of the franchise. Doesn't it make a little more sense to surrender that right to the people who actually have control over it?
User avatar
AgentEcho
RR Diner Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:57 am

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by AgentEcho »

LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:


The band analogy is an interesting one.
But seriously, if you went to see a band that peaked and had one or two great albums then dissapeared for twenty five years...

Would you want to see them perform their old stuff well? Or some strange experimental album thy just made that just showed how these guys who were cutting edge in their youth, have lost touch with the medium and popular culture.

Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the new series more that I know what it is. It's like listening to. Jarvis cocker solo album, rather than listening to Pulp. Or a rare, late Frank Black B side instead of the Pixies.

That's ok. But let's not pretend that a bit of fan service is totally out of the question.

The fact that these guys have been a long time I. Hiatus DOES show. To be honest, it would be a totally different story if they'd both been honing their skills all this time, maybe creating mediocre fan service series. Then they came back with one more finely tuned fuck you to apathy, showing they could still create something totally fresh - that packs as much as a punch as the old series did.

I'm not convinced that's what this is.

Theres still a lot to enjoy though
Well the band analogy was about fan reactions. The analogy falls apart if you are comparing a live performance with a recorded one. Think of it this way, would you rather buy a new album that was the old timers replaying all their classic songs or a new album with new material?
SoCalPeaksFan
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:53 pm

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by SoCalPeaksFan »

AgentEcho wrote:
SoCalPeaksFan wrote:
AgentEcho wrote:Comparing a creative work of art to a food product says a lot about your perspective. A hot dog is a food product, and generally it can be customized to your taste. You don't want ketchup, but you want relish? You got it. That's not how art works. You experience art on the terms that the art was created with.
I think a lot of chefs would disagree! Heh. You're missing the point of my analogy, you got caught up in the specific analogy I was making, instead of the broader point. Why call it "Twin Peaks: The Return" and radically diverge from the original source material?
I understand your broader point, my issue with the analogy speaks to why we disagree. But let's run with that food analogy shall we? If you are eating food from one of these chefs, you gotta eat it on their terms don't you? What would the chef say if a he was preparing a fine dish that he invented and he decides to prepare it with different spices and garnishes, and you told him he should no longer call the dish by the name he gave it?

To your last question I've presented theories as to why a couple of times in this thread. We're in the opening act of this series. What if Lynch and Frost are keeping us distant and disconnected so we can journey back to the familiar with Cooper? I'm sure you are willing to let this thing play out and assess it at the end right? I'd be willing to bet there will be plenty of these "defining elements" you are talking about before this thing is over.

Even then the basic crux of where we disagree is who has the right to define what "Twin Peaks" is. I say it's Mark Frost and David Lynch, 100%. They are the only ones who have any control over it, like it or not. It's theirs to do with as they please. If they put super heroes in it, guess what? There are now super heroes in Twin Peaks, whether you like it or not. And that's how it should be. You can clarify your opinion, but you seem to be saying you have the right to define what "Twin Peaks" is, even though you have no control over it and your idea of the defining elements may be at odds with other fans or even the actual creators of the franchise. Doesn't it make a little more sense to surrender that right to the people who actually have control over it?
I wouldn't liken what Lynch and Frost have done to Twin Peaks this season to a different garnish, or seasoning on the same dish. I think the changes are far more significant, as if I ordered a lasagna and got a pizza. The chef can make the lasagna his own, he may add this or that, subtract this, or that. As long as it's got some of the key elements that makes lasagna, lasagna, it's fine. Start taking out major elements and it becomes something else.

I'm not trying to define (in an objective sense) what Twin Peaks is, I'm putting forward the argument that new Twin Peaks is widely divergent from the original show to the point where, personally, it's hard to see them as the same show. And since I'm a fan of the original show, I'm giving my reasons why this show doesn't hold a candle to the old one, at least not yet. And yes, you're making my point for me, Lynch can make the show into anything he wants, but I'm holding the original show as the standard in which to judge.

I don't even hate this new show, there has been a lot of classic Lynchian sequences that I love.The problem is the original Twin Peaks was, in my opinion, the top show all-time, so it's a high bar.
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
RR Diner Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by LurkerAtTheThreshold »

AgentEcho wrote:
LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:


The band analogy is an interesting one.
But seriously, if you went to see a band that peaked and had one or two great albums then dissapeared for twenty five years...

Would you want to see them perform their old stuff well? Or some strange experimental album thy just made that just showed how these guys who were cutting edge in their youth, have lost touch with the medium and popular culture.

Don't get me wrong, I'm enjoying the new series more that I know what it is. It's like listening to. Jarvis cocker solo album, rather than listening to Pulp. Or a rare, late Frank Black B side instead of the Pixies.

That's ok. But let's not pretend that a bit of fan service is totally out of the question.

The fact that these guys have been a long time I. Hiatus DOES show. To be honest, it would be a totally different story if they'd both been honing their skills all this time, maybe creating mediocre fan service series. Then they came back with one more finely tuned fuck you to apathy, showing they could still create something totally fresh - that packs as much as a punch as the old series did.

I'm not convinced that's what this is.

Theres still a lot to enjoy though
Well the band analogy was about fan reactions. The analogy falls apart if you are comparing a live performance with a recorded one. Think of it this way, would you rather buy a new album that was the old timers replaying all their classic songs or a new album with new material?

Yeah I think we're getting lost in the purple convoluted metaphor land. Better get the eyeless woman to show us the way through the correct electric socket here.

I don't want to get into an argument.

There's good and bad things about this season. It took a while to adjust to the glacial pace, but now that I have im excited to see what's going to happen.

Personally I'd love Lynch and Frost to hand the reigns over to some young blood for a season four. Do the JJ Abrams version with Christa Bell as Tamara Preston returning to Twin Peaks.

I'm sure that's not going to happen, but f we could have the best of both worlds then that world be ideal for me. A fulfilment of the creators visions, followed by a little nostalgia, mind-pop eye candy.

In the meantime let's just enjoy what we've got
User avatar
AgentEcho
RR Diner Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:57 am

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by AgentEcho »

There's nothing wrong with preferring the original show to the new one. If that's all you are saying, I have no issue with it. I actually don't think there's anything I've seen in this new series yet that has matched the brilliance of some of the greatest Lynch directed moments of the original series, or FWWM for that matter. There's been great stuff, though. But you did choose to say that by saying "this is not Twin Peaks". And it is, like it or not, is all I'm saying.

Again, this isn't over. What's the point of making such adamant, broad declarations like this is not "Twin Peaks" a third of the way through it? Are you sure you won't change your mind? I'm not flipping out that I haven't seen anything that has topped the top Lynch moments of the earlier works because there's a distinct possibility something will before this is through. Personally I think the quality of the new series pretty easily tops anything of the non Lynch directed stuff of the original series.

And yeah, I'm not going to watch a JJ Abrams Twin Peaks. We can agree to disagree.
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
RR Diner Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by LurkerAtTheThreshold »

AgentEcho wrote:There's nothing wrong with preferring the original show to the new one. If that's all you are saying, I have no issue with it. I actually don't think there's anything I've seen in this new series yet that has matched the brilliance of some of the greatest Lynch directed moments of the original series, or FWWM for that matter. There's been great stuff, though. But you did choose to say that by saying "this is not Twin Peaks". And it is, like it or not, is all I'm saying.

Again, this isn't over. What's the point of making such adamant, broad declarations like this is not "Twin Peaks" a third of the way through it? Are you sure you won't change your mind? I'm not flipping out that I haven't seen anything that has topped the top Lynch moments of the earlier works because there's a distinct possibility something will before this is through. Personally I think the quality of the new series pretty easily tops anything of the non Lynch directed stuff of the original series.

And yeah, I'm not going to watch a JJ Abrams Twin Peaks. We can agree to disagree.
I didn't mean literally JJ Abrams

But sometimes a competent director with a fans understanding of what was intriguing about something can be better than a creators eyes; who can only see the inspirations and sum of the parts of their own creations. Frost and Lynch look at Agent Cooper and see Sherlock Holmes mixed with Kyle Machlachlan, for instance. Their clearly not afraid to deconstruct their own work DOugie style in a way fans would never dream of in their worst nightmares. Creators can't see their own creation the way others see it.

There were so many directors in the original series. Imagine how glorious Peaks could be with some great writers, and a director bringing say Gyllenhall's style of directing to the Twin Peaks universe. Sometimes it's nice seeing other people's magic go into something, rather than Lynch's coin flipping over and over again
SoCalPeaksFan
New Member
Posts: 10
Joined: Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:53 pm

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by SoCalPeaksFan »

AgentEcho wrote:There's nothing wrong with preferring the original show to the new one. If that's all you are saying, I have no issue with it. I actually don't think there's anything I've seen in this new series yet that has matched the brilliance of some of the greatest Lynch directed moments of the original series, or FWWM for that matter. There's been great stuff, though. But you did choose to say that by saying "this is not Twin Peaks". And it is, like it or not, is all I'm saying.

Again, this isn't over. What's the point of making such adamant, broad declarations like this is not "Twin Peaks" a third of the way through it? Are you sure you won't change your mind? I'm not flipping out that I haven't seen anything that has topped the top Lynch moments of the earlier works because there's a distinct possibility something will before this is through. Personally I think the quality of the new series pretty easily tops anything of the non Lynch directed stuff of the original series.

And yeah, I'm not going to watch a JJ Abrams Twin Peaks. We can agree to disagree.
I hope this season turns around. There are certainly enough episodes left to do so. However, after 6 episodes, I don't feel like we've made a true return to Twin Peaks yet. This certainly hasn't been a return to Twin Peaks to me anyway, and I know others feel the same. I also know many are absolutely in love with the new season.
User avatar
AgentEcho
RR Diner Member
Posts: 314
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:57 am

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by AgentEcho »

LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:
AgentEcho wrote:There's nothing wrong with preferring the original show to the new one. If that's all you are saying, I have no issue with it. I actually don't think there's anything I've seen in this new series yet that has matched the brilliance of some of the greatest Lynch directed moments of the original series, or FWWM for that matter. There's been great stuff, though. But you did choose to say that by saying "this is not Twin Peaks". And it is, like it or not, is all I'm saying.

Again, this isn't over. What's the point of making such adamant, broad declarations like this is not "Twin Peaks" a third of the way through it? Are you sure you won't change your mind? I'm not flipping out that I haven't seen anything that has topped the top Lynch moments of the earlier works because there's a distinct possibility something will before this is through. Personally I think the quality of the new series pretty easily tops anything of the non Lynch directed stuff of the original series.

And yeah, I'm not going to watch a JJ Abrams Twin Peaks. We can agree to disagree.
I didn't mean literally JJ Abrams

But sometimes a competent director with a fans understanding of what was intriguing about something can be better than a creators eyes; who can only see the inspirations and sum of the parts of their own creations. Frost and Lynch look at Agent Cooper and see Sherlock Holmes mixed with Kyle Machlachlan, for instance. Their clearly not afraid to deconstruct their own work DOugie style in a way fans would never dream of in their worst nightmares. Creators can't see their own creation the way others see it.

There were so many directors in the original series. Imagine how glorious Peaks could be with some great writers, and a director bringing say Gyllenhall's style of directing to the Twin Peaks universe. Sometimes it's nice seeing other people's magic go into something, rather than Lynch's coin flipping over and over again

Fair enough. I mean I can see your point. At least with something like Star Wars, I understand why people would want someone else taking the reigns from George Lucas. I'm pretty sure I'm going to find whatever Rian Johnson does with Star Wars more interesting than what Lucas did with the prequels.

But for me, Lynch is on a different level. He's a singularly unique cinematic artist, on the level of Kubrick. I haven't been very impressed by attempts by other directors to do Kubrick. I'm not sure 2010 even tried, but when a director with the chops of Steven Spielberg can't do Kubrick, probably nobody but Kubrick can do Kubrick. And it's the same with Lynch. For me, there are some good non Lynch directed episodes of the original series, but the Lynch directed stuff is on another level entirely.
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
RR Diner Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

Post by LurkerAtTheThreshold »

AgentEcho wrote:
LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:
AgentEcho wrote:There's nothing wrong with preferring the original show to the new one. If that's all you are saying, I have no issue with it. I actually don't think there's anything I've seen in this new series yet that has matched the brilliance of some of the greatest Lynch directed moments of the original series, or FWWM for that matter. There's been great stuff, though. But you did choose to say that by saying "this is not Twin Peaks". And it is, like it or not, is all I'm saying.

Again, this isn't over. What's the point of making such adamant, broad declarations like this is not "Twin Peaks" a third of the way through it? Are you sure you won't change your mind? I'm not flipping out that I haven't seen anything that has topped the top Lynch moments of the earlier works because there's a distinct possibility something will before this is through. Personally I think the quality of the new series pretty easily tops anything of the non Lynch directed stuff of the original series.

And yeah, I'm not going to watch a JJ Abrams Twin Peaks. We can agree to disagree.
I didn't mean literally JJ Abrams

But sometimes a competent director with a fans understanding of what was intriguing about something can be better than a creators eyes; who can only see the inspirations and sum of the parts of their own creations. Frost and Lynch look at Agent Cooper and see Sherlock Holmes mixed with Kyle Machlachlan, for instance. Their clearly not afraid to deconstruct their own work DOugie style in a way fans would never dream of in their worst nightmares. Creators can't see their own creation the way others see it.

There were so many directors in the original series. Imagine how glorious Peaks could be with some great writers, and a director bringing say Gyllenhall's style of directing to the Twin Peaks universe. Sometimes it's nice seeing other people's magic go into something, rather than Lynch's coin flipping over and over again

Fair enough. I mean I can see your point. At least with something like Star Wars, I understand why people would want someone else taking the reigns from George Lucas. I'm pretty sure I'm going to find whatever Rian Johnson does with Star Wars more interesting than what Lucas did with the prequels.

But for me, Lynch is on a different level. He's a singularly unique cinematic artist, on the level of Kubrick. I haven't been very impressed by attempts by other directors to do Kubrick. I'm not sure 2010 even tried, but when a director with the chops of Steven Spielberg can't do Kubrick, probably nobody but Kubrick can do Kubrick. And it's the same with Lynch. For me, there are some good non Lynch directed episodes of the original series, but the Lynch directed stuff is on another level entirely.
I can see what you're saying. I loved what Lynch brought to the old seasons. And I would've agreed with you until the new season aired.


Just on a side note, the reason I think this season really suffers- is the lack of intimacy.

The old twin peaks was totally voyeristic, with the camera stuck up Shelleys skirt, and the audience privy to James and Donna burying the locket. Every moment, with every character was intimate, and the warmth of the show radiated from this warmth projecting off Cooper and the other characters. Even the villains occupied warm, red dangerous but inviting places.

This series is so cold. Snaps into the most mundane, cold, irrelevant moments of people's lives. I realise that's intentional, and that Frost and Lynch want to focus on old age and death and blah blah

But if someone was to recreate the original magic they would have to go back to narrowing in on the heat, and romance and lust and passion and emotion that made the old series what it was.

Some parts of this series remind me of a job I had editing footage of nursing homes
Post Reply