If Coop prevented Laura's death and changed the timeline why was it still necessary to make a new Dougie? Or is this merely to show us the old timeline lived on somehow? Why can Gordon remember the unofficial version? What gives him this ability? If Coop knows the Laura.in the Carrie Page.timeline is not exactly HIS Laura what is the goal of returning her to the Palmer house? Surely he knows this would be traumatic (and ultimately is). Since the Sarah Palmer smashing Laura's picture takes placee after Laura.is saved.from death.does that mean the scene is taking place in the 90's? Is Sarah/Judy now trapped in some.sort of loop? And how did this effect Leland? Why not put him in the scene too? Has Bob's destruction been undone? Is the Leland who pleads.with Coop to "find Laura" the one from the timeline shes merely missing? He expects her to be found. Is he in the lodge because he killed himself? Wore the ring? Inhabited by Bob? Banished there by Sarah /Judy? And why is Laura missing? What tears her away? Can a person who is meant to die not defy nature by living? Was she ripped to the Carrie Page timeline and forgot her true self? Or is Carrie Page just a different person from a parallel universe who lived a life of her own? In which case, once again, whatgood would it do to "take her home" when she doesn't belong there?
One of the more interesting theories that I read was that there is no Cooper. Richard was just some guy who had dreamed up the whole "I'm an FBI agent" story, which kind of explains the weird scene in the diner in the last(?) episode. The idea that Cooper killed Laura and the entire show was just his delusion was another interesting spin.
Are the 'two birds with one stone' saving Laura and defeating Judy? The Giants words begin the show, so they seem important, but their meaning is so vague in the end that I feel like Im missing some vital clue.
Sarah smashing the picture must take place in the present day because the whole set up is the same - her robe, her hair, the vodka bottle, the stuff on and around the table. Interesting that while Coop "saves" Laura before the Sarah scene, Laura doesn't disappear in the woods until after it. Isn't that Leland's doppelganger? I guess he's in the lodge because Leland had been in there 25 years ago. According to The Final Dossier, in the new timeline Leland killed himself a year after Laura's disappearance, but presumably that wouldn't affect his lodge-bound doppelganger. Of course that doesn't explain much else....
Incredibly... David Lynch just participated in a "non-interview" where he dodged a lot of questions about Twin Peaks: The Return... David Lynch Refuses To Explain ‘Twin Peaks: The Return’: “Ideas Came, And This Is What They Presented”
Actually, I found his non-comments very interesting. And it also just reinforces my theory that he's screwing with us. I think they threw a lot of stuff into the show because a) it was visually interesting, and b) because these were just ideas they threw into the stew. None of it necessarily had any meaning -- it's meant to be abstract.
Frost doesn't really go into detail either, least he feel the wrath of Lynch. But Lynch giving non interviews is nothing new. He hates doing them, and only does them when he has to.
Hey all, What looks like a really cool documentary about Catherine Coulson (The Log Lady) and her work with David Lynch has two days left on Kickstarter and is $50,000 short of its goal (they have raised $198,000 and need $250,000 to complete the film). The film looks like it would be really cool and would be essential viewing for any Twin Peaks fan. Also, backers receive exclusive downloads of music related to Twin Peaks Season Three, among other goodies. If you want to contribute, here is the Kickstarter page: You're being redirected to http://twin.pk/iknowcatherine I’m not affiliated with the film in any way other than really wanting to see it!
Frost actually has "cleared up" a thing or two. One helpful quote: "Time travel doesn't occur until the end of The Return, and only to one character." And there was this exchange: Q: "What year is this?" feels destined to become one of those iconic final lines from a series, right up there with "Where's Annie?" Did you guys have to bat that one around much? "That was always the final line. That was in the script, and that was, I think, a great place to end it. But I think it isn't until you see a line like that onscreen that you know it makes perfect sense and that it's really the perfect place to leave it."
So what has he cleared up? We already know that Cooper went back in time to witness the FWWM scenes. As for “what year is this,” I think the proper question is “what timeline is this?” However, if there is more clarification based on what Frost said, I’m all ears.
That’s why I put quotation marks around “cleared up”! But seriously, I think it’s good to know that time travel only occurred at the end, and to only one character. It rules out some of the many fan theories I’ve seen. Also that “what year is this” wasn’t just something Lynch came up with while shooting, it was always the planned ending. Another interesting Frost quote is that during script-writing he had a “rigorous insistence on logical underpinnings”. Good thing too I suppose, otherwise the script might have gotten a little wacky!
Ha! I think that it is more fun to piece the parts together that were presented as jumbled out of order (like a Burroughs or Vonnegut novel, or Catch-22) than to accept them linearly and explain that characters were going back (or forward) in time.
Lynch may like to keep things hidden, but he still let's things slip every now and then. Lost Highway is probably the most open he's ever been about a film, well, besides Dune, The Straight Story and Elephant Man. Talking to David Lynch About 'Twin Peaks: The Return'
I found that reading Lynch's shooting scripts gives you a glimpse of his methods. Take Lost Highway - I don't remember what they are now but Lynch included a few lines in the jail cell scene (where one guy becomes another) that kind of explain what's going on. And then the expository lines went poof in the editing suite. That seems to be the Lynch method. Write a screenplay that, while weird, mostly makes sense. Then deftly remove most of the plotline(s) connective tissue and voila - you have that dreamy, mysterious "Lynchian" atmosphere.
I’ve been pondering this about Lynch’s work lately — How much of a difference between workmanship and art comes down to mere ambiguity? Viewers and bloggers have come up with a lot of interesting and compelling theories about the various mysteries in the Twin Peaks revival. Let’s say the best of those theories was right on the nose; exactly what was in Lynch’s mind when he created the thing. If such had all been spelled out on the screen, and things had been resolved or at least explained by the end, would it have diminished the work to the level of, say, a good Star Trek episode?Withholding information seems like a pretty simple trick, but is it enough to turn something good into something special?
