f13.net

f13.net General Forums => TV => Topic started by: Velorath on October 06, 2014, 07:21:10 PM



Title: Twin Peaks
Post by: Velorath on October 06, 2014, 07:21:10 PM
Twin Peaks is returning as a 9 episode miniseries on Showtime in 2016 (https://deadline.com/2014/10/twin-peaks-series-showtime-david-lynch-mark-frost-845804/). Lynch and Frost are going to write all the episodes, and Lynch is going to direct all of them as well. Sounds like MacLachlan will be returning as well.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Surlyboi on October 06, 2014, 08:55:49 PM
Skye's father is going to be in it?  :awesome_for_real:


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: HaemishM on October 06, 2014, 09:31:44 PM
Could be good, though I thought the movie wrapped up what needed to be said about the series and Agent Cooper.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Nevermore on October 09, 2014, 01:35:18 PM
It's been so long it's hard to remember.  Wasn't the movie a prequel to the series?


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Sir T on October 09, 2014, 01:44:28 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Peaks:_Fire_Walk_with_Me

TL:Dr; yes it was a prequel. They also released a book, Laura Palmer's Diary, during the series run.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: HaemishM on October 09, 2014, 02:24:23 PM
In the middle of the movie, Agent Cooper appeared to Laura Palmer in bed saying he was trapped in the Black Lodge and couldn't get out. That was all I needed to hear.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Sir T on October 09, 2014, 04:47:15 PM
He's there at the end too when Laura is trapped in the Black Lodge and he puts an arm around her shoulder.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Lucas on April 05, 2015, 08:11:14 PM
Twin Peaks is returning as a 9 episode miniseries on Showtime in 2016 (https://deadline.com/2014/10/twin-peaks-series-showtime-david-lynch-mark-frost-845804/). Lynch and Frost are going to write all the episodes, and Lynch is going to direct all of them as well. Sounds like MacLachlan will be returning as well.

David Lynch has left the project (Showtime might keep going forward with it, though) :

http://variety.com/2015/tv/news/twin-peaks-david-lych-leaves-as-director-1201466709/



Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Tannhauser on April 05, 2015, 09:26:04 PM
DAMN IT!


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: schild on April 05, 2015, 10:08:14 PM
Fucking butthead. Don't announce all that shit and then walk away due to budget constraints with your No-Actual-Stars script. Dick.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: HaemishM on April 06, 2015, 02:54:36 PM
What schild said. Total dick move.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Velorath on January 12, 2017, 05:36:13 AM
So, two hour (first two episodes) premiere on Showtime May 21st, with episodes 3 and 4 available digitally right after, and then an episode a week after that (although I assume they'll be airing 3 and 4 on Showtime over the next two weeks before any new episodes come out). 18 episodes total all directed by Lynch and written by Lynch and Frost. A lot of the original cast appear to be returning as well as some new people like frequent Lynch collaborator Laura Dern.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Riggswolfe on January 12, 2017, 11:21:22 AM
So, two hour (first two episodes) premiere on Showtime May 21st, with episodes 3 and 4 available digitally right after, and then an episode a week after that (although I assume they'll be airing 3 and 4 on Showtime over the next two weeks before any new episodes come out). 18 episodes total all directed by Lynch and written by Lynch and Frost. A lot of the original cast appear to be returning as well as some new people like frequent Lynch collaborator Laura Dern.

What I find intriguing is that he said he's doing this as basically a long movie that is broken up into one hour chunks.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Velorath on January 12, 2017, 03:45:42 PM
That does see like a David Lynch thing to do. A lot of Mulholland Drive was originally filmed as a pilot episode for a series, but you'd never really know it because I don't think he alters his style much regardless of what he's making.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: lamaros on January 12, 2017, 06:41:50 PM
Have I already predicted that this is going to be crap? Because it will be, and I tend to be that guy...


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Velorath on January 12, 2017, 08:45:47 PM
We'll be sure to get you your "I called it first" medal if that ends up being the case.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: lamaros on January 12, 2017, 10:06:17 PM
We'll be sure to get you your "I called it first" medal if that ends up being the case.

I think Haem already hedged his bets in that regard, so I'd only be on the podium.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: HaemishM on January 13, 2017, 09:45:56 AM
If Lynch is actually involved in all of it, it could be good. However, his last few movies have made me apoplectic with rage at the willful disregard for the idea of a coherent narrative so this could actually be 18-hours of self-indulgent pretentious wankery.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Riggswolfe on January 13, 2017, 09:53:54 AM
If Lynch is actually involved in all of it, it could be good. However, his last few movies have made me apoplectic with rage at the willful disregard for the idea of a coherent narrative so this could actually be 18-hours of self-indulgent pretentious wankery.

All I know is the original series was at its best when he was directly involved and when the network didn't interfere. "You need to reveal Laura Palmer's killer" anyone?

He may be like a lot of film makers who seem to succumb to their worst impulses as they age. George Lucas, Tim Burton and Ridley Scott I'm looking at you!

I do have some hope though because he has Mark Frost involved and those 2 worked on the series together. So if David Lynch goes too far off of the reservation I think Mark Frost will help pull him back. He seems to be the Gary Kurtz to David Lynch's George Lucas.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: satael on January 13, 2017, 10:20:52 AM
Pretty much the only thing going for this is the fact that it's Lynch doing it instead of it being just a rehash banking on nostalgia if it was done by someone else (and even if I don't always like Lynch at least he's competent and does it with his own style).


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: pxib on January 13, 2017, 02:08:53 PM
Lynch, like Cronenberg, is so weirdly niche and distinct that his worse impulses aren't going to hurt him any more than his best ones do. His basic composition skills have improved as he's aged, and his iconoclastic weirdness has been there from the beginning. This will appeal to his fans while confusing and frustrating everybody else.

Just like anything else he's been involved in. Ever.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Velorath on January 14, 2017, 02:00:57 AM
If Lynch is actually involved in all of it, it could be good. However, his last few movies have made me apoplectic with rage at the willful disregard for the idea of a coherent narrative so this could actually be 18-hours of self-indulgent pretentious wankery.

You can get coherent narratives anywhere. I can't think of too many other people who can construct a narrative like Lynch. While with Inland Empire I was maybe lost a lot more than with most of his work I don't think I'd call any of his stuff self-indulgent or pretentious. His movies aren't for everyone though and a lot of them require some work to really get something out of them.

That said he hasn't really done any narrative work other than shorts in the last decade, and Frost was partially responsible for the Fantiastic Four and Rise of the Silver Surfer screenplays, so there's absolutely reason to be skeptical about a follow up to a show from 25 years back.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Velorath on May 20, 2017, 09:27:00 PM
Just a reminder, this starts tomorrow night.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 21, 2017, 01:01:20 PM
I plan to watch this live.

My predictions:

I'm going to love it but be utterly confused and spend the next few days seeking out other interpretations of things like "Was the pie symbolic or just damn good pie."

Most of you will hate it or at least be dismissive. That's based mostly on, well, it's F13. Jaded dislike is the default state.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: HaemishM on May 21, 2017, 01:33:52 PM
I loved the original. Like one of my favorite TV shows EVER.

I've been tempted to subscribe to Showtime just for this but I figure I'll wait it out and Netflix the whole thing.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 21, 2017, 04:15:08 PM
I loved the original. Like one of my favorite TV shows EVER.

I've been tempted to subscribe to Showtime just for this but I figure I'll wait it out and Netflix the whole thing.

I added it to my Hulu sub. I figured $9 a month is a fair price so I don't have to avoid the internet until almost October.

I loved the original though as I told a friend it has some of the best TV I've ever seen and some of the worst. I recently download a survival guide that gives you an idea which episodes to skip if you want to do a rewatch because honestly, there are big chunks of season 2 that I find more or less unwatchable. I attached it to this post. Tastes may vary and such but if and when I do a rewatch I'll likely skip all the red and most of the yellow.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CLRxpsvUYAATupW.jpg)


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Velorath on May 21, 2017, 05:59:37 PM
Rewatched Fire Walk With Me yesterday to get ready for this and started a free Showtime trial on Amazon today (will keep the sub from the duration of the show assuming it isn't just complete garbage).


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Abagadro on May 21, 2017, 08:37:58 PM
This is as bugfuck as always.

EDIT: After watching this and American Gods tonight I think I need therapy.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 22, 2017, 12:48:46 AM
I watched all 4 available episodes. It's rare for me to feel so many emotions when watching something. Tense, excited, nostalgic, scared, annoyed, sad...

I'm very curious where things go and my only complaint so far is that the next episode isn't available right now because I want to see



Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Abagadro on May 22, 2017, 01:04:31 AM
Really tempted to watch 3 & 4, but then I'd have to wait 3 weeks to see a new episode.

This was really nostalgic for me. Just needed to be high and at the Twin Peaks party we always had at our house in college to complete the experience.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Velorath on May 22, 2017, 01:48:27 AM
I'm going to watch ep. 3 and 4 when I have tine because I figure it won't hurt to rewatch them over the next couple weeks anyway.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 22, 2017, 09:52:04 AM
Really tempted to watch 3 & 4, but then I'd have to wait 3 weeks to see a new episode.

This was really nostalgic for me. Just needed to be high and at the Twin Peaks party we always had at our house in college to complete the experience.

Episode 5 comes on June 4th. So you'd have slightly less than 3 weeks. Also, revised spoiler speculation post-Episode 4.



Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Abagadro on May 24, 2017, 02:19:24 AM
Broke down and watched 3/4. Michael Cera, holy shit.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Wasted on May 24, 2017, 03:34:41 AM
Really tempted to watch 3 & 4, but then I'd have to wait 3 weeks to see a new episode.

This was really nostalgic for me. Just needed to be high and at the Twin Peaks party we always had at our house in college to complete the experience.

Episode 5 comes on June 4th. So you'd have slightly less than 3 weeks. Also, revised spoiler speculation post-Episode 4.




Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 24, 2017, 10:40:11 PM
Really tempted to watch 3 & 4, but then I'd have to wait 3 weeks to see a new episode.

This was really nostalgic for me. Just needed to be high and at the Twin Peaks party we always had at our house in college to complete the experience.

Episode 5 comes on June 4th. So you'd have slightly less than 3 weeks. Also, revised spoiler speculation post-Episode 4.





Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Velorath on May 24, 2017, 10:47:05 PM
Due to the nature of the show I feel like you could post a detailed description of everything the happens in each episode along with a selection of pictures and you wouldn't have spoiled anything.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 25, 2017, 12:33:58 PM
Due to the nature of the show I feel like you could post a detailed description of everything the happens in each episode along with a selection of pictures and you wouldn't have spoiled anything.

Yes and no. There are certainly a lot of WTF? moments but in general the central storyline is fairly easy to follow with a central conflict now established as of Episode 4.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: lamaros on May 29, 2017, 09:03:46 PM
So, is it any good?

I find later Lynch stuff to be more of the weird side than the terrifying, which was much of his skill for me. Does this go either way?


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Riggswolfe on May 30, 2017, 03:26:54 PM
So, is it any good?

I find later Lynch stuff to be more of the weird side than the terrifying, which was much of his skill for me. Does this go either way?

I love it. YMMV.

It has its terrifying moments. It has its weird moments. It will make you uncomfortable as he holds shots arguably too long (I much prefer it over the ADHD type of film making we get now) and has people speak in sort of odd ways. (Which is more or less a Lynch trademark.)

It is also, as he said, an 18 hour movie chopped up into 1 hour segments. At this point we've seen the equivalent of around 15 minutes of a 2 hour movie. These first 4 hours have all been set up for what comes later but you can already see the central conflict being built up.



Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Signe on May 30, 2017, 07:30:55 PM
I love it, too, even though it goes far deeper into David Lynch's mind than I ever wanted to explore.  I'm here for the duration regardless of how much I want to run away.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Velorath on June 25, 2017, 11:29:12 PM
Tonight's episode is maybe the most Lynchian thing ever.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Abagadro on June 26, 2017, 02:39:49 AM
That was pure garbage. I've been a fan of his since fucking Eraserhead and that episode was pure shit.  I'm actively mad that I spent an hour watching that.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Riggswolfe on June 30, 2017, 09:29:56 AM
That was pure garbage. I've been a fan of his since fucking Eraserhead and that episode was pure shit.  I'm actively mad that I spent an hour watching that.

The episode is certainly divisive. I enjoyed it but it's not one I will rewatch when I eventually buy this series/movie on Blu Ray. It laid a lot of foundation and backstory, particularly if you've read Mark Frost's The Secret History of Twin Peaks.

I suspect the episode was mostly written by Frost as he is more into the backstory and the mystical side but Lynch definitely put his own spin on it in the directing. A lot of the shots went on for far too long but that is such a Lynch trademark I wasn't surprised by it and just sort of relaxed and let it take me.

I've seen this episode called an intermission in the series and I think that's pretty accurate. It was a (long) pause before we hit the last 10 episodes.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Abagadro on June 30, 2017, 03:55:11 PM
I've mellowed from my initial reaction, but still think the execution could have been much better.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Wasted on June 30, 2017, 04:24:12 PM
I'm going to wait for the rest of the season to give the episode more context.  I didn't hate it, but it was uncomfortable to watch a lot of it for how dark it all was, near the end I was saying to my wife that I just want some colour back.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Velorath on June 30, 2017, 04:55:42 PM
As just sort of a Lynch thing I thought it was great. For people just looking for an episode of Twin Peaks, yeah I can get the frustration.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: satael on July 01, 2017, 02:29:52 AM
I've enjoyed it so far. It's been very much a Lynch thing and not just pandering to Twin Peaks nostalgia like someone else might have been tempted to do (and the latest episode was a good example of that).


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Cheddar on July 01, 2017, 08:13:17 PM
I need to watch this, never saw the original.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: satael on July 12, 2017, 02:22:56 AM
http://thesearchforthezone.com/ (http://thesearchforthezone.com/)


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Riggswolfe on July 13, 2017, 01:56:14 PM
http://thesearchforthezone.com/ (http://thesearchforthezone.com/)


People have been going nuts finding hidden clues on this site like, for example, some map coordinates that lead to South Dakota.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Abagadro on August 27, 2017, 11:02:03 PM
No idea if anyone is watching this, but tonight's episode was one of the funniest (and most awesome) things I've ever watched as a Peaks fan.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: MahrinSkel on August 27, 2017, 11:04:07 PM
I have seen none of it except Fire Walk With Me, which made no fucking sense at all. I might binge the whole thing, original and new, once it is all done.

--Dave


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Riggswolfe on August 27, 2017, 11:23:30 PM
No idea if anyone is watching this, but tonight's episode was one of the funniest (and most awesome) things I've ever watched as a Peaks fan.

I am and can't wait to see how it all pans out. While most people seem to be all about GoT I'm all about Peaks each week. This episode was great!


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Velorath on September 03, 2017, 06:45:37 PM
Final two episodes air tonight. It'll be interesting to see how coherently everything comes together.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Abagadro on September 03, 2017, 07:18:07 PM
My prediction is: not very. But I don't really care.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Abagadro on September 04, 2017, 12:41:59 AM
Heh, prediction correct.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Velorath on September 04, 2017, 01:15:42 AM
It tied up a lot of things. Then it used its last episode to more or less set up another season that there currently aren't any plans to make which doesn't me bother me as much as it would if anyone other than Lynch had done it.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Wasted on September 04, 2017, 07:24:50 AM
Fuck that ending.

I was enjoying it all until the last episode.

It wasn't even the insanity of the original series ending, it was just unnecessary and frustrating.


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: Riggswolfe on September 04, 2017, 11:31:20 AM
Fuck that ending.

I was enjoying it all until the last episode.

It wasn't even the insanity of the original series ending, it was just unnecessary and frustrating.

The "real" events of the show stop at 2:53 pm in the Sheriff's office about halfway through Episode 17. The rest of that episode and episode 18 operate purely on dream logic and Cooper literally says "We're all living in a dream."


Title: Re: Twin Peaks
Post by: satael on September 04, 2017, 01:08:42 PM
It was a good season and there were some great Lynch moments in it (though it's going to be a long while until I'll re-watch it).