LostInTheMovies
-
Content count
396 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by LostInTheMovies
-
-
On 9/9/2017 at 1:55 PM, Persistence of 3 said:Defintitely at the time. Wasn't aware they were scrubbed for 'the complete mystery' set.
Wait, why would ABC run "to be continued" on a series that had been cancelled?
-
On 9/5/2017 at 4:21 PM, Mentalgongfu said:We already know how Annie is, at least physically. She's just fine.
-
On 9/4/2017 at 11:15 AM, Don't Go There said:I feel it is important to preface this with the statement that I really liked “The Return”, and I liked what we saw in Parts 17 and 18. It’s important, because I’m going to sound like I hated it. So, to be clear: I am an OG Peaks fan, I watched it when it first ran on ABC. I loved Fire Walk With Me from the very first time I saw it. And I have enjoyed The Return immensely.
That being said, nothing is perfect, and there are some problems I have with this series, and its conclusion. I’ve also been a Lynch fan from way back- I know that, in the battle between coherence of plot and surrealism, Lynch is going to pick surrealism every time. But there are some things that need to be addressed. Not “rules” really. But… well, here, let me just tell you:
1. Hawk was in the woods in episode 1. “Once again your log and I are on the same page.” Hawk gets to Glastonbury Grove, sees the red curtains… then nothing. We never find out where he got his information, we never find out what happened, or what was supposed to happen. It is never referred to again. Also, it seems to take place out of sequence, as the next scene with Hawk has him still mulling over the log’s initial message.
2. What happened to Becky? This we may already know, as Stephen is definitely hinting that he killed her. This would be a natural conclusion to where that story was headed. But we never see Bobby or Shelly react to this. Once Stephen pulls the trigger on himself-- and we see an ominous exterior shot of their trailer-- we never hear of it again.
3. Are we supposed to believe this “Jow-Day” entity is the Thing In the Glass Box? Because there is absolutely no reason to believe that. We are never told a thing about the thing in the box, about the thing in Part 8 that was spewing eggs, about the playing card with the silhouette, about the same design appearing on Hawk’s map. Are all these things even the same thing? Why is evil Coop seeking it out? What was his plan upon entering what I guess is the White Lodge?
4. “Jow-Day” is an ass-pull. I’m sorry, but it is. All “Judy” ever was, was a reference to a character in Fire Walk With Me that never ended up in the movie, but Lynch thought it sounded good enough to keep. The “Oh, hey, here’s a bunch of plot we shoe-horned in and decided to bring up 17 hours in” method of storytelling is something this show has done the whole season. Maybe we can call it the “Bill Hastings’s Web Site” method.
5. Where the hell is Audrey? And why should we care? The first question would seem to be answered at the end of Part 16- in some kind of hospital. Of course, we can only infer that from the tiny amount we see of it. She could be in the bathroom of Horne’s Department Store, for all we know. The second question- who cares?- is never answered. I mean, we care, because we like Audrey. But Audrey takes, what, four episodes to get out of that house, get to the Roadhouse, do her dance, and wake up (maybe) in a hospital (maybe), shouting at Charlie who is actually a mirror (maybe) and, as far as we know, she has no significance to the story beyond that. Well, then why show us anything about her at all?
6. We do remember Sarah Palmer taking her goddamn face off and eating a trucker’s throat, right? That all happened in your version of that episode, too? Oh good. Because it’s never referenced again. Maybe she’s possessed by Judy. Except that the ideas that, a) Judy is the Thing In the Glass Box,
the Thing In the Glass Box is the BOB-spewing entity in the Trinity atomic bomb whatsis, c) The Thing In the Glass Box is the symbol on the card/Hawk’s map… none of that is actually in the show. At all.
7. Look, we need to talk about Annie. I’m sorry, but we do. I don’t much like her either, but she’s important. She’s the whole reason Dale was lured into the Black Lodge. She’s the subject of the last line of the original show. And… I guess she doesn’t exist? Because Norma’s mom has now been dead since before the first season? Even though she was in the show? And she doesn’t have a sister? Remember when we noticed this discrepancy in the book, and Mark Frost said that it would all be explained? He lied. Look, I’m sorry, but he flat-out lied.
8. Why is “Red” in this show? At all?
9. Who the hell is Billy? Someone’s looking for him in the RR, Audrey is having a fling with him, and two girls in the Roadhouse talk about him. And, surprising no one, we are never told anything else. Why even talk about him at all? There’s this theory that many of the Roadhouse scenes are in Audrey’s head, but he is referenced in a non-Roadhouse scene, and it just brings us back to the Audrey story line going nowhere.
10. And the frogbug was what? And whose mouth did it crawl into? And why is the Woodsman putting everyone to sleep? What did any of that have to do with anything at all?
11. What is Hawk supposed to watch for, under the moon, on Blue Pine Mountain? Because- and I know this will shock you- this is never, ever mentioned again. So why mention it at all?
12. Why did the Fireman shit a golden globe of Laura Palmer out of his head? How did that impact the story, again? I’m sure I missed that somewhere in the 10 hours of Dougie Jones acting like a zombie. Surely this was addressed? That sequence looks like it was expensive. I would imagine it would be of no small import. Surely there would have been at least one reference to it again, somewhere in the 10 more hours they had left. I’m sure I missed it.
These aren’t red herrings. These are huge gaps in storytelling. I wonder if the answers to these questions were in the original script. It wouldn’t be the first time Lynch has decided, “Screw the script.”
Finally, while I liked the conclusion, did I miss any foreshadowing at all that would hint at what the hell that was all about? I am admittedly dense, and I may have missed all kinds of things.
Again, to reiterate: I really, really enjoyed the hell out of this 18 hour movie. But that list of eleven, up there… I think those are big weaknesses that need to be addressed.
ETA: So who hired Ray to kill Doppelcoop? Who called Doppelcoop in the hotel if it wasn't Jeffries? I mean, come on.
Awaiting the Final Dossier's arrival in a local bookstore, I finally made my way to this last forum thread which I didn't get to in the past 2 months. And I'm finding this particular post a fascinating read in light of some of the interviews Sabrina Sutherland and Mark Frost - and Sherilyn Fenn - have given lately which sheds (a little bit of) light on the process behind the series and Lynch's approach to it.
Basically it seems to me that many of these dangling threads are less a case of Lynch saying "Screw the script" and throwing out explanations that were in it than of him ADDING new, one-off, unexplained material to the script. Not in every case, maybe not even in most, but certainly in a lot of the examples you point out.
A few observations:
-- According to both Sutherland and Frost, the first two hours were written before the rest of the story (Frost got pretty specific at a recent appearance, saying him and Lynch discussed the series for a year (2012-13), wrote the screenplay for the first two hours in the next year (2013-14), and wrote the rest of the material the year after that (2013-14, which puts much of it *after* the Showtime announcement). I strongly suspect this leads to what you deftly call "the Bill Hastings website problem." When I watched that scene in pt9, I had the odd sensation that I was watching like a several-seasons-later retcon, rather than something that was all written and worked out ahead of time. Maybe, in a sense, I was? I kind of like the idea that Lynch/Frost wrote a "pilot" without knowing where it would lead and then more or less left it intact as they worked out the various threads, writing as if their hands were foced even though of course they could go back and scrap/reinvent the beginning if they wanted to. Maybe this was their way of getting back into the mode they'd been in when the wrote the actual pilot back in 1988, with no firm plans of how it would unfold from there? This partly explains why so many threads of pt1/2 kind of wither away and why it has such a different feel in many ways from the rest of the series, despite all the "2-hour movie" claims.
- We now 100% know, thanks to both Fenn and Frost, that Audrey was supposed to run a hair salon and that her main (possibly only?) scene was going to be her getting assaulted by Richard. She was gonna be in Sylvia's place. Fenn cried when she read the script and did not want to play this role, so Lynch (by himself, though he shared it with Frost, who approved) rewrote the scene during production into what we know see. Much more to be said about this, which I've said elsewhere, so I'll leave that be for now - but we also know Lynch winged a lot of the Roadhouse scenes too, writing them late in the game on his own (along with other material), so I think it's less a case of having some subterranean story going on than sort of weaving a dream based on a combination of momentary impulses and outside challenges.
- Ok, spoiler-y warnings for the Dossier I guess (I haven't read it yet but this is what I've heard - I think mostly sourced from public announcements, though I can't be sure):
SpoilerThe frogbug girl is almost certainly going to be Sarah - Frost himself said he hopes viewers figured out who the girl was by the end of the series (which doesn't leave many options - it's obviously not just some random person) and others who either read the book, heard whispers, or seen advance copy via trailers etc have confirmed that it is directly addressed in the text and is not going to be a big surprise/twist. This could just be Frost winging it of course but the way he spoke about it doesn't sound to me like "we left it ambiguous and this is my read" but "we designed this storyline with a firm idea of who she was and why it was in there even though we didn't tell you on the series itself." Maybe Lynch feels differently of course. Either way, I've long suspected it was Sarah due to various clues - the girl seems to have a psychic ability, her age almost perfectly matches up with Grace Zabriskie's although admittedly it's a little off from Sarah's according to the Secret History, and the creature that crawls in her mouth has a pointy noise and leaps around on strong hind legs, connecting it to the Jumping Man who is later linked to Sarah via the sharp object poking out of the black space when she takes her face off, and the shot of her superimposed for a few frames across the JM's mask in the convenience store. Much as I like mysteries, I'm kind of glad we're getting an answer on this.
Likewise, Frost has said for months that Annie's fate will be addressed in the Dossier. As of now (maybe in a few hours I'll know more) no idea what that means.
-
Way late reply (I'm slooowly making my way through these threads - finally almost to the finale one!) and this is more a general riff on the theme of Leland/Bob than a specific response to Nordelnob's points, but as I've been thinking about this a lot, especially in the wake of where the Return ultimately takes Bob, here goes...
QuoteIf Leland would have raped Laura anyways without being possessed by BOB, then I just don't see the point of BOB in the first place.
Well, you're *kind of* onto something. I think the character initially did have a point, to draw attention to the uncanny, almost unknowable/unmentionable phenomenon of abuse in the Palmer household in a way that only heightened its charge. Think how (spoilers for Mulholland Dr) the blue box and key in amplify the mundane object of the blue-colored key that Diane gets, so that it's psychological importance becomes manifest externally. That's what a visual artist, especially one as open to surreal, abstract approaches as Lynch, does: gives us startling, visceral images representing emotions that are very real but hard to articulate (especially through straightforward representation).
However, as soon as Leland was revealed as the killer Bob became a bit thematically superfluous - even distracting. So why stick with/double down on Bob after the reveal? Well, the idea of him as an evil spirit, already seeded early in s2, becomes useful for a couple reasons: to give the story somewhere to go after "the killer" is revealed, as ABC demanded, but also to soften the shocking blow of beloved, respectable Leland being an incestuous rapist and serial killer...not just for the audience but also possibly for Ray Wise himself, who was devastated by this twist (he didn't find out until just before the episode was shot). Arguably then, an aspect of the mythology - when taken too literally - grew out of some compromises which ultimately undermine the original point. In a way, what we see in the next episode (are we still avoiding spoilers in this thread?) - a giant Bob ball punched out by a green-gloved Englishman ex machina - recognizes and mocks what Bob became.
Anyway, let's look at the reverse of what you said, which I think is equally if not even more true:
If Leland would NOT have raped Laura anyways without being possessed by BOB, then I just don't see the point of making a sexually abusive father the killer in the first place.
I've compared this before to a hypothetical: what if Schindler's List revealed at the end of the film that the Nazis who massacred 6 million Jews were actually werewolves in human suits, and the innocent Germans had been taken over by the full moon or something. Obviously that's a much more extreme and ridiculous example, but despite Laura being a fictional character, her situation - especially as depicted in FWWM - is all too real and the pain of that is as real for the individuals who experience it. Why give expression to the troubling, very real phenomenon only to brush it under the rug as supernatural hocus-pocus?
Now, that said, a supernatural spiritual entity BOB from the Black Lodge *did* become a part of Twin Peaks; likewise, in FWWM Lynch gave us signs that Leland was responsible for and aware of his actions (probably to the point of not even knowing there was a Bob). In the train car, Leland says, on one side of Laura, "I always thought you knew it was me," and Bob says, on the other side of her, "I never knew you knew it was me!" The suggestion is that it was, in some sense, both. Maybe that's Lynch wanting to have his cake and eat it too but I think it's also speaking to a larger truth, getting back in a way to what the ephemeral, hard-to-in-down, yet terrifyingly present entity of Bob was originally supposed to indicate. We are embedded in forces larger than us, which often feel overpowering, but we still have agency and especially consciousness within that. This is, really, the message of all Lynch's works, I'd argue.
QuoteBut BOB is a part of the story, and it has to mean something. Yes the real Leland would sometimes push his way to the surface, but he wasn't the purpotrator, Bob was. Or at least, the real Leland would not have done those things.
I think there is no "real Leland" if we try to distance him from all the bad things done in his body. His character becomes a meaningless cipher, whom we only meet once or twice; in trying to protect the Leland character, we end up destroying him. I really do think the entire power and weight and resonance of Twin Peaks disintegrates into dust if we dissociate "the good Leland" from "the bad Bob." Worst of all, it ends up dovetailing perfectly with a real-world situation where powerful men repeatedly refuse to take any responsibility for their actions and people refuse to believe it's even possible that they would do this. Middle-class lawyers rape and terrorize their daughters all the time, the fact that it seems improbable is at the very heart of the mystery Lynch and Frost created, and the fact that at times they toy with it actually being improbable is probably this mystery's greatest weakness, one that fortunately the best parts of Twin Peaks overcome.
As for Coop & the doppelganger, and how *that* plays (or doesn't play) into s3 and the show as a whole, that's a post for another day...
-
On 8/30/2017 at 6:58 PM, Jake said:It's my hope/assumption that since the "new" Dougie is going to be built from the seed (glass bead) of old Dougie but the hair of good Coop, they'll end up with their old Dougie back, with whatever memories and feelings he has (from the seed) but without the parts bad Coop was injecting (because the hair source is switched).
Sorry if we play fast and loose with who Dougie is and who Cooper is. When it counts we try to be clear that it was actually two bodies changing locations, and not "Cooper taking over Dougie's body." Cooper took over Dougie's LIFE but their bodies are their own.*
* Dougie's of course, while his own, was created by Bad Coop.
Oh man, I *just* realized that the strand of hair isn't just a shorthand "DNA from the subject" thing but actually kinda corresponds to the look of the tulpa. Granted, Dougie's "long hair" was differently formed than Mr. C's but both were quite distinct from the usual well-kept Coop hair we knew for 2 seasons. (And I seem to recall hearing that Lynch was quite concerned with keeping Coop's hair in form back in s2, as MacLachlan was growing it out for a part - hence why it seems "bigger" in the s2 premiere, if still contained in the G-man style. Plus there's a theory out there of Coop's hairstyle in FWWM being subtly different and therefore implying a dreaming pre-TP Coop in some scenes and a Lodge-trapped post-TP Coop in others.)
Funny how the little details always offer more to dig into.
-
4 hours ago, sclpls said:Hey LostInTheMovies, I just wanted to say I really enjoyed your appearance and discussion on the Beyond the Filter podcast about Twin Peaks.
Thanks - it was a great show.
-
On 8/29/2017 at 10:56 AM, Jake said:To say season 3 is "about" those things on anything but a plot level is disingenuous. I'd argue, at least up through the episodes we've seen which is all anyone can argue about, that the story and feeling and character motivations of the season would be unchanged if the rape pieces of plot-fill were removed. That's absolutely not true for the Laura Palmer story (seasons 1.5 and FWWM). Those stories and those parts of Twin Peaks are truly "about" what you say, while I think in Season 3 Bad Cooper is written as a rapist as a device to add more notches to his "he's a bad character" belt, and it's otherwise disposable.
To me, thematic injections of that type into Bad Coop are fanon, are wishing there was more there than there is. We still have two more chapters so I guess we'll see, but so far the show hasn't seemed concerned with more than lip service to the themes and concepts you're describing, when Bad Coop is concerned.
Granted, this may be partially informed by 17/18 but I think I felt this way immediately after 16 too: I think Diane's rape is pretty crucial to the story and handled in a thoughtful, if troubling, way whereas Audrey's was not. Indeed, everything about that storyline - including Richard - feels like it didn't quite add up to much (I wonder if this is partly due to rewrites of Audrey's character?).
-
9 minutes ago, plasticflesh said:The driving scenes remind me of the 1972 Solaris, where highway photography was used as the imagery for when the characters make their journey from earth to the Solaris planet.
Interesting, Stalker has been coming up a lot on Twitter.
-
On 9/4/2017 at 9:06 AM, Hansel Bosch said:If that's true, then Kyle MacLachlan played no less that six versions of Cooper this season!
1. Passive Cooper trapped in the red room
2. Mr. C
3. The "real" Dougie Jones
4. Cooper trapped in Dougie's body
5. The returned Dale Cooper
6. The Cooper/Mr. C amalgam you mentioned
If nothing else, MacLachlan has done a fantastic job this season differentiating between these characters.
(Personally, I hate the idea that the good Cooper, the boy scout Cooper from the first two seasons , was not the real one, and is replaced with the somewhat morose and confused Cooper we saw in Episode Eighteen. But the finale certainly implies that's what happened, at least in whatever alternate reality has ended up in.)
EDIT: Maybe there are actually seven versions of Cooper! The second tulpa greeted by Janey-E, created by "good" Cooper from his hair, may be different from the tulpa created from Dark Cooper.
Don't forget the second version of Dougie (who seems pretty different from the first) who returns to Janey-E and Sonny Jim at the beginning of pt18!
-
On 9/4/2017 at 8:54 AM, Emily said:I don't normally go in on this kind of specific interpretation of the lore but is it possible that the Cooper we see at the end (Richard) is the "complete" Cooper? If you take the differences between Dale Cooper and Mr. C to be the literal embodiment of good vs evil, perhaps the Cooper that arrived at the beginning of the original show was already acting as one half of a whole person. Part of what draws us to that character in the original show is his eccentric warmth and overwhelming capacity for kindness. As I was trying to sleep after the finale last night I was thinking of all the times Phillip Jeffries encounters Coop and the doubts he has about whether he's speaking to the real Cooper, as far as back as FWWM when Cooper hasn't yet arrived in Twin Peaks.
I'm probably way off but it's something that my mind was mulling over as I was trying to take in everything that finale gave us.
This is a good point, because when Cooper awoke in the hospital and was very apparently the full character we knew from s1/s2 I thought, "Well there goes the (more interesting to me) idea that good and evil Cooper are both parts of a singular whole." But maybe in a way the Cooper we're seeing in Pt. 18 is the "real" Coop to the extent "real" has meaning in a show that blurs so many boundaries? Only real counter to this idea is that in s2 they were already trying to show Coop as a flawed individual leading up to his downfall in the finale.
-
tfw when you were carefully visiting one page at a time and/or not going past stuff you'd stopped at before and suddenly all threads are marked as "read" and you don't know why and know you've lost track of what you've read and where you were.
Anyway, been great keeping tabs on this forum. It was busy yet just contained enough for me to follow everything so I ended up spending a lot more time here than dugpa and reddit, which could get overwhelming. And can't wait to hear Chris and Jake on this two-parter. As I said on Twitter, I can't think of anything more in their wheelhouse than deep-diving into the wild juxtaposition between super-lore-y comic-book showdown and existential avant-garde road trip (and everything else in between).
-
On 8/21/2017 at 4:21 PM, The Great Went said:I didn't know what to make of this, but now that you mention it, I would tend to assume, if she's dead, Gersten's dialogue suggests she killed (or appeared to have killed) herself or that she overdosed.
For some reason when I read this, by "herself" I thought you meant Gersten, not Becky. Which obviously doesn't make a whole lot of sense but had me thinking of all kinds of alternate scenarios where Gersten is a Lodge spirit or a ghost or some such haha.
-
On 8/21/2017 at 2:35 AM, Gregalor said:It was interesting seeing the origin of the name "Gordon Cole", because in my Hollywood neighborhood two streets I often drive over are Gordon, and then a few blocks later, Cole. I always figured that's where the name came from. Of course maybe that movie, itself named after a Hollywood street (Sunset Blvd), took "Gordon Cole" from those very streets.
I think Lynch noticed this too after coming up w/ the character name, and mentioned it in an interview with the same assumption (about Billy Wilder).
-
On 8/18/2017 at 7:26 PM, marblize said:3. Even if everything is as it seems, I think the withholding is frustrating to such an obvious degree that it could serve as critique of prestige tv plot-blocking, as you guys alluded to but didn't reckon with as intentional beyond maintaining a particular internal rhythm/pace.
OT, but that's a compelling piece which just makes me wish Film Crit Hulk would drop his gimmick already. I get it, it got people to pay attention to him in the first place but the ALL-CAPS & "Hulk says" shtick makes it kind of annoying to read tbh. On another note, he was recently a guest on Fire Talk With Me (an episode I haven't listened to yet) so I'll be interested to hear what he sounds like in person. Really hope he didn't do the interview in-character haha.
EDIT: This line made me laugh though: "THE SHOW TAKES PLACE IN 1983. THE DUFFER BROTHERS WERE BORN IN 1984."
And also feel vaguely sad that apparently the Duffer Brothers are a year younger than me.
-
On 8/8/2017 at 5:17 PM, James said:Assuming this season was written with an eye to it maybe probably being a definitive end to the series, I think I might prefer that Lynch do something else, if he does keep working with Showtime. I'm not sure I can stand the perpetual anxiety of "will they stick the landing" to be drawn out in perpetuity, or until it gets bad enough that they stop funding new seasons.
Same here. I''m always skittish about the prospect of Twin Peaks continuing in an open-ended way.
-
Reading through the thread now and lmao - I 100% knew the fellin dude was gonna pull a Pepe out of his ass at some point. Countdown till he says, "So much for the tolerant left"...
-
On 8/1/2017 at 5:04 PM, UnpopularTrousers said:I think this expectation partially comes from us being told before the show started that it would primarily be about Cooper's return to Twin Peaks. Thinking about that now, I wonder if that means his personality will come back or if he will just physically wind up in the town of Twin Peaks?
But I totally agree that suddenly having Cooper come back would likely be more unsatisfying than having him remain in his current state forever. It's not as though he is simply a man with amnesia who has forgotten who he is and simply needs to be reminded of his past identity...he hasn't even formed a coherent thought, yet.A friend of my father's who had Alzheimer's died of a stroke last week, at age 68. He was no longer able to form new sentences and just would say "I went on a lot of bike trips" or point at random objects and say "these are my bike trips". He didn't even really know who his wife was anymore, but if my Dad walked in carrying a bike helmet he would light up with joy. They did, in fact, go on a lot of bike trips. Not much of his previous personality came through, but he still had these glimmers of recognition and happiness from things that linked him to his past.
Cooper's current state reminds me more of my father's friend than an amnesiac character who only needs to find the right key to jog their memory. I think to get the old Cooper back we would require a larger event triggered by some lodge-related phenomenon, and not just another reminder of his past self.
Philip Jefferies was gone for the same amount of time before he returned in FWWM. Twin Peaks isn't very internally consistent with this kind of stuff, but I wonder if his appearance could provide any clues to what Cooper would be like if it hadn't been for Bad Coop's Dougie-vessel meddling?Great, and sad, post.
-
No, it's well-put and I for one totally agree.
-
On July 28, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Arianna said:Ah, that's too bad. I am in the UK so didn't know the US release schedule. Did season 1 ever air over there?
It was on the Sundance channel but aired in a really weird format where they split the 6 episodes into 7 instead. Oddly, both versions are available in the U.S. depending whether you watch on DVD or streaming Netflix. Near as I can determine the split worked like this:
-
12 minutes ago, Hansel Bosch said:In Part Eleven, you can see a little of how these scenes don't always flow together perfectly. At the start of the episode, we see Miriam emerge from the trees. If we presume that those kids called the cops, should there not be a huge manhunt underway for Richard Horne? Even if she was not able to tell the police who her attacker was, you'd think the police would be mobilized and on alert.
Plus, has she been crawling through the woods in that condition for forty-eight hours??!
-
21 hours ago, Ford said:I agree that Lynch and Frost didn't need this. However, just because it's their vision, or that its unconventional, or "Lynchian" (if that has any real meaning) doesn't necessarily make it great.
Of course not. But pretending that we could have a series that is BOTH Lynch-directed AND more suited to its critics' wants is sheer self-indulgent fantasy, and that's what I got frustrated with (in the other post, not yours). It just stinks of fan entitlement (vs legitimate fan disappointment). Plus the pompous tone they were expressing this in, confirmed by their follow-up post which descended into pure insults.
-
On 7/25/2017 at 7:06 AM, fellintooblivion said:You have a real knack for spouting cliches and meaningless drivel. Most of your posts could just be a copy/paste of "It is what it is."
Haha, I had a feeling you were just a spittle-coated troll, thanks for confirming.
QuoteIt's real easy for Lynch to say it was this or nothing when he got what he wanted, of course it completely ignores the fact that no one else was willing to give him money. It was this or nothing for his career and Showtime blinked first.
There is a 0% chance Lynch was gonna meekly come back to Showtime if they refused to re-negotiate. But thanks for playing.
-
10 hours ago, UnpopularTrousers said:It reminded me of the first half of Mulholland Drive where Naomi Watts shows up in Hollywood and everything feels like a wide-eyed hopeful dream.
Great comparison. I've been saying for a while that there were a lot of similarities between the Dougie storyline and Mulholland Drive (at one point even humoring the idea that his world was some kind of dream/alternate reality though that's long past by now). But I think this was the first episode where the *mood* felt similar (except perhaps for the stuff with the statue in its own way) - from the "Viva Las Vegas" ride down the Strip to the closing credits, Vegas gets treated here with a kind of wistful, melancholy romanticism as Hollywood in Mulholland Drive. Though Lynch's Vegas hasn't yet captured, or shown interest in capturing, the ominous darkness underpinning of Lynch's Hollywood.
-
11 hours ago, Existing user? said:Joanna Robinson on the Peaks TV podcast said that every part is a differently balanced cocktail. Like, they shot all these various scenes, and then assembled them into these uniquely constituted one hour blocks. Each part is a different combination of the ingredients they shot, mingling and merging and balancing the neighboring scenes with a mixologist's logic. Just thought that was a really apt description.
I really like this thought because for all the "18-hour movie arbitrarily chopped into 1-hour blocks" talk, each episode seems to me to have a distinct feel, even as it also doesn't quite feel like it was constructed from the ground up as, you know, an episode. Of course some of the mixes are stronger than others.
Twin Peaks Rewatch 52/53: The Return, Parts 17 and 18
in Twin Peaks Rewatch Episodes
Posted
This is great, because I heard a podcast with that actor a few months ago and he pretty much speculated that this was the process behind him getting hired (at least once he figured out it wasn't because he'd been to David Lynch's house to meditate before, which apparently Lynch had completely forgotten).