S03.E05: The Return: Part 5

[paigow]

The male body in South Dakota is Major Briggs? Unless dopplecooper built several copies of Dougie and dumped an obsolete one in the apartment...

[Ottis]

7 hours ago, jsbt said:

The show isn't going to be for people who expected the old show but updated. That's just the way it is. That's never going to change. There is no Twin Peaks without David Lynch (and Mark Frost) and this is the show they chose to make. Expecting Cooper to be back in Twin Peaks drinking coffee and eating pie at the diner and solving cases in a few episodes was never going to happen. I'm willing to bet it won't even happen by episode 9 or 10, if at all. I think the Dougie thing is a very detailed personal journey exquisitely performed and they can take as much time as they like AFAIC. The fact that it's going on and on almost seems designed by Lynch to weed people out.

I get that it's not for everyone and I respect that as much as I can, but I also think it's important to not lose sight of what it's always actually been. I love the new show for what it is, which is both very different and very familiar in ways people don't expect. It's supposed to make you uncomfortable and make you think and challenge your tolerance and leave you unsure whether to laugh, cry or just be disgusted. The original show did back then. Its most familiar elements from the past - the comforting aspects - have allowed people to downplay or forget the effect from the original run.

All this show is doing now is the same as it did then, namely alienating people who couldn't handle the intensity of Lynch's focus and vision. Same thing happened in Season 2 from the very first episode back after Cooper got shot, same thing with FWWM. People love to praise the episode where Laura's killer is revealed today but by the time that episode aired in 1990, most of the public had already stopped watching and dismissed the show as "too weird" and "not fun anymore". Now it's legendary. Everything has always happened before and will happen again.

The show is already a critical success, but I think the audience will remain divided between love and hate (it's the same with diehard fans outside here, incidentally). And that's fine with me. It's always been that way.

I loved the original show, and all its quirkiness. I especially liked the red room and the dwarf and how weird that all was. And while I'm not a Lynch fanboy, I have enjoyed a bunch of his work, especially Blue Velvet. However, this new series is not duplicating the fun and accessibility of what went before, for the sheer fact that the original show had a plot that pulled you in: Who killed Laura Palmer, and by the way, what's up with this weird town? This new series hasn't done much of anything but play with Lynchisms. It doesn't even address key questions like, why 25 years? What was supposed to happen during that time? Why do they now change? What is the context for what we are seeing? And what we do see is happening at a glacial pace. I really want it appeal to me, but so far I am hanging on more for potential than anything that has been shown. And not because I don't like weird, don't appreciate it or don't understand it. There just isn't much there there.

Mostly what I have gotten from this series is that everything we saw in 1990 is happening again, just with a new generation. Drugs, sex and murder. Now we just need someone to care about. Dougie doesn't work for me so far, since people in his own life apparently didn't know him well enough to tell when he has been replaced. And Cooper is in there somewhere I guess, but we don't know for sure how much is there or whether we will ever see him. 

Edited June 6, 2017 by Ottis

[Guest]

1 hour ago, paigow said:

The male body in South Dakota is Major Briggs?

Just a guess, but no, it's not him. Those are his fingerprints, but his fingerprints have been found on 14 (?) other locations since his death according to the Pentagon people (at least I think they were Pentagon). 

My guess is the body belongs to the real Dougie Jones. I presume Dougie's head popped off in the Black Lodge because it was missing (or destroyed) in real life. 

I, of course, could be completely wrong. I guess I need to keep reading more of Mark Frost's book which is very Major Briggs-centric.

[Peanut6711]

5 hours ago, jsbt said:

The show isn't going to be for people who expected the old show but updated. That's just the way it is. That's never going to change. There is no Twin Peaks without David Lynch (and Mark Frost) and this is the show they chose to make. Expecting Cooper to be back in Twin Peaks drinking coffee and eating pie at the diner and solving cases in a few episodes was never going to happen. I'm willing to bet it won't even happen by episode 9 or 10, if at all. I think the Dougie thing is a very detailed personal journey exquisitely performed and they can take as much time as they like AFAIC. The fact that it's going on and on almost seems designed by Lynch to weed people out.

I get that it's not for everyone and I respect that as much as I can, but I also think it's important to not lose sight of what it's always actually been. I love the new show for what it is, which is both very different and very familiar in ways people don't expect. It's supposed to make you uncomfortable and make you think and challenge your tolerance and leave you unsure whether to laugh, cry or just be disgusted. The original show did back then. Its most familiar elements from the past - the comforting aspects - have allowed people to downplay or forget the effect from the original run.

All this show is doing now is the same as it did then, namely alienating people who couldn't handle the intensity of Lynch's focus and vision. Same thing happened in Season 2 from the very first episode back after Cooper got shot, same thing with FWWM. People love to praise the episode where Laura's killer is revealed today but by the time that episode aired in 1990, most of the public had already stopped watching and dismissed the show as "too weird" and "not fun anymore". Now it's legendary. Everything has always happened before and will happen again.

The show is already a critical success, but I think the audience will remain divided between love and hate (it's the same with diehard fans outside here, incidentally). And that's fine with me. It's always been that way.

5 hours ago, jsbt said:

Showtime doesn't care (and yes, they did see the script). They gave Lynch a blank check because (from what I was told by people at the network) the prestige of him and the show were a calculated business decision to increase their artistic profile opposite HBO. Critically, that has already paid off over the last four weeks.

The show is a limited series with a definite ending. Lynch may or may not choose to want to continue and Showtime may or may not agree to that, but as it is it's designed to have an ending.

Actually there almost was a TP w/out David Lynch.  Some at Showtime did care. It's been reported in numerous places both during the course of production and upon release. 

Designing a show to "weed people out" is ludicrous in a a business like television. So is alienating viewers who were once fans, most of which aren't alienated because this is edgy or intense, they are annoyed because the pace is outrageously slow, the character development for new characters is practically non-existent, the original characters are being butchered, the setting is all over the place, and the special effects are awful for a show that Lynch had unlimited budget as you claim although it's been printed that they did have a budget comparable to their other high budgeted productions. 

5 hours ago, Happy Harpy said:

 And let's not talk about the "everybody loves it everywhere but here", attempts at invalidating any criticism with the good ol' "the majority loves it so you must be wrong".

I wish I enjoyed the revival more than I do, so I'm very glad as a fan (since my teenage...thankfully there were no social media back then) for the fans who love it. But I don't want to be lectured about how it's "too deep" or "too challenging" or "too something" for me, as if my criticism could only steam from a problem with *me*.

Then don't call it a "revival" or a "sequel". Call it a "reboot", call it " Vegas, South Dakota" and not "Twin Peaks". It's dishonest to play on people's expectations for a continuation of the old show in order to get subscriptions/people to watch, not deliver, and then expect people to not be disappointed.

Amen to everything you said above Happy Harpy!    

Ya know when Lynch was so top secret about the script I thought we'd have a really great mystery on our hands that we wouldn't want spoiled. But I think you are right that they kept thing so under wraps to mislead viewers looking for a continuation of what was started. Instead Lynch wanted to make something new and it seems he should have simply taglined this redo "Based on the TV show Twin Peaks" since this isn't really Twin Peaks we are watching anymore.

5 hours ago, Andromeda said:

Really disappointed so far. I was so excited about the reboot, ever since I heard about it a year and a half ago. (I watched the original airing, BTW -- it's been a long time for me.) I rewatched all the shows and the movie, and read the Laura Palmer book.

This is lacking the charm of the original Twin Peaks for the most part, because it doesn't take place in Twin Peaks! It would be as alien as 75% of Northern Exposure taking place in New York City.

I'm still watching, but the pacing also is terrible. We really need 10 minutes focused on a single character reacting or thinking? (That's what it feels like, if not longer.) Also, the attempts to bring back the original charm are misfiring. For instance, Lucy just seems stupid to me, not cute and quirky (the reaction to a cell phone? Say what?). Yawn. 

The setting was as much a character of this show as the actual characters. I want to know about the character of Twin Peaks -- what is its vibe 25 years later? The mill burned down -- how do people support themselves? Is the town in decline, or on an upswing? Is there a new electronic company in town people work at? Or a bunch of closed storefronts? Is it infested with meth addiction?

Of course, I sort of lost faith in Lynch when, in his new book with Frost, he described Twin Peaks as being  in NORTHWEST Washington. According to the pilot (and common sense), it's in NORTHEAST Washington. Rhonda walked along the train tracks from Idaho (7 or 9 miles from the Washington border), which was the excuse to get the FBI involved as it was an interstate crime.

I completely agree with you on the above, Andromed!  And that's very disturbing (although not entirely surprising) that Lynch would get the location wrong. He seems to have lost touch w/what he originally created.

4 hours ago, jsbt said:

That's not what I said. The point was it's already a critical success which has fulfilled the network's objective. 

A "critical success" by what measure? Has figures been released? And even if new subscriber figures were disclosed it's too early in the game for them to accurately reflect the viewers who signed up and then don't renew.  Also did the network disclose an "objective" or mission statement in regards to this show in a press release? 

1 hour ago, Ottis said:

I loved the original show, and all its quirkiness. I especially liked the red room and the dwarf and how weird that all was. And while I'm not a Lynch fanboy, I have enjoyed a bunch of his work, especially Blue Velvet. However, this new series is not duplicating the fun and accessibility of what went before, for the sheer fact that the original show had a plot that pulled you in: Who killed Laura Palmer, and by the way, what's up with this weird town? This new series hasn't done much of anything but play with Lynchisms. It doesn't even address key questions like, why 25 years? What was supposed to happen during that time? Why do they now change? What is the context for what we are seeing? And what we do see is happening at a glacial pace. I really want it appeal to me, but so far I am hanging on more for potential than anything that has been shown. And not because I don't like weird, don't appreciate it or don't understand it. There just isn't much there there.

Mostly what I have gotten from this series is that everything we saw in 1990 is happening again, just with a new generation. Drugs, sex and murder. Now we just need someone that care about. Dougie doesn't work for me so far, since people in his own life apparently didn't know him well enough to tell when he has been replaced. 

Exactly! Any good, engaging story needs at least one (and w/a larger cast more) sympathetic or intriguing character to draw you in. That's not happening here.  

[Penman61]

18 minutes ago, Peanut6711 said:

A "critical success" by what measure? Has figures been released?

Metacritic rating: 74

Rotten Tomatoes: 93%

[LilWharveyGal]

5 hours ago, Andromeda said:

Of course, I sort of lost faith in Lynch when, in his new book with Frost, he described Twin Peaks as being  in NORTHWEST Washington. According to the pilot (and common sense), it's in NORTHEAST Washington. Rhonda walked along the train tracks from Idaho (7 or 9 miles from the Washington border), which was the excuse to get the FBI involved as it was an interstate crime.

Please pardon what may be a dumb question from a casual viewer.  (I watched the original seasons on DVD a couple of years ago and forgot this particular nugget.)  Did the showrunners ever explain why they did not actually film near the Idaho border if that's where the story is set?  While the western Cascade foothills are the perfect atmosphere for Twin Peaks IMO, they are nothing like the eastern part of the state.

[yourdreamer]

Where was Nadine in this episode? I must have glazed over...I think I watched the first 20 minutes or so then got distracted by my phone. 

[Andromeda]

5 minutes ago, LilWharveyGal said:

Please pardon what may be a dumb question from a casual viewer.  (I watched the original seasons on DVD a couple of years ago and forgot this particular nugget.)  Did the showrunners ever explain why they did not actually film near the Idaho border if that's where the story is set?  While the western Cascade foothills are the perfect atmosphere for Twin Peaks IMO, they are nothing like the eastern part of the state.

It's not dumb a all. I never saw an explanation -- I think Lynch just wanted the generic Pacific Northwest "feel" (what most people think of as PNW) and didn't care about specifics.

In the pilot, Cooper says ""Diane, 11:30am, February 24th. Entering the town of Twin Peaks. Five miles south of the Canadian border, twelve miles west of the state line." From that, I determined he was talking about the Idaho state line, because the Pacific is on the other side, and Oregon is a little bigger than 12 miles. So that puts it on the Idaho side somewhere in the Colville National Forest. But yes, the giant Douglas Firs that he's so enamored of are not prolific on the eastern side of the Cascades.

Here's an interesting article about its location...Anywhere. http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/507-darkness-and-cherry-pie-david-lynchs-map-of-twin-peaks

[JustCrazy]

6 hours ago, Happy Harpy said:

Then don't call it a "revival" or a "sequel". Call it a "reboot", call it " Vegas, South Dakota" and not "Twin Peaks". It's dishonest to play on people's expectations for a continuation of the old show in order to get subscriptions/people to watch, not deliver, and then expect people to not be disappointed.

That is exactly my disappointment with it.  Don't call it Twin Peaks and then give me less than 5 minutes airtime of the people and the town.   I have seen many, not all, of Lynch's films.  FWWM was, to me, a very disturbing, yet satisfying look into what actually happened to Laura Palmer.  It added more information and reason to the tv series.  I made the assumption that this would be similar in vein, just as disturbing, weird and graphic,  just 25 years later.  

[Pete Martell]

6 hours ago, Happy Harpy said:

It goes both ways. For example, Lynch's fanboys repeatedly insulted Ausiello on TV Line because he was according to them the "only" dissenting critic. And let's not talk about the "everybody loves it everywhere but here", attempts at invalidating any criticism with the good ol' "the majority loves it so you must be wrong".

I wish I enjoyed the revival more than I do, so I'm very glad as a fan (since my teenage...thankfully there were no social media back then) for the fans who love it. But I don't want to be lectured about how it's "too deep" or "too challenging" or "too something" for me, as if my criticism could only steam from a problem with *me*.

Then don't call it a "revival" or a "sequel". Call it a "reboot", call it " Vegas, South Dakota" and not "Twin Peaks". It's dishonest to play on people's expectations for a continuation of the old show in order to get subscriptions/people to watch, not deliver, and then expect people to not be disappointed.

The problem I had with Ausiello's review wasn't that he was the only one (I'm sure he wasn't), but that the tone of it was nails-on-chalkboard to me in indulgence and petulance. This is why:

http://tvline.com/2017/05/21/twin-peaks-review-showtime-revival/

I was counting on the Showtime rebirth to give my Twin Peaks love story the happy ending that I was denied 25 years ago. And when I spoke to co-creator Mark Frost back in October 2014, just as the revival was getting off the ground, I practically begged him to promise me that the continuation would do just that. “It’s our hope that these episodes will give the fans everything they felt they hadn’t gotten the last time we left off,” he assured me.

Now, having seen the 18-part continuation’s super-sized premiere installment (which bowed Sunday at 9/8c), it’s hard not to feel like I’ve been completely, utterly duped. The two-hour kickoff did not repair the damage wrought by Season 2. If anything, it was like taking a sip of damn fine coffee after learning that someone had stuck a fish in the pot.

How on earth can you count on THIS show to give you a happy ending? That's like me saying I kept watching Oz to the end, even after it went to hell, because I wanted to see Beecher and Keller get married and have a house in the country. 

The tone of this basically says, "I begged Mark Frost to do what I wanted and he misled me! Unfair! Unfair!" It puts a huge amount of onus on Mark Frost's shoulders when he is not there to be a genie for a fan or a critic. Mark Frost is then called out in a review as if he was a bad used car salesman, when his answer is as boilerplate as you can get and it should have been obvious to anyone that he was not going to promise anything.

I've seen professional critics act childishly before, but rarely to this level, and rarely over a show that was as blatant about itself as the revival. One of the Showtime people even said that the revival would be "pure heroin David Lynch." That isn't exactly cherry pie, Audrey dancing in the diner, and Cooper marveling over the smell of trees. Neither were the promos. I guess you could say that people like Peggy Lipton said it would be about the same, but if you look at her scenes, they are just about the same, so I don't see that as her selling a bill of goods to fragile viewers - I just take it as her own limited experience from her own scenes.

The new show continues stories 25 years later with the same characters, so I think if they called it anything but a revival people would have questioned it and wondered why they were running away from that word. 

11 minutes ago, JustCrazy said:

That is exactly my disappointment with it.  Don't call it Twin Peaks and then give me less than 5 minutes airtime of the people and the town.   I have seen many, not all, of Lynch's films.  FWWM was, to me, a very disturbing, yet satisfying look into what actually happened to Laura Palmer.  It added more information and reason to the tv series.  I made the assumption that this would be similar in vein, just as disturbing, weird and graphic,  just 25 years later.  

I guess to me they have started showing a lot more of the actual Twin Peaks as time has passed. I haven't checked times but I felt like at least half or more of the last episode was set in Twin Peaks. Of course one might say, "That's not good enough," which I can understand, but I get the feeling they are moving closer to having everything converge there.

[Clark Kent]

53 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

Metacritic rating: 74

Rotten Tomatoes: 93%

Also, the New York Times has a great roundup of the reviews for the reboot/revival/continuation/whatever.  They're almost uniformly positive, but not without substantial critiques, as I would expect.

The merging of the doppelganger's face with Bob's features in the mirror totally spooked me (and felt like 'old-style' Twin Peaks).  I liked that it was subtler than just superimposing Frank Silva's face onto Kyle MacLachlan's, the way they used to do it.  In addition to being even more creepy, it felt ... respectful, maybe, to Silva?  (I can't explain it well.)  At any rate, the scene where the doppelganger makes his phone call gave me my requisite Lynchian nightmare last night.  I think the last time was Mulholland Drive...

On rewatch I caught the 'backward blink' from Dougie's son.  No idea what that means (if it means anything at all).

Peggy Lipton is *still* a knockout.  Madchen Amick looked gorgeous as well, and as another poster mentioned, much less harsh than she does on Riverdale (which I suspect is a conscious choice by hair and makeup, given the very different character she plays there).

Edited June 6, 2017 by Clark Kent

[Pete Martell]

1 hour ago, Peanut6711 said:

Ya know when Lynch was so top secret about the script I thought we'd have a really great mystery on our hands that we wouldn't want spoiled. But I think you are right that they kept thing so under wraps to mislead viewers looking for a continuation of what was started. Instead Lynch wanted to make something new and it seems he should have simply taglined this redo "Based on the TV show Twin Peaks" since this isn't really Twin Peaks we are watching anymore.

I don't believe they forced actors (and even their spouses in some cases) to sign lengthy NDAs just as part of a long con with viewers. I think that if he was that contemptuous of Twin Peaks and its fan base, he wouldn't have pretended otherwise, because other than Cooper and maybe Laura or Audrey, I don't even know if he would have needed to bring back most of the original cast. I loved characters like Bobby but I know that the show could have easily dropped them and probably not much would have changed and most viewers likely would not have cared. So I take their return as being about the show returning as it was, in some form at least.

I don't think Twin Peaks was ever such a huge property that they would need to run a years-long shakedown of viewers from 1991 in order to get the product on the air. I think he did want to continue the show, it's just that his idea of the show is not our idea. And I don't feel like there was an effort to lie to viewers about this being his idea.

[Penman61]

Expectation is a big part of how much we do or don't enjoy something.

And if you're watching The Return but haven't seen FWWM, Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, and especially Inland Empire (Lynch's last full-length film), I'd imagine you'd feel truly, unpleasantly confused.  

And I wouldn't blame you.  Your expectations have been set mainly by Twin Peaks S1 & S2, and The Return must seem random, overwrought, and tedious.  

But again, even if you'd had seen all Lynch's post-TP work, I understand how one might find The Return dissatisfying.  

Edited June 6, 2017 by Penman61

[Pete Martell]

6 hours ago, Andromeda said:

The setting was as much a character of this show as the actual characters. I want to know about the character of Twin Peaks -- what is its vibe 25 years later? The mill burned down -- how do people support themselves? Is the town in decline, or on an upswing? Is there a new electronic company in town people work at? Or a bunch of closed storefronts? Is it infested with meth addiction?

I feel like we're getting the drug addiction part, but I agree I'd like to see more. The part that's tough for me is I don't remember feeling like outside of setting up the atmosphere of the supernatural that the original show ever delved that much into the town itself either. The saw mill drifted away from the narrative early on, as did the high school. Everything became much more segmented, closer to what the new show has (in my opinion), just with more music and a bit more character and whimsy. Bar Cooper and Hawk, most of the characters who set up the supernatural element are played by actors who passed away before or during filming. More and more and more of the narrative shifted to outsiders coming to the hotel or the sheriff's office, and while there were a few attempts to suggest they were involved in the town (Albert growing to appreciate the place, Gordon flirting with Shelly), for the most part the town began to seem like a pit stop, especially with the Horne/Martell/Packard storylines that clogged up so much of season 2. 

The show did try to graft a new "wacky" type of town flavor on in season 2, with the feuding brothers Milford and so on, but to be honest I'd rather watch Dougie fiddle with his coat buttons for an hour (maybe that actually will be next week's full episode...) than see that type of approach again.

I do agree with you that I would like to see more focus on the town and what makes it the way it is. I know many would say Lynch's work is about that type of decaying Americana. I have to admit I'm not really expecting that here beyond the bleak glimpses we get (like the barren Vegas exurb with the drug-addicted mother and the son who nearly blew himself up while she was passed out), but I'd like to see more exploration of Twin Peaks itself, I agree.

Edited June 6, 2017 by Pete Martell

[jsbt]

2 hours ago, Peanut6711 said:

Actually there almost was a TP w/out David Lynch.  Some at Showtime did care. It's been reported in numerous places both during the course of production and upon release. 

No, there wasn't. They never intended to go on without Lynch. Any discussion of that came from trades and was pure speculation. The cast mounted a pressure effort that used the fear of that idea to try and influence the public moment, but in reality it was never a consideration of the network to go forward without Lynch. And according to both Lynch and the network they wrapped it up pretty quickly and quietly. It was the rest of us who were left wondering for a month.

Quote

Designing a show to "weed people out" is ludicrous in a a business like television. So is alienating viewers who were once fans, most of which aren't alienated because this is edgy or intense, they are annoyed because the pace is outrageously slow,

Go back and watch the Season 2 premiere. The ratings fell and the show took a popular dive for the same reasons. Lynch didn't care because in that episode he was doing what he wanted to do, but at that time viewers and critics alike were outraged.

Quote

the original characters are being butchered,

How?

Quote

and the special effects are awful for a show that Lynch had unlimited budget as you claim although it's been printed that they did have a budget comparable to their other high budgeted productions.

Yes, because (as was discussed by others before) he wanted and has often used those kind of deliberately artificial FX. You don't have to like it or find it 'acceptable' for a contemporary TV drama, but it is a valid artistic choice and one he has made often. He is not trying to emulate the respectability of other shows.

Quote

it seems he should have simply taglined this redo "

Based on the TV show Twin Peaks" since this isn't really Twin Peaks we are watching anymore.

To each their own.

Edited June 6, 2017 by jsbt

[dwmckim]

15 hours ago, luna1122 said:

Madchen also looked drop dead gorgeous in this episode. She looks harsher and older on Riverdale, but here, whether it's the makeup or the styling or the lighting or the character...she's stunning.

 

I guess Twin Peaks isn't using COVER GIRL (we get more screentime and close-up shots than some of our cast members!) makeup! 

[jsbt]

While I think Riverdale is pretty much just fun fluff at best it's worth noting that yeah, Mädchen plays a (mostly) very different character there - someone who appears to be a morally upright, priggish well-to-do suburbanite mother and who is very tightly wound and severe, and who then turns out to be (like Shelly) from the wrong side of the tracks with a very troubled backstory. So I think that different look was very deliberate. In point of fact it was Mädchen and the other '90s veteran stars who ended up becoming the emotional backbone of that show for me and, along with some of the winning kids, made it more than the sum of its derivative-if-charming parts.

[dwmckim]

2 hours ago, jsbt said:

No, there wasn't. They never intended to go on without Lynch. Any discussion of that came from trades and was pure speculation. The cast mounted a pressure effort that used the fear of that idea to try and influence the public moment, but in reality it was never a consideration of the network to go forward without Lynch. And according to both Lynch and the network they wrapped it up pretty quickly and quietly. It was the rest of us who were left wondering for a month.

 

I loved how the Variety article emphasized that they ironed out their differences over a "cookie summit".  That's how all of life should work.  Have differences?  Heading towards a diplomatic showdown?  Sit down with cookies!  The world at large could learn a great deal from this!

[peachmangosteen]

13 hours ago, Peanut6711 said:

Any good, engaging story needs at least one (and w/a larger cast more) sympathetic or intriguing character to draw you in. That's not happening here.  

 

It actually is for me and honestly that is somewhat a part of the problem I'm having with it. I am actually quite intrigued by and invested in a few of the new characters, even more so than I am in most of the old ones we're seeing at the moment, but unfortunately for me the new characters I like are being killed or just not shown much because the show feels like it's at least 65% Dougie right now. 

11 hours ago, Pete Martell said:

I think he did want to continue the show, it's just that his idea of the show is not our idea.

 

I think this is the thing people have to remember. But I think it's OK to be kinda pissed or sad to find this out.

I still have faith that eventually the show is going to move back to Twin Peaks primarily and that Copper will be back and that we'll finally see Audrey, etc. I just really hope it happens by like at least episode 10. But I feel like it's probably not going to really happen until like the last couple eps.

[ShadowHunter]

I like the show when he are actually in Twin Peaks.

Its nice that Shelly and Norma are still close. 

I also get Amanda Seyfried is the new Laura Palmer vibes also. That guy must be the one Shelly was talking about to her friends in the bar. 

Edited June 6, 2017 by ShadowHunter

[Cindylou]

I am being entertained, and i like it!  I think the actors are doing a great job, and some of the scenes are very beautifully shot.  I want Coop back but I'm on board to see where this goes,  I have faith he will be back, so i'm all in.  I was hoping the statue would make him utter Harry's name.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

 

Guy Records Twin Peaks Podcast With His Mom…

You won’t believe what happens next!

[paigow]

Vegas story line is more palatable with T-Bag

[TattleTeeny]

Quote

It says a lot about Kyle Maclachlan's talent that he can make such a simple phrase ("case files") so sad and oddly moving. I sometimes feel uneasy about the Dougie scenes, as sometimes I feel like we're being invited to laugh at him or people like him until the "real" Cooper returns, but I'd be lying if I said the scenes didn't interest me as Cooper returns bit by bit. I imagine a lot of people are already sick of waiting, which I can understand. Of everything I think I liked the last scene with Cooper in front of the G-Man statue the best - I continue to be so pleased to get real closing credits (I had forgotten how much I missed them on television...I'm going to hate going back to not having them), and the closing theme was just gorgeous. 

Right?! I wanted to cry for him! That is, until he aggressively drank the coffee like that; then I laughed and laughed.

Quote

 

the Lynch "fan girls" were out in full force, ready to debunk any and all constructive criticism and insist that those viewers just couldn't comprehend the great Oz Lynch and his masterpiece. The mood was certainly glowing comments only. 

 

Oh my goodness, I went to college in the early to mid-'90s and I knew 100 of these types, man! And it was art school, so you can just go ahead and multiply that "cooler than thou" attitude exponentially. Oy. I love, love, love Twin Peaks but even back then (when, admittedly, I probably acted a bit cooler than thou as well), I just didn't dig DL's movies. I still don't (and it is not because I am unable to comprehend them, I swear!).

Interesting side note: My BF knows Angelo Badalamenti on a pretty friendly level; he works and grew up in the town where AB lives and still sees him fairly regularly.

Edited June 6, 2017 by TattleTeeny

[Moxie Cat]

On June 5, 2017 at 7:19 PM, paigow said:

The male body in South Dakota is Major Briggs?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the male body in SD had Major Briggs' fingerprints. It was the 16th(?) body with Briggs' fingerprints that had been found in the past 25 years. For some reason, the body also had Dougie's wedding ring in its stomach. (Didn't the ring slip off Dougie's finger when his hand shrank in the Red Room? Am I imagining remembering that?)

I'm really intrigued by Lynch's decision to use Briggs so prominently, given the actor's death. 

[Chip]

Hey everyone,

 

Just a little note to remind people to be civil towards one another. We've had 25 years to develop opinions and it's OK to not agree, but try to keep the snippiness to a minimum.

Maybe the owls are EXACTLY what they seem*,

Chip

*(only seen the first two of the new season so maybe there has been updated info on the owls.)

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Moxie Cat said:

I'm really intrigued by Lynch's decision to use Briggs so prominently, given the actor's death. 

If you have a chance, or haven't done so, pick up Mark Frost's The Secret History of Twin Peaks. Major Briggs figures prominently in that. 

[Affogato]

I remember, longer ago than I care to contemplate, seeing Dune in the theater. Any David Lynch, especially the ones shot on film, is heartbreakingly beautiful, even if you hate what you are watching, but I had real preconceptions about Dune. The second time I saw it I was able to set those preconceptions aside and accept it for what it is, and today I think I like it more than the books, I think the movie may contain everything that is in the many books, with less nonsense. 

I watched Twin Peaks, the first four episodes, before I watched the fifth, and there were a lot of call backs to the original town, I didn't feel like it was being slighted just because we didn't spend the first couple of episodes finding out the details of the past characters life.  I think watching it once you've let go of the preconceptions is key.

I don't think Lynch is confusing, although I expect that, like the serial killer tree branch with the ball of malformed was on it's top, there are some 'fork yous' included, and some other thoughts as well that will be tangential to the story, and some we won't figure out. Easter eggs meant for one particular viewer. I think most of what seems confusing is confusing because it represents the inner experience of a person, like a kid wetting the bed (eraserhead). I don't think Dougie looks as dopey to the people around him, I think it is how he feels. Coffee is somehow the only thing he can focus on when he's in the room, he's confused, things that remind him of his past life are the only things in color. I suspect in real life he's just stumbling around like he has a hangover, which is probably pretty much his standard look. I think this is one reason the special effects are often cruder than necessary given the technology, because the raw emotion of experience is not the refined memories you have looking back at the experience.  

My prediction is that Coop will be back fully when he gets a bite of Norma's pie.

[Affogato]

On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 5:07 PM, Happy Harpy said:

 

While I think of it. Anyone knows if  "The Return"will  be the title of choice for every episode, is a default title because D.Lynch refused to give any, or will change when Cooper is finally back to himself and TP? So that I can have a little party planned if I ever see a change, LOL.

No, I don't know this, but I can see it going either way. Since this was shot as a movie, 'tis said, it would make sense that the segments would be named that way.

On ‎6‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 10:36 PM, Clark Kent said:

 

 

 

On rewatch I caught the 'backward blink' from Dougie's son.  No idea what that means (if it means anything at all).

 

so far, I'm glad Dougie's family is being taken care of, Coop has found money to support them and get them out from under the thumb of the mob, which seems to be managed from Buenos Aires?, I hope the kid turns out okay, although I wouldn't bet pie on it. 

[peachmangosteen]

I forgot to mention how much I did actually enjoy a lot of the Dougie related scenes this week, if not actually DougieCoop himself much. I loved the guy with the coffees and I full on laughed at the scene where him and the woman were helping him into the office and then the boss told them to close the door behind them and they stayed in the room and he told them to leave and they haphazardly tried to get out the door. And I really loved the scene with Frank and the tea. It was so unnervingly hilarious, which I remember a lot of stuff being that way in the original show.

Edited June 7, 2017 by peachmangosteen

[TattleTeeny]

I love how Frank seemed to begrudgingly like the tea.

[dosodog]

What did the cellphone morph in to at the end?

Thank you for confirming that I wasn't seeing things when Cooper's face began to meld with Bob's. It unnerved me and made me look over my shoulder.  Bob always makes me look over my shoulder.

I got a little verklempt watching Cooper drink coffee for the first time in 25 years.

Maybe Mike is druggie kids dad?  Maybe it's Jerry Horne?

[peachmangosteen]

3 hours ago, TattleTeeny said:

I love how Frank seemed to begrudgingly like the tea.

Yea, I loved that. That actor was really good in his little scene.

[Moxie Cat]

13 hours ago, Giant Misfit said:

If you have a chance, or haven't done so, pick up Mark Frost's The Secret History of Twin Peaks. Major Briggs figures prominently in that

I know!!! I have to get that. Thanks for mentioning it. I have to find that "missing pieces" video too.

[PatternRec]

I'm enjoying the show so far. I miss a lot of the charm and humor of the original series, and some of the attempts at humor in the new one fall flat, but I'm intrigued by a lot of what's going on. When it comes to Lynch's work during the frustrating parts I just adopt the attitude of a judge in a procedural when someone objects: "I'll allow it. I want to see where this is going."

Edited June 8, 2017 by PatternRec

[tennisgurl]

The scene that got me most was Cooper (or at least a version of him) getting to drink coffee again for the first time in years. He was reunited with his one true love! A damn good cup of coffee indeed. Kyle is amazing as half undead Dougie, but I'm really looking forward to seeing Cooper again for real. He is the most iconic character in the series (except maybe Laura Palmer, but she was more of a visual icon than an amazing character) and maybe when he arrives for real, it will feel more like Twin Peaks. Maybe a different Twin Peaks, but Twin Peaks none the less.

I cant say that I dislike this new season, but I will say that I'm disappointed in the lack of weird whimsy this season. The show was always full of creepy weirdness, but now its just creepy weirdness for the most part. I actually do like the season, but it doesn't really feel much like Twin Peaks.

I am enjoying the casting of the new characters, like Ernie Hudson and Amanda Seyfried. I especially like seeing Amanda here, her look really fits into the retro 50s style of Twin Peaks of old.

Edited June 8, 2017 by tennisgurl

[Nashville]

On 6/5/2017 at 0:50 AM, Cheezwiz said:

I was diggin' the band at the Bang Bang bar

Band's name is Trouble; the specific tune was "Snake Eyes".

 

On 6/7/2017 at 7:24 PM, Moxie Cat said:

I know!!! I have to get that. Thanks for mentioning it. I have to find that "missing pieces" video too.

Here and here.

[Ronin Jackson]

22 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I actually do like the season, but it doesn't really feel much like Twin Peaks.

 

I've seen this comment a lot lately from fans (and not just with regards to Twin Peaks... it happened with the Samurai Jack revival as well). My question is, who gets to define what feels like Twin Peaks? The fans or Mark Frost and David Lynch?

The thing about Twin Peaks is, the tone has always shifted, and it always jarred a certain segment of the fans. When season 2 started with this lengthy, deliberately paced sequence involving the waiter and the Giant, it was a major shift in tone from what was established in season 1. In fact there were several tone shifts in those opening episodes of season 2... much more slapstick comedy, characters completely transformed (literally overnight because Season 2 started the day after Season 1 ended). Some of that was good, some was bad, but the waiter/Giant seen made a lot of people restless at the time. It's now considered an iconic Twin Peaks scene though.

Season 2 would have many more tone shifts.. After the Leland/Bob story concluded there was a mostly bad tone shift. And again, at the end of season 2, Lynch cranked up the uncompromising weirdness way beyond what we'd seen previously (IMO, a good thing). Then FWWM came along, and again a major tone shift and some negative reaction from fans who felt it was too big a departure from the tone of the show.

And now we have a new season picking up 25 years later. A tone shift was almost inevitable, but much more so considering it's Twin Peaks which has always had shifts in tone. Eventually those tone shifts have been considered part of the Twin Peaks tone, but not before some initial reactions that it felt out of place.

[TattleTeeny]

Please forgive me if someone has mentioned this before (and I'll just assume someone probably has--I have no delusions of being exceptionally astute), but during a rewatch this week of season one*, I noticed that Cooper's room at the Great Northern is 315.

* I can't help it; this new one hasn't quite grabbed me yet (I'm having trouble with the general aesthetic), but has made me nostalgic! And it's helping my memory...as I was a young college-age spring chicken during Original Recipe TP!

Edited June 9, 2017 by TattleTeeny

[TheNewJanBrady]

I noticed that Jane Levy (whom I loved from Suburgatory) was named as two characters in the end credits (which reveal SO much on this show!). I know she was the friend who stood up for the girl who asked for a light at the Bang Bang Club--who else was she?

Quote

In this episode, it was the shot of Amanda Seyfried (whom I've never found particularly compelling) high in the red convertible while "I Love How You Love Me" plays on the soundtrack.  I don't know how Lynch does it, but he does it, time and again.

Yep--that's one of my favorite songs and I literally wore Audrey-esque saddle shoes yesterday. Lynch often disturbs me or makes me go WTF, but at this point I don't know whether I love him because he just gets my aesthetic, or whether his aesthetic is where I got mine.

Edited June 9, 2017 by TheNewJanBrady

[dwmckim]

7 hours ago, Ronin Jackson said:

 

And now we have a new season picking up 25 years later. A tone shift was almost inevitable, but much more so considering it's Twin Peaks which has always had shifts in tone. Eventually those tone shifts have been considered part of the Twin Peaks tone, but not before some initial reactions that it felt out of place.

I also think many of the tonal shifts that are frustrating some are very much deliberate choices - both in terms of:

1) aging/time/change is very much a major theme of this current series.  TP reflected and offered a twisted spin on some of the more standard tv fare of its original time (the nighttime soap).  Now it reflects the kind of series seen now - many of them are direct descendents of or owe their sensibilities to TP.  It ages/changes/adopts as well but even still somethings remain familiar and the same.  Some embrace it, some merely accept it, some who weren't around back in the day may not appreciate it (the wisecracking young cop joking about consulting with a pinecone), and others have a hard time adapting and accepting it (Lucy's confusion with cell phones)

2) The series is called "Twin Peaks: The Return" - some people may have misinterpreted that as expecting the series would be a return to what it was before but rather it's ABOUT returning there and that journey.  So at the beginning, things seem wrong or out of place (common dialogue are along the lines of "something's wrong", "something's missing")  As we get closer to the goal, the missing elements start coming more prominent - the music, the balance of comedy/seriousness, focus on the town/original characters.  It's a road trip and the beginning of that trip is away from the intended destination.  Allow yourself to enjoy the ride as you're traveling rather than fixating on the final destination, and you'll be much more rewarded.   

[peachmangosteen]

On 6/9/2017 at 2:31 PM, TheNewJanBrady said:

I noticed that Jane Levy (whom I loved from Suburgatory) was named as two characters in the end credits (which reveal SO much on this show!). I know she was the friend who stood up for the girl who asked for a light at the Bang Bang Club--who else was she?

 

I went to check and I only saw her listed as Elizabeth.

[Moxie Cat]

What was the name of the red haired insurance agent who let Cooper into the ladies'? I figure it's "Rhonda" or "Heidi" from the end credits as they were the two I couldn't pinpoint.

Take of this what you will: all of the male speaking characters at Lucky 7 were called by name at least once - even the young guy who hit on the girl. But the girl was not named once. Bad Lynch. :)

[peachmangosteen]

13 hours ago, Moxie Cat said:

What was the name of the red haired insurance agent who let Cooper into the ladies'? I figure it's "Rhonda" or "Heidi" from the end credits as they were the two I couldn't pinpoint.

1

Tha actress' name is Elena Satine. I checked her IMDb and it says her character's name is Rhonda.

Quote

Take of this what you will: all of the male speaking characters at Lucky 7 were called by name at least once - even the young guy who hit on the girl. But the girl was not named once. Bad Lynch. :)

Of course. Ugh.

[Lemons]

On 6/5/2017 at 0:45 PM, loki567 said:

I think I'm close to trying to forget this series exist for a little bit, wait until all the parts are out, then have a binge watch where I can fast-forward through the scenes that feel useless i.e. NEARLY EVERYTHING! Probably knock this thing out in five hours and enjoy it much more that way. Because good lord, this pacing is just unbearable. 

Did get a laugh at Amanda Seyfried playing a new generation version of Laura, when she's already done that. Maybe I'll do a rewatch of Veronica Mars' first season until this is over...

I doubt there are any throw-away scenes, I bet they will be needed to understand the upcoming scenes.  I think it's starting to come together and starting to make sense. I tried to just watch the movie Fire Walk with Me to prepare for this new show but I interpreted the movie all wrong so I watched season 2 on netflix before the new season, which helped a lot. I really like it.

the scene on the elevator cracked me up. So awkward when someone doesn't follow the social rules. 

[TheNewJanBrady]

Quote

 I went to check and I only saw her listed as Elizabeth.

Thanks--I think I must have confused her with Jane Adams, who plays Constance.

[Starchild]

On 6/5/2017 at 8:05 PM, Ottis said:

It doesn't even address key questions like, why 25 years? What was supposed to happen during that time?  

Maybe that's how long a spirit like Bob can stay in the world until he's called back. Which is why he created a duplicate in Dougie who would be called back in his place. Whoever threw up first would be the one dragged back. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Dougie doesn't have a paper trail past 25 years or so back.

On 6/5/2017 at 9:20 PM, Giant Misfit said:

Just a guess, but no, it's not him. Those are his fingerprints, but his fingerprints have been found on 14 (?) other locations since his death according to the Pentagon people (at least I think they were Pentagon). 

My guess is the body belongs to the real Dougie Jones. I presume Dougie's head popped off in the Black Lodge because it was missing (or destroyed) in real life. 

I, of course, could be completely wrong. I guess I need to keep reading more of Mark Frost's book which is very Major Briggs-centric.

I love that Ernie Hudson's character is called "Davis".

[Ottis]

11 hours ago, Starchild said:

Maybe that's how long a spirit like Bob can stay in the world until he's called back. Which is why he created a duplicate in Dougie who would be called back in his place. Whoever threw up first would be the one dragged back. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Dougie doesn't have a paper trail past 25 years or so back.

I love that Ernie Hudson's character is called "Davis".

You've created a circular explanation. They switch after 25 years, because that's how long they can stay. But WHY? Why 25? Why not 10? or 35? Is it because 25 years signifies a generation, so that good or evil dominates every 25 years? is it because Laura Palmer sacrificed herself to limit a permanent change to "only" 25 years? There is no explanation of the mythology. It's like playing a board game and you only learn the rules each time you make a move. It's possible, and maybe you delight in the surprise. But there is no further understanding of what you are trying to achieve, nor why. That's how TPs feels this time around.

[jsbt]

There wasn't an explanation for 25 years to begin with. It is what it is.

[Ottis]

29 minutes ago, jsbt said:

There wasn't an explanation for 25 years to begin with. It is what it is.

Exactly. That brief reference, 25 years ago,  was that they would be back in 25 years. And now they are. And we have no idea why. We don't even know who is fighting, or what, aside from evil Cooper doesn't want to go back. And the one armed man wants good Cooper to live. Everyone else doesn't realize what Cooper or Dougie actually are or why they are different. And so, watching them all bumble around, week after week, is getting old.