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

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

LateReg
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Thu Oct 26, 2017 8:57 am

yaxomoxay wrote:Joe McCluskey - I respectfully disagree with the entirety of your post... which shall not come as a surprise :)

Let me start from here:

Hawk & Bobby are nowhere to be found when Evil Cooper shows up.


My impression is that you still see this movie as if divided in compartments, with the strings that should get all together at the end in one big fight. The reason why Hawk and Bobby do not appear is that their purpose is over.

Hawk - Initiates the investigation by believing a lady that talks to a log and finding some “procedural” evidence.
Bobby - keeps up the investigation by revealing fundamental clues
Andy - is the one that really understands the purpose and gets green glove free
Sheriff Truman - is the one that causes the “big reveal” (he also functions as an information dump device, obviously).
Lucy - she’s the one that kills Mr.C.

They worked as a team by cooperating, sharing information, going to places, and accepting a strange reality.

Joe McCluskey wrote:[
There were several scenes where it was reiterated to the Sheriff’s Dep. that there are two Coopers, yet they do nothing with that information. When Evil Cooper shows up, they don’t question if its the real Cooper that they’re welcoming to Truman’s office for a one-on-one chat? If not, what was the purpose of them discovering clues about the duality of Cooper? Again, the only reason they realize Evil Cooper was a phony was because Good Cooper called them, thus they knew that something was wrong, and even then, only Lucy had the idea to take action. Also, Good Cooper didn’t even know that Evil Cooper was at the station, so he wasn’t in on this supposed elaborate plan to call at that very moment.


The reasons is that characters don’t have the same information that we, the viewers, have. Not even Andy. They don’t know how badCooper looks, they don’t know where he’s headed, and they don’t know anything extraordinary. They knew that something was happening, and they knew that there were two Coopers (still a difficult thing to believe, wouldn’t you agree?). We have seen two Coopers for 16 hours. They didn’t. I also disagree that there was no suspicion...

Again, Andy does nothing with his acquired knowledge. In fact, he actions contradict the knowledge he gains—e.g., welcoming Evil Cooper to the station without reservation despite knowing that there’s two Coopers, putting Freddie behind bars, etc.


Andy’s behavior is strange when he sees Mr.C. He clearly invites Mr. C, but he doesn’t look 100% convinced that he is in front of Cooper. Andy isn’t the brightest cop on earth, yet a single sentence (no coffee) convinces him that he is in front of bad Cooper. To me that shows that - although uncertain - he did not fall for Mr.C’s trick. They are all suspicious about Mr. C, and the “we were just talking about you” sentence, which is said multiple times, leads me to believe that there was some sense of general knowledge.
In general, I am not sure that Andy remembered what happened in the Lodge (and here I agree with you that they should’ve made it more clear). They ALL forget what happens near a vortex; my feeling is that Andy has a subconscious memory of what he saw, but he is not actively aware of it.

You also have to compare the TP investigation with the Fuscos. Look at them. They are in an important city (as it was seen last week, sadly) with a fairly large PD. As TP Sheriff Dept they also have to deal with corruption. And as Andy they get their information dump after an investigation, which feels unrealistic to them. What happens? They throw it in the trash. While I enjoyed the meta level of the scene, it is by far in sharp contrast with Twin Peaks and its attitude.

Yes, the guy who was shot twice in less than a week, was arrested, unknowingly worked with an FBI informant, surrounds himself with incompetent criminals who are either killed or arrested, and who walked into a Sheriff’s station expecting to find some great evil entity was not dumb at all.


Again, you leave outside relevant parts of the story. Mr. C is the same guy that was on earth 25 years, tricking everyone, killing, becoming a billionaire, creating strange glass boxes in Manhattan (I wonder how he got the permit!), tricks Cooper, tricks Dougie, etc. When we see Mr. C he is at his weakest point. He threw up garmonbonzia, he can’t talk normally for a while, and the Lodge is clearly reclaiming him.

Suppose they did have information that Evil Cooper was arriving. They could just have their guns drawn and detain/shoot him until Cooper arrived with the ring. They wouldn’t have to worry about acting differently in front of him.


They had no information that Evil Cooper was arriving, and especially when. They had clues, but you’re seriously asking Andy, Bobby, Truman, Hawk, and Chad to be ready, 24/7, with weapons drawn? That’s for action movies.

I must ask again. You lament the futility of Twin Peaks Sheriff Dept. What was its purpose in S1 and S2 other than guiding Cooper around town?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I know I mentioned this before, and excuse me if this has been further mentioned, but Andy specifically sat Doppelcoop in a chair so that Lucy could shoot him. Andy moved that chair into a specific position and had Mr. C sit there, specifically, on an angle, in that place in the room. In his vision, he moved Lucy to the doorway where she later shoots Mr. C. So Andy actually did use his vision during this scene.
User avatar
Nikki Grace
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:54 am

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

Postby Nikki Grace » Thu Oct 26, 2017 4:16 pm

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


Exactly. I think you're crossing the line into self-parody a little BlueRoseCase..

I also disagree vehemently that the show is anti-nostalgia. DirkG has put it wonderfully and elegantly:

DirkG wrote: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
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 1553
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Fri Oct 27, 2017 4:46 am

Nikki Grace wrote:I also disagree vehemently that the show is anti-nostalgia. DirkG has put it wonderfully and elegantly:

DirkG wrote: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.


There’s a difference between the show being ABOUT nostalgia (which I agree that it is to a large degree) and actually being a nostalgic work. Artistic works characterized as “nostalgic” tend to be backwards-looking, interested in recreating past glories and revisiting days gone by. This series was mostly forward-looking, aggressively uninterested in trying to be anything like the original. Yes, it explored issues of aging, the passage of time and nostalgia, but I would not call it a nostalgic work by any stretch beyond a few isolated moments.
Last edited by Mr. Reindeer on Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Framed_Angel
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:16 am

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

Postby Framed_Angel » Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:39 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
Nikki Grace wrote:I also disagree vehemently that the show is anti-nostalgia. DirkG has put it wonderfully and elegantly:

DirkG wrote: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.
There’s a difference betweem the show being ABOUT nostalgia (which I agree that it is to a large degree) and actually being a nostalgic work. Artistic works characterized as “nostalgic” tend to be backwards-looking, interested in recreating past glories and revisiting days gone by. This series was mostly forward-looking, aggressively uninterested in trying to be anything like the original. Yes, it explored issues of aging, the passage of time and nostalgia, but I would not call it a nostalgic work by any stretch beyond a few isolated moments.[/quote]
Thank you for clarifying, Mr. Reindeer. Seriously. And I can get behind "aggressively uninterested" in "trying to be anything like the original [series]", this rings true for me (how I perceived it anyway)..

Opinions and definitions notwithstanding: if someone knows how to clarify what defines "wonderful and elegant" because I can't see what reflects those descriptives in TPTR's final scene's "voice in the dark and a scream." It sounds clichéd and begat more clichés in response.. I do not see how that couple of seconds' in the final bit of the show gave any weight or bearing on the series as a whole.** The flashback of Laura in the woods earlier (Pt 17?) with that same scream just the previous hour, it had been given a workout already. Hearing Sarah call "Laura?" has no gravity left now that she's been reimagined as a chimerical husk of her former self, possessed by whichever Lodge saboteur.

** contrast with the revelation of Alice Tremond as the home's current owner - - loaded with meaning and ripe for speculation, but again, that's taking a reference to the past and carrying it forward. Not rehashing an old sound effect so we can be all starry eyed~
"Fool me once... shame on me!"
LateReg
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:03 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
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?


I believe Mr. Reindeer is getting to the heart of the matter with this post.

I do not believe The Return is strictly anti-nostalgic, and that seems a very reductive way of looking at it. I'd say it is indeed about nostalgia, an exploration of nostalgia, of which anti-nostalgia is part. There are questions being asked regarding nostalgia and the passage of time and whether a return is possible, and what it is worth and what is the cost. But these are questions, imo, not answers. I don't think that Lynch is being nostalgic by referencing his own canon, in no small part because, as said above and by Lynch himself, I don't think he's doing it intentionally as I think that Lynch just likes certain things and like the work of any auteur many themes and visual motifs end up repeated, reflected and refracted. Now, he did put himself front and center as both the director of the film as well as the FBI - which I don't find self-indulgent at all and which I love and consider a major piece of the puzzle - which calls attention to the fact that Lynch is pondering the passage of time, as he places his familiar actors in fresh contexts, so that when Cole sees Cooper for the first time in 25 years, it's also Lynch working with Maclachlan for the first time in the same span. Is that nostalgia? Partly, but it strikes me as being more about time, and also is one of many signs of reality and fantasy blurring, one of many clues leading to the possible conclusion that in the end Cooper and Laura have entered into the real world, a real world that has to ponder remakes and reboots as well as core themes of identity, trauma and death. This passage of time being pondered ties directly into the elements of nostalgia which leads directly into the central question or whether one can go home again, which comes to a head in the final moments of Part 18. There's a lot going on at once that piles up for consideration, but for me, the tangled web is as tightly thematic as it gets. In other words, I don't see the flaw that AnotherBlueRoseCase sees regarding nostalgia as I see it totally differently. And I also see no contempt on Lynch's part. I see a lot of compassion, though.

As far as the recurring argument of whether or not this would be greeted the same had it been directed by a different person, the answer is that the series would not have been the same if it had been directed by a different person. It's an utterly pointless argument because no one would have or could have made it this way except for Lynch. For better or worse. Do we give certain artists more of a benefit of a doubt? Of course. But there's no way this 18-hour film thing looks or sounds or feels the same or is even allowed to be made by someone else. So, yes, Lynch's clout got this thing made, and people are willing to follow him further than most directors, but no other director would have made this in this exact way. Not even remotely.

And for what it's worth, I love every Roadhouse musical act for different reasons. The songs on their own vary in quality from good to great (none are bad, imo), but within the context of the series they move me to no end. I feel them in the moment, each tying into the themes of the show, and generally find their placement within each Part quite meticulously thought out.
Last edited by LateReg on Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
LateReg
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:06 pm

Kilmoore wrote:
yaxomoxay wrote:Freddie is one of the things I will criticize about TP:TR. Not the glove thing. It could be even charming, I really don’t care about the oddity of his character.
But the guy that has to fight BOB can’t just information dump us and fight the boss monster. Unless I am missing something, his story should’ve been expanded much more and in a much better way.

Yeah. He tells us, instead of us seeing, how the Fireman gave him the glove and told him to beat up BOB. And then we see Andy given insignificant visions by The Fireman. Why not combine these and have Andy be the pure, innocent force that is chosen to beat BOB?

I can't see this as anything else than an intentional "fuck you" to anyone who cares about the original Twin Peaks. They made it very clear that the old characters don't matter.


I believe the idea is that an evil such as Bob can't actually be defeated. There's no green glove that can save us. So it might as well be somebody random doing it. No, I don't find this satisfactory on a plot level. I do on a thematic one, though.
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:20 pm

LateReg wrote:
Kilmoore wrote:
yaxomoxay wrote:Freddie is one of the things I will criticize about TP:TR. Not the glove thing. It could be even charming, I really don’t care about the oddity of his character.
But the guy that has to fight BOB can’t just information dump us and fight the boss monster. Unless I am missing something, his story should’ve been expanded much more and in a much better way.

Yeah. He tells us, instead of us seeing, how the Fireman gave him the glove and told him to beat up BOB. And then we see Andy given insignificant visions by The Fireman. Why not combine these and have Andy be the pure, innocent force that is chosen to beat BOB?

I can't see this as anything else than an intentional "fuck you" to anyone who cares about the original Twin Peaks. They made it very clear that the old characters don't matter.


I believe the idea is that an evil such as Bob can't actually be defeated. There's no green glove that can save us. So it might as well be somebody random doing it. No, I don't find this satisfactory on a plot level. I do on a thematic one, though.


I have one question on the same vein. We see BOB defeated, but is DoppelCoop defeated? He’s back in the Lodge, and he’s just on fire. Is he dead? Can he come back?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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 » Sat Oct 28, 2017 12:55 am

yaxomoxay wrote:I have one question on the same vein. We see BOB defeated, but is DoppelCoop defeated? He’s back in the Lodge, and he’s just on fire. Is he dead? Can he come back?
Let's hope not. Do you really want 18 more... Sorry, I mean another movie (absolutely not divided in 18 episodes) of the same crap? With the badass bad guy coming to the White Lodge for an unknown reason and being reduced to a floating photo cube, only to be shot like a sitting duck by a retarded 5 minutes later? Oh and why exactly Andy said that some people (meaning Mr C) want to kill Naido? Because if Naido is in fact the real Diane, Mr C could have killed her years ago when he supposedly created her tulpa. Unless tulpas can't exist with their counterpart dead. But then again, we don't know that and frankly at the end of this terrible season we couldn't care less.
Last edited by Aqwell on Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
krishnanspace
Posts: 568
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:15 am

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

Postby krishnanspace » Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:09 am

The way the fight with BoB ended,it doesn't look like BoB is destroyed,he is just defeated
User avatar
sylvia_north
Posts: 391
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:41 pm

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

Postby sylvia_north » Sat Oct 28, 2017 9:06 pm

krishnanspace wrote:The way the fight with BoB ended,it doesn't look like BoB is destroyed,he is just defeated


Or not. No way of knowing. Every conversation about s3 is going to go down like this. Utterly inconclusive, go-nowhere wanky speculation.

I just glanced at the Final Dossier spoiler thread. It sounds good... there’s no way it can polish the Turd Season, but folks on the spoiler thread say there’s some golden creamed corn nuggets this thread might pick over the loaf to appreciate. One last taste, people!

http://www.indiewire.com/2017/10/twin-p ... 201891106/ Unless this happens
i .. am .. not ... your... foot
User avatar
Nighthawk
Posts: 159
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 3:49 am

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

Postby Nighthawk » Sun Oct 29, 2017 4:31 am

I think that the term "nostalgia" is a misnomer when it comes to describing people's expectations for S3. The majority of those who watched and enjoyed the original seasons, as far as I can tell, always wanted a continuation to happen. It's not a yearning for something from one's youth that became romanticized with time and viewed, in hindsight, with rose-tinted glasses. There is a definite quality to the old TP that is still evident today, and it's something that S3 ultimately failed to recapture.

It appears that Lynch was keen to reassert his artistic ownership of Twin Peaks and made S3 very much in the vein of the FWWM movie. I always thought that the bleakness of that movie was a perfect choice given that it portrayed a vision of the world as seen by Laura Palmer. The feeling of being trapped, stalked, and hunted by dark forces, with little possibiity of escape, was visceral and merciless. I have yet to feel the urge to rewatch S3 as a finished work, but my impression is that the whole concept was looking at the world through the eyes of Cooper this time. The issue is, that I don't think that Lynch really captured the idea in an appealing way. Of course it is possible to make Cooper a defeated, damaged character who makes the same mistakes over and over again, but what is the point of that? The easiest thing to do in a horrible reality is to succumb to it. There is nothing interesting about that and that's one of the reason's why S3 is generally a dissappointment.
Poiuyt
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2017 3:26 am

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

Postby Poiuyt » Sun Oct 29, 2017 2:01 pm

Nighthawk wrote:Of course it is possible to make Cooper a defeated, damaged character who makes the same mistakes over and over again, but what is the point of that?

No point other than to revel in negativity and pessimism, which is what this series did and why it felt so different from the original.
User avatar
chromereflectsimage
Posts: 198
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 4:03 am

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

Postby chromereflectsimage » Sun Oct 29, 2017 3:53 pm

Nighthawk wrote:I think that the term "nostalgia" is a misnomer when it comes to describing people's expectations for S3. The majority of those who watched and enjoyed the original seasons, as far as I can tell, always wanted a continuation to happen. It's not a yearning for something from one's youth that became romanticized with time and viewed, in hindsight, with rose-tinted glasses. There is a definite quality to the old TP that is still evident today, and it's something that S3 ultimately failed to recapture.

It appears that Lynch was keen to reassert his artistic ownership of Twin Peaks and made S3 very much in the vein of the FWWM movie. I always thought that the bleakness of that movie was a perfect choice given that it portrayed a vision of the world as seen by Laura Palmer. The feeling of being trapped, stalked, and hunted by dark forces, with little possibiity of escape, was visceral and merciless. I have yet to feel the urge to rewatch S3 as a finished work, but my impression is that the whole concept was looking at the world through the eyes of Cooper this time. The issue is, that I don't think that Lynch really captured the idea in an appealing way. Of course it is possible to make Cooper a defeated, damaged character who makes the same mistakes over and over again, but what is the point of that? The easiest thing to do in a horrible reality is to succumb to it. There is nothing interesting about that and that's one of the reason's why S3 is generally a dissappointment.

I didn't see it so much as scumming to it, but rather still running away from reality, trying to fix the unfixable and solve the unsolvable. Coop's problem was he couldn't confront the harsh reality which is why he's stuck in a loop. That's how I saw it, anyway.
LateReg
Posts: 477
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Mon Oct 30, 2017 8:58 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote: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.


I also meant to say in my post above this one that the one thing I really disagree with in this thread - other than the notion that Lynch is showing contempt - is how so many folks take the end to mean that Cooper erased the entirety of the past. That's one interpretation, of course, and the idea behind it certainly rings true with the idea of not being able to go home again, of meddling with reboots, etc. And we all have assumptions about what happened, most of them, for the time being, equally plausible. But so many of the disappointed seemed to instantly jump on the final two parts and think that Lynch went as far as erasing the old series as though it was a fact. It's simply not a fact, not by any means. I don't think that happened, though while watching it I felt it was beautifully, powerfully done, and I was shocked to see how many people took offense to it. But all I'm saying is that the presumed erasure of the past is just one of many interpretations, some of which work side by side to give meaning. I think it would be a mistake to hate the series based on a misinterpretation of the ending. And yes, all misinterpretations are also equally valid in this case, but I think it's important to not think of any one theory as fact, especially when it leads to hating something due to a "fact" that is actually quite ambiguous. To be needlessly redundant: There's nothing in the text that definitively states the past was erased (yes, I know the body disappears and Pete goes fishing, but that could be a different timeline, a what-could-have-been, etc.), and it will always be there regardless because Cooper needed to travel through that past to get to the present of The Return. And furthermore, even if it was erased, it seems that Lynch/Frost are criticizing the erasure, in other words, agreeing with those who are disappointed.
Last edited by LateReg on Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Castledoque
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:34 am

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

Postby Castledoque » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:15 am

So according to the spoiler thread of the coming Mark Frost book,
Spoiler:
Laura Palmer is now missing instead of dead and Sarah hosts a demon since she was a teenager, which means that two demon hosts got married and fathered a being of white lodge light.
Does anyone else find all this convoluted mess profoundly dissappointing and a far cry (a) from the sublime simplicity of the first season of twin peaks and (b) from the beguiling and mystical mystery of the first half of season 2?

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LateReg and 17 guests