Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[Agent Earle]

... and in the Profoundly Wrong Thread.

[Melong]

... and in the Profoundly Wrong Thread.

Either that's nonsense or you're on the profoundly wrong forums.

[chromereflectsimage]

I think this articulates well as to why its never stated why Cooper wants to find Judy

https://www.reddit.com/r/twinpeaks/comm ... win_peaks/

[Agent Earle]

... and in the Profoundly Wrong Thread.

Either that's nonsense or you're on the profoundly wrong forums.

Oh, sorry, you're saying E 8 is atrocious then? In that case, welcome to the thread!

[LateReg]

I don't think Mr. C was ever suppose to be Cooper's 'archenemy' He represents Cooper's will/desire, a part of Cooper. That's why he is not an all out superhero villain.

Yes, that is what I think. And I agree with the other stuff you've lately posted in this thread as well.

I know this is the disappointed thread, and I'm just happy to discuss here as I have throughout, but I honestly don't think that us supporters are ignoring the flaws or whitewashing the errors, as some have said. It depends how you interpret what's going on, and just because an interpretation leads to positive feelings about the show doesn't mean that one is glossing over problematic elements. On the contrary, it's just as likely (or in my positive opinion, more likely) that one is interpreting things in the way that was intended and therefore the so-called problems aren't problems after all. So many people focus on the surface plot as though it comes first, but I simply disagree. This is a work of art that seems to operate on the level of reality and dream and projection (and tulpa) as well as meta-concoction communicating with the audience and the artist himself and show itself (and its former self/selves) and all of television at once, and it's very hard to tell where one facet ends and another begins, and that is the ultimate strength of this thing. Therefore, my enjoyment of Mr. C's single-minded storyline and ironic downfall is because I view him primarily as part of Cooper's psyche; I do not think Lynch/Frost didn't know what to do with him, but rather chose to do something with him that was unexpected and unorthodox for a villain. Similarly, I think a lot of people do not accept or care for Lynch/Frost's method of 25 years later storytelling, in which we get to eavesdrop fragments of lives as they are now over the course of a few days, rather than spend time learning about each character's past or forcing a more complex story through the present. I didn't have to twist my mind into pretzel logic in order to appreciate this; it came very natural to me and I believe it is the right and natural choice for this story, for a revival. So interpretation is key, and even if you do interpret things the way I do on a foundational level, you still don't have to like it or think it was the right decision. But I do think there is value in approaching the work from the perspective that it is exactly as the creators intended, and then thinking of why it is exactly how it is rather than how they must have failed when they were clearly interested in exploring this world from different angles and approaches to storytelling, much of which involves narrative gaps and loose ends and stories that spill outwards off the screen rather than forward, giving the illusion of life beyond the frame; and much of which involves rhymes and riffs on themes rather than concrete plot details. And yes, there is a lot to interpret, but I don't think that amounts to a bunch of us coming up with what amounts to "fan fiction" to fill in the blanks. It's a work meant to be interpreted, meant to be questioned, as that is what the work itself may ultimately be about (questioning existence, questioning the nature of nostalgia), and what it means and how it feels is more important to me than the plot. I may be in the minority, but I don't care what Mr. C is looking for as much as the fact that he's desperately looking for something, and can't stop himself until it results in his damnation. I don't know how I missed it, but that is also the story of Dale Cooper in this thing, too, and now I admire the idea behind Mr. C and the slippery, evolving, cloud-like completeness of The Return even more. (Yes, don't yell at me, but when I watched this for the second time as an 18-hour sit, it felt complete, even as I didn't understand how all the pieces fit.)

[Aqwell]

I know this is the disappointed thread, and I'm just happy to discuss here as I have throughout, but I honestly don't think that us supporters are ignoring the flaws or whitewashing the errors, as some have said.

So you're a bit disappointed too?

It depends how you interpret what's going on, and just because an interpretation leads to positive feelings about the show doesn't mean that one is glossing over problematic elements.

Wait a minute...

On the contrary, it's just as likely (or in my positive opinion, more likely) that one is interpreting things in the way that was intended and therefore the so-called problems aren't problems after all.

Are you kidding me?

This is a work of art that seems to operate on the level of reality and dream and projection (and tulpa) as well as meta-concoction communicating with the audience and the artist himself and yada yada yada...

Oh fuck... I'm out of here.

[Kilmoore]

I honestly don't think that us supporters are ignoring the flaws or whitewashing the errors, as some have said.

This is a work of art that seems to operate on the level of reality and dream and projection (and tulpa) as well as meta-concoction communicating with the audience and the artist himself and show itself (and its former self/selves) and all of television at once, and it's very hard to tell where one facet ends and another begins, and that is the ultimate strength of this thing.

And yes, there is a lot to interpret, but I don't think that amounts to a bunch of us coming up with what amounts to "fan fiction" to fill in the blanks.

when I watched this for the second time as an 18-hour sit, it felt complete, even as I didn't understand how all the pieces fit.)

Irony is so ironic sometimes.

[Aqwell]

I agree, it's a bit easy (even cheesy) but not out of place.
I'm just a bit tired to read how great season 3 is, that's not what I want to read when I come here (you know, The Profoundly...).
But hey, there's light, people are coming, of course happy fans don't ignore the flaws, because... they don't exist?
I choose to express irony rather than hate, but gosh I hate reading season 3 propaganda in my support group.
Damn you evil spies.

[LateReg]

Not sure why what I wrote garnered a couple hostile responses, as I was just responding to a few prior posts about ignoring flaws. In doing so, I included some personal thoughts to flesh out my own feelings on the subjectivity of this particular work. I wasn't trying to make anyone feel any other way, nor was I being ironic. I was just stating that there are a lot of different ways to think about this unorthodox series, and depending on how you process what you're seeing, you may see things differently. It's not an objectively flawed series, there's debate to be had, and yes, what some perceive as flaws may not actually be flaws, which I thought was a given. For example, some might say that the beginning of Mulholland Drive features bad acting, but once you look at it from the perspective of it being a representation of everything being too good to be true, the acting seems quite purposeful, especially given Watts' turn in the second half.

My many contributions to this thread have always been allowed (I've even had civil conversations with AnotherBlueRoseCase and he's complimented me on them!), and I've read every single post within. As I alluded to, I come here because I'm interested in all thoughts on The Return, and this has been the best thread for engaging in discussion about its quality. It saddens me to see that my post was greeted with the very opposite of any sort of discussion, as I am the type of person who always seeks to find a way into a work of art and gain knowledge from other perspectives. I meant no offense.

[mtwentz]

Not sure why what I wrote garnered a couple hostile responses, as I was just responding to a few prior posts about ignoring flaws. In doing so, I included some personal thoughts to flesh out my own feelings on the subjectivity of this particular work. I wasn't trying to make anyone feel any other way, nor was I being ironic. I was just stating that there are a lot of different ways to think about this unorthodox series, and depending on how you process what you're seeing, you may see things differently. It's not an objectively flawed series, there's debate to be had, and yes, what some perceive as flaws may not actually be flaws, which I thought was a given. For example, some might say that the beginning of Mulholland Drive features bad acting, but once you look at it from the perspective of it being a representation of everything being too good to be true, the acting seems quite purposeful, especially given Watts' turn in the second half.

My many contributions to this thread have always been allowed (I've even had civil conversations with AnotherBlueRoseCase and he's complimented me on them!), and I've read every single post within. As I alluded to, I come here because I'm interested in all thoughts on The Return, and this has been the best thread for engaging in discussion about its quality. It saddens me to see that my post was greeted with the very opposite of any sort of discussion, as I am the type of person who always seeks to find a way into a work of art and gain knowledge from other perspectives. I meant no offense.

I think the issue is that The Return works on so many different levels, it becomes very hard for those of us who enjoyed the show to describe in words how we think the story Lynch and Frost worked for us without our praise sounding like gobbledygook to the unconvinced. I think you put it beautifully, but for the Disappointed, it comes off as a bit of a reach. In their view, Lynch and Frost were just lazy writers who dropped the ball and we who enjoyed the show are just trying to cover up for their storytelling incompetence.

[mtwentz]

Looking back on this thread, one of the initial complains of the OP was that the Chromatics and their song Shadow just did not fit into the world of Twin Peaks.

For me, that's the biggest head-scratcher. I knew next to nothing about the Chromatics before TPTR, and I have not particularly been enamored with all of Lynch's musical choices in the show, so I don't really have a dog in the fight, but if there's one thing that could not have been more perfect (along with the Purple Room Scene, episode 8, the Zombie Girl, and Cooper's superimposed head in Ep. 17), it is Shadow by the Chromatics.

In my view, that song nailed the feel not just of the new season, but of Twin Peaks overall, both lyrically and musically, and I have not tired of listening to it, I play it several times a day.

Is there anyone else in the Disappointed group who felt "Shadow" did not lyrically or musically fit into the Twin Peaks world? If so, why?

[Audrey Horne]

Ha - I kept nodding until I got to your list of some of the other most perfect things in Return. But heck yeah, Shadow was perfect. And got an honest visceral reaction to me as soon as James and Shelly were shown.

[Aqwell]

It saddens me to see that my post was greeted with the very opposite of any sort of discussion, as I am the type of person who always seeks to find a way into a work of art and gain knowledge from other perspectives. I meant no offense.

Well, technically if you are not a profoundly disappointed fan but still coming here to talk about the merits of this flawless work of art, you can expect at least some irony from the really disappointed fans. Just saying.

I suppose the acting of Chrysta Bell is another intented non-flaw of this masterpiece?

[LateReg]

It saddens me to see that my post was greeted with the very opposite of any sort of discussion, as I am the type of person who always seeks to find a way into a work of art and gain knowledge from other perspectives. I meant no offense.

Well, technically if you are not a profoundly disappointed fan but still coming here to talk about the merits of this flawless work of art, you can expect at least some irony from the really disappointed fans. Just saying.

I suppose the acting of Chrysta Bell is another intented non-flaw of this masterpiece?

I can't reason Chrysta Bell but I honestly don't mind her. I have tried to think of whether or not her performance would in any way be intended to be the way it is, and the only thing I could come up with is that she's a novice about to be inducted into something more sinister; Lynch has said she looked like a beautiful alien, so maybe there's something to that, as well, ie that Lynch cared more about her appearance as it relates to the lodges, as well as his persona as a lover of beautiful women and director of beautiful women in cinema, and as it relates to the ideas of gender that are being teased throughout (I've always been a huge supporter of the many layered aspects of Lynch/Ferrer ogling her as she walks away, as a continued part of the conversation between Lynch/Duchovny). Obviously, he had plenty of beautiful women to choose from who were also proven actresses, so I'm not sure if Chrysta Bell just backfired on him or if he truly loved the way she acted. For what it's worth, in the behind the scenes clips she actually gives a better performance during the rehearsals. But I don't mind her at all as she fits into this quilt as I do think there is a difference between a compelling presence/"performance" and great "acting", even as I would list her as one of the more recognizable flaws.

[Mr. Reindeer]

DKL likes “bad”/quirky/nonrealistic/artificial acting sometimes. Check out the BTS footage of Lillard and Cornelia Guest rehearsing the prison scene. Guest gives a much more subdued/natural performance in the rehearsal and DKL is clearly not into it. Presumably, he amped Guest up to the overblown soap opera performance she gave, which many have complained about.

Bell’s performance worked fine for me. I thought she was very effective in some scenes (such as the silent scene where she looks at Cooper’s fingerprints — a deceptively tricky thing to perform — and the scene where she is inducted into Blue Rose). I understand why people find her performance stiff or artificial, although I do think it’s been blown out of proportion because she’s a singer, and I think some people came into the season intent on disliking her. That’s not to say that everyone isn’t entitled to his or her opinion, but I never got the vitriol. I’ve actually come to find her performance quite charming.