Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[yaxomoxay]

I see.. so its a case that you genuinly like toothpaste in your Orange juice?

No, and I reject your analogy. I simply like something you don't.

Ahh and around it goes....

O.k.

Let me ask you this...

Do you deny that Season three alters the tone and meaning of seasons one and two??

I see.. so its a case that you genuinly like toothpaste in your Orange juice?

What a silly question.
It's more like a Pepperoni pizza. The base is a regular Margherita/cheese pizza, then you add the Pepperoni. If you like Pepperoni pizza it doesn't mean that you dislike the base pizza (Margherita).
You like the Margherita pizza, we like both the Margherita and the Pepperoni pizza.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not a silly question....

I shall ask you the same...

Do you deny that Season three alters the tone and meaning of seasons one and two??

As I explained earlier, this question is totally meaningless. In a show like TP each future episode is going to alter the tone of the previous episodes. Leland's reflection completely changed S1 and part of S2. FWWM changed everything. Major Briggs changed not only Bobby, but TP as a whole. Cooper in the lodge changed Laura's dream. There is no way around. Even missing pieces change stuff. So, if you want to leave things as they are you're asking for status quo, and the only way to obtain that in TP is by doing nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RedRum]

Politics aside, I agree with a lot of what you're saying and share your anguish. Some of the staunchest supporters of TPTR don't seem to hold the original TP in as high a regard as us older fans who watched it countless times and cherish it for its flawed beauty. I'm even getting the feeling that Lynch himself is almost being resentful to fans who adored the original, since it wasn't purely his vision in the first place. Instead, he's taking it back, so to speak, pushing it farther and farther away from its roots and towards what he thinks he should be doing now in accordance with how' he perceives himself and what critics expect of him, rather than honoring and enhancing the best aspects of the original. A sad, sad situation for us old fans.

Yeah, I think it really depends on how much you really got the orriginal.

For the people that not only understood what was going on in the show but also could expand upon the different quirks of the show.

What we really wanted was to know what happened to the characters, their stories, where have they been what have they been up to... I think this is fundamental to why Season three fails to deliver. They wasted all the time they had in filler...

Season three is like a pass the parcel package.... lots of wrapping with a really crappy cheap present at the centre.

[RedRum]

Do you deny that Season three alters the tone and meaning of seasons one and two??

As I explained earlier, this question is totally meaningless.

No it isn't.. its a straight question.

A simply yes or no would suffice, though I would love to know why its one or the other.

[yaxomoxay]

As I explained earlier, this question is totally meaningless.

No it isn't.. its a straight question.

A simply yes or no would suffice, though I would love to know why its one or the other.

It doesn't suffice at all. And I explained why.
Example:
Big Ed and Norma.
Season 1 and 2, we know the story.
Season 3: they are not together, tone of their story (from S1) is sadness.
Season 3: they are together, tone of their story (from S1) is happiness.

What you are asking is simple: doing nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[N. Needleman]

I cannot see how anyone who loved the original show could reconcile the absolute incoherent mess that is Season three.

I'm sorry to hear that, but your lack of understanding is not my problem or responsibility.

You are either not getting how Season three ruins the original or you are not getting the nuance of the original.

No, it's neither - I just disagree with you. I just think you're wrong. And I am not obligated to meet your standard of understanding or validate your argument. That's life.

[starmand]

Politics aside, I agree with a lot of what you're saying and share your anguish. Some of the staunchest supporters of TPTR don't seem to hold the original TP in as high a regard as us older fans who watched it countless times and cherish it for its flawed beauty. I'm even getting the feeling that Lynch himself is almost being resentful to fans who adored the original, since it wasn't purely his vision in the first place. Instead, he's taking it back, so to speak, pushing it farther and farther away from its roots and towards what he thinks he should be doing now in accordance with how' he perceives himself and what critics expect of him, rather than honoring and enhancing the best aspects of the original. A sad, sad situation for us old fans.

Yeah, I think it really depends on how much you really got the orriginal.

For the people that not only understood what was going on in the show but also could expand upon the different quirks of the show.

What we really wanted was to know what happened to the characters, their stories, where have they been what have they been up to... I think this is fundamental to why Season three fails to deliver. They wasted all the time they had in filler...

Season three is like a pass the parcel package.... lots of wrapping with a really crappy cheap present at the centre.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that it's possible for some folks to like the original Twin Peaks and Season Three? Your incessant assertions that only you truly understood the original show and that no one who understood and loved the original could possibly enjoy Season Three are tiring and offensive. Not to mention your ridiculous assertion that "The younger you are the more likely you are to appreciate superficial elements over depth." Care to back that up with any evidence? Or is it just your garden-variety, "You youngsters get off my lawn!" sort of bullshit?

I'm very interested in hearing the reasons why folks aren't enjoying Season Three, but I don't understand why you have to constantly insult the intelligence of those of us who are.

[Mallard]

I cannot see how anyone who loved the original show could reconcile the absolute incoherent mess that is Season three.

There is some series disconnect... its a contradiction.

You are either not getting how Season three ruins the original or you are not getting the nuance of the original.

You simply cannot get one and both as they are diametrically opposed to one another.

RedRum, just to clarify, would I be mischaracterizing your position to say that you believe those of us who like both the original and the The Return:
- are not sufficiently (intellectually or emotionally) connected to the brilliance of the original; or perhaps
- are just casual Twin Peaks fans, and not real Die Hards?

Put more succinctly, would you say that, all in all, we just aren't "getting it?"

[RedRum]

No it isn't.. its a straight question.

A simply yes or no would suffice, though I would love to know why its one or the other.

It doesn't suffice at all. And I explained why.
Example:
Big Ed and Norma.
Season 1 and 2, we know the story.
Season 3: they are not together, tone of their story (from S1) is sadness.
Season 3: they are together, tone of their story (from S1) is happiness.

What you are asking is simple: doing nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The example you give which is of course the Big Ed and Norma story arch... what we got in seasons one and two was a deep love triangle which ended in an interesting often sad often funny but always interesting story line that played out throughout the entire series..

I genuinely cried when Nadine woke up from her psychosis and realised she was about to lose Ed for real....

That to....

Ed and Norma exchange a couple of lines and an awkward glance in the ENTIRE season...

No story... no idea what happened... nada nothing zip...

But thats not by least the only thing missing from Season Three that changes the orriginal... The strange darkness in the woods is a price they pay for good side.... there is NO good side to the town at all... there is nothign left of what endured people to the place.... No Bookhouse boys.... No whittling whistles... or fishing or sitting by a fire in the greatnorthern.... The great nothern has been reduced to the waterfall and Ben's office....

There is no Sense of Place.... It just all feel like its well as I said earlier a David Lynch Sketch show...

You want to know what had more story that Season three... This....

[RedRum]

I cannot see how anyone who loved the original show could reconcile the absolute incoherent mess that is Season three.

I'm sorry to hear that, but your lack of understanding is not my problem or responsibility.

You are either not getting how Season three ruins the original or you are not getting the nuance of the original.

No, it's neither - I just disagree with you. I just think you're wrong. And I am not obligated to meet your standard of understanding or validate your argument. That's life.

There is an element of people on the internet that think they should stand up to others and oppose them with no logic...

I offer you the reasons why season three is irrevocably detraction from the original and that if you loved the original it means that you cannot reconcile the two series....

You just say sorry I don't agree... If you want to just stand up to someone on the internet who you think is just trying to stand up to you then go and argue with a wall....

[N. Needleman]

I don't understand why you have to constantly insult the intelligence of those of us who are.

It's the hurt feelings I've been hearing about for 160+ pages.

I offer you the reasons why season three is irrevocably a detraction from the orriginal and that if you loved the orriginal it means that you cannot reconcile the two series....

I've discussed my feelings about this series, what I like about and why at length week to week. They're in my post history and you are welcome to read them. I am under no obligation to mount an impromptu defense to satisfy your or anyone else's feelings of grievance.

[yaxomoxay]

No it isn't.. its a straight question.

A simply yes or no would suffice, though I would love to know why its one or the other.

It doesn't suffice at all. And I explained why.
Example:
Big Ed and Norma.
Season 1 and 2, we know the story.
Season 3: they are not together, tone of their story (from S1) is sadness.
Season 3: they are together, tone of their story (from S1) is happiness.

What you are asking is simple: doing nothing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The example you give which is of course the Big Ed and Norma story arch... what we got in seasons one and two was a deep love triangle which ended in an interesting often sad often funny but always interesting story line that played out throughout the entire series..

I genuinely cried when Nadine woke up from her psychosis and realised she was about to lose Ed for real....

That to....

Ed and Norma exchange a couple of lines and an awkward glance in the ENTIRE season...

No story... no idea what happened... nada nothing zip...

But thats not by least the only thing missing from Season Three that changes the orriginal... The strange darkness in the woods is a price they pay for good side.... there is NO good side to the town at all... there is nothign left of what endured people to the place.... No Bookhouse boys.... No whittling whistles... or fishing or sitting by a fire in the greatnorthern.... The great nothern has been reduced to the waterfall and Ben's office....

There is no Sense of Place.... It just all feel like its well as I said earlier a David Lynch Sketch show...

You prove my point.
A couple of lines by Ed and Norma were enough to change the entire story arc. 25 years later just answering to the question if they are together or not is sufficient to change the original story arc (if you really can't exclude S3 from your mind). From now on you will watch S1 and S2 knowing that Ed and Norma will not be together... looking at that brief moment of happiness caused by a brain injury is now different.
How could you expect a new season/movie/snapshot not to change the tone of things, I don't know. Reading your posts it seems to me that you set up yourself for disappointment in a way that no one else here did. The common complaint here - which is legitimate - is that the direction isn't good. Yours is that... there is a direction!
You look down at us S3 lovers, yet you can't understand a simple fact of Twin Peaks: the future will always modify the past. Always. The only way to keep things even remotely similar is to sit down on a chair, like Cooper in the black lodge, for 25 years.
Since you had no interest in change, you committed the cardinal sin: you let your curiosity take the best of you, and watched S3. You should have not watched it. Not a second of it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mtwentz]

I cannot see how anyone who loved the original show could reconcile the absolute incoherent mess that is Season three.

I'm sorry to hear that, but your lack of understanding is not my problem or responsibility.

You are either not getting how Season three ruins the original or you are not getting the nuance of the original.

No, it's neither - I just disagree with you. I just think you're wrong. And I am not obligated to meet your standard of understanding or validate your argument. That's life.

There is an element of people on the internet that think they should stand up to others and oppose them with no logic...

I offer you the reasons why season three is irrevocably detraction from the original and that if you loved the original it means that you cannot reconcile the two series....

You just say sorry I don't agree... If you want to just stand up to someone on the internet who you think is just trying to stand up to you then go and argue with a wall....

Arguing opinion is useless. One piece of art speaks to one person; it does not speak to another. There is no accounting for tastes, likes and dislikes. This is something I learned in Economics 101.

For example I think the 'puking creamed corn with the Red Curtains in front of Dougie and Bad Coop' was an epic scene and very much line with the spirit of the original (and especially in the spirit of FWWM). Extremely well done, especially with the car lighter emanating energy while Bad Coop is trying to drive the car. The sound, the feel, everything in that scene was totally Twin Peaks IMO.

But if that scene was irritating to someone else, yeah I understand that too. It is a very strange and not everybody is going to understand it the way I do. And if some people thinks it radically changes the legacy of Twin Peaks- well, that's there opinion. I can refer them to the creamed corn eating scenes above the convenience store in FWWM, but I can't make them agree with me.

That is just one example of many scenes in The Return that I find divine, but which might bore, repulse or otherwise cause no pleasure in others. And that's OK, there's certainly a lot of choices for viewers these days.

[N. Needleman]

Understanding someone feels differently does not necessitate having to apologize for yourself.

[RedRum]

I've discussed my feelings about this series

I didn't ask you how you feel...

I asked you how you think... and the question still stands...

Do you deny that Season three alters the tone and meaning of seasons one and two??

[RedRum]

A couple of lines by Ed and Norma were enough to change the entire story arc. 25 years later just answering to the question if they are together or not is sufficient to change the original story arc (if you really can't exclude S3 from your mind).

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I absolutely whole hearlily disagree....

On the subject of food... you're saying a wiff of roast beef is enough to fill the belly....

I'm telling you that much of what made twin peaks was in the detail and interactions with the characters.... Take that away and you have an empty shell of a series...