We still don't know who he is. And we only know his name from the closing credits.

Absolutely!

They did indeed, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule. And 25 years is a long time.

I've had this kind of disagreement most often while discussing Kubrick, because Kubrick fans are (in my opinion) total fanatics who just can't accept that anything in a Kubrick movie is unintentional — even the damn helicopter shadow at the beginning of The Shining (which is outside the matting lines for 16:9…

I think it's unintentional, yes. Or rather, I think it's a mismatch that they were aware of when Duwayne Dunham and Lynch were putting the sequence together but they let it go because it's barely noticeable and they needed the scene to play that way. (Even Kubrick had moments like this.) It's no big deal.

I'm on board with lots of theories, but not the diner "time-shift."

Respectfully, I don't think it begs that question. I'm just saying, someone as fucked-up as Jerry Horne clearly is all the time, in those woods with the portal to the Black Lodge in the vicinity, is going to see some stuff.

Because he's high? (Kind of a Stephen King angle; people in altered states have a sensitivity to the paranormal.)

You know…

There's a mild continuity mismatch in the diner scene that everyone is making a big deal out of ("intentional," etc.).

Or he'd use rabbit suits (like in Inland Empire).

I don't see Lynch drawing a lot of attention to the artifice of film. Can you give some examples? (Not challenging you; just curious.)

Don't delete your comments! Your reactions are valid and welcome. I only argued with you because of how strongly I disagree with the cynical "cash grab" type arguments. Genuine aesthetic critiques are totally different.

But Twin Peaks was interrupted; the story wasn't over (unlike The Godfather and my other examples), and Lynch had gotten screwed out of his plans for it several times in several ways…for these reasons alone, coming back to it makes so much sense.

Hey, I just watched it a second time on my big screen and I think it's fantastic! You're very talented. I especially liked the background painting for the final shot ("Like, Subscribe, or you'll have bad dreams"). Almost a Van Gogh vibe, mixed with Raymond Pettibone and that weird etching on the cover of the X "Under…

Thank you!

Respectfully, this whole line of argument just has to go away (in every context); it's so profoundly wrongheaded.

Right, but there's no "jump cut." Should I just assume that everyone who's talking about a "jump cut" just aren't using the term right?

I didn't really think there were two versions, either — I just couldn't find this "jump-cut" everyone was discussing.

Are there two versions/cuts of this episode or something? Because everyone's talking about some kind of "jump cut" in the diner at the end…and that's not what I'm seeing.