Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[mtwentz]

Fair enough, though I have to agree that posting NY Times article and trying to present it as an objective POV is in fact bit condescending, especially when doing so in an environment predominately consisted of dissapointed individuals. You seem to be forgetting that art is subjective and even if TR was universally acclaimed, which is NOT you'd still have trouble selling your argument. Needless to point out all the films that were at the time panned by critics and are now recognised as a beloved classics, and vice versa. So basically critics POV is esentially no more objective than ours, they're after all people who're just stating their opinions and it would be delusional to think their judgment is not oftenly based on personal feeling. If anything I'd argue that critics could be pressured to fabricate their views, especially in this case where Lynch is worshiped as an "art house god" and going against the general public is often seen as blasphemy.

By 'objective', I meant someone not immersed in the Twin Peaks world like us, someone who has no 'dog' in this fight, so to speak (at least as far as I know, maybe he's a member of this board, but I doubt it).

I agree there is no thing as 100% objectivity in evaluating art when it comes to the personal level. We may never be able to develop an objective standard that states 'movie A is good' or 'movie B is bad'. However, when we change the phrase to 'is the movie critically-acclaimed or panned by the critics', I think we have some pretty decent measurements with Rotten Tomatoes and Meta-Critic. The two caveats are: 1) critical evaluation tends to change over time and 2) with the Internet, there are so many more critics out there than ever before, I am not 100% sure of the quality of some of the critic sites.

At this point, I would call The Return a qualified critical success: No T.V. series should ever be called an absolute critical success or failure until all the episodes/parts have been seen. When everything has been aired, The Return may be upgraded or downgraded by the critics.

[Mr. Reindeer]

Stephen Gyllenhaal took the blame for the thought bubble. Godawful.

Huh?! Caleb Deschanel directed that episode, I think! Gyllenhaal hadn't even been hired to the show yet!

[BOB1]

Thanks for linking the NYT article, I'm very interested in reading it, especially that it starts with a Game of Thrones pic, he he.

Btw, out of genuine curiosity and because I don't recall seeing it referenced here, surprisingly: how did the Log Lady's last scene resonate with you guys?

I loved it totally. It was indeed on the brink of breaking a taboo - it was like taking part, on screen, in the last goodbye. But it felt SO MUCH like it was the dying woman's last will. Catherine Coulson, I mean, I could almost hear her putting the message through: 'I am dying and I want to die together with my beloved Twin Peaks and its characters and its fans...'. In Part 1, which I didn't like at all, her phone conversation with Hawk, along with Dark Mood Woods, was the one moment, which really moved me. And this, incredible; both the last phone call and also, when Hawk went to report the news to the rest. "The Log Lady's dead?!" was the only good Lucy moment in the whole show because it was real and genuine. It was like a meta-film moment, which is why I found the "in memory of Margaret Lanterman" fitting even though it was different than the usual way.

I for one am very fond of Peter Jackson's adaptation of Lord of the Rings. Very unneccessary to sow dissent among the disappointed support group! This is exactly what they want, to divide us!!!
If this hobbit-bashing continues I might have to form another thread. "Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group (who still love LoTR and enjoy Shawshank Redemption. Sometimes a film that plays on your emotions is exactly what you are in the mood for. Maybe not the best film ever made but extremely well made and enjoyable)."

Aces!

I don't know if you know (a user named Gordon would have told you but I think he's decided to refrain from posting until The Return's complete) but my favourite Starwars part is Revenge of the Sith

[The Gazebo]

I think we have some pretty decent measurements with Rotten Tomatoes and Meta-Critic. The two caveats are: 1) critical evaluation tends to change over time and 2) with the Internet, there are so many more critics out there than ever before, I am not 100% sure of the quality of some of the critic sites.

At this point, I would call The Return a qualified critical success: No T.V. series should ever be called an absolute critical success or failure until all the episodes/parts have been seen. When everything has been aired, The Return may be upgraded or downgraded by the critics.

Agree that the sites you mention give decent measurements. However, most of these are based on the opening four episodes, as far as I can see. What happens when a writer gives his final assessment - is the earlier evaluation erased, or is the last one simply added? I'm not too familiar with how these aggregate things work.

Anyway, I'm fine if my opinion differs from the consensus. It happens from time to time. I don't know a single individual apart from myself who watches this show, so it's not like I'm going to have furious debates on a regular basis

[mtwentz]

I think we have some pretty decent measurements with Rotten Tomatoes and Meta-Critic. The two caveats are: 1) critical evaluation tends to change over time and 2) with the Internet, there are so many more critics out there than ever before, I am not 100% sure of the quality of some of the critic sites.

At this point, I would call The Return a qualified critical success: No T.V. series should ever be called an absolute critical success or failure until all the episodes/parts have been seen. When everything has been aired, The Return may be upgraded or downgraded by the critics.

Agree that the sites you mention give decent measurements. However, most of these are based on the opening four episodes, as far as I can see. What happens when a writer gives his final assessment - is the earlier evaluation erased, or is the last one simply added? I'm not too familiar with how these aggregate things work.

Anyway, I'm fine if my opinion differs from the consensus. It happens from time to time. I don't know a single individual apart from myself who watches this show, so it's not like I'm going to have furious debates on a regular basis

Some of the sites have been giving weekly synopses, so on the last episode we will probably get their take on the entire series. However, I do not know if those final reviews ever make it to Rotten Tomatoes or Meta-critic.
I must admit, I don't really know how that works either. Since The Return has had relatively low viewership numbers, it is uncertain how much it will be reviewed after the series concludes.

As far as your opinion differing from the consensus, yes it happens to all of us. I just think it's important to acknowledge what the critical consensus actually is, then explain why they're wrong, when one is making an argument against the critical consensus on a particular film or show. Some posters on this thread (not you) have confused the issue by declaring The Return an unmitigated artistic failure, leaving the misimpression that the critics have largely panned the series.

[The Gazebo]

I just think it's important to acknowledge what the critical consensus actually is, then explain why they're wrong, when one is making an argument against the critical consensus on a particular film or show.

Oh, I agree. I think it might take years for me to fully verbalize my opinion on this season. It's one of the most depressing experiences I've had as a viewer, yet I'm still here, discussing and watching the show "live" (in the middle of the night in my parts of the world). It's bold, groundbreaking, innovative, challenging - yet rubbish. It's beautiful, funny and haunting in parts - yet the overall experience is ugly or mundane. I appreciate the fact that it's something new and interesting, but I can't shake the lingering feeling that this is a complete fraud by someone who decided that TP would be a good vehicle to explore ideas totally unrelated to the show's original universe.

[sylvia_north]

Stephen Gyllenhaal took the blame for the thought bubble. Godawful.

Huh?! Caleb Deschanel directed that episode, I think! Gyllenhaal hadn't even been hired to the show yet!

My bad, again! Thanks for catching me The memory is going in my old age, Dougie style

Also might as well add there's no way of knowing what the majority feels about it. Empty cans rattle loud, and you have to be particularly motivated to write anything about it, either way. Ratings- who knows? Everything is free, anymore...

[Mr. Reindeer]

Stephen Gyllenhaal took the blame for the thought bubble. Godawful.

Huh?! Caleb Deschanel directed that episode, I think! Gyllenhaal hadn't even been hired to the show yet!

My bad, again! Thanks for catching me The memory is going in my old age, Dougie style

Heh, didn't want poor Steve to be saddled with that crap. He helmed one of the only competent late-season-2 entries, and I've been enjoying his work on my Rectify binge!

[Framed_Angel]

Stephen Gyllenhaal took the blame for the thought bubble. Godawful.

Huh?! Caleb Deschanel directed that episode, I think! Gyllenhaal hadn't even been hired to the show yet!

My bad, again! Thanks for catching me

Help me out: what was the "thought bubble"? I do remember Little Nicky of course but y'all lost me on the thought bubble.

[sylvia_north]

Help me out: what was the "thought bubble"? I do remember Little Nicky of course but y'all lost me on the thought bubble.

I wish I could forget it!

[Here Comes That Bob]

I think we have some pretty decent measurements with Rotten Tomatoes and Meta-Critic. The two caveats are: 1) critical evaluation tends to change over time and 2) with the Internet, there are so many more critics out there than ever before, I am not 100% sure of the quality of some of the critic sites.

At this point, I would call The Return a qualified critical success: No T.V. series should ever be called an absolute critical success or failure until all the episodes/parts have been seen. When everything has been aired, The Return may be upgraded or downgraded by the critics.

Agree that the sites you mention give decent measurements. However, most of these are based on the opening four episodes, as far as I can see. What happens when a writer gives his final assessment - is the earlier evaluation erased, or is the last one simply added? I'm not too familiar with how these aggregate things work.

Anyway, I'm fine if my opinion differs from the consensus. It happens from time to time. I don't know a single individual apart from myself who watches this show, so it's not like I'm going to have furious debates on a regular basis

Some of the sites have been giving weekly synopses, so on the last episode we will probably get their take on the entire series. However, I do not know if those final reviews ever make it to Rotten Tomatoes or Meta-critic.
I must admit, I don't really know how that works either. Since The Return has had relatively low viewership numbers, it is uncertain how much it will be reviewed after the series concludes.

As far as your opinion differing from the consensus, yes it happens to all of us. I just think it's important to acknowledge what the critical consensus actually is, then explain why they're wrong, when one is making an argument against the critical consensus on a particular film or show. Some posters on this thread (not you) have confused the issue by declaring The Return an unmitigated artistic failure, leaving the misimpression that the critics have largely panned the series.

I read what you've written and while I do agree with certain points I'm not really sure what to make out of your final sentence. Are you trying to imply that critics are the only one qualified to assess if something is an artistic success or not ? At least from my understanding, when someone here proclaims TR as an artistic failure I don't think they're stating anything more than their personal opinion without any allusions or even correlation to the critics consensus. I'm not even sure why anyone would make that connection. Furthermore I believe that posters in this thread have done a splendid job explaining their sentiments on the show in a very detailed and eloquent manner. That's definitely one of the main reasons why this is one of the most enjoyable and thought-provoking threads on the entire forum and I don't really see a reason why anyone would have a problem with it.

As far as Metacritic goes, I just checked it and TR is currently holding a score of 74% . Definitely positive but still an indicator that not everyone's on board with it. However I noticed that most of those reviews date from May 22nd, meaning that most of them were written before the quarter of the show has aired. I assume that critics will review the show in its entirety once it ends, so will those partial reviews be deleted and replaced with the complete ones ? Do you have any insight in that ?

[The Gazebo]

I wish I could forget it!

It's still incredible to think that this made the cut. Same with the pine weasel biting Dick Tremayne. But if I'm not mistaken, several of the episodes were written and recorded in a hurry to make the deadline. Being creative and clever week-by-week couldn't have been easy when the creators of the show had jumped ship, while at the same time writers/directors were probably trying to guess what Lynch/Frost would have wanted.

[mtwentz]

I read what you've written and while I do agree with certain points I'm not really sure what to make out of your final sentence. Are you trying to imply that critics are the only one qualified to assess if something is an artistic success or not ? At least from my understanding, when someone here proclaims TR as an artistic failure I don't think they're stating anything more than their personal opinion without any allusions or even correlation to the critics consensus. I'm not even sure why anyone would make that connection. Furthermore I believe that posters in this thread have done a splendid job explaining their sentiments on the show in a very detailed and eloquent manner. That's definitely one of the main reasons why this is one of the most enjoyable and thought-provoking threads on the entire forum and I don't really see a reason why anyone would have a problem with it.

As far as Metacritic goes, I just checked it and TR is currently holding a score of 74% . Definitely positive but still an indicator that not everyone's on board with it. However I noticed that most of those reviews date from May 22nd, meaning that most of them were written before the quarter of the show has aired. I assume that critics will review the show in its entirety once it ends, so will those partial reviews be deleted and replaced with the complete ones ? Do you have any insight in that ?

No, critics are not the only ones qualified, but we generally look to them to see what is an artistic triumph or artistic failure. What you or I think would more likely be under the 'popular' or 'audience response' category. We can have our opinion, but there's no one to really document it besides these message boards, which most people don't use.

My main point is that any way you look at it, Twin Peaks: The Return is not an unqualified artistic failure. In the minds of a relatively small group it has failed badly and some think it is unwatchable, but it's still a relatively small number of critics that have really reacted this way. Most have liked it, although sometimes even they don't know what to make of it (which is a testament to how forward thinking this show is, IMHO).

I believe the last episodes are going to be key as to how the critics ultimately react to The Return as a total series. I am hoping for something really abstract, to go out with a bang, just like the original series did with episode 29.

[IcedOver]

No, critics are not the only ones qualified, but we generally look to them to see what is an artistic triumph or artistic failure.

Replace "we" with "I" in that sentence. The proclamation of an artistic success or failure is not a consensus view, in my opinion. It's a personal subjective opinion on a work's merits, whereas a commercial success is not subjective. I don't give a damn about paid critics any longer (maybe in the past I did), and try to read as few reviews as possible.

[mtwentz]

No, critics are not the only ones qualified, but we generally look to them to see what is an artistic triumph or artistic failure.

Replace "we" with "I" in that sentence. The proclamation of an artistic success or failure is not a consensus view, in my opinion. It's a personal subjective opinion on a work's merits, whereas a commercial success is not subjective. I don't give a damn about paid critics any longer (maybe in the past I did), and try to read as few reviews as possible.

Maybe a better way to differentiate is 'popular success' vs. 'critical success'? I don't think average folks can really define critical success just as my view critics can't define popular success.