Right on the mark! The behaviour of Fenn and her rabid fans on Twitter is a little too close to sect-ish for my comfort ...Rudagger wrote:For what it's worth, I thought the article James wrote was pretty fair. And the video he posted seemed to mostly be quotes. There wasn't a whole lot of spin to it (she *did* attack David Lynch .. after all someone asked something to the extent of "You aren't talking about DKL are you!??" and she responded something to the extent of "Who's show do you think it is?").
I don't know whatever drama/beef people feel with the Obnoxious/Anonymous guys, but, in this situation, it felt pretty unfair to me seeing her call him out for his article, claiming it's BS, when the largest section of the article is just literally a screenshot of her Twitter rant .. and then seeing all of her fans start attacking him as well (and Twin Peaks Fest chiming in as well with personal insults at him) just felt really .. well, gross to me.
NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
Moderators: Brad D, Annie, Jonah, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne
-
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:45 am
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
-
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:45 am
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
Nevertheless, second season is what we have, and second season is the reason we're talking about the third season continuation as fervently as we are for two years now.Audrey Horne wrote:Talking to and getting drunk with some of the actors, I can tell you a few of them didn't like the direction of the second season.
- N. Needleman
- Lodge Member
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
A lot of them had issues with Season 2. I have issues with Season 2. I don't think that makes them impure or disloyal. They have a right to their valid feelings and I agree with a number of those sentiments.
That being said, I do think that dismissing the overall trajectory of the story with the conclusion of the Laura mystery and FWWM reduces Peaks to far less than what was intended by its creators, which touched a lot of people. I think if we reduce it to Season 1 it's so much less - still a beautiful jewel, but not its full scope.
That being said, I do think that dismissing the overall trajectory of the story with the conclusion of the Laura mystery and FWWM reduces Peaks to far less than what was intended by its creators, which touched a lot of people. I think if we reduce it to Season 1 it's so much less - still a beautiful jewel, but not its full scope.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
- Audrey Horne
- Lodge Member
- Posts: 2030
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
- Location: The Great Northern
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
I'm sure most of them all merely talking about the messiness of the second half of the second season. They can certainly acknowledge when it got back on its visionary track.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
-
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:45 am
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
There's a world of difference between having a valid feeling about it and expressing it in a civilised manner (and I wasn't denying Kimmy Robertson her right to have/do that, I was merely stating that her character certainly didn't come across as truncated in S 2 as some/most of the others from S 1 did) and staging what Fenn is staging on Twitter. C'mon! It practically downgrades her to the level of MJA.N. Needleman wrote:A lot of them had issues with Season 2. I have issues with Season 2. I don't think that makes them impure or disloyal. They have a right to their valid feelings and I agree with a number of those sentiments.
- N. Needleman
- Lodge Member
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
Sherilyn has a long way to go before reaching that low bar.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
-
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 386
- Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:15 am
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
Blowing off steam about professional frustrations on social media in vague terms (due to NDA) is not at all the same as accusing someone of rape and murder & going on about the Jewish conspiracy. They aren't remotely comparable.
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
Yeah, ok - but Audrey/SF WAS the face of the show (top5 or whatever, top3 maybe when dallying with Cooper) and an over-the-top female icon back at the time when the show became the huge phenomena that it was (and sort of receded only when the show started transforming itself, both qualitatively and quantitavely (viewer number wise). Did it with force and unabashedness; heck, MDrive is purported to be based on the character, so a TV changing show and indirectly the best movie (according to recent polls) of the new century in common under the belt. While it is probable that at the end it changed and it could be a different story today, there is too much common history and importantly success there.
So, hopefully, still possible to get back to making some cross-deals/concentrating on win-wins for both parties at some stage, even apart from the show maybe, this much more constructive [edtd] for the sake of preserving the origins of thr show as opposed to anything else really irrespective whether there is a chunky role or not in the new season
So, hopefully, still possible to get back to making some cross-deals/concentrating on win-wins for both parties at some stage, even apart from the show maybe, this much more constructive [edtd] for the sake of preserving the origins of thr show as opposed to anything else really irrespective whether there is a chunky role or not in the new season
Last edited by Aqua on Sat Oct 15, 2016 7:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2015 1:45 am
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
It's amazing how many people are apparently held in thrall by Fenn, even at this point of her disintegration. You can continue to fool yourself by all means, guys, but for me, her recent conduct borders on losing it ... As to what will it take to tip her over into the MJA realm of kookiness and how long she has 'till she's quite there, I would say your guess is as good as mine.
-
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:31 am
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
Maybe it's a money thing with Fenn.
What if it was all about money for Ontkean too. Maybe he didn't want to join because he got offered too little. Maybe unlike MJA and probably Fenn, he was the only one to handle it with some dignity and just politely declined.
Well, MJA is the only one who has openly said it was about money, but I think some Fenn's remarks have hinted at the same.
Or maybe Fenn has some other issues.
What if it was all about money for Ontkean too. Maybe he didn't want to join because he got offered too little. Maybe unlike MJA and probably Fenn, he was the only one to handle it with some dignity and just politely declined.
Well, MJA is the only one who has openly said it was about money, but I think some Fenn's remarks have hinted at the same.
Or maybe Fenn has some other issues.
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
This is actually the one thing that, without a doubt, I wholeheartedly agree with Sherilyn on.Jerry Horne wrote:Zinging those boneheads at O&O I approve of.
Last edited by Nightsea on Sat Oct 15, 2016 8:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
Let's keep on topic.
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
Whether it's a money thing or not– whatever it is– I hope that Sherilyn and Lynch smooth things out between one another, for the good of the production as a whole. Somebody else mentioned this a while back, but as the premiere draws near, I highly suspect that Naomi Watts, Laura Dern, etc... will make the promotional rounds as well, alongside Kyle.
- Mr. Reindeer
- Lodge Member
- Posts: 3680
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
Harley Peyton openly says in Brad Duke's book that Kyle MacLachlan used his star power to pressure Mark Frost into dropping the Cooper/Audrey storyline; Peyton also says the writers had questions about whether this was related to Kyle dating LFB at the time. Whatever the motivation, if one believes Peyton's version, Kyle forced a story change that screwed Sherilyn over (and arguably negatively impacted the second season as a whole).LateReg wrote:What exactly were the behind the scenes circumstances that led to certain plot developments again? I always forget exactly what was what besides Sherilynn putting her foot down and not participating in the Miss Twin Peaks contest, which really doesn't sit right with me (that the actress would be able to dictate such a thing). If anyone could answer me here or direct me elsewhere, I'd appreciate it.
As far as the "Miss Twin Peaks" contest, I'm fine with Sherilyn standing up for her character and protesting a plotline that was both cheapening to women and (IMO) a moronic time-filler, and far beneath TP's standards. Episode 28 is a strong contender for my least favorite episode of the show.
None of which is an excuse for her recent personal attack on Lynch, which seems entirely unjustified based on the information we have.
- laughingpinecone
- Great Northern Member
- Posts: 725
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:45 am
- Location: D'ni
- Contact:
Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
In the same section of the book, MacLachlan still stands by his old decision. I think he should be directly held accountable for his choice, for better or for worse. All the blame-shifting on LFB leaves a bad taste in my mouth, he's the one who went and pressured the writers.
As a personal observation without any basis in interviews etc, I can't help but notice that the storyline was seeded when the characters were allowed to have their darkness, be flawed, spiral down negative arcs, as Lynchian characters are wont to do, but would've been executed exactly when all character flaws were dropped.
...and the writers' utter incapability to give Audrey a relevant storyline of her own sounds more sexist to me than all this promotional business, to be honest. The original concept for Mulholland Drive was an Audrey solo plot,out of who knows how many possible ones.
As a personal observation without any basis in interviews etc, I can't help but notice that the storyline was seeded when the characters were allowed to have their darkness, be flawed, spiral down negative arcs, as Lynchian characters are wont to do, but would've been executed exactly when all character flaws were dropped.
...and the writers' utter incapability to give Audrey a relevant storyline of her own sounds more sexist to me than all this promotional business, to be honest. The original concept for Mulholland Drive was an Audrey solo plot,out of who knows how many possible ones.
] The gathered are known by their faces of stone.