Red Mosquito

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 3:53 pm**

washing machine wrote:I wasn't looking for fan theories, but sure enough, I came across one last night anyway. Hadn't crossed my mind before.

Spoiler: show
The woman Albert and Gordon are looking for at the end of part 4 is Diane. This somehow is supposed to tie in with the chocolate bunny and Hawk's heritage. Hawk's lifelong knowledge of Lodge lore+Annie telling Laura to write about Cooper in her diary in FWWM+plus Cooper telling Diane about finding the diary and a chocolate bunny in the pilot.

She was the first person I thought of, actually. I looked at my wife and I said "Who do you think they're looking for? Diane? Audrey? I hope it's Diane." And my wife said, "Oh yeah! But I always thought she wasn't really a person. Just a way for Cooper to communicate his thoughts."

Spoiler: show: The rest of that is interesting, though, and had not crossed my mind. Makes a lot of sense.

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 4:03 pm**

I'd always been in your wife's camp. Never really gave it much thought or considered it important. I'd be interested in seeing that theory play out, even while hating that I stumbled across a theory in the first place, haha.

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 4:08 pm**

washing machine wrote:I'd always been in your wife's camp. Never really gave it much thought or considered it important. I'd be interested in seeing that theory play out, even while hating that I stumbled across a theory in a theory in the first place, haha.

Yeah, I'm totally fine with her not being a real person, if it plays out that way. There's something really cool about never seeing her, indeed, never even knowing if she exists or not. But if they are going to introduce her, I think it could be really cool as well. Also, I really hope she's who Laura Dern is playing. If she's a real person.

This is so much fun! All this speculating! God, I LOVE having this show back. I haven't even had to go onto reddit or anything to look up theories and thoughts. The conversation is happening among my friends, not just on the internet. I get enough from our discussions here on RM and from real life talk that I don't have to do any big deep dives. I can't remember the last time I was able to this, in this way.

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 4:12 pm**

This right here is why I've been such a vocal detractor (mostly irl) of the "release it all at once" binge model of Netflix TV.

Haven't had this much fun since the early days of LOST.

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 4:37 pm**

washing machine wrote:This right here is why I've been such a vocal detractor (mostly irl) of the "release it all at once" binge model of Netflix TV.

Haven't had this much fun since the early days of LOST.

For sure. I think there's value in both, certainly. But I have definitely missed these conversations.

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 6:32 pm**

washing machine wrote:This right here is why I've been such a vocal detractor (mostly irl) of the "release it all at once" binge model of Netflix TV.

Haven't had this much fun since the early days of LOST.

I was talking about that exact same thing with my wife. LOST was the first show that I had seen where I could watch an episode and then speculate on and on for days. I get the feeling that I'm in the minority, but I loved it all the way through to the end (except Jack's tattoo episode). I know Damon Lindeloff has done a few interviews lately saying that without Twin Peaks, Lost wouldn't exist.

I discovered Twin Peaks about seven months ago when I was going through a really bad rough patch with PTSD. It was literally life-saving to have that same excitement that I got through Lost. Getting the kids in bed and sitting down with my wife to watch an episode every night gave me something to look forward to every day, and speculating about where the plot was going forced me to interact and talk, rather than turn everything inward.

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 6:39 pm**

durdencommatyler wrote:
washing machine wrote:I wasn't looking for fan theories, but sure enough, I came across one last night anyway. Hadn't crossed my mind before.

Spoiler: show
The woman Albert and Gordon are looking for at the end of part 4 is Diane. This somehow is supposed to tie in with the chocolate bunny and Hawk's heritage. Hawk's lifelong knowledge of Lodge lore+Annie telling Laura to write about Cooper in her diary in FWWM+plus Cooper telling Diane about finding the diary and a chocolate bunny in the pilot.
She was the first person I thought of, actually. I looked at my wife and I said "Who do you think they're looking for? Diane? Audrey? I hope it's Diane." And my wife said, "Oh yeah! But I always thought she wasn't really a person. Just a way for Cooper to communicate his thoughts."
Spoiler: show
The rest of that is interesting, though, and had not crossed my mind. Makes a lot of sense.

Don't they show Cooper directly talking to Diane in FWWM with Diane off-screen in an office? Of course, I guess that's no confirmation that she's a real person. I always really liked the idea that we never saw Diane. But then again, I'm confident that Lynch and Frost wouldn't break that gimmick without a solid reason.

With Cole saying that they know where she (Diane?) drinks, and then cutting to the Bang Bang Bar, it would be interesting if Diane moved to Twin Peaks after hearing Cooper go on and on about how wonderful it is.

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 6:49 pm**

I know I would move there after hearing Coop rave about the town. You're probably right.

On a different note, did anyone else get a dinstinctly Philip Michael Gerard-ish vibe from the insurance salesmen who comes to visit the sheriff's office this season?

Not implying that they are the same person or anything, but I think it plays nicely with the theme of repetition and cyclical occurances that I think are starting to gather steam.

"Is it future...or is it past?"

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 8:25 pm**

parasolmonster wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:
washing machine wrote:I wasn't looking for fan theories, but sure enough, I came across one last night anyway. Hadn't crossed my mind before.

Spoiler: show
The woman Albert and Gordon are looking for at the end of part 4 is Diane. This somehow is supposed to tie in with the chocolate bunny and Hawk's heritage. Hawk's lifelong knowledge of Lodge lore+Annie telling Laura to write about Cooper in her diary in FWWM+plus Cooper telling Diane about finding the diary and a chocolate bunny in the pilot.
She was the first person I thought of, actually. I looked at my wife and I said "Who do you think they're looking for? Diane? Audrey? I hope it's Diane." And my wife said, "Oh yeah! But I always thought she wasn't really a person. Just a way for Cooper to communicate his thoughts."
Spoiler: show
The rest of that is interesting, though, and had not crossed my mind. Makes a lot of sense.
Don't they show Cooper directly talking to Diane in FWWM with Diane off-screen in an office?

No. That's not in FWWM. We never see anything Luke that. In fact, there are no references to Diane that I recall.

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 8:32 pm**

Parasol is referencing Missing Pieces, the hour and a half reel from FWWM that was cut from the feature. I believe the stuff in there is considered canon since it's included in the Twin Peaks wikia.

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 9:46 pm**

washing machine wrote:Parasol is referencing Missing Pieces, the hour and a half reel from FWWM that was cut from the feature. I believe the stuff in there is considered canon since it's included in the Twin Peaks wikia.

Ah. Well, sure. I have no issue with that stuff being "canon" (though that seems like a bizarre concept in regards to Twin Peaks and David Lynch). I just know it isn't in FWWM. I've still yet to see Missing Pieces.

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 10:35 pm**

durdencommatyler wrote:
washing machine wrote:Parasol is referencing Missing Pieces, the hour and a half reel from FWWM that was cut from the feature. I believe the stuff in there is considered canon since it's included in the Twin Peaks wikia.
Ah. Well, sure. I have no issue with that stuff being "canon" (though that seems like a bizarre concept in regards to Twin Peaks and David Lynch). I just know it isn't in FWWM. I've still yet to see Missing Pieces.

And you call yourself a fan...

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 10:38 pm**

wease wrote:
durdencommatyler wrote:
washing machine wrote:Parasol is referencing Missing Pieces, the hour and a half reel from FWWM that was cut from the feature. I believe the stuff in there is considered canon since it's included in the Twin Peaks wikia.
Ah. Well, sure. I have no issue with that stuff being "canon" (though that seems like a bizarre concept in regards to Twin Peaks and David Lynch). I just know it isn't in FWWM. I've still yet to see Missing Pieces.
And you call yourself a fan...

I'm just waiting for the "complete series" box set. Or for the full "Missing Pieces." My understanding is that the 90 minutes of footage is only about half of what Lynch shot and removed. I keep hoping one day we'll get the full 5 hour "directors cut" of FWWM.

Posted: **Sat June 03, 2017 11:46 pm**

washing machine wrote:Parasol is referencing Missing Pieces, the hour and a half reel from FWWM that was cut from the feature. I believe the stuff in there is considered canon since it's included in the Twin Peaks wikia.

Yep. You're right. It is Missing Pieces. Back in February I watched FWWM for the first time, and then watched Missing Pieces the next night, so it's all a mixed up blur in my mind.

Posted: **Sun June 04, 2017 12:09 am**

parasolmonster wrote:
washing machine wrote:Parasol is referencing Missing Pieces, the hour and a half reel from FWWM that was cut from the feature. I believe the stuff in there is considered canon since it's included in the Twin Peaks wikia.
Yep. You're right. It is Missing Pieces. Back in February I watched FWWM for the first time, and then watched Missing Pieces the next night, so it's all a mixed up blur in my mind.

A perfect explanation of my understanding of the series.

Posted: **Sun June 04, 2017 1:34 pm**

wease wrote:
parasolmonster wrote:
washing machine wrote:Parasol is referencing Missing Pieces, the hour and a half reel from FWWM that was cut from the feature. I believe the stuff in there is considered canon since it's included in the Twin Peaks wikia.
Yep. You're right. It is Missing Pieces. Back in February I watched FWWM for the first time, and then watched Missing Pieces the next night, so it's all a mixed up blur in my mind.
A perfect explanation of my understanding of the series.

Much (if not all) of Lynch's works is much more about investigation than understanding. It's about ideas. The reason he resonates so much with people is the way those people react emotionally to his work, not necessarily because they understand it. Also, a mixed blur isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think any of us who are Twin Peaks fans will agree on that.

Is it Twin Peaks time yet?!

Posted: **Mon June 05, 2017 1:17 am**

Not 'till 3:30 AM central for me. Closing down the bar tonight. Enjoy the show, all.

Posted: **Mon June 05, 2017 5:15 am**

Spoiler: show: - My wife isn't much for showing any reactions during movies and TV shows. But even she let out an audible gasp when Dopplecoop looked in the mirror and started taking on Bob's appearance.
- I know the story is that the original Sheriff Truman isn't in this series, but they sure do keep teasing him with mentions almost every episode.
- For that matter, I'm not holding my breath, but if i'm not mistaken, they have mentioned Philip Jeffries in every episode this season. If they somehow filmed Bowie's stuff before he died without anyone knowing, I might die of excitement.

Posted: **Mon June 05, 2017 12:28 pm**

Same to all of those points! Won't hold my breath about those characters appearing but my god if they did?!!!

Also, to your first point, my wife and I both jumped up and gasped right out loud. I covered my mouth and my wife just kept saying, "nope, nope, ohmygod, nope" for like 3 minutes after. It was shocking and perfect and pure Twin Peaks. What a masterful and artful way to handle that. I fucking LOVE David Lynch.

Posted: **Mon June 05, 2017 2:31 pm**

Man, i have to catch up with this.

Red Mosquito

Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]

Re: Twin Peaks [2017]