Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
142HOLY SHIT ACTUAL NEW FOOTAGE:
[youtube][/youtube]
albert!! i got goosebumps watching this.
[youtube][/youtube]
albert!! i got goosebumps watching this.
Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
143Oh man. Ten more fucking days. I can't remember the last time I was this excited about a show or a movie.
This is a snakeskin jacket. And for me it's a symbol of my individuality and my belief in personal freedom.
Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
145None of those images have the power of the Lynch in his prime, but still, hoping it'll be good.
Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
146klimov wrote:None of those images have the power of the Lynch in his prime, but still, hoping it'll be good.
Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
147ok, assuming we're actually going to do this with a teaser, i'll bite - like what? show me a 1:1 where this just doesn't work but something similar "from his prime" did.klimov wrote:None of those images have the power of the Lynch in his prime, but still, hoping it'll be good.
Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
148[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
[youtube][/youtube]
Just cut them up like regular chickens
Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
149The promos so far have been "here's Cooper 25 years later", "here's Andy 25 years later", "here's Lucy 25 years later", etc. Never "here's a great shot/idea by David Lynch". And the few glimpses we've seen of new material (eg. the tart in the motel room) are distinctly underwhelming. But like I say, I'm still hoping it's going to be good.
Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
150Ah yes, the so-called operative word when trying to figure just why the heck we've only seen bits of fan service so far and not masterfully composed shots from the greatest auteur of our time.klimov wrote:promos
Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
152You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
155Not exactly a ground breaking theory. I mean, that was the cliffhanger 25 years ago after all. But it does make you wonder if there are any other easter eggs in the book.TC wrote:interesting: http://welcometotwinpeaks.com/theories/ ... win-peaks/
Just cut them up like regular chickens
Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
157I could see that being a planned thing. Still, sounds about as useful as the rest of the book, which is to say not very. I got bored and stopped reading pretty quickly.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."
Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
158There were a few good tidbits about the fates of some of the characters, such as Pete. But a lot of it was kind of meh.
Just cut them up like regular chickens
Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
159TV line interview with lynch here: https://tvline.com/2017/05/19/twin-peak ... vid-lynch/
a couple tidbits:
a couple tidbits:
LOL.TVLINE | One thing you did release ahead of time was a very lengthy list of all the cast members participating in the revival. Of course, my eyes immediately focused on the names that were missing, like Lara Flynn Boyle. I was a big fan of the Donna character and was disappointed to see that she wouldn’t be in it. Why isn’t she in it?
These days people love strange Hollywood side stories that have nothing to do with the film. You can go talk to Lara Flynn Boyle. This is a story that takes place without her.
TVLINE | Is there an aspect of the original series you are most proud of?
The pilot is the only thing I am particularly, extremely proud of. There were great moments along the way. The second season sucked.
Re: Twin Peaks [2017]
160At least for the example they had the tact to mention Boyle and not Anderson. I'm sure his answer would have been even more annoyed.
Just cut them up like regular chickens
