2021 Thoughts on Season 3

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

User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Jonah »

Lynch had told him the character being dead wouldn't be an issue, I think, that they could "work around it" or something. It was a pretty crappy way to treat the actor though - inviting someone of his stature to the set to give him two words. Even some extras get more lines that that. They put him to good use in the "Between Two Worlds" segment. They could have given him a bit more to do in the Red Room or somewhere else. I'm not saying a huge role - but more than two single words.
I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.
User avatar
Brad D
Global Moderator
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:56 am
Contact:

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Brad D »

It would have been cool to find Leland in the Odessa-verse. I suppose he could still be inhabited…
User avatar
dugpa
Site Admin
Posts: 1254
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:45 am
Contact:

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by dugpa »

Audrey Horne wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:17 pm
* Oh I missed a Brad post… what is today, 2008?
LOL

Good to see the old gang back on.

Twin Peaks the Return… do I dare open that box??
User avatar
Brad D
Global Moderator
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:56 am
Contact:

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Brad D »

Open it!!!!
User avatar
mtwentz
Lodge Member
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by mtwentz »

Overall folks, Lynch gave a lot more screentime and a lot meatier roles for old characters than any of us should reasonably have expected.

The formula for a reboot or continuation: center the new show on new characters, typically they will be the children of some of the old characters.

Keep some of the old characters in supporting roles or just cameos. Pull them out every once in a while for nostalgia. But they are not the focus of the new show.

For The Return, we got
1. our old hero, Cooper, is still the star but has an arguably even meatier role (in that he plays 3-5 versions of the same character)
2. The Sherriff's Station crew playing a central role, with Hawk/Michael Horse getting way more screentime than he ever expected (Horse mentioned somehwere he assumed he would get little more than a cameo).
3. Actors like Richard Beymer, Everett McGill and Harry Goaz did not have IMDB credits for several years. McGill in particular almost couldn't be found. But they were practically pulled out of retirement for the show.
4. Also, great role for Albert Rosenfeld in The Return. Who ever imagined he'd have that much screen time?
5. Andy and Lucy's role is now elevated. They are now central to the plot, not just comic relief on the side.

In particular, I imagine David Patrick Kelly and Russ Tamblyn had a blast with the material they were given. They looked like they enjoyed their parts.
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Lodge Member
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Audrey Horne »

It’s true. I was fully expecting lots of young, nubile actors running around Cooper with occasional drop by and waves from the old timers. But stop pointing out the silver linings!

This was the craziest most head scratching how do you structure a story I’ve ever seen, even if it is surrealism, example Ed and Norma get together after twenty five year plus… however in the story, you don’t even know Ed is married to Nadine until a previous scene where he is reunited with Norma…. Fifteen episodes in. Way to work that suspense, Lynch and Frost! But maybe that is just too conventional storytelling. What was Mr. C’s plan? Not even endgame, but episode to episode… severe snarling? We need some structure instead of every character walking around in ambiguity, and every sentence by every character is a cryptic sentence. I don’t think that would dilute Lynch’s work, only strengthen it.

I still don’t know if we should’ve ever seen Diane. I know they were toying with Carol Lynley playing her back in 1990, but that tape recorder was such a strong character already. Do you guys watch the old stuff and say to yourself Oh that is going to be Laura Dern eventually? Dern is great, but I think it was a mistake to stray from the Norm’s wife Vera in Cheers approach,

Richard and Linda? I guess if they were going that route the only thing that would work for me is have Sheryl Lee actually play Janey-E (that friggin name!) and people like Audrey, Diane and he’ll throw Annie in there too alternate in that final episode hotel room… so Cooper/Richard is more or less coming to grips with atrocities he did in real life and reimagined an FBI agent …but the fantasy kept breaking down.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
User avatar
Brad D
Global Moderator
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:56 am
Contact:

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Brad D »

(Softly whispers) “it’s ok not to fiercely defend every single creative decision made by Lynch”
User avatar
eyeboogers
Great Northern Member
Posts: 729
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by eyeboogers »

This thread is about ABC's handling of the original show. There is a seperate thread for those that still aren't able to appreciate The Return.
User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Jonah »

Once the discussion is still Twin Peaks related, I think the thread is still on topic, the topic can wander a bit but as long as it's still mostly relevant it's fine. It's not like everyone went from discussing Twin Peaks on ABC to discussing Marvel movies or Star Wars. It's a natural evolution to start discussing the most recent iteration of the show when discussing the original one imo. The main focus of the thread should be how ABC handled the original show, granted, but a little wandering is okay if it's still related to the show, original or revival.

The main problematic thread was the Season 4 one as that also led to some not very friendly behaviour between people, so it had to be kept more under wraps. Anyway, I'll let the other mods weigh in if they want to, but I think this thread is fine thus far. I'm pretty sure Jerry already said some wandering off track is okay. The difference is the Season 4 thread got too out of control so stronger rules had to be applied there.
I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Lodge Member
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Audrey Horne »

Ahhhh. Sorry. Back on topic. Here’s a question… maybe the show treated ABC badly?

In broad terms of generalizing the show to the viewing public, there were still at least three nighttime soaps on at the time, and based on the tone of quirky, Northern Exposure was gaining traction.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Jonah »

I wonder if Twin Peaks led to Northern Exposure getting picked up? China Beach was also doing some pretty quirky, ground-breaking stuff, so I understand why Twin Peaks sort of fit on ABC - I just think they should have given it another year.

Regular readers of this thread, feel free to ignore the next paragraph as I've said it all many times before - Backlash dies down, ratings pick up, and even if they don't they could cancel it then. I know it was a business/money decision but I stand by that. Back in the day, Cheers was not a hit, it spent it's first year at the very bottom of the list, but it was nurtured, its ratings improved in Seasons 2 and 3, and then became a huge smash that kept getting bigger, it even survived one of its leads packing it in and being replaced. I know Twin Peaks had probably peaked (!) but you never know, ratings and the public imagination ebbs and flows, the right storyline at the right time in the right series of episode, and it might have yet picked up again and had its second wave and been a big hit again. If it had gotten lucky enough in its next season to recapture the public's imagination - shows are sometimes forgiven for their stumbles, and often can become successful again in later seasons, it's not unheard of. I'll never stop banging that drum, wishing for what might have been! (But I've got real life stuff to attend to right now so I'll be back on later.)
I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.
LateReg
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by LateReg »

Audrey Horne wrote: Tue Aug 03, 2021 11:02 pm It’s true. I was fully expecting lots of young, nubile actors running around Cooper with occasional drop by and waves from the old timers. But stop pointing out the silver linings!

This was the craziest most head scratching how do you structure a story I’ve ever seen, even if it is surrealism, example Ed and Norma get together after twenty five year plus… however in the story, you don’t even know Ed is married to Nadine until a previous scene where he is reunited with Norma…. Fifteen episodes in. Way to work that suspense, Lynch and Frost! But maybe that is just too conventional storytelling. What was Mr. C’s plan? Not even endgame, but episode to episode… severe snarling? We need some structure instead of every character walking around in ambiguity, and every sentence by every character is a cryptic sentence. I don’t think that would dilute Lynch’s work, only strengthen it.

I still don’t know if we should’ve ever seen Diane. I know they were toying with Carol Lynley playing her back in 1990, but that tape recorder was such a strong character already. Do you guys watch the old stuff and say to yourself Oh that is going to be Laura Dern eventually? Dern is great, but I think it was a mistake to stray from the Norm’s wife Vera in Cheers approach,

Richard and Linda? I guess if they were going that route the only thing that would work for me is have Sheryl Lee actually play Janey-E (that friggin name!) and people like Audrey, Diane and he’ll throw Annie in there too alternate in that final episode hotel room… so Cooper/Richard is more or less coming to grips with atrocities he did in real life and reimagined an FBI agent …but the fantasy kept breaking down.
I find your POV fascinating because of how much, to paraphrase you, you both love and hate the show. You seem fully open to both ends of that spectrum and, even better, have fully reconciled that divide and enjoy living in it. Very healthy outlook!

But what I notice about so many posts, in general, about Twin Peaks is simply how much interpretation seems to factor into appreciation...and, of course, how much you end up appreciating your own interpretation! For example, the Ed and Norma thing and how it reflects the story structure. As has been discussed many times, the story itself is very clearly an eavesdropped, 25-years later thing that at the same time is built on subverting expectations at almost every turn. We get small glimpses, slices of life, etc., as though we are wandering about the town ourselves. Time hasn't stopped moving, and the story mostly exists in the gap. It is what it is, and it feels very honest to me, but as you say, it's one of the craziest ways of telling a story. So, we happen to get a glimpse of Ed and Nadine late in the game, perhaps after we expected to; I love the way that information was revealed, the way that I never knew what to expect, the way the scenes and accompanying emotions would ricochet off one another. Elsewhere, we are witnessing one piece of Mr. C's ongoing, 25-year journey, hence the cryptic nature of it to those of us who are just now tuning in; indeed, The Return only stopped to explain things in exposition dumps that almost parody television ("Let's think out loud." "As you know..."). Some of us love that and its unique presentation, while others think that it would have done better with a bit more narrative structure and linear force. But I see a very highly structured work, just not in typical narrative terms, and more so in terms of theme and tone. I appreciate what Brad whispers about not defending everything Lynch does, but for me it just comes down to interpretation and how much sense it makes. And the entirety of The Return makes a lot of sense based on the way I see it.

A further example: I still don't know if we've even really seen Diane! I don't know that anyone watched the old stuff and thought Laura Dern, but at some point as early as 2014 everybody pretty much expected Dern to be cast as Diane. And then in The Return she's nothing like we expected, and then she ends up being a tulpa, and then the "real" Diane emerges from her shell looking exactly like the Red Room, of all things! There's a lot to unpack there, and in her relationship to Cooper, and in how Diane functioned in the original series vs. her function in The Return. Similarly, I think what you've laid out for Richard/Linda is one possible interpretation (I personally don't think that Richard is the official version and has imagined himself as an FBI agent, but it's certainly possible), and what you address there regarding owning up to atrocities already exists in The Return, imo, albeit in more abstract ways. Going back to Mr. C, part of the fascination of his narrative thrust as I see it is how his actions mirror Cooper's actions and psychology (and constrast Dougie's), and how his singular determination to do whatever it is he is trying to do leads to his downfall, much like Cooper himself. I don't know that exactly "what" he is trying to do is as important as the fact that he is doggedly attempting to do something that perhaps cannot be done.

Also, a quick note to Jonah, eyeboogers et al. I was never a fan of the rules of the disappointed thread, strictly due to the way it segregated us. I was lucky enough to be (mostly) welcomed in there and enjoyed many great back-and-forths with less positive users, but I've always believed that relegating all negativity to one thread and especially banning positive, possibly enlightening discussion (both negative and positive) from it was a bad idea. I understand why the thread was created--as a safe haven for those who felt let down and wanted to vent, especially if they felt their views were under attack in other sections of the board--but I think those who are left on the boards are friendly and respectful and can share diverging points of view in any section of the board. (And yes, I understand why the Season 4 speculation thread needed some new rules, but I enjoy when discussions meander and morph like they have here.)
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Lodge Member
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Audrey Horne »

I hear yay. I have a friend who finally watched The Return and called me, and friends visiting Snoqualmie calling me nostalgically, thus making me nostalgic.

I hear you about giving a show a chance to really find its audience and Cheers is a perfect example. I was way too young but still watched that first season- which might be one of the greatest first seasons to ever appear on American TV (they made bold gutsy choices that I would say rivaled Peaks). I’m vague on this now but the president changed at ABC I believe, and he wasn’t so much a fan.

The other question I have and actually don’t know, is how expensive peaks’ episodes were compared to other series. The sets were built and outdoor shooting was local. And that stock Pilot footage went a long way. The cast was huge but I believe they were all being paid roughly scale with a few exceptions. So I can’t imagine it was more expensive than a China Beach or thirtysomething. Hell, Moonlighting star salaries probably dwarfed Peaks’ budget.

But even if the show did get a third season, it would have its work cut out for it. It would have to hook viewers to bring them back or even in at all. I know the fans love the last episode but that is mostly irrelevant… because practically no one saw it! It has nothing to do with quality, just the nature of the ratings beast.

The rub for me for all my head scratching of the decisions made during the second season is, I still don’t think that was the problem. Even if every episode was Citizen Kane, I think the fad of it was over by September 1990. On a practical level for the survival of the show it probably had its best chance by watering it down into a Northern Exposure meets CSI/Mystery of the Week with plot lines starting and ending in each episode (while having larger ongoing storylines) Not saint that’s what I would’ve wanted but that was the general blueprint for TV at the time.

You also have to remember the timeline for the actors. The first season was done by December 1990 without knowledge of it being a hit. The it was and they came in August 1990 and by then the big stars Kyle, Sherilyn, Lara Flynn and Lynch were being pulled in so many directions outside the show probably too quickly… this was TV and movies is where it’s at for people being red hot.

Basically it would’ve needed a major overhaul to get a third season.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
User avatar
Brad D
Global Moderator
Posts: 1070
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:56 am
Contact:

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by Brad D »

Here’s one thing that drives me nuts-many champions of season three applaud Lynch for doing the opposite of whatever the original was and not playing up to fans with heartwarming moments or nostalgia. Given that, doesn’t Ed and Norma’s happy ending go against what you find so great about season three? I’ve noticed in this board it’s either “you love all of season three or none of it”
User avatar
dugpa
Site Admin
Posts: 1254
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:45 am
Contact:

Re: Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by dugpa »

I think the series would have lasted additional seasons had they stuck with the Audrey/Cooper storyline. It would have given the viewers something to root for.

That is in my opinion the biggest miss of the series. Times like this I think of this piece of fan art which really locks in the potential of what could have been.
ED216133-1355-4003-AA05-849959DC2126.jpeg
ED216133-1355-4003-AA05-849959DC2126.jpeg (560.19 KiB) Viewed 5280 times
Artwork by Alex Saravia.
Attachments
50D84A07-C43F-4F84-8CEF-2412D5BCD3B5.jpeg
50D84A07-C43F-4F84-8CEF-2412D5BCD3B5.jpeg (20.23 KiB) Viewed 5280 times
Post Reply