A Twin Peaks Continuation - For or Against

General discussion on Twin Peaks not related to the series, film, books, music, photos, or collectors merchandise.

Moderators: Jerry Horne, Brad D, Annie, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross

User avatar
Red Room
RR Diner Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:59 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby Red Room » Wed Oct 17, 2007 11:54 pm

Gabriel wrote:Twin Peaks was created by David Lynch ***and*** Mark Frost. It included a lot of Lynchian quirks, but was far from purely Lynch. Indeed, he was apparently barely involved in season two.

Thank you for the history lesson, however it is unnecessary. I was there at the time, and fully recall who was involved in the show. ;-)

It might be worth your while re-reading my post(s), as I very clearly stated that these were my opinions.

Gabriel wrote:This isn't some random Star Trek novel...

I don't recall saying that it was!?

Gabriel wrote:The reason I wasn't surprised at the different tone of FWWM was precisely because the book had prepared me for it. The book even has the torn out pages seen in FWWM, years before they were seen in the the film!

Great! However, the reason I wasn't suprised by the differing tones is that I have learnt never to be too surprised by David's work. Expect the unexpected.

Gabriel wrote:I can understand your reticence to get involved in the sub-culture...

Good.

Gabriel wrote:...but to dismiss fully-sanctioned works by the children of the show's creators (one of whom was a TP series writer) that are part of the continuity is bizarre for someone who claims to be so into Lynch's stuff!

OK, firstly I don't recall dismissing anything. I merely stated that it wasn't my cup of tea.

Secondly, I don't "claim to be so into Lynch's stuff", I am into it thank you. However, I'm not particularly comfortable with having to justify my level of fandom to anyone! It's not a competition, and I'm very comfortable with my appreciation of the man's work.

The last time I looked this thread was entitled: "A Twin Peaks Continuation ' For Or Against". I clearly made a schoolboy error in trying to explain my personal reasons for being against... Debate is good, but when it's taken this seriously my interest dies.

Gabriel, you most likely didn't mean to offend, but your tone was rather patronising, and I think it's worth remembering that we are discussing a TV show here. All opinions are welcome to me, but not when they are rammed down my throat.

Have a good day. :-)

RR
User avatar
Teopeaks
RR Diner Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 6:32 am
Contact:

Postby Teopeaks » Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:57 am

Well, I am against too, even though I love Twin Peaks and Lynch.

Twin Peaks is for me mostly about Laura Palmer and her story has been told and ended perfectly in the movie, there's nothing more to say about Laura Palmer. The rest was just part of the garnishment to me, and I love watching them too, but who needs more decoration when the tree is gone?
User avatar
Red Room
RR Diner Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:59 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby Red Room » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:03 am

Teopeaks wrote:...who needs more decoration when the tree is gone?

A perfect analogy! :-) I agree.

RR
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Postby Gabriel » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:32 am

Red Room, I'm shocked and really hurt by what you've said. Our experiences and opinions of Lynch's stuff sound pretty much similar. But on a discussion forum, one expects to put points forward and back them up with reasons. What's the point of going to a discussion forum, stating your opinion then having a cow at someone who wants to discuss why you feel that way?

I was not once patronising, but you're acting like the equivalent of a guy in a bar who's twisting someone's words to start a fight. I don't know if you had a run in with someone with the same forum identity as me somewhere else, but I'm a decent guy who thought I was having a chat with a fellow Lynch fan. You replied to me as if I was a vaguely retarded three year old and were extremely mean about it. I hope that hurting me makes you happy, otherwise your time was wasted! I don't take things that seriously and if you reread what I said with that in mind, you'll hopefully stop twisting an innocent post into a non-existent rant. You've actually made me feel like I was back at school being bullied again!

Why do you feel an aversion to canonical Twin Peaks material? I was genuinely interested in why you have that opinion.

