Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[Here Comes That Bob]

I'm glad to see that plot was more associated with Twin Peaks in this episode. However, I think the excecution wasn't at its best. Hopefully the show will start to pick up soon.

Was anyone else dissapointed with Diane, by the way ? I thought Laura Dern really put on an "overacting show".

[Nikki Grace]

You see, there are many examples in film and TV where I can see this. But I have never, ever seen Lynch as falling into this category whatsoever. Again, it's fine not to like them, but I really resent it when people pull out the pretentious card when it's not at all deserved. It's just not true for him or his new Twin Peaks.

Nikki, with all due respect, if you have manners, you don't turn up on a forum, having never been here before, go straight to a thread for people who are disappointed when you aren't, then start telling them they're trolling.

Introduce yourself, make nice, then we can all be friends. Then you can start accusing me of trolling on your fifth post!

Well I like to get straight to business.

I have no qualms with you disliking things, but I can't help but feel some of the statements you make just go out to provoke. Both sides do it by the way. From what I have seen on twitter, you get the other side who paint dislikers with the "Well you just want coffee and cherry pie melodrama!" spiel. I just want a bit of balance. I will come back to discuss more later. I am interested in all sides though. There are few shows that can illicit such passionate reactions from its fans, nor provide such rewarding answers!

[IcedOver]

Yes, I'm afraid it smacks of a lack of discipline to me. I've remarked elsewhere that giving an artist total control and a whopping budget doesn't guarantee the artist's best work. As a rule, limitations and structure are good way of focusing a talent. We can all see from Lynch's past work – especially the likes of The Elephant Man and The Straight Story – that he's an artist who's mastered the craft of filmmaking and made it his own. Here, it feels like the artist is in control, but everything feels unfocused; kind of all over the place. It's like a bon vivante who likes a glass or two of wine drinking twelve glasses and and going for a thirteenth and not knowing when to stop.

I believe that complete creative freedom is a good thing no matter the final quality, and Lynch wouldn't do anything without it. However, having some limitation like running time has in the past been beneficial to him, such as the mandate that Blue Velvet (his best movie) be two hours. That's an extremely disciplined work. Today, though, he's more into casual storytelling, and that's understandable; he's changed in what he wants to do. The idea of doing an 18-hour movie where he could be very loose was probably very exciting. If this show were moving along at an extremely casual pace and things were very interesting and mysterious, that would be fine. At the moment, though, good chunks of the show are spent with characters trying to figure out things to which we the audience already know the answers, or which just plain aren't intriguing. So much of it is off key, like the interviews with bystanders after Dougie took down Ike.

I was actually surprised when some scenes followed on from the previous, such as when Cole and Diane talked about going to ND, then it actually happened in this episode. I had gotten used to things promised happening two or more episodes afterward.

[mlsstwrt]

I'm really excited about seeing Part 7 (wasn't able to see the original broadcast), sounds like it's going to win a lot of people over and I hope that includes me!

However good it is though, Lurker, I don't think any guilt necessary. Six hours is a looooooong time to get going (obviously this comment is aimed at people who don't think the first six episodes were amazing) but better late than never.

Out of interest - anybody NOT won over by Part 7? I know a couple of people have expressed dissenting views already.

I'm also still trying to process that comment about people who don't really like Lynch/TP but think they do

[IcedOver]

Was anyone else dissapointed with Diane, by the way ? I thought Laura Dern really put on an "overacting show".

Yes, I hated the character and her performance (they couldn't come up with something better than "Fuck you"?). I've also mostly disliked Watts's performance. Watts is overrated in general, but Dern is a pretty fine actress usually. So far, Diane is just as flat as many of the other characters.

[Here Comes That Bob]

Out of interest - anybody NOT won over by Part 7? I know a couple of people have expressed dissenting views already.

I'm also still trying to process that comment about people who don't really like Lynch/TP but think they do

I thought Part 7 was fairly good, but nothing standoffish. I kind of think that people's positive reception to latest episode has more to do with the fact its more TP associated plot wise, than to its actual quality.

[Gabriel]

Well I like to get straight to business.

You see! I'm liking you already!

I have no qualms with you disliking things, but I can't help but feel some of the statements you make just go out to provoke.

Absolutely I do. I love the discussions that people provoke. Probably a been a bit too 'theatrical' of late though!

Both sides do it by the way. From what I have seen on twitter, you get the other side who paint dislikers with the "Well you just want coffee and cherry pie melodrama!" spiel.

Sigh! Yes, I admit I do miss the pie and coffee melodrama! And Annie's cardigan (which she stole from Donna!)

I just want a bit of balance.

Yes, I know where you're coming from.

I will come back to discuss more later. I am interested in all sides though. There are few shows that can illicit such passionate reactions from its fans, nor provide such rewarding answers!

That's the thing isn't it? In the case of many of us here, we desperately want to like the show. If nothing else, I feel the conflict breeds creativity in the discussions.

Seeya around.

[Gabriel]

Yes, I hated the character and her performance (they couldn't come up with something better than "Fuck you"?). I've also mostly disliked Watts's performance. Watts is overrated in general, but Dern is a pretty fine actress usually. So far, Diane is just as flat as many of the other characters.

Yes, she didn't really work for me either. I feel that many of the actors seem to be acting for film rather than video – it's a slightly different skill. Many 'filmed' US dramas are captured digitally, but shot and graded to look filmic. Lynch is shooting much of this to look like digital video: more Eastenders, less Better Call Saul, in terms of the electronic, almost interlaced look. Performances can come over as less authentic as a result.

[Agent327]

Pretentious is when people think it's art to show a bloke sweeping a room for five minutes for no good reason. Pretentious is wasting time so that a bunch of pseudo-intellectuals can pat each others' cheeks, pretending to love something for it's devious 'cleverness,' thinking they're seeing something the barbarians don't; I see a naked emperor.

I like the return for what it is, but you make valid points.

Tons of pseudo-intellectualism going on (Lynch, as great as he can be, functions as a true honeypot for pseudo-intellectuals) and what is in my opinion a supersized degree of goodwill to appreciate whatever is presented, which makes sense in this case; After all, we're getting something we never thought we'd get, after so many years of ruling out the idea. Big fans of anything tend to be extremely appreciative, but especially under those kind of circumstances.

In another thread I posted the fact that Gordon Cole got the "I'm happy to see you again old friend" wrong when he explained it to Tammy (it should have been 'It's good to see you again old friend') in a scene where precision matters greatly, since the quality of Gordon's theory/point hinges on his memory being flawless and the words being correct. If he wasn't even able to remember the line, a particular word landing on a corresponding finger would be pure luck.

Interesting to see how no one seems to care about stuff like that at all, but will marvel over small details that may or may not have been intentional.

Anyway, I like the show and follow it with interest, but being honest with myself, it IS a "like the show for what it is."

[Nikki Grace]

Well I like to get straight to business.

You see! I'm liking you already!

I have no qualms with you disliking things, but I can't help but feel some of the statements you make just go out to provoke.

Absolutely I do. I love the discussions that people provoke. Probably a been a bit too 'theatrical' of late though!

Both sides do it by the way. From what I have seen on twitter, you get the other side who paint dislikers with the "Well you just want coffee and cherry pie melodrama!" spiel.

Sigh! Yes, I admit I do miss the pie and coffee melodrama! And Annie's cardigan (which she stole from Donna!)

I just want a bit of balance.

Yes, I know where you're coming from.

I will come back to discuss more later. I am interested in all sides though. There are few shows that can illicit such passionate reactions from its fans, nor provide such rewarding answers!

That's the thing isn't it? In the case of many of us here, we desperately want to like the show. If nothing else, I feel the conflict breeds creativity in the discussions.

Seeya around.

Well let's hope if things continue in the vain of E7 you won't have much complaining to do!

Out of interest, how do you rank David Lynch's films?

[Here Comes That Bob]

Was anyone else dissapointed with Diane, by the way ? I thought Laura Dern really put on an "overacting show".

Yes, I hated the character and her performance (they couldn't come up with something better than "Fuck you"?). I've also mostly disliked Watts's performance. Watts is overrated in general, but Dern is a pretty fine actress usually. So far, Diane is just as flat as many of the other characters.

Totaly agree. The "F-YOU" segment was so annoying and honestly kind of embarrasing. I know that Lynch is not a dialogue driven director, but that was just straight up bad. Also people seem to praise Dern's scenes with EvilCoop and Gordon, which to me were completely forced and overly theatrical . I kind of had the same problem with Dern in WaH, but I don't recall her being that bad in it.

As for Watts, I'm more undrerwhelmed with her character than her actual performance. If her character will only turn out to be only stereotipical, angry, hard-nosed housewife than I'd be kinda dissapointed. Even now her dialogue patterns are getting kind of repetitive .

[Gabriel]

Anyway, I like the show and follow it with interest, but being honest with myself, it IS a "like the show for what it is."

Yeah, my issue all along has been that it's felt like a 'Lynchworld' TV show, featuring Twin Peaks. Ep 7 was the first time I really felt I was watching a new episode of Twin Peaks itself.

[LateReg]

The episode seven felt to me like the stuff I was hoping we'd get from the beginning. Not necessarily these very plot details, but the pace, suspense, the thrill. It need have all been in Twin Peeks the town either, I am perfectly fine with other venues. I mean, I liked parts of FWWM outside of TP as if they were there. The localized lack of music I could also accept. I was also ok with the surrealist elements in parts 1-4, and even the "new" lodge I could live with. Yes I find the old one more mysterious, but I will take the new one if this is what we are going to get, it is still pretty good.

Here is my main problem: we have 18 hours, and judging by how time flew yesterday, the better these episodes get, the sooner it will all be over. I will then look back to certain parts with regret, and wish that we could have had more. That certain parts of the story suffered because of it, a lost opportunity. This is what we get after 25 years, and for people such as myself who have mulled over parts of this show in early 2000s (when the show was "as dead as a door knob") and never lost hope, just seeing it is a dream come true. You simply wish to have a real masterpiece, Twin Peaks "+" so to speak. This may very well be all that we will ever get. A one chance that a sports team gets to win a cup, so to speak.

Back to episode 7, even though at times in ealier episodes I thought we were clearly being trolled, I found the floor mopping actually pretty good. Having seen a lot in the preceding 45 minutes or so, I welcomed it as an opportunity to rest my brain a bit, and try to recollect and process what I had just seen. You know, that scene would make a terrific computer screen-saver!

Perhaps as it all comes together certain elements will make more sense and prove their importance to you, and you won't have as many regrets as you think. Hopefully.

[Agent327]

Anyway, I like the show and follow it with interest, but being honest with myself, it IS a "like the show for what it is."

Yeah, my issue all along has been that it's felt like a 'Lynchworld' TV show, featuring Twin Peaks. Ep 7 was the first time I really felt I was watching a new episode of Twin Peaks itself.

The interesting thing about the reception of episode 7, is that the people who loved every part of the Return loved this episode even more, specifically due to the plot moving along more, and a more familiar TP feeling being present.

And these things were exactly the elements 'the disappointed' bunch were told should not matter. That caring about plot was poor man's criticism, that you didn't understand Lynch if plot and character were part of a good show to you, and that one shouldn't be looking for stuff that made the original run work.

Yet when we do get some of that, they are over the moon because of it.

Strange....

In conclusion, I think it shows us that it's not about 'getting Lynch' vs 'not getting Lynch', but more about where you set the bar.

[LateReg]

Yes, I'm afraid it smacks of a lack of discipline to me. I've remarked elsewhere that giving an artist total control and a whopping budget doesn't guarantee the artist's best work. As a rule, limitations and structure are good way of focusing a talent. We can all see from Lynch's past work – especially the likes of The Elephant Man and The Straight Story – that he's an artist who's mastered the craft of filmmaking and made it his own. Here, it feels like the artist is in control, but everything feels unfocused; kind of all over the place. It's like a bon vivante who likes a glass or two of wine drinking twelve glasses and and going for a thirteenth and not knowing when to stop.

I believe that complete creative freedom is a good thing no matter the final quality, and Lynch wouldn't do anything without it. However, having some limitation like running time has in the past been beneficial to him, such as the mandate that Blue Velvet (his best movie) be two hours. That's an extremely disciplined work. Today, though, he's more into casual storytelling, and that's understandable; he's changed in what he wants to do. The idea of doing an 18-hour movie where he could be very loose was probably very exciting. If this show were moving along at an extremely casual pace and things were very interesting and mysterious, that would be fine. At the moment, though, good chunks of the show are spent with characters trying to figure out things to which we the audience already know the answers, or which just plain aren't intriguing. So much of it is off key, like the interviews with bystanders after Dougie took down Ike.

I was actually surprised when some scenes followed on from the previous, such as when Cole and Diane talked about going to ND, then it actually happened in this episode. I had gotten used to things promised happening two or more episodes afterward.

I think being off key is a huge part of what's going on here. It doesn't feel quite like anything else, and so some of us don't know what to do with it. I sometimes don't know what to do with it. But I see it as being something fresh and new, Lynch realizing the fullest, broadest potential of himself, or as Nevins said, he's evolved to a more extreme version of himself. That's what it seems like to me. But as for the interviews, I thought those were perfectly off key. A news parody, intentionally.