Dead Dog wrote:While I think it's possible we'll see Harry, Annie, or maybe even Josie, I can't imagine why they'd bring back Sam Stanley. He really means nothing to the mythos and if he were returning for some bizarre reason, why would it be a secret?
A surprise appearance by Kiefer Sutherland would generate a ton of extra publicity for the show.
That's a really bad reason to do something like that, IMO.
Why? I see nothing wrong with withholding a celebrity's name from the cast list to get a surprise promotional bang when he showed up. The release of the cast list in and of itself was a calculated promotional move, and I think if anyone was withheld, it's likely to be either Ontkean (for one surprise scene) or a major celebrity whose surprise appearance could generate headlines. Sutherland, Bowie and Graham are the only people who I think have that level of name recognition -- but I really doubt that Bowie shot anything, and Graham's presence would have been so expected (for at least a scene) that her absence makes me uneasy and confused.
I'm confident that L/F wouldn't include Sam without a solid story reason. But if they did, it makes perfect sense that they would withhold Sutherland from the cast list.
madeleineferguson wrote:
A surprise appearance by Kiefer Sutherland would generate a ton of extra publicity for the show.
That's a really bad reason to do something like that, IMO.
Why? I see nothing wrong with withholding a celebrity's name from the cast list to get a surprise promotional bang when he showed up. The release of the cast list in and of itself was a calculated promotional move, and I think if anyone was withheld, it's likely to be either Ontkean (for one surprise scene) or a major celebrity whose surprise appearance could generate headlines. Sutherland, Bowie and Graham are the only people who I think have that level of name recognition -- but I really doubt that Bowie shot anything, and Graham's presence would have been so expected (for at least a scene) that her absence makes me uneasy and confused.
I'm confident that L/F wouldn't include Sam without a solid story reason. But if they did, it makes perfect sense that they would withhold Sutherland from the cast list.
What I meant was that if (hypothetically) they include the Sam Stanley character just because Sutherland's name would generate publicity, I would be disappointed, as I can't see David Lynch doing something like that. It's a business, I get it, but I can't see him saying "you know, I think we should bring Kiefer and Sam Stanley back because it would generate buzz." But I think I misinterpreted Madeleine's comment a bit, as she/he was giving me a reason why keeping Sutherland's involvement under wraps may not be a bad idea. I can't even agree with that reasoning though, as I think including him in the original cast list would be sufficient to attract viewers.
I can't wait for this thing to get started. I want to talk about TP, so I come here, but these speculative conversations are getting so tiresome (I'm as guilty as anyone).
laughingpinecone wrote:DonnieB, while the assumptions you are making about the relative importance of certain cast members are certainly grounded and sensible, they are based on what we know so far, ie a raindrop in an ocean.
Based on what we know, there is no reason to hide Sam's presence, but if you can't think of six scenarios that would make such a choice meaningful (...before breakfast, even), well, tough luck.
Agent Earle wrote:
And let's not forget Michael Horse's "You won't be disappointed" reply when asked about the possible absence of Michael Ontkean in a pretty recent promo interview about the show.
That's not the context of the quote at all.
Oh, yes, it is.
INTERVIEWER: Speaking of the Twin Peaks police, Ontkean did not return for this 18-episode run. Was it a bit different not having him there and what would you say to fans who are worried the show won’t be the same without his presence?
MH: All I’m going to tell the fans, I will guarantee you that you will not be disappointed (laughs). That’s a personal guarantee from the Hawk (laughs).
And he then went on to speak in very general terms about how the show won't be disappointing. That's the part of the question he was answering. He wasn't making some (blatantly obvious) wink wink comment about Ontkean. Again, that wouldn't square with the theory that it's this massive secret that everyone is conspiring to keep.
Dead Dog wrote:While I think it's possible we'll see Harry, Annie, or maybe even Josie, I can't imagine why they'd bring back Sam Stanley. He really means nothing to the mythos and if he were returning for some bizarre reason, why would it be a secret?
A surprise appearance by Kiefer Sutherland would generate a ton of extra publicity for the show.
So would at least a dozen other names that they put on the cast list (many of whom probably have small roles). Why not keep them secret too?
