Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

User avatar
eyeboogers
Posts: 552
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

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

Postby eyeboogers » Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:47 am

[quote="boske" Could it be merely latent within her and not played any role?[/quote]

I think so. I see many thing suggesting this is indeed the case. Or rather, whenever jupiter and saturn collides something flares up within Sarah Palmer (i.e. her scene in ep.29).

In terms of connecting her with the jumping man, many forget that the jumping man also becomes Philip Jeffries (Bowie's actual face) as well in those split-seconds. So I don't think it is Sarah/Judy = the jumping man, rather it depicts a functionality he fulfils.
User avatar
boske
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:15 am

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

Postby boske » Sat Dec 30, 2017 11:08 am

eyeboogers wrote:
boske wrote:Could it be merely latent within her and not played any role?

I think so. I see many thing suggesting this is indeed the case. Or rather, whenever jupiter and saturn collides something flares up within Sarah Palmer (i.e. her scene in ep.29).

In terms of connecting her with the jumping man, many forget that the jumping man also becomes Philip Jeffries (Bowie's actual face) as well in those split-seconds. So I don't think it is Sarah/Judy = the jumping man, rather it depicts a functionality he fulfils.

I may have missed the original Jeffries there as I did not rewatch that part. It is interesting though that the "jumping man" was originally associated with Cooper (or perhaps his doppleganger) in FWWM, as when Jeffries uttered that famous "Who do you think that is there?" it was his figure that was transparently superimposed over Cooper.

As far as frog math being latent and inactive in Sarah, if we assume that to be indeed the case, it devalues the importance attached to the entity and the whole scene. I mean there is specifically this bug that crawls for who knows how many miles and enters a host and nothing happens for 40+ years? To be fair, maybe there is some info on it in the Final Dossier, but I simply cannot get myself to read it. Honestly, I just do not want to associate with that story/world, it is that repulsive, it is hard to explain to somebody that has enjoyed the Return.
Last edited by boske on Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

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

Postby mtwentz » Sat Dec 30, 2017 12:07 pm

boske wrote: As far as frog math being latent and inactive in Sarah, if we assume that to be indeed the case, it devalues the importance attached to the entity and the whole scene. I mean there is specifically this bug that craws for who knows how many files and enters a host and nothing happens for 40+ years? To be fair, maybe there is some info on it in the Final Dossier, but I simply cannot get myself to read it. Honestly, I just do not want to associate with that story/world, it is that repulsive, it is hard to explain to somebody that has enjoyed the Return.


As far as we know, BOB entered Leland as a young boy and may have been latent his entire childhood/adulthood, until Laura hit adolescence. We don't know that for sure, but before Laura turned 14, there is no indication of anything wrong with Leland. To me, it's not much of a leap to say that whatever is inside Sarah is partially latent until Cooper comes back and 'saves' Laura from Leland's clutches, at which time the evil completely takes her over.

Then again, it (Judy) could be fully awake the whole time, but Sarah has the same multiple personality issue as Leland- she's not fully aware, at least in the beginning, of what darkness is lurking inside her z(as Mr. Reindeer has postulated).

Like I wrote before, there are literally dozens of interpretations one can have. Lynch and Frost gave us a bare bones outline- the rest is really up to the individual viewer. Some find that frustrating, but I personally think it enriches the experience.
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
User avatar
boske
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:15 am

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

Postby boske » Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:10 pm

mtwentz wrote:Then again, it (Judy) could be fully awake the whole time, but Sarah has the same multiple personality issue as Leland- she's not fully aware, at least in the beginning, of what darkness is lurking inside her z(as Mr. Reindeer has postulated).

So is Judy = frog bug official now? I mean, the whole thing is a stretch. Look back to FWWM, it ends with a monkey speaking Judy's name? The same monkey face (or so it appears) that the Tremond child shows as he removes the mask? And with the script that mentioned Judy's in Seattle (who may have even been Josie's sister)? So Judy = frog bug = jumping man, where the Tremond talks of Judy and he had the jumping man in mind that is right there jumping a few feet away? I simply can't see that connection, but your mileage can certainly vary.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2854
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Sat Dec 30, 2017 10:19 pm

boske wrote:Imagine that Cooper leaves the lodge and instead of ending in Las Vegas goes instead to TP to find the subterranean entry and Phillip Gerard and talk to Jeffries to send him back to save Laura? There is a 3-hour movie there with no Dougie, no green glove, and so on and on. Now that would have been something, maybe that is the key to watching this thing.


I think Dougie is absolutely essential to whatever L/F were getting at in TP:TR. I can’t imagine any aspect of this work existing without Dougie as a major component. Now, if you feel that Dougie was given too much screentime leading to pacing issues, I think that’s a fair complaint, even if I don’t personally agree. But I think cutting Dougie out entirely would be losing the heart of the work and would render Cooper’s journey meaningless. Better to just scrap the entire season and start from scratch than to try to create a Dougie-free re-edit.

Now, “no green glove” — you’re speaking my language, there. ;)
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 » Sun Dec 31, 2017 2:48 am

boske wrote:So Judy = frog bug = jumping man, where the Tremond talks of Judy and he had the jumping man in mind that is right there jumping a few feet away? I simply can't see that connection...
Me neither and I'm done with all of that. Forget David Lynch, I find Quentin Dupieux more honest and straightforward, his films may not be that good, but are perfect to empty your mind, peaceful. Why Judy, frogbug, woodsmen, tulpas, monkeys and Dougies?
The answer is here, and it's my new motto:


:wink:
Kilmoore
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:20 pm

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

Postby Kilmoore » Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:02 am

From what I've seen on the BTS and interviews, neither Lynch or Frost has planned the frog to be Judy, or anything else. Nor have they figured out what the Jumping Man represents. And they haven't given a seconds thought about what Sarah being possessed means to the dynamics of the original series. They just did stuff that looked cool, stamped with Twin Peaks title to get the funding and don't give a shit about anything else.
User avatar
boske
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:15 am

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

Postby boske » Sun Dec 31, 2017 3:36 am

I do not have anything to back this up with but a gut feeling, so it is in the realm of pure speculation, "no reason" whatsoever :-) It does feel like Lynch looked at Sheryl and it went like this: "Remember how great Sheryl could scream, so let her scream in the lodge as she is dragged away from it. I mean she screams so good it is lights out!!! Cool, let's end it that way. The lights go out! Grace is a great actress and it would really cool to see her play a different, a much darker and more ominous Sarah, it's a deal. And remember the Ronnie Rocket script, I bet Kale would be lights out too, and yes Naomi could play a great wife there, what about Laura D, uh, how about Judy? We'll figure something out! It's done, stick a fork in it!" So the end result can be compelling but it is not really a return in but a name only. Anyway, the venting stops here. :D
Robin Davies
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun May 06, 2007 7:52 am
Location: England

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

Postby Robin Davies » Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:04 am

eyeboogers wrote:Remember her terror at seeing the Judy symbol at the store?
What Judy symbol?
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

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

Postby mtwentz » Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:24 am

boske wrote:I do not have anything to back this up with but a gut feeling, so it is in the realm of pure speculation, "no reason" whatsoever :-) It does feel like Lynch looked at Sheryl and it went like this: "Remember how great Sheryl could scream, so let her scream in the lodge as she is dragged away from it. I mean she screams so good it is lights out!!! Cool, let's end it that way. The lights go out! Grace is a great actress and it would really cool to see her play a different, a much darker and more ominous Sarah, it's a deal. And remember the Ronnie Rocket script, I bet Kale would be lights out too, and yes Naomi could play a great wife there, what about Laura D, uh, how about Judy? We'll figure something out! It's done, stick a fork in it!" So the end result can be compelling but it is not really a return in but a name only. Anyway, the venting stops here. :D


See, I don't think there is anything wrong with it if that is how Lynch came up with the final scene. It's pretty much how he has always worked, and it's why a certain type of person is drawn to his work (and why his work has rarely had mass appeal). You may not know what everything means, but it catches you in the gut.

I don't think Lynch, for example, knew what the Red Room 'meant' when he shot the original scene for the European pilot, It was an image he had in his head that he just had to put to film. And in episode 29, I doubt he understood what each and every motion by each and every character inside the Black Lodge 'meant' in context of the larger story Frost had created. Yet, these scenes have been highly effective and beloved and people have come up with their own interpretation of the Lodge scenes over the years.

Now if the frog bug thing just doesn't catch you (or the 'gotta light' woodsmen), that's a different story. It means you just didn't find it all that gripping. I just think it's important to emphasize that Lynch has always grabbed ideas that come to him from his subconscious, and hoped that viewers can find out for themselves what they might mean.
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
User avatar
boske
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:15 am

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

Postby boske » Sun Dec 31, 2017 8:59 am

mtwentz wrote:
boske wrote:I do not have anything to back this up with but a gut feeling, so it is in the realm of pure speculation, "no reason" whatsoever :-) It does feel like Lynch looked at Sheryl and it went like this: "Remember how great Sheryl could scream, so let her scream in the lodge as she is dragged away from it. I mean she screams so good it is lights out!!! Cool, let's end it that way. The lights go out! Grace is a great actress and it would really cool to see her play a different, a much darker and more ominous Sarah, it's a deal. And remember the Ronnie Rocket script, I bet Kale would be lights out too, and yes Naomi could play a great wife there, what about Laura D, uh, how about Judy? We'll figure something out! It's done, stick a fork in it!" So the end result can be compelling but it is not really a return in but a name only. Anyway, the venting stops here. :D


See, I don't understand, what would be wrong if that is how Lynch came up with the final scene? It's pretty much how he has always worked, and it's why a certain type of personality is drawn to his work. You may not know what everything means, but it catches you in the gut.

I don't think Lynch, for example, knew what the Red Room 'meant' when he shot the original scene for the European pilot, It was an image he had in his head that he had to put to film. And in episode 29, I doubt he understood what each and every motion by each and every character 'meant' in context of the larger story Frost had created. Yet, these scenes have been highly effective and beloved.

Now if the frog bug thing just doesn't catch you (or the 'gotta light' woodsmen), that's a different story. It means you just didn't find it all that gripping. I just think it's important to emphasize that Lynch has always grabbed ideas that come to him, and hoped that viewers can find out for themselves what they might mean.

No there is nothing wrong with the final scene, as a matter of fact, it is in line with some of the ideas mentioned not long ago about blurring or conjunction of the imaginary and real. When the lights go out, that truly is an ending. The set gets dismantled and the lights go out in the studio. Let us say that he hypothetically came up with an idea in a similar manner, good, nothing wrong with that either. The issue in general, are we are back to square one here, is that this was billed as a return to TP and it really wasn't, and that in few quite important places it overturned the original or retconned it in a significant way. This does not go into whether Dougie was worth it or not, whether it looks mean and ugly or not, etc... So, some people like it, great, some people do not, fine.
IcedOver
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

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

Postby IcedOver » Sun Dec 31, 2017 7:33 pm

boske wrote:I do not have anything to back this up with but a gut feeling, so it is in the realm of pure speculation, "no reason" whatsoever :-) It does feel like Lynch looked at Sheryl and it went like this: "Remember how great Sheryl could scream, so let her scream in the lodge as she is dragged away from it. I mean she screams so good it is lights out!!! Cool, let's end it that way. The lights go out! Grace is a great actress and it would really cool to see her play a different, a much darker and more ominous Sarah, it's a deal. And remember the Ronnie Rocket script, I bet Kale would be lights out too, and yes Naomi could play a great wife there, what about Laura D, uh, how about Judy? We'll figure something out! It's done, stick a fork in it!" So the end result can be compelling but it is not really a return in but a name only. Anyway, the venting stops here. :D


Yeah, that's probably pretty much it. That's why I find it amusing when people try to dissect some of Lynch's more obscure work and moments, and ascribe meaning and creator intent to the smallest things (some thing absolutely warrant closer looks, some don't). I read a comment once where someone thought the number of times Nikki/Sue looked at Mary Steenburgen's arm had significance.

Watching a horrible example of a "typical" movie recently, "The Shape of Water", made me appreciate "Return" more. "Shape" is a by-the-numbers, bland, predictable film with forced sentiment. I wouldn't care if it weren't acclaimed as one of the best of the year. If this is what's considered good, I'll take "Return" any day over it, extreme problems and all. Whether the dropped plotlines, plot holes, and poor characterization were intentional or the result of a hurried and poorly planned production, sometimes that level of non-narrative is preferable to a totally straightforward narrative that has zero imagination and doesn't inspire you to think about it more than a minute after it's over (as is the case with del Toro's horrid film). I'll take Dougie staring at a wall and eating cake for two hours over it and some of the other exposition-heavy garbage from this year.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
Agent Earle
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Mon Jan 01, 2018 2:45 am

IcedOver wrote:Watching a horrible example of a "typical" movie recently, "The Shape of Water", made me appreciate "Return" more. "Shape" is a by-the-numbers, bland, predictable film with forced sentiment. I wouldn't care if it weren't acclaimed as one of the best of the year. If this is what's considered good, I'll take "Return" any day over it, extreme problems and all. Whether the dropped plotlines, plot holes, and poor characterization were intentional or the result of a hurried and poorly planned production, sometimes that level of non-narrative is preferable to a totally straightforward narrative that has zero imagination and doesn't inspire you to think about it more than a minute after it's over (as is the case with del Toro's horrid film). I'll take Dougie staring at a wall and eating cake for two hours over it and some of the other exposition-heavy garbage from this year.


I'm curious, how does The Shape of Water compare to Pan's Labyrinth, if you've seen it, which is, in my opinion, a masterpiece?
User avatar
boske
Posts: 528
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:15 am

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

Postby boske » Mon Jan 01, 2018 4:56 am

There is a certain predictability or structure to songs, operas, movies, plays. Let us take songs for example, we can find overture-verse-chorus-solo-chorus-coda in most of these. Is it predictable, yes. Does it mean that any such song is passé though? To be fair, it would be preposterous to infer that any song following such a structure will be a masterpiece, we know that to clearly not be the case, and most of the stuff coming out, movies included, is clearly rubbish. There is something intangible or imponderable that needs to be present to make something truly resonate.

Do we now though require all songs to abandon that format and refuse to listen to them if they employ it? Or, should we accept something dissonant and deformed as a masterpiece just because it is atypical, even though it is harsh on the ears and emotions and just plain ugly? Just cobbling together unrelated pieces into a larger frame does not make it a piece of art. Does "Magical Flute" suck just because it follows an opera format?

There is thus this tendency in the modern or post-modern world to smash old structures and monuments just because they are old and/or follow certain mould that was considered beautiful but seemingly no longer is. And then, we proceed to replace them with something ugly and grotesque, just because, well, it is different and subverts expectations. But is not expecting to be subverted, or not have any expectations that are met, a form of expectation too? Let us say Lynch comes back to TP again and produces a clone of the original (e.g. The Lodge Awakens). Would it be critically accepted because it subverted an expectation that one cannot go back as an act of ultimate subversion? We expected not to be able to get what we expected and we still got it, ergo it must be brilliant? We know it is not going to happen though.

What I am trying to say is that I do not look to have my expectations subverted or not, but to get a compelling story that does not go out of its way to be illogical, disconnected, dissonant, disorienting, and ultimately empty and void. Furthermore, I am not willing to give carte blanche to anybody to do what they please and uncritically accept it not for what I think it is.

As far as the Jumping Man, some people raised the concept of Heyoka from the mythology of certain North-American native tribes. There is a certain, and not insignificant, apparent similarity, but I am not sure if Heyoka can be considered sinister the way the Jumping Man had been portrayed. So the Jumping Man may look to be a composite of several figures, some mythological, some not, in the movie and now the return, he dons the Tremond's mask and yet is dressed just like LMFAP. A much more interesting portrayal comes from Gustav Meyrink's short story "Cricket play" or "Grillenspiel", that deals with, surprise, surprise, Tibet and dugpas. I was astonished when this was pointed out to me. Whether Lynch used the story for inspiration is intriguing, but it would be much much more chilling if he reached it independently.
IcedOver
Posts: 443
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

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

Postby IcedOver » Mon Jan 01, 2018 9:26 am

Agent Earle wrote:I'm curious, how does The Shape of Water compare to Pan's Labyrinth, if you've seen it, which is, in my opinion, a masterpiece?

I'm not that big a fan of "Pan's" anyway; if it had been in English, I doubt it would have been as acclaimed in America. "Shape" I think is del Toro's worst, although I've never viewed "Mimic" or "Blade II". I found nothing of value in it. The heroes are complete non-entities, and the sentiment is forced and not even well done enough to rate as sickening. The movie clearly comes from an unpleasant SJW perspective on del Toro's part. Michael Shannon (wow, really inspired casting) plays the villain with zero subtlety. As far as boske's point, that's not totally what I meant. This is a terrible example of the most standard plot structure (which of course can be the best if done right), and I've been to several others this year as bad or almost so. Despite its myriad flaws, or maybe even because of them and how messy "Return" was, it was more refreshing watching something that broke that formula than these horrible films.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests