Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

LateReg
Posts: 869
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:38 pm

mlsstwrt wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:
mlsstwrt wrote:Plus as I and a couple of people have pointed out, there's a level of hypocrisy here. The same fans that decried our nostalgic tastes are in rapture because we have a missing piece from the original series back.


Being honestly engaged with the Dougie saga and what it was trying to do does not mean I never wanted Coop back at all. I knew he'd be back and I felt pretty early on I dug what Lynch was going for in the Being There/Jacques Tati/etc. vein with Dougie and his cosmic hobo journey. I felt it was essential to Dale finding his way back. You may disagree, but the point is there is no disconnect for me personally between loving having Coop back and enjoying Dougie while he lasted. I can walk and chew gum at the same time.


That's totally fine. My comment wasn't levelled at you. It's at those who keep accusing us of just wanting a nostalgia fest, which actually isn't true. I mean yeah, if wanting a show that bears some slight resemblance to the original is a nostalgia fest then maybe it is true, lol. In any case though if you're accusing people of wanting a nostalgia fest then practically losing it with excitement when any old character returns, to me at least that involves a disagree of hypocrisy or disingenuousness.

Edit: Fantastic post ABR. And definitely, thanks to Dugpa for not killing this thread.


Perhaps his has already been addressed, but I didn't have time to respond yesterday when you first brought this up and I wanted to get one in while I had time.

I've already posted here or elsewhere that I think that nostalgia is a huge part of not only The Return, but of enjoying it as well. I don't think Lynch is being nostalgic, but addressing it, dissecting it, etc, which is perhaps an intellectual form of nostalgia. I also think that he very much would like to reclaim that old Twin Peaks feeling as much as MOST OF ALL OF US would. I capitalized those letters there to say what a friend said to me after Part 9, which is that if you are not fully invested in the idea of A RETURN, then you are not getting as much out of this show as you could be. He said he will go wherever Lynch takes him, but he'd be lying if he said he didn't want this to be A RETURN. That's what truly clicked this whole thing into place for me. All of the teases and frustration, all of the distance...you can't truly admire all of that unless you're consciously hoping that things right themselves, that Cooper comes fully alive, that the town collects all of its important members under its warm umbrella. So, I'm just writing to say that while some of you have been criticized for being nostalgic (and I do think that SOME but not nearly all of the posts here did leave little doubt that that was indeed the case until some of you stated your cases further) the truth is that I think that yearning for A RETURN is expected of the audience, and is inside the script, and the direction, and everything else. It forms a dialogue. So I just don't think you should be surprised that so many fans of this series felt a new high when Cooper returned, or when we hear the music, etc. It's a truly complex relationship and a very fun game, and the payoff for those fully invested was immense.
Rialto
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:56 am

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

Postby Rialto » Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:10 pm

Venus wrote:
Rialto wrote:Incidentally, anyone remember that episode of The Good Wife where they're up against a judge who makes everyone qualify every single point they make with "In my opinion"...?

Oh my gosh yes. I think that is why I use it so much! lol


:lol:
judasbooth
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:13 am

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

Postby judasbooth » Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:47 pm

LateReg wrote:
mlsstwrt wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:
Being honestly engaged with the Dougie saga and what it was trying to do does not mean I never wanted Coop back at all. I knew he'd be back and I felt pretty early on I dug what Lynch was going for in the Being There/Jacques Tati/etc. vein with Dougie and his cosmic hobo journey. I felt it was essential to Dale finding his way back. You may disagree, but the point is there is no disconnect for me personally between loving having Coop back and enjoying Dougie while he lasted. I can walk and chew gum at the same time.


That's totally fine. My comment wasn't levelled at you. It's at those who keep accusing us of just wanting a nostalgia fest, which actually isn't true. I mean yeah, if wanting a show that bears some slight resemblance to the original is a nostalgia fest then maybe it is true, lol. In any case though if you're accusing people of wanting a nostalgia fest then practically losing it with excitement when any old character returns, to me at least that involves a disagree of hypocrisy or disingenuousness.

Edit: Fantastic post ABR. And definitely, thanks to Dugpa for not killing this thread.


Perhaps his has already been addressed, but I didn't have time to respond yesterday when you first brought this up and I wanted to get one in while I had time.

I've already posted here or elsewhere that I think that nostalgia is a huge part of not only The Return, but of enjoying it as well. I don't think Lynch is being nostalgic, but addressing it, dissecting it, etc, which is perhaps an intellectual form of nostalgia. I also think that he very much would like to reclaim that old Twin Peaks feeling as much as MOST OF ALL OF US would. I capitalized those letters there to say what a friend said to me after Part 9, which is that if you are not fully invested in the idea of A RETURN, then you are not getting as much out of this show as you could be. He said he will go wherever Lynch takes him, but he'd be lying if he said he didn't want this to be A RETURN. That's what truly clicked this whole thing into place for me. All of the teases and frustration, all of the distance...you can't truly admire all of that unless you're consciously hoping that things right themselves, that Cooper comes fully alive, that the town collects all of its important members under its warm umbrella. So, I'm just writing to say that while some of you have been criticized for being nostalgic (and I do think that SOME but not nearly all of the posts here did leave little doubt that that was indeed the case until some of you stated your cases further) the truth is that I think that yearning for A RETURN is expected of the audience, and is inside the script, and the direction, and everything else. It forms a dialogue. So I just don't think you should be surprised that so many fans of this series felt a new high when Cooper returned, or when we hear the music, etc. It's a truly complex relationship and a very fun game, and the payoff for those fully invested was immense.


I'm not personally having a go at you, so please don't think that is the case, but what you posted above is an example of what has so infuriated and disappointed me about this new series. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but all I wanted from Lynch and the new series of TP was what made it so good in the first place: characters, settings, music, atmosphere and so on, not some clever-clever self-relexive overarching subtextual theme about delayed gratification and audience expectation [deep breath]. You are of course welcome to your interpretations and honestly, it's cool that you can get enjoyment out of this kind of analysis, but really, I think that by looking this deeply, a lot of people are overthinking and seeing stuff that isn't really there.

Because Lynch has made everything so vague and nebulous, a lot of folks have made TP mean anything they wanted it to mean. I personally hate when any sort of art, be it visual, cinematic, literary or musical, is deliberately designed to be so obscure that it only becomes meaningful is in the minds of the audience. It's not clever, it's not artistic and it's not creative. It's the mark of laziness, lack of inspiration and shoddy craftsmanship. It's having nothing worthwhile to express and instead relying on the audience to somehow imbue it with depth and meaning. With the possible exception of Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive, Lynch's works have never really expressed a desire to movie beyond novel and stylised sounds and visuals. It's almost as if he doesn't have any idea what he wants to express, so he retreats into abstractions and kookiness. Trouble is, the "Lynchian" style has been long since co-opted and assimilated into the mainstream and has now become something of a cliche. An indication of this is how many times it has been parodied in mainstream culture. SNL did it in 1990, Northern Exposure had an affectionate tribute in its first series, and, of course, The Simpsons did it back in '95 and '97. (Homer, on watching Twin Peaks: "Ha ha ha! Brilliant! I have absolutely no idea what's going on...). Lynch could have disproved this stereotype by, instead of retreating into sophomoric gimmicks and doubling down on the obscure, actually writing compelling characters and stories. Audiences will always interpret the work in whichever way they want to, but that's not an excuse for the creators not bothering to come up with anything of substance.
Agent Earle
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:10 pm

judasbooth wrote:
LateReg wrote:
mlsstwrt wrote:
That's totally fine. My comment wasn't levelled at you. It's at those who keep accusing us of just wanting a nostalgia fest, which actually isn't true. I mean yeah, if wanting a show that bears some slight resemblance to the original is a nostalgia fest then maybe it is true, lol. In any case though if you're accusing people of wanting a nostalgia fest then practically losing it with excitement when any old character returns, to me at least that involves a disagree of hypocrisy or disingenuousness.

Edit: Fantastic post ABR. And definitely, thanks to Dugpa for not killing this thread.


Perhaps his has already been addressed, but I didn't have time to respond yesterday when you first brought this up and I wanted to get one in while I had time.

I've already posted here or elsewhere that I think that nostalgia is a huge part of not only The Return, but of enjoying it as well. I don't think Lynch is being nostalgic, but addressing it, dissecting it, etc, which is perhaps an intellectual form of nostalgia. I also think that he very much would like to reclaim that old Twin Peaks feeling as much as MOST OF ALL OF US would. I capitalized those letters there to say what a friend said to me after Part 9, which is that if you are not fully invested in the idea of A RETURN, then you are not getting as much out of this show as you could be. He said he will go wherever Lynch takes him, but he'd be lying if he said he didn't want this to be A RETURN. That's what truly clicked this whole thing into place for me. All of the teases and frustration, all of the distance...you can't truly admire all of that unless you're consciously hoping that things right themselves, that Cooper comes fully alive, that the town collects all of its important members under its warm umbrella. So, I'm just writing to say that while some of you have been criticized for being nostalgic (and I do think that SOME but not nearly all of the posts here did leave little doubt that that was indeed the case until some of you stated your cases further) the truth is that I think that yearning for A RETURN is expected of the audience, and is inside the script, and the direction, and everything else. It forms a dialogue. So I just don't think you should be surprised that so many fans of this series felt a new high when Cooper returned, or when we hear the music, etc. It's a truly complex relationship and a very fun game, and the payoff for those fully invested was immense.


I'm not personally having a go at you, so please don't think that is the case, but what you posted above is an example of what has so infuriated and disappointed me about this new series. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but all I wanted from Lynch and the new series of TP was what made it so good in the first place: characters, settings, music, atmosphere and so on, not some clever-clever self-relexive overarching subtextual theme about delayed gratification and audience expectation [deep breath]. You are of course welcome to your interpretations and honestly, it's cool that you can get enjoyment out of this kind of analysis, but really, I think that by looking this deeply, a lot of people are overthinking and seeing stuff that isn't really there.

Because Lynch has made everything so vague and nebulous, a lot of folks have made TP mean anything they wanted it to mean. I personally hate when any sort of art, be it visual, cinematic, literary or musical, is deliberately designed to be so obscure that it only becomes meaningful is in the minds of the audience. It's not clever, it's not artistic and it's not creative. It's the mark of laziness, lack of inspiration and shoddy craftsmanship. It's having nothing worthwhile to express and instead relying on the audience to somehow imbue it with depth and meaning. With the possible exception of Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive, Lynch's works have never really expressed a desire to movie beyond novel and stylised sounds and visuals. It's almost as if he doesn't have any idea what he wants to express, so he retreats into abstractions and kookiness. Trouble is, the "Lynchian" style has been long since co-opted and assimilated into the mainstream and has now become something of a cliche. An indication of this is how many times it has been parodied in mainstream culture. SNL did it in 1990, Northern Exposure had an affectionate tribute in its first series, and, of course, The Simpsons did it back in '95 and '97. (Homer, on watching Twin Peaks: "Ha ha ha! Brilliant! I have absolutely no idea what's going on...). Lynch could have disproved this stereotype by, instead of retreating into sophomoric gimmicks and doubling down on the obscure, actually writing compelling characters and stories. Audiences will always interpret the work in whichever way they want to, but that's not an excuse for the creators not bothering to come up with anything of substance.


What a great post! You're killin' it, judasbooth! I so agree with laziness and shoddiness (and tiresomeness) of a deliberately vague and obscure approach/content in general! Except - and I know I'm in extreme minority here - I'd argue Mulholland Dr. is "guilty" of exactly the same kind of sin(s)...
judasbooth
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:13 am

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

Postby judasbooth » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:12 pm

Rialto wrote:With the demise of Chantal and Hutch, I'm left wondering - has Lynch been waiting since 1994 to let us know he's not that keen on Tarantino?

Honestly, what was the point of these two except to carry out acts of pointless violence, bitch about fast food, then get dispatched in an over the top shower of bullets as a result of a banal road rage altercation, unconnected to the main plot (such as it is)..


If anything, it serves as a reminder of just how good a screenwriter Tarantino was back then. Building three-dimentional characters is no easy feat, and, as many subsequent copyists have proved, it's not easy to build compelling characters using little more than banal small-talk.
judasbooth
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2017 11:13 am

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

Postby judasbooth » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:29 pm

Agent Earle wrote:
judasbooth wrote:
LateReg wrote:
Perhaps his has already been addressed, but I didn't have time to respond yesterday when you first brought this up and I wanted to get one in while I had time.

I've already posted here or elsewhere that I think that nostalgia is a huge part of not only The Return, but of enjoying it as well. I don't think Lynch is being nostalgic, but addressing it, dissecting it, etc, which is perhaps an intellectual form of nostalgia. I also think that he very much would like to reclaim that old Twin Peaks feeling as much as MOST OF ALL OF US would. I capitalized those letters there to say what a friend said to me after Part 9, which is that if you are not fully invested in the idea of A RETURN, then you are not getting as much out of this show as you could be. He said he will go wherever Lynch takes him, but he'd be lying if he said he didn't want this to be A RETURN. That's what truly clicked this whole thing into place for me. All of the teases and frustration, all of the distance...you can't truly admire all of that unless you're consciously hoping that things right themselves, that Cooper comes fully alive, that the town collects all of its important members under its warm umbrella. So, I'm just writing to say that while some of you have been criticized for being nostalgic (and I do think that SOME but not nearly all of the posts here did leave little doubt that that was indeed the case until some of you stated your cases further) the truth is that I think that yearning for A RETURN is expected of the audience, and is inside the script, and the direction, and everything else. It forms a dialogue. So I just don't think you should be surprised that so many fans of this series felt a new high when Cooper returned, or when we hear the music, etc. It's a truly complex relationship and a very fun game, and the payoff for those fully invested was immense.


I'm not personally having a go at you, so please don't think that is the case, but what you posted above is an example of what has so infuriated and disappointed me about this new series. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but all I wanted from Lynch and the new series of TP was what made it so good in the first place: characters, settings, music, atmosphere and so on, not some clever-clever self-relexive overarching subtextual theme about delayed gratification and audience expectation [deep breath]. You are of course welcome to your interpretations and honestly, it's cool that you can get enjoyment out of this kind of analysis, but really, I think that by looking this deeply, a lot of people are overthinking and seeing stuff that isn't really there.

Because Lynch has made everything so vague and nebulous, a lot of folks have made TP mean anything they wanted it to mean. I personally hate when any sort of art, be it visual, cinematic, literary or musical, is deliberately designed to be so obscure that it only becomes meaningful is in the minds of the audience. It's not clever, it's not artistic and it's not creative. It's the mark of laziness, lack of inspiration and shoddy craftsmanship. It's having nothing worthwhile to express and instead relying on the audience to somehow imbue it with depth and meaning. With the possible exception of Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive, Lynch's works have never really expressed a desire to movie beyond novel and stylised sounds and visuals. It's almost as if he doesn't have any idea what he wants to express, so he retreats into abstractions and kookiness. Trouble is, the "Lynchian" style has been long since co-opted and assimilated into the mainstream and has now become something of a cliche. An indication of this is how many times it has been parodied in mainstream culture. SNL did it in 1990, Northern Exposure had an affectionate tribute in its first series, and, of course, The Simpsons did it back in '95 and '97. (Homer, on watching Twin Peaks: "Ha ha ha! Brilliant! I have absolutely no idea what's going on...). Lynch could have disproved this stereotype by, instead of retreating into sophomoric gimmicks and doubling down on the obscure, actually writing compelling characters and stories. Audiences will always interpret the work in whichever way they want to, but that's not an excuse for the creators not bothering to come up with anything of substance.


What a great post! You're killin' it, judasbooth! I so agree with laziness and shoddiness (and tiresomeness) of a deliberately vague and obscure approach/content in general! Except - and I know I'm in extreme minority here - I'd argue Mulholland Dr. is "guilty" of exactly the same kind of sin(s)...


I understand what you are saying, but MD works for me because I think Lynch was trying to express something. I once read a review of it - I think it may have been in the Guardian - that called it "a poisonous love letter to Hollywood". While Blue Velvet may be his most personal, and therefore authentic, work, I belive that MD was sourced from a similar place. Lynch drew on his experiences as a mature film maker and understood that for every Hollywood success, there are tens of thousands of broken dreams. There have been countless Diane Selwyns and there will be countless more. But apart from classics like Sunset Boulevard and The Player, the dark side of the dream factory is rarely examined in any great detail. MD works for me because it is a a story of human tragedy, not a loose collection of artsy vignettes that add up to less than the sum of their parts... like TPTR.
Agent Earle
Posts: 870
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:44 pm

judasbooth wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
judasbooth wrote:
I'm not personally having a go at you, so please don't think that is the case, but what you posted above is an example of what has so infuriated and disappointed me about this new series. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but all I wanted from Lynch and the new series of TP was what made it so good in the first place: characters, settings, music, atmosphere and so on, not some clever-clever self-relexive overarching subtextual theme about delayed gratification and audience expectation [deep breath]. You are of course welcome to your interpretations and honestly, it's cool that you can get enjoyment out of this kind of analysis, but really, I think that by looking this deeply, a lot of people are overthinking and seeing stuff that isn't really there.

Because Lynch has made everything so vague and nebulous, a lot of folks have made TP mean anything they wanted it to mean. I personally hate when any sort of art, be it visual, cinematic, literary or musical, is deliberately designed to be so obscure that it only becomes meaningful is in the minds of the audience. It's not clever, it's not artistic and it's not creative. It's the mark of laziness, lack of inspiration and shoddy craftsmanship. It's having nothing worthwhile to express and instead relying on the audience to somehow imbue it with depth and meaning. With the possible exception of Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive, Lynch's works have never really expressed a desire to movie beyond novel and stylised sounds and visuals. It's almost as if he doesn't have any idea what he wants to express, so he retreats into abstractions and kookiness. Trouble is, the "Lynchian" style has been long since co-opted and assimilated into the mainstream and has now become something of a cliche. An indication of this is how many times it has been parodied in mainstream culture. SNL did it in 1990, Northern Exposure had an affectionate tribute in its first series, and, of course, The Simpsons did it back in '95 and '97. (Homer, on watching Twin Peaks: "Ha ha ha! Brilliant! I have absolutely no idea what's going on...). Lynch could have disproved this stereotype by, instead of retreating into sophomoric gimmicks and doubling down on the obscure, actually writing compelling characters and stories. Audiences will always interpret the work in whichever way they want to, but that's not an excuse for the creators not bothering to come up with anything of substance.


What a great post! You're killin' it, judasbooth! I so agree with laziness and shoddiness (and tiresomeness) of a deliberately vague and obscure approach/content in general! Except - and I know I'm in extreme minority here - I'd argue Mulholland Dr. is "guilty" of exactly the same kind of sin(s)...


I understand what you are saying, but MD works for me because I think Lynch was trying to express something. I once read a review of it - I think it may have been in the Guardian - that called it "a poisonous love letter to Hollywood". While Blue Velvet may be his most personal, and therefore authentic, work, I belive that MD was sourced from a similar place. Lynch drew on his experiences as a mature film maker and understood that for every Hollywood success, there are tens of thousands of broken dreams. There have been countless Diane Selwyns and there will be countless more. But apart from classics like Sunset Boulevard and The Player, the dark side of the dream factory is rarely examined in any great detail. MD works for me because it is a a story of human tragedy, not a loose collection of artsy vignettes that add up to less than the sum of their parts... like TPTR.


Hmmm, worth considering when I'll be having my second viewing of MD, I guess. Here's another (rather recent) flick that deals with "the dark side of the dream factory" extensively and feverishly - David Cronenberg's Maps to the Stars. What an excellent piece of work!
IcedOver
Posts: 423
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

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

Postby IcedOver » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:50 pm

Watched Part 16 this morning, and I can say that after a brief sojourn in the "mixed" category, I'm back about 80% with this group. I'm just not happy, not satisfied, and I doubt that a re-watch would help. It's less to do with the direction of the plot (although of course that's a problem) than the feeling that this was SUCH a rush job, and you can sense it all over this show. Lynch likes taking his time to do his films, but this was the most he's ever filmed, and so much to work with, and really not a whole lot of time to script or film it. It shows. So many times while watching this I've felt that what I'm watching could have been done better. It doesn't feel "definitive". Preferably it would be watching an entirely different scene, but often it's just that it wasn't imaginatively written or directed, photographed, or edited. It has no spark. That's not the case all the time, of course, and I've loved so many moments of the show. At this moment, however, when things should be at their strongest, they're near their weakest.

Evil Cooper and Richard -- so much work-up, such a disappointment, ending in a bad pyrotechnic effect. Again we're refused a clue-in to Evil Cooper's personality and what he wants. Having Diane use the word "rape," something that has been done but never named as such through much of Lynch's work, feels far too modern and concrete, not well thought out. Original Formula Cooper's voice (really for the first time in this whole show) was nice to hear, but I'm starting to wonder if he really has a place in the world of this show. The departure from Dougie's family was done awkwardly, and for some unknown reason, squatting in the casino. Then we have Audrey. Whatever her predicament, I sure as fuck hope that it's hers alone, and not some "Lost"-type situation (the idea that this show could be copying ANY aspect of the final season of that show gives me the jitters).
Last edited by IcedOver on Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
LateReg
Posts: 869
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:50 pm

judasbooth wrote:
LateReg wrote:
mlsstwrt wrote:
That's totally fine. My comment wasn't levelled at you. It's at those who keep accusing us of just wanting a nostalgia fest, which actually isn't true. I mean yeah, if wanting a show that bears some slight resemblance to the original is a nostalgia fest then maybe it is true, lol. In any case though if you're accusing people of wanting a nostalgia fest then practically losing it with excitement when any old character returns, to me at least that involves a disagree of hypocrisy or disingenuousness.

Edit: Fantastic post ABR. And definitely, thanks to Dugpa for not killing this thread.


Perhaps his has already been addressed, but I didn't have time to respond yesterday when you first brought this up and I wanted to get one in while I had time.

I've already posted here or elsewhere that I think that nostalgia is a huge part of not only The Return, but of enjoying it as well. I don't think Lynch is being nostalgic, but addressing it, dissecting it, etc, which is perhaps an intellectual form of nostalgia. I also think that he very much would like to reclaim that old Twin Peaks feeling as much as MOST OF ALL OF US would. I capitalized those letters there to say what a friend said to me after Part 9, which is that if you are not fully invested in the idea of A RETURN, then you are not getting as much out of this show as you could be. He said he will go wherever Lynch takes him, but he'd be lying if he said he didn't want this to be A RETURN. That's what truly clicked this whole thing into place for me. All of the teases and frustration, all of the distance...you can't truly admire all of that unless you're consciously hoping that things right themselves, that Cooper comes fully alive, that the town collects all of its important members under its warm umbrella. So, I'm just writing to say that while some of you have been criticized for being nostalgic (and I do think that SOME but not nearly all of the posts here did leave little doubt that that was indeed the case until some of you stated your cases further) the truth is that I think that yearning for A RETURN is expected of the audience, and is inside the script, and the direction, and everything else. It forms a dialogue. So I just don't think you should be surprised that so many fans of this series felt a new high when Cooper returned, or when we hear the music, etc. It's a truly complex relationship and a very fun game, and the payoff for those fully invested was immense.


I'm not personally having a go at you, so please don't think that is the case, but what you posted above is an example of what has so infuriated and disappointed me about this new series. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but all I wanted from Lynch and the new series of TP was what made it so good in the first place: characters, settings, music, atmosphere and so on, not some clever-clever self-relexive overarching subtextual theme about delayed gratification and audience expectation [deep breath]. You are of course welcome to your interpretations and honestly, it's cool that you can get enjoyment out of this kind of analysis, but really, I think that by looking this deeply, a lot of people are overthinking and seeing stuff that isn't really there.

Because Lynch has made everything so vague and nebulous, a lot of folks have made TP mean anything they wanted it to mean. I personally hate when any sort of art, be it visual, cinematic, literary or musical, is deliberately designed to be so obscure that it only becomes meaningful is in the minds of the audience. It's not clever, it's not artistic and it's not creative. It's the mark of laziness, lack of inspiration and shoddy craftsmanship. It's having nothing worthwhile to express and instead relying on the audience to somehow imbue it with depth and meaning. With the possible exception of Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive, Lynch's works have never really expressed a desire to movie beyond novel and stylised sounds and visuals. It's almost as if he doesn't have any idea what he wants to express, so he retreats into abstractions and kookiness. Trouble is, the "Lynchian" style has been long since co-opted and assimilated into the mainstream and has now become something of a cliche. An indication of this is how many times it has been parodied in mainstream culture. SNL did it in 1990, Northern Exposure had an affectionate tribute in its first series, and, of course, The Simpsons did it back in '95 and '97. (Homer, on watching Twin Peaks: "Ha ha ha! Brilliant! I have absolutely no idea what's going on...). Lynch could have disproved this stereotype by, instead of retreating into sophomoric gimmicks and doubling down on the obscure, actually writing compelling characters and stories. Audiences will always interpret the work in whichever way they want to, but that's not an excuse for the creators not bothering to come up with anything of substance.


No, I didn't take your post as having a go at me at all, but thanks for clarifying!

I only want to say that I think that while I think The Return contains multitudes of depth while also being fun at the same time (for me), what I posted about above isn't really all that deeply buried in the material. I think it's right there on the surface of the many meanings of its title/subtitle, which is of course "The Return." I disliked that simple moniker at first. But over the course of the series I've come to use it over and over again because I realized that it wasn't simple at all! But, yeah. As far as what I just wrote, I believe that we are obviously supposed to consider what "The Return" means, and want it to mean exactly what it would seem to mean on the surface.
User avatar
Mr. Strawberry
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:17 pm
Location: Nevada City, CA
Contact:

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

Postby Mr. Strawberry » Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:08 pm

judasbooth wrote:I'm not personally having a go at you, so please don't think that is the case, but what you posted above is an example of what has so infuriated and disappointed me about this new series. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but all I wanted from Lynch and the new series of TP was what made it so good in the first place: characters, settings, music, atmosphere and so on, not some clever-clever self-relexive overarching subtextual theme about delayed gratification and audience expectation [deep breath]. You are of course welcome to your interpretations and honestly, it's cool that you can get enjoyment out of this kind of analysis, but really, I think that by looking this deeply, a lot of people are overthinking and seeing stuff that isn't really there.

Because Lynch has made everything so vague and nebulous, a lot of folks have made TP mean anything they wanted it to mean. I personally hate when any sort of art, be it visual, cinematic, literary or musical, is deliberately designed to be so obscure that it only becomes meaningful is in the minds of the audience. It's not clever, it's not artistic and it's not creative. It's the mark of laziness, lack of inspiration and shoddy craftsmanship. It's having nothing worthwhile to express and instead relying on the audience to somehow imbue it with depth and meaning. With the possible exception of Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive, Lynch's works have never really expressed a desire to movie beyond novel and stylised sounds and visuals. It's almost as if he doesn't have any idea what he wants to express, so he retreats into abstractions and kookiness. Trouble is, the "Lynchian" style has been long since co-opted and assimilated into the mainstream and has now become something of a cliche. An indication of this is how many times it has been parodied in mainstream culture. SNL did it in 1990, Northern Exposure had an affectionate tribute in its first series, and, of course, The Simpsons did it back in '95 and '97. (Homer, on watching Twin Peaks: "Ha ha ha! Brilliant! I have absolutely no idea what's going on...). Lynch could have disproved this stereotype by, instead of retreating into sophomoric gimmicks and doubling down on the obscure, actually writing compelling characters and stories. Audiences will always interpret the work in whichever way they want to, but that's not an excuse for the creators not bothering to come up with anything of substance.

Just wanted to respond to this because as has been the case with so very many posts in the Profoundly Disappointed Support Group and beyond, all of the blame is being placed on Lynch. I think it's completely fair to gun this work down in a hail of agitated and disappointed criticism, but only if both Lynch and Frost are lined up side by side to face the firing squad. So far there have been many assumptions made that amount to "David snatched the completed script up with his Lynchlike talons and shredded it beyond all comprehension", but this is all speculation as far as I am aware.

May as well share that Part 16 left me feeling Profoundly Disappointed. It sort of reminded me of hercousin raiding her husband's Greek Wine stash after one of the Parts aired. I needed a drink -- I didn't just want the fucking drink, I actually needed it -- it was that bad.

I felt more than underwhelmed, a sadness overcame me as I reflected on how, as the decades passed, the possibility of ever getting more Twin Peaks had finally dissipated to a barely discernible mist. Yet when all hope was more or less abandoned, the nigh-impossible daydream materialized, and the thing was written, it went into production, and we couldn't really believe it the whole while, being like the impossible Holy Grail of television that it is. And here we are, watching what is for us anyway the most anticipated film production of all time.

So yeah, once you are this invested in the story and the characters, and have been into it for this many years, it's very hard to watch it suddenly unravel, and that is indeed how I felt about Diane not being Diane, and Cooper suddenly snapping to and then reaching into another realm as though retrieving a couple things from the glove box. Good god... worse still is how these things happened amidst what was otherwise an incredibly satisfying and powerful story. In several repeating cycles I was filled with fear, anticipation, satisfaction, and then, utter defeat.