Dead Dog wrote:
What I meant was that if (hypothetically) they include the Sam Stanley character just because Sutherland's name would generate publicity, I would be disappointed, as I can't see David Lynch doing something like that. It's a business, I get it, but I can't see him saying "you know, I think we should bring Kiefer and Sam Stanley back because it would generate buzz."
That's the reason I'm fretting they brought "Denise" back for.
I'm really not expecting to see Agents Desmond and Stanley back at all, and I really can't see how the story would call for it.
Unless of course Chet and Sam somehow represent two halves of Cooper's fractured psyche/soul, in keeping with the theory that the Teresa Banks investigation part of FWWM is somehow Cooper's dream. Maybe when Cooper gives into fear and is trapped in the Black Lodge he manifests as two barely competent FBI agents in the real world? I just the idea of Chet and Sam possessing strengths similar to Cooper, but being bad detectives because they lack a sort of unity between reason and empathy that Dale embodies.
I do sincerely expect to see Piper Laurie in S3 though. The mention of Catherine in Secret History as a mysterious recluse leads me to suspect she will either return in disguise or pop-up as a Lynchian prophet of doom, a la the "someone is in trouble" woman from Mulholland Drive.
I honestly think people holding out hope for Piper are going to be disappointed. Things just didn't work out there, unfortunately.
As for speculation on the others, we don't really know.
I doubt we will see Isaak or Sutherland- even though I would love to.
We know there were plans for Bowie, but sadly I don't think his scenes were shot. They may have scrapped ideas for Jefferies.
Chen is a possibility. And I'm praying for Ontkean and Graham, who were the two people I wanted back the most. I can certainly see them keeping those a secret. But they really would have had to gone out of their way to film those in a very secretive way, without many people knowing at all, including crew. The Ontkean one is a bit different, since we know that Truman was originally planned for a large role. One that most likely shifted to Forster. I have no idea on the time frame for Ontkean dropping out and any rewrites happening. Whether they were able to write something in for Ontkean and actually film something is anyone's guess.
As for Graham, we have no idea what their plans are for Annie. Obviously the book raises questions about her absence. So who knows?
N. Needleman wrote:Why is Denise the character who has to be vetted for approval to appear?
It doesn't have to be and that's not what I meant. What I meant was, clearly he/she was played by someone who has since become a household name and carries with himself a certain amount of fanfare (similar as in Sam Stanley's/Kiefer Sutherland's case). Hence, my worriment that Denise's inclusion is propelled by the actor's recognition factor (and the fan approval factor, while at it) rather than the story's necessity.
N. Needleman wrote:Why is Denise the character who has to be vetted for approval to appear?
It doesn't have to be and that's not what I meant. What I meant was, clearly he/she was played by someone who has since become a household name and carries with himself a certain amount of fanfare (similar as in Sam Stanley's/Kiefer Sutherland's case). Hence, my worriment that Denise's inclusion is propelled by the actor's recognition factor (and the fan approval factor, while at it) rather than the story's necessity.
But we wouldn't question them using Sam or Chet given their roles in FWWM, or David Bowie. So why worry about them deciding they enjoyed Denise and want to bring her back?
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
Dead Dog wrote:While I think it's possible we'll see Harry, Annie, or maybe even Josie, I can't imagine why they'd bring back Sam Stanley. He really means nothing to the mythos and if he were returning for some bizarre reason, why would it be a secret?
A surprise appearance by Kiefer Sutherland would generate a ton of extra publicity for the show.
So would at least a dozen other names that they put on the cast list (many of whom probably have small roles). Why not keep them secret too?
N. Needleman wrote:Why is Denise the character who has to be vetted for approval to appear?
It doesn't have to be and that's not what I meant. What I meant was, clearly he/she was played by someone who has since become a household name and carries with himself a certain amount of fanfare (similar as in Sam Stanley's/Kiefer Sutherland's case). Hence, my worriment that Denise's inclusion is propelled by the actor's recognition factor (and the fan approval factor, while at it) rather than the story's necessity.
But we wouldn't question them using Sam or Chet given their roles in FWWM, or David Bowie. So why worry about them deciding they enjoyed Denise and want to bring her back?
Just my own personal opinion, but I think Denise Bryson is much more interesting than Desmond, Stanley, or Jeffries. Of the four, he'd/she'd be the only one I'd care to see return.
