Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

LateReg
Posts: 905
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:49 am

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:In fact we may have stumbled across a way of measuring precisely how much the cult of Lynch has blinded TR’s fanbase.

Think again about the shovel-painting, floor sweeping, chevrons above the slot machines, the striptease in front of the writer-director, the Monica Belushi dream, “Not where it counts, buddy”, “Oooh YOU’RE nice and wet”, the cheap digital look, the older women mostly shrews, the repeated failure to follow through on subplots or make them cohere, the minimal use of the original cast, the amount of dead air, the refusal of suspension of disbelief, Dougie’s sexual awakening, Laura’s murder cast in doubt, the whole thing perhaps a dream, Green Glove vs BOB, Cooper’s return delayed to episode 15 after endless teases and then prompted by a fork stuck in a socket. Now try to answer as honestly as you can: how would you have felt about the above, singly or especially as a package, if this Twin Peaks revival had been made by Tarantino?

That response you just had to sniggering Quentin fucking Tarantino doing all this to Twin Peaks, that’s the honest one and the right one. Your response to all this when perpetrated by David Lynch, if any different, that’s the fanboy one. The distance between the two is precisely how blinded you’ve been by the cult of Lynch.

There, that’s what I’ve been failing to articulate. And that’s my response to any TR fan who now comments here: would you still be saying that if the exact same show had been made by Tarantino? No, really.

Some fans won’t be able to answer that honestly, or even allow themselves to ask it. Some might, though.

------------------

Mr R --

Sorry, but as I've indicated I'm not interested in rehashing old discussions. Plus I'll be away now for weeks, so just won't be around to keep chatting.

Talking of links, however, I would be genuinely intrigued to read any of your work online. PM me if you wish.


Hey hey hey.

I'm with what Reindeer said over the past few days, and I think I've said this before. Your central question has been impossible to answer because no one but Lynch would have made this in this way. You ask if we'd accept it from another director or have accepted such things before, but I can't think of anything exactly like this; furthermore, isn't it the job of the "master" to take us down new paths and introduce new ways of experiencing and looking at things? As far as other works that perhaps come close, how about any of Godard's later films? Narrative is abandoned almost entirely in something like Film Socialisme and Goodbye to Language 3D, and all you're left with are the gags, the philosophies and the filmmaking, all of which are incredible, imo. What about *Corpus Callossum, one continuous sight gag, a film literally folding in on itself and then rewinding? I've said plenty of times that I'm more into the ideas behind the ideas in The Return, rather than the story itself, and so even the more questionable material you mention (Green Glove) I greatly admire. Actually, I don't find anything else that you mentioned questionable based on my interpretation of the piece. (Love the shovel painting and floor sweeping as I see things like this in films by, say, Bela Tarr all the time, Monica Belluci dream is a huge key to it all as it bridges the real world to the fictional world to the dreams in between, love the striptease, love the storytelling that spills off the screen as it results in abandoned subplots, don't think it's as simple as it's all a dream, etc)

And I've defended Lynch the actor and the practical reasons for Cole's involvement countless times, and that's a complaint I'll never understand. Few things make me giddier than Lynch/Cole stating the line you keep harping on about ("not where it counts, buddy") because I love its double meaning. Right as this thing is about to wrap up, Lynch himself warns us that he's still got balls as a filmmaker. You may find that narcissistic, but I find it to be a hilarious warning that fits with so many other meta-elements of the show.

And you really should check this thing out on Blu-ray: It doesn't look like cheap digital at all.
Last edited by LateReg on Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:08 pm, edited 2 times in total.
IcedOver
Posts: 428
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

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

Postby IcedOver » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:57 am

Robin Davies wrote:Where are these "cast and crew trailers"?


In the shot from the front of the car as Cooper drives Janey-E to the casino, before the cut to Dern at the bar, they pass what are clearly three cast trailers on the left of the screen. That's the way trailers are lined up on film sets.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
User avatar
Mr. Strawberry
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:17 pm
Location: Nevada City, CA
Contact:

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

Postby Mr. Strawberry » Mon Feb 12, 2018 1:01 pm

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:In fact we may have stumbled across a way of measuring precisely how much the cult of Lynch has blinded TR’s fanbase.

Think again about the shovel-painting, floor sweeping, chevrons above the slot machines, the striptease in front of the writer-director, the Monica Belushi dream, “Not where it counts, buddy”, “Oooh YOU’RE nice and wet”, the cheap digital look, the older women mostly shrews, the repeated failure to follow through on subplots or make them cohere, the minimal use of the original cast, the amount of dead air, the refusal of suspension of disbelief, Dougie’s sexual awakening, Laura’s murder cast in doubt, the whole thing perhaps a dream, Green Glove vs BOB, Cooper’s return delayed to episode 15 after endless teases and then prompted by a fork stuck in a socket. Now try to answer as honestly as you can: how would you have felt about the above, singly or especially as a package, if this Twin Peaks revival had been made by Tarantino?

That response you just had to sniggering Quentin fucking Tarantino doing all this to Twin Peaks, that’s the honest one and the right one. Your response to all this when perpetrated by David Lynch, if any different, that’s the fanboy one. The distance between the two is precisely how blinded you’ve been by the cult of Lynch.

There, that’s what I’ve been failing to articulate. And that’s my response to any TR fan who now comments here: would you still be saying that if the exact same show had been made by Tarantino? No, really.

Some fans won’t be able to answer that honestly, or even allow themselves to ask it. Some might, though.

Your argument that "only those blinded by their obsessive devotion to David Lynch could ever like this turd", is practically counterpoint to the one claiming that "anyone who dislikes this masterpiece merely approached it from the wrong angle". In the end, both of those assertions are invalid because they are packaged with subjective prerequisites. They are statements that assume the standards used to gauge the reactions of others.

It's more useful to state why you feel the work is utter trash than it is to imply that others are not seeing trash for what it is. If you're honest about how the show went over for you, your observations may strike a chord or at least help others pinpoint their misgivings. If nothing else, you'll have shared your views without attempting to situate them in some perceived hierarchal structuring of clarity. On the other hand, going on the attack robs your arguments of substance. It's the kind of behavior that can be seen as bitterness or disdain toward those who do not agree with you, and while it is your right to harbor such feelings, they do not make any solid basis for argument, discussion, or reflection.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that everyone's unique and has their own set of desires and expectations. It doesn't really matter "why" -- the "why" is personal and can't be used to excuse or validate a stance, no matter how ridiculous or skewed that "why" may look from our own perspective. Just because you like your art a certain way doesn't mean that people who like it another way "don't get it". It would be more accurate to simply state that we aren't seeing eye to eye and leave it at that.

For you, Twin Peaks has fallen on its face, is nothing like what you dreamed, and just plain sucks. That's completely legitimate. I'm fine with hearing that and I'm fine with someone telling me why they do or don't like something, but I'm not okay with being told that they or I am right or wrong for liking or disliking a piece of fiction. It's just an imaginary story, right? Isn't it okay to like it? Isn't it okay to call it a stupid waste of time? Should anyone be applauded or dismissed for their take on it?

As I stated recently, everyone is right when it comes to art. Some will love and some will hate. No single individual's opinion has more weight than another's. For me personally, The Return just didn't work. I'm a huge Twin Peaks fan and like pretty much everything that David Lynch has done, yet the fact remains: I watched the show with an open mind and ended up disappointed. I certainly did have expectations coming in but after all these years, such a thing is practically unconscious and automatic. There's been a lot of time for us to speculate on where things might have gone, or what we'd have liked to see happen most. Some were able to let those expectations go and yet were left disappointed nonetheless, and that's the category that I find myself in. Others let them go and found themselves pleasantly surprised, and yet others were thrilled or horrified regardless of any expectation or stance on previous works by the creators.

Things have often been heated in here, but I do like how passionately everyone is voicing their love and their hate for the show because of all the intriguing discussion we've been having over it. There can't have been many shows received this way. The only one that comes to mind at the moment is The Prisoner: Patrick McGoohan stated that after the finale aired, people who ran into him on the street openly and emotionally expressed their outrage and bitter disappointment. It would be interesting to see Frost and Lynch subjected to the same. I can picture Lynch trying to merge reality with fiction by pulling out his Gordon Cole hearing aid controller, only to accidentally turn the volume up to max while someone screams into his ear about how he's forever ruined Twin Peaks for them.

Side rant: It's not like I don't get where you're coming from. When I hear my neighbors blasting a kind of heretical fusion of generic rock and empty speed rhymes that I can only describe as Ultra Meth Babble, and am forced to listen for hours while working on the property, of course I get pissed off and make judgements. But I really do try my hardest to imagine exactly how they ended up being who they are, and secretly tell myself that if I started blasting Autechre from the barn, they would "see the light" and the error of their ways! In the end though, isn't someone else going to hear my awful noise and shine the light on me just the same?
Not taking any calls.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:07 pm

"only those blinded by their obsessive devotion to David Lynch could ever like this turd",


Just the latest of many misrepresentations or exaggerations of what I've actually said. I'm pretty much expecting it by now, so no biggie.

On the other hand, going on the attack robs your arguments of substance. It's the kind of behavior that can be seen as bitterness or disdain toward those who do not agree with you, and while it is your right to harbor such feelings, they do not make any solid basis for argument, discussion, or reflection.


What I've been doing regularly throughout the thread, as I've tried to explain very clearly, is to look at the specific flaws and omissions in TR defences and to show what they may reveal about the flaws of TR itself. E.g. the way so many enthusiastic threads petered out so fast may reveal that the show just didn't give fans much to work with. E.g. the mismatch in the volume of straw men, ad hominems, selective blindness, lawyerly rhetorical contortions, sudden swooning ineptitude at opportune moments ("Oh it's simply IMPOSSIBLE to imagine Tarantino being responsible for Green Glove vs BOB :roll: ") etc employed by each side of this debate may reveal which side is scrambling about to present their case at any cost, to use any tactic they can lay their hands on to proclaim the show's innocence or guilt, and that the need for such scrambling often reveals a lack of confidence, acknowledged or otherwise, in the merits of your case. I've made a dozen or so detailed posts along these lines, usually addressed to my fellow sceptics. The ones above probably look more provocative because this thread is now dominated by the fans. (Remember too that when fans have upped their game I've been quick to point that out as well).

Now, you may not find any of that instructive, and that's cool, Mr S. But I am interested in this stuff, not least because awareness of such matters is also transferable to many other contexts. It has saved me much time and embarrassment over the years when presented with some new debate or other just to step back, ignore the specific issues for a moment and see if there's any disparity in the tactics and omissions the two sides are employing.

TLDR The tactics and omissions of the TR fanbase are not being discussed out of bitterness or to hurt their feelings, but for what they may reveal about the weaknesses of the show itself, which after all are the subject of this thread, and also because patterns within fandom can be just plain interesting.

Over & out for now, folks. You can now enjoy a few weeks/months without your motives being analysed to death.

Anybody want to read a novella about a profoundly disappointed fan kidnapping David Lynch?
Last edited by AnotherBlueRoseCase on Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lynch on Trump, mid-2018: "He could go down as one of the greatest presidents in history."
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1815
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

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

Postby mtwentz » Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:30 pm

IcedOver wrote:
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:
There, that’s what I’ve been failing to articulate. And that’s my response to any TR fan who now comments here: would you still be saying that if the exact same show had been made by Tarantino? No, really.

Some fans won’t be able to answer that honestly, or even allow themselves to ask it. Some might, though.


If, say, it wasn't David Lynch but David Nutter, a prolific, bland TV director who is brought on to do pilots, just a style-less technician, who did all or part of this, the reaction to the myriad flaws wouldn't be as charitable. Same if it had been J.J. Abrams, who gets hate for all he does. If the overrated and bland David Fincher had done it, as some floated when Lynch "quit", then I think the reaction would have been similar but not as rabid as to Lynch, because for some reason he is considered an auteur even though I view most of his films as garbage. Lynch has one of the most specific and recognizable styles of any filmmaker, and probably the most ardent fans of any one filmmaker, so of course many are going to give him the benefit of the doubt. To me, I think many have gone overboard in excusing so much of this show, even down to production goofs, as intentional. I don't give a pass to all the problems.


First of all, production goofs, who really cares about that? There are people who practically make a living out of spotting those, and you can find goofs in most major productions: even extremely well regarded films and shows have a number of goofs. 99% of the viewers never notice these hiccups unless they read the IMDB page for that production. I personally watched 18 hours of TPTR without noticing a single goof until a couple were pointed out to me.

Honestly, these kinds of 'goofs' go with the territory and some of them in the original Twin Peaks are legendary, like Albert taking his sunglasses off several times in Ep. 8, and blood coming out of the gardening tool before it touches Harold's face.

I also think there is no evidence that any of us cut Lynch slack because he's Lynch. Mr. Reindeer in particular has been pretty critical of many aspects of the show almost from the beginning, while stating he is fascinated by the show overall. I feel I have been the same. There are parts of the story I definitely have not liked and thought could have been better written, but the good has far outweighed the bad, in my opinion.

The universe of people who will love or hate a movie because they have a predisposition for or against a certain director is pretty small. I can only truly speak for myself, but when I sit down and watch a movie or a show, I am immersed in that world, and the name of the person directing is not something I reflect on. I either enjoy it or I don't.

(For the record, I don't like most of J.J. Abrams stuff, not because J.J. directed it, but simply because I don't find the few films of his that I have seen to be all that engaging.)
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
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 » Mon Feb 12, 2018 2:48 pm

Another Blue Rose and Mr Strawberry - you're making lengthy posts but I don't know your reasons for not liking season 3. Can you be more specific please?

If you tell us that the total lack of Cooper throughout the season was a big problem for you that makes perfect sense to me. I also found that to be a problem - yet at the same time I saw that as a clear direction the show wanted to go in. So either I could just go with that or reject it and be alienated.

For me, everything about season 3 screamed Lynch trying on the director's gloves again and getting the swing of it all again. Which, after all, it was! The parts play like him trying different styles, approaches and angles to take this whole story. Yes, it felt like it was being made up on the spot also!

Moreover, this season to me felt like a new beginning. I do feel like a lot of the big fans claim that it felt like a definitive ending or that they're hugely satisfied by this season. I felt the complete opposite. EVERYTHING about it felt like a determined effort to make even more confusion, more mystery and to just frustrate the viewer so that they want the story to continue.

Even Frost's 'Final' Dossier felt like a deliberately ridiculous wrap-up that somehow didn't ring true. Any easy answers we were offered in the series or Frost's books should be taken with a pinch of salt in my opinion. That I felt absolutely baffled by the ending of the show did annoy me yes, absolutely. But it didn't make me dislike the show. I do find a lot of online Lynch and Peaks buffs quite happy to offer explanations how everything relates to Judy or the Frog-Moth - or how there are three realities and Cooper and Carrie enter into our one at the end - but I find all of that frankly ridiculous and laughable. As its creators see the show - as a continuing story - if things in the entertainment world worked differently we'd have a season four just about ready to air and it could be hugely different to the last one - not as wilfully bizarre or experimental and with MacLachlan playing one character and not at least three.

