Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

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

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Sun Jul 02, 2017 5:31 pm

Jerry Horne wrote:
LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:I'm going to reiterate why I think this thread is here, because the influx of people who come here don't seem to appreciate its value.

1. Is the thread here to 'bitch and moan'? Yes, a little bit. That's not the entire purpose but the thread is effectively here to express negative thoughts about The Return openly, without clogging the other boards. So telling people in this thread they are victims and to 'Try to see the bright side' is not only annoying but given that everyone here is stable, well adjusted and intelligent enough to reach their own opinion and reflect on it thoughtfully, ---utterly missing the point.

2. Can outsiders who like the series engage in conversation with those who don't like the show. Of course, particularly if they are looking for a good discussion of the series that is not forcibly positive about every aspect of the return. The purpose however is not really to persuade either side who is right. But rather, as everyone here is a long term Twin Peaks fan, and thus can't discuss the series with non fans who may also agree the return is bad, they would rather engage with people who are long term fans of the series and discuss elements, what they do and don't like about the show, artistic approaches etc. This is essentially a show of gratitude to the board, and an attempt to keep aimless criticism and arguments off the other threads, and therefore we merely expect the same curtesy in here not to come and randomly infect the thread with 'You are dumb whiners and you aren't clever enough to see how great the series is.' So please refrain from doing so, if you can help it.


^^^

Read this. Live it.



I got your back Jerry
LateReg
Posts: 891
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:00 pm

@Lurker...

Thanks for the detailed part by part thoughts!

I believe Bobby cried in part 4, not 5. And Becky was introduced in part 5, not 6. Just to make it clear.
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

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

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:09 pm

LateReg wrote:@Lurker...

Thanks for the detailed part by part thoughts!

I believe Bobby cried in part 4, not 5. And Becky was introduced in part 5, not 6. Just to make it clear.


Thanks.
Yeah I was just going from memory, not notes or anything...so not surprised I got some things wrong.

Do you agree with any of those points or did you have a genuinely completely different reaction?
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

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

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:21 pm

Gabriel wrote:
Venus wrote:As mentioned, I didn't want more of exactly the same - that would be boring. But some similar tone, characterisation, humour and some storyline that wasn't so tenuous so there was a 'feeling' of TP, would be appreciated. Yes, we all grow up, we change, we get jaded by life to some degree, but creative output with some similarities to the original and same named show would have been possible.

PS I braced myself for the new series with no expectations and waited to see what would happen so please don't assume I did have them.

It's all right; we all know what you mean and some of us acknowledge it, while others will scream against the objective obvious truth that the new Twin Peaks has bugger all to do with the old one. I'm used to being attacked as a 'troll' for saying it, but a gang of sycophants and artsy fartsy critics will shout that someone's work is good, even when it's a shocker. My favourite film maker has shot his bolt and lost the plot. He's turned out a lazy, messy, embarrassing joke of a show. New Twin Peaks is like having a genius uncle, whom you loved, who's gone senile. You want to love him, but he keeps walking into your dining room naked and peeing on the rug while you're eating your supper.

Don't feel bad. If you're sane and rational, you'll see that this season is like the jump between Millennium seasons one and two multiplied by a million. It's not 'art;' it's arse. Most people who claim to be splooge-repainting their ceilings because they're so excited by season three know that, deep down, it's crap. Time will tell. The original show will live on. The 'David Lynch Comedy Weirdo Hour' will be forgotten in 20 years' time. Sadly, it's so bad that it might destroy the legacy of the original. The fact that many of the new show's defenders seriously denigrate the old show to make their points proves that they're Lynch Talifans who actually hate Twin Peaks and really hate Twin Peaks fans. If you like the old show, you're an embarrassment and should sneak away and die. If Lynch had put out an hour-long weekly show of him defecating in a bucket while drinking a latte, they'd have claimed it was 'challenging' art. This show doesn't challenge me; it embarrasses me.

So, since this is probably going to be my last post here and I'll likely be condemned to the banned ex-members Black Lodge sin bin/piranha pit after this post, I say to you 'Chin up! You're right. A mob jumping over individuals, proclaiming something is the truth by attacking the 'heretics' is usually wrong.' And I already know the mob will turn that exact sentence against me.

Stand tall, Venus! You're a goddess! And you have good taste. ;)

This is me, Gabriel – full-throttle, speedball, pure heroin incarnation – signing off. SYLMF!!


Boo! Don't leave Gabriel.
At the very least come back with yoUr thoughts on future episodes of you keep watching them
Mr. Jackpots
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 4:17 pm

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

Postby Mr. Jackpots » Sun Jul 02, 2017 6:46 pm

I was wondering if there is anyone on this thread who was swayed or just impressed with last week's episode 8?

I can understand people's frustration that The Return is really nothing like the 90s original series. Personally, I'm loving how Lynchian the new series is. And don't mind that it's so far removed from the original. But even I feel that if they don't start spending more time in Twin Peaks they shouldn't of even called this thing Twin Peaks.

Anyway, I wanna know if any of the haters out there have become lovers now that we are this far in?
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

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

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:05 pm

Mr. Jackpots wrote:I was wondering if there is anyone on this thread who was swayed or just impressed with last week's episode 8?

I can understand people's frustration that The Return is really nothing like the 90s original series. Personally, I'm loving how Lynchian the new series is. And don't mind that it's so far removed from the original. But even I feel that if they don't start spending more time in Twin Peaks they shouldn't of even called this thing Twin Peaks.

Anyway, I wanna know if any of the haters out there have become lovers now that we are this far in?


I can defInitelt say that I watch the return on two levels. On the level of Lynchian art, I can appreciate it a lot more than as a continuation of Twin Peaks, particularly very Lynchian episode likes Episode 3 and Episode 8

If this was just an unrelated Lynch film I might've given episode 8 an eight out of ten purely for its visual beauty, however as a Twin Peaks episode I can't give it more than a 3 out of ten because it just doesn't feel part of that universe at all.

Don't know if that helps you or not

EDIT; that said I still find it hard to appreciate this thing as a non Twin Peaks story, because ultimately it is Twin Peaks. It still revolves around Laura and Dougie Jones with some pastiches from other characters. So really I have trouble appreciating it even as Lynch-art and feel like it's more of Lynch defacing that world. Knocking over a sandcastle he helped build just for that love of destruction. Still that a hard thing to respect artistically
User avatar
counterpaul
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:06 am

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

Postby counterpaul » Sun Jul 02, 2017 7:40 pm

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:
counterpaul wrote:I do not consider Finnegans Wake to be an artistic failure. I regularly reread it, roughly every other year or so for the last 20 years, and I think it is both a) a narrative and b) almost completely character-driven. This isn't the place to go on at length about Finnegans Wake,


This is the one statement you’ve made that I kind of wish I hadn’t read. You will accept, I’m sure, that someone with that kind of taste is out near the limits of the avant garde. The number of people who attempt FW and end up with that kind of relationship to it, even among proudly literary types, is tiny.


FW is a tough nut to crack, that's for sure. And I love it with all my heart, but I would certainly not claim to have "cracked" it! It's just so endlessly beautiful, though! And so I keep coming back. And the more I read it, the less distant its pleasures become and the more the story (and the utter joy in the telling of the story) reveals itself. The first time through was long in the going and I didn't get much out of it beyond the musicality of it--and barely that at times!--but something, partly my total love of Portrait and Ulysses and partly something pervasive in Finnegan itself, made me want to give it another go. And so I did. And it was a little easier, though still almost totally baffling, the second time. And then the third time, I felt myself entering the dream. Something clicked. I started to "meet" the characters, and that was the key. What a joy it has been to revisit since then!

It also calls into question whether we really understand the same thing by ‘anti-narrative’. FW to me is classic anti-narrative; if that book isn’t it, then nothing is. The Return’s refusal of normal narrative pleasures is as nothing compared to FW.


Certainly, as I said, nothing Lynch has made even approaches FW's radicalism (IE, which I also adore, maybe comes closest, but is still miles and miles away).

As to whether FW is an "anti-narrative," it's an interesting question. I don't think it quite qualifies. Much like Lynch, I think Joyce was far more interested in expanding what a narrative could be than he was in interrogating what a narrative does to a reader. I think your earlier example of Calvino is a much better one, as is Brecht, even though they are both much, much easier to read than Finnegan. The project, in those cases (and not in the case of Joyce or Lynch), is to create the distanciation necessary to combat a reader/viewer's natural desire to lose themselves in the narrative in order to interrogate the ways in which narrative can be used to as a tool to lull us into accepting various political injustices. A worthy artistic goal, even if it's generally more interesting in conception than execution for me personally.

Either way, Lynch and Joyce could care less. It's simply not what they're up to.

My own tastes go as far as Ulysses, The Waves, Infinite Jest, Tarkovsky, Bruno Schulz and Riddley Walker, a novel that might look as hard as FW but is not. Go much further beyond these in terms of lack of entertainment and emotional engagement, however, and it’s snooze-time.


Fair enough. I suppose I'm entertained by different things. It's not that I'm claiming I'm "above" wanting to be entertained or something (gag!), I'm just arguing that there are those of us out there who maybe find entertainment, along with all the other wonderful things that art can do, from things that some people might consider snooze-fests. That being said, you've listed off some of my favorites! I love me some Joyce, Woolf, Wallace and Tarkovsky!

Some of this is professional – I’ve seen too many dreadful attempts at fiction headfuckery. Some of it is personal – I’ve written too many dreadful attempts at fiction headfuckery (standard response from editors: ‘There he goes again in backwards-talking dwarf mode”). This must be Dougie-boring for others to read, but we should understand that we’re coming at this TV series from fairly different backgrounds. Above all nowadays, I admire works that marry substance, patterning and innovation with suspension of disbelief, emotional impact and yes ‘entertainment’, however that’s defined. Fiction cannot just be a chess/art installation-style head game for me (I share the distrust of many writers and editors of the fraudulence of the modern plastic arts world).


So you're a literary editor--I had thought you meant you were a fellow film editor (that's my line).

I certainly know what you mean about your professional obligations (like I said in another post, I can't let my love of Lynchian rhythms influence much of my client work), but I would ask, as part of the reading public, that you keep one eye out for the rare, precious, Joyces and Nabokovs of this world. They pop up every once in a great while and a lot of editors try to squash them rather than letting them do their thing.

I would also say that it's not headfuckery that interests me. In fact, few things in this world bore me more than empty headfuckery. I know it's easy to mistake genuine artistic risktaking for the former, but they're entirely different animals. I think building up a distrust toward modern plastic art and fiction/film/video inspired by same, though understandable, is a big mistake. You'll end up missing some awesome stuff that way.

I decided long ago, for my own benefit, to approach every unfamiliar piece of art with open arms. Show me something new and my first thought is, "Who knows, maybe this will change my life and bring me years of ecstatic joy." Most of the new art I'm exposed to is basically garbage and does nothing for me, but I've found through experience that approaching it defensively, with arms folded and eyes slit and mind barred off, only leads to missing some of the vanishingly tiny minority that is fantastic.

It's happened to me many times. I remember first watching Godard, having been primed to believe that his work was cold and empty provocation, and feeling nothing, and stating proudly that he was overrated for quite a while until having to finally eat my words when I reassessed his work with a more open mind and ended up feeling like a total idiot. The same thing happened a few times in my teens and twenties (Sonic Youth's work is another example of a great joy in life delayed by silly pre-judging closed-heartedness).

Starting with the assumption that anything and everything might be wonderful and moving doesn't turn me into an idiot who loves everything. I still end up either hating or being indifferent to roughly 95% of the art I'm exposed to, but it does help me find the things I do love more easily. And it makes the process of watching/reading/hearing new things much more pleasant to boot. It's win-win!

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:
counterpaul wrote:Lynch's approach to character in most of his work since the original Twin Peaks has been what I think of as an "inside-out" approach wherein we get to know a character by getting to know the way they perceive rather than the way they behave.


Click. See above.

It appears that you’re talking about an equivalent of that Chandler-based film noir that I can’t remember the name of, a reasonably successful experiment in which the entire film was shot from the POV of the male lead.


As DKL might say in his gentle and friendly, but totally emphatic way, "That's not it at all, BlueRose!" :D

More below.

But you’re also meaning something broader: “the plot, the setting, the tone, etc.--all grow out of the emotional reality of the character.” Dougie is in a state of desolation, so Rancho Rosa looks desolate, right? His relationship to Janey is infantile so what we mostly hear from her is maternal scolding? (I find this last possibility especially intriguing; krazy brain mental, but intriguing and promising lots more ‘clicks’).


You're getting warmer, here, but you're still not there yet.

Aspects of your proposal certainly make sense, as the Return does feel like a hallucination and/or an experience of solipsism. And it’s thrilling to think of something that radical being broadcast on TV. But one problem is that it mainly feels like one person’s sensibility, not the series of different sensibilities we’d expect if this idea was being applied consistently. Why does so much of the show have the same ‘Dougie’ atmosphere of emptiness, tedium, desolation, disconnectedness, etc, in the scenes where he isn’t present? If the answer is that the whole show is taking place inside Dougie/Russell Brand/David Lynch’s head then my bottom starts to squirm.


Zoom out a bit more, and stop being so literal.

I am emphatically not proposing anything close to an "it's all a dream"/"Coop will wake up from a coma" style reading of TPTR. No, no, no; nothing like that at all.

Let's start with one key, underlying assumption I'm bringing to the table, here (and which seems to be weirdly controversial with all the fantasy/world-building style rationalization that goes on here): Lynch is a surrealist and Twin Peaks is surreal and a rational reading of this work is not going to lead you anywhere interesting or productive.

The inside-out style character-driven storytelling style I believe Lynch has employed in FWWM, LH, MD, IE, and TPTR is not allegorical or even symbolic. It's not an X=Y approach to storytelling at all.

Okay, enough with what it's not.

TPTR is Dale Cooper's story, 25 years after he fundamentally failed himself. He is utterly lost. His most basic assumptions about himself, from his point of view, are out the window. Who even is he at this point? As we meet him, and as we are reintroduced to the world of Twin Peaks, this is a disturbingly open question.

This is, therefore, the mindset through which we must see the entire world in TPTR. For Lynch, character is everything. TPTR is Cooper's story, so if Cooper is lost, all is lost.

The story is Cooper's Return, and so the plot has to do with the world readying for Cooper's return. Am I making sense? We are not seeing the events of the story exclusively from Coop's direct, literal point-of-view. This is a story with a great deal of scope. But we are seeing the events of the story from Coop's emotional point-of-view. TPTR is governed by Coop's psyche.

This is a beautiful extension of Twin Peaks because Twin Peaks was always about how nobody suffers trauma alone. The entire town suffered Laura's trauma and it was the town's collective denial that ultimately killed her. This is what the show is about.

Coop's story extends to the entire world because Coop is not only of Twin Peaks but is of the world. The logic remains essentially the same, though, even though Lynch's expression of that logic has become more abstract.

There isn't a "reality" over here and some distorted view of reality we're seeing instead. It's not that kind of puzzle. It's sure as hell not allegory. It's the story of a psyche, being told through the language of dream and intuition. What we're seeing is as real as it gets!

Does this make sense? I feel like I'm at the edge of really articulating this idea, but I'm not quite there yet.

Drawing attention to form doesn’t make a work “shoddy”, no. Classicism is pretty much the opposite of “shoddiness” and in its very beauty often draws attention to its own forms and adherence to traditional aesthetic ‘rules’. So here’s an attempted definition of “shoddiness”: some feature that might appear involuntary, incompetent and retrogressive but is in fact meant to achieve an affect otherwise unobtainable and that advances the artform in some way.


I see. Yeah, I really think "shoddy" is just the wrong word for this. It too strongly connotes indifference to effect.

I tend to really like art best when the hand of the artist is undeniable present. I mean, this all started with your assertion that work like this is somehow objectively an "artistic failure" and it seems to me even you don't believe that is the case. I mean, the definition above basically describes most modern masterpieces in film, fiction, theatre, music, and fine art!

I also love Laura’s secret diary and Q2’s Northwest Passage fanedit, which removes much of the silliness to focus on the Palmers’ tragedy.


Gah! This is a tangent for sure, but oh my god I hate that fanedit. It just so completely lacks elegance. I'm not inherently opposed to fanedits or anything--they can even be interesting exercises in reappropriation--but this one just hurts me both as a Twin Peaks fan and possibly even more as an editor. The idea that anyone sees this in lieu of the actual series makes me weep!

I haven’t engaged with your responses to examples of The Return’s “shoddiness” because even if you are right every time, nobody (I think) will persuade me this series isn’t “shoddy”, as defined above, and it’s hard to imagine any other lens through which it will appear at all admirable. Round these parts, it’s “shoddiness”/anti-narrative + convincing explanation(s) for same + these making the “shoddiness” worth it, or bust.


Fair enough! Given the above definition, "shoddy" is no insult and requires no rationale!

Obviously I’m immersed in The Return as a work of art – I wouldn’t still be here otherwise – but my strong preference is for suspension of disbelief in the characters, story and world to come first and then for immersion in the more artistic elements to follow. You clearly have the sophistication that allows these to happen together. I, for better or worse, do not.


I hope I'm not implying that my taste is somehow more sophisticated than yours, or anyone's who isn't into TPTR. I honestly don't think of it that way! Like I said: a work of art turns you on or it doesn't. I enjoy looking back afterwards and discussing why something does or doesn't grab me--trying to articulate something so deeply subjective and weird and slippery is great fun for me--but that initial, gut reaction comes first and can be neither right nor wrong, in my opinion.

Maybe because my work hours are spent behind the scenes pulling texts apart, childlike suspension of disbelief in the story is not that easy to achieve


How unfortunate! I, too, spend my days pulling narratives apart and putting them back together and I believe that my ability to retain that very childlike suspension of disbelief you describe is key to doing it well. If I lost that, I think I'd have to quit and find some other way to make a living.

This will be a beheading offence around here, probably, but IMO the Club Silencio ‘revelation’ in MD of the singer’s miming is boring and jejune, real art school late night weed session stuff.


Ah, but I would argue that it is not a revelation at all. That's the entire point! Why else would we get all that preamble?

The point of Del Rio fainting is not to reveal that the song has been a recording (we know that if we've been paying attention), it's that that is the moment when the performance ends. The fainting is real. Her exhaustion, due to endless performance, is real. Her fellow performers rushing the stage to first tend to her and then drag her off as the recording viciously continues--all that is real.

Look at Betty. This isn't a shocking revelation to her. It is sad. It is disappointing. But it is not a revelation. It is, instead, a confirmation of what she has long suspected by this point. It's the nail in the coffin of her dying dream. Watch her face. It's all there. This moment is the death of Betty and the birth of Diane. The death of the dream of love and stardom and living the life of an artist.

But what I find most jejune is not any single breaking of the fourth wall but The Return’s systematic refusal to build it in the first place.


[I'm skipping the emperor's new clothes snooze-fest (no offense I hope--it's just an argument that this board has seen again and again and it goes nowhere and it isn't about the art anyway so it does nothing for me), but I will stop a second here.]

