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

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

User avatar
The Gazebo
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:34 pm
Location: Norway

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

Postby The Gazebo » Tue Oct 24, 2017 1:55 pm

bowisneski wrote:For me, now that the show is over, I enjoy dipping my toes in to that stuff like the overarching lore more, but I'm not interested in pouring over tiny details. It's just effort and time I don't have or feel the need to devote, especially since others will do it for me and I can just include the things they "discover" that I find interesting in to my view of the show. I just needed enough for the finale to click for me, and I got that so now I can just watch it as an experience and hopefully pick up on things that deepen it. I totally understand where you're coming from though. The end of Harry Potter feels to me like what a lot of you have expressed about Season 3.


Yeah, I suppose I would have been more interested myself - and viewed the lore and minutiae as adding to the whole experience - if I had been enamored with the show all the way. I sometimes feel like the agitated Windom Earle when expressing that "the mental image is always imperfect". I am unable to view The Return as a complete show, and instead I just see it as a bunch of scenes randomly put together. If I were to sit down today and do a rewatch, I would watch a bit of part 1, then fast forward a bit, watch the Mauve Room scene, then fast forward, skip a couple of episodes altogether, and...you get my drift. That's why I feel resentment towards it all: There were so many good bits in here, but (in my view) they never cared about making a good television show of it.

bowisneski wrote:I've only lived with the show since the Gold Box release, can't even imagine 25 years of waiting, but that was more than enough time to build the show up and want and expect something out of Season 3. It honestly wasn't until the Vedder song became public last summer that I realized sort of what we would be in for, and that it would clash with where I had imagined the story going for years. I've said it elsewhere, but that song was my key to preparing for and understanding Season 3.


I was completely unprepared for all the out-of-town scenes, and never managed to warm to them (Dougie/Vegas in particular). I never had any expectations about plot or whatever, but I took it for granted the show would take place in Twin Peaks. Despite feeling alienated by the daytime feel, I kept rewatching the early episodes, and managed to get somewhat into the groove. It wasn't until episode 13 that I realized this show (for me) was going nowhere, and I gave up.

I'm happy for you that this show ultimately delivered something you appreciated. Maybe the bazillion rewatches of the original show worked against me. Or maybe it's just that your generation are far more open and in tune with challenging television. Maybe I viewed the original show as the everlasting pinnacle and refused to expose myself to even more idiosyncratic expressions. I don't know. During the summer this whole experience had the downbeat feel of an intellectual defeat. There was a great party in the city centre, but I was never invited to it. Or - to be more specific - I could peek through the windows and see a lot of fun stuff, but when they opened the windows and talked to me, I couldn't make out what they were saying.
User avatar
bowisneski
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Oct 14, 2016 11:51 am

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

Postby bowisneski » Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:41 pm

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:
bowisneski wrote:
Also, if I am stepping over any sort of bounds or on anyones toes, all someone needs to do is speak up and I'll leave this thread to the purpose it was originally created for.


Not remotely crossing any lines.

It's been an interesting day, though. First a denial that there's anything wrong with an anti-nostalgic work being peppered with nostalgia for the artist's own career, then denials that The Return is anti-nostalgic, then a denial that in it Lynch is nostalgic about his own career. And now a denial from Lynch himself that he was thinking about any other films when making The Return. All at the same level of plausibility IMO. :D

References in the Return to Lynch's Non-TP Works (SPOILERS): viewtopic.php?f=29&t=3570&hilit=references+to+lynch%27s+other+works

Glad to know : )

And I stand by the assertion that, for me, it is a show that included(whether consciously or not) themes about the struggle with nostalgia, how it isn't a good or bad thing but depends on the circumstances, and people trying to move forward but being bogged down by the past and wistfulness for said past. I honestly think the only reason that is a theme/piece of the show is Lynch and Frost struggling with trying to make something new while still including some things that they knew people would like to see, but it feels like they picked it up and ran with it.

I sort of agree about the level of plausibility, but I know that when I write I notice similar themes and motifs throughout that I make unconsciously. I think Lynch and Frost both have their own obsessions that are constantly reflected. For Lynch it's highways, other "worlds", beautiful women, women in trouble, non-linear editing, performance, droning sound design, long scenes/shots, picturesque America and the dark side of that, and things others may find weird or gross. Frost has his conspiracies, politics, complicated schemes, procedurals, Native American/American history, and Americana. I'm sure I'm missing stuff for both of them.

The Gazebo wrote:Yeah, I suppose I would have been more interested myself - and viewed the lore and minutiae as adding to the whole experience - if I had been enamored with the show all the way. I sometimes feel like the agitated Windom Earle when expressing that "the mental image is always imperfect". I am unable to view The Return as a complete show, and instead I just see it as a bunch of scenes randomly put together. If I were to sit down today and do a rewatch, I would watch a bit of part 1, then fast forward a bit, watch the Mauve Room scene, then fast forward, skip a couple of episodes altogether, and...you get my drift. That's why I feel resentment towards it all: There were so many good bits in here, but (in my view) they never cared about making a good television show of it.


Something I recently did, that I've been meaning to start a thread about but haven't yet but think you might enjoy, is I watched each story arc completely and fast forwarded through every non-relevant scene since I already know how it plays out. It was fascinating how much better some things played to me that way, while it also felt like it was missing a little bit. I broke it down in to actual Cooper/Lodge stuff, Dougie/Mitchums/Lucky 7, Mr. C/Chantal and Hutch, FBI/Buckhorn, sheriff station, town of Twin Peaks, and Audrey/Roadhouse. There is of course some overlap, but each one ranged from I think 3 to 7 hours(I'm not 100% on those lengths though, so don't quote me on that if there is a shorter or longer one). It made me wonder if maybe it would have been better to edit them like that and put the season together like the most recent Arrested Development.

And I don't disagree with that. I think for it to have truly succeeded at being a tv show, it would have needed to be written as episodes instead of one long script that was chopped up and rearranged in editing.

The Gazebo wrote:I was completely unprepared for all the out-of-town scenes, and never managed to warm to them (Dougie/Vegas in particular). I never had any expectations about plot or whatever, but I took it for granted the show would take place in Twin Peaks. Despite feeling alientated by the daytime feel, I kept rewatching the early episodes, and managed to get somewhat into the groove. It wasn't until episode 13 that I realized this show (for me) was going nowhere, and I gave up.

I'm happy for you that this show ultimately delivered something you appreciated. Maybe the bazillion rewatches of the original show worked against me. Or maybe it's just that your generation are far more open and in tune with challenging television. Maybe I viewed the original show as the everlasting pinnacle and refused to expose myself to even more idiosyncratic expressions. I don't know. During the summer this whole experience had the downbeat feel of an intellectual defeat. There was a great party in the city centre, but I was never invited to it. Or - to be more specific - I could peek through the windows and see a lot of fun stuff, but when they opened the windows and talked to me, I couldn't make out what they were saying.

That was the other thing that the few spoilers I encountered helped me with. Someone mentioned that only about 1/3rd of the show would take place in Twin Peaks the town. I didn't know where the rest would be, but that helped. The daytime in Twin Peaks was some of the harder stuff for me, but I also have an issue with that occasionally in most of the original series outside of the Pilot.

And thank you. From what I've seen, I don't think that it's generational or anything. I think it comes down to what you want out of your television/entertainment in general. For me, it's just a taste I've acquired/grown in to. I'm 90% sure that the 17 year old me who watched the Gold Box and wasn't prepared for FWwM(I had never seen anything Lynch, or that dark before) would not have liked Season 3. But the me of today who is tired of just getting solid pieces of entertainment that just feel like retreads loved it despite, and in some cases because of the flaws within and messy nature. I don't think you should think of yourself as not in tune with challenging television or intellectually defeated, it just didn't resonate with you. I'm gonna probably get too personal/sappy, but over the weekend my girlfriend broke up with me, but it wasn't anything to do with me for the first time ever. It was just some intrinsic differences, but that doesn't negate the great times. Just because someone or something changes isn't a negative reflection of you. You, and the others in this thread, just know what they want and this wasn't it. Some of the best times I've had in my life were when I wasn't invited to the party. And I'm sure you didn't need me to say any of that, but I thought "what the hell, this is where my brain is so might as well go there."
User avatar
The Gazebo
Posts: 273
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2017 3:34 pm
Location: Norway

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

Postby The Gazebo » Tue Oct 24, 2017 2:54 pm

bowisneski wrote:And thank you. From what I've seen, I don't think that it's generational or anything. I think it comes down to what you want out of your television/entertainment in general. For me, it's just a taste I've acquired/grown in to. I'm 90% sure that the 17 year old me who watched the Gold Box and wasn't prepared for FWwM(I had never seen anything Lynch, or that dark before) would not have liked Season 3. But the me of today who is tired of just getting solid pieces of entertainment that just feel like retreads loved it despite, and in some cases because of the flaws within and messy nature. I don't think you should think of yourself as not in tune with challenging television or intellectually defeated, it just didn't resonate with you. I'm gonna probably get too personal/sappy, but over the weekend my girlfriend broke up with me, but it wasn't anything to do with me for the first time ever. It was just some intrinsic differences, but that doesn't negate the great times. Just because someone or something changes isn't a negative reflection of you. You, and the others in this thread, just know what they want and this wasn't it. Some of the best times I've had in my life were when I wasn't invited to the party. And I'm sure you didn't need me to say any of that, but I thought "what the hell, this is where my brain is so might as well go there."


It's all good :) Kudos for your sensitivity to 'our' side of the issue. May the road rise up to meet your wheels, sir :)
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:21 pm

bowisneski wrote: And I stand by the assertion that, for me, it is a show that included(whether consciously or not) themes about the struggle with nostalgia, how it isn't a good or bad thing but depends on the circumstances, and people trying to move forward but being bogged down by the past and wistfulness for said past. I honestly think the only reason that is a theme/piece of the show is Lynch and Frost struggling with trying to make something new while still including some things that they knew people would like to see, but it feels like they picked it up and ran with it.


And I stand by my assertion that there's seldom if ever been any TV show that's more blatantly anti-nostalgic and this makes all the nostalgia about Lynch's career... you know the rest. :) Genuinely glad you enjoyed the show, though. Yours is the sort of balanced valuation I hoped I'd reach after the magnificent part 8, but that wasn't to be. Thankfully I've been able to incorporate my full-blown TR loathing into a larger project, so it wasn't a complete waste of time.

In some ways I'm really grateful to The Return. As I've said before, there were so many lessons here in precisely how not to do narrative art. Plus it's healthy to be reminded that critics can be this mind-bogglingly wrong, that former artistic heroes can fall this far, and that looking forward to stuff as much as I looked forward to the Twin Peaks revival probably isn't very wise. And more generally, experiences as powerful as TR this summer was, good or bad, artistic or otherwise, are always to be valued.

Onwards.
Ad hominems, straw men and selective blindness are the default tactics of fanboys served up a turkey.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1551
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Tue Oct 24, 2017 7:47 pm

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:Em, not your finest moment, Mr Reindeer. :lol: Once again we're left with the suspicion that were Lynch not involved you'd be responding quite differently. If the above is no big deal I'm sure you can list plenty of other works you really admire that have a clash this extreme between theme and execution. Bonus points for listing a few greats where the cause of this clash is the artist's narcissism.


It’s tough to think of precise analogues to S3 because it is such an idiosyncratic work. But, taking your “bonus point challenge” out of the equation, Clockwork Orange comes to mind as a film that has a fascinatingly ambiguous/ambivalent push-and-pull between theme and execution: while Kubrick seems interested in attacking the way society in general and film in particular desensitize us to violence, the movie also gleefully indulges the protagonist’s gory debauchery. Milton’s Paradise Lost also comes to mind, a religious epic by a pious man which, probably unintentionally, makes Satan the most sympathetic character. Arguably in “bonus point” territory, Charlie Kaufman’s Adaptation and Synecdoche, NY are films which stylistically give in to exactly the sort of artistic excesses they are preaching against, to sad and funny effect, reflecting Kaufman’s own frustrations with his craft and process. Even the original TP, which was initially about a small town’s culpability in ignoring the signs of Laura’s abuse and addiction (“You want to know who killed Laura? You did! We all did”), spent way more time glamorizing the appeal of an insular small town than dealing with how their complacency led to the inciting tragedy.

I’m not sure if any of these are quite apples-to-apples comparisons to what you’re seeing in S3’s treatment of nostalgia, and I'm also not claiming that S3 works as effectively as the above mentioned works. But that's where my mind went at the end of a very long workday!

I love the anti-sequel nature of S3, and I agree with bowisneski that this approach feels refreshing and exciting in this era of endless sequels and reboots. It's almost impossible to think of another instance where a film/TV series was revisited/revived with such a sense of freedom, a lack of concern for bringing back conceits and ingredients simply because they worked 25 years ago. S3 may have run itself aground on a sandbar or two creatively, but IMO, it at least effectively avoided all the usual traps that befall most sequels. That in and of itself is a remarkable achievement. And for me, the brief glimpses of nostalgia (such as the wonderful townie bar feel of the Chromatics scene in Part 2, or Ed & Norma’s resolution), far from undermining the themes of anti-nostalgia, serve as a wonderful counterpoint, acting as a brief poignant reminder of what a more traditional sequel might have offered in larger doses. When I see those scenes, I can't help feeling a slight twinge of sadness in spite of myself that we didn't get that version of S3. That sense of loss adds another layer to my complicated reaction to the show. The targeted uses of nostalgia feel like an effective deployment of the quintessential show biz strategy, "leave them wanting more."

You and I may be talking across purposes when we refer to the show's uses of "nostalgia." It seems you're primarily talking about the "career retrospective" aspect of the show, which I think you're rather overstating. Yes, I'm the person who started the "References to Lynch's Other Works" thread, and I almost immediately regretted my poor choice of words. I wish I'd written something along the lines of "recurring themes and imagery" rather than "references," because by and large, I don't think he's necessarily deliberately calling back to his own works any more than the use of lumber trucks in TP was a callback per se to Blue Velvet. Rather, I do think he is fascinated by certain ideas that he returns to again and again. Bob Dylan has talked about writing down fragments/lines that he thinks of, even quotes from books or movies that he likes, and throwing them in a box full of these shreds of paper. Periodically, he goes through them, and from a line here and a line there, he ends up with a song. I think S3 represents DKL taking a similar patchwork approach, pulling old ideas from throughout his life, some previously used and many unused (the frogmoth), and putting them together. And I think more overlap/resonance with his other films than usual was inevitable given the sheer length of this thing. While I've had a lot of fun spotting parallels to his other works, not many of the "references" felt so overt that they had to be intentional shout-outs (the main exception is the fact that he clearly used many of his paintings as inspirations in composing certain shots...but I view this less as an act of nostalgia than taking advantage of the opportunity to see his paintings move, long an obsession of his).

It's interesting how it seems that many in this thread seem to believe that Parts 17/18 reboot/erase the original continuity. My interpretation is that, far from being a refutation/negation of the original continuity, that portion of Part 17 is a loving tribute to the original series, particularly the Pilot. While a major theme on DKL's mind seems to have been the inability to recreate/revisit the past, the flip side of that is that the past remains sacrosant and untouchable. While he is unable and/or unwilling to revisit the style of his beloved Pilot, the Pilot itself will always exist as a work we can all revisit anytime. Cooper tries to mess with that, and (to my mind) fails.

As to how I would react to S3 if it weren't a DKL production...I've thought about that, and it's a pretty tough question to answer. One thing I can safely say: I would have invested less at the outset if it hadn't been the work of a director whose work has consistently connected with me. I might have become frustrated rather than trying to find ways in to the material. But I still think I would have found it frequently hypnotic and captivating. If anything, Dougie, the gold-shovel-painting and similar anti-narrative choices might have seemed even ballsier and more exciting coming from an unknown, up-and-coming director. I do think the stuff that bothered me (the over-reliance on exposition and overly-literal hand-me-down mythology, the lame attempts at comedy in the sheriff's station) might have weighed heavier in the equation and made me question whether the minds behind the show had a consistently firm grasp on their craft. It's impossible to tell, though. I came to the original show with no knowledge of DKL, and the surreal/dreamlike/horror elements won me over in spite of the soapy/corny elements I disliked (many of which I have since come to love). I honestly think S3 had enough quirkiness, horror, humor and murky dreaminess that I would have fallen in love with it even without DKL's name in the credits, and despite its flaws, if I gave it a chance. But we'll never know, will we?
User avatar
Xavi
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:23 am

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

Postby Xavi » Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:40 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote:...[many many words] ... I honestly think S3 had enough quirkiness, horror, humor and murky dreaminess that I would have fallen in love with it even without DKL's name in the credits, and despite its flaws, if I gave it a chance. But we'll never know, will we?


Flaws? What flaws? I for one would never dare telling Dali that the time should've been 10 o' clock sharp in stead of 7 to 3. As long as I'm not absolutely sure about a profound understanding of a work of art I would keep my mouth shut if it comes to "flaws." But I'm just a very tiny little Pinocchio friend.

Image

BTW Lynch left the building of traditional story telling a long long time ago already. Mary Sweeney once said ..
There is a logic in all of David's films-it's just not a traditional one, and for me it makes my work much more interesting. I feel like a juggler walking across a tightrope and I am pretty focused on making sure that I absolutely stay on that tightrope while the balls are revolving in the air.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Wed Oct 25, 2017 3:41 am

When I was in my teens a guy attempted to teach me how to beat-mix on turntables. He was patient and encouraging, so as I made my attempts he'd be nodding along, both to the beats themselves but also to encourage me. But I was absolutely dreadful at beat-mixing. My beat-mixing was the audio equivalent of The Return, it was that bad. So time after time those nods blended with pained headshakes at the racket he was hearing, resulting in a weird nod-shake thing that seemed at times to be nearly twisting his neck right off. That's the motion I find myself making when I read your posts, Mr Reindeer. (Not that I'm saying your posts are the equivalent of my beat-mixing). Yes/no, repeatedly.

Of your examples the one that comes closest to apples/apples is Paradise Lost (Empson and Milton's God, etc). But artistically speaking this is a flaw IMO, as I believe that the artist's intentions matter:

a religious epic by a pious man which, probably unintentionally, makes Satan the most sympathetic character.

And as it's not in 'bonus point' territory then it's still not as major a flaw as:

-- anti-nostalgic theme
-- clashing with nostlagia for the artist's career
-- the likely cause being narcissism.

We could also throw in the Grand Inquisitor sequence in The Brothers Karamazov, but again, artistically that's a flaw and it doesn't have the cringe factor of the clash being due to celebration of the artist's career. And of course, if we can find one work that is actually apples/apples that still doesn't get Lynch off the hook -- all it means is that we now have two works that induce a cringe. I'm comfortable saying that a major clash between theme and execution being down to the artist's narcissism will always be an aesthetic blunder.

But then I'm far less tolerant of incoherence and narcissism than you and other TR admirers are (though my tolerance for incoherence is higher than most -- I loved inland Empire and one of my favourite novels is Infinite Jest). The Return is pretty much a photo-fit of all I dislike in art, so it's no wonder I've had such an extreme response to it. I'll repeat what I said above: certain of its flaws are so extreme they wreck any possibility of trust in the artist, and when that happens, and the work is as ambitious as The Return, you're looking at a bona fide disaster.

The moral being if you plan to fill your work with tediousness, charmlessness, viciousness, narcissism, chauvinism, chaos, audience contempt, ugliness, pointlessness, and the like, you better be damned sure you have the artistic chops to pull it off. Or, you know, maybe just don't fill your work with that shite.
Ad hominems, straw men and selective blindness are the default tactics of fanboys served up a turkey.
BGate
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:15 am

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

Postby BGate » Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:24 am

Filmmakers having recurring themes or concerns or aesthetic qualities is not "nostalgia for their own careers", and thinking that that observation qualifies as a "fact" should tell you how lacking your own analysis is, despite the fact that you're on the other side of 40 or whatever. I mean, is there a more shallow, ad hominem form of critique than, "The only people who love this are just kids who don't know any better"? Not to mention the (actual) fact that it's not remotely accurate.
User avatar
Iron_Dwarf
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 12:47 am

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

Postby Iron_Dwarf » Wed Oct 25, 2017 4:45 am

The Return made me reflect a lot on self-indulgence in art and why it's undesirable, resulting in this reddit post:

https://www.reddit.com/r/twinpeaks/comm ... lgence_in/

Perhaps I shouldn'te have posted it there, but the only thing I'm wondering is if I was as self-indulgent as I accuse The Return of being. :)
DirkG
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:04 pm

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

Postby DirkG » Wed Oct 25, 2017 5:49 am

Anti-nostalgic WTF? You couldn't be more wrong. Part 18 is arguably one of the most nostalgic pieces of television ever. It depicts exactly what nostalgia is. A faint distant voice in the pitch black darkness and a scream.
User avatar
Aqwell
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:03 am
Location: France

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

Postby Aqwell » Wed Oct 25, 2017 8:12 am

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:And now a denial from Lynch himself that he was thinking about any other films when making The Return.
Like...
Donnie Darko maybe?

Image
Image

Image
Image
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Wed Oct 25, 2017 9:12 am

I don't believe a word Lynch says in interviews about anything. It would be interesting to know what's going through his head as he's blatantly bullshitting interviewers. The interviewer and fans are too thick to notice? There's a kind of weary WGAF, let's-get-this-shit-over, almost solipsistic contempt conveyed that chimes with many of The Return's flaws. This is yet another area where he gets a free pass that other artists don't.

Iron_Dwarf's piece about self-indulgence only fails to mention the Lynch fanbase's responsibility for indulging and thus enabling their hero's self-indulgence. You can do or say absolutely anything and I'll still revere you never makes for a healthy relationship in any walk of life. The fans have literally spoiled him, though it looks like he was more than happy to play along in the role of Sun King.

Tangentially connected: I wouldn't mind knowing the skinny on Lynch and Chrysta Bell and whether her positioning as a laughing stock in this series was deliberate on Lynch's part, and if so, why. Cf those "If only you knew" comments from Sherilyn Fenn and Julee Cruise.
Ad hominems, straw men and selective blindness are the default tactics of fanboys served up a turkey.
User avatar
rugerblackhawk357
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:57 pm

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

Postby rugerblackhawk357 » Wed Oct 25, 2017 6:10 pm

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:I don't believe a word Lynch says in interviews about anything. It would be interesting to know what's going through his head as he's blatantly bullshitting interviewers. The interviewer and fans are too thick to notice? There's a kind of weary WGAF, let's-get-this-shit-over, almost solipsistic contempt conveyed that chimes with many of The Return's flaws. This is yet another area where he gets a free pass that other artists don't.

Iron_Dwarf's piece about self-indulgence only fails to mention the Lynch fanbase's responsibility for indulging and thus enabling their hero's self-indulgence. You can do or say absolutely anything and I'll still revere you never makes for a healthy relationship in any walk of life. The fans have literally spoiled him, though it looks like he was more than happy to play along in the role of Sun King.

Tangentially connected: I wouldn't mind knowing the skinny on Lynch and Chrysta Bell and whether her positioning as a laughing stock in this series was deliberate on Lynch's part, and if so, why. Cf those "If only you knew" comments from Sherilyn Fenn and Julee Cruise.


Calling it now. Twin Peaks fans in the year 2020 will make their own Season 3. Because growing up with Twin Peaks means investing part of one's imagination in the art that surrounds you. My predictions:

1.)Dale Cooper escapes the lodge and engages the Bad Dale in a Sherlock/Moriarty battle ending in Jungian acceptance.
2.)The Roadhouse does not end almost every episode with 10 minutes of contemporary music.
3.)Sherilyn Fenn becomes an important figure, taking over management of the Great Northern.
4.)The season finale will feature a less comedic end to Bob, Norma and Ed having grandchildren, and Dale and Annie embracing while Julee Cruise sings one final dreamwork.
Sometimes i wish i was better off dead. No wait. Not me. You.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:42 am

rugerblackhawk357 wrote:
Calling it now. Twin Peaks fans in the year 2020 will make their own Season 3. Because growing up with Twin Peaks means investing part of one's imagination in the art that surrounds you. My predictions:

1.)Dale Cooper escapes the lodge and engages the Bad Dale in a Sherlock/Moriarty battle ending in Jungian acceptance.
2.)The Roadhouse does not end almost every episode with 10 minutes of contemporary music.
3.)Sherilyn Fenn becomes an important figure, taking over management of the Great Northern.
4.)The season finale will feature a less comedic end to Bob, Norma and Ed having grandchildren, and Dale and Annie embracing while Julee Cruise sings one final dreamwork.


A handy way of knowing you're talking to a TR fanboy is if they deny the mediocrity of the Roadhouse music. This music has little to do with the miracles of mood etc that Lynch is supposedly achieving elsewhere and can therefore be judged on its own merits. Anybody who really admires it just isn't seeing, thinking or hearing straight. It's mainly mediocre and occasionally davidlynch.com-standard garbage, not just in comparison to the original series but to decent music generally. That Lynch decided it was good enough to broadcast is another indication of either his quality control going awry or just not really caring.
Ad hominems, straw men and selective blindness are the default tactics of fanboys served up a turkey.
BGate
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:15 am

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

Postby BGate » Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:23 am

You know you're talking to a fanboy if they have different taste in music than you. Iron clad logic there.

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return (Spoilers)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests