The TV Series discussion thread

[NewDArt]

Sure. Acting styles, like most other things, have shifted though the years. Sometimes in big ways, sometimes in more subtle ways. I could most likely point out in a clip if it's a TV-series from the 80's or early 90's or if it's much more modern acting, quite easily so even, and yes, by looking at the acting alone.

Back in the 80's and 90's there was also a difference between acting in TV series in comparison to a movie. For movies there's often little difference from modern movies, TV series though, it can be a quite a dramatic difference.

It depends on what kind of show we're talking about - and obviously what the intention was.

Twin Peaks is very obviously a shift in style overall - and not just in terms of acting. I don't know how much of that is totally deliberate - but I most definitely agree with JDR that there's something off about the acting and the feel of the show in general.

You can find TV shows of the 80s and 90s with a MUCH more naturalistic and subtle acting style. One of my favorite TV shows of all time is a Danish show called Matador - and it has some of the most plausible acting of all time.

But then there's the budget issue. Obviously, your actors will tend to reflect your budget - and especially US TV shows rely more on the money for quality acting than, say, Scandinavia.

We have a somewhat different tradition, because money was never the thing in art around here.

I can enjoy lots of TV series that i watched in the 90's as well. But if i was totally new to it, then most likely not. I would not have the nostalgia part and i would not be accustomed to it, so it would just be cheesy.

You can tell yourself all day long that Twin Peaks isn't quirky in a way that other TV shows weren't back then - but you're not going to convince me, sorry. I've got way too much experience with the medium

 

[txa1265]

I get that it's supposed to be surreal, but some of the scenes just seemed really awkward to me. My GF hated it and kept laughing out loud at the over-the-top acting. The acting style didn't bother me so much, but I think the music, which is "critically acclaimed", is mostly terrible.

If you are laughing at many scenes - YOU GET IT. If you think it is incredibly awkward at times - YOU GET IT. If you think that some of the acting is more over the top than telenovelas - YOU GET IT. ALL of that is intentional - and is both reaction and commentary to the world and TV at the time. It WAS a different time, and just as he looked at the 80s Reagan-era lifestyle of surface perfection with buried horrors in Blue Velvet, so did he tear apart TV norms and the world as he saw it in Twin Peaks.

As for the music - it is another character, and I think it is outstanding in how he develops a motifs and nuances changes through pattern repetitions and shifts. I can only think of a few movies, let alone TV shows, that have done better.

 

[NewDArt]

If you are laughing at many scenes - YOU GET IT. If you think it is incredibly awkward at times - YOU GET IT. If you think that some of the acting is more over the top than telenovelas - YOU GET IT. ALL of that is intentional - and is both reaction and commentary to the world and TV at the time. It WAS a different time, and just as he looked at the 80s Reagan-era lifestyle of surface perfection with buried horrors in Blue Velvet, so did he tear apart TV norms and the world as he saw it in Twin Peaks.

As for the music - it is another character, and I think it is outstanding in how he develops a motifs and nuances changes through pattern repetitions and shifts. I can only think of a few movies, let alone TV shows, that have done better.

Ahh, it's one of those "everything bad was on purpose and everything good was on purpose - and part of a brilliant plan!"

You certainly sound like a proper Lynch fan

Next thing you'll tell us that Prometheus is genius!

 

[vurt]

You can tell yourself all day long that Twin Peaks isn't quirky in a way that other TV shows weren't back then

I never said that though, and partially acting, or characters rather, is done to be quirky in the way that he always does his things, awkward pauses and whatnot. That does not take away the fact that this together with the acting (that was modern at that time) is different from today and can seem cheesy or just too awkward.

 

[JDR13]

If you are laughing at many scenes - YOU GET IT. If you think it is incredibly awkward at times - YOU GET IT. If you think that some of the acting is more over the top than telenovelas - YOU GET IT. ALL of that is intentional - and is both reaction and commentary to the world and TV at the time. It WAS a different time, and just as he looked at the 80s Reagan-era lifestyle of surface perfection with buried horrors in Blue Velvet, so did he tear apart TV norms and the world as he saw it in Twin Peaks.

As for the music - it is another character, and I think it is outstanding in how he develops a motifs and nuances changes through pattern repetitions and shifts. I can only think of a few movies, let alone TV shows, that have done better.

Oh I know those things are intentional. I realized that almost immediately. It's definitely an acquired taste though.

I can't say I agree about the music. It's all over the place. Sometimes it fits the scene and is appropriately atmospheric, but other times it's just jarring in a bad way to me.

I'll be watching more in the next few days though, and I'll post further impressions.

 

[joxer]

I risk not to be understood again, but still.

I have the feeling I might be watching it alone though.

Yes, watch it alone. Your own inner world matters there, not outside distractions. If you can't watch it alone, I suggest don't even bother.

It's an old TV show. It's not a movie. Just please don't compare it with movies from that era. $ or quality between the two was not treated the same and you couldn't get a movies superstar to appear on TV by any means.

Back then Twin Peaks was easily described by saying "you've never seen something like this, but not in a bad way". More words about the show were not necessary, except adding that the whole setup is so intriguing it keeps you coming back to it.

 

[NewDArt]

I never said that though, and partially acting, or characters rather, is done to be quirky in the way that he always does his things, awkward pauses and whatnot. That does not take away the fact that this together with the acting (that was modern at that time) is different from today and can seem cheesy or just too awkward.

Interesting, because I don't remember the same awkward style in his films.

In any case, I believe I've already said that I don't agree shows from the 90s were different in terms of acting. Budget, sure, but not acting in itself. But there were a LOT more bad TV shows - with bad/mediocre actors - which is perhaps what you mean.

 

[vurt]

Interesting, because I don't remember the same awkward style in his films.

In any case, I believe I've already said that I don't agree shows from the 90s were different in terms of acting. Budget, sure, but not acting in itself. But there were a LOT more bad TV shows - with bad/mediocre actors - which is perhaps what you mean.

No i mean the acting style, even gave a good example where you can see it.. if you are interested you can dwell into articles about the matter, which teachings you should follow at the time and which people where considered the masters of the subject of acting at that time. Not sure why that would be so hard to believe. It's like everything else that you learn. Over the years it will change because new people come into play that replaces the former masters. You surely know this if you think about it for a little while. Acting is an art that is learned, they go to school, they have teachers, believe it or not it's both a very visual and audible form of art, so it's also very noticeable when there are changes to the artform (well, the changes range from subtle to very noticeable i'd say, depending on what type of scene is performed).

The awkwardness and quirkiness of the characters is probably what he is most known for.. i can highly recommend Eraserhead where you can see how he first developed these characters and the often awkward silences and dialogues. In some of his movies there's less of it.

 

[NewDArt]

No i mean the acting style, even gave a good example where you can see it.. if you are interested you can dwell into articles about the matter, which teachings you should follow at the time and which people where considered the masters of the subject of acting at that time. Not sure why that would be so hard to believe. It's like everything else that you learn. Over the years it will change because new people come into play that replaces the former masters. You surely know this if you think about it for a little while.

I'm afraid I prefer relying on the reality I know, rather than some elusive articles that you claim exist. If you have some kind of evidence that supports how the awkward acting style in Twin Peaks is specifically due to a particular school of acting - when other shows from that era like, say, NYPD manage to have a much more naturalistic style - then by all means provide a link

The awkwardness and quirkiness of the characters is probably what he is most known for.. i can highly recommend Eraserhead where you can see how he first developed these characters and the often awkward silences and dialogues. In some of his movies there's less of it.

I'm afraid I can't agree. Lynch is most known for his surrealism. I've seen most of his movies, and I don't recognise a particular acting style or awkward quirkiness about his characters.

His movies do have their share of oddball characters, I would agree - but I'm not really talking about the characters so much as their delivery and performances.

In any case, I think I've said what I came here to say

I'll check Twin Peaks out again and see if I can find some of this brilliance you guys are going on about.

Trying to keep an open mind about it, but I've always had a strong sense of "Emperor's New Clothes" where Lynch is concerned.

 

[vurt]

If you are interested in the subject of acting and how it changed over time then i'm afraid it won't just naturally appear as information in your brain like some kind of miracle. Less Lynch for you would probably be advisable, at this time…

Seriously though; google is your friend here if you want to dwell into which methods were used in 90's vs now. I absolutely think that most people can point out acting in a 90's movie vs a modern movie, but even more so if its a TV series.. There are very particular things you notice, especially in very dramatic scenes. In the 90's and before there was always lots of shouting and overacting in these scenes. Today this is way more subtle and natural. I'm talking overall, there are superb movies from the 70's with often very natural acting, though usually there's that "odd" (typical for that time period) scene where you clearly spot the difference.

 

[JDR13]

I absolutely think that most people can point out acting in a 90's movie vs a modern movie, but even more so if its a TV series..

I don't doubt that TV aficionados might be able to do that, but I find it highly unlikely that the "average" person can instantly tell what time period a movie or show is from based solely on the acting.

Now if you're talking about something extremely old, like 1960's or beyond, then yeah maybe.

 

[wolfing]

In my case, acting has to be REALLY bad (like, porn film bad) for me to notice… but bad writing makes me cringe almost immediately, I have very little tolerance for bad writing, while I usually don't care much for bad acting.

 

[NewDArt]

If you are interested in the subject of acting and how it changed over time then i'm afraid it won't just naturally appear as information in your brain like some kind of miracle. Less Lynch for you would probably be advisable, at this time…

Seriously though; google is your friend here if you want to dwell into which methods were used in 90's vs now. I absolutely think that most people can point out acting in a 90's movie vs a modern movie, but even more so if its a TV series.. There are very particular things you notice, especially in very dramatic scenes. In the 90's and before there was always lots of shouting and overacting in these scenes. Today this is way more subtle and natural. I'm talking overall, there are superb movies from the 70's with often very natural acting, though usually there's that "odd" (typical for that time period) scene where you clearly spot the difference.

There's really no point in repeating your claim without support

I know you seem to think it's a fact but I already made it clear that I don't.

 

[Myrthos]

I watched Twin Peaks a couple of years ago for the first time. I kinda liked it. I didn't think it was the best thing ever though. I do understand with TV shows being what they were in the 90s this was completely new, different and probably even refreshing.
I'm not much of a David Lynch fan. I don't see the greatness in most of his movies as they just don't do it for me, but Twin Peaks I could appreciate, so I'll probably go watch the new series as well.

 

[JDR13]

So I watched the 3rd and 4th episodes of Twin Peaks last night, and I think I'm starting to get it now. It's an acquired taste for sure, but I find myself wanting to discover more about the weirdness behind some of the characters and what makes them that way.

Dale Cooper's dream sequence in the 4th episode was one of the strangest things I've ever seen in a television show.

I really like Kyle MacLachlan as Cooper. I also like Sherilyn Fenn as Audrey. She had an insane amount of sex appeal back then, and she's just mysterious enough to make you want to know more.

I get the feeling that almost none of the characters are what they appear to be on the surface. In most shows, you usually have 1 or 2 characters like that. In Twin Peaks, it's all of them.

 

[lostforever]

Do I have to watch the old Twin Peaks, to watch the new one?

 

[Carnifex]

I would suggest watching any and all episodes of the nineties series that were directed by Lynch. The rest you could certainly skip/avoid if time is an issue. At a minimum I'd watch the pilot, close of series one/opener of two, and the finale.

 

[NewDArt]

Trying to watch the pilot now... Cringeworthy acting, so far.

But that's ok, the budget wasn't big and TV wasn't taken seriously back then.

Still......

 

[txa1265]

Really can't help you guys gain a sense of perspective ... oh well.

https://www.dailydot.com/upstream/why-twin-peaks-changed-tv-forever/

http://redux.slate.com/cover-storie...ants-to-be-a-riddle-for-viewers-to-solve.html

 

[danutz_plusplus]

I just finished re-watching both original Twin Peaks seasons, Fire Walk with Me and the Missing Pieces of Fire Walk with Me. So I'm all set to start on the third season. Really excited! I originally saw the first 15 minutes, and it was really cool seeing Cooper old and where he was left off at the end of the series. I'll be back with feedback on the first 4 episodes.