#if you imagine these were like…loosely animated and had the players + character names pop up…that’s what I was going for

[undeadswineart]

Had an idea…it didn’t fully pan out (because I’m no good with typography) so uhhhh pls take these Bad Kids splash screens

[expatimes]

Pokémon at 25: How 151 fictional species took over the world Written by Oscar Holland, CNNWhen the Gameboy titles "Pocket Monsters: Red" and "Pocket Monsters: Green" were first released in Japan in 1996, few could have predicted what came next.The concept was simple enough: Players would traverse a fictional world capturing, training and battling the creatures that inhabited it -- a mission encapsulated in the game's famous slogan, "Gotta Catch 'Em All." But within just a few years, Pokémon, a portmanteau of the Japanese name "Poketto Monsuta," was a global phenomenon. By 1999, the game had launched in multiple Western markets, later becoming one of the most successful franchises of all time. It spawned an anime series, which was translated into over 30 languages, and trading cards that swept the world's playgrounds during the "Pokémania" of the late 1990s. It also imprinted the identities of 151 entirely fictional characters into the memories of millions. Japanese children participate in a Pokémon card game tournament in 1999. Credit: Yoshikazu Tsuno/AFP/Getty ImagesA quarter of a century on, many first-generation Pokémon are as recognizable to millennials as they are to their children. This is partly thanks to a post-2016 revival inspired by the mobile game "Pokémon Go" and movie "Detective Pikachu." But the franchise's success is about more than clever marketing -- it is the result of unique characters that were universal enough to cross cultures and diverse enough to make catching 'em all a challenge, not a chore.Their origins trace back to Pokémon's creator Tajiri Satoshi, whose childhood love of collecting bugs inspired a game with a strikingly similar premise. Most of the individual designs were, however, the work of illustrator Ken Sugimori. Sugimori had worked with Tajiri on the magazine Game Freak, which would eventually grow into the games company behind Pokémon. As the firm's art director, he brought his collaborator's vision to life through a complex and imaginative taxonomy, complete with individual lines of evolution and fictional genuses, like grass- or dragon-type Pokémon.Bulbasaur, one of the most recognizable Pokémon from the first generation. Credit: Courtesy The Pokemon CompanyGiving the characters distinct personalities was always going to be difficult. Even with an accompanying TV series, most were only able to utter their own names repeatedly. Their appearances, therefore, were especially important.Sugimori's designs were gloriously diverse and grounded in science -- not just biology and zoology, but geology (see Geodude, who was essentially an animated rock), chemistry (the noxious gas clouds Koffing and Weezing), paleontology (the fossil-like Omanyte and Omastar) and physics (the likes of Magneton, who loosely drew on the principles of electromagnetism). The resulting catalog of creatures, known as the Pokédex, was essentially a periodic table for game nerds -- and was, for many, much easier to recall. Going globalPokémon's ability to evolve was part of their appeal, according to Joseph Tobin, a professor of early childhood education at the University of Georgia and editor of the 2004 book "Pikachu's Global Adventure: The Rise and Fall of Pokémon" (a subtitle that, he readily admits, completely failed to predict the franchise's revival)."Along with Tamagotchi, the narrative was that you're caring for them," Tobin said in a video interview. "You care for them so they grow up, and kids can identify with getting stronger. But then you also care for them by (making sure they) don't die. It was unusual to have this in a battle game ... it took some of the features of war and then combined them with nurturance."Squirtle, a light-blue turtle. Credit: Courtesy The Pokemon CompanyThe cutesy Squirtle (top) evoled into Wortortle and, eventually, Blastoise (bottom). Credit: Courtesy The Pokemon CompanyThis juxtaposition was reflected in the designs, which were at once both cute and fierce -- or, through the process of evolution, morphed from cute to fierce, from the big-eyed, babyish Squirtle to the formidable Blastoise (by way of Wartortle). None, however, more aptly embodied this dichotomy than Pikachu, the franchise's most successful and marketable figure. Dumpy and rosy-cheeked, with a high-pitched voice, the electrified mouse was also a powerful fighter. The character's design also played into Japan's wider drive to export pop culture in the 1990s, according to Tobin."The idea was -- or the corporate strategy as a nation was -- we want 'our' mouse to compete with Mickey Mouse," he said. "So I think the fact that Pikachu is a mouse-like creature is not coincidental, but (the character) was made to be hyper-cute -- cuter than Mickey or Minnie."There were, however, fears that Japan's "kawaii" aesthetic wouldn't resonate with kids elsewhere. Superheroes in Western markets were, at the time, often sharper and more muscular than their Japanese counterparts. Ahead of the game's US release, late Nintendo boss Hiroshi Yamauchi was reportedly shown a beefed-up alternative version of Pikachu, though the company's American subsidiary stuck with the original designs for its 1998 launch.Not all of the Pokémon were the talk of the playground -- like Metapod, a crescent-shaped chrysalis. Credit: Courtesy The Pokemon CompanyBut while the likes of Pikachu and Bulbasaur stole the limelight -- and made it into the all-important merchandise -- there was strength in sheer diversity. And some among Pokémon's vast cast were neither cute nor fierce. Take Diglett, a crudely-drawn sausage-shaped mole, or Metapod, a droopy-eyed and immobile chrysalis, whose sole ability is hardening its outer shell. All were relatively useless in battle; none were the schoolyard's most sought-after playing cards. But they were part of a complete universe -- one that had something for everyone. In the gender-normative world of 1990s toy marketing, that mattered, Tobin said. "At the toy store (at the time) you had a blue aisle and a pink aisle," he said. "But Pokémon was created to reach across the aisles."The art of localizationWhile the characters' designs remained the same overseas, Pokémon was nonetheless adapted for different markets, especially when it came to language. Cultural references would, inevitably, be lost in translation: Many characters were rooted in Japanese folklore. While audiences in Japan might have recognized the influence of fox spirit Kitsune in Pokémon like Vulpix, or the mythical thunder beast Rajiu in Pikachu's design, these would never translate.A woman browses goods at a Pokémon store in Tokyo. Credit: Behrouz Mehri/AFP/Getty ImagesBut the Pokémon's new names often remained true to the spirit of the originals. Take Sawamura and Ebiwara, who had been named after a Japanese kickboxer and boxer, respectively, but were called Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan in English, a reference to martial artists that kids in the West would recognize: Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan. Or Ivysaur, whose Japanese name Fushigisou combined "fushigi" (strange) and "sou" (grass), resulting in a similar principle being used for the French version: Herbizarre.Some names, like Pikachu, were transliterated more or less directly from the Japanese. But elsewhere there were portmanteaus like Psyduck (a duck with psychic powers), or names that only resonated with speakers of the language in question, like the slothful Slowpoke. There was also puns of varying quality, from the jellyfish-like Tentacool, to Exeggcute, a collection of furious eggs.Psyduck, a duck with psychic abilities. Credit: Courtesy The Pokemon CompanySome were a little less imaginative. There was a horned seal called Seel, and a crab named Krabby. The serpentine Ekans and Arbok were made simply by reversing the words "snake" and "kobra" (sic). But there were moments of linguistic sophistication, too. The game's three "Legendary Birds" were named Articuno, Zapdos and Moltres, with the Spanish suffixes -uno, -dos and -tres reflecting their consecutive order in the Pokédex. An amorphous blob, able to assume the form of anything it saw, was named, appropriately, Ditto.The anime series was also subtly adapted for overseas markets. For instance, human characters were more central to the US version's narrative, because it was believed that "Americans wanted someone to identify with that was more than just bugs and animals," Tobin said. But, he added, Pokémon always retained something quintessentially Japanese."I think the amazing thing is that it wasn't changed that much. Not only was the Japanese-ness not a liability, it was associated with 'cool Japan.' Kids didn't like it because it was Japanese, but they certainly got the idea that it was a little bit exotic," he said, likening it to a type of soft power for the country.'Inter-generational nostalgia'The designs kept on coming. Today, there are almost 900 characters, though many are, arguably, less memorable than their predecessors. Later generations of Pokémon have included Chandelure, a sentient chandelier, Milcery, a cream-based Pokémon resembling a splash of milk, and, inexplicably, a floating keyring called Klefki that is "constantly collecting keys... (and) will protect them no matter what."A Hasbro employee shows off components of the Pokemon Battle Stadium at the company's showroom in New York in February 2000. Credit: Richard Drew/APAffection for the first generation endures, however. The original 151 may represent just a fraction of the Pokédex, but they account for over half of the Pokémon featured in the 2019 movie "Detective Pikachu." In December, a first-edition holographic Charizard card sold for a record $369,000.Tobin, having failed to predict Pokémon's longevity last time around, is more optimistic about the franchise's next 25 years."I was wrong in that I thought Pokémon would, like most kids' media or cultural products, rise and fall and be replaced by the next big thing," he said. "But I think what I, and the other authors in the book, got right was (understanding) what made Pokémon so attractive at the time. And the things that made it attractive were not limited to the culture of the 1990s.Performers dressed as Pikachu during a "Pikachu Outbreak" event hosted bin Yokohama, Japan, in 2018. Credit: Tomohiro Ohsumi/Getty Images"I think it's become one of these very rare products that will, now, never end, because it's so much in the popular imagination," he added. "It has this inter-generational value of nostalgia, in the way that parents who grew up with Barbie now might want to (buy them for) their kids, or people who grew up with baseball cards want to do that with their kids."It becomes self-recognizable -- there's value to its own fame."Top image caption: 1999 (L To R) Pikachu, Psyduck, Togepy, Squirtle In The Animated Movie "Pokemon:The First Movie." Read full article: https://expatimes.com/?p=18465&feed_id=35100