Well, I guess I'd ask how much experimental film/video you watch. Lynch's aesthetic approach here is much more in the tradition of works that complicate the act of viewing and require your willingness to meet them on their own terms and then assess what you're seeing than it is in the tradition of works that meet you where you live by conforming to the "rules" of commercial narrative filmmaking. I'm used to this and, what's more, I quite like it, and I think it opens up all kids of wonderful possibilities. As much as I love classical narrative filmmaking when it's done well, it is only one way to approach the medium. And, I swear, I'm not saying that Lynch is by default a genius to approach narrative filmmaking with experimental sensibilities (he's not the first, by any means). It's just one aspect of what makes TPTR what it is. It is one aspect, however, that dismissing will basically rob you of even the hope of getting much out of it.

I’d like this to be the case, and your inside-out characterisation proposal may well be the key to my and the wider audience’s understanding of what L&F are up to, in the same way that back in the days of the Chase Lounge the poster ‘richie aprile’ cracked the mystery of The Sopranos’ “shoddy” ending with that beautiful dissection of the POVs and edits in the final scene.


I don't know what this "richie aprile" proposed, but if he was one of those folks trying to "prove" that Tony is assassinated in the final scene of The Sopranos, I couldn't disagree more. The profound truth of that final scene of The Sopranos is that this is a normal day for Tony. Tony's life is defined by the fact of his hyper-awareness that every mundane moment--with (at best) its little, mundane joys--might very well be his last. The final scene is a microcosm of Tony's entire life. Eventually, one of these mundane moments with its (hopefully) mundane joys may very will end in annihilating silence. Any one of them might. That Tony can feel these small moments of joy anyway is the point. What choice does he have? What choice do any of us have? We live until we don't. That's what the final scene of The Sopranos is about. It's a beautiful thing.
opium
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:40 pm

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

Postby opium » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:06 pm

I think this is the right thread to post this in. I should preface by saying I'm actually really enjoying The Return and don't count myself among those disappointed. However, I gotta talk about Part 8.

I liked it -- it's obviously very visually arresting and wonderfully cold -- but I'm not sold on how it aims to explain BOB and The Black Lodge. BOB was/is a force made even more powerful by being a mystery; he was beyond comprehension, and the only thing that could describe him was that he was "the evil that men do." One of my favorite lines is the one in which he declares, "I have the fury of my own momentum." It was a terrifying declaration because we didn't know what he was. He was as dangerous as the void. He was chaos. And you can't comprehend that, not fully.

Besides defanging BOB as vomit from a burping demon, there's also the creation of The Lodge -- a place that was intriguing because we didn't know why it was, only that it ran concurrently within our reality in a different space. There's The Black Lodge and The White Lodge, and as Hawk recalls in Season 2, it's a place that was referenced by his people long ago with the Owl Cave featuring ancient markings of Lodge symbology, and the Owl Ring going as far back as the colonial era (this being explored in The Secret History of Twin Peaks). This conflicts with what we're shown in Part 8, that The Black Lodge broke through the atom bomb in the 50's and that BOB came about because of it, birthed from a mother. The mystery and intrigue of the nature of these worlds built with subtle mythology explained... and explained with an event that's quite obvious. The Native spirituality aspect of The Lodge gave it more character. It felt ancient and old with an otherworldy wisdom in its existence.

If revealing Laura's killer was killing the goose laying the golden eggs then I wonder how explaining BOB/The Lodge didn't kill the other goose in Lynch's mind.

Besides this, I didn't care much for Laura being a golden orb sent down specifically to counteract BOB in some universal battle. It takes the bite out of what was so endearing about the original series in that it was a small town caught up in something beyond the limits, and that someone precious to them was taken away by it without reason - the way it is in reality. TP gave us a visualization of it, it was subtle and simple but understandable. We knew it was evil. It was here before us. Now it feels like Laura is Neo taking on Agent Smith. It's charmless and basic.

I also feel like they're leaning towards retconing the ending of FWWM in Laura finding peace. Looks like she's still in it in some form, reincarnated or not. It's a bummer because that ending is so wonderful that it should be preserved. The ripples of her death should obviously still exist in TP but with her actually being in the town once again.... fuck.

Otherwise I loved it. I loved the Woodsman, even though the ash people only now showing up and being so important in this universe feels a little out of place. The scene where they appear and 'heal' Mr. C was delightfully creepy. The synth plucking of Moonlight Sonata felt grotesque.
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

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

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:40 pm

opium wrote:I think this is the right thread to post this in. I should preface by saying I'm actually really enjoying The Return and don't count myself among those disappointed. However, I gotta talk about Part 8.

I liked it -- it's obviously very visually arresting and wonderfully cold -- but I'm not sold on how it aims to explain BOB and The Black Lodge. BOB was/is a force made even more powerful by being a mystery; he was beyond comprehension, and the only thing that could describe him was that he was "the evil that men do." One of my favorite lines is the one in which he declares, "I have the fury of my own momentum." It was a terrifying declaration because we didn't know what he was. He was as dangerous as the void. He was chaos. And you can't comprehend that, not fully.

