Current Events > Why is Twin Peaks so mediocre? Why? Why will nobody ever tell me?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Lynch is a great guy, some of his films are excellent, but Twin Peaks...it's alright, but not THAT good. So slow paced; lots of boring characters; feels suspiciously like a soap opera; not nearly strange enough; cheesy, stupid music makes it feel dumbed down; could've made better use of the location. It's so much like a watered down version of his films. I mean, it's made quite a lot less strange than some of his stuff, especially things like Lost Highway and Eraserhead, and it's certainly quite populist, which are obviously ways to get a TV audience to watch it.

Sad, too, when you think how popular Twin Peaks has been over the years, but his films only seem to appeal to a relatively small group of people (emphasis on "relatively", and I know there are exceptions to this, like Mulholland Dr).

Why do people foam at the mouth so much about it? Why is it considered so good?

---

MeIon Bread posted...

feels suspiciously like a soap opera; cheesy, stupid music makes it feel dumbed down

These two are intentional, and go hand in hand.
---

That idiotic music...I suspected it was MEANT to be lame, but that doesn't make it a good thing. And a series can be strongly character driven, which I think is usually a good thing, but without becoming like a soap. Think Lost. Or Studio 60, maybe.
---

Twin Peaks can be considered great at what it offers or it can be considered terrible. "Mediocre" and "Twin Peaks" do not belong in the same sentence. Therefor, I conclude this topic is not sincere.
---

lol
---

Twin Peaks is a top 10 show of all time. It got really weird when Lynch left in s2, but it was more of a beautiful trainwreck and I personally loved that stretch of 15 episodes. Then The Return was just an absolute masterpiece
---

Season 1 is the best and 2 is still really good but 3 is a trainwreck towards the end.
---