Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

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

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Fri May 26, 2017 6:03 am

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:
pinefloat wrote:Regarding the above 9hr -> 18hr point: perhaps eventually someone will create a brilliant, tightly-edited 9hr fan edit :)

There's good content there, but stretched soooo thin.


Some great posts here, and kudos to the S03 enthusiasts who’ve come in and defended their case without the abuse we sceptics get elsewhere. This is now the most interesting thread on the Return.

My disappointment probably wouldn’t have been so great had the original 9-hour plan been stuck to. Of the aspects I dislike, top of the heap is the extension of virtually every scene to at least twice its needed length, and in many cases to more than x10 that length. This more than anything made my rewatch, um, unrewarding. (To those defending the two-minute painting shovels scene: why stop at two minutes? Why not four? Why not twenty? It would be genuinely interesting to know at what point you’d have found watching paint dry unbearable and considered that Lynch is not on his game here).

But of course the absurd length of scenes, the absence of decent music, the at times pitiful acting and the dead air that often results from it, the poorly shot and lit scenes of Las Vegas suburbia are not only problematic in themselves. It’s the way they all play off and accentuate each other that made my rewatch sometimes remind me a little of coming down off E. The desolation, the meaninglessness, the ugliness, the longing for this to end, etc. And I’m sure that as the enthusiasts say, this is entirely deliberate on Lynch’s part.

But this just isn’t good enough. Endlessly repeating that Lynch intends everything onscreen is in no way a proper defence of it. Parts of S03 are now lodged in the same place in my brain as Michael Bay and shitty superhero movies; all of them feature gee-whizz effects and moments of intensity that in no way compensate for the extreme contempt for the audience and the sense of not GAF about the events or central characters they induce. Now, few would claim that Bay and superhero movies haven’t been committeed and test-screened to death; every last thing onscreen is 100% deliberate, in other words. But this doesn’t get them off the hook for how dreadful these films are, and it doesn’t get Lynch off either.

There’s nothing particularly mysterious or interesting about what’s happened here. Lynch has given us one of the most extreme acts of high-profile audience contempt since Joyce’s Finnegans Wake, and some of us feel like returning some of that contempt. And I say that as someone whose favourite sequence in all of cinema is the Bowie and convenience store bit in FWWM. That film is a masterpiece because it was wild, extremely emotionally engaging and disciplined.

The Return? It’s ballsy, for sure. I would never question Lynch’s courage. And it will probably become a stoner classic. Stuff like ‘There they are, Albert. Faces of stone’ (Cole makes a face of stone) is funny now but would be far more so on weed, I imagine. Stoners might also be able to handle the longueurs better. But courage and druggie giggles are nowhere near enough to make a half-decent work of art.

Chins up, fellow group members. Together we’ll get through the looming hours of DroolCoop stotting around the Vegas suburbs.



Haha. Loving' your post ABRC
That 'Faces of stone' line is definitely one that grows on you and fits the tone of the series so far perfectly.

I agree about the slow shit man.
It's like, people talk about how Lynch came and saved Season Two Episode one and the finale and introduced all his slow shit, like Cooper and the giant. People hated that at the time, and in retrospect that scene is one of the defining moments of the series. But four hours of that is different to ten minutes in the season debut.
Even if the season picks up after this, it's going to be so hard to revisit.
If this series turns out to be great then it's going to be the start that turns out to be the lingering middle of season two.., especially once the mysteries are resolved.
Pretty much all that happens in the first hour is that damn box. Once we know what it is, who in their right minds is ever going to go back and revisit that for the love of watching paint dry?
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Fri May 26, 2017 6:05 am

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:[ And it will probably become a stoner classic. Stuff like ‘There they are, Albert. Faces of stone’ (Cole makes a face of stone) is funny now but would be far more so on weed, I imagine. Stoners might also be able to handle the longueurs better. But courage and druggie giggles are nowhere near enough to make a half-decent work of art.


I always wondered what my wife puts in my coffee! :) (I was laughing out loud reading what you wrote about the stoner classic).

Albeit I disagree with most of what you expressed, I do agree on two points:

1) droolingCoop can't be carried for much longer. His character has to move forward, faster. The idea is great, I do love droolingCoop, but I also want to get rid of him asap.

2) Jacoby and the shovels... there might be a meaning; I hope that the four minute long scene actually brings to something. I agree that this scene felt too long. I just wonder if Lynch was just trying to give a sense of time - long, steady preparation for an event. Admittedly, I am not too optimist about this specific scene.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

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

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Fri May 26, 2017 6:22 am

I'm interested, as a disillusioned fan...

What will this series have to go through to redeem itself in your eyes?

We still have fourteen episodes. For me the series has strayed so far from my expectations, but I guess it could still turn around and subvert my appreciation. It would have to be a deer meadow scenario. If what we're seeing as the America wide version of Deer Meadow, a kind of anti Twin Peaks and Cooper is revived and there is a genuine return to an enthusiasm of some sort, I could still be on board. Albeit, I still think it would be a very weird choice for the creators to isolate fans like this, it's possible that it could be a kind of anti statement that kicks back i with Coop or Tammy driving into Twin Peaks with the old sign and Badalamentis music. Would it be possible for Lynch to win back your heart at this stage?
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Fri May 26, 2017 6:26 am

yaxomoxay wrote:
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:[ And it will probably become a stoner classic. Stuff like ‘There they are, Albert. Faces of stone’ (Cole makes a face of stone) is funny now but would be far more so on weed, I imagine. Stoners might also be able to handle the longueurs better. But courage and druggie giggles are nowhere near enough to make a half-decent work of art.


I always wondered what my wife puts in my coffee! :) (I was laughing out loud reading what you wrote about the stoner classic).

Albeit I disagree with most of what you expressed, I do agree on two points:

1) droolingCoop can't be carried for much longer. His character has to move forward, faster. The idea is great, I do love droolingCoop, but I also want to get rid of him asap.

2) Jacoby and the shovels... there might be a meaning; I hope that the four minute long scene actually brings to something. I agree that this scene felt too long. I just wonder if Lynch was just trying to give a sense of time - long, steady preparation for an event. Admittedly, I am not too optimist about this specific scene.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wait a minute. The shovels scene is actually four minutes rather than 'just' two? Meaning my watch isn't working properly and others are actually experiencing these seemingly interminable scenes at half the freaking speed I am?

I think I need a wee lie down here.
Lynch on Trump, mid-2018: "He could go down as one of the greatest presidents in history."
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Fri May 26, 2017 6:27 am

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:
yaxomoxay wrote:
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:[ And it will probably become a stoner classic. Stuff like ‘There they are, Albert. Faces of stone’ (Cole makes a face of stone) is funny now but would be far more so on weed, I imagine. Stoners might also be able to handle the longueurs better. But courage and druggie giggles are nowhere near enough to make a half-decent work of art.


I always wondered what my wife puts in my coffee! :) (I was laughing out loud reading what you wrote about the stoner classic).

Albeit I disagree with most of what you expressed, I do agree on two points:

1) droolingCoop can't be carried for much longer. His character has to move forward, faster. The idea is great, I do love droolingCoop, but I also want to get rid of him asap.

2) Jacoby and the shovels... there might be a meaning; I hope that the four minute long scene actually brings to something. I agree that this scene felt too long. I just wonder if Lynch was just trying to give a sense of time - long, steady preparation for an event. Admittedly, I am not too optimist about this specific scene.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Wait a minute. The shovels scene is actually four minutes rather than 'just' two? Meaning my watch isn't working properly and others are actually experiencing these seemingly interminable scenes at half the freaking speed I am?

I think I need a wee lie down here.


I honestly don't know how long it was. It felt about four minutes, but I haven't measured it.
You see, some scenes in your world are faster than the same scenes in my world!! :o :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

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

Postby Gabriel » Fri May 26, 2017 6:36 am

yaxomoxay wrote:But how can we complain when the original gave us amazing stuff but also:
- Nadine's rails
- Pete's sad marriage life
- Earle.
- Dick Tremaine/Lucy's triangle
- invitation to love
- Harold (a wasted opportunity in my opinion)
- Madeline, aka the last thing a show should do that is the "twin" that pops out without warning.
- The Ghostwood deal which didn't bring to anything
- A millionaire turned in a mock version of General Lee
- Audrey's completely useless millionaire boyfriend


As I said before, picking these items is a bit of an ad hominem. Effectively you're saying: 'You don't like the new show, so you want the old show back with all the bad aspects as well.'

Quite frankly, I'd tolerate all of the above if the main storyline and production values were up to snuff.

Twin Peaks is supposed to be about the town (or county, but that's an argument for another day!) What many people wanted was for the new show to return to its season one roots: a small, picture postcard town, seething with corruption and something very dangerous lurking in the woods, town locals we love or love to hate as 'onion layers' get peeled back to reveal what lurks beneath the seemingly benign everyday lives of these small town folk.

Instead, we have Madeline Zima on a video camera getting her tits out before having her brains sucked out by a weird video effect somewhere in New York! :lol:

The truth is that the original series had amazing moments - often brought to life by Cooper, Sarah and Leland Palmer, and Leo - mixed with completely useless, cheesy stuff. (I also think that Major Briggs elevated S2 by a notch compared to what it really is).


Trying to convince people that the new series is good by saying the old one is bad isn't the best way to go about it! ;) I think the thing you fail to see is that people like the 'completely useless, cheesy stuff!' It's what made people come back and watch the show every week, alongside the Laura Palmer investigation. I love the 'damn fine coffee and cherry pie' aspects.

The truth is that there is no way for Lynch to replicate the mystery of Twin Peaks - both Laura's murder and the secrets of the town - just by update. The "who killed Laura Palmer?" storm is not coming back; that stuff is a rarity similar to "who shot JR?" or Lost's "What is the Island?" (Which was a wasted opportunity).


Continuing the mystery of Twin Peaks isn't replication. No one's saying we had to have another body fished out of the water, wrapped in plastic, but there's a whole town there and countless opportunities to tell new, interesting stories. Lynchworld (aka season three) has its own tales to tell, but there's no real connection with the old show thematically, tonally, dramatically or storywise. It's a twisted pantomime where Twin Peaks actors have been dressed up in costume to perform sketches that the show runners find amusing, rather than a cohesive drama. I like Lynchworld, but it's disingenuous to pretend its a new season of Twin Peaks.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Fri May 26, 2017 6:37 am

LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:I'm interested, as a disillusioned fan...

What will this series have to go through to redeem itself in your eyes?

We still have fourteen episodes. For me the series has strayed so far from my expectations, but I guess it could still turn around and subvert my appreciation. It would have to be a deer meadow scenario. If what we're seeing as the America wide version of Deer Meadow, a kind of anti Twin Peaks and Cooper is revived and there is a genuine return to an enthusiasm of some sort, I could still be on board. Albeit, I still think it would be a very weird choice for the creators to isolate fans like this, it's possible that it could be a kind of anti statement that kicks back i with Coop or Tammy driving into Twin Peaks with the old sign and Badalamentis music. Would it be possible for Lynch to win back your heart at this stage?


Sorry I don't have time to reply at respectable length, as I need to go to work now. But S03 can't be redeemed for me for the simple reason that Kyle MacLachlan's performance isn't strong enough for me to care about what happens to any of the roles he plays. Banking on that performance has been another of Lynch's blunders. I'll start caring more when Good Coop returns in full but too much damage has been done there.

On Monday it was a little suspicious how fast the consensus was reached that lots of things would change once Coop returns to TP. I suspect some of those posting knew more than they were letting on. So yeah, I do think the show will see a significant improvement near the end. Just a pity Lynch decided to give us at least four hours of crushing tediousness before that improvement and uplift happen.

And apologies for keeping banging on about this, but I just don't forgive works in any medium that have this level of audience contempt.
Lynch on Trump, mid-2018: "He could go down as one of the greatest presidents in history."
User avatar
Venus
Posts: 457
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:10 pm
Location: England

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

Postby Venus » Fri May 26, 2017 6:47 am

Gabriel wrote:


Continuing the mystery of Twin Peaks isn't replication. No one's saying we had to have another body fished out of the water, wrapped in plastic, but there's a whole town there and countless opportunities to tell new, interesting stories. Lynchworld (aka season three) has its own tales to tell, but there's no real connection with the old show thematically, tonally, dramatically or storywise. It's a twisted pantomime where Twin Peaks actors have been dressed up in costume to perform sketches that the show runners find amusing, rather than a cohesive drama. I like Lynchworld, but it's disingenuous to pretend its a new season of Twin Peaks.


Yes, all of this, yes. I'd also like to see some emotional intelligence shown in it. I'm hoping that will appear soon.
When Jupiter and Saturn meet...
mlsstwrt
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:35 am

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

Postby mlsstwrt » Fri May 26, 2017 6:53 am

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:
pinefloat wrote:Regarding the above 9hr -> 18hr point: perhaps eventually someone will create a brilliant, tightly-edited 9hr fan edit :)

There's good content there, but stretched soooo thin.


Some great posts here, and kudos to the S03 enthusiasts who’ve come in and defended their case without the abuse we sceptics get elsewhere. This is now the most interesting thread on the Return.

My disappointment probably wouldn’t have been so great had the original 9-hour plan been stuck to. Of the aspects I dislike, top of the heap is the extension of virtually every scene to at least twice its needed length, and in many cases to more than x10 that length. This more than anything made my rewatch, um, unrewarding. (To those defending the two-minute painting shovels scene: why stop at two minutes? Why not four? Why not twenty? It would be genuinely interesting to know at what point you’d have found watching paint dry unbearable and considered that Lynch is not on his game here).

But of course the absurd length of scenes, the absence of decent music, the at times pitiful acting and the dead air that often results from it, the poorly shot and lit scenes of Las Vegas suburbia are not only problematic in themselves. It’s the way they all play off and accentuate each other that made my rewatch sometimes remind me a little of coming down off E. The desolation, the meaninglessness, the ugliness, the longing for this to end, etc. And I’m sure that as the enthusiasts say, this is entirely deliberate on Lynch’s part.

But this just isn’t good enough. Endlessly repeating that Lynch intends everything onscreen is in no way a proper defence of it. Parts of S03 are now lodged in the same place in my brain as Michael Bay and shitty superhero movies; all of them feature gee-whizz effects and moments of intensity that in no way compensate for the extreme contempt for the audience and the sense of not GAF about the events or central characters they induce. Now, few would claim that Bay and superhero movies haven’t been committeed and test-screened to death; every last thing onscreen is 100% deliberate, in other words. But this doesn’t get them off the hook for how dreadful these films are, and it doesn’t get Lynch off either.

There’s nothing particularly mysterious or interesting about what’s happened here. Lynch has given us one of the most extreme acts of high-profile audience contempt since Joyce’s Finnegans Wake, and some of us feel like returning some of that contempt. And I say that as someone whose favourite sequence in all of cinema is the Bowie and convenience store bit in FWWM. That film is a masterpiece because it was wild, extremely emotionally engaging and disciplined.

The Return? It’s ballsy, for sure. I would never question Lynch’s courage. And it will probably become a stoner classic. Stuff like ‘There they are, Albert. Faces of stone’ (Cole makes a face of stone) is funny now but would be far more so on weed, I imagine. Stoners might also be able to handle the longueurs better. But courage and druggie giggles are nowhere near enough to make a half-decent work of art.

Chins up, fellow group members. Together we’ll get through the looming hours of DroolCoop stotting around the Vegas suburbs.


Just wanted to say I thought this was a fantastic post.

I too am very troubled by the whole, 'But it's deliberate!' argument. Acting is terrible? It's meant to be and so it's not terrible acting, it's genius acting! Feels lifeless! That's what Lynch intends! Emotionally void? It's like that on purpose. I'm not suggesting that the argument itself is never valid but it's an argument that can in theory be used to end criticism in its entirety. All I can really respond is that, well, if Lynch is deliberately boring us out of our minds by making us literally watch paint dry or pacing much of the Return such that there are times I want to put an axe through my TV set then, deliberate or not, I don't like it.

A lot of us have said the same or very similar things - that Lynch seems to have a lot of contempt for us. That's fine, maybe he has reason to. Lynch has been and always will be an idol of mind but idols aren't beyond criticism.

Another thing that bothers me. Lynch is a really cool figure. He has a lot of often young, hip, attractive fans in the entertainment world. That's absolutely fine but that doesn't mean he needs to shoehorn them into the Twin Peaks world. It worked well with Bowie and Isaak (not saying either were particularly young at the time of FWWM) but for me it's been a disaster when it comes to sticking the likes of The Chromatics or Chrysta Bell into a universe which we all love. I hate it and I question Lynch's motivations.
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Fri May 26, 2017 7:20 am

Gabriel wrote:
yaxomoxay wrote:But how can we complain when the original gave us amazing stuff but also:
- Nadine's rails
- Pete's sad marriage life
- Earle.
- Dick Tremaine/Lucy's triangle
- invitation to love
- Harold (a wasted opportunity in my opinion)
- Madeline, aka the last thing a show should do that is the "twin" that pops out without warning.
- The Ghostwood deal which didn't bring to anything
- A millionaire turned in a mock version of General Lee
- Audrey's completely useless millionaire boyfriend


As I said before, picking these items is a bit of an ad hominem. Effectively you're saying: 'You don't like the new show, so you want the old show back with all the bad aspects as well.'

Quite frankly, I'd tolerate all of the above if the main storyline and production values were up to snuff.

Twin Peaks is supposed to be about the town (or county, but that's an argument for another day!) What many people wanted was for the new show to return to its season one roots: a small, picture postcard town, seething with corruption and something very dangerous lurking in the woods, town locals we love or love to hate as 'onion layers' get peeled back to reveal what lurks beneath the seemingly benign everyday lives of these small town folk.

Instead, we have Madeline Zima on a video camera getting her tits out before having her brains sucked out by a weird video effect somewhere in New York! :lol:

The truth is that the original series had amazing moments - often brought to life by Cooper, Sarah and Leland Palmer, and Leo - mixed with completely useless, cheesy stuff. (I also think that Major Briggs elevated S2 by a notch compared to what it really is).


Trying to convince people that the new series is good by saying the old one is bad isn't the best way to go about it! ;) I think the thing you fail to see is that people like the 'completely useless, cheesy stuff!' It's what made people come back and watch the show every week, alongside the Laura Palmer investigation. I love the 'damn fine coffee and cherry pie' aspects.

The truth is that there is no way for Lynch to replicate the mystery of Twin Peaks - both Laura's murder and the secrets of the town - just by update. The "who killed Laura Palmer?" storm is not coming back; that stuff is a rarity similar to "who shot JR?" or Lost's "What is the Island?" (Which was a wasted opportunity).


Continuing the mystery of Twin Peaks isn't replication. No one's saying we had to have another body fished out of the water, wrapped in plastic, but there's a whole town there and countless opportunities to tell new, interesting stories. Lynchworld (aka season three) has its own tales to tell, but there's no real connection with the old show thematically, tonally, dramatically or storywise. It's a twisted pantomime where Twin Peaks actors have been dressed up in costume to perform sketches that the show runners find amusing, rather than a cohesive drama. I like Lynchworld, but it's disingenuous to pretend its a new season of Twin Peaks.


I am not pointing out to the fact that S02 was bad. It's not bad, but it has very bad parts. And so does S01, and so will S03 (a potential part is the shovels portion). No series is perfect, no work of art is perfect and for now we have 1/5 of the entire thing available.

By looking at the reviews and listening to the podcasts, it seems that most people disagree with you, and it's clear that you came with an expectation to see more of the old TP. Personally, the only expectation I had was to see Cooper on screen. I didn't expect anything else.

I also firmly believe - although it's too soon to tell - that this not only continuing the mystery of Twin Peaks, but it's strengthening it. If what I believe is correct, this story will make Twin Peaks the center of the world, if not the center of the universal fight between good and evil. Twin Peaks, the town, will be celebrated as the most important place that ever existed. But in order to do that, the story has to show the rest of the world (and outerworld!) before you can show the town. I have another clue to prove this point. It seems that all the old characters from TP never moved on, as to signify that the old TP is there. Hawk is still the same, an assistant to the Chief. Lucy and Andy? Same jobs. Shelly is the same (she likes the rough dude and apparently she still works at the RR). James still has the biker jacket. Bobby seems different, and of course he can't be still an high-schooler, but he seems involved with drugs from Canada... again. Jacoby seems crazy as ever. A Renault brother is still serving at the bar. This is in sharp contrast with the other people in Twin Peaks itself, see the other cops that don't even believe in Margaret, or the technologically advanced people. (that's why I think that the new Sheriff Truman will be a pivotal bridge between the old and the new).
The old town is ready to be born again, but it can't yet. It can't just start 25 years later with a "simple" mystery or Cooper's return. It can't start back with badCoop just going in a murderous rampage in the city of TP. The town of Twin Peaks and its secrets is too complex.
The stories of TP are all there, waiting for normality in the order of things, but first the world outside has to be fixed.
I also believe that David Lynch is not a madman. Of course he plays the outsider artist role who doesn't give a darn about his fans, and I am sure that in part this is even true. But even he is not crazy enough to overplay with the fan's feelings. I think that for now he's simply trying to "correct" what he could not back in the 1990's, he wants to tell the broader implication of TP somehow. But he knows that he can't mess up too much with TP's legacy, despite all his declarations to the contrary. I think that we will soon see a nice balance between what you expected and Lynch's craziness.






Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

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

Postby Gabriel » Fri May 26, 2017 8:24 am

yaxomoxay wrote:By looking at the reviews and listening to the podcasts, it seems that most people disagree with you,


And? Why should I care about what other people think? ;) If 100 scientists sit in a room and 96 of them declare the world is flat, does that mean the world is flat?

The thing is, as I've pointed out before, Twin Peaks fans can be David Lynch fans and vice versa, but there are also Twin Peaks fans who like it because it's Twin Peaks, not because it's made by David Lynch. It's not a work of art; it's a television series – one we all happen to be very fond of. Hiding behind the mantle of 'art' allows all sorts of preposterous excuses for 'art' to become teflon against criticism; most modern art falls under that category.

and it's clear that you came with an expectation to see more of the old TP. Personally, the only expectation I had was to see Cooper on screen. I didn't expect anything else.


No, I didn't have any expectations. I had hope, but I've sat through Inland Empire and a lot of DavidLynch.com material, so I had a suspicion about how it would turn out...

I also firmly believe - although it's too soon to tell - that this not only continuing the mystery of Twin Peaks, but it's strengthening it. If what I believe is correct, this story will make Twin Peaks the center of the world, if not the center of the universal fight between good and evil. Twin Peaks, the town, will be celebrated as the most important place that ever existed. But in order to do that, the story has to show the rest of the world (and outerworld!) before you can show the town.


As I say, I have hope. But my hopes are being dashed against the rocks. I must keep restating: I don't dislike this new show for what it is, but it isn't sitting well as a Twin Peaks project for me.

I have another clue to prove this point. It seems that all the old characters from TP never moved on, as to signify that the old TP is there. Hawk is still the same, an assistant to the Chief. Lucy and Andy? Same jobs. Shelly is the same (she likes the rough dude and apparently she still works at the RR). James still has the biker jacket. Bobby seems different, and of course he can't be still an high-schooler, but he seems involved with drugs from Canada... again. Jacoby seems crazy as ever. A Renault brother is still serving at the bar. This is in sharp contrast with the other people in Twin Peaks itself, see the other cops that don't even believe in Margaret, or the technologically advanced people. (that's why I think that the new Sheriff Truman will be a pivotal bridge between the old and the new).


Funny thing is, I actually think Robert Forster fits so perfectly that it's like he was always the sheriff. You can tell he was the original intended Truman from his interactions with all the past characters. I actually wouldn't have had a problem with simply recasting the role of Harry, he's so darn good in the show.

The old town is ready to be born again, but it can't yet. It can't just start 25 years later with a "simple" mystery or Cooper's return. It can't start back with badCoop just going in a murderous rampage in the city of TP. The town of Twin Peaks and its secrets is too complex.


Actually, quite a lot of us would have liked that. I'd even go so far as to say I'd have been happy to have sidestepped the whole season two cliffhanger and not bothered much with the Black Lodge mythology in this series.


The stories of TP are all there, waiting for normality in the order of things, but first the world outside has to be fixed.
I also believe that David Lynch is not a madman. Of course he plays the outsider artist role who doesn't give a darn about his fans, and I am sure that in part this is even true. But even he is not crazy enough to overplay with the fan's feelings. I think that for now he's simply trying to "correct" what he could not back in the 1990's, he wants to tell the broader implication of TP somehow. But he knows that he can't mess up too much with TP's legacy, despite all his declarations to the contrary. I think that we will soon see a nice balance between what you expected and Lynch's craziness.


I hope so. BTW, your posts are interesting enough to comment on, so don't think I'm particularly picking on what you say in a bad way. It's just you put up points worth debating! :)
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Fri May 26, 2017 9:18 am

Let me start from the very end...

Gabriel wrote:I hope so. BTW, your posts are interesting enough to comment on, so don't think I'm particularly picking on what you say in a bad way. It's just you put up points worth debating! :)


Same here :) You bring up many good points, and I like this kind of respectful debates, I think it adds depth to the whole experience.
Plus, we have to wait a couple of weeks before we see the new episodes......


And? Why should I care about what other people think? ;) If 100 scientists sit in a room and 96 of them declare the world is flat, does that mean the world is flat?


Well, I thought about joining the Flat Earth Society, their science is good :) All joking aside, I think that the fact that the series is appreciated - so far - means that Lynch did at least a satisfactory job for now.
Of course the real test is not a standing ovation at Cannes, but the test of time. If people will talk about this series 25 years from now, then Lynch did an amazing job.

The thing is, as I've pointed out before, Twin Peaks fans can be David Lynch fans and vice versa, but there are also Twin Peaks fans who like it because it's Twin Peaks, not because it's made by David Lynch. It's not a work of art; it's a television series – one we all happen to be very fond of. Hiding behind the mantle of 'art' allows all sorts of preposterous excuses for 'art' to become teflon against criticism; most modern art falls under that category.


And I totally understand that. As a fan of the original series (and fan is not even the right word. I was, and probably still am, obsessed), I perfectly understand the desire of going back to the little old town in Washington state. I still remember how I felt when I watched FWWM and, halfway through the movie, Laura appears walking down the street to Donna's (version 2.0) house, with Badalamenti's music in the background. I still remember how great that was. But in retrospective, I am glad that the first part of that movie had virtually nothing to do with Laura's murder because it improved the importance of the murder, and Twin Peaks itself.
This is how I feel today after four out of eighteen episodes. When I saw Shelley, James, Lucy, Bobby, Hawk, and even Andy (albeit I am not a fan of his acting so far), my heart melted. When Bobby cried? I was ready to cry! But then, those scenes also felt restrictive, like bounded together by the limits of nostalgia, or even worse, of my preconceived notions. I think that badCoop's storyline is somewhat letting the story free. Again, I must insist, it's way too early to tell and I also recognize that this is a 100% subjective thing.

No, I didn't have any expectations. I had hope, but I've sat through Inland Empire and a lot of DavidLynch.com material, so I had a suspicion about how it would turn out...


I actually never watched IE. The Lynch's movie I watched are Blue Velvet, Lost Highways, and Mulholland Dr. (*). I still have to watch Eraserhead and the Elephant Man.
I found Blue Velvet and LH charming. The only movie that got me is Mulholland Drive, I actually had a very vivid nightmare the night I watched it.

(*) I also watched Dune, but that's a different story as I am a fan of the Dune saga, I read all the 15+ books.

As I say, I have hope. But my hopes are being dashed against the rocks. I must keep restating: I don't dislike this new show for what it is, but it isn't sitting well as a Twin Peaks project for me.


I think that I simply believe that the new storytelling and the old TP are not mutually exclusive ("Is it the future or the past?" I guess), but that the story's gauge will slowly move from one side to the other.

Funny thing is, I actually think Robert Forster fits so perfectly that it's like he was always the sheriff. You can tell he was the original intended Truman from his interactions with all the past characters. I actually wouldn't have had a problem with simply recasting the role of Harry, he's so darn good in the show.


And that's why I think that Forster will be a sort of bridge. Of course it's total speculation on my part, but both his amazing acting and his role (Sheriff Truman) makes me think that he will be quite important. I also noticed how he switches from an older Twinpeakish style with Andy, Lucy, Hawk and Bobby while he talks in a slightly more modern way with the other cops at the station. I truly hope to see more of him.

Actually, quite a lot of us would have liked that. I'd even go so far as to say I'd have been happy to have sidestepped the whole season two cliffhanger and not bothered much with the Black Lodge mythology in this series.


Really? I think that it would've been a disservice to the old TP, and I guess that's the philosophical point we disagree on.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

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

Postby Gabriel » Fri May 26, 2017 9:28 am

LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:I've had a mild change of heart

Just posted this in the Twin Peaks sub reddit;
Pretty much sums up my feelings at present

https://www.reddit.com/r/twinpeaks/comm ... h=c587c6f9


I love the line attack used against you is that you've only seen four hours of it. FOUR frickin' HOURS is a long time! If you can't grab people in that time, then there's something very wrong!
User avatar
Venus
Posts: 457
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:10 pm
Location: England

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

Postby Venus » Fri May 26, 2017 9:30 am

Some brilliant debate here. Some excellent points all round. All I can add to such articulate words by Gabriel (and not on his behalf) and at the end of a long work day for me is:

It's just not Twin Peaks.

By that I am not talking about the town - I'm talking about the series tone, quality, self identity, acting, script, direction, warmth, humour, intelligence, feel, emotion, originality, class, entertainment.

Now, if it is a game of two halves and suddenly all this appears, imo, then great. As said many times before, I'll keep watching and waiting for it to impress me or make an impression on me. Whichever gets there first. Hopefully one will.
When Jupiter and Saturn meet...
User avatar
Pöllö
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:28 am

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

Postby Pöllö » Fri May 26, 2017 9:31 am

I'm pretty dissappointed in the Twin Peaks Reddit community. Here people are generally tolerant of those who've felt disappointed in the new series but there it mostly just seems to be hate.
The cow jumped over the moon.

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Shazbot and 18 guests