• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Twin Peaks Season 3 |OT2| It's Just A Change, Not An End

B

Boem

Member
heavy liquid said:
It's disappointing they aren't releasing any of the deleted scenes or Missing Pieces. I guess it's possible they're going through it all to make it presentable and decide what gets out for a future release. Hopefully.
Click to expand...

No, what the producer said was that there weren't any deleted scenes because everything that was shot basically ended up in the show itself. There isn't any material to save for a later release. What we've seen is what there is.
 
P

plagiarize

Banned
Krev said:
I'd add that good art is entertaining. It's often entertaining in different ways to what we usually think of when we think 'entertainment', but as long as it gives us something to find intellectual engagement, emotional catharsis, etc I consider that entertaining. Kubrick and Fire Walk With Me are definitely entertaining. Art made under the misconception that it doesn't have to be entertaining is usually pathetically self-involved and pretentious.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I've seen great stuff that wasn't remotely entertaining to watch. Is Bug (the William Friedkin movie) entertaining? What about Cronenberg's Spider? I loved both, but wouldn't subject myself to either a second time.

Good art absolutely positively can be entertaining... and there isn't anything wrong with someone who wants to be entertained by Season 3 of Twin Peaks (or disliking it if it doesn't entertain them). But being entertaining isn't a requirement for art.

And I should stress, I found the majority of season three very entertaining. It was hilarious. It was scary in a fun way. It was surprising and compelling.

But art doesn't have to stop to think about whether or not the audience is going to get what they want out of it.

Again, that doesn't mean you have to like it, but if we're trying to get to an objective idea like, is the writing bad... it clearly isn't. Perhaps the intent is bad... but the writing is clearly serving Mark and David's intent very successfully.

To me good vs bad is a completely separate thing compared to like vs dislike or enjoy vs not enjoy when it comes to appreciating art. Twin Peaks season three is exactly what it is supposed to be. There are unquestionably some mistakes and flubs and continuity problems, but for the most part, the dialogue, acting, visuals and sound design all successfully convey what the artist wanted.

So it is a success in that regard. Is it good? I'd say so. Does that mean you should like it, or that you shouldn't be upset that you don't? Not at all. It's just presented in a format and a medium that almost exclusively provides entertainment. I don't blame anyone for judging it as entertainment as a result, even though it's clearly not.

Just like I don't blame anyone who wanted more of feel and tone of the first two seasons. Season three not being that doesn't make it bad.

If someone calls it badly written, I can't imagine they even know what bad writing looks like. Which, good for them I guess.

If any of this sounds pretentious it's not meant to be. Art is often challenging. Modern art pieces that there is now a positive consensus about, there wasn't when they first arrived, because the expectations were very different. Twin Peaks Season 3 isn't interested in giving an audience what they want. Maybe that's bad writing to people who think it should be obliged to cater to an audience.

But it really isn't obliged to do that.

I loved what David and Mark made. I feel empathy to those who didn't, or who were led to expect something else through no fault of their own. But they successfully made exactly what they set out to make... and I don't think you can argue otherwise.
 
C

Chitown B

Member
hussmk said:
Isn't it strange how we have opposing views on the show? That's the great thing about TP in my opinion, is that it can mean different things to different people.
Click to expand...

no, it's not strange. And this comment is a "deepity". It's not interesting.

Boem said:
No, what the producer said was that there weren't any deleted scenes because everything that was shot basically ended up in the show itself. There isn't any material to save for a later release. What we've seen is what there is.
Click to expand...

I believe it. They stretched and stretched to get to 18 hours as it was. So many long pauses and sweeping.
 
H

heavy liquid

Member
Boem said:
No, what the producer said was that there weren't any deleted scenes because everything that was shot basically ended up in the show itself. There isn't any material to save for a later release. What we've seen is what there is.
Click to expand...

Oh okay, I misread that, thanks.
 
K

Krev

Unconfirmed Member
-shadow- said:
While not saying picking up right where seasons 2 left off would've been a good idea, it really wouldn't have been. All the bits and pieces that took place in Twin Peaks this season with the old characters, very much felt like the old Twin Peaks series to me. The Double R dinner with Norma and Shelly, Doctor Jacoby going completely mental in those speeches, the mystery in the woods of where Bobby used to play with his father, even something as simple as the ringing sounds in the Great Northern Hotel, it all felt very much like the original series to me. All the while everything outside of the town or or outside of the Red Room/White/Black Lodge, and especially all the Dougie stuff, just felt... Well off to me.

I do think they could've recaptured it perfectly. But it's Lynch, we all knew better than that and we knew we would be in for a wild ride. Which was exactly what we got.
Click to expand...
I don't think it could be sustained over a whole show. I think if the whole show was that it would constantly invite comparisons and draw attention to the ways it's different to the original show, whereas in this context it feels really close because of the material it's contrasted with.
Chitown B said:
what does this even mean
Click to expand...
It was an emotionally raw portrait of desperate people. I was moved by it.
I mean it like it is... like it sounds.
SJurgenson said:
So, to my question. I kinda have a problem with a common defense of S3 any any criticism for it: "
Lynch did the only thing I expected him to do: Creating something bold and different than anyone expected."

So, my question: What does it take to not meet the criteria in the quote? Technically, 18 hours of a black frame would be 'bold' and 'different'. All the defenses I see to see from people piling on those with critical views seem to boil down to "It was weird! That's all I wanted!"

If the only metric is "was it weird", then it can never be bad. Quality is now not a meaningful part of the discussion, as any complaints can be deflected with the lazy defense of "but it was weird tho" as a magical Trump card.

Season 3 was most definitely bold and different. That does not automatically make it good.
Click to expand...
Then just add 'good' to the list whenever people say they like it for being bold and weird. Lynch has always been interesting to me because he tries new things and they pay off. I look for and expect experimentation in his work and I enjoy it because I think he more often than not discovers new ways to make quality cinema.
plagiarize said:
I disagree. I've seen great stuff that wasn't remotely entertaining to watch. Is Bug (the William Friedkin movie) entertaining? What about Cronenberg's Spider? I loved both, but wouldn't subject myself to either a second time.

Good art absolutely positively can be entertaining... and there isn't anything wrong with someone who wants to be entertained by Season 3 of Twin Peaks (or disliking it if it doesn't entertain them). But being entertaining isn't a requirement for art.

And I should stress, I found the majority of season three very entertaining. It was hilarious. It was scary in a fun way. It was surprising and compelling.

But art doesn't have to stop to think about whether or not the audience is going to get what they want out of it.
...
It's just presented in a format and a medium that almost exclusively provides entertainment. I don't blame anyone for judging it as entertainment as a result, even though it's clearly not.
...
Twin Peaks Season 3 isn't interested in giving an audience what they want. Maybe that's bad writing to people who think it should be obliged to cater to an audience.

But it really isn't obliged to do that.
Click to expand...
I think we're working from different definitions of entertaining. I don't think something has to be 'fun' or give you what you want to be entertaining. To me, entertaining me is getting my system firing, emotionally, intellectually or viscerally. There are some exceptions to this, if I feel that the intent is bad or I have been manipulated to further the artists' bad intent, then I don't feel entertained, because even though I may be physically shaken up, that's a negative experience. A harrowing work can still engage me to give me something positive, and I consider that a certain type of entertainment. I'm not bored, I'm given a safe space to confront negative emotions or ideas, and I am given something to think about.

I also think Lynch and Frost would tell you that this season was absolutely intended to be entertainment.
 
W

WriterGK

Member
plagiarize said:
I disagree. I've seen great stuff that wasn't remotely entertaining to watch. Is Bug (the William Friedkin movie) entertaining? What about Cronenberg's Spider? I loved both, but wouldn't subject myself to either a second time.

Good art absolutely positively can be entertaining... and there isn't anything wrong with someone who wants to be entertained by Season 3 of Twin Peaks (or disliking it if it doesn't entertain them). But being entertaining isn't a requirement for art.

And I should stress, I found the majority of season three very entertaining. It was hilarious. It was scary in a fun way. It was surprising and compelling.

But art doesn't have to stop to think about whether or not the audience is going to get what they want out of it.

Again, that doesn't mean you have to like it, but if we're trying to get to an objective idea like, is the writing bad... it clearly isn't. Perhaps the intent is bad... but the writing is clearly serving Mark and David's intent very successfully.

To me good vs bad is a completely separate thing compared to like vs dislike or enjoy vs not enjoy when it comes to appreciating art. Twin Peaks season three is exactly what it is supposed to be. There are unquestionably some mistakes and flubs and continuity problems, but for the most part, the dialogue, acting, visuals and sound design all successfully convey what the artist wanted.

So it is a success in that regard. Is it good? I'd say so. Does that mean you should like it, or that you shouldn't be upset that you don't? Not at all. It's just presented in a format and a medium that almost exclusively provides entertainment. I don't blame anyone for judging it as entertainment as a result, even though it's clearly not.

Just like I don't blame anyone who wanted more of feel and tone of the first two seasons. Season three not being that doesn't make it bad.

If someone calls it badly written, I can't imagine they even know what bad writing looks like. Which, good for them I guess.

If any of this sounds pretentious it's not meant to be. Art is often challenging. Modern art pieces that there is now a positive consensus about, there wasn't when they first arrived, because the expectations were very different. Twin Peaks Season 3 isn't interested in giving an audience what they want. Maybe that's bad writing to people who think it should be obliged to cater to an audience.

But it really isn't obliged to do that.

I loved what David and Mark made. I feel empathy to those who didn't, or who were led to expect something else through no fault of their own. But they successfully made exactly what they set out to make... and I don't think you can argue otherwise.
Click to expand...

Hear hear. I concur. Couldn't have said it any better mate, cheers.
 
N

Nibel

Member
xDNnCjS.png


https://twitter.com/Kyle_MacLachlan/status/909803897916706816
 
O

oon

Banned
Krev said:
I think we're working from different definitions of entertaining. I don't think something has to be 'fun' or give you what you want to be entertaining. To me, entertaining me is getting my system firing, emotionally, intellectually or viscerally. There are some exceptions to this, if I feel that the intent is bad or I have been manipulated to further the artists' bad intent, then I don't feel entertained, because even though I may be physically shaken up, that's a negative experience. A harrowing work can still engage me to give me something positive, and I consider that a certain type of entertainment. I'm not bored, I'm given a safe space to confront negative emotions or ideas, and I am given something to think about.

I also think Lynch and Frost would tell you that this season was absolutely intended to be entertainment.
Click to expand...

Something interesting I'd like to add to the discussion - I really like David Foster Wallace's take on the intersection between art, entertainment, and where Lynch fits in with this:

http://www.thecityofabsurdity.com/papers/wallace13.html

David Foster Wallace said:
Art film is essentially teleological; it tries in various ways to "wake the audience up" or render us more "conscious." ... Commercial film doesn't seem like it cares much about the audience's instruction or enlightenment. Commercial film's goal is to "entertain," which usually means enabling various fantasies that allow the moviegoer to pretend he's somebody else and that life is somehow bigger and more coherent and more compelling and attractive and in general just way more entertaining than a moviegoer's life really is.

An art film's point is usually more intellectual or aesthetic, and you usually have to do some interpretative work to get it, so that when you pay to see an art film you're actually paying to work.
Click to expand...
David Foster Wallace said:
David Lynch's movies are often described as occupying a kind of middle ground between art film and commercial film. But what they really occupy is a whole third kind of territory.
...
You almost never from a Lynch movie get the sense that the point is to "entertain" you, and never that the point is to get you to fork over money to see it. This is one of the unsettling things about a Lynch movie: You don't feel like you're entering into any of the standard unspoken and/or unconscious contracts you normally enter into with other kinds of movies. This is unsettling because in the absence of such an unconscious contract we lose some of the psychic protections we normally (and necessarily) bring to bear on a medium as powerful as film. That is, if we know on some level what a movie wants from us, we can erect certain internal defenses that let us choose how much of ourselves we give away to it. The absence of point or recognizable agenda in Lynch's films, though, strips these subliminal defenses and lets Lynch get inside your head in a way movies normally don't. This is why his best films' effects are often so emotional and nightmarish. (We're defenseless in our dreams too.)

This may in fact be Lynch's true and only agenda – just to get inside your head. He seems to care more about penetrating your head than about what he does once he's in there. Is this good art? It's hard to say. It seems – once again – either ingenuous or psychopathic. It sure is different, anyway.
Click to expand...
 
Corpsepyre

Corpsepyre

Banned
plagiarize said:
Yesssssssss. Give David some time off... then lets have one more for the road.
Click to expand...

I can't help but see the ending to season 3 as the absolute perfect setup for a new season. It's a whole new Twin Peaks, with altered characters and a lotta new secrets.

The new tagline..'Where is Sarah Palmer?'
 
T

TheWraith

Member
heavy liquid said:
It's disappointing they aren't releasing any of the deleted scenes or Missing Pieces. I guess it's possible they're going through it all to make it presentable and decide what gets out for a future release. Hopefully. Was there any mention of other extras, like commentary?
Click to expand...

The producer has stated there really aren't any deleted scenes as everything in the script was in the episodes as aired. Commentary hasn't been mentioned, but possible I guess?
 
S

Slime

Banned
I thought Tammy was a fascinating and amusing character, until the actress admitted in that interview that she just couldn't act.
 
T

thepenguin55

Member
TheWraith said:
The producer has stated there really aren't any deleted scenes as everything in the script was in the episodes as aired. Commentary hasn't been mentioned, but possible I guess?
Click to expand...

My understanding is that Lynch is generally opposed to including commentary for anything he works on so it seems unlikely that commentary would be included.

Also, this is kind of random but I'm planning to dress as Dougie Jones for Halloween and finding a very large green sports coat that is a really good match for the one on the show has been much more difficult than I was expecting...
 
C

Chitown B

Member
Corpsepyre said:
I can't help but see the ending to season 3 as the absolute perfect setup for a new season. It's a whole new Twin Peaks, with altered characters and a lotta new secrets.

The new tagline..'Where is Sarah Palmer?'
Click to expand...

so many people are dead IRL though and many at risk of it.
 
Corpsepyre

Corpsepyre

Banned
David Lynch on Bowie and the Music that Inspired the New “Twin Peaks”

Good interview here.

'Pitchfork: After making a cameo in 1992’s Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me, David Bowie’s character Phillip Jeffries reappeared in the new series via footage from that film and as a big, talking tea kettle. Did you ever approach Bowie himself to be in the new series?
David Lynch: Absolutely. I never even talked to him, but I talked to his lawyer, and they weren’t telling me why he said he couldn’t do it. But then, of course, later on we knew.

Why did Phillip Jeffries take the form of a tea kettle?
I sculpted that part of the machine that has that tea kettle spout thing, but I wish I’d just made it straight, because everybody thinks it’s a tea kettle. It’s just a machine.
 
S

SCHUEY F1

Unconfirmed Member
Just watching David Lynch : The Art Life. It is on The Movie Network Go in Canada.

One of the art pieces they show is titled "head talking about Billy", haha
 
F

Futureman

Member
LOL @ that Pitchfork interview Lynch still going in on watching movies/TV on your phone...

"It's like when you know what it can be and then you have to suffer that [dilution], and people see it on their computer or even, my god, on their phone—it's like a nightmare."

He was actually specifically responding in that question about how there are volume and duration restrictions on TV so he felt the nuclear bomb scene in episode 8 didn't have the impact he felt it could.

I wonder if those restrictions are still there on Blu-Ray release?
 
E

ElectricBlanketFire

Member
Why did Phillip Jeffries take the form of a tea kettle?
I sculpted that part of the machine that has that tea kettle spout thing, but I wish I’d just made it straight, because everybody thinks it’s a tea kettle. It’s just a machine.

Sorry David, it's a tea kettle.
 
S

shnurgleton

Member
Futureman said:
LOL @ that Pitchfork interview Lynch still going in on watching movies/TV on your phone...

"It’s like when you know what it can be and then you have to suffer that [dilution], and people see it on their computer or even, my god, on their phone—it’s like a nightmare."

He was actually specifically responding in that question about how there are volume and duration restrictions on TV so he felt the nuclear bomb scene in episode 8 didn't have the impact he felt it could.

I wonder if those restrictions are still there on Blu-Ray release?
Click to expand...

Funny, because I watched the entire new season on my phone...
 
L

le.phat

Member
awcarew said:
Diane was awesome. Actually the entire Revival was incredible. I feel like I can't even watch television any more in a post-Twin Peaks S3 world. Nothing on Netflix or HBO interests me any more after the gift of 18 hours of David Lynch.
Click to expand...

I was telling my SO today that for the first time, I have a top 3 TV show. The wire and the sopranos used to be my top 2, with no 3rd close enough to weigh with those classics. Well, not anymore. Twin peaks rounds it, leaving met the best finale I have ever experienced. TP will go into history as a Hallmark of modern TV.
 
F

Flipyap

Member
KO Traveling Hobo said:
Lynch lost me on that one. My "computer monitor" is literally a TV.
Click to expand...
Come on, you know that he's griping about watching it on small screens with bad sound (like a laptop's built-in speakers).

Dusk Golem said:
We just have to accept Lynch is over 70-years old and probably doesn't know how far computers and their monitors/sound systems.
Click to expand...
I think it has more to do with him being a rich dude who kinda lost perspective on what a normal person's TV viewing setup looks like.
WE CAN'T ALL BE SARAH PALMERS, DAVE. WHERE WOULD I EVEN PUT SUCH A MASSIVE TV, DAVE?!
 
C

Camper Van Beethoven

Banned
Very few people have a cinema-worthy set up at home, so I get where Lynch is coming from. Even if a PC can be good, for most people it's just a 22 inch screen with shitty speakers.
 
J

Jombie

Member
I just binged re-watched seasons 1 and 2 and FWwM. My feeling on the season 3 finale is that I'd be perfectly content with it being the definitive ending to the series. If Lynch can get it going, great, but the cast and Lynch himself aren't getting any younger.
 
K

Krev

Unconfirmed Member
Jombie said:
I just binged re-watched seasons 1 and 2 and FWwM. My feeling on the season 3 finale is that I'd be perfectly content with it being the definitive ending to the series. If Lynch can get it going, great, but the cast and Lynch himself aren't getting any younger.
Click to expand...
I think it was a great ending because it recontextualised all that had come before and presented a final statement, as endings should, while also leaving the door open for the show to continue in a very different direction.
But it felt pretty final to me.
 
J

Jombie

Member
Krev said:
I think it was a great ending because it recontextualised all that had come before and presented a final statement, as endings should, while also leaving the door open for the show to continue in a very different direction.
But it felt pretty final to me.
Click to expand...

Importantly, it was the correct ending. I understand the frustration, but it's one of the most haunting finales I've ever seen.
 
S

Sebastian Suola

Member
I would love to get a "Director's Originally Intended Sound Mix" on the Blu-ray, but since the show was primarily made for TV, I doubt they made any final highly dynamic mixes. Like David said in that interview, for certain scenes they would crank it up in the studio, only to then realize "oh geez, this won't fly with the rules and regulations, oh well, that was beautiful" but the final mix had to be changed to fit TV rules. I have read some of those rules and they are surprisingly strict. It's completely different from mixing theatrical movies, where there are basically no rules.
 
R

robotrock

Banned
Sebastian Suola said:
I would love to get a "Director's Originally Intended Sound Mix" on the Blu-ray, but since the show was primarily made for TV, I doubt they made any final highly dynamic mixes. Like David said in that interview, for certain scenes they would crank it up in the studio, only to then realize "oh geez, this won't fly with the rules and regulations, oh well, that was beautiful" but the final mix had to be changed to fit TV rules. I have read some of those rules and they are surprisingly strict. It's completely different from mixing theatrical movies, where there are basically no rules.
Click to expand...
I thought maybe showtime and premium cable channels would have no rules too but I guess not
 
R

RadioHeadAche

Member
I'm sure it's been mentioned, but the track that plays during the finale credits is called "Dark Space Low", in case someone's still looking for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Twin Peaks: Into The Night is shaping up to be a fantastic tribute to David Lynch’s iconic series
Trailer Indie 2
50
4K
LostInTime replied
RTTP: Twin Peaks season 3
36
2K
Krathoon replied
Succession Ending With Season 4
42
3K
ChoosableOne replied
Just watched Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me
40
3K
NecrosaroIII replied
Diablo IV: Vessel of Hatred | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2
61
5K
TrebleShot replied
Top Bottom