Besides defanging BOB as vomit from a burping demon, there's also the creation of The Lodge -- a place that was intriguing because we didn't know why it was, only that it ran concurrently within our reality in a different space. There's The Black Lodge and The White Lodge, and as Hawk recalls in Season 2, it's a place that was referenced by his people long ago with the Owl Cave featuring ancient markings of Lodge symbology, and the Owl Ring going as far back as the colonial era (this being explored in The Secret History of Twin Peaks). This conflicts with what we're shown in Part 8, that The Black Lodge broke through the atom bomb in the 50's and that BOB came about because of it, birthed from a mother. The mystery and intrigue of the nature of these worlds built with subtle mythology explained... and explained with an event that's quite obvious. The Native spirituality aspect of The Lodge gave it more character. It felt ancient and old with an otherworldy wisdom in its existence.

If revealing Laura's killer was killing the goose laying the golden eggs then I wonder how explaining BOB/The Lodge didn't kill the other goose in Lynch's mind.

Besides this, I didn't care much for Laura being a golden orb sent down specifically to counteract BOB in some universal battle. It takes the bite out of what was so endearing about the original series in that it was a small town caught up in something beyond the limits, and that someone precious to them was taken away by it without reason - the way it is in reality. TP gave us a visualization of it, it was subtle and simple but understandable. We knew it was evil. It was here before us. Now it feels like Laura is Neo taking on Agent Smith. It's charmless and basic.

I also feel like they're leaning towards retconing the ending of FWWM in Laura finding peace. Looks like she's still in it in some form, reincarnated or not. It's a bummer because that ending is so wonderful that it should be preserved. The ripples of her death should obviously still exist in TP but with her actually being in the town once again.... fuck.

Otherwise I loved it. I loved the Woodsman, even though the ash people only now showing up and being so important in this universe feels a little out of place. The scene where they appear and 'heal' Mr. C was delightfully creepy. The synth plucking of Moonlight Sonata felt grotesque.


I would definitely agree that the rule of horror is 'show less/imply more' and this series has definitely thrown all that out the window with endless exploration of the mythology. Some of its fun to see, but it's killed all scariness of Bob etc for me
User avatar
The Gazebo
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:34 pm
Location: Norway

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

Postby The Gazebo » Sun Jul 02, 2017 9:35 pm

LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:I would definitely agree that the rule of horror is 'show less/imply more' and this series has definitely thrown all that out the window with endless exploration of the mythology. Some of its fun to see, but it's killed all scariness of Bob etc for me


I agree. One of the problems is that the mythology wasn't well planned to begin with. We all know Bob was just a fortunate "accident" in season 1. Mark Frost, if I recall correctly, has said that he always intended to have a supernatural element in the show (meaning: "we'll worry about that as the show progresses"). Laura Palmer was not intended to be more than the body found wrapped in plastic. The evil/darkness in the woods from the original series has been replaced with manufactured people, an alien monster and some form of a divine Laura Palmer. Now, it might be revealed later on that these things can perfectly well be interpreted allegorically, but my fear is that this season will just move towards a showdown between all kinds of supernatural creations.
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

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

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:07 pm

The Gazebo wrote:
LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:I would definitely agree that the rule of horror is 'show less/imply more' and this series has definitely thrown all that out the window with endless exploration of the mythology. Some of its fun to see, but it's killed all scariness of Bob etc for me


I agree. One of the problems is that the mythology wasn't well planned to begin with. We all know Bob was just a fortunate "accident" in season 1. Mark Frost, if I recall correctly, has said that he always intended to have a supernatural element in the show (meaning: "we'll worry about that as the show progresses"). Laura Palmer was not intended to be more than the body found wrapped in plastic. The evil/darkness in the woods from the original series has been replaced with manufactured people, an alien monster and some form of a divine Laura Palmer. Now, it might be revealed later on that these things can perfectly well be interpreted allegorically, but my fear is that this season will just move towards a showdown between all kinds of supernatural creations.



Exactly. Which is why I will argue with people who say that it's better to have the original creators vision no matter how divorced from the original tone, than some new take on the show.

I'm on the J J Abrahams over George Lucas version of Twin Peaks camp unfortunately, only because I feel like fans have a better grasp of what really was original and interesting about the old show, than the creators who are more interested in what didn't go into the old show now, and tracing their original influences, as it seems from what we've gotten.

I feel like someone more removed from Twin Peaks could have pulled back and seen it clearer. What we really needed in this series was a solid reestablishment and world building of the town 25 years later. Not so much just cameos from the old cast, but a solid structure like the old series with a whole new set of characters. Then the older characters serving as the older generation, not so much background characters as just moving backwards in generation.

Then the mythos stuff should have been slowly sprinkled in, just like it was in the first two seasons. At this point too, I don't think we really needed all these new aesthetics because they don't really add to the old mythology, they seem to detract by placing Twin Peaks in this broad context, watering down the strength of those images with more universal images - the atomic bomb and so on...
We could have had much less of the black lodge, but it could have been really developed in a fantasy setting. More of the conspiring of these Dugpa villains behind the scenes. People would have digested it better with a slow introduction, and the appearance of cooper later in the game.

I know it's just my opinion, and it's not my show to pick the path of, it's not like I would've wanted the show to be snatched out of Lynch and Frosts hands just for the sake of younger blood.... but who knows... maybe they will make a fourth season with Tammy Preston in a better developed town. I would actually enjoy that.
User avatar
counterpaul
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:06 am

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

Postby counterpaul » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:39 am

opium wrote: I'm not sold on how it aims to explain BOB and The Black Lodge... Besides defanging BOB as vomit from a burping demon, there's also the creation of The Lodge... Besides this, I didn't care much for Laura being a golden orb sent down specifically to counteract BOB in some universal battle...


I have so many thoughts on these things. When I can get them all down in a form that feels somewhat articulate, I think I'll start my own thread (a title I'm thinking of is, "Coop and Laura" or "Twin Peaks Always Has Been and Still Remains a Story About Human Beings").

The short version, however, is this: I think the fan community is really jumping to conclusions on this one.

I see a show that takes place deep in the psyche (Coop's specifically in this case--Laura's in FWWM--maybe you could argue that a sort of collective psyche comes into play here and there as well), not some silly fantasy story about battles between spirits in alternate dimensions. I just don't think it's there. Not at all. It's not what this beautiful imagery is doing.

Laura is still Laura and Coop is still Coop and they're still frail, flawed, heroic human beings.

I'm reminded of my totally dumbfounded reaction when I first discovered the Twin Peaks online fan community back in the late nineties and everyone just seemed to agree that FWWM had absolutely established that there were different factions of autonomous spirits battling over rights to garmonbozia. All that madness is based on, like, four lines of incredibly abstract dialogue in a movie about a family deeply in denial of sexual abuse.

Let me share, just to underline how open to interpretation all this is, how, before ever being subjected to fan theories, I read the scene in the red room in FWWM with BOB, MIKE, The Arm, and Leland:

When MIKE and The Arm say, "BOB, I want all my garmonbozia (pain and sorrow)" and so BOB heals Leland's wound, I took this as an extension of Leland's denial. He is given the gift of having a chance to suffer his own pain and suffering. The healing of the wound makes it possible for him to "forget" that he participated in the murder at all and so he can genuinely grieve Laura's death while simultaneously running from his own responsibility for as long as possible. The wound is an undeniable, physical reminder that he was involved in violence the night Laura was killed. His (and the entire town's) denial is so strong, so ingrained, so fucking unstoppable, that it literally heals a wound.

That's how I took that scene for years, and then suddenly I'm reading about lodge factions battling over their share of human pain and suffering and whether BOB is some sort of rogue agent and blah, blah, blah and shaking my head.

I feel much the same way about a lot of the reaction to Part 8 of TPTR.

One day, my log will have something to say about this.
Last edited by counterpaul on Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:42 am, edited 2 times in total.
Agent Earle
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:40 am

LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:
The Gazebo wrote:
LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:I would definitely agree that the rule of horror is 'show less/imply more' and this series has definitely thrown all that out the window with endless exploration of the mythology. Some of its fun to see, but it's killed all scariness of Bob etc for me


I agree. One of the problems is that the mythology wasn't well planned to begin with. We all know Bob was just a fortunate "accident" in season 1. Mark Frost, if I recall correctly, has said that he always intended to have a supernatural element in the show (meaning: "we'll worry about that as the show progresses"). Laura Palmer was not intended to be more than the body found wrapped in plastic. The evil/darkness in the woods from the original series has been replaced with manufactured people, an alien monster and some form of a divine Laura Palmer. Now, it might be revealed later on that these things can perfectly well be interpreted allegorically, but my fear is that this season will just move towards a showdown between all kinds of supernatural creations.



Exactly. Which is why I will argue with people who say that it's better to have the original creators vision no matter how divorced from the original tone, than some new take on the show.

I'm on the J J Abrahams over George Lucas version of Twin Peaks camp unfortunately, only because I feel like fans have a better grasp of what really was original and interesting about the old show, than the creators who are more interested in what didn't go into the old show now, and tracing their original influences, as it seems from what we've gotten.

I feel like someone more removed from Twin Peaks could have pulled back and seen it clearer. What we really needed in this series was a solid reestablishment and world building of the town 25 years later. Not so much just cameos from the old cast, but a solid structure like the old series with a whole new set of characters. Then the older characters serving as the older generation, not so much background characters as just moving backwards in generation.

Then the mythos stuff should have been slowly sprinkled in, just like it was in the first two seasons. At this point too, I don't think we really needed all these new aesthetics because they don't really add to the old mythology, they seem to detract by placing Twin Peaks in this broad context, watering down the strength of those images with more universal images - the atomic bomb and so on...
We could have had much less of the black lodge, but it could have been really developed in a fantasy setting. More of the conspiring of these Dugpa villains behind the scenes. People would have digested it better with a slow introduction, and the appearance of cooper later in the game.

I know it's just my opinion, and it's not my show to pick the path of, it's not like I would've wanted the show to be snatched out of Lynch and Frosts hands just for the sake of younger blood.... but who knows... maybe they will make a fourth season with Tammy Preston in a better developed town. I would actually enjoy that.


Perfectly stated! I wish you'd do an alternative fanfic S 3 comicbook - I'd buy it in a second :)
mlsstwrt
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:35 am

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

Postby mlsstwrt » Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:44 am

Couldn't agree more with the above, re the genesis of Bob. He was terrifying because he was unknowable. There are so many on this thread quick to deride the 'disappointed' because they think we want a cosy, apple pie mystery. Ok, well if you want to believe that and it makes you feel superior go ahead. One of the reasons I'm hating The Return is because it's cheapening and diluting the mythology of Twin Peaks. I'm supposed to be in rapture because this is now a sweeping social commentary on America's loss of innocence? If I want that I can read Don Delillo.

I adored FWWM. How was that cosy or apple pie in any way?

I'm interested in the psychology of people that would come into a thread such as this to deride those who are 'disappointed' by The Return and go to great lengths to try to establish that we are 'disappointed' for such pat, trite reasons (we just want a cosy soap opera!) and that we don't actually have legitimate criticisms about what we're seeing. I like my cinema as dark as anybody but I still hate The Return. Not because it's not good old cherry pie Twin Peaks but because I believe that it sucks.
opium
Posts: 25
Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2017 3:40 pm

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

Postby opium » Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:47 am

counterpaul wrote:
opium wrote: I'm not sold on how it aims to explain BOB and The Black Lodge... Besides defanging BOB as vomit from a burping demon, there's also the creation of The Lodge... Besides this, I didn't care much for Laura being a golden orb sent down specifically to counteract BOB in some universal battle...


I have so many thoughts on these things. When I can get them all down in a form that feels somewhat articulate, I think I'll start my own thread (a title I'm thinking of is, "Coop and Laura" or "Twin Peaks Always Has Been and Still Remains a Story About Human Beings").

The short version, however, is this: I think the fan community is really jumping to conclusions on this one.

I see a show that takes place deep in the psyche (Coop's specifically in this case--Laura's in FWWM--maybe you could argue that a sort of collective psyche comes into play here and there as well), not some silly fantasy story about battles between spirits in alternate dimensions. I just don't think it's there. Not at all. It's not what this beautiful imagery is doing.

Laura is still Laura and Coop is still Coop and they're still frail, flawed, heroic human beings.

I'm reminded of my totally dumbfounded reaction when I first discovered the Twin Peaks online fan community back in the late nineties and everyone just seemed to agree that FWWM had absolutely established that there were different factions of autonomous spirits battling over rights to garmonbozia. All that madness is based on, like, four lines of incredibly abstract dialogue in a movie about a family deeply in denial of sexual abuse.

Let me share, just to underline how open to interpretation all this is, how, before ever being subjected to fan theories, I read the scene in the red room in FWWM with BOB, MIKE, The Arm, and Leland:

When MIKE and The Arm say, "BOB, I want all my garmonbozia (pain and sorrow)" and so BOB heals Leland's wound, I took this as an extension of Leland's denial. He is given the gift of having a chance to suffer his own pain and suffering. The healing of the wound makes it possible for him to "forget" that he participated in the murder at all and so he can genuinely grieve Laura's death while simultaneously running from his own responsibility for as long as possible. The wound is an undeniable, physical reminder that he was involved in violence the night Laura was killed. His (and the entire town's) denial is so strong, so ingrained, so fucking unstoppable, that it literally heals a wound.

That's how I took that scene for years, and then suddenly I'm reading about lodge factions battling over their share of human pain and suffering and whether BOB is some sort of rogue agent and blah, blah, blah and shaking my head.

I feel much the same way about a lot of the reaction to Part 8 of TPTR.

One day, my log will have something to say about this.


I mean yeah you can read into it all as completely metaphorical but I think you're grasping if you think there isn't a narrative that runs through the Lodge mythology. Especially now with this new season -- there is indeed autonomous spirits at work. Of course their story is told through visual and metaphor but it's still there.

But I'm saying the human side of it was lost in this Season. I feel your view of it, which I like and follow myself as it is the story of a town processing violence, grief, and a young girl's experience of abuse, but it feels like a view more viable in the original series and the movie. Now it does feel like a supernatural battle. And the sudden introduction of unfamiliar places like the purple world only muddles just exactly what this mythology is. And there's not enough time left in this Season, I think, to truly tie it all together.

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests