NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

[Dalai Cooper]

Like the idea that one "weird" show being successful obviates the potential for any others to have value is really dumb and is more representative of a failure of the writer's imagination than anything else

[Dalai Cooper]

"I saw one funny film this year, so all the other filmmakers who make funny films are wasting their time. Better luck next time, jerks!"

[LateReg]

I don't know friends, don't you kind of like that David Lynch isn't exactly a critical darling or King of the box office? I'm attracted to his work because it is so different. I'm a bit of an eccentric, it's hard to find folks to relate to sometimes. I have some weird interests. Lynch's work speaks to me, and (maybe this sounds weird) but I tend to enjoy the fact that most people I know either know nothing about him or don't enjoy his output as much as I do. I guess in that sense I see why some of you are overprotective of FWWM, but that abstract beauty he has gifted to all of us is going to rub a lot of audience members and critics the wrong way. That's the trade off. He is a groundbreaking artist that does things his way, and we are lucky enough to be in that small segment of society that appreciates it. I guess this is my longwinded way of saying that if everyone loved David Lynch or TP, or FWWM, that would probably mean he wasn't the creative genius we all love so much.

I agree with all you said here. But to be clear my personal opinion on the EW article has nothing to do with the EW writer's personal opinion on the film. I simply believe that the writer is spreading old news without remotely digging into how FWWM's reputation has changed, and I think that is bad and misleading journalism. That's why I find that section of the article dubious...but I did enjoy the rest of the article!

[Bookworm]

The series, which I think ultimately is more a fondly weird memory than a legitimately great piece of television,

What? No, not at all. What does this sentence even mean? Nostalgia or memory have nothing to do with why Twin Peaks was a great piece of TV. I do remember my reaction when I watched the show, how I loved those weird and likable characters. The mystery, the surrealism of some scenes and even dialogues. How I loved every minutes of the first season and almost most of the second one. Fondly weird memory? But isn't fondly memory is what everyone feels when we remember something we loved? My cat died last year, now when I think of her It's with fond memory. Does this mean she wasn't that great an loving a cat?

Does that mean my memory is, sort of, biased? Or because I loved her so much I'm not objective when thinking about her? But I'm objective when saying she was a great companion and that I loved her. Like I can say Twin Peaks was a great piece of television, not because fond weird memory but because it was.

I don't understand what this article try to prove, really. And that person is comparing apples with nothing since the show hasn't aired yet so what was the aim of that article? Why is he or she comparing an old show with a new one, who may have its own merits (and from what I've read the style of that show is greatly modeled on David Lynch and T.P one's) but have virtually nothing to do with Twin Peaks?

Ok, that all I wanted to say, I'm going back to lurk in the shadow now.

[Dalai Cooper]

Yikes, if nothing else that is an appalling sentence that should never have got past an editor.

(Love the phrase "comparing apples with nothing" btw, sick burn)

[adl345]

The series, which I think ultimately is more a fondly weird memory than a legitimately great piece of television,

What? No, not at all. What does this sentence even mean? Nostalgia or memory have nothing to do with why Twin Peaks was a great piece of TV. I do remember my reaction when I watched the show, how I loved those weird and likable characters. The mystery, the surrealism of some scenes and even dialogues. How I loved every minutes of the first season and almost most of the second one. Fondly weird memory? But isn't fondly memory is what everyone feels when we remember something we loved? My cat died last year, now when I think of her It's with fond memory. Does this mean she wasn't that great an loving a cat?

Does that mean my memory is, sort of, biased? Or because I loved her so much I'm not objective when thinking about her? But I'm objective when saying she was a great companion and that I loved her. Like I can say Twin Peaks was a great piece of television, not because fond weird memory but because it was.

I disagree with applying the concept to Twin Peaks, but "absence makes the heart grow fonder" isn't exactly a new idea. I'm guessing most of us have at least once in our lives revisited some work of art from the past, only to find that you now don't love it as much you remembered and that perhaps some of its flaws had receded in your mind.

If you were annoyed by the EW article, get a load of this:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bastar ... tch-986474

I think it's a great article, spot on to my own opinions (with the exception that none of us have seen the new show, do who knows?).

That said, it's only my personal opinion but I really do think some of you are far too precious about Lynch.....like you know him and everything you read is a personal affront.

Let it go, people. We get our show back in less than 2 months. We win.

Look, is it too much to ask that every critic who writes about the coming season tries to do it from the perspective of a poster on a fan message board?

[Mallard]

Does anyone else find it a bit ironic that the author touts the creation of a character called "The Angriest Boy in the World" in the same article that essentially declares a Lynch creation obsolete?

[Dalai Cooper]

looool ok maybe I will read this article

(although it cannot possibly be better than another trash article I read this year)

[Jacoby]

Annoying article on so many levels. Hate opinion pieces like that. Then its trying to force a battle between Legion and a show that hasn't even come out.

Oh well. Legion just wrapped up its first season, and it was very good. Lots of good Lynch nods in it too. Don't let the "superhero" aspect turn you off, it'd be like avoiding Cronenberg's Scanners because it has people with powers in it.

[laughingpinecone]

So is the plan to freak out at every "bad" article, cause they're going to start coming with much more frequency pretty soon?

Naw, the EW one was a big deal because it was officialish, with the photoshoot and exclusive first pictures and whatnot. Run-of-the-mill thinkpieces are popcorn fodder. The worse, the funnier.

[underthefan]

It's only Entertainment Weekly. They deal in exclusives, not content. Their core audience consists of people waiting to get a cavity filled.

Ouch, burn!! But entirely accurate.

[DirkG]

If you were annoyed by the EW article, get a load of this:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/bastar ... tch-986474

I'm very thankful that that idiot waited with writing that piece all until now when it's too late for it to really do any damage production wise.

[N. Needleman]

But doesn't that attitude toward FWWM - and the tone of the article in general - create false expectations for the new series? To whose benefit?

To be honest I doubt anyone is doing that close a read of an EW article these days. And they don't have anyone in there on record distinctly flouting FWWM or saying the show will be nothing like it.

As for the Legion piece, I saw a lot of folks (non-board members, mind you) shred it on social media last week, I'm over that nonsense. I look forward to getting around to watching Legion which everyone tells me is great, but no one needs to tear down another show (let alone TP) to prop it up.

I agree that people can't let every hot take or minor snub throw them. It it what it is. It's not that big a deal and there is no impact whatsoever on the show.

[Twink Peaks]

http://ktla.com/2017/03/30/madchen-amic ... s-revival/

[underthefan]

So is the plan to freak out at every "bad" article, cause they're going to start coming with much more frequency pretty soon?

Naw, the EW one was a big deal because it was officialish, with the photoshoot and exclusive first pictures and whatnot. Run-of-the-mill thinkpieces are popcorn fodder. The worse, the funnier.

Yeah, I'm not bothered by some lame, lazy, poorly written thinkpieces by incompetent writers as I'm sure there will be millions of those when the show comes out. I think EW one was a bigger deal because it was the one and only exclusive feature on new TP so far. But I am content with the New York Times honest re-evaulation of the film, as their judgment is much more valuable in every way than EW's, especially for those that may be more interested in checking out FWWM in the first place.

https://www.nytimes.com/watching/recomm ... lk-with-me