[sharksfood]

so this thought just came into my head and i want to explore it.

in my life i’ve only seen 3 films so far that i read as books before they became movies. im not counting comic books/graphic novels that became movies bcs thats a little different, books that became tv shows, or plays that became movies. but its interesting to think about that.

i didnt read harry potter until well after the films (all of them lmao) were released, i’ve never read how to train your dragon, i’ve never read the hobbit/lotr, the animated alice in wonderland came out in the 50s, i have only recently read the last unicorn, i read World War Z after the movie came out (and ive never seen all of the movie), and i read the neverending story when i was cast in the play.

the books that i read before they came out in film are; The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, Warm Bodies, and Goosebumps.

Goosebumps kind of fits but it was made into a tv series first, and im not sure if i read the books or saw the shows first. i did both, i know that much.

I read Warm Bodies only bcs I wanted to see the movie but thought the book would be cool to read (its amazing and has a completely different feel from the movie), and Lion Witch Wardrobe was bcs my dad read it to me when I was younger. That and The Magician’s Nephew are the only Narnia books ive ever read.

I was going to try and read Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children before the movie came out, but that work out for me.

if you want to count comics and graphic novels, then the list gets bigger. but comics already have the characters drawn out, so unlike books, you dont have an idea in your head on what the character looks like. that is so often changed in film, plus you loose so much detail and nuance when you go book to screenplay to film (this is also true with comics, but its still different)

However, and the biggest reason as to why I’m thinking about this, two movies will be coming out in the next few years, and both of them are based on my favorite books of all time (aside from the alice books of course). 

The first is Captain Underpants! I know that this is a book series with words and pictures, so technically its a graphic novel series, but they’re kids books! and those tend to have an awful lot of pictures. This series was my FAVORITE (other than the alice books) as a kid!! they were fun, hilarious, relatable, and just all around super great. So when i saw the trailer for the animated film that’s coming out this year based on the series i was ECSTATIC!! Were it live-action i would be bummed out since kids picture books usually fair better when animated (im not a fan of the diary of a wimpy kid movies....) but this animation is handled a lot like The Peanuts movie. The animation look like a color and 3D version of the exact art style!! its wonderful and im SO EXCITED

The other one, and this i am VERY VERY nervous about, is Ready Player One. that is my favorite sci-fi novel ever. i often say its my favorite book ever bc it deserves more love! and i do so much love it. ive reread it i dont even know how many times. and what do you know, they’re making it into a movie!! when i heard about this i had so many mixed feelings, and most of it has to do with the style of the book and the characters.

-Ready Player One Spoilers-

In Ready Player One the protagonist starts out as a dirt poor, fat, unattractive teen boy, and later he gets more physically fit/healthy and rich. he claims to still be unattractive at this point (mostly bcs he jues doesnt like how he looks and he looses all his body hair). this is very important to the character! i’m afraid that in this movie hollywood will do as they always do and make him a skinny conventionally attractive teen from the get-go. people will probably pull the Holes excuse of “the filmmakers didnt want to make the actor gain a bunch of weight and then loose it all” BULLSHIT they can cast a fat actor! and through his training and as they film the movie he can loose some weight or they can use movie magic (like when they made chris evans a scrawny little thing). its not that hard, people.

Another character, and this was super important to me and was a big subplot, is that Wade best friend, Aech, whom he only knows through the game (OASIS) plays as a white, straight, guy avatar, but they’re actually a black lesbian named Helen. And she plays this avatar to protect herself and to get a job and be taken seriously within OASIS. is super sad she has to do this, but its a big part of her character. she’s also fat as well, and im REALLY worried that in the movie she’s going to be a skinny straight white girl.

Two other characters who have important characteristics are Art3mis (Samantha) and the creator of OASIS James Halliday. Art3mis is Wade later love interest and GF. She is notable bcs her avatar is just like her, a chubby girl with black hair, but sans her port-wine birthmark. I know they’ll keep her birthmark, since its an intimate reveal, but they’ll probably make her skinny and i hate it. Now it’s only half canon in the books, but i’ve chosen to go with it, but at one point Wade talks about James Halliday’s childhood and his personality and all that, and mentions that he might have been autistic. Now, since it’s only he “might have been” in the books, the filmmakers will probably not make him autistic. That’s fucking sad to me, I mean, it would be amazing!! This character is one of the smartest, most famous, most prolific video game programmers/designers in history!! And he’s autistic! That is some wonderful representation and the filmmakers should jump on that opportunity. It’ll inspire so many autistic people who have a passion for video games to pursue their dreams. But, i have a hunch they wont go with it.

Two other characters, Daito and Shoto, are Japanese young guys who claim to be brothers (and their characters are) but are just friends in the real world. My initial hunch was that the filmmakers would keep them Japanese, but given the recent whitewashing of important Japanese characters, I have my doubts.

My few other concerns are that this movie won’t have 80s pop culture as the main style and focus of the era they book is set in, not to mention OASIS and most of people’s interests. It’s incredibly important to the novel, but so many dystopian movies choose to go with gritty, futuristic, edgy stuff. The other concern is how they will handle the real life vs OASIS look, since over half of the book takes place inside a VR video game. I’ve seen news that they are utilizing VR technology, but i havent read too much. I’m wondering if they’ll animate all of OASIS and the avatars and action and anything in the video game! That would be awesome.

So these are all my thoughts. I havent looks at who they’ve cast yet, so I’m going to do that right now. I do know that Steven Spielberg is directing it, which could be fantastic or terrible. Okay, cast time.

------

So the IMDB doesnt say who is cast as Daito and Shoto, but Wikipedia says that Win Morisaki of PrizmaX will play him, which is great! I hope that’s what happens.

Art3mis/Samantha will be played by Olivia Cooke, who in my opinion is way too old. She’s older than me! The character’s age (i think) isnt mentioned in the book, but she’s got to be 17-20, and Olivia Cooke looks older than that. She’s also not chubby, but hey, maybe they’ll fit that. She also doesnt have the birthmark, but that’s gonna be makeup. (wouldve been cool if they found an actress with a port-wine stain on her face...)

Parzival/Wade will be played by Ty Sheridan. He was Cyclops in X-Men Apocalypse. He’s the right age, but way too fit and attractive. DAMN IT Well, I guess there’s always makeup and special effects, but i’m 80% sure now they wont make Wade fat.....

Aech/Helen will be played by Lena Waithe who is almost PERFECT. She’s much older than Aech, who is around 18, but like Samantha i imagine they’ll have make up and acting to cover it. My biggest concern is that she’s not fat like Aech, which means they’ll use a body suit or effects or Lena will gain weight, or they wont do anything.....

T.J. Miller will be playing I-r0k, who is another OASIS player and a bigtime douchebag jerk. This is perfect. We don’t know his age, or really anything other than his personality and avatar, and T.J. Miller is hilarious so this/ll be great.

Mark Rylance will be playing James Halliday, witch is fine by me. He’s not quite what I imagined, but thats what makeup and wigs are for. He’s worked a lot with Steven Spielberg, so that makes sense as to why he’s cast here. I just hope he can portray an autistic character well and with respect.... (would be better if he IS autistic but ya know.....)

Simon Pegg will be playing Ogden Morrow, the co-creator of OASIS, and thats perfect. No complaints.

Nolan Sorrento (the antagonist of the book and head of operations at Innovative Online Industries) will be played by Ben Mendelsohn, who was Director Krennic in Rouge One. He is much older and not quite and slimy as I imagined him, but this can totally work. I pictured Nolan Sorrento as Andrew Scott in my head, since he seems like the perfect evil, charismatic, slimy, attractive but ugly inside business man.

----

So, after looking at the current casting choices im a little let down, but still excited! I’ll have to wait patienly for the trailer, since this thing is coming out in 2018. Dang, this turned into a Ready Player One post, but its been on my mind recently.

If you read through all of this, good job! let me know what you think! i probably dont talk about Ready Player One very often but thats bcs i dont know anyone in real life (other than my dad) who has read this book, and the online fandom seems nonexistent. Who knows?

But yeah, I guess I made this post bcs I wasn’t able to share the collective nervousness, complaints, and excitement of Harry Potter or LotR or Percy Jackson fans when their fav books became movies.

[english102-1059-blog]

Video Games: The mold in the art world waiting to be broken.

In 2012, the Museum of Modern Art in New York chose to display 14 video games as showcases of art and design. A writer for the Guardian by the name of Jonathan Jones had disagreed with that decision citing that “videogames are not art.” While it may be no surprise that somebody wouldn’t look at a game like Pacman and think “Fine Art,” there are many games, especially now in 2017, that could very much be considered works of art. Jones cites their definition of what art is, and how games do not fit them. His two most striking points being, “A work of art is one person’s reaction to life. Any definition of art that robs it of this inner response by a human creator is a worthless definition. Art may be made with a paintbrush or selected as a ready-made, but it has to be an act of personal imagination.” and his second point being “Chess is a great game, but even the finest chess player in the world isn’t an artist. She is a chess player.” Thus, in a desperate attempt to tear down the possibility of video games being art, Jones made up loose definitions of what “Art” is and uses those definitions to build a wall denying access into the “Art” world.

Art being a person’s reaction to life, implies that the artist had vision, which of course, is true. To imply that Pablo Picasso had no vision or purpose when creating “Guernica” would be false. It is also false to imply that videogames are made with no vision or purpose. A standout example of this is the 2017 release of “Cuphead: Don’t Deal With the Devil.” The creators of Cuphead, Studio MDHR Entertainment, went out of their way to make the game look and sound like a 1930’s era cartoon. The artists hand animated each character, the music is composed with 1930’s trumpets and drums, the game has an old style ‘grainy projector’ filter over all the action, and the voices of the characters were recorded to sound muffled and loud, just like the genesis of voice acted animation. While this is all fantastically stylistic, there are vastly easier ways to make a 2D platform game ala “Super Mario Brothers;” the fact that the developers of Cuphead went out of their way to make the game look and sound the way it does is a perfect example of vision.

Gameplay of Cuphead provided by DarkspinesSonic.

Reiterating on Jones’ definition of art stating “…art is one person’s reaction to life.” brings to mind another game that received critical acclaim in 2016, “That Dragon Cancer.” Director Joel Green, and studio Numinous games created a game where the player, experiences 4 years in the life of Joel Green and his wife, taking care of their newborn child. The catch is that their child was born with a terminal illness. Thanks to the game’s surreal imagery, expertly crafted color pallet, minimalist style, and the interactive aspect of video games (on top of a measly ten dollar price tag), Green and his studio were able to create a palatable way to experience the struggle of taking care of a child that you know, will eventually pass through no control of your own. No other medium is capable of putting the situation into the hands of the audience the way video games can. George Grosz was a masterclass artist portraying the gloomy streets of Berlin during World War 2, his reaction to Hitler’s rule carried impact, imagine how much impact his work could have if the audience could step into the work and walk those streets.

Jones’ final point states “Chess is a great game, but even the finest chess player in the world isn’t an artist. She is a chess player.” This statement is all but weightless. The topic being chess, implies that chess is the work being experienced. The player, is the audience experiencing the chess, thus, not the creator of chess. It is common sense that the player of chess would not be an artist, if we assumed chess was a work of art. The same way the audience watching a movie is not the director of the movie, a person who views or experiences a painting, is not the artist. The person who made the work of art is the artist. The person who created chess, as in the actual rules of the game is the artist. That being said, the player of a videogame is not an artist, that was never the implication; the player is the audience, the game is the work, and the development studio or game director is the artist.

What is most perplexing about Jonathan Jones is how open to what the definition or art really is. In 2017, Jones published an article praising Louis Vuitton for their collaboration with Jeff Koons to print works of fine art on handbags. Yet, in 2014 Jones restates that games are not art and that is an opinion that does not shift within Jones. It could be a case of lack of exposure as Jones cites the 2013 release of “Tomb Raider,” which, while a good game, is not trying to be a game that makes some sort of statement. It was trying to be an entertaining action game. Context is a very important part of defining what is art and what is not. Context is what helped Andy Warhol portray a Campbell’s soup can as a work of pop art. This, blanket approach to games as art the Jones takes is what is hindering his ability to understand why the MoMA would consider putting “Katamari Damacy” on display as a work of “outstanding interaction design”. Art has no true definition, and given enough time, anything can truly be considered a work of art if an artist was dedicated enough to doing it. Alexander Calder, for example, created giant mobiles. As in, the little spinning things you hang over a crib for a baby to look at. The close minded approach that Jones takes on defining art is not only detrimental to his growth as an art goer, this mindset, provided enough pull, could be limiting and detrimental to the art world as a whole.  

-Andre P.

[fulburnedance75-blog]

We Need to Talk About the Twin Peaks Roadhouse

For some, Twin Peaks: The Return has been everything they hoped it would be: Mysterious, terrifying, abstract, funny, romantic, and, perhaps most importantly, weird as absolute fuck. All of the elements that hindered the original series-the fractured tone, soapy theatrics, and general aimlessness-had been cast off in favor of the kind of atmospheric, patchwork storytelling David Lynch came to master in films like Lost Highway, Mulholland Drive, and, to its most extreme extent, Inland Empire. This is bold, ambitious, and joyously frustrating storytelling.

For others, it's been a test of a patience, a viscous swamp of disconnected scenes and illogical characters plodding through a bizarre, peripatetic world. You can't blame them really. I think everyone can remember being annoyed by that farcical murder-robbery sequence in Mulholland Drive when they first saw it. But Lynch fans have come to train themselves to let scenes breathe in lieu of finding the thread. As a million people before have stated much more eloquently, Lynch creates living nightmares, moving images that evoke the broken, unnerving emotions that swirl around the unconscious mind. That's why his work is best viewed uninterrupted-there's a reason there's no chapters on the DVD and Blu-ray releases of Eraserhead and Mulholland Drive.

But that wasn't a possibility for Twin Peaks: The Return, a Showtime miniseries set to unfold over 18 hours. Lynch's inhales and exhales weren't meant to be pondered week-to-week, and while doing so has certainly spawned some fascinating Reddit threads, it's also caused many to lose patience, whether that be with Dougie's monosyllabic antics, Evil Coop's opaque machinations, or, well, all that other stuff. What stuff? You know what stuff. The characters you've probably already forgotten about. The scenes that slipped through your fingers. The quiet revelations eclipsed by Sarah Palmer's appetite or Dale's awakening or, well, an atomic bomb spawning an ancient evil.

Remember Red's magic trick? Or Beverly's sick husband? Or Major Briggs' severed head? Or Carl Rodd's angelic vision? Or Amanda Seyfried even being in this thing? Not everything is going to pay off here, and any fan of Lynch should embrace that. His films almost always leave a few loose threads dangling, but it's those threads that help make rewatches that much more intriguing. To try and grasp the minutiae of Lynch is to stare through a pane of frosted glass; the shapes are there, but the details are fuzzy. For his fans, that's part of the appeal.

This has been especially true of the series' Roadhouse scenes, many of which have featured characters we've never seen discussing characters we've never met. We've seen a few major players pop up there-Shelly, James, and, as of last week, Audrey-but what's become clear is that the Roadhouse is not the place it used to be, and not just because it now has the clout to book the likes of Nine Inch Nails, Chromatics, and Sharon Van Etten.

In the original series, the Roadhouse functioned as both a gathering place and a source of comfort, despite the fact that its owners were involved in both drug trafficking and underaged prostitution. Mysteries were solved there, revelations unfolded, and magic unspooled. In The Return, it remains a gathering place, but something about its core is rotten. The characters we meet there are criminals, losers, and addicts, reflecting a scarred community that's only slipped further and further downhill since Evil Cooper emerged from its woods 25 years previous.

The more things change, the more things stay the same, it seems. Balthazar Getty's Red is running drugs in a manner that seems at least a bit more organized and well-funded than Leo Johnson's rinky-dink operation. Another Renault, Jean-Michel, is still pimping out 15-year old girls via the Roadhouse. Young women like Amanda Seyfried's Becky-a character just about everyone likened to Laura Palmer when she first appeared-are snorting their potential away while dating abusive dopes like Steven-this era's Bobby Briggs. As Richard Horne proves, the next generation of Twin Peaks is the most poisonous of all, and if there's one thing to be taken from these numerous Roadhouse scenes, it's that the community is crumbling as a result. You can see it in the rotting teeth and festering rash of Sky Ferreira's Ella, the gossiping of Abbie and Natalie, and in the fights that can't seem to stop breaking out. It's a fight, after all, that shatters the dream that was Audrey's Dance in Part 16.

In the original series, Twin Peaks was an idyllic vista with a violent undercurrent. Now, that violence is oozing from the grass, infecting its populace. There's a reason the drunk in the jail cell is rotting from the inside out and the girl in the car is bleeding out on the floor of her mom's car. There's a reason we have dirty cops now when the police station was once a paragon of virtue, a place so infectiously good-natured that it brought a cynic like Albert Rosenfield to his knees. It's telling that the most important place we've seen in Twin Peaks so far this season has been Jack Rabbit's Palace, a creation of the imagination.

But the Roadhouse contains multitudes, and online communities have debated its significance since the first few episodes aired. There's Audrey's connection to it, and the belief that the characters we're seeing there are actually manifestations of her own dissociative identity disorder. Zeroing in on this idea are several theories pointing to the possibility that Audrey is actually Tina, the woman who people claim was the last to see the vanished Billy alive. Not sure how deeply I buy this one, necessarily, but here's a few threads that elaborate, should you be so interested. Considering how Audrey's Dance concluded at the close of last week's episode, we're bound to find out come this Sunday.

Others have pointed to the idea that at least some of the Roadhouse scenes are this series' version of Invitation to Love, the in-show soap opera of the first two seasons. Hearing about the interlocking relationships, infidelities, and general gossip of Tina, Billy, Paul, Angela, Clark, and Mary is both a reference to the show's soapy roots and a way to paint a larger portrait of a town that, over the last 25 years, has seen drama surface in the way it does in all small towns. As Rolling Stone puts it, this approach also applies to that frustrating first glimpse we got of Audrey Horne and the mysterious Charlie: The idea behind these climactic 'scenes from a small town' conversations is the same one animating Audrey and Charlie's argument. This idea is that everyone we meet has a story that sprawls out unseen in all directions, and at any moment we're only aware of a tiny fraction of it.

Lynch has said time and again that he loves the world of Twin Peaks and with The Return wanted the space to explore it again. Maybe that means he wanted moments like these, slices of life that lead in no particular direction. Or, hey, maybe they do all point to larger mystery that we're yet to fully comprehend. If nothing else, they've at least given us some beautiful music. Regardless, let's take a look at each Roadhouse scene one-by-one. These don't include music-only scenes, FYI, but that shouldn't stop you from revisiting Sharon Van Etten's gorgeous rendition of Tarifa.

__________________________________________________________

Part 2

What Happens: Shelly (Mdchen Amick) drinks with her friends, lamenting her daughter's boyfriend, Steven Burnett. What? Everybody loves Steven, says Renee (Jessica Szohr). That's when James Hurley (James Marshall) arrives with a Brit wearing a green glove named Freddie Sykes (Jake Wardle). Shelly says James was in a motorcycle accident, and defends him when some of her friends take shots at him. James is still cool, she says. He's always been cool.

James makes eyes at Renee, who's into it. Meanwhile, Shelly is getting eyed by a handsome newcomer named Red (Balthazar Getty), who mimes shooting her. Given that this is the ex of both Leo Johnson and Bobby Briggs, she is predictably smitten. Shelly just loves those bad boys.

Eagle-eyed fans will also notice Walter Olkewicz, the man who played Jacques Renault, tending bar, though the credits reveal that it's not the long-deceased Jacques, but Jean-Michel. Those Renaults breed like rabbits, it appears.

What It Means: Unlike other Roadhouse scenes, this one exists mainly to broaden the world, introduce some relationships, and, most importantly, reintroduce some familiar faces after two hours of Black Lodging and New York mystery boxes. What's easy to miss on the first watch, however, is the positive characterization of Steven, which is surprising in retrospect considering he seems to carry himself like the abusive, unemployed, drug-abusing dickhead he is.

Who's Onstage: Chromatics, playing Shadow

__________________________________________________________

Part 5

What Happens: Richard Horne (Eamon Farren) smokes a cigarette below a No Smoking sign, causing the manager, Frederico (Vincent Castellanos), to come over and tell him to put it out. Chad Broxford (John Pirruccello), who we've briefly met as a deputy in the Twin Peaks police department, says he'll handle it. Richard gives him his pack of cigarettes, which is filled with cash. Clearly, Chad is helping Richard with some kind of illegal activity.

When Chad leaves, a girl named Charlotte (Grace Victoria Cox) asks Richard for a light. He asks her to sit by him; after she does, he grabs her violently, growling, You wanna fuck me, Charlotte? You wanna fuck? I'm gonna laugh when I fuck you, bitch. Charlotte's friend, Elizabeth (Jane Levy), tells Richard to leave her alone, but he holds on. That the scene ends here makes it that much more terrifying.

What It Means: This is our first glimpse of Richard and he pretty much immediately establishes himself as a goddamned psychopath. Twin Peaks was always a dark place, but never was violence flaunted as flagrantly as it is here. In the old days, someone like Big Ed would've been on Richard in a second. Here, the people at the next table over don't even notice. Charlotte's friends don't leave their booth. Nobody helps her, and the scene ends with her still wrapped in Richard's arms, his laughs burbling beneath the bleating music.

Couple all of this with the fact that Richard is collaborating with a corrupt cop and it becomes clear that this is not the Twin Peaks we used to know.

Who's Onstage: Trouble, playing Snake Eyes

__________________________________________________________

Part 7

What Happens: A dude sweeps the floor for two-and-a-half minutes before Renault takes a phone call. I sent him two blondes, he says before revealing he's speaking about two 15-year old prostitutes. He calls them straight-A whores in the same oily tone Jacques used when skeezing all over Laura in Fire Walk With Me. It's sick shit.

What It Means: That there's always a new evil to replace an old one. Despite the Renault family being more or less decimated across the first two seasons, more sprouted in their place to keep the family business trucking along. The same darkness that consumed Laura Palmer 25 years ago is still at work here, consuming more and more young girls with every passing year.

Who's Onstage: No one, but Booker T. & the M.G.'s plays on the jukebox.

__________________________________________________________

Part 9

What Happens: Two women, Chloe (Karolina Wydra) and Ella (Sky Ferreira) share a beer and giggle about what we're assuming is drugs in a coded language. They both look drugged-out, especially Ella with her rotten teeth and horrible complexion. Ella laments losing her job serving burgers for coming into work high, but then says she got another job across the street serving burgers. Ella also has a disgusting rash that she can't stop scratching.

What It Means: It's easy to imagine these pair of girls as former prostitutes that aged out of the Renault's operation; now, they have nothing to do but serve burgers, do drugs, and giggle about the local drug trends. It's a vision of how the town's darkness is creating a generation of wasted potential and bodies that are more or less disintegrating before our very eyes. Ella's rash, which Lynch emphasizes by dialing up the sound of her itching, could very well be a harbinger of the zombie-like behavior exhibited by locals in future episodes.

The coded language is also relevant. You know that zebra's out again? Chloe asks. Later, Ella asks Chloe, Have you seen that penguin? Both animals are black and white, a detail that many online have associated with the Black and White Lodges. Whether or not that's the intent, it certainly shows that Red's supply is running rampant.

Some have also pointed out that Ella's rash is on her left side, the side that tends to go numb for characters connecting with the Lodge. It's also the same arm that MIKE cut off. Make of that what you will.

Who's Onstage: Hudson Mohawke, playing Human

Later, Au Revoir Simone returns to play A Violent Yet Flammable World

__________________________________________________________

Part 12

What Happens: Abbie (Elizabeth Anweis) and Natalie (Ana de la Reguera) gossip about some mutual acquaintances. Angela and Clark are a thing, Natalie says, but Abbie saw Clark and Mary making out at the Roadhouse two nights previous. Natalie mentions that Angela is off her meds and has recently lost her mom in a way that's driving her crazy.

Soon, an older dude named Trick (Scott Coffey) shows up, saying he was run off the road and almost killed. After he goes to get a beer, Natalie says he's no longer under house arrest, which causes Abbie to express romantic interest in him.

What It Means: This is one that we'd probably be wise not to overthink, as to do so will only lead you into dead end after dead end. None of the characters they discuss are mentioned elsewhere, nor do they hint towards any larger mystery in the Twin Peaks universe. Obviously, there's a touch of menace in the fate of Angela's mother, but the description is so vague that it's difficult to summon any kind of specific instance.

Now, to overthink it: This conversation occurs during the same episode as Audrey Horne's (Sherilyn Fenn) first appearance, during which she's concerned about her own lover, Billy. Audrey says a woman named Tina was the last person to see him. Later, we find out Tina was also having an affair with Billy, despite being married. This makes the situation a love triangle in much the same manner as the Angela/Mary/Clark situation. That Angela is off her meds could also have resonance here, what with Audrey acting like someone who very well could be on meds. Here's where the theories of the Roadhouse characters being extensions of Audrey's own mind have a bit of credence-are they somehow directly linked with Audrey's mind, or do they exist simply to accent Audrey's narrative arc?

Fuck if I know.

Who's Onstage: Chromatics, playing Saturday

__________________________________________________________

Part 13

What Happens: James sings Twin Peaks camp classic You and I to a rapt audience that includes Renee. By song's end, she's in tears. Sparks, baby; they're flying.

What It Means: No matter what happens to James, the dude remains a stone-cold romantic. Also, Renee is way, way into him.

Who's Onstage: James Hurley, playing You and I

__________________________________________________________

Part 14

What Happens: Sophie (Emily Stofle) accuses Megan (Shane Lynch) of getting high at the nuthouse. Megan says she's been getting high in her own room and also reveals she stole her sweater from someone named Paula. Here, we find out that Megan was with her mom the last time she saw Billy. She says Billy jumped a six-foot fence and ran into their house with blood pouring from his mouth.

Sophie asks what Megan's mom's name is and, after a long pause, Megan says it's Tina. This revelation is met with some ominous music, though it's unclear why. Megan says Tina had a thing with Billy. She also can't remember if her uncle was there or not.

What It Means: When I first watched this scene I was struck by Megan's repetition of how she wasn't sure if her uncle was present during Billy's arrival. That uncertainty, coupled with the scene's languid pace and freaky music, gives the whole thing a dreamlike feel, as if we're unmoored from reality. In many ways, the scene is the closest thing this season of Twin Peaks has to Mulholland Drive's terrifyingly iconic diner scene.

This description of Billy having blood pouring from his mouth has caused many to believe that he's the drunk in the Twin Peaks Police Station's holding cell. That man, if you recall, evokes the dying girl Bobby sees in the honking woman's car, as both are similarly bloody.

More connections to Audrey's story can be found here as well, though the most interesting theory I've seen online regarding this scene concerns the nuthouse. In Part 10, a song plays beneath Richard's assault of his mother and brother; one Reddit user pointed out that it's Charmaine, which is off the soundtrack to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, probably the quintessential nuthouse film. That's a pretty deliberate choice and this revelation has been used to float the theory that Audrey's mother's house is the nuthouse, as it contains both the mentally disabled Johnny Horne and Audrey, who in this theory is suffering her own mental disorder. Could this again point to Tina and Audrey being the same person? If so, that would make Megan Audrey's daughter and Richard's brother. Curious stuff.

Who's Onstage: Lissie, playing Wild West

__________________________________________________________

Part 15

What Happens: We've got two in this episode. The first finds James and Freddie saying hi to Renee, who sits with her husband Chuck (Rod Rowland), as well as Skipper (Casey O'Neill) and an unknown brunette woman. James stupidly replies to Chuck's anger by saying he likes Renee (god, what a dolt) and getting slugged in the face for it. In James' defense, Freddie uses his magic green glove to lightly bop both men; in keeping with his description of the glove's powers, though, that pop pretty much scrambles their brains. James apologizes to Renee, saying that Chuck's eyes don't look right.

What It Means: Really, the scene just serves as proof that Freddie's bizarre story about his magic glove is actually true. On a deeper level, however, it serves as a further testament to Twin Peaks' culture of violence overflowing that much more. Sure, James is dumb to say hi to Renee when she's out with her husband, but Chuck's anger is volcanic and his leap to violence is almost instantaneous.

Also, more love triangles. And, if Audrey's Charlie is to be believed, Chuck is also the name of Tina's husband, who she describes as insane. Also, Charlie and Chuck are the same name. Also, the name of the actor who plays Charlie is Clark Middleton. There was a Clark mixed up in here somewhere. Lynch is just trolling us isn't he?

What Happens: At the end of the episode, Ruby (Charlene Yi) is forcibly removed from a booth by two huge bikers, who throw her to the ground. Ruby sits on the ground for a moment before crawling into a sea of legs. Slowly, the formation of legs increases around her until she's totally trapped. Then, she screams.

What It Means: Twin Peaks is not a safe place. It's a downright dangerous one for women. What we see with her is Laura Palmer, Ronette Pulaski, and various others in microcosm: After being displaced by men, the woman crawls for safety into the darkness only to find something much, much worse hiding there. Yi's scream here reminded me of Laura's in the Black Lodge. Truly chilling.

Who's Onstage: The Veils, playing axolotl

__________________________________________________________

Part 16

What Happens: Audrey and Charlie arrive at the Roadhouse. Charlie orders martinis. Audrey looks uncomfortable. Eddie Vedder finishes his song. Charlie proposes a toast to us, to which Audrey replies, to Billy. Then, the MC announces, Ladies and gentlemen, Audrey's Dance. The band plays her song from the original series. The dance floor clears for her. Audrey is hesitant. And what unfolds is a stranger, more elaborate version of the dance that once beguiled America. Everything's kinda perfect until another burst of violence shatters the illusion; it's more infidelity, a fight between a cuckold and an adulterer. Audrey runs to Charlie and tells him it's time to leave. That's when she snaps awake in a white room, staring in a mirror, muttering what over and over again.

What It Means: We'll find out next week, but the fact that the jazz band bega