mtwentz wrote:Given all we know so far, 1) the large number of cast members, 2) the multiple locations, 3) the short screen time at least Sherilyn Fenn is getting and maybe others in the old case, and 4) the fact that Mark Frost said he and Lynch worked a year on the script for the first two hours
Has it occurred to anyone else that the first two hours of the new Series will actually wrap up most of the loose ends and plotlines from Season 2, and the rest of the series will just be all completely new stuff, more like the 'Adventures of Agent Cooper Worldwide' than 'Twin Peaks'?
In other words, the first two hours might be fan servicing, the rest of the series will be the new ideas that Lynch and Frost want to explore, with all the old plotlines basically resolved.
I have not idea if this is true, but it is a thought I've been having lately.
I don't think so. Frost also said "We're calling it Twin Peaks for a reason"... Lots of old characters are getting large roles (or at least relatively large, considering the sheer size of the cast!) - just looking at the teasers, we're getting Hawk, Lucy, James and Bobby as major players. Audrey having a small role isn't indicative of anyone else.
I do, however, think that most of the old storylines won't really factor in the new series. It's been 25 years! Coop is still a cliffhanger, but I'm guessing that for the most part, the old characters' dominant themes will be explored through new storylines.
It's been already implied from an insider here that Twin Peaks is basically a starting point for major events that take place outside of the town. I don't think the town will be completely marginalized and it is very possible that some important subplots involving characters you mention will occur once Cooper goes to Vegas and the desert, but it is very likely that Twin Peaks will have a much smaller role than what most people expect.
"Smaller than most people expect", for sure! Nobody expects the Vegas plot is going to be the new nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition But "All concentrated and done almost exclusively in the first two hours", I don't think so, and I also think it would make for some rather inelegant storytelling. For starters, it would alienate new viewers right off the bat and give old viewers little reason to come back.
Of course, I have no sources outside of what is shared on this forum and I may be completely wrong.
Does anyone have a good idea when exactly the series is supposed to take place? Because if they are beginning the story at 25 years after the finale and the dossier is found in 2016 it seems plausible that we will see the events leading up to the crime scene, which would be a good way to answer some of the questions the book raises without involving the book itself very heavily in the plot.
Jerry Horne wrote:The original series takes place in 1989.
No I mean the new season, Does anyone have any clue if it will take place in 2014, which is 25 years after the finale, or is it just going to be 2017 because that's when it airs?
Jerry Horne wrote:The original series takes place in 1989.
No I mean the new season, Does anyone have any clue if it will take place in 2014, which is 25 years after the finale, or is it just going to be 2017 because that's when it airs?
Jerry Horne wrote:The original series takes place in 1989.
No I mean the new season, Does anyone have any clue if it will take place in 2014, which is 25 years after the finale, or is it just going to be 2017 because that's when it airs?
Your question made me wonder "could the book be in medias res", which would be kinda cool to me? Like maybe the crime scene is found near the end of s3? But in order to start with the 25 years and get up to mid-2016, s3 would have to cover more than two years... I don't think the new episodes will stick to the old almost-unity of time, following events day by day - FWWM already skipped freely and this season has things to do and places to go. But two years would be a lot.
How they're gonna handle this 2/3-year mismatch is a fascinating mystery to me.
I originally thought it would be simply set in 2014, but the book is set in 2016. I thought they might've retconned the year of the old show, but one of the approximately six facts that the book does NOT change (seven, tops. Maybe eight if we squint) is that Laura's death is 1989. The 25 years have been part of Showtime's marketing from the beginning so those are still a thing. So now my best guess is that the action takes place in 2016 or 2017 and we're gonna learn what happened between Coop and Laura in flashback when the good Dale feels like sharing. But who knows...
Has it occurred to anyone else that the first two hours of the new Series will actually wrap up most of the loose ends and plotlines from Season 2, and the rest of the series will just be all completely new stuff, more like the 'Adventures of Agent Cooper Worldwide' than 'Twin Peaks'?
After seeing a lot of Cooper in his FBI suit, I think something along these lines is a distinct possibility. I find it kind of heartbreaking to think that it could wrap things up that quickly and perhaps painlessly. I've always imagined S3 serving as both a new season of Twin Peaks, with new stories, characters and places, and a coming to terms with it's past, with the Twin Peaks mythology as a whole, Laura's death, the Black Lodge, Cooper's doppelganger, everything. I've said it before, and it wasn't all that popular from what I recall, but I stand it by my hope; I really want this season (and perhaps S4) to be the true ending of Twin Peaks. A really powerful, all-encompassing final statement.
I'm still convinced it will deliver one hell of a gut punch.
I don't know what you mean by a gut punch?
Teetotaling and prayer. Their hands touch yours and mine.
Trudy Chelgren wrote:
Has it occurred to anyone else that the first two hours of the new Series will actually wrap up most of the loose ends and plotlines from Season 2, and the rest of the series will just be all completely new stuff, more like the 'Adventures of Agent Cooper Worldwide' than 'Twin Peaks'?
I don't think Lynch s better works ever take all the loose ends and wrap things up in a nice little package. I'm sure once again we will be left in a state of mystery when it's all over.
NormoftheAndes wrote:
I don't know what you mean by a gut punch?
Strong emotional, impressive impact.
Platypus2000 wrote:
I don't think Lynch s better works ever take all the loose ends and wrap things up in a nice little package. I'm sure once again we will be left in a state of mystery when it's all over.
I don't believe that Twin Peaks will wrap up nicely, I welcome mystery. But take Fire Walk with Me for example; an ending that answers so few questions, but it's so moving, and an ending. I think I remember Russ Tamblyn's daughter or something saying how they concluded his story arc amazingly, if I'm correct (?) I just want it to have the ending it deserves. I've never seen a Lynch film with an ending that has disappointed me, I'll finish this topic with that opinion.
And the tremendous amount of shooting they did on sets in California can double for anything they built. Sheriff's Station, Great Northern, Palmer House, RR, Black Lodge, etc.
[quote
I don't believe that Twin Peaks will wrap up nicely, I welcome mystery. But take Fire Walk with Me for example; an ending that answers so few questions, but it's so moving, and an ending. I think I remember Russ Tamblyn's daughter or something saying how they concluded his story arc amazingly, if I'm correct (?) I just want it to have the ending it deserves. I've never seen a Lynch film with an ending that has disappointed me, I'll finish this topic with that opinion.[/quote]
Agreed. The " how's annie?" Finale is somewhat an undeserving ending to the story. But is still powerful in its un-nervingness.
And the FWWM ending I think is perfect. My wife actually walked down the aisle to the "voice of love" at our wedding. (The song that plays when the Laura is greeted by her angel at the end0
But "All concentrated and done almost exclusively in the first two hours", I don't think so, and I also think it would make for some rather inelegant storytelling. For starters, it would alienate new viewers right off the bat and give old viewers little reason to come back.
