Around the dinner table, the conversation was lively. Thank you but for now, the forum has been archived.
So, here's the best I've got: when Cooper went back and kept Laura from being killed, he broke time. The events of the narrative of Twin Peaks occur, but when they occur is in flux, or is indeterminate. Time has been thrown out of joint. So, Laura died in 1989 or 1990 or 1991 or 1992 or 1993... (moving in the direction of Annie being born in 1973 but in her 20s at the time, by shifting the year of Laura's murder), or she didn't die, but disappeared... The events of The Return are equally, then, either in 2014 or 2015 or 2016 or 2017... (25 years later). Audrey's scenes relate, I think, to this temporal indeterminacy. She wants to go to the Roadhouse, does not want to go, both wants to go and does not want to go (all repetitions of the same basic scene with Charlie). So, "what year is this?" doesn't mean "what year is it in the ordinary succession of years on a calendar?" but rather points to the way in which time has been fractured, become indeterminate, or thrown out of whack. There is no chronos - time has been thrown fully into kairos ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos)
Then maybe a new chronology is settling in once we get to "Today" in the Final Dossier...
EUREKA!!!! BINGO!!!
Damn, why didn't I see this? You just nailed that whole ending for me. Of course EVERYTHING after Feb 23 1989 would be moved around so the finale that we are always trying to date would also be moving around. These years are fluctuating even as they are driving back to Twin Peaks/Not Twin Peaks.
This lines up with my theory perfectly and it is basically the missing piece.
I am buying all of this.
Nicely done!
I will sleep better tonight...
Jack
Definitely a good theory that I can subscribe to.
And glad to see Jack get some peace. ?
Ok, I like it too.
We're saying that time became un-moored, maybe skipping around wildly like a lug nut inside a hubcap while going 60mph; or is it more like the threads of events are braided into one rope of time but the rope is getting frayed and events and facts are bowing away and falling off from the linear.... Or maybe like an electrical flow through the power cable of reality that has been sheared and is now arcing electricity in stabbing branches. Or would it be more along the lines of a bullet through a sequoia tree and sap slowly bleeds out in multiple trickles down the trunk? Maybe a mirror that got bent to its limits and shattered with each shard now reflecting a slightly different image than any other.
metaphors help me.
This would definitely put some rhyme to the date errors. But do we have any other cinematic evidence of this happening? Are Diane's texts then repetitions (or simultaneous but 'parallel') of the same chain of events? Which would explain her time variations and slight detail changes. Mike asking, "Is it past, or is it future" can be understood this way.
Garland accurately foreseeing the future works with this theory. Especially because he may well be on the outside looking in.
What else falls into place? Not that I am doubting, but I'm very keen on having that same moment of clarity like Jack so convincingly described above. TwinPeaks! And thank you for Kairos. I can dig it.
So, it seems clear to me all of this is intentional at this point. I gave my attempt at making it interesting above, more or less. I do agree with you to some extent. Annie being in her early 20s when she came to Twin Peaks feels right, but then why say she was born in 1973? What bothers me isn't that they decided to play with temporal inconsistencies; it is that there does not seem to be a way to unlock them. I mean, I can put forward the theory that it relates to multiple realities or something like that, but trying to fit different things into different versions of reality feels like it would be a fool's errand.
Exactly, why did Mark say she was born in 1973 if she needed to be in her early 20s when she came to Twin Peaks? There was simply no need for her to have been born in that year.
And if the mismatched dates are an intentional part of the story, why was it not noticed by Tammy? How did Tammy manage to get into the FBI if she's so shit at maths that she doesn't notice that 1989-1973=16?
If it was an intentional part of the story, I would have expected Tammy to be saying things like:
"Annie was in her early 20s when she arrived in Twin Peaks, which is strange because she was only born in 1973."
"Johnny Horne is now in his early 40s, which doesn't make sense because he was 27 in 1989".
So, either Tammy is stupid or Mark Frost is. Either way, it makes a mockery of the whole rest of the story.
The other thing that doesn't make sense is that if Cooper changed the past so that Laura never died, Tammy wouldn't be aware of this. I spotted that glaring mistake right away.
So, here's the best I've got: when Cooper went back and kept Laura from being killed, he broke time. The events of the narrative of Twin Peaks occur, but when they occur is in flux, or is indeterminate. Time has been thrown out of joint. So, Laura died in 1989 or 1990 or 1991 or 1992 or 1993... (moving in the direction of Annie being born in 1973 but in her 20s at the time, by shifting the year of Laura's murder), or she didn't die, but disappeared... The events of The Return are equally, then, either in 2014 or 2015 or 2016 or 2017... (25 years later). Audrey's scenes relate, I think, to this temporal indeterminacy. She wants to go to the Roadhouse, does not want to go, both wants to go and does not want to go (all repetitions of the same basic scene with Charlie). So, "what year is this?" doesn't mean "what year is it in the ordinary succession of years on a calendar?" but rather points to the way in which time has been fractured, become indeterminate, or thrown out of whack. There is no chronos - time has been thrown fully into kairos ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos)
Then maybe a new chronology is settling in once we get to "Today" in the Final Dossier...
You should definitely be applauded for an excellent effort, but this still doesn't quite explain the date inconsistencies for me.
If Cooper going back to save Laura messed up time, it would mean it would also have changed Annie's year of birth. If the strange events changed Annie's age, it would also have changed her date of birth so that the Final Dossier says that she was born in 1967 for example. Otherwise it's like saying Laura wasn't didn't die but the murder still happened.
It's all very well to say that Annie was born in 1973 in the timeline before Cooper saved Laura, but if you're then going to say that Cooper saving Laura changed Annie's age, that same action must have also changed Annie's date of birth. A person is only the age they are due to when they were born. The two go together.
It's like if Cooper saving Laura caused Annie to be a man in the changed timeline, that would also mean it now meant that Annie was born male. You can't say it means she was still born female. In order for someone to be male (by birth) now, they have have been born male.
Or it's like if Cooper saving Laura means that Annie is now French, even though she was still born in the US and grew up in the US. No, if you're going to say that Annie is French, you also have to say she was born in France.
If we're going to break those kinds of rules, we might as well just say any mad shit, like Dale Cooper was born in a different galaxy and arrived on earth via telepathic thought. Idea for Season 4?
So, here's the best I've got: when Cooper went back and kept Laura from being killed, he broke time. The events of the narrative of Twin Peaks occur, but when they occur is in flux, or is indeterminate. Time has been thrown out of joint. So, Laura died in 1989 or 1990 or 1991 or 1992 or 1993... (moving in the direction of Annie being born in 1973 but in her 20s at the time, by shifting the year of Laura's murder), or she didn't die, but disappeared... The events of The Return are equally, then, either in 2014 or 2015 or 2016 or 2017... (25 years later). Audrey's scenes relate, I think, to this temporal indeterminacy. She wants to go to the Roadhouse, does not want to go, both wants to go and does not want to go (all repetitions of the same basic scene with Charlie). So, "what year is this?" doesn't mean "what year is it in the ordinary succession of years on a calendar?" but rather points to the way in which time has been fractured, become indeterminate, or thrown out of whack. There is no chronos - time has been thrown fully into kairos ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kairos)
Then maybe a new chronology is settling in once we get to "Today" in the Final Dossier...
You should definitely be applauded for an excellent effort, but this still doesn't quite explain the date inconsistencies for me.
If Cooper going back to save Laura messed up time, it would mean it would also have changed Annie's year of birth. If the strange events changed Annie's age, it would also have changed her date of birth so that the Final Dossier says that she was born in 1967 for example. Otherwise it's like saying Laura wasn't didn't die but the murder still happened.
It's all very well to say that Annie was born in 1973 in the timeline before Cooper saved Laura, but if you're then going to say that Cooper saving Laura changed Annie's age, that same action must have also changed Annie's date of birth. A person is only the age they are due to when they were born. The two go together.
It's like if Cooper saving Laura caused Annie to be a man in the changed timeline, that would also mean it now meant that Annie was born male. You can't say it means she was still born female. In order for someone to be male (by birth) now, they have have been born male.
Or it's like if Cooper saving Laura means that Annie is now French, even though she was still born in the US and grew up in the US. No, if you're going to say that Annie is French, you also have to say she was born in France.
If we're going to break those kinds of rules, we might as well just say any mad shit, like Dale Cooper was born in a different galaxy and arrived on earth via telepathic thought. Idea for Season 4?
I am going to say it before anyone else...With Time shifting all over the place due to Agent Coopers interference, how would you EVER land on a solidified timeline from February 23, 1989 on? Just draw a line from 0 (Christ's Death) to that date in 1989. Now from that date draw an infinitesimal number of lines to todays date. Go ahead, pick one...That is your timeline for The Return. It is crazy to think about for sure, but it at least has story structure and makes some sort of sense.
I am going to say it before anyone else...With Time shifting all over the place due to Agent Coopers interference, how would you EVER land on a solidified timeline from February 23, 1989 on? Just draw a line from 0 (Christ's Death) to that date in 1989. Now from that date draw an infinitesimal number of lines to todays date. Go ahead, pick one...That is your timeline for The Return. It is crazy to think about for sure, but it at least has story structure and makes some sort of sense.
Would you call that irony?
I am going to say it before anyone else...With Time shifting all over the place due to Agent Coopers interference, how would you EVER land on a solidified timeline from February 23, 1989 on? Just draw a line from 0 (Christ's Death) to that date in 1989. Now from that date draw an infinitesimal number of lines to todays date. Go ahead, pick one...That is your timeline for The Return. It is crazy to think about for sure, but it at least has story structure and makes some sort of sense.
Would you call that irony?
Ironic that I didn't think of it first? Or Ironic because all I did was think about it, Yet I couldn't see the forest for the trees? I am not letting L/F off of the hook just because Cameron and I were able to formulate an explanation to the Finale. I still think THEY should have explored all the possibilities to the endings and portrayed the best, most logical and time stamped possibility, but then that is just my opinion.
I am going to say it before anyone else...With Time shifting all over the place due to Agent Coopers interference, how would you EVER land on a solidified timeline from February 23, 1989 on? Just draw a line from 0 (Christ's Death) to that date in 1989. Now from that date draw an infinitesimal number of lines to todays date. Go ahead, pick one...That is your timeline for The Return. It is crazy to think about for sure, but it at least has story structure and makes some sort of sense.
Would you call that irony?
Ironic that I didn't think of it first? Or Ironic because all I did was think about it, Yet I couldn't see the forest for the trees? I am not letting L/F off of the hook just because Cameron and I were able to formulate an explanation to the Finale. I still think THEY should have explored all the possibilities to the endings and portrayed the best, most logical and time stamped possibility, but then that is just my opinion.
LOL, actually I was referring to the whole theory. Timelines, infinite timelines, changing timelines, changing facts and history as we know it or knew it and to then come to the conclusion that the story has structure and makes sense...... ?
Yeah, I am an idiot who didn't see the forest for the trees. What was it Lynch said? I was focusing on the hole and not the donut?
They still have some splaining to do...
Jack
Yeah, I am an idiot who didn't see the forest for the trees. What was it Lynch said? I was focusing on the hole and not the donut?
They still have some splaining to do...
Jack
I LOVE DOUGHNUT HOLES!
It's entirely possible that Lynch and Frost were just having a laugh. Lynch saw it as an opportunity to put whatever he wanted on screen for 18 episodes. Then Frost was like, "Okay, well this is never going to make complete sense, so I might as well just enjoy myself, what the hell..."
There's also the very real possibility that one or both of them is suffering from Alzheimer's...
How about this:
Maybe the point is that it doesn't make sense, it can't make sense. Maybe it's some commentary that it doesn't need to make sense to exist. Maybe it is for us. So that we twist ourselves in knots trying to find harmony where there is none. Another example of deliberately defying our expectations and making us deal with the opposite of what we anticipate.
I thought he did that a lot in the show. Albert bursts in with critical information. We are on the edge of our seats to find out what it is. But we have to wait literally 10 gd minutes for the French lady to get the f out of the room. Total frustration on our part. There's only like 15 minutes left in the episode, C'MON! And then Albert says his thing and it doesn't give us even a morsel of further understanding. He got us twice in that one scene. I fully believe that denying us easy satisfactions was a massive theme throughout. Discordant.
Ok, I like it too.
We're saying that time became un-moored, maybe skipping around wildly like a lug nut inside a hubcap while going 60mph; or is it more like the threads of events are braided into one rope of time but the rope is getting frayed and events and facts are bowing away and falling off from the linear.... Or maybe like an electrical flow through the power cable of reality that has been sheared and is now arcing electricity in stabbing branches. Or would it be more along the lines of a bullet through a sequoia tree and sap slowly bleeds out in multiple trickles down the trunk? Maybe a mirror that got bent to its limits and shattered with each shard now reflecting a slightly different image than any other.
metaphors help me.
This would definitely put some rhyme to the date errors. But do we have any other cinematic evidence of this happening? Are Diane's texts then repetitions (or simultaneous but 'parallel') of the same chain of events? Which would explain her time variations and slight detail changes. Mike asking, "Is it past, or is it future" can be understood this way.
Garland accurately foreseeing the future works with this theory. Especially because he may well be on the outside looking in.
What else falls into place? Not that I am doubting, but I'm very keen on having that same moment of clarity like Jack so convincingly described above. TwinPeaks! And thank you for Kairos. I can dig it.
I like all of these metaphors. I'm not sure if we're going to be able to really capture it in an image, though. I don't know. I am still thinking about if there is a way to get more precise about this. I think how I put it above is the clearest I have gotten my thoughts on this.
I am definitely approaching Diane's texts along these lines, and would say Yes with regard to the other things you mention. Also, there is the end of Part 7, with the shifting patrons at the RR. And maybe this could give a way of interpreting the appearance of a Diane double outside of the motel... But I am not sure exactly how as yet. Similarly, the scene where Sarah is smashing at Laura's picture, with the kind of looping effect there... I don't know.
It's nice to have one's thoughts appreciated, so thanks for that you all. I am not sure how to graciously respond to inspiring a eureka moment, but that's pretty cool. Glad to be of service.
It's nice to have one's thoughts appreciated, so thanks for that you all. I am not sure how to graciously respond to inspiring a eureka moment, but that's pretty cool. Glad to be of service.
If you read my theory (which I think you already did) you will note I was approaching all this from almost the same perspective. I was just unclear on the episodes prior to 17, where he goes back in time and causes the butterfly effect to come into play. But then I forgot that all of those previous episodes were AFTER 1989 so they filmed them with the butterfly effect or the "Broken Time" I think you called it already in place. Pure and utter genius, they filmed all the episodes up to 17 with shit already being fucked up by Cooper going back in time and causing the butterfly effect to already be in place and screwing things up. Sarah probably didn't have Judy or the experiment inside of her until Cooper "broke time." She was just a ticking time bomb because of the frog/moth and Judy initiated it as a direct response to Jefferies and Cooper playing dirty and going back in time. It's perfect. It explains so much and it definitely patches any holes in my theory and makes it work...across the board.
Cooper realized this and thus the famous last line "What year is this?"
It actually all makes so much sense now, we need to share this with the millions of people who have crushed souls and broken hearts from the finale.
You definitely deserve a lot of credit for this!
I truly think we have it solved, I just can't wait until Lynch admits it on his death bed, I feel like he can do that much for us.
Jack
P.S. Can you tell how happy I am about this?
Fire walk with 
