The Unorthodox/Controversial TP Opinion Thread

[N. Needleman]

What i'm trying to say is that it's really hard, almost impossible to recapture the zeitgeist. Twin Peaks was very much a product of its time.

Of course it's really hard to do that. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen - we are seeing it constantly in the last five years. We are in an age of nostalgic reboots. The X-Files put out a rocky at best brief revival and was promised another season when they wanted it within days. Fuller House has overtaken The Walking Dead in numbers and was renewed by Netflix practically on the day of its launch. These may not be TP-level quality but they are indicative of a larger trend which is only continuing. And TP isn't just a product of its time, it's timeless more than many other shows out there, which is why it's captured generations of audiences on a variety of platforms.

My younger brother is 18, I tried showing him, and the Horne's dinner scene bored him to death.

There's a big difference between showing younger people something (I'm not 18, for the record, but I'm in my early 30s) and letting them discover it themselves. The latter is what has kept giving TP a larger audience, first on video and now streaming. They find it and they talk about it together.

I think we, as fans, must accept that it is just NOT MEANT for a mainstream audience.

Of course it is. It always was, which is why it was a hit and why it's continued to be popular with a mainstram audience. Was it always popular? No. Did it fall on hard times over the years? Yes. But it came back from that, and it came back to a larger general audience that is not tapped by this forum, that is not made up of cinephiles, that is not interested in deep dives into theory or Lynch and Frost's collective oeuvres, and so on.

Whether or not we find these people 'cultured' or intelligent enough to be watching the show or discerning what we do from it is beside the point, not just to us but to the networks - they exist and they love the show for the more cozy touchstones: Cooper, coffee, pie, Audrey, the diner, the backwards-talking dwarf, the irrepressible sense of cool, you name it. Will they accept it as wholeheartedly as they did in 1990? I'm not sure, I doubt it. But going into the premiere and the beginning of the run? Yes, it will be huge based on anticipation and curiosity alone.

That's why it bothers me so much when people here treat this revival like something that new audiences are climbing up the walls in anticipation, Maybe a few, but definitely not enough to make it "the TV event of the decade"

I understand you mean no offense by your remarks and I appreciate you saying so. But I would suggest you take that line of argument with the dozens upon dozens of popcult sites up which have run endless TP headlines since 2014. They're the ones making that narrative, because they clearly see and are attempting to feed and monetize a demand for it. If it's not all astroturfing - and it's not, IMO - then it comes from somewhere genuine. Certainly not from Dugpa.com or alt.tv.twin-peaks. It comes from Out There. And I think that's what makes some people uncomfortable. They'd rather it stay In Here for fear of it getting ravaged again.

I personally don't care. I think TP can bi-locate. Whatever happens, it will do what it wants to do and will not care about anything else. That's all I ask for.

[N. Needleman]

I really, really, REALLY hope Lynch and Frost don't play only for the old fans.

They are almost assuredly not doing that.

[Soolsma]

Here goes:

I'd be disappointed if the new shows relies too much on too many of the old characters.

[Dining With Diane]

Here goes:

I'd be disappointed if the new shows relies too much on too many of the old characters.

I'd be disappointed if there's too much focus on the new characters, unless it is the new characters played by Laura Dern, Balthazar Getty, and other castmembers from Lynch's movies - a stronger connection tot he movies is good, but dropping a bunch of new folks into Twin Peaks while the returning characters get pushed to the sidelines wouldn't feel right.

[Major Briggs]

Here goes:

I'd be disappointed if the new shows relies too much on too many of the old characters.

I'd be disappointed if there's too much focus on the new characters, unless it is the new characters played by Laura Dern, Balthazar Getty, and other castmembers from Lynch's movies - a stronger connection tot he movies is good, but dropping a bunch of new folks into Twin Peaks while the returning characters get pushed to the sidelines wouldn't feel right.

You have to remember that the majority of the people who's gonna watch it Don't have a clue who the old folks are. So, new story, new characters.

[laughingpinecone]

Here goes:

I'd be disappointed if the new shows relies too much on too many of the old characters.

I'd be disappointed if there's too much focus on the new characters, unless it is the new characters played by Laura Dern, Balthazar Getty, and other castmembers from Lynch's movies - a stronger connection tot he movies is good, but dropping a bunch of new folks into Twin Peaks while the returning characters get pushed to the sidelines wouldn't feel right.

You have to remember that the majority of the people who's gonna watch it Don't have a clue who the old folks are. So, new story, new characters.

Although of course with a 25 years timeskip an expert storyteller (let alone two) should be able to put the returning cast to use in storylines that are just as accessible to the new viewers as they are meaningful to the old fans! Who is (eg) Bobby Briggs today? Present the character as he is now, with all the traits and connections that are relevant now, and let his personality shine. Old fans will appreciate the growth from the boy he was 25 years earlier, new fans will still appreciate a rich, striking 42 years old.

That's mostly me playing devil's advocate, though. My top priority is seeing Coop's story resolved in the most meaningful way. And in order to do so, I think they'll need a fair amount of new characters. So I'm kinda with Soolsma on this one!

[N. Needleman]

Here goes:

I'd be disappointed if the new shows relies too much on too many of the old characters.

I'd be disappointed if there's too much focus on the new characters, unless it is the new characters played by Laura Dern, Balthazar Getty, and other castmembers from Lynch's movies - a stronger connection tot he movies is good, but dropping a bunch of new folks into Twin Peaks while the returning characters get pushed to the sidelines wouldn't feel right.

You have to remember that the majority of the people who's gonna watch it Don't have a clue who the old folks are. So, new story, new characters.

The majority? Doubtful. I don't think Lynch cares either way, but there is clearly a mix of both the massive returning cast and many new people.

[Major Briggs]

I don't know why but I have the feeling that at least some of the old characters will be only easter eggs. Storywise, Cooper's new plotline will already involve too many new characters, it's just a lot to swallow for the new viewers. Of course I could be wrong

[LostInTheMovies]

I don't know why but I have the feeling that at least some of the old characters will be only easter eggs. Storywise, Cooper's new plotline will already involve too many new characters, it's just a lot to swallow for the new viewers. Of course I could be wrong

I agree. I don't have a lot to go on but my gut says the vast majority of the returning cast (and most of the new actors) will be making little more than cameos, possibly as interviews in an investigation (though I can't see the show being a series of discussions either). They might mostly be packed into one or two episodes even. But I don't think Twin Peaks 2017 will continue the soap opera format of multiple unfolding storylines. I suspect it will be more like True Detective where we peek briefly into different lives, but stick to one or two core perspectives throughout. Maybe I'm way off!

But as others have commented, Twin Peaks was a soap in 1990 partly because of contemporary conventions and tastes. Nighttime soaps are still popular today of course (Grey's Anatomy still does well I think), but are hardly discussed the way Dallas and Dynasty were, and certainly don't seem to have a niche on cable unless we call Game of Thrones a soap! Ensemble shows of course are still a thing but I don't know...I think Cooper's drama is gonna be very much the main focus. Maybe it will be like season one of TO, where all the subplots seem related to Coop's situation? But then that seems harder to pull off in this scenario, at least w/r/to the townspeople.

Well, I really have no idea. We'll see...

[Clueless]

Here goes:

I'd be disappointed if the new shows relies too much on too many of the old characters.

I agree. I also actually would prefer that the majority of the show take place outside of Twin Peaks and have the town have some mythic and nostalgic tone to it every-time it is revisited. "Absence makes the heart grow fonder" is a bit trite but true and I think at least some of the most beloved older character's and locations might exude an even more overwhelming personality and powerful presence if they are used sparingly.