"This can't be... yet, I am... truly and profoundly disappointed... this is just unreal..." -> Anchor Steam Beer

My detailed feelings on the episode are here:
viewtopic.php?f=29&t=3762&start=585
Not taking any calls.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Tue Aug 29, 2017 3:24 pm

Agent Earle wrote:
What a great post! You're killin' it, judasbooth!


Seconded.
Lynch on Trump, mid-2018: "He could go down as one of the greatest presidents in history."
IcedOver
Posts: 423
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

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

Postby IcedOver » Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:28 pm

Just an informal poll among those on this thread. What's your bigger gripe with this show? You can only choose one of these as far as which is the bigger problem. You can't choose both. I choose B.

A. The show is so different from the original/disrespects it/is unrecognizable as "Twin Peaks".
B. The show has problems with its writing/direction/photography/editing/acting (and whatever other artistic aspects you want to include) in and of itself.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2322
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:46 pm

judasbooth wrote:While Blue Velvet may be his most personal, and therefore authentic, work, I belive that MD was sourced from a similar place.


Very interesting that you consider BV his most personal. While it is a terrific film with personal things in it (the fantasy of hiding in a woman's closet and seeing a mystery unfold), it lacks the surreal aspects that IMO constitute DKL's purest sharing of himself -- his most personal self -- with the audience. IMO Eraserhead is still his most personal film, although I doubt he'd be willing to "rate" his films in this manner if you asked him. I think the most personal aspects of his work are what you rather dismissively call "stylized sounds and visuals" and "abstractions and kookiness." He clearly spends a lot of time in his head, and it seems to me that releasing his subconscious/intuitive visions into the world is the purest unveiling of self. YMMV of course!
User avatar
Framed_Angel
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:16 am

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

Postby Framed_Angel » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:27 pm

IcedOver wrote:Just an informal poll among those on this thread. What's your bigger gripe with this show? You can only choose one of these...
A. The show is so different from the original/disrespects it/is unrecognizable as "Twin Peaks".
B. The show has problems with its writing/direction/photography/editing/acting (and whatever other artistic aspects you want to include) in and of itself.
B. It's just gotten so messy. At first, with all the new characters and the unresolved scenarios I felt minimal satisfaction trying to pick up clues as to what they all meant. I substituted this curiosity for what I knew I wouldn't reap in terms of familiarity.
The manner in which so MANY of the loose threads have been dropped (the "1-1-9!" woman; the red balloons; the Farmer & the door ajar; Miriam's letter) gets in the way of finding any meaning even in the chaos as I would like to see how the creators intended it to reach us.
I like investing myself in characters, I like dream sequences and even some dream-confusion. But the Sonny Jim & Janey-E characters never felt real to me, and characters I did allow to grow on me got "offed" in such unceremonious manner (Duncan Todd & Roger; Sam & Tracey; Hutch & Chantal) without any real suspense or tension to reward the viewer for paying attention.
Part 16 I entered fully expecting DougieCoop had found a portal via electrical outlet to restoring himself, so when I saw him lying on a hospital bed I knew I wasn't liking the direction it had taken instead. Then, all the various pals and family members surrounding him like Dorothy at the end of Oz. The jarring dissonance as everybody welcomes him back and he welcomes everybody as Cooper as if he'd never been Dougie. Then like some superhero he's off-to-the-Batcave! to prepare to save the world.
Really?
I've never been much for fan fiction, at all, but this is a case where I would probably more enjoy -- not just a fan-edit but a fan rewrite more so than what its own creators have done with it.
"Fool me once... shame on me!"
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:05 pm

IcedOver wrote: The departure from Dougie's family was done awkwardly, and for some unknown reason, squatting in the casino..


I thought a bit about this because I also found it an odd choice. I think that the reason is that the casino is not only the first place where droolingCoop found civilization, but also because that's where probably Jeaney-E would expect to find the real Dougie when he was in trouble. The casino was a negative place for her. It's like a departure but also the promise of an amazing reunion.

I am not saying that that's why Lynch chose the casino, far from me putting meaning on Lynch's work. I guess we will never know; It's just my totally personal interpretation of the scene.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests