Why exactly did ABC treat the show so badly?

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
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3615
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Post by Mr. Reindeer »

I’ve also speculated that Frost could have been annoyed by some kind-of shitty statements about Frost being jealous of Lynch during the original run, in the book Room to Dream. This was Tony Krantz speaking, but Lynch read all those chapters and had approval over the material. Krantz blames Frost for the breakdown of the L/F relationship, saying, “his ego got in the way of it.”

Frost claims he never read Room to Dream (despite being interviewed for it as well), but it’s certainly possible someone else read it and told him about that quote, and it annoyed him that Lynch let it in. Hell, I’d be annoyed. The whole chapter (edited ny McKenna from various interviews) really comes off as St. David, with Mark at worst ruining the second season, at best being a good second banana, depending on who’s speaking. Kimmy refers to him as Lynch’s “librarian.”
User avatar
Brad D
Global Moderator
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:56 am
Contact:

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

Post by Brad D »

I picked up Room to Dream off a shelf, flipped through it for five minutes and knew it was a puff piece to build the myth of Lynch and gaslight certain things he resents. So much misinformation in the TP chapters, I had to laugh. Also -- calling Frost Lynch's "librarian" is pretty bad. He is, to my estimation, 80% responsible for TP's s1 brilliance that followed the pilot.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3615
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Post by Mr. Reindeer »

I enjoyed RtD as a Lynch fan. Lots of new anecdotes, stories about his personal life, quotes from many collaborators. But that first TP chapter was absolutely awful. McKenna gets even basic facts wrong, one senses that she never really watched the show, and the quotes are indeed slanted toward making Lynch the maestro despite his relatively limited involvement. The chapter admits that Lynch’s involvement in S1 was minimal, but then blames S2’s failure on him not being around! David Bushman read that Kimmy quote to Mark and his reaction was to laugh, then say something like, “That sounds like Kimmy. But if that’s true, why was season 1 acclaimed when David was hardly involved?”
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3615
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Post by Mr. Reindeer »

Sorry, those last couple posts were in response to the wrong thread! Sorry! Meant to respond to this post from Jonah and the preceding ones: http://www.dugpa.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 69#p129369
User avatar
Jonah
Lodge Member
Posts: 2282
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

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

Post by Jonah »

No worries. I copied and pasted your comments and Brad's via quote into the other thread. To go back to what was being discussed on the previous page of this thread, Mr. Reindeer - did you read any relevant passages about Bob pre-Episode 14's reveal but when he was revealed as killing Laura in Episode 8 to give an idea of what people were thinking and what there theories were about him. Or, Brad, do you remember from back in the day?

I'm guessing the only options were - Bob is a drifter who killed her but there's more to it, maybe someone hired him, maybe he didn't kill her and he's a red herring (even though the flashback at the end of 8 showed him). Or was anyone thinking supernatural possession/hosts before the show revealed it? How much of a reveal was 14 - just who the host was or the whole possession thing itself or had that been guessed already?
I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.
enumbs
RR Diner Member
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:44 pm

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

Post by enumbs »

Mr. Reindeer wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:47 am I enjoyed RtD as a Lynch fan. Lots of new anecdotes, stories about his personal life, quotes from many collaborators. But that first TP chapter was absolutely awful. McKenna gets even basic facts wrong, one senses that she never really watched the show, and the quotes are indeed slanted toward making Lynch the maestro despite his relatively limited involvement. The chapter admits that Lynch’s involvement in S1 was minimal, but then blames S2’s failure on him not being around! David Bushman read that Kimmy quote to Mark and his reaction was to laugh, then say something like, “That sounds like Kimmy. But if that’s true, why was season 1 acclaimed when David was hardly involved?”
Interesting. I read Room to Dream but didn’t notice any of that. Any other examples of bias or mistakes from that chapter? Really enjoyed the book overall, although Brad’s book was obviously more comprehensive when it came to the Peak stuff.
User avatar
Brad D
Global Moderator
Posts: 965
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 11:56 am
Contact:

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

Post by Brad D »

I suppose, given that BOB had only existed in dreams and drawings, that viewers didnt know what to think. It was a terrifying scene, as much as it was obtuse. There was so little context to BOB, that I could see it would be frustrating if you watched the episode with the expectation "this mystery will be wrapped up".

In hindsight, with a fresh season - it really was time to introduce a huge thread that could live alongside WKLP, and surpass it. I have always felt the mystery of "who shot Cooper" got lost pretty quickly. Watching it in real time, that's what I was super keen on finding out, and I think could have been a great macguffin to chase.
User avatar
Jonah
Lodge Member
Posts: 2282
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

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

Post by Jonah »

Yeah, the whole Who Shot Cooper? thing was meant to emulate the Who Shot JR? thing on Dallas, but I don't think it ever took off much, did it? Were people waiting all summer to find that out? They probbaly should have revealed that much earlier in Season 2, if not the killer, as by the time it's finally wrapped up in Episode 23 it feels like an afterthought and something possibly forgotten by many people. We discussed it recently actually (in the Epiosde 7 thread, Edit - here: http://www.dugpa.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 7&start=30). Maybe they should have revealed it while it was still fairly fresh in those first batch of Season 2 episodes, somewhere between 8 and 14. I think people wrre still too focused on the Laura episode, but it's weird how it fell by the wayside for so long, it almost feels like a Lost mystery - something introduced and not touched upon again for a long stretch (and it feels like the reveal comes more than 23 episodes later, it almost feels like 2 or 3 seasons later given the killer reveal, the wrap up of the Palmer storyline/s, and the bulk of the weak stretch of Season 2 had all transpired in between.
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
eyeboogers
Great Northern Member
Posts: 677
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 »

Jonah wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:00 am I stll don't think it indicated he was supernatural though. Even the international pilot just had him as a drifter (who had killed with Mike) and was living in the basement of the hospital. There was no indication the convenience store or anything else was supernatural.
I don't know if I agree with there being "no indication". This is Mike's monologue from the pilot:

"Through the darkness of future's past, the magician longs to see. One chants out between two worlds... "Fire... walk with me." We lived among the people. I think you say, convenience store. We lived above it. I mean it like it is... like it sounds. I too have been touched by the devilish one. Tattoo on the left shoulder... Oh, but when I saw the face of God, I was changed. I took the entire arm off. My name is Mike. His name is Bob."

Then there was the whole humming sound thing, the circle of candles...It doesn't sound like the behavior of the average TV serial-killing-drifter to me.
User avatar
Jonah
Lodge Member
Posts: 2282
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

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

Post by Jonah »

I had thought of Mike's monologue, from the international pilot and Episode 2. But it never really indicated that it was supernatural (until Episode 15 or so). I mean, maybe a little with "lived among the people" but even then it sounds more like they were serial killers, not supernatural. Even all the stuff about a magician and "two worlds", I mean, it sounds more lyrical than literal, like he's reciting a poem. The convenience store just sounded like a regular one. I don't think there's a strong indication of a supernatural origin in that speech - at that time at least, until later revelations.

The circle of candles and all the rest, the basement etc., was very standard serial killer tropes of the day in my opinon, and could all be dismissed as crazy behaviour and atmosphere, etc. Viewing it strictly in the context of those episodes, I mean - of course, once we see a clearer picture in later episodes, all of this stuff can be viewed differently, but at the time those revelations weren't there to paint those scenes n a supernatural lense. (Even the red room itself was pretty firmly ensconced as being "just a dream". The narrative even had Cooper experiencing it all as a dream - not the international pilot, but Episode 2.) Leland recognising the man from the picture yet no indication of aging might have given some pause - but then again maybe not, plus Leland was mostly being dismissed as pretty crazy at this point anyway, so he was very much an unreliable character.
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
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3615
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Post by Mr. Reindeer »

enumbs wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 11:58 am
Mr. Reindeer wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:47 am I enjoyed RtD as a Lynch fan. Lots of new anecdotes, stories about his personal life, quotes from many collaborators. But that first TP chapter was absolutely awful. McKenna gets even basic facts wrong, one senses that she never really watched the show, and the quotes are indeed slanted toward making Lynch the maestro despite his relatively limited involvement. The chapter admits that Lynch’s involvement in S1 was minimal, but then blames S2’s failure on him not being around! David Bushman read that Kimmy quote to Mark and his reaction was to laugh, then say something like, “That sounds like Kimmy. But if that’s true, why was season 1 acclaimed when David was hardly involved?”
Interesting. I read Room to Dream but didn’t notice any of that. Any other examples of bias or mistakes from that chapter? Really enjoyed the book overall, although Brad’s book was obviously more comprehensive when it came to the Peak stuff.
The inaccuracy that I specifically remember was her saying that the show was put on hiatus after the fifteenth episode of S2 aired on June 10, 1991...this was actually the day the series finale aired, of course, and the two hiatuses occurred much earlier. I believe there was some other basic fact-checking stuff like that that I probably noted in the thread on the book when it came out. In general, the chapter is essentially entirely about the Pilot, as well as other Lynch projects/life events at that time, with even the revolutionary E29 not really being covered, just getting a cursory mention. It’s essentially just all the cast members saying Lynch is brilliant, with the occasional dig at Mark. The rest of the book is mostly great and insightful, but the TP chapter is essentially the book equivalent of an EPK.
User avatar
Jonah
Lodge Member
Posts: 2282
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

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

Post by Jonah »

EPK? Lots of acronyms abound tonight.

Edit - Google suggests Electronic Press Kit?
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
Mr. Reindeer
Lodge Member
Posts: 3615
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Post by Mr. Reindeer »

Jonah wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 5:35 pm EPK? Lots of acronyms abound tonight.

Edit - Google suggests Electronic Press Kit?
Yeah, it’s generally a crappy puff piece where everyone just says nice things about the product (or in this case Lynch) with little real substance
User avatar
AXX°N N.
RR Diner Member
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:47 pm

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

Post by AXX°N N. »

Mr. Reindeer wrote: Sun Jun 13, 2021 10:47 am McKenna gets even basic facts wrong, one senses that she never really watched the show, and the quotes are indeed slanted toward making Lynch the maestro despite his relatively limited involvement.
Uh huh. I recently watched the new interview from Z to A where she's moderator, and while it was overall good questions and good answers, there were two things that irked me:

One is she referred to the Laura on James' bike scene (the one that gets repeated in B&W in Part 17) as being from the first season, not FWWM, which seems like a really egregious mistake, given how cinematic the scene looks visually and how little of Laura's backstory is actually shown in season 1. In fact you could say season 1 operates off the lack of our witnessing those events, that that's literally its plot engine.

Two is she asked Sheryl Lee a really strange and, to me, highly offensive and insensitive question; "Was playing Maddy less fun than Laura? She was always wearing frumpy outfits, but Laura was always pretty hot." The fact that Laura as a character is a victim of abuse and exploitation and is constantly struggling with guilt and shame about her promiscuity makes this question totally off base to me in terms of granting dignity to the character. Maybe it's a joke and I'm taking it too seriously, but it truly bothered me.

I'm currently slogging through RtD, I like it for the new info and the tidbits, but from a writing style perspective it's really wordy and didactic. McKenna is almost more of an unreliable narrator than Lynch, who constantly makes me think of the Lost Highway 'I like to remember things my own way' bit, despite his weirdly unambiguous mission statement to correct the record at length.

EDIT: Also posted off-topic to the accidental post. The legacy lives on. Reposted here: http://www.dugpa.com/forum/viewtopic.ph ... 70#p129470.
Last edited by AXX°N N. on Mon Jun 14, 2021 10:00 am, edited 5 times in total.
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.
enumbs
RR Diner Member
Posts: 147
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:44 pm

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

Post by enumbs »

AXX°N N. wrote: Mon Jun 14, 2021 9:23 am Uh huh. I recently watched the new interview from Z to A where she's moderator, and while it was overall good questions and good answers, there were two things that irked me:

One is she referred to the Laura on James' bike scene (the one that gets repeated in B&W in Part 17) as being from the first season, not FWWM, which seems like a really egregious mistake, given how cinematic the scene looks visually and how little of Laura's backstory is actually shown in season 1. In fact you could say season 1 operates off the lack of our witnessing those events, that that's literally its plot engine.

Two is she asked Sheryl Lee a really strange and, to me, highly offensive and insensitive question; "Was playing Maddy less fun than Laura? She was always wearing frumpy outfits, but Laura was always pretty hot." The fact that Laura as a character is a victim of abuse and exploitation and is constantly struggling with guilt and shame about her promiscuity makes this question totally off base to me in terms of granting dignity to the character. Maybe it's a joke and I'm taking it too seriously, but it truly bothered me.
Didn’t she also ask some strange question about whether Laura’s promiscuity was sinful in some way? Maybe I’m just remembering the frumpy clothes question but I seem to recall something even more direct and bizarre.
Post Reply