Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

IcedOver
Posts: 398
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

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

Postby IcedOver » Sat Jan 27, 2018 12:32 pm

The Gazebo wrote:
I can relate to waiting in vain. The Woodsmen, if introduced in the original series, would probably have ended up equally iconic to Bob. For me, it was the lack of follow-up to Sarah Palmer at the store and Hawk's visit to her house. If I'm not mistaken, that was episode 12, and I was giddy as hell. I really, really thought we were about to head into a masterful last 6-7 hours that would redeem and justify anything I had problems with earlier on. If I had been asked there and then to place a bet on the overall quality and enjoyment come September, I wouldn't have hesitated to go all in. Instead, the episode kind of fizzled out, and after about 20 minutes of episode 13, I finally gave up, letting apathy, scorn, sarcasm - and a bit of depression - take over. As for Mr. C, that was a real disappointment. Such a thrilling opening, before going on to become a run-of-the-mill villain, more interested in coordinates than being a threat to our beloved town or its people.


Well put. I understand the ways in which people have rationalized these deficiencies to enjoy the show and not have to admit that it has any flaws, but at this point, not having rewatched it in full, I'm not buying it. A rewatch free of the weekly anticipation could allow one to view the work more completely, which is why you should probably try it (although if you're not a fanboy, you might not have the inclination). You're right though -- Mr. C, such interesting early scenes, later the promise of supernatural physical powers, then nothing. Very little with Sarah was explored, leaving fans to fill it in with theories that are nothing more than fan fiction. The Woodsmen could be considered as just one of several of the "Strange Forces of Existence", so one can kind of excuse that promise not being fulfilled, but that doesn't mean the show wouldn't have benefitted from a follow-up.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

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

Postby Audrey Horne » Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:34 pm

Mt, I think you’re confusing or I’m not explaining properly what I mean by simplicity. Nothing has to be overly explained, and the ambiguity should certainly be there, but to me, there lacks an anchor, an overall objective to what the writers, actors and creators want. Define something to yourself, David and Mark. It doesn’t even have to make sense or ever been spoken about. Let’s say Mr. C wants a pink pony and he has to find it. No one ever has to know, but there is a semi clear path to how to get the pink pony. Pink pony is simply X. It can be ambiguous but the narrative path on how to get to X should be defined to some extent. Mr. C’s path seemed to keep changing with every episode (to me) so it wasn’t building to something instead meandering... of course with some stellar scenes along the way.

And with every little scene in the show being basically a tease of ambiguity it practically negates all brilliant ambiguity so instead reads as dead end after dead end.

My biggest clear cut example of baffling storytelling is Ed, Norma and Nadine. Yes, excellent scenes on their own, but in terms of structure and building a narrative payoff with your audience, utterly baffling. Ed is still married to Nadine, but we don’t know this until one minute before she releases him and can find happiness with Norma. If we receive this information say thirteen episodes prior than we have months of a build up and speculation... and an earned payoff. The stakes have been defined. It’s kinda the same with Mr. C... if we at least semi know the practical stakes then there can be a payoff... and of course ambiguity with that, but some sort of anchor.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2144
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:42 pm

chromereflectsimage wrote:I see it like I do Inland Empire, if you put the various illusions together and see the overlaps, you can get some sort of idea what his life the past 25 years were. It's just not outright shown the reality like the end of Mulholland Drive, but rather like Inland Empire shown as multiple threads and there to be deduced. Although I will say part 18 feels like an integration of the threads of Cooper we saw.


I agree with this, although I would say “intuit” rather than “deduce.” People in this fandom and in DKL criticism/academia overall get very hung up on finding clues and themes, articulable meaning. The reason DKL works in a visual medium is because he hates words and verbal explanations — he doesn’t need or want (ha) to analyze why people talk backwards in the Red Room, and if he did, he probably would be a much less effective artist. His images and odd choices aren’t clues; they’re a hall of mirrors for us to look into and experience his dreams as well as our own responses. Of course, MD is a puzzle box movie where you can kind of concretely explain what everything means at the end of it. But in 40 years, no one has “deduced” a meaning that covers all of Eraserhead — at least not one that I’ve found compelling (and DKL has said he never read an interpretation that matches his). Likewise, everyone has his or her explanation for what’s going on in IE if asked to explain it, but (as I learned when I tried to make a wiki devoted to the film), twelve years on their is nothing even close to a true consensus. People became very annoyed at my presumptuousness in making assumptions that I felt were rather obvious when writing a plot summary. I doubt any two of us on this board can agree on an interpretation. Similarly, I think attempts to put the pieces together to form a complete puzzle-box-cover version of TP:TR will prove futile. I certainly have my ideas on what Diane and her fragmentation and mutilated face as Naido say about Cooper and the larger themes of the piece, for instance, but it’s more of a feeling. I could probably write about it until I get carpel tunnel, but I still won’t ever be able to truly put into words the thoughts and feelings that aspect of the work stirs up in me.

Also, in regards to what I think you’re positing, it’s worth noting that DKL told Kyle in the Lauzirika documentary, while shooting the scene of “real” Cooper entering the sheriff’s station, that no time has passed for him since he last saw Andy.
Last edited by Mr. Reindeer on Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2144
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Sat Jan 27, 2018 1:53 pm

The Gazebo wrote:I have a love-hate relationship with The Return. I love the scenes - hate the show. To me, it kind of resembled one of those flu-ridden, feverish dreams, where there is no escape, no progression - just the same things over and over again.


This is the exact reason the Mr. C scenes are growing on me. I came to feel as the show was airing that much of his arc lacked any momentum or atmosphere. It was just pure plot/mythology — except there also wasn’t much plot. However, I have come to appreciate those scenes as capturing the feel of one of those dreams where you keep trying to do the same abstract task over and over and never make any progress. What DKL does for me better than any other filmmaker is capture the feeling of dreams, and that’s when his work speaks best to me, so I was very happy to find a way to get beyond my issues with the literal story for Mr. C and find a new perspective on those scenes. But I can certainly see why that approach would annoy some.
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 » Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:28 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote: People in this fandom and in DKL criticism/academia overall get very hung up on finding clues and themes, articulable meaning.


This is probably one of the most frustrating aspect for those of us who unfortunately ended up on the other side of the fence. Once we'd made our final evaluation of the show, it has been very frustrating to read what I consider a whitewashing of the errors, making every narrative or on-screen decision into some sort of divine and genious anti-narrative plot for the learned few, constructed to confuse the plebeian masses who just wanted coffee and pie. But then I remembered the obsessive circle-jerking that went on concerning red balloons, reflections in airplane windows and the glass box/Mauve room synchronicity. A huge percentage of the fans - eager to dismiss the uneducated simpletons or "part-time-fans" - actually gave a lot of thought into these red herrings. If this was such an integral part of their viewing experience, shouldn't they be the ones bollocking the end result, as it clearly led them up a dead end? No, apparantly not. For us naysayers, this seems very dishonest and a clear indication of the preconceived notion that Lynch could do no wrong. We often joke about the tendency of Lynch fans to accept everything thrown at them, and for The Return, this seems to have been the case.

For the record, the paragraph above does not in any way reflect your attitude, sir, which has always been level-headed with a clear understanding of our way of thinking throughout. Your contribution in this thread has been most welcome, and quite impressive given your love for The Return. I hope you'll keep on rebutting whichever criticisms we throw at you, the creators, or whoever's entering this thread. Even if I'm not always responding to your posts, I'm always getting a few new perspectives to ponder.
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

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

Postby Audrey Horne » Sat Jan 27, 2018 2:33 pm

Reindeer, I always love reading your thoughts and analysis and enthusiasm. And I agree with your view on how Lynch works and why it is so magnificent when it all comes together. That to me is why I’m ultimately disappointed. If this had been something the two jumped in and began filming immediately I’d probably give more allowances to a week to week organic building. But I thought this should be the perfect marriage between form and the freedom to fly abstract within that form with all the planning they had.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
BGate
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:15 am

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

Postby BGate » Sun Jan 28, 2018 3:46 am

Gabriel wrote:My values come from the Enlightenment.


imagine saying this with a straight face
User avatar
NormoftheAndes
Posts: 103
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:00 am

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

Postby NormoftheAndes » Sun Jan 28, 2018 6:25 am

Gabriel wrote:Given TPTR is the epitome of postmodernism, anyone with any genuine intellect should dismiss it for the cultural irrelevance it is. It’s not art. It’s also possible to be objective about art (unless you’re a postmodernist, in which case any old crap can be called ‘art.’)

My values come from the Enlightenment. A is A. The world exists. Therefore TPTR is is nothing more than counter-Enlightenment, anti-Renaissance garbage. It’s the televisual equivalent of mediaeval imagery, designed to provoke fear and despair. It snuffs out the candle that lifts the darkness.

Bury it and salt the earth that covers it.


This post by Gabriel has been shared on facebook - I liked this response:

"Since this style of criticism is subjective and dogmatic, it is in itself anti-Renaissance and anti-Enlightenment. It is not Reason, but tyrannical whim attempting to usurp Reason. It is therefore self-contradictory (A isn't A) and hypocritical.

I disagree with this criticism, not only based on the actual philosophy it contradicts, but because surrealism IS art (and pre-dates Post-Modernism).

Also, ideological calls for any piece of art to be destroyed scare me, maybe even more than BOB.

If you want to see Objectivist philosophy done well - *and* living in harmony with Surrealism - check out the work of Steve Ditko."

More responses:

"To me, it kind of reads like a pompous writer trying to sound collegiate. People are more than entitled to dislike the show and have a negative opinion, but this specifically comes off pretentious and a bit shallow. Good vocabulary doesn't always indicate intelligent critical thinking. I personally disagree with their point, but it doesn't necessarily devaluate it either."

"Yes, because David Lynch, the most famous and revered arthouse director of all time, save for perhaps Fellini and Kubrick, is in serious need of having art properly defined by a grumpy paralegal with an internet connection and $60,000 worth of art school debt."

"yikes, you can practically see every single party the writer was never invited to with each thesaurus-sourced word"

"Anti enlightenment and anti renaissance ?
Well, that's the definition of romanticism, no?"

"Is Twin Peaks really supposed to be postmodern?"

"Ignore the trolls, especially the ones who have fancy words yet have no salient point."

"r/iamverysmart"

I noticed the post in the fb group TWIN PEAKS: THE RETURN. :)
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2144
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:09 am

I don’t see the value in sharing another poster’s words on another platform without permission, for the apparent purpose of eliciting negative feedback (in some cases personal attacks/presumptions about him), then throwing them back in his face. Gabriel isn’t hurting anyone. He’s made a couple of comments I found moderately offensive over the past few months (implying DKL is senile, some colorful allusion to DKL sycophants masturbating), but even those relatively isolated incidents seem more or less in-bounds in a thread that, while it has produced a shocking amount of fascinating discourse, was started with the mission statement of allowing people to express extremely negative feelings about this show in whatever manner they see fit. Personally, if I find a post on a forum is obstinate, silly or otherwise without value (not necessarily saying that about Gabriel’s post, mind you), I ignore it.
Agent Earle
Posts: 790
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Sun Jan 28, 2018 8:51 am

Well said, Reindeer.

I hope this thread doesn't eventually succumb to "hey, let's all gang up on /insert a Profoundly Disappointed member name here/" level of debate - better make that "debate". Yech.
BGate
Posts: 176
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:15 am

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

Postby BGate » Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:54 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote:I don’t see the value in sharing another poster’s words on another platform without permission, for the apparent purpose of eliciting negative feedback (in some cases personal attacks/presumptions about him), then throwing them back in his face. Gabriel isn’t hurting anyone. He’s made a couple of comments I found moderately offensive over the past few months (implying DKL is senile, some colorful allusion to DKL sycophants masturbating), but even those relatively isolated incidents seem more or less in-bounds in a thread that, while it has produced a shocking amount of fascinating discourse, was started with the mission statement of allowing people to express extremely negative feelings about this show in whatever manner they see fit. Personally, if I find a post on a forum is obstinate, silly or otherwise without value (not necessarily saying that about Gabriel’s post, mind you), I ignore it.


The thing is, he is completely arguing in bad faith. He's admitted many times there's plenty of things he likes about S3 (he has a S3 avatar for god's sake), and then in the next breath says "it literally doesn't qualify as art and should not even exist." He lashes out like that whenever his attempts at substantive arguments are taken apart in a completely cordial manner, and that proves he's a troll, and that deserves whatever response it gets.
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

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

Postby Audrey Horne » Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:18 am

If that’s your view to broadcast someone’s point of view, I think it’s pretty tacky.

Gabriel chose this venue to vent his disappointment, in a Disappointment thread. It should be his choice if he wants to put it in another means of communication.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2144
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:26 am

BGate wrote:The thing is, he is completely arguing in bad faith. He's admitted many times there's plenty of things he likes about S3 (he has a S3 avatar for god's sake), and then in the next breath says "it literally doesn't qualify as art and should not even exist." He lashes out like that whenever his attempts at substantive arguments are taken apart in a completely cordial manner, and that proves he's a troll, and that deserves whatever response it gets.


Again without commenting on the merits of Gabriel’s contributions or whether I personally find his behavior trollish: If you believe someone to be a troll, the best thing to do is generally to ignore them. Engaging with someone who is deliberately trying to provoke a response is guaranteed to motivate that person to keep doing the same thing and clogging up the board. If ignored, such persons tend to go away. So if you feel that way about Gabriel, the best thing you can possibly do is not to respond or talk about him.

Deliberately eliciting negative comments and attacks from others just validates the perception that some in this thread have expressed: that the majority who enjoyed the show are turning any naysayers into pariahs. That has not generally been my perception and there has been a lot of healthy discourse. But a vocal minority seem to feel ostracized or persecuted, and activity like this feeds that perception.
Last edited by Mr. Reindeer on Sun Jan 28, 2018 12:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1619
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

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

Postby mtwentz » Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:57 am

Gabriel may have his trollish moments (as most of us do) and he has a great sense of humor too. Read some of his posts on the 'Make Your Peace Now With The Ending You Dread' thread; they still crack me up. And Gabriel predicted Diane was going to say 'Fuck you' before her first expletive aired in episode 7!
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
User avatar
Melong
Posts: 308
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 4:22 am

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

Postby Melong » Sun Jan 28, 2018 1:32 pm

I just rewatched epsiode 8 of The Return and am Profoundly Ecstatic.

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests