Is it true that Lynch did not want to reveal the killer of Laura Palmer ever or he just did not want to reveal the killer as soon as the ABC execs ended up forcing him to?  I have never understood whether his vision was to NEVER reveal the killer and just have the show dissolve from the unsolved LP murder into other mysteries or he was going to reveal the killer, but just not as soon as ABC made him do it. Anybody know?  Thinking about these different trails of the TP storyline would have had interesting consequences in comparison to what we have with TP today, for better or worse, I don't know... Thoughts?

What ive read is that he NEVER wanted to reveal the killer at all but was pressured into revealing the killer when he did. He apparantly said it was one of his biggest mistakes to date

I believe they always thought the killer was who he ended up to be. They certainly didn't plan to solve the case but I think they would've given some clues about the killer as the show progressed. If you remember what Jennifer Lynch said about the Secret Diary she wrote, she told us that she knew the killer and was forced to edit the book a bit because there was something that gave a too obvious clue about the killer. And that book was made between the first and the second season, basically before any kind of serious pressure from the television network.

Nevertheless, I think it ended up being a good thing that they were pressured to reveal the killer as without it there wouldn't be that episode we now know as the final episode. We wouldn't have Fire Walk with Me.

 EDIT: And thinking of what Mark Frost said on the Gold Box documentary, they should've started the new plotlines much more quickly and with a harder punch after the killer was revealed and died. I think the biggest mistake wasn't the reveal but it was the fact that they were doing movies and didn't have the time and interest to continue. If they would've been there with the same enthusiasm as they were during the final two or three episodes, I believe the series would've been continued.

I would think that if the killer was never revealed on the TV show, he most certainly would have been in the feature film. Assuming there would have been a feature film like Fire Walk With Me.

I would think that if the killer was never revealed on the TV show, he most certainly would have been in the feature film.

It is odd that, though Lynch did not want to reveal the killer, he made a whole film that explores in depth what the killer was like before the murder.

It is odd that, though Lynch did not want to reveal the killer, he made a whole film that explores in depth what the killer was like before the murder.

Given the creative process that takes place in his other features, i.e. general lack of narrative, not really. 

I thought Lynch got the right killer then and I still think he's the right killer now.

It is odd that, though Lynch did not want to reveal the killer, he made a whole film that explores in depth what the killer was like before the murder.

Given the creative process that takes place in his other features, i.e. general lack of narrative, not really.

I disagree that Lynch always has solid narrative. FWWM is an exception, not a rule. Eraserhead. Mulholland Dr., and Lost Highway are largely bereft of actual narrative, and are more a series of events depicted, not necessarily in any order, for the viewer to interpret as a way of experiencing something.

It is odd that, though Lynch did not want to reveal the killer, he made a whole film that explores in depth what the killer was like before the murder.

Given the creative process that takes place in his other features, i.e. general lack of narrative, not really.

That's fair enough.

I personally didn't think Lost Highway, Mullholland Drive or Inland Empire really went out of their way to let you know what's going on?

But that's what I love about Lynch.

Nuff said.
 

IE is a strange case.

However, with the movies I named, I don't think it is a lack of narrative that makes them confusing. I think the confusing part is what the narrative means. For example, in lost highway, we get 3 very straightforward narratives: the videotapes, pete's story, and the kidnapping of mr. eddy.  The question is: how do they fit together and what do they mean? 

Even Eraserhead has a pretty clear narrative. I am having trouble thinking of any movies that are totally narrative-free. Maybe Un Chien Andalou or The Mirror?  

I also always think to myself - Would Twin Peaks be as fascinating to me today if it had been finished or is it best left unfinished because the mystery goes on and on?  I wonder if this would have had an effect on the rabid TP fanbase or not.  In a way, I feel like the fans are eternally stuck in the Black Lodge with Cooper and Laura too.

I think the word "fascinating" about sums it up. I was 12 when the pilot aired and I was hooked right then and there. I had never seen anything like it and it is still my favorite television show. The whole mood, the characters, the storylines--everything that was in (whether you agree or not) it made it what it is and I don't think you can mess with it. If one thing was different, would it still be as "fascinating" or would it lose something?

In a way, I feel like the fans are eternally stuck in the Black Lodge with Cooper and Laura too.

I never thought about it that way. I'd also like to add that I agree.

I must admit I am one of those people who were obsessed with the show up until Laura Palmer's killer was revealed. I kinda liked making up my own mind on what I thought was happening.

ive always interpeted the ending of TP as taking place in the final moments of FWWM, not TP ep29.
meaning after the killing, and after the black lodge and garmonbozia scene,(and the monkey who says judy) we see laura and coop together, and her angel has come back, and laura is weeping out of joy, and coop places a kind hand on her shoulder. i interpet that to mean that both laura and coop have finally reached the white lodge, which would take place after ep.29. i guess you could make the connection to the line laura says in ep.2(ill see you in twenty five years) as a possible connection to the end of FWWM but im not sure its even necessary to make it a specific time. just the fact, that, as brief as it is, the last scene in FWWM possibly shows them no longer trapped in the black lodge.

That is an awesome theory, I've never thought of it that way. Makes perfect sense!

I am very passionate about books, music, movies, TV, etc. , but I often wonder why does Twin Peaks have a hold on me like nothing else?  Never have I been or ever will be so obsessed over one form of media entertainment in my life.

I am very passionate about books, music, movies, TV, etc. , but I often wonder why does Twin Peaks have a hold on me like nothing else?  Never have I been or ever will be so obsessed over one form of media entertainment in my life.

I am the same way! I wonder if it has to do with the age you started watching. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I was 12--quite young actually, my oldest is 11 and I don't know if I'd let her watch it at 12, I digress....--. Have most people on the board been a fan for long or are there any recent converts?

Maybe it speaks to a part of our character like nothing else has: it is dark, but funny; quirky; intelligent; it brings up questions of spirituality; and has awesome dialogue. Hmmm, deep thoughts.

I am very passionate about books, music, movies, TV, etc. , but I often wonder why does Twin Peaks have a hold on me like nothing else?  Never have I been or ever will be so obsessed over one form of media entertainment in my life.

I am the same way! I wonder if it has to do with the age you started watching. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, I was 12--quite young actually, my oldest is 11 and I don't know if I'd let her watch it at 12, I digress....--. Have most people on the board been a fan for long or are there any recent converts?

Maybe it speaks to a part of our character like nothing else has: it is dark, but funny; quirky; intelligent; it brings up questions of spirituality; and has awesome dialogue. Hmmm, deep thoughts.

same here, i was 10-11 when the show aired, and i still remember vividly how much the show affected me, and can recall covering my eyes every time BOB showed up, or in the case of ep. 29, covering my eyes the entire time(even tho i was hearing all of it, which was disturbing enough). but i was more than disturbed, i was enthralled by the series at the time i should have been enthralled by sports or cartoons. i really liked the complexity, the humor, the otherworldly-ness, and the just plain weirdness the show had and developed over its two seasons and it most definitely left its imprint on my still developing person. so i agree, there is definitely some sentimental feelings for the show for those of us that saw it on its original airing at such a young age. and i dont think thats such a bad thing. to wallow in the sentimentality would be, but its rare that i see that here on the gazette.

I'm pretty sure that when you watch the extras on the gold box (the one where Lynch talks with McLaughlin, Amick and Wentworth) David Lynch said that he and Mark Frost intended for the killer to be Leland Palmer, they just didn't intend to reveal it.  I find it interesting to watch the show now before the reveal and see all the blatant clues that Leland did it.  He get some pretty f-ing creepy looks on his face and it seems that the whole mental breakdown after Laura's death is symptomatic of his internal guilt, even if he didn't consciously realize what he had done.  Check out Leland's face in episode 6 when Maddy sneaks out of the house to meet James and Donna.  He looks seriously evil.

From an emotional/storytelling standpoint, Leland makes the most sense. #2 would be Sarah. #3, I guess, would be Doc Hayward (raped and murdered by your best friend's dad) and #4 would be Ben Horne, but only if they really played up the "broken, middle aged man desperately in love with his best-friend's barely-legal daughter" angle. Not sure who #5 would be; James or Bobby would be too cliche to have any real weight. Dr. Jacoby, I suppose, although "the evil psychiatrist" is almost as much of a trope now as "evil butler." 

Leland was super suspicious from the beginning, but I ruled him out back in 1990 because I thought, "no, that would be too creepy and sick" with the whole incest thing.  Boy, was I wrong  because it made it more shocking at the time because incest wasn't a very talked about subject.  Things on TV today are so much more graphic, but at the time this was quite a revolting revelation.

Yeah, I think Twin Peaks really marked a change of going from the 80's and into the 90's.  I don't think they would have gave the incest thing a chance if the show would have come in like 1983.  Even though stuff like that was going on in the 80's, it was like people didn't want to talk about it.  It seemed like in the 90's people were open to talking about any kind of abuse they had went through.