For what it's worth I am a Lynch fan, therefore I can ***claim*** to be a Lynch fan. I was there at the start and have seen everything Lynch has done. I addressed my post to you assuming you know what you are talking about too.
User avatar
Red Room
RR Diner Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:59 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby Red Room » Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:59 am

Gabriel wrote:Red Room, I'm shocked and really hurt by what you've said. Our experiences and opinions of Lynch's stuff sound pretty much similar. But on a discussion forum, one expects to put points forward and back them up with reasons. What's the point of going to a discussion forum, stating your opinion then having a cow at someone who wants to discuss why you feel that way?

I was not once patronising, but you're acting like the equivalent of a guy in a bar who's twisting someone's words to start a fight. I don't know if you had a run in with someone with the same forum identity as me somewhere else, but I'm a decent guy who thought I was having a chat with a fellow Lynch fan. You replied to me as if I was a vaguely retarded three year old and were extremely mean about it. I hope that hurting me makes you happy, otherwise your time was wasted! I don't take things that seriously and if you reread what I said with that in mind, you'll hopefully stop twisting an innocent post into a non-existent rant. You've actually made me feel like I was back at school being bullied again!

Why do you feel an aversion to canonical Twin Peaks material? I was genuinely interested in why you have that opinion.

For what it's worth I am a Lynch fan, therefore I can ***claim*** to be a Lynch fan. I was there at the start and have seen everything Lynch has done. I addressed my post to you assuming you know what you are talking about too.

Gabriel, I really have no desire to "start a fight" with you or anyone, and have never been accused of such actions before. I even put the odd 'smiley' into my responses to you to keep the tone light.

Your previous post did offend me a little, however I made a point of saying that I didn't think you had intended to do so. Nonetheless there were certain assumptions about me and my views in it, and as this is a public forum I felt it appropriate to respond publicly.

Everything in my response to you was directly connected with your previous message. However the bulk of your latest 'message' to me consists of insults and arguments about things I have neither said nor insinuated.

This is really getting silly now... I know next to nothing about you as an individual, as you do me. So why take all of this so seriously?! Can we please just calm down for goodness sake? If not, then it's not worth visiting here anymore - and that would be a shame.

RR

P.S. Re: "claiming to be into Lynch's stuff" ' I was directly quoting you there. You might want to re-read that...
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Postby Gabriel » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:01 am

Sorry we got on the wrong foot Red Room. No offence was intended in any post. Extending hand of friendship! :)
User avatar
Red Room
RR Diner Member
Posts: 130
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 4:59 am
Location: UK
Contact:

Postby Red Room » Thu Oct 18, 2007 11:13 am

Gabriel wrote:Sorry we got on the wrong foot Red Room. No offence was intended in any post. Extending hand of friendship! :)

Gabriel,

Your hand of friendship is duly accepted...

Thank you - I appreciate that.

:)

RR
User avatar
It-Kai
New Member
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 6:27 pm

Postby It-Kai » Sat Oct 20, 2007 7:03 pm

The mystery that unfolds - gets more and more complicated and impossible to solve: that was the strength and charm in "Twin Peaks".
If Lynch can make an episode like ep. 29, and make sense of the action of at least 10 totally useless episodes, then I can't see why he couldn't go back to the Laura Palmer story today and make the stuff seem relevant - in this way only Lynch can make things work.

But I'm not sure if I need it. Just as much as I want to hear, and believes in a, new Pixies record I'm not sure I need it. I wouldn't fear new Twin Peaks stuff though. Only if Mark Frost and a bunch of writers did it without Lynch, that is. I'm never affraid of Lynch projets. Lynch tought me never to fear anything. To embrace fear.
User avatar
D0ppelgangerDale
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 60
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 8:09 pm
Location: Black Lodge

Postby D0ppelgangerDale » Sat Oct 20, 2007 9:11 pm

I'm for a graphic novel or movie to wrap things up, but against a TV show. By "wrap things up," I don't mean that no stone should be left unturned. I don't want to see everything explained in excruciating detail because that would clearly be contradictory to the nature of the show. What I want is to watch Agent Cooper triumph over the evil spirits inhabiting the Black Lodge in some way, shape, or form. I'm not asking for an idyllic ending, but leaving Dale Cooper, a truly good and gifted man, stuck in the Black Lodge to suffer eternally is unacceptable. Cooper is the hero. Why is he stuck in a place resembling hell?

I've heard some people say that we don't need to see Cooper escape the Black Lodge because it's a given. In my opinion, this is a weak argument. When it comes to any fictional plot, the audience needs to see much of what it knows (or thinks it knows) is going to happen. The reason is that satisfaction comes from resolution. In Star Wars, it was a given that the Rebel Alliance would defeat the Empire, but the fans still needed to see it happen in Episode VI because they needed a satisfying conclusion. Cliffhangers are not satisfying conclusions almost by definition. Moreover, when it comes to Twin Peaks, we know that a third season was initially planned and a series of movies were later planned, so it's a fact that the season 2 cliffhanger was NOT the intended ending for the show. Fans have made due with the cliffhanger ending, but we deserve a real one.
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Postby Gabriel » Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:43 am

I'd actually favour a made-for-cable miniseries with a DVD/HDDVD/Bluray release that isn't cut for TV schedules.

Kyle MacLachlan can play BOB, with his hair dyed grey, if the character appears. I think TP deserves one last blast at the visual medium.

Resolve the cliffhangers, but deepen the mysteries. Coop as BOB, Audrey in the bank, Ben getting a head injury hitting the fireplace and so on are irritating distractions. I want to learn more of the mysteries in the woods, for example, but in the sense that each answered question leads to more unanswered ones that we can discuss for years to come.

In many ways, I'm against a prosaic 'continuation' of TP. But would I like to see more stories from the town and the woods with even more characters as yet unseen? Certainly.
User avatar
Ross
Global Moderator
Posts: 2204
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 8:04 pm
Contact:

Postby Ross » Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:55 am

D0ppelgangerDale wrote:Moreover, when it comes to Twin Peaks, we know that a third season was initially planned and a series of movies were later planned, so it's a fact that the season 2 cliffhanger was NOT the intended ending for the show.


I'd love to see something new from TP more than anything- and for a long time I thought it might still be a possibility. But I think Lynch considers it "done". The second season cliffhanger was NOT intended as a conclusion, and yeah, FWWM was planned as the first in a series. But in some weird way the combo of that cliffhanger plus FWWM DO create some kind of cyclical ending - perhaps more from happy coincidence than by design. And I think THAT's the reason that Lynch likes it the way it turned out. Because its almost an organic accident, and that's the kind of artist/filmmaker he is.
siriusmystery
New Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 11:48 am

Postby siriusmystery » Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:26 am

It would be too strong expression if I'd say I'm AGAINST the continuation, still I don't need one.
But if something were made then the only way to do it should be like this:

Gabriel wrote: each answered question leads to more unanswered ones
Fall_of_Sophia
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2007 4:49 am

Postby Fall_of_Sophia » Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:34 am

I'd be up for a new TV series but ONLY if Lynch directed ALL the episodes.
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Postby Gabriel » Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:46 am

That would be a shame: while Lynch's influence was felt throughout, many other talented people contributed to making TP a joy to watch.
User avatar
The Magician
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 98
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:39 pm
Location: Another Place
Contact:

Postby The Magician » Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:00 pm

Well said, Gabriel.

But I think Lynch considers it "done".


I frankly don't care what David Lynch thinks. A lot of people give him a great deal of respect, but I think it's about time he gives his fans some respect. We've wanted something for a long time, and it matters what we think, what Harley Peyton thinks, what Bob Engels thinks, and ESPECIALLY what Mark Frost thinks.

A television or movie series is out of the question, because all the ensemble cast are too old. The graphic novel would have been perfect, and all the classic TP crew were so behind it, but Lynch in his selfishness nixed it, and now it's too late.

I consider myself "done" with Lynch... but I'll never be done with Twin Peaks.
Sometimes things can happen just like this. *snap*

J'ai une âme solitaire.

Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 17 guests