BobbyBesar

SickNotes: I appreciate your effort and attention to detail, and apologize that I can't respond in kind at the moment. Instead, I just have a few minor points. 1) Your distinction between surrealism and magical realism seems somewhat apologetic. At the time Twin Peaks aired, hiding the fantastical elements may have been necessary for audience acceptance, but in the modern climate of Harry Potter and vampires and zombies, it seems a little quaint. I see no reason not to simply call it what it is, which is basically a modern fantasy-horror setting. The fact that the producers felt the need to play coy with revealing that to the audience doesn't mean that we have to treat it that way, we can treat it as a whole thing. 2) While I thing we probably all agree that genre labels are more convenience than any kind of strict delimiter, "magical realism" is quite amorphous even amongst its peers. But I've decided, as I've watched more of the series, that I don't think it counts. The primary reason is that one of the central elements of Twin Peaks appears to be interrogating the nature of the magical events. Although people aren't interested in the magic qua magic (they're interested in a murder which appears to have occult / fantastical elements), that means a modicum of exploring the nature of that magic system. So, how it works becomes part of the plot, and not simply part of the backdrop. If I were pitching it to a network exec, I would probably use the words "urban fantasy", which is a catch-all term for much of the current modern-day set vampire / wizard content created today. (I would actually probably try to be clever and call it - wait for it - "rural fantasy", at which point the exec would ask "Who are you and how did you get in my office?")

Man, I played the hell out of the Castles series. It's the reason I have a deep abiding hatred for celts to this day. F'in celts! Leave my castle alone! I'm pretty sure my child-brain couldn't handle the idea if sending your troops to intercept the enemy army before hitting the castle (at least, not unless there was ongoing construction or holes in my walls. The obvious superiority of archer-slits was too intoxicating for me.

Bloodrrayne betrayal is fine. Unsurprisingly, it feels like most other wayforward licensed products. The main problem, now that I think about it more, is a lack of verbs in their games. Generally, you have NES Era capabilities: one jump, one attack, and that's it. Which is fine but it puts undue emphasis on the level design, which is usually fairly pedestrian. Shantae and Mighty Switch Force both introduce a couple different verbs, which makes them feel like more complete games. Bloodrayne had 3 verbs, I believe (attack,drink blood, jump) but was basically a side scrolling brawler rather than a platformer, so it still got old quickly. As focused on combat as it was, it needed more attack options to make the player feel engaged and empowered.

I can't speak to the newest Shantae, but the thing about Wayforward games is that they all feel very similar, as one would expect as they're built on the same engine. This means that their licensed games are competent enough, but everything feels very same-y. I find the WayForward engine to be a little too...blocky? The basic unit of the level design is a large block (about 2x1 player sprites, and you can tell, so the platforming and level design sometimes feels very basic. That's what I like about Mighty Switch Force:it turns that constraint into a strength by using manipulation of those blocks as a mechanic. Which has nothing to do with the new Shantae per se. But, of the other games of theirs that I've played, it's hard to recommend a specific one because they're very same. Theyre mostly differentiated by the art, which can be very good.

I actually really love both Mighty Switch Forces (100%'ed both), but they aren't for everybody. They're timed puzzle platformers, the point is to perfect each level to get the best time possible. 2 is better than 1, but if you're going to play them both, you should play them in order on account of the difficulty ramp-up.

Well, to a certain degree I'm differentiating between the show as a cultural artifact vs. the themes of the show as presented in-world. I don't think that the themes presented within the show itself is interested in the least with Japanese industrial invasions, but I think it's cultural context for how the show may have been created and consumed by its audience. It's sort of a meta-consideration, which is why I don't really have an issue with the apparent contradiction. To put another way, the while Japanese question has to do entirely with the way that Josie is portrayed. Reading some wikis, it appears that Josie was originally intended to be Italian. I think that re-casting Josie, but keeping her role exactly the same would affect how that character is presented, but wouldn't necessarily affect the broader themes of the show. As for the question of modernity itself, do you mind if we table this discussion until Ep. 4? The spoiler tagged bit you note has a lot to do with it. Although, for the record, I like the interpretation presented in the letters, that the townspeople's response is more disappointed ("I thought we could have avoided it this time") than shocked and surprised.

Her bat-helmet needs a chinstrap if it isn't going to be an attached cowl. Also, despite the good intentions here, I wonder how long it will be before somebody ignores or screws up the style guide and shes drawn in a comic with the "X - not spandex" look. Unfortunately, it's probably inevitable.

More the latter. On the face of it, does it make sense to build a golf resort in logging town? Plausibly, yes. My parents live in a farming town in Vermont that has transformed itself gradually into a ski/golf resort community. There's also clearly something there already, as the Great Northern does apparently brisk business. But in the context of a setting for a television show, there's a clear contrast with the "typical" TV setting of, say, LA Law or Miami Vice. Its not necessarily a unique or deliberate choice, so much as a part of a zeitgeist shift: the same reaction would lead to the imminent rise of grunge, also centered in the Pacific Northwest. Also, I don't mean this to belittle these towns or settings. I've read the argument that the "americana" setting in the show is not intended ironically, but with genuine affection, which I agree with. The contrasts highlight the absurdity not of the people of Twin Peaks, but of the overblown rhetoric of Hollywood. Jake - for the record, I don't 100% believe this, but over-wrought content analysis is fun.

I don't see James and Bobby as serving the same purpose. James is exactly as boring as what he initially presents on the surface, unlike Bobby (and everybody else) who has at least one extra layer of secrets. James is a foil for the rest of the cast. Put another way, James is Gilmore Girls' Dean.

Stepping outside the context of that one scene, one of the reasons that I feel that scene is likely intentionally evoking a racial stereotype has to do with my view of the overall message of the show. I feel that Twin Peaks can be read as a reaction to, and refutation of the prime-time soap operas of the 80s, typified by Dallas (which ran until 1991). There are some superficial similarities, such as a place-name title, and the musical cues Jake mentioned that read as intentionally evocative of the soap opera form. Additionally, the way that the pilot drops you into multiple storylines as though it is simply a continuation of a non-existent previous episode also reinforces the soap opera feeling. (Note that I don't have any information whatsoever as to whether this read was Frost + Lynch's intent, but as usual, I'm not sure it matters what the original intent was. Also note that I haven't actually watched much of Dallas. I'm just speaking from general principles here, so I may be way off base.) However, unlike the glamorous and cosmopolitan (arguably, har har) setting of Dallas, Lynch and Frost chose to set Twin Peaks in a logging town in the middle of nowhere. The scope of the conflicts on the show is concomitantly smaller in many ways. In other ways, the scope is intentionally not reduced in order to highlight the ways that these kinds of conflicts have little to no relation to the common man, as with the Ghostwood Pines deal, which doesn't really seem to make much sense to me. Continuing the themes of character displacement that I mentioned in the Ep 1 thread, Horne is a Wall street power broker plucked out of his natural habitat, and deposited in Twin Peaks. His grand scheming and machinations, all targeting not at a multinational corporation, but at a lumber mill. In this context, it doesn't seem unreasonable that Lynch would choose to intentionally evoke the Japanese corporate takeover meme, if for no other reason than to illustrate the absurdity of the idea that the Japanese were going to take over "everything" by extending that literally. (Along those lines, while we can agree to disagree, after reviewing that scene again, I really don't see how it can be viewed without that cultural reference as subtext.) The other interesting note along these lines is the inclusion of "Invitation to Love", the show-within-a-show soap opera. From what I can tell so far, it seems that Invitation to Love is intended at least in part to illustrate what Twin Peaks isn't. (Although I suspect that Ep 3 will be full enough with other topics, I'd love an in depth discussion of Invitation To Love in a future episode, just to see what people think about it).

Also, re: branded candy games, is Danielle thinking of the Sour Patch Kids game, World Gone Sour?

Re: Sonic and TMBG. Sonic is basically just like objectivism.

Hey, did you guys know there's a website you can go to and watch videos online? I don't think they even have the rights, but nobody seems to care! It's called Youtube.com. Protips! Anyways, it occurred to me that if I just wanted to watch the music bits, they were probably on youtube, they were, and I did. My verdict is that, yes, as expected, it's much less awkward in Japanese, but once again, the English voice work was better than I expected.

I mentioned in a previous comment that Cooper feels like an intentional noir throwback character plucked out of his setting and placed into a modern TV show. I think this fundamental tension is one of the key elements of the show (between the characters and their setting, between the music and onscreen action, etc). James and Bobby both feel that way to me. They're both anachronistic throwbacks. James, a comically 50s biker greaser, and Bobby, at times a comically 60s rebel without a cause. The fact that both wear leather jackets (a somewhat anachronistic "bad boy" signifier, although possible less anachronistic at the time the show was made) reinforces this. (Generally, all the characters are quite heightened versions of their character's archetype.) The overall point being, I find it hard to take either character seriously within the context of the show, which makes me feel suspect that James is intentionally isolated from the rest of the show at large, similar to how Cooper's fast-talk patter sets him apart. Of course, the bad acting eventualyl outweighs the benefits of the "bad actor" joke.

This is probably not the time or place to get into racism theory and the role of intent or any of that business. Josie isn't even a particularly significant part of Ep. 2. Suffice to say, it makes me uncomfortable to watch many of the scenes that Josie is in.

Sure, that's fine. It's ultimately irrelevant to the larger point that the character, on the whole, is pretty racist.

I assume this is largely coincidence, but I get a Persona / Velvet Room vibe from the dream sequence. Interesting note about the backwards talking. That's actually how I assumed they did it, based on my experience with reverse-talking in recordings and such.

He's so bad that it almost seems like it must be a deliberate choice. Oddly, I've just started Season 2, and it seems like he went to some acting workshops between the first and second seasons. He's still bad, but he's less wooden, and very clearly emoting more with his face.

Not to belabor the point, but, starting at 31:40 in the pilot (maybe this should really be in the other thread), we see Pete sitting talking idly to himself. Catherine: Did you hear me? You can't do that to my workers. Don't walk away from me like that. Come on back here. You're not going anywhere and you aren't telling anybody anything. Josie: Catherine, I'm sorry if this offends you, but I am the owner of this sawmill. Catherine: And you don't the first thing about this mill. That's why I'm running it. Josie: I've never taken this authority before. Maybe I should have. Catherine: You're not shutting us down. Josie: Catherine, I have the final say so. Peter. Push the button. Catherine: Pete, don't you dare. Peter: Shorty, tell the boys to pull the plug. AFTER that exchange, Josie explains her rationale. That's why I note Lynch may have been playing with the stereotype intentionally. But, it still invokes it in a very, very direct way.

See Bjorn's earlier comment. See also: Alllooksame.com (which appears to be down now...) Not sure how old you are (sincerely not trying to condescend here), but in the 80's Japanese takeover of American companies was a big theme, both as a thing that happened in real life, but also as something that loomed large over films and television. Films like these, and also this. (Those aren't necessarily the best examples, just the ones that sprang to mind).

In context, this is true. But, the first time you watch this, with no prior knowledge of the character, that isn't obvious. All that you see is an Asian person walking in, saying "stop working" over the protests of a white person. In hindsight, you could argue that Lynch was intentionally playing with the stereotype at this point (I have a lot more thoughts about that for future episodes), but on a first viewing, it's "optics" are pretty ugly.

Hawk is pretty bad, but although he doesn't get many lines, at least he gets to do some police business (in both the colloquial sense and the acting sense) where he's just another deputy. Of course, "not many lines" is part of the stereotype in his case, too. I don't think there's anything to "read into" about it, it's just an unfortunate side effect of the time it was made.

They are atrocious (at least the DS one is), and that comes from somebody who enjoys Harvest Moon. I don't remember much about it other than finding it very frustrating. I recall it being very boring, and the controls being borderline broken. Even among janky-to-broken Natsume games, it's bad.

It's easy to see how in retrospect she might wish she had stuck with it, while at the time it may have been intolerable. It's laudable that she took a principled stance and walked away, regardless of how that specific project worked out in the end. Not being familiar with her blog, I like that that link is a stealth recipe post. "Blah blah blah, seminal television program. Look, cookies!"

Josie...oh, Josie. Can we Real Talk for a minute? Twin Peaks manages to not date itself too, too badly. Since it's in an unfashionable blue-collar town, you avoid a lot of 80s excess in the fashion and whatnot. With a few minor exceptions (e.g. cocaine vs meth), this could take place in any period in the modern era. There are some deliberate throwbacks with the bikers and Audrey and Cooper, but they're sort of an intentional Main Street USA set dressing. Then, we get to Josie. Sure, she's nominally Chinese from Hong Kong. But she's such a terrible 80's Japanese-sterotype pastiche. She's literally introduced by taking over a factory and shutting it down. Her terrible grammar and accent. Her wardrobe, which appears to be comprised entirely of silk / mesh kimono. It's just...*sigh*. I'm not one to look for racism as a general rule, but every scene with her in it is just cringes upon cringes.