Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

User avatar
sylvia_north
RR Diner Member
Posts: 451
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:41 pm

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

Post by sylvia_north »

boske wrote:
I don't know, we'll find out, there is 12 more hours of it coming our way. I do not see such acting in every scene, that's for sure.
There is nothing unusual about it. He could have cracked his knuckles, too. I'm honestly wondering what you see in that completely normal gesture? Some people stick their tongue out of their mouth completely when they're focusing. Do you think it's sinister? All actors make a facial expression or body language before they speak because that's how people communicate naturally. This is actually in acting books. You might also push your hair behind your ear, or stick a pencil in your mouth, or push your glasses onto your nose. Wth indeed.
Too Old to Die Young > TP S03
User avatar
boske
Great Northern Member
Posts: 593
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:15 am

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

Post by boske »

sylvia_north wrote:
boske wrote:
I don't know, we'll find out, there is 12 more hours of it coming our way. I do not see such acting in every scene, that's for sure.
There is nothing unusual about it. He could have cracked his knuckles, too. I'm honestly wondering what you see in that completely normal gesture? Some people stick their tongue out of their mouth completely when they're focusing. Do you think it's sinister?
We should not take Cole for granted, I think that may have been a subtle hint from L&F. As I said, we'll see.
User avatar
Twin Peaks Podcast
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 8:43 am

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

Post by Twin Peaks Podcast »

One of the feedbackers to my podcast gave me a good chuckle talking about the looky-loos accident scene.
My absolute favorite rando was the bald guy with his hand on his chin, and a blank expression that reads: 'Well, this is a thing that happened. What should I have for dinner tonight? Pasta? I had that last night. I'm not sure what else I have at home. I should have gone grocery shopping last week when I had the chance. Well, I guess it's pasta again, Bryan. So much for your new year's resolution to cut back on carbs."
Image
LateReg
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Post by LateReg »

BOB1 wrote:
Gabriel wrote:how dare some people say it's necessary to watch an episode more than once! I should be able to glean everything that's necessary on the first viewing; secondary viewings ought to be on a second pass of the whole series to allow me to pick up early details that tie in later on. If each episode has to be watched at the time of release more than once, the people making it aren't doing their job properly.
Totally!
I'm all for rewatching but as you said elsewhere: study is an option. If the first viewing is not satisfactory, I will not have any need or urge to rewatch. As simple as that. Why would I? because Lynch is a genius? C'mon. I've seen all Lynch films a couple of times, some of them many times. Not only Lynch: I do like to watch my favourite films many times and in fact I don't think any of my favourite top 10 films (or perhaps top 30 films) I liked the most on my first viewing. I appreciate repeated viewings a lot and I know how much you can owe to them. But in order to rewatch I MUST BE ENCOURAGED to rewatch! If the first viewing is discouraging, why would I bother?


Now, Jonah made a great job listing what he loved/liked/didn't like. I wanna do the same just a moment before I rewatch Part 6 (unless I fall asleep again after having too much gin&tonic ;))

What I loved so far:

- the Purple Room, all of it
- the scene when Doris shouts at Frank Truman for the first time
- the scene near the end of Part 5, with the band Trouble (?) and the bad smoking guy (listed as Richard Horne)
- bad Coop destroying the system with his phone call to not-Mr-Strawberry
- the Gordon/Albert conversation that something is definitely wrong about the imprisoned Cooper (the scene shot in blue)
- Dougie craving for coffee (wrote in underneath at first but that was really great!)
- Kyle's acting in most of the scenes

What I liked:

- the Shelly/James ending of Part 2
- Hawk/ Log Lady phone conversations
- agent Tammy's analasys of Cooper pictures and Cooper fingerprints
- Diane's introduction scene
- Wally!
- garmonbozia vomiting scenes
- hellloooooo!
- the introduction of Naomi Watts
- the exploding car sequence
- Dougie drawing steps and ladders in the case files

What I'd rather wasn't there:

- most of Parts 1 and 2 and 6...
- ... the New York glass box; in places intriguing but overall tedious and pointless
- many of the Red Room scenes which don't feel like proper Red Room scenes at all
- most of Mr C's scenes in the first episodes
- the Red/Richard "magic" scene, which lacked magic, at least on the first viewing (made me fall asleep)
- the hit and run accident scene with Carl
- the talk about Frank and Doris's son who commited suicide
- Bobby crying


What I hated:

- evolution of the Arm :x
- the Andy/Lucy foolishness



Enough. Let's go and see it again, yeah!
I get where you guys are coming from about being forced to rewatch things, and you guys actually are rewatching, so criticisms regarding not rewatching don't apply to you. But I gotta say, for me, rewatching something isn't only about study. Sometimes it's just about coming to terms with something that doesn't come naturally to you, or is difficult or strange. Some films just take more than one viewing to fall in love with, or to even like. I've had so many films open up to me after a colder first viewing. Chantal Akerman's No Home Movie is a recent example. I didn't "enjoy" it the first time, and I could barely decipher what it was about; but going back into it knowing the method of filmmaking as well as understanding the background of the film, it suddenly become one of the most astounding movie-watching experiences of my life. This happens to me a lot.
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)

Post by counterpaul »

LateReg wrote:I get where you guys are coming from about being forced to rewatch things, and you guys actually are rewatching, so criticisms regarding not rewatching don't apply to you. But I gotta say, for me, rewatching something isn't only about study. Sometimes it's just about coming to terms with something that doesn't come naturally to you, or is difficult or strange. Some films just take more than one viewing to fall in love with, or to even like. I've had so many films open up to me after a colder first viewing. Chantal Akerman's No Home Movie is a recent example. I didn't "enjoy" it the first time, and I could barely decipher what it was about; but going back into it knowing the method of filmmaking as well as understanding the background of the film, it suddenly become one of the most astounding movie-watching experiences of my life. This happens to me a lot.
Indeed. I remember a Robert Altman interview in which he said that he felt like the second time watching any film is the first time you really see it. As far as he's concerned, a film he doesn't feel compelled to watch a second time is a film he'll never see. He wasn't talking about "studying" the film to catch all the plot elements. His point was that the first time through at least part of your brain is processing all this new data (gathering the plot, taking note of who's who, etc.), and so you inevitably miss a lot of what's really interesting about the film--at least if the film is worth anything.

I completely agree with Altman. No film worth seeing will completely reveal itself on first viewing. I don't rewatch Twin Peaks (or anything) to catch plot-points (even if I might catch a few things I didn't on first viewing). I rewatch it to feel it without being distracted by processing new data. Rewatching is when the art of it can really shine.
User avatar
dud
RR Diner Member
Posts: 177
Joined: Fri Sep 18, 2015 1:09 pm
Location: North Jersey

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

Post by dud »

agree with the past two posts. when I recommended rewatching I didn't mean to 'study' it like that one poster said, but more like what the poster above me said. If anything, the FIRST viewing is the one that feels like 'studying' to me, the second one is for 'feeling', or enjoying the ride :) at least that's been my experience with this third season and a lot of other Lynch material
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)

Post by counterpaul »

Panapaok wrote:I love the show so far but I can definitely understand why many don't. After all, one man's trash is another man's treasure. What I don't understand is the baffling criticism of the visual look as 'amateurish'. Yeah it's digital but it looks stunning. Lynch/Deming is a very strong visual duo.
Yeah, the casual dismissal of Deming's work on this project really bothers me as well. He's a great DP and he shot the hell out of this thing. It's, of course, completely fair to dislike Lynch/Deming's aesthetic choices here (that's where taste comes in), but to call it amateurish is really not accurate. There's nothing amateurish about the lighting or grading here, whether you love it or loath it or your opinion of it lies somewhere in between.

Certainly, it has a very different look than the original series and how that affects our perception of the project as a whole is an interesting topic for discussion.

Also interesting, to me anyway, is that for years Ron Garcia's cinematography on FWWM (which is also quite different, stylistically, than the original series) was commonly derided by fans. It seems to be getting a much-deserved reappraisal recently, which makes me happy (I loved it back in '92). I'm not saying that this means that people who dislike Deming's work on TR will change their minds in 25 years, but I do think it's interesting to note how each iteration of Twin Peaks has had its own aesthetic identity. I think it speaks to how Lynch approaches them as separate but complimentary works.
krzhuva
New Member
Posts: 21
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:22 pm

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

Post by krzhuva »

counterpaul wrote:
Panapaok wrote:I love the show so far but I can definitely understand why many don't. After all, one man's trash is another man's treasure. What I don't understand is the baffling criticism of the visual look as 'amateurish'. Yeah it's digital but it looks stunning. Lynch/Deming is a very strong visual duo.
Yeah, the casual dismissal of Deming's work on this project really bothers me as well. He's a great DP and he shot the hell out of this thing. It's, of course, completely fair to dislike Lynch/Deming's aesthetic choices here (that's where taste comes in), but to call it amateurish is really not accurate. There's nothing amateurish about the lighting or grading here, whether you love it or loath it or your opinion of it lies somewhere in between.

Certainly, it has a very different look than the original series and how that affects our perception of the project as a whole is an interesting topic for discussion.

Also interesting, to me anyway, is that for years Ron Garcia's cinematography on FWWM (which is also quite different, stylistically, than the original series) was commonly derided by fans. It seems to be getting a much-deserved reappraisal recently, which makes me happy (I loved it back in '92). I'm not saying that this means that people who dislike Deming's work on TR will change their minds in 25 years, but I do think it's interesting to note how each iteration of Twin Peaks has had its own aesthetic identity. I think it speaks to how Lynch approaches them as separate but complimentary works.
One explanation is that Deming's work here is rather subtle and understated, especially compared to the many prestige shows that try to impress the viewer with every single shot, go for the showiest possible angles, and so on. It's different, just like Deming and Lynch's use of digital is very different, being uncommonly pure and raw. I think it all adds up to something truly unique and beautiful and is beautifully paired up with the sparing use of music, tonal ambivalence and many other things that make up the new Twin Peaks.
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)

Post by counterpaul »

BOB1 wrote:
counterpaul wrote:The hit and run scene, plus Janey-E's monologue about the "dark, dark days" these characters are living in, plus Bushnell first dismissing but then seeing the truth in Coop's scribbles, plus Maggie's reminder not to jump to conclusions based on what we see on the surface with regards to Doris. This all adds up to something. Lynch is telling us what he's up to, here.
Yeah. Probably. Seems like a good point. My problem lies on a more shallow level, though. I'm happy to read about people finding meanings in it (which I clearly fail to do) but it doesn't help the simple fact that the scenes that you have mentioned just don't appeal to me. "Meaningful but boring" gives more hope for he future than "meaningless and boring", still...
That is exceedingly fair. I'd certainly never say art should feel like homework. TR consistently pulls me in on a totally gut level before I set to interpreting any of it. Every week, I can't believe an hour has gone by--Part 6 particularly seemed incredibly short to me and I was genuinely surprised, later, to find that it is the same length as Part 5 and actually a little longer than Part 4.

My point being, there are immediate rewards for me that only deepen upon further introspection after the fact. If that wasn't the case, honestly, I probably wouldn't be here writing about it. Not that I'm saying you shouldn't! We all process in our own ways.
BOB1 wrote:
counterpaul wrote:Well, I guess it depends on how you're reading the word "manufactured." I don't think we're going to end up with some literal parallel dimension or alternate timeline or something. Let me put it this way: I think that key Jade threw in the mailbox is going to end up in Twin Peaks--the same Twin Peaks where/when Hawk is investigating what's missing and how it relates to Coop.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if we're never told how Dougie was manufactured in any concrete sense. It doesn't really matter to me, either way, as long as the poetry of it resonates. Dougie's life is manufactured in the sense that it is a false life for Dale Cooper. It's a result of how desperately lost he's been for 25 years.
Now that is all VERY interesting. I don't know if it goes this way but that's something I like to ponder on.
I'd be very interested in reading your thoughts! I feel like this is an exceedingly under-explored aspect of the show on this board. So many people seem so distracted by plot mechanics and fantasy/sci-fi style "rules" and world-building that they miss the thematic and poetic substance. In my mind, there's an awful lot to discuss here.
BOB1 wrote:
counterpaul wrote:...The structure, for the most part, is loose enough that certain scenes can be reordered a bit if opportunities for nice beats to start/end on arise.

Beyond that, however, I absolutely do think they're working on this as a giant 18 hour movie. I totally believe Lynch is on the level when he's implied that they cut this whole thing together before they even started thinking about breaking it up into parts. Once they did start breaking it up, sure, they made tweaks here and there where it made sense, but I doubt they made any major changes for the sake of constructing "episodes."

Part 6 seems like complete proof if this! It is many things, but it is NOT an episode of television. More than any other part so far, it is clearly just the next hour or so of the 18 hour film, with a musical performance thrown onto the end as a bookmark.

I personally love this approach!
And I personally hate it :) You put it all very well but I don't see why a film - 2 hours or 18 hours - should be as unstructured as this. To me, it's just bad film, as well as it is bad TV! "Constructing episodes" is one thing but constructing a feature film is as important. Throwing scenes in a random order is bad. Of all Lynch's works so far, only Inland Empire had this kind of problem, and I do believe that Inland Empire has serious narrative flaws, which are saved by Laura Dern's HUGE performance - she creates something really big there and wraps all loose ends around it.
Just to clarify, what I meant is that the structure of the script is loose enough that Lynch/Dunham are, to a point, free enough to play around with structure in the editing that they can create nice moments to start and end Parts on from time to time without altering the plot in any significant way.

I'm not saying that the structure of the final piece is in any way random. I don't believe that at all. Ignoring the fact that, by necessity, it has been broken up into roughly hour-long sections, I think that the structure of the piece as a whole so far is quite meticulous. There are a lot of balls in the air, sure, but I can't really see any of it working in a much different order. As I watch it all as a single unit (an endeavor I heartily recommend if you can clear 6 solid hours for sustained viewing), I find its rhythms absolutely impeccable (speaking as both a film fan and as an editor).

Comparing it to something like Blue Velvet isn't really productive. In Blue Velvet we follow a single storyline from the point of view (with only a couple of minor exceptions) of a single character. A better point of comparison, structurally, would be something like Mulholland Drive or the original Twin Peaks--both of which, from a plotting perspective, could be re-ordered quite a bit in ways Blue Velvet simply can't be. This is merely a function of their scope.

So, the structure is "loose" in that sense, and so decisions in editing become largely rhythmic and tonal and aesthetic. The macro decisions are dictated largely by the developing plot, but there's lots of room for micro decisions to be made based on the feeling created by placing one scene after another. That is also what opens up the opportunity to, occasionally (and only when it doesn't harm the overall flow of the 18 hour feature), make small adjustments for the sake of making a Part play a little better as a single unit. None of these decisions are random at all. At least, they don't feel that way to me.

All that being said, I'd also say TR is certainly much tighter than the original series from a plotting perspective--there are entire storylines in the original Twin Peaks that could be moved around, or entirely removed, with no real affect on other storylines and I do not think that will prove to be the case in The Return (the key to room 315 getting sent to TP + Cindy getting sent off to Buckhorn with orders to contact the FBI if she turns anything up + Dougie's ring in the body + Hawk's discovery = building the plot so that everything can converge at the right time).
BOB1 wrote:
yaxomoxay wrote:Also, what's wrong with the stock photo of Laura? That is probably the single image that defines TP, so I honestly don't get the problem.
That I can answer easily. The Return, like it or not, doesn't feel like the old Twin Peaks at all. The feel sometimes comes back but it's not there straight away. So the photo of Laura as well as the original music - placed at the very beginning - look like they've been imported from a different story. They define Twin Peaks but not The Return!
Well, I simultaneously agree and disagree. I agree that The Return is its own thing, with a very distinct feel.

However, I think that picture of Laura, along with the clip from the pilot that opens the whole thing, is a very deliberate reminder that Laura is the unifying figure that ties all of Twin Peaks's iterations together. I feel confident that Laura will play a very key role before this is all over, and that picture is a potent reminder to keep that in mind, no matter where else this story takes us in the meantime.
IcedOver
RR Diner Member
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

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

Post by IcedOver »

On a re-watch of the Ike scene, I didn't hate it quite as much. Too bad the character he killed was a complete non-entity in the show (don't even know her name), so it's a "Who cares?" moment. It'd be nice if he could be let loose to take care of some of the more annoying new characters, maybe just pop up from under a table in the middle of a crappy scene and just take them out. I can come up with several that could easily meet this fate and better the show.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
pinkapple_amanda
New Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:09 pm

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

Post by pinkapple_amanda »

Oldhead80 wrote:As a Twin Peaks and David Lynch fan it would be easy for me to give what I've seen so far these 6 episodes the benefit of the doubt or somehow trick my mind into believing what I'm watching wasn't utter nonsense and boring to the point of being sleep inducing...but I can't do it. So far this is awful television...and this is coming from a man who thinks 'Lost Highway' and 'Mullholland Drive' are two of the greatest movies in cinematic history.

As has been said before by others, I feel like I'm being trolled. It feels like every episode is an hour long troll job. Yet, I don't believe Lynch is maliciously trolling us. I think he's a 70+ year old man that obviously (and unfortunately) doesn't have the ability he once did to write and direct at the level he used to. Even when Lynch was accused of writing incoherent stories and making incoherent movies there was a something there that resonated with the viewer. Nothing about S3 resonates with me. The combination of awful writing and bad acting along with Lynch completely losing his feel for being able to terrify the viewer leaves nothing to look forward to other than the nostalgia of the opening credits and song every Sunday night.

If I wasn't so invested in the resolution of Cooper-Bob-Lodge storyline I wouldn't watch another second of this garbage. Just being honest.
yep, that's spot-on, i'm seeing a trend to want to connect the new with the old - and they're definitely been nuances and references and schemes that are old school (no pun intended), and it all is delightful to a point..then it seems out of nowhere, he just keeps opening one storyline after another so it's been a bit difficult to connect them. I keep having to watch each of them 2 or 3 times, cuz yeah, they've been a bit hypnotic to the point of zzzz..... I think the weird alien monster thing with tits which came through when those two young folks were getting it on on the couch, I think that was Mother. I like the storyline where he has us in between worlds, otherworldly alien that part is super cool to me. But the weird little stories that have been interwoven are making it have a hard time congealing, for lack of a better word.

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
IcedOver
RR Diner Member
Posts: 464
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

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

Post by IcedOver »

I agree with the sentiments above about re-watching anything. The first time you watch something, especially if it's something for which you've had high expectations, you're just taking it in. A re-watch allows you to become immersed in what it is rather than having your expectations fight with what it is. Many times I've been on the fence about a movie but have embraced it on a re-watch, even movies that wouldn't be considered "artistic". With this show, this has happened for us six times so far. I can't say that a re-watch of part 6 would make me feel more charitable, but I've already looked at a few scenes again and didn't hate them as much.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
User avatar
homieonice
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 5:27 pm

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

Post by homieonice »

(copy/pasted from ep6 discussion thread)

Better Call Saul / Breaking Bad are slower than Twin Peaks S3


They episodes are 45 mins vs the full hour too. Less takes place. There is more "wasted" time - landscape shots, stuff that "could" be cut and wouldn't effect the story.


I strongly feel Lynch / Frost haven't wasted a minute, even a second yet. The non-dialogue driven parts are crucial to how this story is told.


People are very quick to criticize and there is a level of entitlement some ppl seem to have which is amusing.
There they are Albert... Faces of stone!
User avatar
LostInTheMovies
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:48 pm

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

Post by LostInTheMovies »

BOB1 wrote:Of all Lynch's works so far, only Inland Empire had this kind of problem, and I do believe that Inland Empire has serious narrative flaws, which are saved by Laura Dern's HUGE performance - she creates something really big there and wraps all loose ends around it.
I dunno, structurally I feel The Return is REALLY, REALLY similar to Mulholland Drive. With the difference that because it's 18 hours it can actually follow up on the types of scenes that were one-offs in the film/pilot. Of course Mulholland Drive has that powerhouse final 40 minutes or so which tends to obscure all the loose ends in people's memories. But I suspect if anything (thanks both to the extended runtime and Mark Frost's involvement) The Return will end up being even *less* random and "non sequitur" than Mulholland Drive. We'll just have to wait till the end to see that.
pinkapple_amanda
New Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 7:09 pm

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

Post by pinkapple_amanda »

IcedOver wrote:I agree with the sentiments above about re-watching anything. The first time you watch something, especially if it's something for which you've had high expectations, you're just taking it in. A re-watch allows you to become immersed in what it is rather than having your expectations fight with what it is. Many times I've been on the fence about a movie but have embraced it on a re-watch, even movies that wouldn't be considered "artistic". With this show, this has happened for us six times so far. I can't say that a re-watch of part 6 would make me feel more charitable, but I've already looked at a few scenes again and didn't hate them as much.
i'm so in love TW/90-91, I watched it back then when I was 17- 18 years old. I love all of Lynch's movies, (my favorites being Wild at Heart, Blue Velvet, FWWM, LH) and was wayyyy disappointed back in the day when Mulholland never turned into anything other than a movie. I read a recent article in Vanity Fair about the precise details of how that never came to fruition as a series, and it's because of discussions exactly like this one right here in executive Hollywood offices..they said Mulholland quote-unquote moved too slowly, and that's why it was axed...and being the rabid, dedicated, thirsty Lynch fan i am, i want things to be the way i remember, and i need to get over myself already. that said, I have a billion theories on the first six of TW 17, as I see connections in everything from the old episodes and FWWM with this new work. And have never said it anywhere else before but in my own living room I do believe that Coupe is acting all zappy like that because he was electrocuted that's how he was sent back through all that electricity and he's all zapped up and doesn't know shitttttt from shinola.. like I believe he was wayyyy zapped, as if he was in an electric chair times 20 to the power of Satan... I would like to see him get shocked again and snap out of this rain man-ish, misty, interstellar-travel-induced, stuck on dumb persona.
my fav little thing, thusly: major briggs head floating beneath coop, when he was on his launch pad thing with the blinded red velvet dress lady. LOVVVE ITTT

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk
Post Reply