Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

Agent Earle
Posts: 753
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:30 am

ThumbsUp wrote:First time in this thread so sorry if I repeat any tired arguments.

Most of my friends loved it, others thought it was bullshit. The difference separating them is that those who disliked it went in with more expectations, I think: whether it was cherry pie or a storyline structure that's even passably familiar to what we usually see in books, movies or TV (and there's nothing with that!). Those who liked it were open to whatever.

For me, it's replaced Mad Men as my all-time favourite show, although Mad Men's DNA is all over The Return.


And you are in here because ... why, exactly?
User avatar
powerleftist
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:40 pm

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

Postby powerleftist » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:30 am

ThumbsUp wrote:For me, it's replaced Mad Men as my all-time favourite show, although Mad Men's DNA is all over The Return.

That's an incredibly interesting and appropiate message for this thread. Thanks for your contribution.
BGate
Posts: 174
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:15 am

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

Postby BGate » Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:00 am

By that logic you guys shouldn't be allowed to post in any other thread on this board.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Tue Oct 24, 2017 4:43 am

Those most niggled by this thread may have the best chance, a few months or years down the line, of realising they’ve been had by The Return, and subconsciously they may know this.

Serious question: has anybody yet seen a detailed refutation, not just on dugpa but anywhere, of the central points raised by the sceptics, in the same way that this thread has repeatedly refuted the central claims of the admirers? As things stand, this is one of the most telling aspects of this whole debate, the mismatch in detailed argumentation between the two sides about each other’s central claims. That central claims bit matters. We’ve had many posters come here and nibble away at trivialities, but far fewer if any have made any detailed, closely-argued defence of the show’s tediousness, charmlessness, viciousness, narcissism, chauvinism, chaos, audience contempt, ugliness, pointlessness, etc (this list is no way exhaustive; just check through this thread) – and I don’t mean just in this thread, but anywhere.

If we’re dividing people into categories, the admirers seemed mainly of these two types: firstly, younger, or at least less articulate, posters switching between here and Reddit and fixating on plot and mythology micro-details while refusing to see any flaws under any circumstances; or secondly, “Yeah, fair enough, that moment was genuinely excruciating, and true, the whole thing’s quite a mess and pretty boring lots of the time, and I personally would not have retconned the original run and FWWM, and Lynch boasting about his erections was definitely a low point, and Green Glove defeating BOB… what on earth were they thinking? But overall hey it sure wasn’t like anything else on TV so it was show of the year for me. Though I don’t have the time or the inclination to explain why such glaring flaws don’t really matter.”

Why have so few of this second group attempted to refute the sceptics’ central claims, here or elsewhere, or tried to explain why they don’t prevent The Return from being great/a masterpiece/show of their lifetime? This thread has analysed forensically a number of flaws so serious that each individually, in my view, makes it impossible that this show was ‘great’, to say nothing of how these flaws combine and accentuate each other.

To expand on one such flaw, let’s start with facts that few will deny.

1. One of the show’s main points is anti-nostalgia. This is rammed home time after time, and in the final episodes controversially so: a possible retcon of the central moment in all of Twin Peaks, Laura’s murder, and an ‘it was all a dream’ coda that may erase much or all of the show’s past. This isn’t just an attack on nostalgia, it’s a carpet bombing.
2. The show is peppered with nostalgia for David Lynch’s own career.

No narrative work could have a flaw like this and remain a masterpiece or 'great'. Not Hamlet, not Tarkovsky’s Nostalgia, not Mad Men. The clash between theme and execution, content and form, is just too horrendous, too central. It’s artistically disastrous, shambolic, embarrassing. (And this is just one such flaw, remember). But it gets worse if we remember how the self-cast writer-director presents himself though Gordon Cole. I’m not going to rerun the argument for the narcissism of this. It’s unarguable, and to their credit few admirers have tried to dispute this.

So what we end up concluding is this: Lynch didn’t just give his audience fingernails/blackboard friction between theme and execution. He did so because his own self-obsession meant he had to strew the show with nostalgia for his own career. Take a moment to consider how bad this is. Imagine you yourself were making this show and you did this. Brrr.

We only have two possibilities here. One is that Lynch had no idea how badly this narcissistic nostalgia clashed with one of his central themes. The other is that he was aware and he went ahead with it anyway. Now imagine you were making this show and you did this.

EDIT: But it gets even worse. Because now consider how much damage either possibility does to our faith in the artist at all those moments when we decide to give them the benefit of the doubt or not. Why should we trust an artist capable of such an amateurish, poorly thought-out blunder with one of his central themes? So it's only natural to conclude that if this or that aspect seems a poorly thought-out mess that's because it is a poorly thought-out mess. How can we trust this man to get all these thousands of details right when he doesn't even have discipline or clarity when it comes to his central themes?

If I were discussing this face to face with a TR admirer I’d now look them in the eyes and say, “Please tell me you can see that something this seriously flawed cannot be a masterpiece or 'great'.” And if they said no then it would be time to leave the conversation, because I’d be talking to a deluded fanboy.

(Incidentally, if anybody does want to defend the above, here’s some wording to get you started: “Yes, if I were writing and directing a TV drama I would have no problem at all making anti-nostalgia a main theme and then inserting lots of nostalgic references to my own career and casting myself in a way that even the show’s admirers admit is narcissistic. Here are the reasons why.”).

But please don’t take the above comments as a complaint. The refusal of even many of the show’s smartest admirers, including pro critics, to defend their ground has just added to the fascination of the experience of The Return as a whole. Something very odd happened here, a selective blindness on a scale I’ve never seen before for a work of art. It really was Event Television, just not in the way I anticipated back in April.
Last edited by AnotherBlueRoseCase on Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1939
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:16 am

I think an issue with critically appraising Lynch’s works, going back to Eraserhead, is that it’s far easier to dismiss them as incoherent/self-indulgent than to articulate reasons why they’re good, beyond “here’s a list of moments that really affected me emotionally,” because they function on a visceral level and often willfully defy conventional structure. The positive aspects are often not something that can be explained intellectually. Think about the Red Room scene from Episode 2 — if someone comes at you and says it’s pretentious nonsense, how do you defend it, beyond describing how powerfully it hit you on a gut level? “It’s unique and it made me feel something” is really the only critical defense. that doesn’t make the scene any less great. Just difficult to defend in words. Either you love it or you don’t.

That’s not to say that criticisms of S3 are not valid — I respect and on some level relate to the perspective of many on this thread. But the point where I diverge from many of the posts here is the moment when people start claiming that it is IMPOSSIBLE to like S3 unless one is being willfully blind to flaws, or tricked by Lynch. This is just as elitist as the pro-S3 folks who shit on you decent folk as uncultured nostalgia-junkies. I see the flaws in the season, it’s not exactly what I might have wanted every step of the way, but I’m still thrilled that it exists. Do I think it functions as a unified, cohesive work? Not particularly. But TP has NEVER functioned as a unified, cohesive work, aside from S1 and FWWM taken as self-contained units. It’s always been a messy, sprawling, stylistically evolving saga. What’s important to me is that S3 was brimming with scenes and moments that made me feel joy, horror, sadness and humor. And I believe I and others have articulated what many of those scenes and moments were in this thread and elsewhere. If you want a quick reference point without combing through countless threads, LostintheMovies’s blog posts are a terrific analysis Part-by-Part with which I largely agree.

In regards to Lynch simultaneously indulging in and defying nostalgia, my response is...so? Life is full of contradictions. We’re all hypocrites on a daily basis, striving to be one thing but actually acting counter to that ideal out of laziness or selfishness. I prefer it when works take a complex/contradictory approach to a theme. What Lynch did on S3 is far more interesting to me than a straight “nostalgia = bad” theme. The same goes for the gender politics — I think Lynch was consciously confronting his own conflicting artistic impulses, and Part 18 makes pretty clear that the series isn’t endorsing bullshit machismo/chauvinism, even if L/F themselves often find themselves falling into certain unfortunate tropes, and Lynch used Gordon’s character to acknowledge his own shortcomings in a self-aware way.
User avatar
ThumbsUp
Posts: 290
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 8:05 pm

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

Postby ThumbsUp » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:36 am

Agent Earle wrote:
ThumbsUp wrote:First time in this thread so sorry if I repeat any tired arguments.

Most of my friends loved it, others thought it was bullshit. The difference separating them is that those who disliked it went in with more expectations, I think: whether it was cherry pie or a storyline structure that's even passably familiar to what we usually see in books, movies or TV (and there's nothing with that!). Those who liked it were open to whatever.

For me, it's replaced Mad Men as my all-time favourite show, although Mad Men's DNA is all over The Return.


And you are in here because ... why, exactly?


To engage people with different opinions?

powerleftist wrote:
ThumbsUp wrote:For me, it's replaced Mad Men as my all-time favourite show, although Mad Men's DNA is all over The Return.

That's an incredibly interesting and appropiate message for this thread. Thanks for your contribution.


Yikes, hi. Anyway, my friend who hated TP but loves Mad Men saw TP in a different light after we had a convo pointing out the similarities. Shrug.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Tue Oct 24, 2017 6:51 am

In regards to Lynch simultaneously indulging in and defying nostalgia, my response is...so? Life is full of contradictions. We’re all hypocrites on a daily basis, striving to be one thing but actually acting counter to that ideal out of laziness or selfishness.


Sure, but the behaviour is still lazy or selfish, and those who describe it as such are not mistaken. And "So? Life is full of contradictions" as a response to

1. One of the show’s main points is anti-nostalgia. This is rammed home time after time, and in the final episodes controversially so: a possible retcon of the central moment in all of Twin Peaks, Laura’s murder, and an ‘it was all a dream’ coda that may erase much or all of the show’s past. This isn’t just an attack on nostalgia, it’s a carpet bombing.
2. The show is peppered with nostalgia for David Lynch’s own career.

No narrative work could have a flaw like this and remain a masterpiece or 'great'. Not Hamlet, not Tarkovsky’s Nostalgia, not Mad Men. The clash between theme and execution, content and form, is just too horrendous, too central. It’s artistically disastrous, shambolic, embarrassing. (And this is just one such flaw, remember). But it gets worse if we remember how the self-cast writer-director presents himself though Gordon Cole. I’m not going to rerun the argument for the narcissism of this. It’s unarguable, and to their credit few admirers have tried to dispute this.

So what we end up concluding is this: Lynch didn’t just give his audience fingernails/blackboard friction between theme and execution. He did so because his own self-obsession meant he had to strew the show with nostalgia for his own career. Take a moment to consider how bad this is. Imagine you yourself were making this show and you did this. Brrr.

We only have two possibilities here. One is that Lynch had no idea how badly this narcissistic nostalgia clashed with one of his central themes. The other is that he was aware and he went ahead with it anyway.


Em, not your finest moment, Mr Reindeer. :lol: Once again we're left with the suspicion that were Lynch not involved you'd be responding quite differently. If the above is no big deal I'm sure you can list plenty of other works you really admire that have a clash this extreme between theme and execution. Bonus points for listing a few greats where the cause of this clash is the artist's narcissism.

If you'd made this series, and ended it on such an emphatically anti-nostalgic note, would you have strewn it with nostalgia about your own career?

EDIT: And this seems disingenuous:

What Lynch did on S3 is far more interesting to me than a straight “nostalgia = bad” theme.


The Return as a whole is one of the most anti-nostalgic things ever broadcast. It is the very last show that should feature nostalgic nod after nod after nod to the artist's own career. Actually, no show should feature such a thing IMO, but that's a different discussion.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Tue Oct 24, 2017 8:50 am

Having said that, there is something to this:

I think an issue with critically appraising Lynch’s works, going back to Eraserhead, is that it’s far easier to dismiss them as incoherent/self-indulgent than to articulate reasons why they’re good, beyond “here’s a list of moments that really affected me emotionally,” because they function on a visceral level and often willfully defy conventional structure. The positive aspects are often not something that can be explained intellectually. Think about the Red Room scene from Episode 2 — if someone comes at you and says it’s pretentious nonsense, how do you defend it, beyond describing how powerfully it hit you on a gut level? “It’s unique and it made me feel something” is really the only critical defense. that doesn’t make the scene any less great. Just difficult to defend in words. Either you love it or you don’t.


But remember, I'm not querying why fans haven't praised particular aspects. I'm asking why the reluctance to refute the central criticism from the sceptics. Not the same thing. Though if there's one dugpa poster who has come close to doing this, it's you, sir.

But we still lack anything remotely comprehensive, even from the professional critics, just somebody saying, "Look, here are the main criticisms of the show and here's why they're wrong" -- say, the reverse of judasbooth's posts in this thread. And it's a genuine request. If such a thing exists anywhere, and if it's detailed, closely-argued and doesn't suffer from selective blindness, I'd like to read it.
User avatar
bowisneski
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:51 am

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

Postby bowisneski » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:20 am

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:Having said that, there is something to this:

I think an issue with critically appraising Lynch’s works, going back to Eraserhead, is that it’s far easier to dismiss them as incoherent/self-indulgent than to articulate reasons why they’re good, beyond “here’s a list of moments that really affected me emotionally,” because they function on a visceral level and often willfully defy conventional structure. The positive aspects are often not something that can be explained intellectually. Think about the Red Room scene from Episode 2 — if someone comes at you and says it’s pretentious nonsense, how do you defend it, beyond describing how powerfully it hit you on a gut level? “It’s unique and it made me feel something” is really the only critical defense. that doesn’t make the scene any less great. Just difficult to defend in words. Either you love it or you don’t.


But remember, I'm not querying why fans haven't praised particular aspects. I'm asking why the reluctance to refute the central criticism from the sceptics. Not the same thing. Though if there's one dugpa poster who has come close to doing this, it's you, sir.

But we still lack anything remotely comprehensive, even from the professional critics, just somebody saying, "Look, here are the main criticisms of the show and here's why they're wrong" -- say, the reverse of judasbooth's posts in this thread. And it's a genuine request. If such a thing exists anywhere, and if it's detailed, closely-argued and doesn't suffer from selective blindness, I'd like to read it.


I think that even trying to refute the critiques is the issue because it seems to have chosen to eschew most things traditionally tied to a tv show on which tv critique is based. This quite possible means Season 3 failed as a tv show, an opinion I agree with. I think it succeeded as a whole and as an experience, but not as a traditional tv show. I don't think any criticism is right or wrong, it is there to guide and help people decide if something would be up their alley or not and to allow for discussion. In the end this is one of those things where I think that you either enjoyed the work or you didn't(I'm not saying you either liked it 100% or disliked it 100%, just that there are very few people who are true neutral on Season 3).

To address your anti-nostalgia point, I didn't find the theme to be anti-nostalgia, but about the fight between moving forward and indulging nostalgia. Sometimes indulging that nostalgia worked for the characters in the world - Big Ed and Norma, and sometimes it didn't - Cooper literally revisiting the past. In the end I think it was more planted in trying to avoid nostalgia, but realizing that nostalgia isn't all bad. It just depends. Mr. Reindeer put it best above with this
Mr. Reindeer wrote:In regards to Lynch simultaneously indulging in and defying nostalgia, my response is...so? Life is full of contradictions. We’re all hypocrites on a daily basis, striving to be one thing but actually acting counter to that ideal out of laziness or selfishness. I prefer it when works take a complex/contradictory approach to a theme. What Lynch did on S3 is far more interesting to me than a straight “nostalgia = bad” theme. The same goes for the gender politics — I think Lynch was consciously confronting his own conflicting artistic impulses, and Part 18 makes pretty clear that the series isn’t endorsing bullshit machismo/chauvinism, even if L/F themselves often find themselves falling into certain unfortunate tropes, and Lynch used Gordon’s character to acknowledge his own shortcomings in a self-aware way.


I love watching things that you can tell were made with love, care, and passion even if they have flaws. One example I can give is Crapoke(crappy karaoke) by Ken Plume( you can listen here if you really want to). He is genuinely not a good singer, but there is passion and love in each song that leads me to enjoying them. It's the same with Season 3. I can accept that it is a very flawed work, and I totally understand where almost everyone in this thread is coming from(it's the only thread I read during Season 3 because it provided the best discussion that wasn't just about plot, lore, and minutiae) but I think the fact that for me it was a breath of fresh air among a lot of re-makes, re-boots, and continuations that tried to feel as much like their progenitors, whereas Season 3 felt comfortable not conforming to pre-existing requirements and was what it was proudly.

I'm not sure if you saw my posts earlier in this thread, but I agree with a lot of the problems brought up in this thread from both a critical and what I thought I wanted to see standpoint. I think the narrative outside of the Dougie stuff could have been more cohesive and grown out of that main thread better, 15 - 30 minutes of Dougie stuff could've been cut and been spent on the other characters, there are problems with the portrayal of women but I feel it accurately represents the way women are treated in the world we live in, the BOB orb battle with someone not from Twin Peaks "defeating" it, and I wish more music had been in the series.

A couple of other things I disliked that I think were out of the control of the production were shooting on digital(since Lynch originally said he was falling in love with film again and only announced the switch to digital after the standoff, I'm assuming that was a trade off) and it being too sunny in some of the Twin Peaks scenes.

But, after reflection(I wasn't sure where to count myself for sure until a couple weeks after the finale), I realized that none of those things detracted enough from my enjoyment of the mood, feelings, story, and world to end up putting myself in the PDSG. I think if we spent a less time with Dougie, it would blunt that missing Cooper feeling for everyone that is able to watch it after if finished airing. The people that newly discover Twin Peaks from here on out won't have any wait, and I think Dougie was a great way for future watchers to feel that loss and want. Also. the fact that it was something totally different that could be/mean something different to everyone who watches it really stuck with me. I think two or three more expositiony scenes could've tied everything together, but it would have killed the mood and endless ambiguity of a lot of the things that you have to put together for yourself. I love that it is messy and sprawling and that's why it resonated with me.

I know the above is rambly and not exactly what you were looking for, but the above is about the best way I can articulate my love of Season 3 while accepting that it definitely isn't for everyone.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Tue Oct 24, 2017 10:59 am

It's not what I was looking for -- it doesn't refute the sceptics' central criticisms -- but it's a well-considered post nonetheless. But the suggestions that there's equivalence between TR's pro-nostalgia and anti-nostalgia are bewildering. And even if there were such equivalence (there isn't) the question remains: if you'd made this series, and ended it on such an emphatically anti-nostalgic note (retcon; 'it was all a dream'), would you have strewn it with nostalgia about your own career?
User avatar
mtsi
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:56 pm

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

Postby mtsi » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:20 am

ThumbsUp wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
ThumbsUp wrote:First time in this thread so sorry if I repeat any tired arguments.

Most of my friends loved it, others thought it was bullshit. The difference separating them is that those who disliked it went in with more expectations, I think: whether it was cherry pie or a storyline structure that's even passably familiar to what we usually see in books, movies or TV (and there's nothing with that!). Those who liked it were open to whatever.

For me, it's replaced Mad Men as my all-time favourite show, although Mad Men's DNA is all over The Return.


And you are in here because ... why, exactly?


To engage people with different opinions?

powerleftist wrote:
ThumbsUp wrote:For me, it's replaced Mad Men as my all-time favourite show, although Mad Men's DNA is all over The Return.

That's an incredibly interesting and appropiate message for this thread. Thanks for your contribution.


Yikes, hi. Anyway, my friend who hated TP but loves Mad Men saw TP in a different light after we had a convo pointing out the similarities. Shrug.
I'm not interested in convincing others to love or despise the show and I am grateful for your love and sentiment towards the show.

This said, you must understand this particular thread is for those the either disengaged from the show due to a frustrating experience or downright hated what happened to their beloved Twin Peaks.

Either eay, you have to understand people aren't going to say hey welcome when the first thing you post is a 100% positive review of the show.

It's like going to McDonald's and shouting at the top of your lungs, "hey everyone....look over here! I love Burger King!"

What would you expect?

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
We live inside a dream.
User avatar
The Gazebo
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:34 pm
Location: Norway

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

Postby The Gazebo » Tue Oct 24, 2017 11:43 am

bowisneski wrote:It's the same with Season 3. I can accept that it is a very flawed work, and I totally understand where almost everyone in this thread is coming from(it's the only thread I read during Season 3 because it provided the best discussion that wasn't just about plot, lore, and minutiae) but I think the fact that for me it was a breath of fresh air among a lot of re-makes, re-boots, and continuations that tried to feel as much like their progenitors, whereas Season 3 felt comfortable not conforming to pre-existing requirements and was what it was proudly.


Happy that you enjoyed this thread, and thank you for a well-reasoned post :) Now, the point you make about plot, lore and minutiae is actually one of the (minor) reasons why I ended up on the other side of the fence. When the devoted fans in essence were mostly concerned with these things - which I struggled to relate to - I began to think that this show wasn't really meant for me from the beginning. Discussions about why individual scenes made an impact were mostly absent. At times the grandiose theorizing and obsession with minor details made fans look like they came straight from a meeting of the local conspiracy club.

bowisneski wrote:The people that newly discover Twin Peaks from here on out won't have any wait, and I think Dougie was a great way for future watchers to feel that loss and want.


This is actually a very good point, and I wouldn't be surprised if future viewers experience a more seamless transition between seasons 2 and 3 than many of us old-timers.
User avatar
bowisneski
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:51 am

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

Postby bowisneski » Tue Oct 24, 2017 12:22 pm

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:It's not what I was looking for -- it doesn't refute the sceptics' central criticisms -- but it's a well-considered post nonetheless. But the suggestions that there's equivalence between TR's pro-nostalgia and anti-nostalgia are bewildering. And even if there were such equivalence (there isn't) the question remains: if you'd made this series, and ended it on such an emphatically anti-nostalgic note (retcon; 'it was all a dream'), would you have strewn it with nostalgia about your own career?

Sorry about that, but like I said I don't think there is any refuting for most criticism leveled at Season 3. I agree with a lot, but they didn't detract from the overall experience enough for me. I also don't think it was all a dream or retconned, but I can see how you can easily come to that conclusion and the fact that we can disagree about that is something that I love.

Honestly, no I would not have or at least I would have tried not to. Specifically because of Jurassic World and The Force Awakens. I thought both were solid and felt like the originals, but neither really brought much new to the table or left me with anything to think about. I can't stop thinking about Season 3. I would have tried to avoid any sort of nostalgia at everyturn. But even if the show had just been 18 hours of Cooper staring at the camera with no other references to anything prior, bringing that character back is nostalgic. So I think it would be almost impossible to create a continuation without nostalgia. So you end up with something akin to the above examples or you try to do something radically different like Season 3. I think some things like Ed and Norma were only there as nostalgia and fan service, but it makes sense to return to those characters in a continuing story. It's hard for me to split it out because bringing Twin Peaks back at all is at it's core nostalgic.

Anyways, below I'm going to quote bits of posts I made from elsewhere on the forum about how I would've handled the story using the same scenario we were provided with
I don't think we should have seen any of the town of Twin Peaks until at least halfway through, if not later. This is no longer the story of the town of Twin Peaks, it is the story of Dale Cooper and Laura Palmer. Those should have been the through lines. I would never want the following thing cut, because they helped the mood of the thing as a whole that I loved, but there is a stronger show there from a plot perspective if you cut Ed, Norma, Nadine, Jacoby, Shelly, Becky, Steven, and Beverly and Tom, and replace Diane with Annie and Tammy with Diane. It's sort of like watching the released cut of FWwM and the Missing Pieces separately vs watching the Q2 edit of FWwM. The story of FWwM suffers in the Q2 edit, but you get more of what most people wanted which is more of the people and the town and the feeling of the original. If all of the Twin Peaks vignettes with those characters had been cut and put in to Missing Pieces on the bluray and the show we actually got was just Vegas, Buckhorn, the sheriff's department/Richard Horne stuff in Twin Peaks, and the travels of Mr. C, you would have the stronger through line and this would have been Cooper's FWwM.

And I would have replaced Freddie with just James. All that would have had to happen is Ben sends James down to investigate the hum, he is then transported to meet with the Fireman, and the Fireman sends him to a local hardware store to get a glove. It still would have been a little too silly for my personal tastes, but we could've seen it play out, vs hearing the story told, and I feel like it would have been a lot better to give James the role of "defeating" the force that destroyed Laura and would have made it more resonant.

But I think making any of those changes would've only made it a stronger tv show and not a stronger and lasting experience, with the exception of Freddie.

I'm also remembered this bit from an EW interview with Lynch that I think is relevant here as far as nostalgia is concerned(whether you believe him or not is up to you)
JENSEN: Part 8 was amazing from beginning to end, one of the most extraordinary hours of TV we’ve ever seen. Where did the inspiration for the atomic bomb entering into the world of Twin Peaks come from?

LYNCH: It’s a strange story. In my first feature film, Eraserhead, Henry has that same atomic bomb photo on his wall. So the atomic bomb’s in our lives, hopefully not going off, just sitting nicely in a closet. But, you know, things come along. One thing or another can open up portals. [long pause]

JENSEN: There was an atomic bomb in that picture in Eraserhead and now in The Return. Are those happy coincidences?

LYNCH: Sort of. I never really thought about it till later.

JENSEN: It seemed like we encountered so much of you in this show. We felt like we saw allusions to other films, implied, implicit. Were you reflecting a lot on your life and your work while you were making this?

LYNCH: No, it was a coincidence. I guess I just love certain things. It was this world of Twin Peaks that was talking. I didn’t think about any other films.

Which is more of what the Lynch callbacks/nostalgia felt like to me. Similar themes and images usually appear throughout an artists work without specifically being callbacks.

Also, if I am stepping over any sort of bounds or on anyones toes, all someone needs to do is speak up and I'll leave this thread to the purpose it was originally created for. It's just that this is still the most interesting discussion thread to me.
User avatar
bowisneski
Posts: 127
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:51 am

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

Postby bowisneski » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:08 pm

The Gazebo wrote:Happy that you enjoyed this thread, and thank you for a well-reasoned post :) Now, the point you make about plot, lore and minutiae is actually one of the (minor) reasons why I ended up on the other side of the fence. When the devoted fans in essence were mostly concerned with these things - which I struggled to relate to - I began to think that this show wasn't really meant for me from the beginning. Discussions about why individual scenes made an impact were mostly absent. At times the grandiose theorizing and obsession with minor details made fans look like they came straight from a meeting of the local conspiracy club.

I really did, and still do. And glad that post was considered as such by a prolific contributor to the PDSG.

That's an interesting reason, and a great thing to point out that I see all around. Sorry it made you feel that the show wasn't for you though. I do take pleasure in Season 3 subverting expectations, but it's always saddening to see someone who has "fallen out of love" so to speak. For me, now that the show is over, I enjoy dipping my toes in to that stuff like the overarching lore more, but I'm not interested in pouring over tiny details. It's just effort and time I don't have or feel the need to devote, especially since others will do it for me and I can just include the things they "discover" that I find interesting in to my view of the show. I just needed enough for the finale to click for me, and I got that so now I can just watch it as an experience and hopefully pick up on things that deepen it. I totally understand where you're coming from though. The end of Harry Potter feels to me like what a lot of you have expressed about Season 3.

The Gazebo wrote:
bowisneski wrote:The people that newly discover Twin Peaks from here on out won't have any wait, and I think Dougie was a great way for future watchers to feel that loss and want.


This is actually a very good point, and I wouldn't be surprised if future viewers experience a more seamless transition between seasons 2 and 3 than many of us old-timers.

And that's what I was thinking. I've only lived with the show since the Gold Box release, can't even imagine 25 years of waiting, but that was more than enough time to build the show up and want and expect something out of Season 3. It honestly wasn't until the Vedder song became public last summer that I realized sort of what we would be in for, and that it would clash with where I had imagined the story going for years. I've said it elsewhere, but that song was my key to preparing for and understanding Season 3.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 139
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:33 pm

bowisneski wrote:
Also, if I am stepping over any sort of bounds or on anyones toes, all someone needs to do is speak up and I'll leave this thread to the purpose it was originally created for.


Not remotely crossing any lines.

It's been an interesting day, though. First a denial that there's anything wrong with an anti-nostalgic work being peppered with nostalgia for the artist's own career, then denials that The Return is anti-nostalgic, then a denial that in it Lynch is nostalgic about his own career. And now a denial from Lynch himself that he was thinking about any other films when making The Return. All at the same level of plausibility IMO. :D

References in the Return to Lynch's Non-TP Works (SPOILERS): viewtopic.php?f=29&t=3570&hilit=references+to+lynch%27s+other+works

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return (Spoilers)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests