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

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 »

Brad D wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:17 am 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”
Good question/point. I know that there are some who view the Ed/Norma thing as nostalgia that doesn't fit, but I never saw it that way. If I had to list reasons, I would say that it is because The Return contains a lot of light and darkness and is all about that contrast, and that contrast is displayed within the scene and immediately afterwards (Mr. C driving at night to the Flying Dutchman's) in an episode that traverses almost every emotion (the darkness of the Dutchman's, the surreal impenetrability of Steven/Gersten in the woods, the loss of the Log Lady, ZZ Top comedy, etc.); that the scene and its ricocheting of emotions fits in with The Return's MO (Part 13 - you think that Ed and Norma may be together, but then Ed says "Nothing going on here" and then in Part 15, Nadine gives him his freedom, only for him to ecstatically walk into the RR (complete with nostalgic entrance) and immediately have his dreams crushed, before calmly meditating and arriving at the beautiful outcome); that at that point in the series, granting Ed/Norma a happy ending is actually the more subversive thing to do; and especially that I simply believe it is one of Lynch's greatest standalone sequences. Plus, the meditative atmosphere which makes it seems like Ed is willing the outcome into existence and the general feeling that Ed/Norma/Nadine are awakening fit into the general trajectory of the series (Cooper begins to wake at the end of this episode, which also ends with Charlyne Yi crawling across the floor screaming, almost in mimicry of Cooper's desperate attempt to awaken).
Last edited by LateReg on Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

Dugpa-totally agree about Audrey. I don’t think they should have dove straight into a romance, but the show could have found ways to intertwine them and ultimately pull her into the lodge. I am not the biggest Annie fan, I can take it or leave it… but a great foundation was pulverized by splitting Coop and Audrey up.
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 »

Brad D wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:45 am Dugpa-totally agree about Audrey. I don’t think they should have dove straight into a romance, but the show could have found ways to intertwine them and ultimately pull her into the lodge. I am not the biggest Annie fan, I can take it or leave it… but a great foundation was pulverized by splitting Coop and Audrey up.
I agree on this as well. For me, in general, Season 2 lost a step because it didn't know what to do with any of the high school kids, and veered away from the high school almost entirely, transplanting the youths into blander, more "grown-up" situations to the point that you could almost forget that they should be in school. I'm not sure which character was actually the largest casualty of this approach, but Audrey was certainly the one who stood out since they thoroughly altered her persona, gave her a random love interest, and a new set of ambitions. I know Annie has her fans, but I think Cooper's character and the overall storyline also suffered as a result of splitting Audrey and Coop up entirely, thus necessitating the last-minute invention of love interest Annie. That's one of those things that makes sense to me in the end as an exploration of Cooper given the tragic outcome of another woman paying for his sins, but which I feel could have been written differently. Great payoff, though.
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 »

This goes back to what I was saying before, even if the show was tight it was going to be an uphill battle.

The two things the press was talking about was The Who killed the dead blond girl in plastic, and the FBI guy and the saddle shoe vixen, and how weird talking logs and little men in red were.

But even then when the whodunit was closing in and Cooper was zeroing in on captive damsel in distress Audrey, the ratings were still diminishing. Granted it was on Saturday night at 10:00 (!!!) but with those being the show’s two biggest hooks and couldn’t get the Neilson numbers, it was always going to be an uphill battle.

And even with the nixing of it, it’s not like we knew it at the time… it really came in potentially as an upheaval when JJW came in, and then the series was pulled for another two months. And then those last six episodes (well four of them) aired when the majority wasn’t watching.. so for all they knew the things we’re speculating were happening, they just weren’t watching.

The show would’ve needed an overhaul almost immediately into the second season to keep general viewers. Probably The Avengers route (which I know all the creators loved) … do the Cooper/Audrey characters as a John Steed/Mrs. Peel blueprint… “detective extraordinaire and talented amateur” as a backbone for conventional TV. It was probably its only shot… but you’d have a lot of angry actors.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
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 »

Brad D wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 9:17 am 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”
The conclusion to the Ed/Norma/Nadine storyline brilliantly underlines the core theme of TPTR. Sometimes life doesn't turn out exactly as you had dreamed it would. But if you are willing to wake up to the reality of what is now, and shovel yourself out of the shit, there is always the chance of finding happiness, something that is real.

This theme is even meta-mirrored in the reaction from the profoundly disappointed bunch, an outlook of "This is not what I had expected, what I had waited 25 years to see, and because it doesn't desperately go the fanfic route let's hate all of it". Instead of seeing TPTR for what it is, and be happy with that. A boundary pushing new work that embraces and updates the original deconstructivistic artistic ethos of "Twin Peaks", rather than repeating TV cliches - even if some of those cliches were originally invented by "Twin Peaks".

It is certainly not my intention to further derail this thread, I think Brad's critique of those that liked the new series completely misses the mark. And I think everyone here is interested in nuanced debate on every incarnation of Twin Peaks. As long as it's not the same 5 board members posting the exact same negative rant in every thread, every day.
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 »

My problem with the Norma/Ed union is just plot structure. You when to have knowledge that Ed is STILL married to Nadine I’d say at least one episode prior if not ten or fifteen. Lynch and First are designing this thing to “listen to the sounds” and speculate and talk between episodes.. what is happening with Coooer, who is Albert saying “I know where she drinks” is about. It’s a serial. We equally should’ve been crying and on the edge of our sets for months saying, “man, I can’t believe Ed is still married to Nadine!” It omly enhances the scenes of Ed moping about in the gas station with a cup, or Norma glancing at Ed in the diner.

I would be bold and say if it was pointed out to Lynch during editing and developing he also would say, whoops golly you’re right, let’s fix it. I think they needed a fe more eyes on the project and the people who loved it would’ve loved it even more. They got myopic and had to juggle a lot. The one person who challenged a story element ultimately got Lynch to concede it made the story better.

I hope it’s okay to say at this stage, two of the actors that I was close to confessed they couldn’t even finish watching the show.
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 »

eyeboogers wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:59 am
This theme is even meta-mirrored in the reaction from the profoundly disappointed bunch, an outlook of "This is not what I had expected, what I had waited 25 years to see, and because it doesn't desperately go the fanfic route let's hate all of it". Instead of seeing TPTR for what it is, and be happy with that.
Give me a break. You assume someone doesn’t worship The Return because of expectation? Maybe some people don’t like it because there is no story, no protagonist, and they find little meaning in the whole. That opinion does not get much merit around here among the lynchsplainers.
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 »

Audrey Horne wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:19 am My problem with the Norma/Ed union is just plot structure. You when to have knowledge that Ed is STILL married to Nadine I’d say at least one episode prior if not ten or fifteen. Lynch and First are designing this thing to “listen to the sounds” and speculate and talk between episodes.. what is happening with Coooer, who is Albert saying “I know where she drinks” is about. It’s a serial. We equally should’ve been crying and on the edge of our sets for months saying, “man, I can’t believe Ed is still married to Nadine!” It omly enhances the scenes of Ed moping about in the gas station with a cup, or Norma glancing at Ed in the diner.

I would be bold and say if it was pointed out to Lynch during editing and developing he also would say, whoops golly you’re right, let’s fix it. I think they needed a fe more eyes on the project and the people who loved it would’ve loved it even more. They got myopic and had to juggle a lot. The one person who challenged a story element ultimately got Lynch to concede it made the story better.
My opinion is that Ed and Norma and Nadine didn't matter that much. It was just great to see them back on screen. And to be honest, I never thought any of those three really mattered, even in the original series. They were characters in the background, never the reason anyone tuned in. Good to add character to the town, and in Nadine's case, accentuate its eccentricities.

As to actors not making it all the way through- I'm sure a lot of people didn't make it through. My wife didn't make it past the first scene. But for the record, I've seen people walk out on very good art. I was forced to walk out of The Gods Must Be Crazy when it first came to the U.S. I am still pissed about that.

Edit: btw, Bobby and Shelly's marital status was never revealed either until late in the show, kind of...it wasn't clear whether they are divorced or separated.
Last edited by mtwentz on Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
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 »

eyeboogers wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:59 am The conclusion to the Ed/Norma/Nadine storyline brilliantly underlines the core theme of TPTR. Sometimes life doesn't turn out exactly as you had dreamed it would. But if you are willing to wake up to the reality of what is now, and shovel yourself out of the shit, there is always the chance of finding happiness, something that is real.
In my previous post on the subject of Ed/Norma/Nadine, I had almost included a sentence on how it ties into shoveling your way out of the shit when I was speaking about awakenings. So I definitely agree with that! And even if your meta-observation is a bit harsh, I do think that element is clearly built into the show--a commentary on expectations, letting go of the past, seeing things as they are (the digital aesthetic), etc., and it consistently intertwines with so many other narrative and thematic points.
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: Wed Aug 04, 2021 11:19 am My problem with the Norma/Ed union is just plot structure. You when to have knowledge that Ed is STILL married to Nadine I’d say at least one episode prior if not ten or fifteen. Lynch and First are designing this thing to “listen to the sounds” and speculate and talk between episodes.. what is happening with Coooer, who is Albert saying “I know where she drinks” is about. It’s a serial. We equally should’ve been crying and on the edge of our sets for months saying, “man, I can’t believe Ed is still married to Nadine!” It omly enhances the scenes of Ed moping about in the gas station with a cup, or Norma glancing at Ed in the diner.
I see where you're coming from, but I still think it works as is. I like the emotional whiplash effect of the opening scenes in Part 15. Throughout, the way the thing is structured, the viewer is already wondering the entire time: Where's Big Ed? Oh, there's Nadine, are she and Big Ed still together? Oh, there's Norma, is she with Big Ed? WHERE'S BIG ED? This is similar to the credits withholding certain information about certain character's full names up until their relationships are revealed. And then you get these nonchalant introductions to all these characters like they've just been living there all along and it's the viewer who's back in town, catching a glimpse. When you see Big Ed moping, you not only focus on the purity of the emotion but wonder why; when you see Norma and Big Ed glancing at one another, you feel their divide and wonder at their feelings. I don't think knowing more about their relationships in advance through traditional storytelling would enhance that, for me anyway, even if it would unquestionably be different, it just wouldn't be The Return. It's all a very consistent strategy and it works for me. I don't think Lynch would have changed this aspect.

I get sad when I hear that some weren't able to finish it, but then again it's also one of the more extreme things ever aired on TV, so that's to be expected and is notable as an attribute of the polarizing series. In some ways I consider it a boon of the series, a sign of its daring and singularity.
Last edited by LateReg on Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Agent Earle
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1173
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Post by Agent Earle »

eyeboogers wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 10:59 am

It is certainly not my intention to further derail this thread, I think Brad's critique of those that liked the new series completely misses the mark. And I think everyone here is interested in nuanced debate on every incarnation of Twin Peaks. As long as it's not the same 5 board members posting the exact same negative rant in every thread, every day.
... and as long as it's not the same 5 board members gushing over every single aspect of The Return and the Master that Can Do No Wrong in every thread, every day. Goes both ways.
User avatar
dugpa
Site Admin
Posts: 1254
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:45 am
Contact:

Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

Post by dugpa »

Well looks like some things haven’t changed. LOL

Let’s all take a deep breath and say “it is only a tv show.”

We are all such nerds.
User avatar
AXX°N N.
Great Northern Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:47 pm

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

Post by AXX°N N. »

Man this topic has swerved severely off-topic. What was the topic again?

As for plot structure, I'm in the camp that believes it's a byword for "diverges at all from Hollywood formula." Plot structure as it's commonly thought about and enforced is not really present in the history of narratives to the degree it might appear. I got into a debate the other day about the Odyssey with someone who was critiquing it as "plotless" and "random" because characters show up once, then disappear and are never heard from again. And I found it so absurd they were tackling it using the same mindset as you would write a review for a video game plot. Really, the same charge of "plotless, no characters" can be applied to the Bible, the Kabbalah, and all experimental literature throughout time, but it's part of why I find Ovid strange and compelling and Kafka my favorite writer. And I think that's the mode Lynch (more and more over his career) and Frost (especially given his soundbites about greek myth specifically) chose to work in for S3. And I fully get that's not everyone's cup of tea, but I also don't think genuinely enjoying that should be pessimistically accused of "just playing defense for Lynch's every creative choice." Is it not possible to just enjoy his choices, even absent-mindedly? Because I don't think that's impossible, or that every case of someone sharing why they enjoy them is somehow mean-spirited, secretly manipulative, delusional, etc.

But on the other hand, I also don't like the charge that those who didn't like S3 just wanted everything to be cutesy & happy & fanficcy. That's just as much a strawman. The alternative to S3 could have been anything, it's not a choice between the radical one we got and something pandering. It could have merely been more straight-laced, kept the dark tone & tragic outcomes, but focused more on Cooper as Cooper & the town, etc.
Recipe not my own. In a coffee cup. 3 TBS flour, 2 TBS sugar, 1.5 TBS cocoa powder, .25 TSP baking powder, pinch of salt. 3 TBS milk, 1.5 TBS vegetable oil, 1 TBS peanut butter. Add and mix each set. Microwave 1 minute 10 seconds. The cup will be hot.
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 »

dugpa wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 1:53 pm We are all such nerds.
Image
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 »

dugpa wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 1:53 pm Well looks like some things haven’t changed. LOL

Let’s all take a deep breath and say “it is only a tv show.”

We are all such nerds.

We live inside a silllllencioooo.
God I love this board still.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
Post Reply