Page 322 of 375

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

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:45 am
by Snailhead
Castledoque wrote: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?
WTF. That's not good.

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

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:15 pm
by powerleftist
The Sarah thing is also completely incoherent with her portrayal and behavior during Season 1.

This is what we call a 'retcon' in comic-books. I have often mentioned comic-books in this thread before; The Return feels at times like an X-Men story: time travelling, superpowers, Fireman = The Watcher, parallel dimensions, dark versions of the heroes, teleportation... I like the X-Men but that's not what Twin Peaks was about.

I would also note that Mark Frost has written Marvel superheroes before.

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

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:02 pm
by Taperecorder
Castledoque wrote: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 disappointing 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?
Yes. Absolutely.

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

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:34 pm
by rugerblackhawk357
Taperecorder wrote:
Castledoque wrote: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 disappointing 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?
Yes. Absolutely.
I'm starting to think that something as "genuine" and innovative like Twin Peaks Seasons 1 and 2 could really not exist in 2017. Maybe that's what Frost and Lynch did wrong. Think about it: We are constantly craving backstory, explanation, entire world building. Where-as a storyteller just told a story. He or she used archetypes and experiences to feed your imagination, creating a dance that made you feel wonder. I am totally fine with subtle hints and mystery. The Return was not that. They literally destroyed the museum that the works of art lived in. And maybe that's our fault. We expected Twin Peaks Season 3, and they said "F*** It, i can't do that. You want us to make you feel like a kid again. We aren't Santa Claus. Here's an expressionist painting. Maybe you will see meaning somewhere and we will get paid."

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

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:18 pm
by Snailhead
I really wouldn't mind the revisionism if the whole thing was off the wall bonkers. If the whole thing was in the style of the beginning of Part 3, Part 8, and the end of Part 17/18, fine. It would have been easier to accept as a tangent based on the imagery and ideas of Twin Peaks. But it's the fact that the questionable narrative additions of those more abstract parts exist in conjunction with all of the bland exposition of the rest of it.

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

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:01 pm
by Aqwell
It reminds me of Highlander II, and the all planet Zeist thing... or the Midi-chlorian bs from Star Wars The Phantom Menace, arrrh... Stupid ideas to explain things that didn't need to be explain in the first place. Keep magic magical for god's sake. But Lynch did much worse, transforming a credible down to earth character into what, Superman? Which makes The Fireman and his lady friend Jor-El and Lara? Good job Mr Fireman, she ended up a coke addicted whore, what a savior. :|
Lynch really needs to be locked up before he makes more damages, but it's already too late for TP I'm affraid.

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

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:03 am
by powerleftist
Snailhead wrote:I really wouldn't mind the revisionism if the whole thing was off the wall bonkers. If the whole thing was in the style of the beginning of Part 3, Part 8, and the end of Part 17/18, fine. It would have been easier to accept as a tangent based on the imagery and ideas of Twin Peaks. But it's the fact that the questionable narrative additions of those more abstract parts exist in conjunction with all of the bland exposition of the rest of it.
I would have liked the show a lot more if every chapter was in the mood of Part 3 and 8 (not so much 17 and 18, though).

Specially skipping Las Vegas which, after all was said and done, was a colossal waste of time.

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

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:13 pm
by AnotherBlueRoseCase
.

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

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:12 pm
by BGate
I read that thread and nearly every single example is not a "reference to Lynch's work", it's either a major stretch or just someone saying "Hey, it was probably unintentional, but this kinda reminded me of this." The fact that you wield that thread as some kind of hammer of empirical evidence in lieu of making an argument yourself is quite telling.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:51 am
by Castledoque
I am relieved to see that I am not alone in being disappointed with the explanations given with the new book.
At least all the spoilers regarding the Mark Frost book strongly imply that Frost's writing is at least as much to blame as Lynch's excesses for the mess that Season 3 turned into.
Most of the things I am unhappy with seem to come from the original screenplay
Spoiler:
(Rewriting of history, merging of two Coopers, worst of all: demon hosts getting married and birthing saviors, etc).
It is a pity that Frost seems to have lost his touch for credible storytelling, but at least there is the small silver lining that David Lynch (whom I deeply respect as an innovative artist) was only partly to blame for this disaster.

However, from everything I have heard, Frost's book unfortunately seems to hammer the final nail on the coffin of what was once Twin Peaks.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:55 am
by AnotherBlueRoseCase
.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:47 am
by Xavi
YES or NO, did I ever wasted any time on Lynch's biggest failure by means of using more than two words in any social media or elsewhere?

NO !

PS. I am talking about Dune here. Now, about 5,000 posts expressing "profound disappointment", month after month, is ways above my head.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:56 pm
by AnotherBlueRoseCase
.

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

Posted: Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:59 pm
by BGate
"Consensual reality". I have no idea what that is, but as long it's consensual I suppose it's okay.

Anyway, I'll just quote myself from a few pages ago
BGate wrote:Filmmakers having recurring themes or concerns or aesthetic motifs is not the same thing as "nostalgia for their own careers"
There are two parts to what you're saying. I'm not quibbling with the observations that The Return is in some ways working against the idea of nostalgia. I'm talking about the ridiculous "self-references" part. You'll notice that nowhere in that thread that you're obsessed with, nor the interviewer's question, does the word "nostalgia" appear. That's you projecting your subjective notion onto other people, because you're so desperate to prove that this inane nostalgia/anti-nostalgia thing is an objective, empirical, undeniable "reality".


Twin Peaks 2017 is very different than the original series in many ways, and in other ways it's not. I have no interest in arguing with you over whether that's a good or bad thing, because it would be incredibly dumb, and quite frankly already is (the argument itself I mean, not you or anyone else specifically)

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

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:57 am
by Rik Renault
BGate wrote:"Consensual reality". I have no idea what that is, but as long it's consensual I suppose it's okay.

Anyway, I'll just quote myself from a few pages ago
BGate wrote:Filmmakers having recurring themes or concerns or aesthetic motifs is not the same thing as "nostalgia for their own careers"
There are two parts to what you're saying. I'm not quibbling with the observations that The Return is in some ways working against the idea of nostalgia. I'm talking about the ridiculous "self-references" part. You'll notice that nowhere in that thread that you're obsessed with, nor the interviewer's question, does the word "nostalgia" appear. That's you projecting your subjective notion onto other people, because you're so desperate to prove that this inane nostalgia/anti-nostalgia thing is an objective, empirical, undeniable "reality".


Twin Peaks 2017 is very different than the original series in many ways, and in other ways it's not. I have no interest in arguing with you over whether that's a good or bad thing, because it would be incredibly dumb, and quite frankly already is (the argument itself I mean, not you or anyone else specifically)
+1

Also see: Auteur theory. I completely agree that there is a wealth of Lynch self-reference in TR but not quite sure how this can be construed as 'nostalgic'. To take Ronnie Rocket as an example. This is heavily referenced in TR, but it's from an unfilmed script as far as I'm aware. This might be nostalgic for Lynch, but it's not nostalgic for anyone else because nobody else saw the original. Where is the clash there?

Not sure what the whole nostalgia/anti-nostalgia thing proves anyway. Why would a clash necessarily be a bad thing? Clashes (or more poetically: contrasts) like this are often used for effect, especially in Twin Peaks (even the original run).