Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[waferwhitemilk]

Still, I think we have gotten so much beautiful material in season 3 (...) Would you truly have preferred a reporter digging up some old memories with Norma and Audrey?

Well, why would we have to choose between the two? All of these moments could have happened, even the Dougie stuff, but embedded in/contrasted with the Twin Peaks story arc i described above. As is, i think the enjoyment of those admittedly cool moments is lessened for me and a lot of others because they all seem to be hanging in the air so to speak. There is no connection to Twin Peaks or most of the old cast, which to me seems a reasonable expectation to have from a reboot. Especially if the trailers and preshow promotion featured the old cast so heavily.

And if we're talking fanservice, to have just a couple of unconnected shots of Nadine silently listening to the radio, one shot of Leland asking 'where's Laura', one shot of James entering the roadhouse etc, all totally unconnected to the story, in my opinion that's fanservice of the most nihilistic kind!

[Rhodes]

And if we're talking fanservice, to have just a couple of unconnected shots of Nadine silently listening to the radio, one shot of Leland asking 'where's Laura', one shot of James entering the roadhouse etc, all totally unconnected to the story, in my opinion that's fanservice of the most nihilistic kind!

Would you rather have had that these characters were not included at all?

[waferwhitemilk]

Would you rather have had that these characters were not included at all?

No, like I stated above, I would like to have seen them integrated in the story in a meaningful way. Now, to me, it's more like Lynch using the pretense of a reboot to make his own new 18 hour movie with isolated shots of Nadine or James thrown in like: here's a shot of the old cast you retarded retrofans who expected an actual reboot, suckers!!!

[Rhodes]

No, I understand.

But given the fact that it is not the show that you would have liked, would your prefer it in the current form or to erase James, Nadine, etc completely (if they're not doing anything meaningful anyway)?

[waferwhitemilk]

No, I understand. But given the fact that it is not the show that you would have liked, would your prefer it in the current form or to erase James, Nadine, etc completely (if they're not doing anything meaningful anyway)?

Well, we still have 7 epi's to go, so who knows if those scenes become more meaningful after all - which seems like a longshot - but if this is just what it was: Leland uttering one sentence, James just entering the Roadhouse, Mike just doing the job interview, Nadine just listening to the radio, Dr Jacoby just ranting on his radioshow, then yes, i would have preferred to have them erased and condemned to non-exist-ance completely.

[Novalis]

Would you rather have had that these characters were not included at all?

No, like I stated above, I would like to have seen them integrated in the story in a meaningful way. Now, to me, it's more like Lynch using the pretense of a reboot to make his own new 18 hour movie with isolated shots of Nadine or James thrown in like: here's a shot of the old cast you retarded retrofans who expected an actual reboot, suckers!!!

Maybe it's a difference between the old series and the 'limited event', or maybe not, but I never really thought of the old series (particularly season two) as having just one story. It always seemed to me like a bundle of parallel stories, some of which never connected at all. Maybe you'd regard them as side-stories; you can't really call them sub-plots because they never integrated back into the whole neatly. I think there have always been these 'meanwhile' stories that never went anywhere: glimpses of characters' vicissitudes and relationships that seemed wholly extraneous to the main dramatic arc. In a way, these sometimes contributed to the soapy feel of the series. I'm not saying this is happening now. On the contrary now it feels almost like these isolated shots don't even comprise a side-story, and yet at the same time I feel that there is enormous pressure on the Return to hang together, to resolve into one main story which ties everyone into it on some level. This is obviously very polarizing, both in terms of fan expectations and the realities of what can be delivered.

I feel almost that certain of the old series characters are being 'painted in' as staffage, in the sense that painters use a medley of figures to populate an image, none of which has particular importance in themselves as figures, but are there simply to generate the effect of onlookers or passers-by to the main figures. Except, again -- and this is why I say only 'almost feel' -- that these figures (Nadine, Jacoby, Jerry, for example; there are others) are not even connected as onlookers yet. Obviously then, as fans, it's hard to resist the desire for them to become more connected, to at least play the role of bystanders. I truly wonder whether or not this will happen, or if they will remain orbiting, atomic satellites distant and narratively remote from the main cluster, the barycentre Cooper/Doppelcoop/Cole (which three must surely intersect more fully).

[Agent Earle]

Just rewatched a bit of the old show, and suffered a sudden tinge of pessimism about the run-in of season 3. I'm enjoying The Return for the time being, but my glass is perennially half-empty, so I thought I'd share:

In the original show, we had two main antagonists, depending on your definition: Bob and Windom Earle (plus a fine selection of local criminals and shady dudes). Both felt like real threats to the lives of our favourite characters. This season, we have the local crooks, but who are the main antagonists?

EvilCoop? Too manufactured.
Jeffries (possibly)? Too peripheral.
The woodsmen? Yeah, spooky - but so far more like creepy bed bugs.
Mother/experiment? Give me a break.

I agree that Windom Earle was more of a threat. Especially when he started wearing a fake moustache and we didn't see him coming. That was so creepy.

I don't know why everyone keeps making jokes about Windom Earle's dress-ups. Why should him wearing a fake moustache hamper his creepiness? It does happen in real life too, you know - Ted Bundy wore a fake moustache when he posed as a police officer and tried to kidnap a girl (Carol DaRonch) at Fashion Place Mall in Salt Lake City (November, 1974); I guess his reasoning was a moustache makes a guy look more like a man of the law. I think everyone here familiar with the story should agree such tactics doesn't make him any less menacing, especially in hindsight, when the whole of the sordid saga is long a part of public conscience.

[mtwentz]

Generally, the shorter a piece of work is (writing, film, etc.) the less time there is for 'sidebars' or subplots.

In an 18 hour film, there is plenty of time for such sidebars and indeed I would be surprised if absolutely everything in an 18-hour film fed directly into the main plot.

Which is fine with me. It's the difference between a short story and a novel. In a short story, not a word can be wasted. In a novel, there is much more wiggle room for a few tasty diversions. The Return is a novel.

[yaxomoxay]

It's just like making a show with Ridge, Thorne, Eric, Brooke and Stephanie and letting them all marry one another.

Ahahahha I almost spit my coffee on this one!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[yaxomoxay]

Generally, the shorter a piece of work is (writing, film, etc.) the less time there is for 'sidebars' or subplots.

In an 18 hour film, there is plenty of time for such sidebars and indeed I would be surprised if absolutely everything in an 18-hour film fed directly into the main plot.

Which is fine with me. It's the difference between a short story and a novel. In a short story, not a word can be wasted. In a novel, there is much more wiggle room for a few tasty diversions. The Return is a novel.

There are differences even between novels.
You can have action packed Stephen King novels, or you can have masterpieces like Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. Both of them have their merits and issues.
The Return is The Name of the Rose, and I am glad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mtwentz]

Generally, the shorter a piece of work is (writing, film, etc.) the less time there is for 'sidebars' or subplots.

In an 18 hour film, there is plenty of time for such sidebars and indeed I would be surprised if absolutely everything in an 18-hour film fed directly into the main plot.

Which is fine with me. It's the difference between a short story and a novel. In a short story, not a word can be wasted. In a novel, there is much more wiggle room for a few tasty diversions. The Return is a novel.

There are differences even between novels.
You can have action packed Stephen King novels, or you can have masterpieces like Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. Both of them have their merits and issues.
The Return is The Name of the Rose, and I am glad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll have to check out The Name of the Rose! I have fallen behind in my reading since the advent of the Internet, sadly.

[Pöllö]

Only 7 episodes left and all we have is this? I honestly couldn't be more dissapointed.

[yaxomoxay]

Generally, the shorter a piece of work is (writing, film, etc.) the less time there is for 'sidebars' or subplots.

In an 18 hour film, there is plenty of time for such sidebars and indeed I would be surprised if absolutely everything in an 18-hour film fed directly into the main plot.

Which is fine with me. It's the difference between a short story and a novel. In a short story, not a word can be wasted. In a novel, there is much more wiggle room for a few tasty diversions. The Return is a novel.

There are differences even between novels.
You can have action packed Stephen King novels, or you can have masterpieces like Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. Both of them have their merits and issues.
The Return is The Name of the Rose, and I am glad.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'll have to check out The Name of the Rose! I have fallen behind in my reading since the advent of the Internet, sadly.

Well... it was published in 1980
It's a masterpiece. Not the easiest thing to read, especially the first 100 pages or so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rialto]

How could they have used Peggy Lipton in a better way, if she's such a good example of what you're arguing? She is a WAITRESS!!! And the story is about Cooper's return to the real world (and ALSO a bit about mobsters, etc.). She doesn't fit into that.m

That's a really weird thing to say. Why should Norma being a waitress preclude her from having an interesting life, or a story? The original TP was full of the stories of waitresses, small town doctors, perfume counter salesgirls and housewives.

I don't think it would be at all 'insulting to the intelligence' if there were to be side plots and subplots giving us insight into the other familiar inhabitants of Twin Peaks, maybe showing the ripples of Laura's life and death.

I mean, particularly now that Lynch seems to be saying that Laura is some vital conduit of good in an elemental battle between good and evil, and Twin Peaks is the battleground (or at least a significant location), would it not make sense that others in TP would feel the effects?

No-one's asking for a pat plot, with everything gathered up in one contrived bundle. But yeah, maybe don't bother with original cast at all, if they're just there for decoration. It's like being told you're going to meet up with some old friends you haven't see for years, but when you get there, you're only allowed to wave at them across a crowded room.

[kleio]

Life happens a bit though, doesn't it? I'm creeping towards 50. The only thing I look forward to these days is going to bed. To sleep. First time around I was devouring the show. Reading everything I could find. Now I just can't be bothered in the same way. Are there other aspects of your life that you feel *exactly* the same about? When I go to see bands play now, I don't feel like I did when I was 17. And so maybe it would be odd if your response to TP was the same in 2017 as it was in 1990.

Perhaps you’ve hit upon the problem: I’m too optimistic to be watching this show. I need to be more jaded about life.

I’m not expecting it to be *exactly* the way it was for the original series, but I was hoping to enjoy watching it. I didn’t expect to be fighting to find something interesting to hold on to.

We watched Star Trek Beyond last night, and I really enjoyed it. I didn’t have high hopes after what happened with Into Darkness, but Beyond finally got the mix right. It managed to be an “action” movie that felt like a Star Trek movie. The first AbramsTrek movie was okay as a popcorn movie, but didn’t feel like Star Trek to me. The second one was a mockery of a Star Trek movie. It feels like The Return is stuck in that mode. The pieces are there, but they are presented in such a tedious way that it comes across as trying too hard to be cool.

edited for clarity of point 1