@andrewbloom While I completely get that this show can feel impenetrable and too odd for many to enjoy, there are some important things to keep in mind. First, this came out in 1990. There was nothing else like it on television in a world that expected TV to be (mostly) low quality and episodic, with simple stories that were resolved in 1 hour. Second, the cheesiness is entirely on purpose. Lynch is imitating and mocking the over-the-top melodrama of the soap operas of the time, and the entire point is to highlight how fake and "off" the facade people present can be. He often wants his actors to give seemingly bad performances to create a sense of disconnect. The long takes and odd pacing are another Lynch trademark. You can watch by letting everything wash over you and just enjoy the ride, or you can take his invitation to become an active participant and work on the mystery alongside Agent Cooper.
If you didn't really enjoy the pilot, it's unlikely that you'll enjoy the rest of the series. The tone changes quite a lot, though, especially with the film Fire Walk With Me, which is a deeply disturbing psychological horror. The new 2017 series is different again and far, far more abstract (and so far, utterly wonderful).
@lefthandedguitarist Yeah, I watched the whole first season a couple of years ago and I believe my exact words were "mildly interesting junk," but it's such a seminal show and it's only 30 episodes so I'm going to give it the old college try, even if it's not exactly in my wheelhouse.
But that's the thing -- I understand that Twin Peaks was innovative for its time in a world where it was competing with Murder She Wrote, but serialized television has come a long way since 1990, and so intellectually I can appreciate its attempts to be something more at a time when quality T.V. drama was in its infancy, but on a gut-level, it's hard to be too impressed by it having grown up in a post-Sopranos television landscape.
And I can also buy that the cheese and even the bad acting is intentional, but by design or by accident, that makes it difficult to become attached to any of the characters or get engrossed in the story. It's not like I have no tolerance for cheese and bad acting (lord knows I've watched enough Star Trek to prove otherwise) but the wobbling wheel of the plot and the over-the-top quality makes it hard to connect with anything that's happening.
But I'm resolved to see the series through and trying to keep an open mind and hoping that eventually the nigh-unavoidable TV equivalent of Stockholm Syndrome will set in. I really appreciate the explication of what the show's going for, though -- that at least helps put it into context.
@andrewbloom Season 2 goes way off track eventually, especially once Lynch leaves. I'm not sure I could make it through that again! Although the final few episodes are great. If you do make it to the end and still didn't enjoy it, I'd implore to you still watch Fire Walk With Me. That film is a revelation, and absolutely nothing like the show. It shook me up.
Looking forward to your thoughts, anyway. It's also worth reading the old Twin Peaks FAQ for some great explanations of what is actually going on.
@lefthandedguitarist That's what I've heard -- though to be honest, it's hard for me to imagine what this show "going off the rails" would mean, so I'm actually kind of curious to see the bad episodes. I'll plan on watching Fire Walk With Me either way -- thanks!
What's the Twin Peaks FAQ? Is it spoiler-y?
@andrewbloom The FAQ is a remnant from 1990s internet when people used to gather all their knowledge on Usenet and create documents. These days we'd do it with things like wiki's, but back then a huge amount of effort was often put into these things. It's pretty much a list of common questions that people have about the show and the generally accepted answers. It would be somewhat spoilery but does a good job of only letting you see the answers to specific questions you have.
@lefthandedguitarist Sounds quite interesting. I will check it out. Thanks for the tip!
@andrewbloom For a guy that dissects so many shows and episodes (loved your analysis of Homeland btw) , this one flew way over your head. And I don't say that because you didn't like it, but because you failed to place it in time and managed to turn all the cool and interesting things that made it into the groundbreaking revolutionary show into negatives . It's wild, strange and beautiful, and while it's influence can still be seen today (Stranger Things is the most obvious choice, the way the music is utilized reminds me a lot of True Detective), it still stands on its own and feels really unique.
@chronosus Thanks for the feedback and your compliments on my Homeland reviews. I know I'm an iconoclast when it comes to Twin Peaks, and I think a lot of it just comes down to taste and distance in time from the material. I can appreciate that Lynch and Frost were doing something different and groundbreaking for television in 1990, and I did and do my best to approach the show with an open mind and a fair amount of slack for the T.V. conventions and limitations of the time. And for that matter, I love wild, strange, and beautiful things! (I'd like to think my affection for Charlie Kaufman's work evidences that.)
But the other side of the coin is that there's things effectively beyond my control that make it hard for me to appreciate Twin Peaks. I'll admit -- the music just kills me, and I think that's a product of growing up in the post-grunge period where synthesizers and gooey piano riffs were pretty well permanently mentally associated with total cheese for me. I like complex mysteries and shows with a variety of characters, but the over the top acting makes it really hard for me to connect with anyone in the cast beyond Cooper and the scattershot introduction of the town's figures and plot elements feels haphazard to me in an age where mysteries and mythos are generally unspooled methodically.
Again, on an intellectual level, I can understand what the show is going for, but as a viewer who grew up in an era where so many shows took the lessons and innovations of Twin Peaks and ran with them, it's though for me to be really compelled by the show when so many of its most front-and-center elements like score, dialogue, and performance, run so counter to my tastes.
[1/10] This review sucks.
@andrewbloom i will come for you in your sleep
@pamerlaedschn Then ate least bring me some creamed corn
@the_argentinian He posts alotttttttttt of bad reviews on many great shows. Its sad.
Review by Andrew BloomVIP 9BlockedParent2017-06-15T01:55:04Z
[3.4/10] Giving this another shot in light of the revival, but yeesh, this is rough. I originally gave this a 1/10, and while I'm content to upgrade it to "bad" on rewatch it's still pretty awful. Kyle McLachlan is a revelation, but he's really the only thing this episode has going for it. The dialogue and the acting are all so so bad. And my god, the score. It couldn't be cheesier if David Lynch were literally smashing the audience's faces into a vat of queso while it played. The murder mystery is convoluted right out of the gate, and the cryptic hints here and there come off forced rather than mysterious. Everyone is an exaggerated archetype, and none of the characters are compelling short of Agent Cooper (with the sheriff, Ed, and his paramour being serviceable but no great shakes). The young actors in particular are uniformly terrible (what is with the two punk kids barking at Blue Steel in the other cell) and the whole thing is just hokey as hell. There's also scores of blunt exposition and informed attributes that go over like a lead balloon.
But the worst part is that it's also a slog, with interminable, poorly-paced scenes and dull interludes. If ever there were a show that could do with some better editing, this is it. Hard to see, even on a rewatch, why this show is so lauded.