Would I have any problem with other directors and writers working on this continuing Twin Peaks? Absolutely not. That's how the show started. May Twin Peaks live forever!
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Mon Feb 12, 2018 3:33 pm

As far as goofs, MT rightly notes that such flubs are an indelible part of film history going right back to the beginning of the medium. Whether you view them as fun trivia, charming quirks, or little distractions that detract from your enjoyment, they’re inevitable. I think this production overall, as well as hours of BTS footage that are now available, tend to show that DKL exercised enormous attention to the smallest details. Sure, some stuff may have slipped by due to what a massive and sometimes rushed production this was (I’ve mentioned before my personal pet peeve of how blatant it is that Ike’s motel is in LA). The Vegas trailer thing (which I didn’t spot over four or five rewatches) doesn’t seem that egregious to me. Movies shoot in Vegas all the time; who’s to say Cooper didn’t drive by the set of The Hangover 4? (And if ABRC accuses me of rationalizing away DKL’s shortcomings, I’ll admit that maybe in this one particular instance I am. But I couldn’t resist.)
LateReg
Posts: 905
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:11 pm

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:
"only those blinded by their obsessive devotion to David Lynch could ever like this turd",


Just the latest of many misrepresentations or exaggerations of what I've actually said. I'm pretty much expecting it by now, so no biggie.

On the other hand, going on the attack robs your arguments of substance. It's the kind of behavior that can be seen as bitterness or disdain toward those who do not agree with you, and while it is your right to harbor such feelings, they do not make any solid basis for argument, discussion, or reflection.


What I've been doing regularly throughout the thread, as I've tried to explain very clearly, is to look at the specific flaws and omissions in TR defences and to show what they may reveal about the flaws of TR itself. E.g. the way so many enthusiastic threads petered out so fast may reveal that the show just didn't give fans much to work with. E.g. the mismatch in the volume of straw men, ad hominems, selective blindness, lawyerly rhetorical contortions, sudden swooning ineptitude at opportune moments ("Oh it's simply IMPOSSIBLE to imagine Tarantino being responsible for Green Glove vs BOB :roll: ") etc employed by each side of this debate may reveal which side is scrambling about to present their case at any cost, to use any tactic they can lay their hands on to proclaim the show's innocence or guilt, and that the need for such scrambling often reveals a lack of confidence, acknowledged or otherwise, in the merits of your case. I've made a dozen or so detailed posts along these lines, usually addressed to my fellow sceptics. The ones above probably look more provocative because this thread is now dominated by the fans. (Remember too that when fans have upped their game I've been quick to point that out as well).


I'm sorry to say, but I generally interpret some of your posts the same way Mr. Strawberry did. I think the points you make about the show are valid even as I disagree (your "shoddiness" debate was actually just a flip side of how some supporters feel and was excellent, as were many other fiery diatribes) but I see you going on to discredit the way fans feel about the show based on the strictly hypothetical questions you're asking, and I really don't see any satisfactory answer to your question (though I do feel I provided a few movie examples above (Godard, Snow) that prove that this could be my cup of tea). You're asking me to truly suspend disbelief and imagine a Tarantino movie with Green Glove...I absolutely can't do it, nor could I have imagined a Lynch movie, let alone Twin Peaks with it, as a climax no less. But I see: a parody of the climax of every CGI superhero slugfest out there; a totally ridiculous way for Cooper to not actually have to confront his demons; a commentary on deus ex machina (and in this context an acknowledgment that there is actually no way for Cooper or anyone to defeat absolute evil) and on how closure can be entirely dissatisfying (Zodiac is the modern thriller I hold all other modern thrillers up to, because most fall apart as soon as you solve the murder, and Zodiac avoids that fate in haunted fashion); a pretty cool light show and great individual shots. If somebody else made this exact work, that built in this same way, I would give the same level of thought to the Green Glove battle, in no small part because it seems so suspiciously unnatural within this world that we've just spent 16.5 hours within. To me, that makes it worth thinking about rather than simply reacting to. My instant reaction, for the record, was....hmmmmm, I don't know about that but I sure liked the way it looked and felt. Despite not liking the plot point, that feeling made it easy for me to dig further and appreciate their seeming intent.

And BlueRose, you have brought up before that you've seen The Return disappearing from the conversation or that people have turned on it, or, a while back, that it's no longer being considered a masterpiece. That may be true, depending on where you look, but that's simply not the case from where I'm looking. Yes, on this message board, only a few supporters are regularly active, but while I applaud the apparent objectivity of such evidence, the fact is that I don't post nearly as much as I think or talk about The Return. Yes, I've somewhat moved on from the boards, but I've seen The Return six times now, and can't wait to watch it again. I've seen approximately 200 films/TV shows from 2017, and The Return is all I think about and I can honestly say that there has never been a work of cinematic art that has contained so many layers to think about...and one of the things I've frequently pondered, especially at first from week to week when I was uncomfortable with its tone and shifts, is its quality as a work of art (I had to settle into it and needed to have the whole puzzle rather than just pieces). That's just speaking for me, but I know that there are plenty of others who feel the same, as evidenced by The Return's placement on year-end lists. I only tell you this because you've alluded that it's been forgotten about, when there's evidence that it's grown in stature: It placed #1 on Cahiers du Cinema, #2 on Sight and Sound (where certain admirers either didn't know they could vote for it or valued it above any film but didn't think it qualified as a film), #2 in the metacritic TV critics' list tally (with the highest number of 1st place votes), and is bound to place highly on the upcoming Village Voice (where once again not every critic who holds it in high esteem will vote for it as they consider it TV, not film) and Cinema Scope film polls. It was disqualified from Film Comment's poll, but if you look at the individual critics' ballots you will see that it would have likely placed #1, has by far the most #1 placements on Toronto Film Review's poll of critics and filmmakers, and 5 star reviews continue to roll in every day on Letterboxd. All this is just to provide the current critical standing of the show in order to ask you your feeling about something. Even if you don't ultimately don't care about critics and if they - who clearly have a history with Lynch - may also be drinking the Kool Aid, I'm curious as to how you feel about an aged and renowned critic such as Jonathan Rosenbaum - who has always thought that Lynch lost a step after Eraserhead and only regained it with INLAND EMPIRE - stating that The Return is the best American film of the year. Surely he's not one of the blinded, right?

This is all just to say that I think there are a lot of people who feel like I do, and that the likelihood of us all just nodding along simply because its Lynch has got to be slim. Sometimes it's hard to see this from this message board where we all seem more personally attached to Twin Peaks or Lynch, but there are those out there beyond this board who think that this is a relatively perfect and transcendent work of cinema, and if their love continues, that's how this will go down in history. We who love it aren't being too kind and forgiving flaws - from our vantage and understanding of the piece we don't see them. Just as you who dislike it aren't being too harsh and needlessly nitpicking - from your vantage and understanding of the piece you just see alternately lazy and ambitious trash. And God I hate saying stuff like that since I'm as passionate about this being great as you are about it being otherwise, and I believe in debate, but there's just so many different ways of looking at this thing, and so many instances where potential flaws become strengths, that sometimes it just comes down to how you're craning your neck.
Last edited by LateReg on Mon Feb 12, 2018 5:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
LateReg
Posts: 905
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Mon Feb 12, 2018 4:32 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:As far as goofs, MT rightly notes that such flubs are an indelible part of film history going right back to the beginning of the medium. Whether you view them as fun trivia, charming quirks, or little distractions that detract from your enjoyment, they’re inevitable. I think this production overall, as well as hours of BTS footage that are now available, tend to show that DKL exercised enormous attention to the smallest details. Sure, some stuff may have slipped by due to what a massive and sometimes rushed production this was (I’ve mentioned before my personal pet peeve of how blatant it is that Ike’s motel is in LA). The Vegas trailer thing (which I didn’t spot over four or five rewatches) doesn’t seem that egregious to me. Movies shoot in Vegas all the time; who’s to say Cooper didn’t drive by the set of The Hangover 4? (And if ABRC accuses me of rationalizing away DKL’s shortcomings, I’ll admit that maybe in this one particular instance I am. But I couldn’t resist.)


Although I took the route of stating that the Vegas trailers could add to the meta-textual flavor I notice throughout (and I still like that idea since they are, finally, leaving Las Vegas, like, for real that time), this is the kind of thing I was getting at. Really, who is to say that those trailers aren't there for another reason, such as for a different film? Being that this show is set in reality (at that time, anyway), would it be so odd to see film related trailers on the side of the road? It's all just to say that something like that doesn't detract from the production for me.
User avatar
Deep Thought
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:05 pm
Location: Florida

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

Postby Deep Thought » Mon Feb 12, 2018 6:29 pm

Ha ha the trailers are such a film-nerd thing to be concerned about.

Kubrick noticed that Ambassador de Sadesky cracked a smile at Stangelove's rouge arm here,

https://youtu.be/JaTR46iU1Do?t=1m45s

but kept the scene in regardless knowing no one would notice. Their eyes were on Sellers, just as our eyes were on Watts and her expression, not some roadside vehicles.
There's your roast beef and cheese.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

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

Postby N. Needleman » Mon Feb 12, 2018 9:30 pm

As has been noted in other relevant threads, the overall public and media reaction to S3 remains largely positive. That hasn't changed. Don't believe me, check the year-end lists. Any one poster's reaction is their own opinion, and they are entitled to it.

As for the state of the forum - as has also been noted before, it waxes and wanes over time, it always has. Many of us have also lurked a long time, even before we had screen names. For me personally I was burnt out after S3 from so much nonstop stimulus after 25 years, and during its run this forum had gone from being generally convivial to bitterly divided within the hardcore fanbase a la the early reaction to FWWM. I didn't want to deal with that drama more than I had to, so throughout the season I found myself spending more time at more relaxed, less intense discussion spots like the A.V. Club talkbacks for the show and the TP subreddit. I continue to do so now as I digest the show and take a bit of a breather. Frankly, there also isn't much impetus to post a lot when a ton of the traffic is in this thread and driven by a couple random folks fancying themselves the umpteenth iteration of Plain-Talkin' Truth Teller and bullying other posters, who seem to inexplicably allow themselves to be trod upon while pretending it's some sort of good faith discussion. I just don't have any interest in that and find it ugly and pointless to watch. I may disagree with, say, our forum's Audrey Horne on many elements of S3, but I think Audrey and I still respect and understand each other at the end of the day. That's the difference.

Basically: I'll be back when the temperature among this more intense pocket of the fandom cools down, when LITM resumes Journey Through Twin Peaks, and when I've had time to catch my breath, clean my palate and go back to the show after basically OD'ing on it last summer and fall. I've also been waist deep in work and a screenplay draft for months. But Dugpa is always a home. People just drift in and out through time. Nothing new.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2403
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Mon Feb 12, 2018 10:10 pm

N. Needleman wrote:Frankly, there also isn't much impetus to post a lot when a ton of the traffic is in this thread and driven by a couple random folks fancying themselves the umpteenth iteration of Plain-Talkin' Truth Teller and bullying other posters, who seem to inexplicably allow themselves to be trod upon while pretending it's some sort of good faith discussion.


Not sure who you think is being bullied. For instance, over the past few days, MT Wentz, LateReg, and myself have remained perfectly comfortable in our own enjoyment of TP:TR while going back and forth with AnotherBlueRoseCase. Where we have found his arguments uninteresting, conclusory, or irrelevant, we have said so, and explained why. Where we have found his points meritorious, we have responded in kind. I don’t think any of us has been “trod upon” or lost any dignity. Who gave you the right to decide that anyone other than yourself has been “trod upon” or bullied?

I value and respect, and have missed over the past weeks, your contributions on these boards. But you’re not being any better than the proverbial bully by attempting to label posters as victims without their consenting to the label. I believe you’re a firm believer in the theory that Cooper’s fatal flaw is that he inserts himself as chivalrous champion in situations where no one asked him to do so (apologies in advance if I’m getting that wrong). Respectfully, that’s what you’re doing here, and you’re better than that. No one on these boards needs to be told how to feel.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2041
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

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

Postby N. Needleman » Mon Feb 12, 2018 11:10 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:Who gave you the right to decide that anyone other than yourself has been “trod upon” or bullied?


I haven't been, because that's not what I do. But AFAIC the dude's insulted and condescended to every poster he disagrees with on the board for months as you attempt to earnestly engage. The thing is that he has no interest in that, and I feel he's made that clear at length. But his behavior is tolerated and courted so he just makes it more outrageous, hoping to either get a rise or continue to make you oblige him. Either way he wins because he is the center of attention, and you are reacting to his demands (the latest: some sort of bizarre HUAC/Tiger Beat-esque questionnaire). I don't have an investment in feeding that, which is why I also stopped responding to his repeated attempts to bait me by invoking my name.

But you’re not being any better than the proverbial bully by attempting to label posters as victims without their consenting to the label.


I didn't call you a victim, and I have no interest in telling you how to feel. You can do whatever you want. But I do think you're being taken for a rather trollish ride. I also have no interest in saving you from anything - I just think it's a waste of time and an ugly, frustrating scene to watch. So I don't. You want to continue to think you're being engaged with honestly, go for it. I'll be back when the noise cessates.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:29 am

LateReg wrote: Few things make me giddier than Lynch/Cole stating the line you keep harping on about ("not where it counts, buddy")


Few things make you giddier? That’s pretty strong language, pretty emphatic. So you’ll have no problem at all saying you’d be happy to do the same thing yourself if you were the show’s writer-director...

This is a very simple hypothetical. You’ve said few things make you giddier than a particular artistic choice. So please show us how sincere you are and reason to believe you’re not just 'loving' this TR moment because the man responsible was Lynch. If I came online to repeatedly state my ‘love’ or giddiness regarding a particular artistic choice I would have no problem whatsoever either imagining doing so in my own work or standing by my guns and saying I’d be happy to do the same.

It’s a perfectly simple and reasonable request. So say it loud and proud, brother: “If I, LateReg, were the writer-director of a TV drama watched by millions I’d be happy to write and include a scene where I mention that my cock can still get hard and then follow it up with a reaction shot from a gorgeous actress decades younger.”

If it helps maybe present this hypothetical to your partner. Ask them how they’d feel if you plonked yourself into a TV drama to tell the world that despite what they might be thinking, you can still get it up. If you want a larger sample size ask your children if you have any, or your closest friends. (And if one of them says e.g., “Oh yes, Daddy, I’d love it if you did that,” break off the relationship immediately. They do not have your best interests at heart, mate).

The real point being that, as outlined above, many of the TR defences in general just haven’t rung true. LateReg himself has usually been one of the more honest defenders of the show, which is why he’s been worth engaging with. Unlike the stalker who's just shown up.
Lynch on Trump, mid-2018: "He could go down as one of the greatest presidents in history."
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Posts: 1946
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 » Tue Feb 13, 2018 9:43 am

Love ya, Needleman - and always love reading Reindeer's thoughtful analysis. For the most part - entire part? - of the run i never posted in here. Was pretty much on the ride - it really was just the finale that didn't do it for me -and then had me look at all the scenes prior with more scrutiny.

In the end it's not that different for me - i will cherry pick pieces I like much like I did with the second season.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests