Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

Moderators: Annie, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne, Brad D

User avatar
bowisneski
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:51 am

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby bowisneski » Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:50 pm

I just wanted to pop in and say I am extremely thankful for this thread and to mlsstwrt for creating it. I know it was not created as a place for discussion, but as a haven for those who are profoundly disappointed with The Return. Yet, I feel(with the exception of a few posts here and there) it has been the best thread to read for discussion of the new season because it allows every view point and "dissenting" views aren't just glossed over.

Despite honestly loving the show overall, and only being profoundly disappointed in some very specific facets, I have no interest in the discussion of plot, mythology, clues, or what it all means that seems to be the thrust in any of the main threads. I went all in on LOST and loved that sort of dissection, but that was also an ongoing series where clues and hints may lead you to a place much further down the road. This series will most likely be a one and done where we will either get resolution or closure and answers or we won't, so I have no interest in looking at clues or theorizing until the series is over.

So, even though the intent of this thread was bastardized, I wanted to say thanks for the pages and pages of interesting reading.
User avatar
Here Comes That Bob
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 8:03 am

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Here Comes That Bob » Fri Aug 25, 2017 2:27 pm

mtwentz wrote:Pretty good article from the NY Times that can help explain how Twin Peaks: The Return can be considered extremely high quality, bold filmmaking while being very difficult for some to digest:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/arts ... ml?mcubz=1


If you don't mind asking, what exactly is your agenda here? As far as I can tell you don't belong in a profoundly dissapointed group at all, yet everytime I check this thread you seem to be pestering people who articulately lay out their criticism, while simultaneously trying to converse them and their sentiments on the show. Creator of the thread can correct me if I'm wrong, but I always felt this place was designed as a sanctuary where dissapointed crowd can converse in peace without being continously lectured and told how to feel by the fans. Don't take this as a personal attack, I'm just curious what you and similar folks are trying to accomplish here.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:53 pm

bowisneski wrote:Despite honestly loving the show overall, and only being profoundly disappointed in some very specific facets, I have no interest in the discussion of plot, mythology, clues, or what it all means that seems to be the thrust in any of the main threads. I went all in on LOST and loved that sort of dissection, but that was also an ongoing series where clues and hints may lead you to a place much further down the road. This series will most likely be a one and done where we will either get resolution or closure and answers or we won't, so I have no interest in looking at clues or theorizing until the series is over.

So, even though the intent of this thread was bastardized, I wanted to say thanks for the pages and pages of interesting reading.


Second this! I try not to intrude when this thread is in the therapy/venting mode it was designed for, but when it swings into critical analysis/debate mode, I see some of the most thoughtful discussion of the series on the board and I can't help jumping in. I'm not really interested in the inevitable theorizing and clue-gathering that takes up a lot of the main threads for each Part, largely because if the resolution/payoff is something any of us can predict, I'll be profoundly disappointed in Lynch! One of my biggest fears is that we'll get a conventional Lost/Fringe-style mythology-driven resolution, which the series at times seems to be setting up (I love Lost, final season notwithstanding, but it's spawned a cottage industry of soulless imitators like Westworld, and some scenes in TR feel like part of that group far moreso than I would have expected).

I'm far more interested in critical analysis of what does and doesn't work in the show, and although you guys obviously skew far more negative than my personal view, for some reason your sometimes-hyperbolic shitting on the show doesn't bother me nearly as much as the hyperbolic creator-trust/praise in some of the main threads (I'm pretty sure the straight-up reuse of Jacoby footage was simply out of economy/laziness and not some elaborate, deeply-embedded subliminal theme about time being out of whack, as several posters seem to believe).

It struck me during a rewatch of the Steven/Gersten scene that this season is perhaps best viewed as a collection of short films rather than as a conventional TV series. There's almost no narrative progression (which is why the more straightforwardly "plotty"/serialized aspects of the show -- Mr. C, expository Albert -- are my least favorites), but we get these little slices of life/mood pieces which I love sinking into. I dunno...maybe this approach might help one or two of you enjoy the show a bit more? Probably not . :?

Btw, out of genuine curiosity and because I don't recall seeing it referenced here, surprisingly: how did the Log Lady's last scene resonate with you guys?
IcedOver
Posts: 428
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby IcedOver » Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:27 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:(I'm pretty sure the straight-up reuse of Jacoby footage was simply out of economy/laziness and not some elaborate, deeply-embedded subliminal theme about time being out of whack, as several posters seem to believe).


I haven't gone back to check, but was that most recent Jacoby rant exactly the same as one of the previous ones?

Mr. Reindeer wrote:There's almost no narrative progression (which is why the more straightforwardly "plotty"/serialized aspects of the show -- Mr. C, expository Albert -- are my least favorites), but we get these little slices of life/mood pieces which I love sinking into. I dunno...maybe this approach might help one or two of you enjoy the show a bit more? Probably not . :?

Btw, out of genuine curiosity and because I don't recall seeing it referenced here, surprisingly: how did the Log Lady's last scene resonate with you guys?


Yes, I love the little moments. Even within the "plot"-heavy moments, you have small stuff like Cole and Company sitting down for a cup of coffee and doughnuts or wine, just little stuff like that which is fun (they're like the most inept or casual group of detectives ever). One of the things that's been disappointing to me is that even though I like the casual nature of the show, we do have a central plot going on, and it just isn't developing or progressing in any sort of satisfactory fashion. We know the same about Mr. Cooper as we did in Part 1. Also, Cole and Company are mostly investigating things to which we already know the answer, or which are uninteresting.

One thing I like about the show is that it's basically Lynch just "playing." This is the most playful and loose he's ever been. It's just that at times it feels like a rushed production, with clunkily directed/acted/edited scenes.

As for the Log Lady, I found all her scenes (or scene, broken up) affecting in a way. My favorite was the "Laura is the one" speech, to which Hawk just listens mutely. The last scene was Lynch saying farewell to his friend, which was sad. It was a tad annoying that in the credits they put that it was in memory of Margaret, which was a bit too precious and unnecessary.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1815
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby mtwentz » Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:02 pm

Here Comes That Bob wrote:
mtwentz wrote:Pretty good article from the NY Times that can help explain how Twin Peaks: The Return can be considered extremely high quality, bold filmmaking while being very difficult for some to digest:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/arts ... ml?mcubz=1


If you don't mind asking, what exactly is your agenda here? As far as I can tell you don't belong in a profoundly dissapointed group at all, yet everytime I check this thread you seem to be pestering people who articulately lay out their criticism, while simultaneously trying to converse them and their sentiments on the show. Creator of the thread can correct me if I'm wrong, but I always felt this place was designed as a sanctuary where dissapointed crowd can converse in peace without being continously lectured and told how to feel by the fans. Don't take this as a personal attack, I'm just curious what you and similar folks are trying to accomplish here.


I don't mind you asking. It's not a simple answer- part of it is lack of willpower to correct someone when they're just plain wrong: A lot of posters here should know better than to substitute their personal opinion for the larger critical response (which is mixed but mostly positive), yet they have done it repeatedly.

Another part of it is that I like to engage in healthy debate. I don't see why anyone on this thread should object as long as the debate is kept civil. After all, if a thread isolates itself to one opinion, it won't be a 'safe haven' for the Profoundly Disappointed, it will be just a another negative feedback loop in which people reinforce the beliefs they already have. And that's what appears to have happened in some cases.
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:35 pm

IcedOver wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:(I'm pretty sure the straight-up reuse of Jacoby footage was simply out of economy/laziness and not some elaborate, deeply-embedded subliminal theme about time being out of whack, as several posters seem to believe).


I haven't gone back to check, but was that most recent Jacoby rant exactly the same as one of the previous ones?


Most of it was reused from the first one. At a certain point, it switched to a bit of new material.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby N. Needleman » Fri Aug 25, 2017 7:47 pm

I may agree with a lot that article, but I think it's a bit condescending to post in here. It's not down to us to try to "educate" people who don't like the show with critical articles - that's not going to change anything. If they get it they get it, if they don't that's their business unless they choose to make it someone else's or want to discuss the show critically one to one. I wouldn't make a very good Jehovah's Witness.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:03 pm

N. Needleman wrote:I may agree with a lot that article, but I think it's a bit condescending to post in here. It's not down to us to try to "educate" people who don't like the show with critical articles - that's not going to change anything. If they get it they get it, if they don't that's their business unless they choose to make it someone else's or want to discuss the show critically one to one. I wouldn't make a very good Jehovah's Witness.


I think it's also kind of condescending to imply that people who dislike the show don't "get it" -- particularly in this thread. Isn't it possible that they completely "get it" and simply don't enjoy it? I'm loving the show overall, but I can certainly see why others might find it overindulgent or unsatisfying.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby N. Needleman » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:05 pm

That may have been the wrong turn of phrase, but what I'm saying is you or anyone has every right to dislike it based on their own POV on the material. For example, I don't get a lot of media - I'm not saying that I don't understand it, I just don't like it. Same principle here.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:09 pm

Gotcha! In my experience, the phrase "don't get it" implies a lack of understanding. Sounds like you meant it more to mean "don't connect with the material." If that's the case, I agree with you completely.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby N. Needleman » Fri Aug 25, 2017 8:13 pm

Yes, we're saying the same thing.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
Aqwell
Posts: 101
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:03 am
Location: Far from here

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Aqwell » Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:09 pm

N. Needleman wrote:That may have been the wrong turn of phrase, but what I'm saying is you or anyone has every right to dislike it based on their own POV on the material...
I totally get it and was thinking to post something similar in the other threads: Hey guys that's OK you have every right to like it, based on your own POV... Meaning 'I don't share it and I want you to know it (over and over), but... I tolerate you'. Way more gentle and subtle...

2 days and one more week to bury this thing into oblivion.
For God sake Lynch, at least make me laught.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby N. Needleman » Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:27 pm

Aqwell wrote:I totally get it and was thinking to post something similar in the other threads: Hey guys that's OK you have every right to like it, based on your own POV... Meaning 'I don't share it and I want you to know it (over and over), but... I tolerate you'. Way more gentle and subtle...


Not at all what I was saying, but good luck with all that!
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
baxter
Posts: 434
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2016 4:12 pm

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby baxter » Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:30 pm

I think it's at the stage now where if you don't like it, the ending is irrelevant. There are only a few episodes left, and the end might totally change the way that the rest of the episodes are viewed, but that would still mean that someone who didn't like everything so far would still hate most of the show! Why rewatch something when you don't like it?

I wonder if the last 2 hours might be a sort of standalone FWWM, so that even people who didn't like the build up might still enjoy revisiting that. I hope so, for the sake of those who are profoundly disappointed. But a lot of the disappointment stems from a dislike of the way the whole thing is shot and presented, so this seems unlikely.
User avatar
Here Comes That Bob
Posts: 163
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2016 8:03 am

Re: Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (SPOILERS)

Postby Here Comes That Bob » Fri Aug 25, 2017 9:34 pm

mtwentz wrote:
Here Comes That Bob wrote:
mtwentz wrote:Pretty good article from the NY Times that can help explain how Twin Peaks: The Return can be considered extremely high quality, bold filmmaking while being very difficult for some to digest:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/arts ... ml?mcubz=1


If you don't mind asking, what exactly is your agenda here? As far as I can tell you don't belong in a profoundly dissapointed group at all, yet everytime I check this thread you seem to be pestering people who articulately lay out their criticism, while simultaneously trying to converse them and their sentiments on the show. Creator of the thread can correct me if I'm wrong, but I always felt this place was designed as a sanctuary where dissapointed crowd can converse in peace without being continously lectured and told how to feel by the fans. Don't take this as a personal attack, I'm just curious what you and similar folks are trying to accomplish here.


I don't mind you asking. It's not a simple answer- part of it is lack of willpower to correct someone when they're just plain wrong: A lot of posters here should know better than to substitute their personal opinion for the larger critical response (which is mixed but mostly positive), yet they have done it repeatedly.

Another part of it is that I like to engage in healthy debate. I don't see why anyone on this thread should object as long as the debate is kept civil. After all, if a thread isolates itself to one opinion, it won't be a 'safe haven' for the Profoundly Disappointed, it will be just a another negative feedback loop in which people reinforce the beliefs they already have. And that's what appears to have happened in some cases.


Fair enough, though I have to agree that posting NY Times article and trying to present it as an objective POV is in fact bit condescending, especially when doing so in an environment predominately consisted of dissapointed individuals. You seem to be forgetting that art is subjective and even if TR was universally acclaimed, which is NOT you'd still have trouble selling your argument. Needless to point out all the films that were at the time panned by critics and are now recognised as a beloved classics, and vice versa. So basically critics POV is esentially no more objective than ours, they're after all people who're just stating their opinions and it would be delusional to think their judgment is not oftenly based on personal feeling. If anything I'd argue that critics could be pressured to fabricate their views, especially in this case where Lynch is worshiped as an "art house god" and going against the general public is often seen as blasphemy.

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests