Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

User avatar
mtwentz
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

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

Postby mtwentz » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:10 pm

LostInTheMovies wrote:
counterpaul wrote:I'm reading it (at least so far) a little differently. I don't see COOPER and Coop as simply the "bad side" and "good side" of Dale Cooper. I think what we're seeing is a good man who is desperately lost on a spiritual level. 25 years ago, he profoundly failed himself and it just about destroyed him. What was left out in the world was a hateful shell (COOPER) who created this cruel, empty parody of the life Coop might have lived, absent any of the substance of what truly made Dale Cooper who he is (Dougie). But Cooper's true self did survive and is now slowly reasserting himself. This is presented as a literal rebirth. This lost, battered core has to grow from infancy.

This is a beautiful, truthful metaphor to me! This happens. We make mistakes and spend years, sometimes lifetimes battering ourselves for it. We miss out of life. And sometimes we wake up. But waking up is only the beginning of the journey.


Very interesting post. What do you see as the nature/cause of Cooper's failure 25 years ago? This is something I am intrigued by now, especially as it applies to his current status in the ongoing series at present.


I would say in a general sense he caved in to his fears.
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
User avatar
Wonderful & Strange
Great Northern Member
Posts: 513
Joined: Thu Oct 09, 2014 10:01 pm
Contact:

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

Postby Wonderful & Strange » Fri Jun 09, 2017 8:23 pm

I've always thought that Cooper feared his own darkness and tried to escape it. And failed.

Because he couldn't face his darkness, it overpowered and replaced him.

If this is true, then it makes his eventual confrontation with Bad Coop much more interesting. It's as though it took Dale 25 years to be ready for such a confrontation.

That seems like a long time, but many of us never directly confront our darkness.
Member of the Agent Tammy Preston Defense Lodge
User avatar
Jasper
Great Northern Member
Posts: 994
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 9:24 am

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

Postby Jasper » Fri Jun 09, 2017 9:30 pm

LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:Coop travelling through the power socket which brought to mind respectively - Andy daydreaming of a horned little Nicky and Josie in the doorknob.


I don't think I've posted in this thread before, but I have to say, I have been a big fan of the effects thus far. Magic, supernatural (whatever) things don't have a particular look, because we really only see these things in dreams, artwork, our imaginations, and via special effects in film and television.

The effects have overall looked like Lynch artwork, particularly his paintings. He's always used special effects that might be characterized as jarring, or cheap. That angel at the end of FWWM is objectively terrible by most metrics, but it works beautifully. Strobe lights could be considered a pretty cheesy effect, but Lynch makes great use of them.

I loved Coop traveling through the socket, and while it was surreal, I most certainly did not think it looked cheap. I thought it was quite beautiful and painterly. Coop going through all of these tribulations in his black suit reminds me of Harold Lloyd in Lynch land. The trip through the socket brought to mind Time Transfixed by René Magritte. The combination of the two is really wonderful.

Time_transfixed_.jpg
Time_transfixed_.jpg (54.12 KiB) Viewed 4062 times

Harold_Lloyd.jpg
Harold_Lloyd.jpg (58.26 KiB) Viewed 4062 times
User avatar
mtwentz
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1896
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

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

Postby mtwentz » Sat Jun 10, 2017 5:13 am

Jasper wrote:
LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:Coop travelling through the power socket which brought to mind respectively - Andy daydreaming of a horned little Nicky and Josie in the doorknob.


I don't think I've posted in this thread before, but I have to say, I have been a big fan of the effects thus far. Magic, supernatural (whatever) things don't have a particular look, because we really only see these things in dreams, artwork, our imaginations, and via special effects in film and television.

The effects have overall looked like Lynch artwork, particularly his paintings. He's always used special effects that might be characterized as jarring, or cheap. That angel at the end of FWWM is objectively terrible by most metrics, but it works beautifully. Strobe lights could be considered a pretty cheesy effect, but Lynch makes great use of them.

I loved Coop traveling through the socket, and while it was surreal, I most certainly did not think it looked cheap. I thought it was quite beautiful and painterly. Coop going through all of these tribulations in his black suit reminds me of Harold Lloyd in Lynch land. The trip through the socket brought to mind Time Transfixed by René Magritte. The combination of the two is really wonderful.

Time_transfixed_.jpg
Harold_Lloyd.jpg


Cooper going through the power socket and Laura being whisked away in the Lodge- both of those creeped me out.

If Lynch's intention was to creep out, the effects were definitely effective.
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
User avatar
Putontheglasses
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:40 pm

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

Postby Putontheglasses » Sat Jun 10, 2017 7:17 am

mtwentz wrote:
Jasper wrote:
LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:Coop travelling through the power socket which brought to mind respectively - Andy daydreaming of a horned little Nicky and Josie in the doorknob.


I don't think I've posted in this thread before, but I have to say, I have been a big fan of the effects thus far. Magic, supernatural (whatever) things don't have a particular look, because we really only see these things in dreams, artwork, our imaginations, and via special effects in film and television.

The effects have overall looked like Lynch artwork, particularly his paintings. He's always used special effects that might be characterized as jarring, or cheap. That angel at the end of FWWM is objectively terrible by most metrics, but it works beautifully. Strobe lights could be considered a pretty cheesy effect, but Lynch makes great use of them.

I loved Coop traveling through the socket, and while it was surreal, I most certainly did not think it looked cheap. I thought it was quite beautiful and painterly. Coop going through all of these tribulations in his black suit reminds me of Harold Lloyd in Lynch land. The trip through the socket brought to mind Time Transfixed by René Magritte. The combination of the two is really wonderful.

Time_transfixed_.jpg
Harold_Lloyd.jpg


Cooper going through the power socket and Laura being whisked away in the Lodge- both of those creeped me out.

If Lynch's intention was to creep out, the effects were definitely effective.


Of everything that makes S3 terrible to me, the special effects are at the bottom of the list. Sure they're cheesy, but some movies I love have cheesy special effects and it doesn't ruin it for me. None of the bad effects in the original show ruined it for me.

Too bad there's a laundry list a mile long of other things that do ruin S3 for me. I'm absolutely certain that if Lynch's name wasn't on this project, very few people would be loving it. Because the content is so unconventional and suitable for "deep" or lofty, artsy interpretation, it's easy to just conclude it must be brilliant because it's Lynch. Everything that made the original show a smash hit is absent (other than the weirdness). Even though I didn't like FWWM compared to the best of season 1, it was leagues more enjoyable for me than this mess so far.

The only reason I'm still watching is morbid curiosity and my theory that Lynch may be doing something devilishly subversive that's going right over the heads of especially the hardcore Lynch fans.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
N. Needleman
Lodge Member
Posts: 2082
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

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

Postby N. Needleman » Sat Jun 10, 2017 7:48 am

Putontheglasses wrote:I'm absolutely certain that if Lynch's name wasn't on this project, very few people would be loving it. Because the content is so unconventional and suitable for "deep" or lofty, artsy interpretation, it's easy to just conclude it must be brilliant because it's Lynch. Everything that made the original show a smash hit is absent (other than the weirdness).

The only reason I'm still watching is morbid curiosity and my theory that Lynch may be doing something devilishly subversive that's going right over the heads of especially the hardcore Lynch fans.


Or we genuinely dig it (as you're right, it is considerably closer to FWWM as you say, and to me that's a boon) and it's just not for you. And that's okay. Different strokes. It doesn't have to be either a con by the artist or a lie from people who like it when you don't. Sometimes that just happens.
The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
LateReg
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Sat Jun 10, 2017 9:14 am

I want to briefly address this notion of "If Lynch hadn't made this, it wouldn't be so well received." This fascinates me. Because on the one hand, I agree. He's a legend who is not only given the benefit of the doubt, but whose work viewers will try harder to grasp, pay closer attention to, etc, partially because they've been primed by his past work. On the other hand, no one except Lynch would have or could have made this in this way, which renders the argument totally moot. It's a chicken or the egg type thing, I think, and it can only spin you in circles.

I myself pondered this question when Inland Empire came out. Had anyone else made that, or at least a younger, newer filmmaker, I'm almost certain it would have A. not seen the light of day and B. not scored a 72 on metacritic, and probably would have scored a 50 at best...especially when you think of how panned Fire Walk With Me was in 1992, a film which ended up priming viewers for the rest of Lynch's career. But, nobody else would or could have made Inland Empire in that way, so once again the argument is moot.
User avatar
Putontheglasses
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:40 pm

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

Postby Putontheglasses » Sat Jun 10, 2017 10:50 am

N. Needleman wrote:
Putontheglasses wrote:I'm absolutely certain that if Lynch's name wasn't on this project, very few people would be loving it. Because the content is so unconventional and suitable for "deep" or lofty, artsy interpretation, it's easy to just conclude it must be brilliant because it's Lynch. Everything that made the original show a smash hit is absent (other than the weirdness).

The only reason I'm still watching is morbid curiosity and my theory that Lynch may be doing something devilishly subversive that's going right over the heads of especially the hardcore Lynch fans.


Or we genuinely dig it (as you're right, it is considerably closer to FWWM as you say, and to me that's a boon) and it's just not for you. And that's okay. Different strokes. It doesn't have to be either a con by the artist or a lie from people who like it when you don't. Sometimes that just happens.


I don't believe it's a con by Lynch any more than Andy Kaufman's more subversive stuff was a con, or for instance that he and Frost were conning anyone with the original seasons who didn't pick up on the soft parody going on.

I also don't believe that his films like Mulholland Drive for instance were just a jumbled pile of nonsense that people mistake for high art, although some might see it that way. So I'm not just one to dismiss Lynch's more challenging stuff as worthless just because it's weird or confusing.

I also am not saying every fan of S3 is necessarily full of shit when they say to themselves or others that they like it (although some may be), any more than someone who buys a $2000 Gucci handbag is full of shit when they say that they feel it's worth every penny. I'm not saying they don't believe it's worth every penny, but I do believe that if the Gucci name wasn't on it then they would not be quick to think it's so valuable. Or if they were sold a fake that they would even know the difference. Just one analogy but so many work from music to books to collectibles, paintings, and so on. It's just human psychology, and because Lynch's work is so unusual, it's easier to project greatness on it than something like a piece of hardware that either works well and holds up or doesn't.

We all went in to this really really hoping it would be great. Unless someone is just a naysayer to be different, there's little psychological impetus or bias for someone to not like it if they could. The same is not true in reverse. Unless someone went in as a Lynch hater or who never cared for the original series. I'm far from that.

I actually lean toward S3 being a genius work of art. Just not in the same way most people who are liking it thinks that it is. I might be wrong, and in that case from my perspective it would just be another Dune so to speak.

I went to a haunted house once that started as just a big open pitch black dark room with no actors or special effects. Dozens of people were just milling around and murmuring "what is going on?" And "how do we get out of here?". Bumping into and startling each other and freaking each other out. It was genius and I loved it but it was also not at all what people were expecting. Total subversion. This is somewhat like what I think Lynch is doing. Certainly not a con. I still don't know to this day if they planned for it to be so effective or if it was just a waiting room so to speak. I like to think it was intentional. The rest of the haunted house was lame and cliche compared to the beginning.

Overall though I think I'm a bigger a fan of the other creative influencers of the original show than I am of Lynch though. I think the original seasons had just the right amount of Lynch spice added to the stew of Frost and the other writers and directors that contributed. I think that's why it was lightning in a bottle.

I should probably watch Inland Empire. It's one of the few Lynch films I haven't seen. It sounds like it's similar to S3 from what people are saying. I wonder if I will like it on any level.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
N. Needleman
Lodge Member
Posts: 2082
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

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

Postby N. Needleman » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:26 am

It's fine to be more of a fan of the sum of those parts than of Lynch's overall body of work. For all I know I am as well, so where is it quantifiable that I like it unreservedly and you don't?

To me the answer is that it's likely not quantifiable or subject to deeper analysis. And that's okay. Sometimes we just differ in taste, that's all. I am not projecting my need for the show to be good onto it- I knew going in based on things I'd heard that it could be very different and I was prepared to maybe not be able to dig it. But I did. That's me. That's my valid and non-reconstructed experience.

We both have valid experiences. I'm not going to try to dissect yours and say you're blocking yourself from fully embracing the show because of some outside construct or internal contradiction. Your feelings and reactions are valid and genuine and organic. It's the same with mine. Some things aren't down to external influence. We like or dislike what we do or don't.
The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
John Justice Wheeler
RR Diner Member
Posts: 109
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 2:58 pm

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

Postby John Justice Wheeler » Sat Jun 10, 2017 11:51 am

Putontheglasses wrote:I actually lean toward S3 being a genius work of art. Just not in the same way most people who are liking it thinks that it is. I might be wrong, and in that case from my perspective it would just be another Dune so to speak.

Dune rules!
User avatar
counterpaul
RR Diner Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:06 am

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

Postby counterpaul » Sat Jun 10, 2017 2:07 pm

LostInTheMovies wrote:
counterpaul wrote:I'm reading it (at least so far) a little differently. I don't see COOPER and Coop as simply the "bad side" and "good side" of Dale Cooper. I think what we're seeing is a good man who is desperately lost on a spiritual level. 25 years ago, he profoundly failed himself and it just about destroyed him. What was left out in the world was a hateful shell (COOPER) who created this cruel, empty parody of the life Coop might have lived, absent any of the substance of what truly made Dale Cooper who he is (Dougie). But Cooper's true self did survive and is now slowly reasserting himself. This is presented as a literal rebirth. This lost, battered core has to grow from infancy.

This is a beautiful, truthful metaphor to me! This happens. We make mistakes and spend years, sometimes lifetimes battering ourselves for it. We miss out of life. And sometimes we wake up. But waking up is only the beginning of the journey.


Very interesting post. What do you see as the nature/cause of Cooper's failure 25 years ago? This is something I am intrigued by now, especially as it applies to his current status in the ongoing series at present.


This is a question I've been pondering for 27 years! His doppelganger seems to be birthed the moment BOB destroys Earle and tells Coop to "go." And, then, when Coop sees his doppelganger, his reaction is to run away. He essentially follows BOB's instruction.

Over the years, I've gone back and forth on whether the key moment is when Coop offers his soul to Earle, or it's the moment he runs. I now think it's the moment he runs.

With Earle, he offers a sacrifice. It's probably a misguided gesture (what is it he's willing to unleash onto the world for Annie's sake, and what are the chances Earle is as good as his word?), but it is noble and it is for love. And, of course, BOB completely invalidates it anyway.

But, in that moment, Cooper does seem to, in a sense, summon BOB. He invites him in, as Leland had as a boy. Coop's soul is up for grabs, no? And so, it is when BOB appears that Cooper fails.

The way I read this is that Cooper is able to confront external demons, is even willing sacrifice himself in the process, but that he is (or was, 25 years ago) totally unwilling to look at the darkness within. When he catches a glimpse, he runs. And so it overtakes him.

As we meet him in The Return, he is a man lost and consumed by darkness. The red room (the "waiting room" as The Arm calls it), to me, is a state of stasis. For 25 years, Cooper endlessly ponders his mistakes, wandering between slightly different manifestations of a single room, going over the same things again and again. But there is a glimmer of light, now ready to reach out. And it's Laura, filled with light, who tells him he "can go out now." I find Cooper's gasp when Laura whispers to him so moving and telling. He's learning something he's still not quite ready to know. But, finally, the stasis cannot hold. Things start to change. The Arm evolves, and Cooper is ejected out of the red room.

I'm totally fascinated by Dougie (and I'm talking about Dougie here--not Cooper as an infant). I think it's very significant that it's Dougie that Coop replaces, not COOPER. I actually think the line, "Someone manufactured you for a purpose, but I think now that's been fulfilled" can be read quite positively. If his darkest impulses "manufactured" this empty, bitter parody of a "life" for himself, in the form of Dougie (who is an "agent," but the wrong kind; who has a wife and child but daydreams through his life with them; who sleeps around and gets into debt, etc.), then getting to the point where Dougie's purpose (as a place-holder for the life Coop has not been leading) has been fulfilled is immense progress!

It's just the start, of course, but we all know that a path is formed by laying one stone at a time.
User avatar
Xavi
RR Diner Member
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:23 am

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

Postby Xavi » Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:39 pm

Episode 29 (2021, Part 2) [12/24/93]

"And now, an ending. Where there was once one, there are now two.
Or were there always two?

"What is a reflection? A chance to see two? When there are chances
for reflections, there can always be two--or more. Only when we are
everywhere will there be just one.

"It has been a pleasure speaking to you."
User avatar
Putontheglasses
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:40 pm

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

Postby Putontheglasses » Sat Jun 10, 2017 6:08 pm

N. Needleman wrote:It's fine to be more of a fan of the sum of those parts than of Lynch's overall body of work. For all I know I am as well, so where is it quantifiable that I like it unreservedly and you don't?

To me the answer is that it's likely not quantifiable or subject to deeper analysis. And that's okay. Sometimes we just differ in taste, that's all. I am not projecting my need for the show to be good onto it- I knew going in based on things I'd heard that it could be very different and I was prepared to maybe not be able to dig it. But I did. That's me. That's my valid and non-reconstructed experience.

We both have valid experiences. I'm not going to try to dissect yours and say you're blocking yourself from fully embracing the show because of some outside construct or internal contradiction. Your feelings and reactions are valid and genuine and organic. It's the same with mine. Some things aren't down to external influence. We like or dislike what we do or don't.


I'm not really interested in dissecting your individual opinion, but when season 3 is "profoundly disappointing" to both me and my wife (and others in this thread)... it forces conjecture as to why some people seem to think it's the best thing since sliced bread. It goes past disappointing and into repugnant for us actually.

I just saw Wonder Woman in the theatre, and although I didn't really care for it, I can certainly understand why a lot of people would like it based on pretty mundane differences in taste. No biggie. I just personally don't think that's the case with season 3. I think people are buying that $2000 Gucci handbag. And that's fine... people do that shit every day.

Regardless, good or bad, it's nothing like Season 1 which is quintessential Twin Peaks to me.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
N. Needleman
Lodge Member
Posts: 2082
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

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

Postby N. Needleman » Sat Jun 10, 2017 7:18 pm

Putontheglasses wrote:I'm not really interested in dissecting your individual opinion, but when season 3 is "profoundly disappointing" to both me and my wife (and others in this thread)... it forces conjecture as to why some people seem to think it's the best thing since sliced bread. It goes past disappointing and into repugnant for us actually.


But evidently you are interested in that, because you keep pushing this Gucci analogy of yours and insisting we either account for it or engage with it. You're suggesting it forces a kind of analysis on you that we're now subject to simply because we like something you and your wife don't. The thing is, no one's going to engage with that simply on your terms. It's your analogy and your construct. It has no bearing on the rest of us and how we process.

People have different opinions - it is what it is. Some people think FWWM's (or name any film here, really) the worst movie ever made and have always found it morally repugnant; others find it transcendent and incredibly important to them. See also: the more extreme works of Pasolini, or any number of other filmmakers or artists. Is there an objective measurement of those varying tastes or that spectrum of appreciation or condemnation that can be quantified, or is it just the way each of us process different pieces of art differently? And why is this supposed to be so different?

It's not personal, it's got nothing to do with you, anymore than how you process the new season is personal or related to the rest of us. We're simply different people keying into something differently. And both those processes are valid. That's all there is to it. Looking for a response from the rest of us that's going to satisfy or vindicate your experience is never going to happen, anymore than yours is likely to legitimize mine beyond myself. And that's okay - I don't need that. Life goes on.
The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
LateReg
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1124
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Sat Jun 10, 2017 8:46 pm

Putontheglasses wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:It's fine to be more of a fan of the sum of those parts than of Lynch's overall body of work. For all I know I am as well, so where is it quantifiable that I like it unreservedly and you don't?

To me the answer is that it's likely not quantifiable or subject to deeper analysis. And that's okay. Sometimes we just differ in taste, that's all. I am not projecting my need for the show to be good onto it- I knew going in based on things I'd heard that it could be very different and I was prepared to maybe not be able to dig it. But I did. That's me. That's my valid and non-reconstructed experience.

We both have valid experiences. I'm not going to try to dissect yours and say you're blocking yourself from fully embracing the show because of some outside construct or internal contradiction. Your feelings and reactions are valid and genuine and organic. It's the same with mine. Some things aren't down to external influence. We like or dislike what we do or don't.


I'm not really interested in dissecting your individual opinion, but when season 3 is "profoundly disappointing" to both me and my wife (and others in this thread)... it forces conjecture as to why some people seem to think it's the best thing since sliced bread. It goes past disappointing and into repugnant for us actually.

I just saw Wonder Woman in the theatre, and although I didn't really care for it, I can certainly understand why a lot of people would like it based on pretty mundane differences in taste. No biggie. I just personally don't think that's the case with season 3. I think people are buying that $2000 Gucci handbag. And that's fine... people do that shit every day.

Regardless, good or bad, it's nothing like Season 1 which is quintessential Twin Peaks to me.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I agree that it's worth the conjecture, but on a basic level I think it's very obvious that the reason this is dividing opinion is because it's unlike anything ever made for television, including the original Twin Peaks. These kinds of reactions are expected and happen all the time with extreme or unique works of art, and especially when a beloved artist switches things up. Ironically, or perhaps not, it's still happening with Fire Walk With Me to this day, but time usually works out which side was "right" and which was "wrong." So maybe we should just talk about it in 25 years. Or at least wait to see how the first five parts fit into the larger picture.

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 8 guests