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
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 »

AXX°N N. wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 2:05 pm
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.
Axxon n, when I state that there is a minority of very vocal people on here who wanted such a back to basics approach, it is because that is exactly what they explicitly say that they wanted. And it does not apply to everyone that had grievances with the show, but were able to appreciate elements. I think it is a shame when someone like Brad, who clearly loves "Twin Peaks" every bit as much as I do, paints himself into a corner with extreme statements like there being "no plot and no protagonist", since clearly that is untrue (as a screenwriter by trade and education I would love to debate that with Brad, but that should probably in another thread), because those people miss the chance to enjoy The Return for what it is. And part of what it is, is to be frustrating and challenging by design. And so was the original "Twin Peaks" series. There is a lot of shared DNA between the Senor Droolcup scene and the Cole and the french woman scene. Twin Peaks is all about tearing down TV's narrative conventions, and putting them back together, permanently altered. That happened in the 90's and it happened again now.

My point was not so much to attack those nostalgic impulses, because we all had them going in. I am sure all of us had long mental lists of things we would like to have happened in The Return, and characters we would have liked to have seen (and yes I also think Piper Laurie is a giant missed opportunity). I wanted to bring attention to that the series anticipates fans having those desires f.ex. by playing around with 'how long can Cooper possibly stay Dougie'. From all previous series re-unions we know that it is just simply never the same. Trying to get back to the same formula 25 years after, to simply put a bow on thing,s would have felt hollow and artificial. While The Return impressed most fans but left around 20% less than satisfied, a "Fuller House" type approach, of getting the band back together and going through the motions, would have satisfied absolutely no one.

I also see a correlation between people that found the season hard to enjoy and navigate and people that did not read "The Secret History of Twin Peaks" in advance. That bit of transmedial storytelling was a great guide in terms of telling you what to pay special attention to on the series As Axxon also points out, we were also told that "The Odyssey" would be used as a narrative framework, and after the show ended, that we had not yet gotten to the end of that Odyssey structure, and that there was/is supposed to be more.
User avatar
boske
Great Northern Member
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:15 am

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

Post by boske »

I was thinking of not posting this here, but since the last few pages were about S3, and especially about Ed and Norma, I decided the the contrary, my apologies in advance.

It would have been in the spirit of TP to leave Ed and Norma arc unresolved as well with another cliffhanger, that would have felt more natural. That also would then have been an expectation, and if expectations are being subverted all over the place, giving Ed and Norma a happy ending could be looked at as another subversion.

But I do not think that is what is going on there. Throughout S3 there is a supposed generational bias, where almost all of the elder characters (Cole, Mullins, Truman, Ben Horne) would have retired long time ago, and yet they are still in charge in their profession, clean cut, shaven. Contrast that to younger generations. Here we have Steven, Becky's pathetic loser of a boyfriend, vagabond Wally, crooked Chad, hillbilly loan sharks in Vegas, Bill Shaker chugging hot dogs while walking around in a suit, James a security guard, Bobby a small-town low-level cop (contrast him to his father), Mile Nelson a car salesman, and so on. Is it a Baby Boomer bias directed at younger generations, or a sign of a decay introduced as a result of the nuclear test? I think it is the latter, but there could be just a little bit of a bias too. So, giving Ed and Norma a happy ending, and screwing everybody else merely follows this pattern.
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 »

If people want to continue discussing The Return, I might try my hand at splitting this topic into another thread focusing on The Return - unless the other mods or any other posters have a problem with this. I don't think it's off-topic as such as it's still Twin Peaks, but if people would prefer another thread for discussing this, that's not the Disappointed Support Group (no need to relegate all discussion on it to there, even if there's some negative views), let me know and I can try to migrate some of the posts over - and create a topic here in the General forum to save people going into the Season 3 one. Thoughts?
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
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 »

Let’s do it but I’m thinking we call the new thread 2021 Thoughts on Season 3
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, we are at such polar ends of the spectrum. The Secret History remark alone tells me that a debate or further discussion is futile.

Edit-the last five pages are compelling, but an executive producer undercutting it and minimizing it says much about the TP property as a whole as of 2016/17
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 »

Sorry you feel that way, since my point is I think it is much more fun and interesting around here when people discuss and dig into the details of things, rather than crawling up trees of extreme opinions. I think you also put my into a camp of so-called "Lynch-splainers" without actually knowing where I stand on things (for the record I am Team-Frost). Also, while I think The Return is a huge artistic triumph, it doesn't mean that I don't think it has faults. Twin Peaks has always been a narrative laboratory of sorts. In the new show the villain is even called "The Experiment". And with such risky endeavours into uncharted territory some things can turn out great, while others fall flat. And for the things that to some don't work, it is then interesting to try to figure out what the artists where trying to accomplish with those elements.

One of the things I was sad about, in terms of you disliking the new series so much, was that I really loved the "Perspectives" book and had been hoping for a The Return follow-up. If one was to materialise anyways I fear it would hold more swear words per page than a Dr.Amp monologue.
User avatar
Rainwater
RR Diner Member
Posts: 399
Joined: Sun May 01, 2016 3:00 am
Location: Under the Sycamore trees

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

Post by Rainwater »

Agent Earle wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 12:50 pm
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.
Oh God. I'm sorry for going off topic, but I can't not respond to this. This is the singular thing that's said every now and then on this forum that pisses me off the most out of anything I've ever read here.
Specifically, this:
the Master that Can Do No Wrong
literally what are you talking about?? What do you mean???

What is this strawman of all strawmen? Show me a single person on this forum (real, not a figment of your imagination) who thinks this, or has an attitude of Lynch or his work being in any way perfect or infallible, or thinks TPTR is an absolutely flawless work of art, or anything else implied by the above strawman. Literally show me one. I dare you. I fucking double dare you!

Alright guys, please speak up, all you Lynch fanboys. Let me make a prediction, though, of how an imagined questionnaire might go:
Anyone on this forum who thinks Lynch's work is flawless? [crickets] Anyone think he can "do no wrong"? [crickets] Anyone think he as a person or artist is without fault? [crickets] Anyone here who loves all of his work equally? [crickets] Anyone with a tattoo of his face? No?

Seriously, what? Personally, I love The Return. For all its flaws, which there are plenty of in my view, and I'm happy to acknowledge them, it's still one of my favorite works of art ever. And yet, there are several of Lynch's works I don't care for at all. Most of them, in fact. I bet almost anyone here could say the same, that some of the stuff he's made just doesn't do it for you.
So where's that coming from? Why do I see that kind of strawman from people who didn't like The Return time and time again? What's the problem? Are you just completely unable or unwilling to deal with the fact that a specific work of art you dislike is earnestly and unpretentiously loved by others, so you imagine they're some kind of cultist worshipping at the feet of the artist? Is that it? I don't get it. Please help me understand. What am I missing here?

P.S. I hope you don't take my mildly agitated tone as any kind of personal attack, and furthermore I hope you don't take it as any kind of evidence that your presumed perspective of those deluded Lynch lovers is true - the reason I'm pissed is precisely because of how absurdly far from reality it is.
P.P.S. And please don't tell me it was "banter" or you were just being facetious or whatever. This precise sentiment has been expressed in a very acerbic tone both here on this forum and elsewhere(if not by you specifically, then by others), to the point where I'm sure the people who say that kind of thing really mean something by it, and believe it.
I'll see you in the trees
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: Thu Aug 05, 2021 6:53 am Let’s do it but I’m thinking we call the new thread 2021 Thoughts on Season 3
I read that as two thousand and twenty one thoughts (individually) on Season Three… and I was like, no problem.

I have it easy… I’ve been angry at this show since Feb 1991. The show where the principal mourned the death of a student was the same show with a villain in a two-person horse costume or somehow lugged a giant chess piece onto a gazebo.

I will always praise the show because the highs are astounding. The Return is clearly made by an expert filmmaker. The core cast and the characters they portray are up there with the best ensembles ever put together. But sometimes you have the best ingredients for a meal and you don’t quite put it together right and your tongue is sifting through those ingredients wishing it had come together.

No one is going to change anyone’s mind. We’ll peruse the threads of extreme praise or extreme disapproval and roll our eyes at the contrary opinion* of our own. But as long as we have those threads to complain in, I’m happy.

*my opinion is the correct one, we all know it.
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: Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:10 am Sorry you feel that way, since my point is I think it is much more fun and interesting around here when people discuss and dig into the details of things, rather than crawling up trees of extreme opinions. I think you also put my into a camp of so-called "Lynch-splainers" without actually knowing where I stand on things (for the record I am Team-Frost). Also, while I think The Return is a huge artistic triumph, it doesn't mean that I don't think it has faults. Twin Peaks has always been a narrative laboratory of sorts. In the new show the villain is even called "The Experiment". And with such risky endeavours into uncharted territory some things can turn out great, while others fall flat. And for the things that to some don't work, it is then interesting to try to figure out what the artists where trying to accomplish with those elements.

One of the things I was sad about, in terms of you disliking the new series so much, was that I really loved the "Perspectives" book and had been hoping for a The Return follow-up. If one was to materialise anyways I fear it would hold more swear words per page than a Dr.Amp monologue.
I wish there were not 'teams' - it is incredibly hard to parse out what Lynch and Frost are individually responsible for - ESPECIALLY - with the Return. There's not a bunch of other writers and directors that can pin certain things to a co-creator like the original. Many of my opinions and stances are informed by hours of conversations with those guest collaborators that can't be squeezed into a book. Believe me, both Lynch and Frost have said things that drive me crazy in regard to white-washing the past and simply ignoring facts. When Lynch bashes season two, it's really unfair. He has his own version of history and he contributed a ton to the overall product. It's hard for me to enjoy the Secret History when absolutely brilliant scenes like Ed explaining how he ended up with Nadine is retconned for no real reason. Annie's mother (whatever debacle it was, not MT Wentz) just drives me nuts. It's like, "did you guys even bother?!" I suspect some of this spirit bled over into The Return, for reasons I can't disclose.

I didnt expect a season 3 to mimic the original. If anything, I wanted season 3 to somehow enrich what came before. I think that is definitely the experience of some people, but definitely not for me. Just a difference of opinion and viewpoint. edit-For me, season three just ran in circles and never went anywhere. I wanted a ride. To be moved, taken on a journey from one point to another, maybe for something about life to be revealed. There was just nothing for me to latch onto then or now. The roadhouse randoms, Dr. Amp, and many of Lynch's overindulgences felt like a bad cab ride that would not end.

An overriding sentiment on this board (from my strict perspective) is that many critiques of The Return are met with absolutist, almost fanatical defense of Lynch. That's why I avoided this board for a while after The Return. It just wasn't fun. People are quick to blame Frost for whatever they don't like while making excuses for Lynch and heralding his unmovable art spirit and sticking it to the system and audience expectation. I guess that's a hip stance that isn't popular to argue with. With the original, I totally get why some people hate parts of it, while I've pretty much grown to love all of it because I spent so much time digging into it. I sort of wish that spirit pervaded among some of The Return die-hards. Cheers to anybody who loves every single second of Twin Peaks ever produced. I wish I was in that camp!
User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: 2021 Thoughts on Season 3

Post by Jonah »

dugpa wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 6:53 am Let’s do it but I’m thinking we call the new thread 2021 Thoughts on Season 3
Done. I know technically it should probably go in the Season 3/The Return subforum, but I think it's more accessible here for now in General for people to find - so will leave it here for now?
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
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 »

Audrey Horne wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:46 am
dugpa wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 6:53 am Let’s do it but I’m thinking we call the new thread 2021 Thoughts on Season 3
I read that as two thousand and twenty one thoughts (individually) on Season Three… and I was like, no problem.
Ha, love this! 2021 thoughts on Season 3, and another 2021 (or more) thoughts on the original series, and 2000 or so thoughts on every other topic too..... A great idea for all threads, the Season 4 one alone could be something like 50000 thoughts on pictures of wisteria and other clues and things that might mean something more is happening. (Or maybe, alas, 50000 delusions? :/ Let's hope not! But that's another topic yet again.)
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
NormoftheAndes
RR Diner Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:00 am

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

Post by NormoftheAndes »

Brad D wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:03 am
eyeboogers wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 10:10 am Sorry you feel that way, since my point is I think it is much more fun and interesting around here when people discuss and dig into the details of things, rather than crawling up trees of extreme opinions. I think you also put my into a camp of so-called "Lynch-splainers" without actually knowing where I stand on things (for the record I am Team-Frost). Also, while I think The Return is a huge artistic triumph, it doesn't mean that I don't think it has faults. Twin Peaks has always been a narrative laboratory of sorts. In the new show the villain is even called "The Experiment". And with such risky endeavours into uncharted territory some things can turn out great, while others fall flat. And for the things that to some don't work, it is then interesting to try to figure out what the artists where trying to accomplish with those elements.

One of the things I was sad about, in terms of you disliking the new series so much, was that I really loved the "Perspectives" book and had been hoping for a The Return follow-up. If one was to materialise anyways I fear it would hold more swear words per page than a Dr.Amp monologue.
I wish there were not 'teams' - it is incredibly hard to parse out what Lynch and Frost are individually responsible for - ESPECIALLY - with the Return. There's not a bunch of other writers and directors that can pin certain things to a co-creator like the original. Many of my opinions and stances are informed by hours of conversations with those guest collaborators that can't be squeezed into a book. Believe me, both Lynch and Frost have said things that drive me crazy in regard to white-washing the past and simply ignoring facts. When Lynch bashes season two, it's really unfair. He has his own version of history and he contributed a ton to the overall product. It's hard for me to enjoy the Secret History when absolutely brilliant scenes like Ed explaining how he ended up with Nadine is retconned for no real reason. Annie's mother (whatever debacle it was, not MT Wentz) just drives me nuts. It's like, "did you guys even bother?!" I suspect some of this spirit bled over into The Return, for reasons I can't disclose.

I didnt expect a season 3 to mimic the original. If anything, I wanted season 3 to somehow enrich what came before. I think that is definitely the experience of some people, but definitely not for me. Just a difference of opinion and viewpoint. edit-For me, season three just ran in circles and never went anywhere. I wanted a ride. To be moved, taken on a journey from one point to another, maybe for something about life to be revealed. There was just nothing for me to latch onto then or now. The roadhouse randoms, Dr. Amp, and many of Lynch's overindulgences felt like a bad cab ride that would not end.

An overriding sentiment on this board (from my strict perspective) is that many critiques of The Return are met with absolutist, almost fanatical defense of Lynch. That's why I avoided this board for a while after The Return. It just wasn't fun. People are quick to blame Frost for whatever they don't like while making excuses for Lynch and heralding his unmovable art spirit and sticking it to the system and audience expectation. I guess that's a hip stance that isn't popular to argue with. With the original, I totally get why some people hate parts of it, while I've pretty much grown to love all of it because I spent so much time digging into it. I sort of wish that spirit pervaded among some of The Return die-hards. Cheers to anybody who loves every single second of Twin Peaks ever produced. I wish I was in that camp!
In terms of the Lynch quote about season two 'sucking' I thought it was flippant and untrue but perhaps he was tired. I feel he was just saying that there were some parts of season 2 he didn't like.

It seems very likely that the scene of Big Ed explaining about shooting Nadine's eye out was very much written by Frost in the original run. Changing that in the Secret History was part of the whole alternate reality story going on, leading to the change of outcome from Laura's death to her disappearance. In terms of his book, Frost did have a continuation of that theme throughout the whole book - whereas in The Return the 'alternate realities' idea is not made clear at all until the final episodes. I guess there's the alternate shots of diners in the Double R! :) I certainly don't think Frost retconned his own writing from season 2 purely down to not caring or giving a damn.

About Sabrina making it clear Lynch has not read Frost's book, I only see that as her being honest about Lynch creatively. He was not collaborating with Frost to the extent of involvement with the Secret History - that is entirely its own thing. We all know that. I do think that Lynch and Frost should have worked some of that damn book into the show though.

About 'did you guys even bother?!' I can imagine you mean that Lynch and Frost just weren't getting along now as they may have done back in 1989 working on the Pilot. Frost did say he liked Skype as he didn't want to be around Lynch's smoking. So there was a distance. How this affected Frost must have fed into the Secret History and distanced him from The Return.

My own opinion is that a lot of the work that went into Frost's book could have been filtered into the script for The Return and given the narrative a lot more shape and reasoning. Not necessarily over-explaining every little thing - but the fact that we have a main character in the book called Dougie Milford and then Frost invented the whole Dougie in Vegas setting - it clearly suggests these creative aspects are very much linked. However, Lynch took the work in a far more surreal and unfathomable direction and didn't combine Frost's writing on the Secret History into the Return's script. It is apparent that Frost and Lynch did their own things in terms of the creative bubble they had going in creating The Return - Frost going off to write his own book separate from the script (although I see it as something that should have been worked into season 3 in certain ways) and then Lynch carrying on adding to the script and writing it alone.

For Lynch, tone and the overall impression The Return leaves us with is clearly his main concern. Compared to the original two seasons, The Return had a far more drifting, removed and depressing tone. Lynch may tell me that is the wrong way to interpret it. In terms of a main protagonist, I could argue that the most compelling one in it is Mr C.

With regard to enriching the original show, I would say I expected that to a certain degree. When I heard that location shooting was occuring in Snoqualmie and that they were improving the look of the Double R location, I pretty much imagined that they were going back to the whole approach and 'back-to-basics' style of the Pilot episode. As in, picking up now and portraying life in the town in a fairly humdrum way, then with something dramatic happening leading to the return of Cooper to the place. With time for him to look at ducks on the lake. The right mixture of small-town charm and wisdom mixed with the surreal or frightening. I didn't expect 18 hours of slow-paced town life, of course not. When you consider Dune, Lynch is not one to be afraid of stepping into 'turkey' territory and I'm sure its very easy to view The Return in that light - once Lynch demanded 18 episodes and the project became a behemoth, once there were so many different locations that seemed at times far from vital - you could argue that Lynch and Frost had just taken on far more than it was reasonable to handle. Clearly, The Return was a different beast to what I was hopeful for.

My own simple take is that I didn't need lots of different locations and new small-part characters. I would have been very happy focused in on the town the show was titled after. Lastly, The Return was remarkably unsentimental. I'm probably not alone in wishing it were injected with more emotional weight and even sentimentality. But really I'm describing a different show - I'm describing even what I thought would follow quite soon after Part 18. I genuinely thought more was coming soon after, at that point.
Teetotaling and prayer. Their hands touch yours and mine.
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. »

Brad D wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 11:03 am People are quick to blame Frost for whatever they don't like while making excuses for Lynch and heralding his unmovable art spirit and sticking it to the system and audience expectation.
Perhaps I'm coming in from participating in a different era of the board (although I've lurked since the mid-2000s), but I just don't feel like I've ever seen that. Although I did pretty much avoid the Disappointed thread.

It's funny you mention Frost disparagement, because I feel like I actually play defense for Frost more than Lynch, and the one thing in your post I feel the need to share a differing view about is the whole Frost books retcon charge, although Norm has already done a lot of that water-carrying.

You can say it's a retcon of its own (and you're free to do so), though I think the blueprint is too concrete in Secret History and Frost's hints and promises are too far-back in time, but the Final Dossier makes it pretty clear there's time distortion going on, and that a major theme is the failure of memory and the alteration of data. This fits pretty snug with themes such as Catherine trying to fabricate a ledger, Laura's diary giving only so much to work off of, especially with hidden pages, the truth of Leland being concealed beneath BOB, shady government classification, etc. To me the intended experience (or at least the one I perceived) was that Secret History cast an uncertainty onto how much canon holds up going in, S3 flirts with it and we're pretty unmoored the entire time, until the final parts where it's disrupted completely, and then TFD reveals what we'd read in Secret History was after all not a prelude to S3 but actually a result of what occured therein, and so not the previous chronology we thought it was but a post-chronology, or more like retroactive alternate chronology. Even then, certain things are up in the air in terms of what changes hold or not--the uncertainty and the slipperiness of the time is, again, extremely thematically in tune with the rest of TP; it's more or less the same deal with FWWM being a dual prequel/sequel, and I found the way it bookended S3's airing to be clever. My gripes with the books otherwise are pretty numerous but not at all to do with events or details, mostly to do with how often Frost seems unable to escape his own voice when character-writing.

As for enriching the old show, if anything, Frost's books enrich the old show for me far more than the Return. I chalk that up to Frost wanting to address stuff Lynch clearly didn't want to include in "the official" (or more like, his) version of TP; he didn't like the way things went, he regretted the production in terms of how his control was ceded, and how the results when picking the plot threads back up would have limited or obligated him if he included them, and so chose to not acknowledge those things. I don't blame him, though I understand if that's just not the approach someone desired. But with things as they are, I find when I rewatch old TP, the books have changed more things in more arcs of the show than TR for me, and I personally enjoy how Frost changed certain less than stellar elements of the run; it's mostly for the better, because at least an attempt was made to instill something, be it mythological or character-wise, that marries certain pointless things like Lana's existence or James' Evelyn arc to a broader context. Now, I don't think the stuff with, say, Vivian was brilliant or anything, but it's as brilliant as can be given how trite the previous canonic version was already.
NormoftheAndes wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 2:12 pmThe Return was remarkably unsentimental.
My gut feeling is that no, it was pretty sentimental. It was just harsh and the sentimentality framed under the fact of time and how time drives wedges between things. Bobby crying over Laura, Ed & Norma getting together at last, James reprising Just You, etc. are all sentimental moments but they're painted by how huge the gulf of time is between what's being remembered and what's being lived. I also feel like Laura interacting with future Cooper and the futility of it is both extremely sentimental and tragic and probably very personal to Lynch, who has said many times how much he loves Laura as a character and idea. I almost feel like it's his own lamentation that there's no resurrection of Laura that isn't hollow and deluded and does injustice to what she represents. Not to mention that he went out of his way to "resurrect" Nance in a minor way, extending his scene, allowing him to go fishing and (if this curtails future events) prevent his character's early (and all things considered, random and needless) death.
Last edited by AXX°N N. on Thu Aug 05, 2021 3:35 pm, edited 1 time 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.
User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: 2021 Thoughts on Season 3

Post by Jonah »

I have to say, not to knock Frost, but the inconsistencies in the books felt just like that. I haven't read them so maybe that disqualifies me from giving that opinion, but I do own them, I've flicked through them and I've read about them in great detail online, including threads on here and other places, so I'm quite familiar with their content. I think pushing it that it's just because it's a different timeline or things changed due to Dale in the lodge/out of the lodge is a bit much, no? They just seem like inconsistencies. I think he and Lynch both said they only rewatched some of the original series (maybe even only the pilot and the movie? maybe Frost rewatched more than that, but I think he also said he didn't do a full rewatch or if he did it was only one) so clearly if he didn't re-review all the episodes or reread the scripts, he wouldn't remember everything - or even if he only rewatched once, it's easy to miss things. Even with my own novels, I'd have to go back and make a note of something I said when I'm writing a sequel. I remember them in just a bit more than broad strokes, probably much more than books I didn't write but I still don't remember every little detail, far from it. Stephen King hires a guy to do it, I think. So it's easy to miss things - I really do just think they're inconsistencies, not purposeful changes. But if someone feels they were deliberate changes, then so be it, but - and I mean this in the kindness possibly way, not trying to inflame anyone - I think something like that is a good example of people complaining about sometimes some fans have a tendency to gloss over Lynch and Frost's mistakes or errors, whereas they would have no problem doing it when it's another writer or director who was involved in the show. (Witness how fans have no problem tearing apart non-Lynch episodes of the original series and not only those in the middle of Season 2, which are admittedly fair game.) That's just a general statement, not calling anyone out - and I'm not going to get into a back and forth on it, so don't bother picking apart that statement. Just my take.

I love the original series, I'm more mixed on The Return but don't hate it, but I think everything can be criticized. I even criticize my own work and understand when others do. (Though I often don't agree with them. For example, one editor told me one of my novels was "strangely dated" and I thought to myself, well, that's the point - it's meant to be set in an old-fashioned world without technology. That's part of the story - the character has to go to a library to research things, she's not just going to whip out her iPhone because she doesn't have one. But, still, they found it dated - so what's the point trying to change their mind? I can explain the reasons behind my creative choice, but in my experience they still won't budge on their opinion. Another example is an agent asked me to make a female character in her early to mid 20's or even younger, around 21 or 22, because it was unrealistic that a woman in her 30's wasn't married with children - when not every woman gets married and the whole point of the character was she hadn't followed convention and was single and alone in her 30's.) I mean, I love the original series, but I get why some people don't and if some people prefer The Return to it, then so be it. I don't feel it's my place to tell them their opinions are wrong. Everyone has different opinions - we can agree and disagree with each other, but there's no need to take it personally or enter into big debates about each other's views. A bit of good-natured debate is fine, of course, but with complicated works like these, I think everyone is going to have widly different takes at times - and that's okay!
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
AXX°N N.
Great Northern Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: 2021 Thoughts on Season 3

Post by AXX°N N. »

Jonah wrote: Thu Aug 05, 2021 3:35 pmThey just seem like inconsistencies. I think he and Lynch both said they only rewatched some of the original series (maybe even only the pilot and the movie? maybe Frost rewatched a few more than that, but I think he also said he didn't do a full rewatch) so clearly if he didn't re-review all the episodes or reread the scripts, he wouldn't remember everything - or even if he only rewatched one, it's easy to miss things.
I'm not arguing that actually he meticulously had every single date and detail in his head right all along and every error is intentional--I think there's bound to be several inconsistencies that are exactly that, but from the many interviews I've read from him discussing the books, he seems self-aware on that front and it doesn't discount that he was intentionally (and by his own word) writing thematically about that very idea--the faultiness of memory and the manipulation of what we remember into our own version. There are passages in both books from character POVs that are about that as a general idea, it's not just in the fact of details being different.

And I think that's a misnomer about not rewatching a lot--I remember him saying that he rewatched everything. I wish I remembered exactly where (and it would be nice to have it as proof or otherwise, instead of having to rely on afforementioned faulty memory) but it was either a facebook interview video he did with Welcome to Twin Peaks or the 2016 interview with PBS Twin Cities Almanac.
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.
Post Reply