WHO Poll
Q:



JimmyT 9:25 Mon May 22
New Twin Peaks
Couldn't see a thread.

Anyone on here see it?

A genuinely insane few hours of TV.

Replies - Newest Posts First (Show In Chronological Order)

Trevor B 8:12 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
My point entirely, without a good knowledge of the original series' people need things explained to them. It's like someone watching Mulholland Drive, telling you how good it is, but without telling you that they spent 4 hours trawling the internet for explanations as to what the fuck just happened lol

JimmyT 8:03 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
True but I explained the arm thing to him. But I don't think you'd necessarily need to know that to access the episode.

I mean, I was baffled by loads of it. Christ knows what that figure in the glass box was or the woman in metal box in episode 3. F*cking creepy though and unlike anything else on TV, so I don't really mind if I never find out. Just like Inland Empire, you go along for the ride with Lynch expecting things to conform to dreamlike logic rather than any kind of linear story.

I do accept, though, a working knowledge of the outline of the original's plot would allow you to get more out of the new series.

Trevor B 7:50 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
T

Whatever your friends may have said, they would have been completely baffled by things like 'the evolution of the arm', and much more so. Without watching the first two series and FWWM you would be completely baffled and only watching it out of some unending love for Lynch's work.

JimmyT 7:48 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
I'll reword.

Preferable but not essential.

You'll certainly get more out of it if you know the basics, which certainly doesn't mean you have to watch the entire Twin Peaks back catalogue. A read of the plot on the Wikipedia page was enough for one of my friends.

You could watch it without knowing anything, provided you are into Lynch's films - if not, then, yes, you're going to be alienated by it.

yngwies Cat 7:43 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
Dolly Parton

Trevor B 7:40 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
What you've just mentioned is a working knowledge of the basics of the original, which earlier you said wasn't essential? Make up your mind?

JimmyT 7:40 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
I don't think the effects are bad at all.

They are deliberately scratchy and unpolished because that's the hazy, dreamlike aesthetic Lynch always go for: he often speaks of wanting his films to be like moving paintings. His effects are impressionistic and blurry like they are in nightmares.

JimmyT 7:37 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
Not true.

I know two people who only had a very vague understanding of the events of the original series (Laura Palmer's death, Cooper being trapped and replaced by Bob in his doppelgänger) and they enjoyed the new episodes. As long as you know the basics, enjoy Lynch's work generally and are prepared to go along for the ride without expecting a lot to make immediate sense, you can access this new series.

ironsofcanada 6:25 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
I have only been able to see one episode but I loved it.

Great balance between continuing the story and having potential for new threads and world exploration. People had aged but not much had moved on, a bit like small town life. The mood is similar to the original down to music and bad 90s effects.

It is not crazy in the sense that is it random. he has crafted a very weird world but is letting the story play out , so far as I have seen, according to the rules of it.

The only thing I would say is that in the original series the real violence was always off screen because it was network television and now having it all laid out on the bed maybe takes away a bit of the mystique and creeping horror. But it is Showtime after all and it is a minor quibble overall.

Trevor B 3:55 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
BTW four episodes in and it's, as someone mentioned earlier, batshit. Absolutely batshit. Lynch is truly mental, and I love it.

Trevor B 3:54 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
"A working knowledge of the basics of the original might help but it's not essential."

What a ridiculous thing to say, there is absolutely no way you could watch The Return without knowing what had gone previously. idiot.

AlvinMartinAllen 2:46 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
Alfs 12:49 Tue May 23

Yes. Yes you would.

Swiss. 2:36 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
Downloaded to watch tonight.

gank 1:58 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
"Couldn't see a thread"

I wonder why you might not have seen a thread about Twin Peaks on a West Ham website? *


*no I don't

Blunders 12:57 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
"How's Annie?!"

"HOW'S ANNIE?!"

Agent Scud 9:43 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
As an absolute minimum you have to watch season one and then episodes 1-7 of season 2, the season finale and Fire Walk With Me.

Season 2 goes a bit batshit (and not in a good way) but you can pretty much skip most of it.

JimmyT 8:27 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
A working knowledge of the basics of the original might help but it's not essential.

fred flinstone 12:51 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
Thought this was gonna be about your missus have implants Jimmy

disappointed

Alfs 12:49 Tue May 23
Re: New Twin Peaks
Would you need to have watched the original to understand it?

Top Iron 10:35 Mon May 22
Re: New Twin Peaks
It's utterly baffling and deranged - and that's just Bad Dale's hair.

JimmyT 9:47 Mon May 22
Re: New Twin Peaks
It's certainly not terrible.

But it is definitely unhinged.

Like a really terrifying nightmare.

Page 1 - Next




Copyright 2006 WHO.NET | Powered by: