NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

General discussion on Twin Peaks not related to the series, film, books, music, photos, or collectors merchandise.

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

chalfont
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:57 am
Location: Norway

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by chalfont »

Kyle saying this is NOT a nostalgia-journey - these are new stories to tell - makes me feel - after all 18 episodes - most people/fans will not really see this as a part of Twin Peaks. Yes, we will revisit known characters, places and stories to a certain grade, but this will be so different from the original show I have a feeling I will not, emoitionally, see this as a coherent part.
User avatar
Judge Giant
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed May 03, 2017 3:30 am
Contact:

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by Judge Giant »

Trudy Chelgren wrote:
indyit wrote:

Usually shows become available on NOWtv directly after it's aired on Sky''s channels (to watch it as it airs, you need to watch the livestream). Because it's a 2AM airing i think they've decided to make it available straight away. Yes it opens up the possibility for spoilers, but i think they're willing to take that risk here. The livestreaming is SD quality and the "on demand"/"catch up"/catalogue is HD (720p) so i assume they want people to watch it with better quality.
where are you getting this from? All I can find is a NOW TV help forum, where they say; "although it airs at 2am on Sunday it won't be available on Catch-up until it airs at 9pm on Monday evening." BUT Parts 3 & 4 will be made available at 4.01 AM.

I'm so confused.
The stuff about it not being on demand until 9pm was before they got parts 3&4 OD at 4am. All four will now be available on demand (I asked and they tweeted me confirming this). I do not know however whether parts 1&2 will be available OD from 2AM, or from 4AM when the live stream is over. I just know all 4 will be on when I get up at 7AM - because that's what I asked!
This was a vision, fresh and clear as a mountain stream. The mind revealing itself to itself.

Visit my Lynch blog at https://lynchiantimes.wordpress.com, or follow on twitter https://twitter.com/LynchianTimes
User avatar
Rainwater
RR Diner Member
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 3:00 am
Location: Under the Sycamore trees

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by Rainwater »

counterpaul wrote:
Rainwater wrote:I neither laughed nor cried during that sequence, just felt nauseated. Interesting how our perception differs.
Indeed! We all take what we take.

Comedically, the scene just hits my buttons. The whole chat about the bus to Pomona and the friend with the hole in her vagina wall (and the boyfriend's reaction) happening as our protagonist slowly and agonizingly dies--that tension is classic dark comedy, and it is 100% played for laughs.

But it also constantly transcends the joke! There are these undeniable moments of brutal pathos in her story--"when she's looking so good in her blonde star wig..." "she knows her time has run out"--that are 100% NOT a joke at all. Plus the inherent sadness of everyone's situation is also played totally straight. And of course the death itself is played with complete sincerity.

It's so confusing! I find that confusion wondrous! Magical! Hilarious! Heart-rending! Everything! It's all there.

It's very much like the opening of Episode 8 in many ways--at least, tonally--which also alienates a lot of people (though probably not as much as the IE scene I guess). I find them both exquisite.
I think the film puts me in too dark a mood to appreciate some of the humor. I'm always(well, I've only seen it twice) overwhelmed by an atmosphere, above all, of despair. The nightmarish confusion that runs throughout Inland Empire reminds me of a few, for lack of a better description, almost-schizophrenic fever-dream episodes I've experienced. Certainly impressive, but I struggle to find humor in the particular kind of confusion this film envelops you in. I'm also puzzled when people call the film "hopeful" - I don't think the "good" ending offsets all the darkness that comes before.
Anyway, I guess we're drifting off-topic..

I enjoy the Episode 8 opening very much. I loved it the first time I saw it, thought it was hilarious and hit all the right notes. Probably one of my favorite scenes in the series.
I'll see you in the trees
User avatar
Judge Giant
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Wed May 03, 2017 3:30 am
Contact:

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by Judge Giant »

chalfont wrote:Kyle saying this is NOT a nostalgia-journey - these are new stories to tell - makes me feel - after all 18 episodes - most people/fans will not really see this as a part of Twin Peaks. Yes, we will revisit known characters, places and stories to a certain grade, but this will be so different from the original show I have a feeling I will not, emoitionally, see this as a coherent part.
We won't know until we've seen it of course, but I don't see that being the case. I think it can be a different beast whilst still feeling part of the same thing - especially on an 'emotional' level. Remember the Showtime boss saying this is about Cooper's odyssey back to TWIN PEAKS? I don't see how that won't register on that level.
This was a vision, fresh and clear as a mountain stream. The mind revealing itself to itself.

Visit my Lynch blog at https://lynchiantimes.wordpress.com, or follow on twitter https://twitter.com/LynchianTimes
User avatar
Trudy Chelgren
RR Diner Member
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Aug 14, 2016 2:07 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by Trudy Chelgren »

Judge Giant wrote:

The stuff about it not being on demand until 9pm was before they got parts 3&4 OD at 4am. All four will now be available on demand (I asked and they tweeted me confirming this). I do not know however whether parts 1&2 will be available OD from 2AM, or from 4AM when the live stream is over. I just know all 4 will be on when I get up at 7AM - because that's what I asked!
Thanks! I guess now we'll just have to see what happens. I wish there was just a little more clarity.
Cooperscoffeecup
RR Diner Member
Posts: 195
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:54 pm
Location: Australia

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by Cooperscoffeecup »

Judge Giant wrote:
chalfont wrote:Kyle saying this is NOT a nostalgia-journey - these are new stories to tell - makes me feel - after all 18 episodes - most people/fans will not really see this as a part of Twin Peaks. Yes, we will revisit known characters, places and stories to a certain grade, but this will be so different from the original show I have a feeling I will not, emoitionally, see this as a coherent part.
We won't know until we've seen it of course, but I don't see that being the case. I think it can be a different beast whilst still feeling part of the same thing - especially on an 'emotional' level. Remember the Showtime boss saying this is about Cooper's odyssey back to TWIN PEAKS? I don't see how that won't register on that level.
I cant find it now, but one of the news sites here interviewed KM, and he mentioned that the humor of the original series is still there. Mind you the article mentioned that Sheryl Lee had read the entire script along with KM, which is the first I have heard of that.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Lodge Member
Posts: 2113
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by N. Needleman »

As much as I worship Sheryl and think she is the center of Twin Peaks, I doubt that.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
timgerdes
New Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2015 5:07 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by timgerdes »

N. Needleman wrote:Sepinwall rather glibly suggested TP would likely be "a mess" but fun for Lynch fans, IIRC. But I generally don't mind him. That's not quite as nasty a take as Goodman, who grumbled tonight he couldn't be paid to go to the premiere. We get it, you're posing. Your Hunter S. Thompson cosplay award is in the mail.
Sepinwall has repeatedly expressed this skepticism about the return of Twin Peaks. In a recent Ask Alan video he says, "I have no idea if this is going to be any good at all. I have a bad feeling it is not going to be." More mystifying to me, he's also compiled a list of reasons that the new Twin Peaks would probably not be good. Among them? David Lynch. He writes, "All the episodes are being directed by Lynch, who’s barely directed anything this century and is also a much weirder filmmaker than the guy who made the TV show with Mark Frost. Lynch has referred to the new edition as “an 18-hour movie,” which even the makers of the most bloated and saggy Netflix drama might find an excessive, bad idea."

Of all of the reasons for skepticism about the new series, that Lynch is in control suggests to me that he doesn't really get Twin Peaks. For me, that the show is disregarding a typical TV format, with lots of writers, directors and a show runner to keep things cohesive, in favor of 18 hours of Lynch and Frost, is the best reason for optimism.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Lodge Member
Posts: 2113
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by N. Needleman »

I think the thing people have to remember is many contemporary TV critics and tastemakers may not like it, may be repulsed by it. I think there's a lot of stake in 'peak TV' being invented in the last 17 years or so, and I think there's a kind of existential anxiety amongst a lot of those critics about TP because it precedes that wave and that critical and cultural consciousness while being the progenitor. And about it not being a show that follows the rules laid out since its heyday, that doesn't meet them on an equal playing field where they can make it adhere to them - I remember critics raking Westworld over the coals week after week for being a show that had a variety of mysteries it refused to unspool until late in the season, a show that refused to work within their timeframe and play ball. Westworld wasn't genius but it was a very solid show IMO, yet its critical image had already been laid out as 'cold' and 'schematic' for focusing on concept as well as character, and for having each element influence the other in sometimes non-linear or unconventional fashion. Every article about it became a thesis about its storied showrunners (Jonathan Nolan and Lisa Joy), sometimes over meta-issues from their other work. (I personally think Christopher Nolan is overrated, but that doesn't have any bearing on his brother's TV show.)

Many fans may not like the new show either. And that's fine. Some of us don't like FWWM.

The show's legacy is secure. It's already been through the fire, it can't be torn down. All that matters is if each of us enjoys it for ourselves.
Last edited by N. Needleman on Sat May 20, 2017 5:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
mtwentz
Lodge Member
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by mtwentz »

On Reddit someone posted they talked to someone who saw it last night and said if you do not have the original series fresh in your mind, it will likely make no sense at all.

