Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[eyeboogers]

Lynch is, in my view, sticking two fingers up to a lot of us in The Return. Can't we do the same?

Amen.

Well you haven't yet any idea about what Lynch is doing. The producer of the series has stated that it is not possible to properly appreciate or contextualise everything that came before prior to seeing the finale, why distrust that?. Misstwrt, I am a bit surprised by your response, since I generally really appreciate your posts and observations and see you in other threads, so I don't understand why you think certain people aren't supposed to be in this thread. No, I don't think we need to have a thread to spew venom nor sycophantic praise (or Black Lodge/White Lodge). I think we should all be here because we want to discuss, not be in some bubble.

[depechehenke]

But maybe we don't want to discuss? Maybe we just want to vent our frustration? Why is that so hard to understand?

[waferwhitemilk]

I think the producer even stated that you can't properly appreciate or understand TP:TR until the year 2075 at the very least, when a very secret safebox will be opened with papers explaining exactly what TP:TR was all about. So please guys, until that wonderful time: silencio!

[depechehenke]

I think the producer even stated that you can't properly appreciate or understand TP:TR until the year 2075 at the very least, when a very secret safebox will be opened with papers explaining exactly what TP:TR was all about. So please guys, until that wonderful time: silencio!

[boske]

Lynch is, in my view, sticking two fingers up to a lot of us in The Return. Can't we do the same?

Amen.

Well you haven't yet any idea about what Lynch is doing. The producer of the series has stated that it is not possible to properly appreciate or contextualise everything that came before prior to seeing the finale, why distrust that?

Do you have a link to that statement. It is not that I do not believe you, I do, but I'd like to read that article for sure.

Also, saying that "we haven't yet any idea" is fine with me, I do not find it "offensive" or whatever. I'd like to point out that if one of us from the disappointed thread said something like that here, let alone in the mainstream threads, that we'd already be in big trouble. But we're not like that. I am not, for sure. I really hate it when people have to measure each and every word so as to not offend one of seven billion people living on this planet. That sucks, honestly.

For me, waiting for six parts to be over before I get to start to criticize it was fair.

Waiting for the whole thing to be over without talking of having noticed certain things that I think are intentionally there to mess with us in an uninvited way, would be akin to letting Chantal and Hutch torture us for 17 hours, and then finally having Lynch tell us that it was all a dream he dreamed when he fell asleep in his Ford Escort convertible in New Mexico midday time.

[judasbooth]

Lynch is, in my view, sticking two fingers up to a lot of us in The Return. Can't we do the same?

Amen.

Well you haven't yet any idea about what Lynch is doing. The producer of the series has stated that it is not possible to properly appreciate or contextualise everything that came before prior to seeing the finale, why distrust that?. Misstwrt, I am a bit surprised by your response, since I generally really appreciate your posts and observations and see you in other threads, so I don't understand why you think certain people aren't supposed to be in this thread. No, I don't think we need to have a thread to spew venom nor sycophantic praise (or Black Lodge/White Lodge). I think we should all be here because we want to discuss, not be in some bubble.

Good grief...
To reiterate (for the umpteenth time), the people posting here are not doing so in order to somehow convince fans of the new series that they are wrong, in denial, stupid, delusional etc. This thread is a place for disappointed fans of Twin Peaks to share that disappointment. We do it here because doing it on the main thread would be seen as trolling and starting unnecessary arguments. If you want to discuss your appreciation of the show, there are plenty of other places to do so. I don't hate Lynch, I don't hate the people that like the new show, I just don't like the show. And I'm not the only one.
To say that people who don't like the show feel that way because "they don't yet have any idea what Lynch is doing" is unbelievably condescending. I don't like the show not because I don't understand it, but because it is riddled with (in my view) massive flaws, is badly written and shot, and is tonally unpleasant. I, and many other here have laid out the myriad reasons why we don't like the show - lack of comprehension is not one of them. Understand?
Even if the last episode turns out to be the greatest hour of TV ever made, it will not change the fact that the preceding episodes have been a tedious, mean-spirited and shoddily produced. You may think differently. That's up to you. Honestly, I have no idea why you even go to the trouble of posting in this thread. Seriously, what do you hope to achieve, aside from riling up the other posters in here?

[referendum]

The producer of the series has stated that it is not possible to properly appreciate or contextualise everything that came before prior to seeing the finale

i don't buy this. Even if the finale was the entire cast of Twin Peaks doing a massive conga line down snoqualmie high street, led by david bowie playing maracas, and if Dale came out of Dougie and got chosen as the new Dalai Llama, it would not alter the 14 hours we have so far retro-actively, which have been - to date - where the problems have already been identified, and which a fair few people have had strong reservations about , which have been very articulately represented in this Group. And the disappointment has been about what is NOT there ( the feel and warmth and tone and detail and characterisation and sense of community and conversational dialogue ( there are hardly any conversations in this new TP, it is mostly just characters spouting monologues at each other) of the first two seasons, not only about what people have felt is wrong with what IS there ( so far). Whatever the last episode does, it won't change what has already happened.

[mlsstwrt]

Lynch is, in my view, sticking two fingers up to a lot of us in The Return. Can't we do the same?

Amen.

Well you haven't yet any idea about what Lynch is doing. The producer of the series has stated that it is not possible to properly appreciate or contextualise everything that came before prior to seeing the finale, why distrust that?. Misstwrt, I am a bit surprised by your response, since I generally really appreciate your posts and observations and see you in other threads, so I don't understand why you think certain people aren't supposed to be in this thread. No, I don't think we need to have a thread to spew venom nor sycophantic praise (or Black Lodge/White Lodge). I think we should all be here because we want to discuss, not be in some bubble.

Thank you eyeboogers.

I'm not trying to say people don't belong in this thread, not at all. Site admin and mods can take care of stuff like that, I have no right to say people shouldn't be in the thread.

As I said my only gripe is that this isn't really a debate thread. So I don't understand why anybody would take umbrage when we do vent or express disappointment in Lynch, The Return, etc. I genuinely don't understand what it is you're unhappy with about this thread. As Venus said of course we are going to discuss this as it goes along, otherwise there wouldn't be any threads!

I do agree with whoever said that Mulholland Drive became genius because of the denouement. But I was still gripped by that film even before the finale. The Return isn't going to go from a bad show (again, just in our subjective opinion) because the last couple of episodes put everything that went before into context. A lot of the criticisms of The Return cannot be remedied by what comes from now on. Of course if the last few episodes are amazing it's going to make the show, in its entirety, better. But it's not going to fix everything that's been wrong so far. Others have explained this far better than I am.

So in summary I'm not saying any people shouldn't be here (except the trolls). I'm just baffled that you and certain others think this entire thread is somehow redundant, just like I'm not saying any of the other threads are redundant.

I think I'm just saying the same thing again and again. Generally I'm grateful that so many people have chosen to post here and that they find the thread interesting. Some of the contributions on both sides have been fantastic.

At the same time suggesting (not you) that we're somehow begging people to stick around here is a bit much. I hope people stay but not if they're going to get personally offended or keep telling us the thread is pointless.

[mlsstwrt]

The producer of the series has stated that it is not possible to properly appreciate or contextualise everything that came before prior to seeing the finale

i don't buy this. Even if the finale was the entire cast of Twin Peaks doing a massive conga line down snoqualmie high street, led by david bowie playing maracas, and if Dale came out of Dougie and got chosen as the new Dalai Llama, it would not alter the 14 hours we have so far retro-actively, which have been - to date - where the problems have already been identified, and which a fair few people have had strong reservations about : alot of the disappointment has been about what is NOT there, not only about what IS there.

Yes, exactly.

Going off topic a bit - I'm just interested. Do people think that the world (and America in particular) is a much uglier, nastier place than it was in 1990? Is the TP we have now reflective of the way the world (especially America) has changed? I personally do but maybe that has more to do with me than the world, I don't know.

[mlsstwrt]

Sorry for my consecutive posts (still blaming sleep deprivation).

One thing that does interest me is how AWARE Lynch is of the way fans perceive TP, the gripes, they have, etc. I always kind of imagined Lynch as not really paying a lot of attention to fans' reaction to Twin Peaks. But The Return shows he is very aware. Maybe Lynch even reads Dugpa!

[referendum]

One of the reservations people have had about this series, for instance, has been the extent to which David Lynch has made himself one of the central characters in his own Drama - the story is about him solving his own mystery - and this kind of self-relflexive ' meta ' aspect, where it becomes the David Lynch revue show, and part of the game is ' Lynch spotting' which bits of other parts of old Lynch projects and 'Lynchisms' ( here's abit of eraserhead, here's abit of Ronnie Rocket, here's Lynch enjoying some wine and a James Bond girl, here's a version of a short film idea i have from 2006, etc) - has been something which, for alot of people, places them outside the story , and tests people's patience to be the point of being alienating. No amount of plot resolution and fancy pyrotechnics in the last few hours are going to undo that. That is how this thing has been put together. We can argue about the pro's and cons of that til the cows come home, or talk about Fellini's 8 1/2, or other film precedents for film makers putting themselves at the centre of their own work, or about the structural precedents in ' picaresque ' fictions like don quixote or tristram shandy that are episodic and proceed by anecdote and digression as much as by plot, but that does not alter the observation that the first twin peaks did NOT do that - it explored and constructed fictional situations and remained true to it's own world, without having the film-maker constantly tapping you on the shoulder and reminding you that it was all artifice and representation in the mind of some guy living in LA with a phone book full of famous friends. TP TR is a different animal to series 1 and 2.

@misstwrt

'Is the TP we have now reflective of the way the world (especially America) has changed?

i have said this before, but going back to what i remember of my response to the first series, in 1989, it seemed then to be a response to the world around it, at least in part, the re-purposing of Peyton Place type soap opera, and all the new age tibetan buddhist stuff, were very current then, so to me as a viewer at the time, that seemed like a satirical or at least ironic comment on stuff that was happening in the world at the time. And going back to eraserhead, Lynch has always said that came from his impressions of Philadelphia as a scary hostile place, so I think Lynch has always had this sense of ' a cruel world ' vs ' a safe place' / innocence - which has been presented in a very polarised and often quite clumsy way in this series. The 18 hours has meant that he has had time to be alot more explicit and anecdotal about this than was possible in a 2 or 3 hour movie. Things that in a shorter film would have just been implied have been spelt out. And Mark Frost seems alot more concerned with ' sci-fi lore and back stories, than with character. Narrative cracks have been deliberately exposed rather than smoothed over. Their concerns have not moved on, so much, perhaps, but the way they have treated those concerns self-evidently has.

[AnotherBlueRoseCase]

.

[AnotherBlueRoseCase]

Going off topic a bit - I'm just interested. Do people think that the world (and America in particular) is a much uglier, nastier place than it was in 1990? Is the TP we have now reflective of the way the world (especially America) has changed? I personally do but maybe that has more to do with me than the world, I don't know.

Violent crime is way lower. 1991 was the peak.

"Today, the national crime rate is about half of what it was at its height in 1991. Violent crime has fallen by 51 percent since 1991, and property crime by 43 percent. In 2013 the violent crime rate was the lowest since 1970. And this holds true for unreported crimes as well. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1993 the rate of violent crime has declined from 79.8 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 people."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/42 ... -c-w-cooke

Now, the number of people, especially older people, who think it's now way higher -- that's a different story.

[douglasb]

Statistics are all fine and good, but what about her emails?

[mlsstwrt]

Violent crime is way lower. 1991 was the peak.

"Today, the national crime rate is about half of what it was at its height in 1991. Violent crime has fallen by 51 percent since 1991, and property crime by 43 percent. In 2013 the violent crime rate was the lowest since 1970. And this holds true for unreported crimes as well. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1993 the rate of violent crime has declined from 79.8 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 people."

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/42 ... -c-w-cooke

Now, the number of people, especially older people, who think it's now way higher -- that's a different story.

Very interesting ABR. Is it possible that the world has become a darker, more hostile place though but not necessarily more violent? It's a bit of a stupid question I know, lol. But to me it just feels like a more cruel, less innocent world. That may very well be just an outward projection of my psyche.