[David Locke]

Not sure if this is that controversial, but on this last re-watch I really came to resent Andy and, to a lesser extent, Lucy. Andy is first introduced as a somewhat interesting character, a big softie and a rare policeman with heart on sleeve; why the writers chose to make him progressively dumber and have him babble on about his "sperms" is just as beyond my imagination as why they chose to send Nadine back to school. I was surprised by how early the whole dumb pregnancy/Andy's "sperms" stuff starts up on this watch, and how when it does it's virtually the only material those two get to work with for the rest of the series! As Kimmy herself put it, it becomes the "Andy, Lucy and Dick Show." Thankfully Lynch gave Andy and Lucy a sweet and worthy final scene in the finale, but it still couldn't save the dire other 80% of their material. Talk about wasted potential. The whole thing is completely superfluous, if not quite as bad as the worst S2 plots. Why did we need to meet Lucy's sister again? I can't think of any time in the show where they brought in a character's long-lost relative and it turned out interesting (c.f. Norma). Just silly. Those fluffy family plots are part of what makes the otherwise solid Episode 15 so weirdly schizophrenic in tone.

[Major Briggs]

I dont know if it's controversial but I really dislike The episode 7 scene with Shelly and Catherine in The fire. And The "suspense/action Music" that plays only make it worse

[Cerulean]

I dont know if it's controversial but I really dislike The episode 7 scene with Shelly and Catherine in The fire. And The "suspense/action Music" that plays only make it worse

I agree about the music, but there's something absurdly funny about Catherine in that scene. She walks in on someone tied up and gagged, gasoline poured everywhere and is so completely blasé about it ("I can't understand what you're saying, you have a thing in your mouth"). Piper's delivery is classic, right up there with the "I ran out of tuna fish" line.

[David Locke]

I dont know if it's controversial but I really dislike The episode 7 scene with Shelly and Catherine in The fire. And The "suspense/action Music" that plays only make it worse

I completely agree. I don't think there's another moment in the entire series with such an oddly incongruous or flat-out bad score. It doesn't even sound like Badalamenti, yet (I believe) it is. I've also written previously on my disappointment with the entire episode 7 and how I find it oddly bland and devoid of the usual Peaks atmosphere.

[laughingpinecone]

I don't know why but I have the feeling that at least some of the old characters will be only easter eggs. Storywise, Cooper's new plotline will already involve too many new characters, it's just a lot to swallow for the new viewers. Of course I could be wrong

I agree. I don't have a lot to go on but my gut says the vast majority of the returning cast (and most of the new actors) will be making little more than cameos, possibly as interviews in an investigation (though I can't see the show being a series of discussions either). They might mostly be packed into one or two episodes even. But I don't think Twin Peaks 2017 will continue the soap opera format of multiple unfolding storylines. I suspect it will be more like True Detective where we peek briefly into different lives, but stick to one or two core perspectives throughout. Maybe I'm way off!

But as others have commented, Twin Peaks was a soap in 1990 partly because of contemporary conventions and tastes. Nighttime soaps are still popular today of course (Grey's Anatomy still does well I think), but are hardly discussed the way Dallas and Dynasty were, and certainly don't seem to have a niche on cable unless we call Game of Thrones a soap! Ensemble shows of course are still a thing but I don't know...I think Cooper's drama is gonna be very much the main focus. Maybe it will be like season one of TO, where all the subplots seem related to Coop's situation? But then that seems harder to pull off in this scenario, at least w/r/to the townspeople.

Well, I really have no idea. We'll see...

Great point about the use of the dominant genre on TV! I would add that beside the series' actual original two seasons, TP's narrative already pigeonholed itself into COOP AND LAURA COOP AND LAURA COOP AND LAURA (and the town), almost as its doube helix, and it's an attitude that continues to this day judging by Showtime's official synopsis of the series, the blu ray packaging and even the book's French blurb. It doesn't really seem interested in keeping up the multiple storylines angle.
Also! The soap opera format, by its very nature, is the go-to option for stories that try to go on forever, like the show was trying to do back in the day. But now? You wanna finish something, you start making stuff converge. It's not rocket science.

They've certainly got time to let this story breathe, though. 16 1-hour episodes would already be longer than season 2! It's not like some unrelated subplots would steal precious time from Coop's story - it won't take half an hour to solve it but 16+ hours are a lot! So... we really have no idea
My hope is that two skilled storytellers with a bunch of time on their hands managed to find a good use for as many characters as possible, organically inserting them into the main plot. Everyone else can get extended TMP-like cameos?