Digger

It's my theory, but Lynch and Frost have not given me enough info to give it any legs.

It's already been made. "Owed" was never my word it was yours. I also did not demand anything. As for the disrespect, I go back to the pet metaphor, making an animal believe it is going to get something you withhold from it is disrespectful. You know it wants the food or the toy, and you are enjoying its reaction, and then continuing to promise and withhold is disrespectful. I also saw many of the scene choices as going nowhere and revealing nothing, so that seems like a waste of time, also disrespectful. You can disagree, of course, and find those scenes valuable. I didn't enjoy, for example, Dougie. Now I have tried to make it meaningful. I have decided Dougie was Cooper's chance at happiness, and that by creating the tulpa he has given up a part of himself and allowed that part domestic bliss and no Blue Rose wackiness or giant evil entity insanity. That Coop gets a happy ending. I have very little in the show to back this up. I don't know if new Dougie has much awareness of the world. He said only one word, "Home." Is he able to do and say more. Dougie one was not a great husband, was that because he was made of the vices evil Coop was made of. Don't know. No explanation. INformation deliberately withheld. Disrespectful. You'll never know, and I've not given you enough information to understand.

Not really what I meant. All of the discourse over the last 25 years between the work and the audience and the audience and themselves shape its viewing and understanding. In this sense the audience is the artist or creator. We have shaped it's popularity, its interpretation, given it meaning, importance and relevance. Twin Peaks is a situation very different from other media in that it has been gone for such a long amount of time. The closest I can relate it to are comics. Some characters have existed for decades. An author can upset an audience by making, what the audience views as unwarranted changes, toss out lore and history, or rework it in a way that goes against reader's interpretations and understandings. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. I don't think an audience's specific wishes are helpful, an audience doesn't know exactly what it wants, often it wants the exact thing it had before that they loved so much, which is impossible because it too has changed. That same audience wants to be surprised and enthralled. But, what Twin Peaks is now I don't think is only what Lynch and Frost created.

It seems many believe we owe unwavering allegiance and lack of judgement. I don't think owed is right word. Any artistic offering is open to reading and critique. Why is Twin peaks any different. I don't think one could argue artists can not offend or disrespect their audience, or that work can miss the mark, or be bogged down or too dilute. These are characters and a world that has been pored over, examined and loved for over 25 years. The characters, place and feel have been internalized. I believe an audience can have expectations and opinions. The audience who have followed this work for so long are, in my opinion, part or the creative team as well.

I have trouble with this reading too. What was Lynch then focusing on? It seemed mostly mood and tone, and usually the same mood and tone (uncomfortable, strange, withheld) is that 18 hours worth of compelling?. It wasn't really character he was focused on, because we didn't spend enough time with most of them to know them any better or much at all. The new characters appeared for brief scenes sometimes 5 or 6 episodes apart. Their storylines were disjointed or dropped. I also don't think it accounts for Lynch often in the character of Gordon Cole winking at the audience and basically saying I know what you want to see but instead here's a french woman. I know what you want to know, instead Hawke tells us we don't want to know about it. One might just roll with it, but the disrespectful interpretation whether intentional on Lynch's part or not is still obviously valid.

The sex scene was especially weird because there was no context for it. Diane had said they had only kissed once before, and the kiss in the car didn't seem overly sexual or romantic, Coop told her to do it and she did. Them having sex in the motel seemed weird because they were on the trail of something or heading into another world. Why would you stop at a hotel to have sex (for the first time). Neither of them seemed very excited about the prospect or during the act. I don't think it is them. I guess Diane could be covering his face because it reminded her of the rape, but why would she continue, surely Coop would stop and comfort her.

Yeah, I'm not so sure about this. It's like playing a joke on an animal or a child, maybe you're not doing it to be mean, maybe you think it is funny. Lynch and Frost antagonized their audience in almost every episode, the only time I thought it was funny was when Coop was in the coma and someone said something to the effect of "He may never come out of it." That was all the audience needed waiting for Dougie to wake up and then have him in a coma for the rest of the season. He wakes up in the next scene. You got me Lynch. I mentioned a bunch of the other trolling in previous posts, so I won't rehash them, but ask yourself this did any of the Candie scenes or Jacoby scenes serve any purpose, move the story or reveal character or plot, and when plot was revealed was it often rushed and unsatisfying. Take Freddie, we are introduced to him in an exposition dump he gives to James. Now imagine instead of that we get to see this happening on screen asshole Freddie in his sad life, gets a visit from the Fireman. Revelation! We witness his attempt to buy the glove and tension! he can't seem to get it, then wham, the glove is real and has real power as we see him clock the teller. Maybe he tries to go back to his old life; it sucks, he heads to Twin Peaks and now we see the town through his eyes, we see the inhabitants we missed through him, we see how they've changed, and we have him set up in a heroic arc so when his showdown with BOB comes it means something. Isn't that more interesting? Take some time with any of the characters, Jerry Horne and his bizarre 500 mile journey, Ben Horne and his new mistress- was the a reason we had those scenes or met her husband one time? Audrey is introduced near the end of the season, can't seem to leave a room, leaves the room, dances and wakes up somewhere? Tammy Preston spends her time vamping, giving knowing looks, or confused looks (a shame because I loved her in the book) and the reason she's important is because one time Cole said she was top of her class and impressive- did we get to see her be impressive? Episode 18- lots of driving and empty stares. What does Coop know or not know? What was Diane seeing when she was having sex? Why were they having sex? Is that why they were at the hotel? Why does Diane not react to seeing herself? Was she switched when Coop came back? All of those are fun questions that won't be answered, but really don't need to be mysteries. Would you rather have those questions answered or more dialogue at the roadhouse which may or may not be real and may or may not be about characters we've seen (but under different names)? What was the greater or deeper meaning of any of that? Is questioning it devaluing it, or placing the appropriate value upon it?

I have to think of the dream and dreamer as a metaphor. The dreamer is any of us filtering, making sense, making judgements of the world through our own experience and senses when these same events can be viewed completely differently by anyone outside of us. As dreamers we are creating the world we live in and imagine it is reality and that we know reality, when all we know is OUR reality, and our reality is mutable and inconstant. "The past creates the future" and Cooper's latest journey add another wrinkle in that time and destiny are dreams, if they can be changed then the one who does the changing is the dreamer, but like a dreamer has little control on the full effects of any decision's outcome. If time is inconstant reality is only one of an infinite possibilities. If the series is an actual character's dream than it is all but worthless. No character has agency or importance, no encounter, mishap or mistake has any meaning. There were never any rules, and there need not be any logic. The only meaning that could be derived is possible insight into the dreamer, but even then is it a reflection on the core of their being or the pizza they had for dinner?

I'd forgotten about the cell phone seed. I guess Mr. C. was doing actual magic with his technology, maybe he made those devices himself like he made Dougie and Janey-E which would explain their bizarre functionality. Episode 17 was a lot very quickly. I remained convinced the pacing for this season was way off. Much time was spent accomplishing little, never giving us enough time with the characters to know or connect to them. The reveals happened in flashes and spurts and rarely when they were earned. instead it is in exposition at the wrong time- Cole explains who Judy is and what Cooper's mission was, finally and only partly, to the only other two people in his Blue Rose splinter group in the penultimate episode when he has had that information and more since season one. Episode 18 then arrived to remind me of the things I disliked about this season. Long sequences of people staring expressionlessly into the distance. Vast stretches of nothing happening in the service of creating mood? no indication of what is happening, what people know, or what they think about it. It seemed like a good deal of time-wasting. I am compelled by the idea of Carrie/Laura, but I feel sure if there were a season four it would be consumed by the new Dougie Jones, boring Becky, magic drug dealer, and an exploration of Odessa, and when answers are finally given it will be in one episode at the end when a character tells us things he's known since the first episode, and it will be resolved in a sequence much shorter than the nonsense scenes. Were there great moments this season, yes, and when they happened it was easy to forget the filler in between. Then the filler came back a stayed for too long.

It's hard to know what Leland was or would have been, having been inhabited by BOB since he was a child. BOB in evil Coop is a different entity. In evil Coop he doesn't hide (although Coop does not always seem aware of his presence- see the "I'm glad you're still with me scene early in the season). Evil Coop and BOB seem to be working together BOB happily feeding off the mayhem Mr. C provides. It also seems he lend Mr. C some kind of power or enhancement with his presence, and possibly helped him create the tulpas in the first place.

If anyone in Twin Peaks jail is Diane, then I would go with bleeding repeater, the drunk guy. It would help me accept Dougie more if being pulled into the lodge did some communication scrambling.

Was that figure in the movie Dougie was staring at Chet Desmond?

I got the feeling Diane helped bad Coop set up the Dougie thing. Diane went from "Fuck you, and I can't even tell you if Briggs was mentioned" to "Here's a lot of personal information." Dougie was set up with many enemies, if Diane hates her sis, then here's a way to get at her, much like what was done with Bill Hastings and his wife. It seems impossible that Diane wouldn't know what her sister's husband looks like. She knows his name, and the couple has been together for ten years.

The world is a little less full of truckers.

Yeah, I wish I could, but I would like resolution. What happened to Annie? What's going to happen with Dale? Can Bob be vanquished? I want answers to these questions, so I continue watching only to get strange back rubs and mediocre pie.