For me, it really became apparent during that tribunal scene where Jimmy ingeniously goaded Chuck into an unhinged, stark raving mad rant. "But not our Jimmy! Not our precious Jimmy….you have to stop him!….you have…you…(pant, wheeze)".

Yes, I think his psychosomatic illness is absolutely his subconscious refusing to play ball. In fact, I think it practically became obvious during this season. Hence Chuck's comment to his quack: "If it's all in my head, then what have I done!?") As it turns out, a lot, Chuck…a lot!

Yes, Mike's got better things to do than continue existing merely as an excuse to lord it over people all the time!

Hahaha you got me there! Clever thinking, Anne. That Chuck's a damn stickler, isn't he!?

You can't get too literal-minded about these shows. It's fairly easy to suspend your disbelief anyway, because Chuck's obsessive compulsiveness and general paranoia tend to override all sense of common sense or logic. He tore down his whole house, for Christ's sake!

Next season! They've only got 10 episodes, not really enough to flesh out everything.

"And Im also assuming, partly because this would be me, that when the rest of the partners find out he did that to save the firm they will find a way to make the next two payments when they are due.

For the most part, I absolutely agree with you - although it's complicated…

"there are some people in the forum who are disappointed in the non-soap opera tone".

That's a fantastic attitude, mate! The other day I was actually discussing Inland Empire with a critic called Matt Zoller Seitz who writes a column on the Roger Ebert website.

Couldn't agree more! It was done so matter of factly, too. Steve Baker nailed that scene (and I'm almost convinced he was enjoying it, the sick fuck) ;)

I'm actually starting to enjoy the loose threads, because (at least for me) it creates intrigue. Which bits will he abandon, and which will he return to? Remember, there were plenty of dangling threads in the original Twin Peaks.

I'm just going to call it as I see it…

Here we go…there's always one! It's either a feminist or a social justice warrior, out for blood.

There's a miracle cure for this dilemma of yours - stop watching it. Otherwise you'll just give yourself a heart attack.

Not that it's necessarily a matter of right or wrong, Jonathan, but I'm siding with Log Lady on this one. She's perfectly capable of handling criticism, although there's nothing wrong with encouraging someone to be more open-minded (especially when the show's only a third of the way through).

I'm glad that they interrupted the performance, but not for the desperately pathetic and politically correct reasons they stated (ie. being scandalised by the political ideas).

I think what he meant by "replicating the old formula" was merely "not give the audience more of the same" i.e. too much déjà-vu. Which, again, all comes down to personal preference.

Haha why does it pain you to say that? The Bang Bang too hipster for you, is it?

Steve Baker: "Hello?"
Lynch: "Steve? It's David here….David Lynch. I'd like you to be on my show."
Steve Baker: "What's that?"
Lynch: "It's called Twin Peaks".
Steve Baker: "Oh yeah, I think I've heard of it. What do you want me to do?"
Lynch: "Well, I want you to play Jack".
Steve Baker: "Sounds good. So who is J…."
Lynch…