N. Needleman wrote:Interesting comment in there from Lynch himself about S2.
"Mr. Lynch said in a phone interview, explaining that his work on the film “Wild at Heart” pulled him away from the show after the first season."
Oh David, don't you remember you were doing Wild at Heart while making the first season, not the second? It was shown in Cannes two days after (or a few days before - wikipedia says May 25th, imdb says May 19th) the last episode of the first season of Twin Peaks was aired. There is no way Wild at Heart "pulled him away from the show after the first season."
"It's not a lie, if YOU believe it."
- George Cosatanza
This was a vision, fresh and clear as a mountain stream. The mind revealing itself to itself.
I read in a recent piece (can't remember which) that certain actors aren't even allowed to discuss the show until AFTER all 18 parts have aired - presumably due to the nature of their respective roles. Whether this is common knowledge here or if I've read/interpreted that wrong I don't know, but it stands to reason that Ray Wise is one of those people. It would make sense given his character.
It's not for a lack of discussion (he's been interviewed a couple times about it), it's the stark absence of him in the current marketing and promotion I'm referring to. However if we see him in the next trailer my family will be wiping me off the walls from the brainsplosion. He is literally THE person I want to see in a tease.
Anyone going to post pictures of their EATS the night of? I know CHERRY is standard, but i have a local store that makes an Apple pie with a walnut topping! Thats what i am doing....with plenty of coffee!
Can I quickly ask what the plan is for episode discussion? Is there going to be one thread for each episode (so people can avoid most spoilers) or is there going to be an ongoing 'megathread'?
For those that are not able to get Parts 3 and 4 the same night, hopefully people will not drop 3 and 4 spoilers on the Parts 1 and 2 thread.
I think it'd make most sense to say for each post you can only spoil what came before and what was in the named episode(s). I reckon there could be ("all spoilers") discussions regarding past episodes down the line. I think e.g. to mention part 3 spoilers to talk about something in part 1, it would be to have that discussion inside the part 3 thread.
Levine says viewers can come back to Peaks with encyclopedic knowledge of the original, or none at all. Watching the 1990 pilot episode wouldn't hurt, he says.
Lynch cryptic as ever, makes no such recommendation: The new series "has to work on its own. It doesn't hurt to know the past, but it's not a prerequisite," he says. "And if (viewers) feel lost, there’s plenty of people to help them out" on social media, which effectively didn't exist in 1990.
Levine says viewers can come back to Peaks with encyclopedic knowledge of the original, or none at all. Watching the 1990 pilot episode wouldn't hurt, he says.
Lynch cryptic as ever, makes no such recommendation: The new series "has to work on its own. It doesn't hurt to know the past, but it's not a prerequisite," he says. "And if (viewers) feel lost, there’s plenty of people to help them out" on social media, which effectively didn't exist in 1990.
Interesting quotes from the USA Today interview.
Yeah, I also remember my mother told me Kyle and Chris Isaak said something similar about FWWM during a TV interview right before the theatrical release- that you did not need to see the series to enjoy the film. I think it would have been hard to enjoy FWWM wtihout seeing the series, although I am sure some people have enjoyed it anyway.
But really, what Lynch is saying is correct. Not just Twin Peaks, but any running series. As long as you have someone to catch you up, you should be good.
Edit: In a sense, this has always been true with soap operas/daytime dramas. Almost all viewers enter the story in the middle of not one but several storylines. Typically they used to catch up by having friends who watched it longer than them cluing them in on all the nuances.
Levine says viewers can come back to Peaks with encyclopedic knowledge of the original, or none at all. Watching the 1990 pilot episode wouldn't hurt, he says.
Lynch cryptic as ever, makes no such recommendation: The new series "has to work on its own. It doesn't hurt to know the past, but it's not a prerequisite," he says. "And if (viewers) feel lost, there’s plenty of people to help them out" on social media, which effectively didn't exist in 1990.
Interesting quotes from the USA Today interview.
Yeah, I also remember my mother told me Kyle and Chris Isaak said something similar about FWWM during a TV interview right before the theatrical release- that you did not need to see the series to enjoy the film. I think it would have been hard to enjoy FWWM wtihout seeing the series, although I am sure some people have enjoyed it anyway.
But really, what Lynch is saying is correct. Not just Twin Peaks, but any running series. As long as you have someone to catch you up, you should be good.
Edit: In a sense, this has always been true with soap operas/daytime dramas. Almost all viewers enter the story in the middle of not one but several storylines. Typically they used to catch up by having friends who watched it longer than them cluing them in on all the nuances.
I'll have the experience of watching TPTR with a total newcomer. It'll be interesting to see if it really works on its own.