Didn't Lynch state that watching the original series is not required :-)?
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
OrsonWelles
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 11:50 pm

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by OrsonWelles »

chalfont wrote:Kyle saying this is NOT a nostalgia-journey - these are new stories to tell - makes me feel - after all 18 episodes - most people/fans will not really see this as a part of Twin Peaks. Yes, we will revisit known characters, places and stories to a certain grade, but this will be so different from the original show I have a feeling I will not, emoitionally, see this as a coherent part.
To be honest, just like our world has evolved A LOT in the past 27 years, it's only logic that the fictional universe of Twin Peaks has evolved a lot as well. I think they'll be clever enough to keep elements that make it recognizable for fans of the first two seasons, but the story and the Twin Peaks universe have to move on. It will be an entirely different thing within the same universe. Which is perfect.
User avatar
Rainwater
RR Diner Member
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 3:00 am
Location: Under the Sycamore trees

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by Rainwater »

Saturn's child wrote:
Rainwater wrote:
Saturn's child wrote:Rainwater, I would've guessed you'd feel different about it.
Why's that?
I don't know really, haha. Just a general impression I've had from your posts. Evidently not all that accurate. :wink:
I misread your post entirely, sorry. I thought you were saying you would've predicted this being my opinion.
Yours might be an accurate guess, as I think I would typically like that kind of slow, darkly atmospheric scene.. I couldn't very well explain why I feel differently about this one. It wasn't that it left me cold, I remember it evoked a sickly feeling that made me want to see the end of it quickly - I don't know why this particular scene - and, of course, the length of it only amplified the effect. It seems it's been too long since I watched it for me to be able to put it into words successfully.
I'll see you in the trees
User avatar
indyit
RR Diner Member
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Oct 24, 2016 5:22 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by indyit »

timgerdes wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:Sepinwall rather glibly suggested TP would likely be "a mess" but fun for Lynch fans, IIRC. But I generally don't mind him. That's not quite as nasty a take as Goodman, who grumbled tonight he couldn't be paid to go to the premiere. We get it, you're posing. Your Hunter S. Thompson cosplay award is in the mail.
Sepinwall has repeatedly expressed this skepticism about the return of Twin Peaks. In a recent Ask Alan video he says, "I have no idea if this is going to be any good at all. I have a bad feeling it is not going to be." More mystifying to me, he's also compiled a list of reasons that the new Twin Peaks would probably not be good. Among them? David Lynch. He writes, "All the episodes are being directed by Lynch, who’s barely directed anything this century and is also a much weirder filmmaker than the guy who made the TV show with Mark Frost. Lynch has referred to the new edition as “an 18-hour movie,” which even the makers of the most bloated and saggy Netflix drama might find an excessive, bad idea."

Of all of the reasons for skepticism about the new series, that Lynch is in control suggests to me that he doesn't really get Twin Peaks. For me, that the show is disregarding a typical TV format, with lots of writers, directors and a show runner to keep things cohesive, in favor of 18 hours of Lynch and Frost, is the best reason for optimism.
I think Sepinwall's reasons given there are all legitimate concerns, objectively. He also says "The odds are heavily in favor of this being a mess, but conventional wisdom has never applied to anything David Lynch has done."

So the reasons he's given: Reunions are almost always disappointments, Lynch might be rusty, Lynch is weirder (and therefore more niche? Harder to get into?), the original show lost steam in the second season and Sepinwall's lately defended the episode format (and therefore reacted negatively to the 18hr movie quotes). For fans - pretty much all of that can be negated instantly, but for an objective critic I acknowledge all of those factors would cast fears.

His main argument for it being good is basically what you've said: "The original Twin Peaks is one of the greatest TV shows ever made — the first season and the first nine episodes of the second season, in particular — Lynch and Frost are very protective of its legacy, have literally been talking about a new season for years, and would likely not do it if they believed the revival would do whatever damage to the old show’s reputation that the haunted drawer knob or the femme fatale didn’t already."

That is essentially the reason why we're all here (although i fully acknowledge opinions on season 2 differ widely).

I'm not going to pounce on the guy yet. I get his concerns although i hope he's wrong. We'll see what his review is like on Monday. If i disagree with it, then so be it!
User avatar
Venus
RR Diner Member
Posts: 457
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:10 pm
Location: England

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by Venus »

Trudy Chelgren wrote:
Judge Giant wrote:

The stuff about it not being on demand until 9pm was before they got parts 3&4 OD at 4am. All four will now be available on demand (I asked and they tweeted me confirming this). I do not know however whether parts 1&2 will be available OD from 2AM, or from 4AM when the live stream is over. I just know all 4 will be on when I get up at 7AM - because that's what I asked!
Thanks! I guess now we'll just have to see what happens. I wish there was just a little more clarity.
Parts 1 and 2 will be available on demand on NOW TV 15 minutes after it starts airing at 2am. NOW TV have said this on their Facebook page in answer to a question on their 15th May post about TP.
When Jupiter and Saturn meet...
User avatar
N. Needleman
Lodge Member
Posts: 2113
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Post by N. Needleman »

I just think Sepinwall's arguments are very arbitrary and subjective. It's about his opinion of Lynch's later work and his reboot fatigue. It's a me-me-me thing. It's not about the actual show or Lynch's career trajectory. I generally like him, but I think it's him lashing out after what happened with The X-Files, which - he should've known better.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
Post Reply