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

dronerstone
RR Diner Member
Posts: 494
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2015 12:31 pm

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

Post by dronerstone »

It might be titled "The Return" for marketing reasons or because Lynch likes the expression,
It's still season 3 as well, technically
And at the same time it's a "new" Peaks too.

So stop being so anal keeping on having stupid little arguments about who's right. It's energy-draining and actually not that important as the new episodes THEMSELVES.
User avatar
Panapaok
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1025
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2015 9:07 am

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

Post by Panapaok »

Ross wrote:
IcedOver wrote:Probably a few of the names on that mammoth list won't even make the final cut of the show.
Agreed. I was thinking about this a few weeks ago as well. They released that list before the editing (in fact Lynch is supposedly still editing) so some of those people are bound to end up being cut. Hopefully this time around we get to see whatever material they cut.
For some reason I don't believe anyone out of the released cast list has been cut. They've been very careful of what they chose to announce, so I think those people will appear in some capacity. After all, it's at least 18 hours long.
This is - excuse me - a damn fine cup of coffee.
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 »

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" - I think it's fair for people to have opinions on it, but it's probably the least important thing about the show. I'm not too bothered by it, it has a lot of connotations. Our return to TP, Cooper's return, the show's return etc. It does sound a bit cheesy, but that's okay!

I wonder what the show will satire, will it still primarily be soaps or will they go for subverting prestige dramas instead?

Also - if editing has been fierce I think it's possible someone might be cut - but I don't think they would have made that announcement unless they felt fairly comfortable that everyone would feature. From all of the speculation, 18 episodes was the highest number of episodes suggested - so that bodes well for the probability of all actors featuring. I guess the bigger question is whether there were any scenes that they felt didn't work once they saw it in the editing booth. What would they do? I think FWWM is an anomaly, he clearly shot a lot more than what would make the cut (unless he thought a 3.5 hour film would be okay). How's Lynch usually in editing? I remember reading Megan Mullally was in blue velvet but was ultimately cut but that's the only example I know of.
User avatar
Soolsma
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: Peru

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

Post by Soolsma »

Remember, there are 21 more speaking parts than are on the cast list
Carrie Page: "It's a long way... In those days, I was too young to know any better."
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 »

indyit wrote:A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" - I think it's fair for people to have opinions on it, but it's probably the least important thing about the show. I'm not too bothered by it, it has a lot of connotations. Our return to TP, Cooper's return, the show's return etc. It does sound a bit cheesy, but that's okay!

I wonder what the show will satire, will it still primarily be soaps or will they go for subverting prestige dramas instead?

Also - if editing has been fierce I think it's possible someone might be cut - but I don't think they would have made that announcement unless they felt fairly comfortable that everyone would feature. From all of the speculation, 18 episodes was the highest number of episodes suggested - so that bodes well for the probability of all actors featuring. I guess the bigger question is whether there were any scenes that they felt didn't work once they saw it in the editing booth. What would they do? I think FWWM is an anomaly, he clearly shot a lot more than what would make the cut (unless he thought a 3.5 hour film would be okay). How's Lynch usually in editing? I remember reading Megan Mullally was in blue velvet but was ultimately cut but that's the only example I know of.
They era of Soaps has passed. If they do choose to satire Soaps, it will make the show seem dated.

Edit: As for the title, The Return is ok (much better than "The Black Lodge Strikes Back").
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
Dead Dog
RR Diner Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:25 am

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

Post by Dead Dog »

DirkG wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:I kind of like Twin Peaks: The Return. There's something so simple and pure or naive about it.
I on the other hand strongly dislike it. It has a unnecessary dumbness and on-the-nose-ness about it, also almost a disgusting Marvel /capesh*t aura which is even worse. Why why why on earth couldn't it just simply be called 'Twin Peaks'. Everything else was implied and understood anyway, that it's "season 3" or "series 3" or "the Showtime series" whatever people would have wanted to call it they could have chosen themselves.
I agree. It's profoundly dumb and unimaginative. Not that it really matters. It won't affect my enjoyment of the thing, but why can't it just be "Twin Peaks"?
User avatar
Soolsma
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: Peru

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

Post by Soolsma »

The series is about Coop's journey back to Twin Peaks. Hence the return.. I guess.

I'm totally fine with it. It's just like Lynch's return of the jedi :lol:
Carrie Page: "It's a long way... In those days, I was too young to know any better."
Agent Earle
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Post by Agent Earle »

DirkG wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:I kind of like Twin Peaks: The Return. There's something so simple and pure or naive about it.
I on the other hand strongly dislike it. It has a unnecessary dumbness and on-the-nose-ness about it, also almost a disgusting Marvel /capesh*t aura which is even worse. Why why why on earth couldn't it just simply be called 'Twin Peaks'. Everything else was implied and understood anyway, that it's "season 3" or "series 3" or "the Showtime series" whatever people would have wanted to call it they could have chosen themselves.
Spot-on!
User avatar
marchug
RR Diner Member
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 10:10 am
Location: Where the birds sing a pretty song and there's always music in the air.
Contact:

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

Post by marchug »

Panapaok wrote:I like it as a promotional title but I hope that it won't actually be used in the opening credits.
Speaking of credits, I wonder if there will actually be any beyond the beginning ("part" 1) and end ("part" 18)? If this is indeed an 18 hour long movie broken up into parts instead of episodes there would seem to be no need for individual opening and closing credits. Right? Maybe? Who knows?
-23-
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 »

mtwentz wrote: They era of Soaps has passed. If they do choose to satire Soaps, it will make the show seem dated.


Fair. I think that makes sense. Might go for it's own thing then, or have a primary focus on prestige dramas and procedurals.
Soolsma wrote:Remember, there are 21 more speaking parts than are on the cast list
There were 21 more speaking parts than what was on the list... Is that what you're getting at or do you mean considering that story, maybe there will be more, not less... or that it could be less considering it has potentially already been cut from 238 to 217? I think it's more likely that there were 238 parts, cut down to 217 than 238 with 217 announced with it still maintaining all 238 in the final product. But who knows!

if they do end credits after the finale and leave out credits for every ep - it'd be incredible! Keep you guessing who will appear and when and who you saw etc. I don't think they could do it though, I imagine union rules probably require credits or something.
User avatar
Soolsma
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: Peru

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

Post by Soolsma »

I just mean that article said that the clothes designer stated that there are 238 speaking roles, 21 more than there are people on the cast list. This came out half a year after the cast list was released. I know nothing more than whats mentioned in that article.
Carrie Page: "It's a long way... In those days, I was too young to know any better."
User avatar
Soolsma
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1426
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: Peru

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

Post by Soolsma »

I guess what I'm getting at is that I personally believe there are some that are deliberately left out of the cast list. So more than 217. Maybe some of them play double roles, but I don't think 10 of them do.

But that (hoping there are secret cast members) is just me wishing we're getting Heather Graham. Spoiling the last question heard at an epic cliffhanger like that through a cast list isn't healthy for a mystery to be alive. She said she wished she were on the show but wasn't.. Damn Frost negating her in TSHOTP too.. I don't know in which way this is gonna work about but it RIEKS, I tell ya! Maybe it's the one thing they'll keep a secret forever, like they intended to do with Laura's killer. Twin Peaks: The Return ends on yet another ''How's Annie?''

Oh yeah, secret Ontkean would be cool too. Sorry to all you Harry lovers out there but he's second on my list when it comes to this.

I don't care at all for Piper Laurie to be honest, her character never really spoke to me, more apologies to fans. More disguise shenanigans would be over doing it, lame nostalgia on a platter.

edit PS: I also think that if there were any cast members deliberately left out the list they wouldn't be new cast since we wouldn't know who they'd be playing anyway
Last edited by Soolsma on Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:48 am, edited 2 times in total.
Carrie Page: "It's a long way... In those days, I was too young to know any better."
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3680
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Post by Mr. Reindeer »

dronerstone wrote:It might be titled "The Return" for marketing reasons or because Lynch likes the expression,
This seems very likely to me. Just as DKL insisted on calling the "definitive" DVD set "The Gold Box," which outraged many fans at the time because it had nothing to do with TP. He's a quirky guy who latches onto sometimes-corny marketing ideas. I'm fine with it. I'm fairly certain it won't be in the show and it's not a "title" per se, but it's what DKL wants us to call this thing in lieu of calling it S3.

And there are gonna be credits on every episode as long as unions exist.
Last edited by Mr. Reindeer on Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
The Jumping Man
RR Diner Member
Posts: 179
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:27 pm

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

Post by The Jumping Man »

Eh. It's not a huge deal, but I hope "The Return" is only used for marketing purposes, not an official onscreen title. It's pretty lame.
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 »

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
dronerstone wrote:It might be titled "The Return" for marketing reasons or because Lynch likes the expression,/

This seems very likely to me. Just as DKL insisted on calling the "definitive" DVD set "The Gold Box," which outraged many fans at the time because it had nothing to do with TP. He's a quirky guy who latches onto sometimes-corny marketing ideas. I'm fine with it. I'm fairly certain it won't be in the show and it's not a "title" per se, but it's what DKL wants us to call this thing in lieu of calling it S3.

And there are gonna be credits on every episode as long as unions exist.
Funny though, because crediting on movies/shows is becoming all but obsolete with the streaming services allowing customers to automatically skip ending credits and beginning credits as well.
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
Post Reply