Page 323 of 331

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

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 5:46 am
by AnotherBlueRoseCase
BGate -- Every word of your post has been anticipated above, repeatedly. Every single word, over and over. Your disingenuousness, or refusal to read with care, is wasting my time. Know, too, that every time a fan posts as poorly as you have -- barely Facebook or reddit standard -- it damages your sacred cause as we conclude that The Return has struck a chord with the mediocre, the careless, the dishonest, the hard-of-reading -- i.e. fanboys, brand-loyalists-no-matter-what. One more time: why should we trust anyone's judgement about a work as complex as TR when they can barely understand simple forum comments?

Your repeated refusal to answer a very simple question is also telling, and in its own way healthy. Follow that instinct and you may come to your senses about this series. Best of luck.

Over & out.

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

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:09 am
by Kilmoore
I just have to say at this point that I thought TP:TR was crap, but I have absolutely no idea what AnotherBlueRoseCase is on about.

It would seem you have made your own interpretation of the show and now are holding others accountable for it. This is pretty much at the same level of reasonable as watching episodes simultaneously or interpreting editing glitches as plot elements. There's plenty to be disappointed with in TP:TR without this dogmatic, preachy hollering.

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

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:01 am
by AnotherBlueRoseCase
Kilmoore wrote:I just have to say at this point that I thought TP:TR was crap, but I have absolutely no idea what AnotherBlueRoseCase is on about.

It would seem you have made your own interpretation of the show and now are holding others accountable for it. This is pretty much at the same level of reasonable as watching episodes simultaneously or interpreting editing glitches as plot elements. There's plenty to be disappointed with in TP:TR without this dogmatic, preachy hollering.


Look back through my exchanges with BGate and you'll see who kicked off "dogmatic, preachy hollering." I have never instigated unpleasantness with any individual TR fan, but if they come at me the way BGate did I'll eventually hit back. There are many instances throughout this thread of my perfectly civil exchanges with TR fans, the most recent with Mr Reindeer.

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

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:12 am
by FlyingSquirrel
\Anybody who really admires it just isn't seeing, thinking or hearing straight.


Anybody who makes statements starting with "anybody who" is clearly just...hey, wait a second....

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

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:25 pm
by Venus
So, if what I heard is true, the new book potentially ties up loose ends and what happened to some of the older characters. If so (and it is a big IF as I don't know if it does) why couldn't they have done that during the series? It would have been great to have an explanation of what happened to Audrey in place of the drooling demon child in the car incident for example.

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

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:49 pm
by waferwhitemilk
Yes! And why didn't we get at least one scene of Annie if hypothetically she had an insanely great line in the book? Seems like a missed opportunity! I think I would have preferred that over the 911 lady. Makes me wonder if Frost added to the book after filming the series had already ended.

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

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:15 pm
by BGate
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:
Kilmoore wrote:I just have to say at this point that I thought TP:TR was crap, but I have absolutely no idea what AnotherBlueRoseCase is on about.

It would seem you have made your own interpretation of the show and now are holding others accountable for it. This is pretty much at the same level of reasonable as watching episodes simultaneously or interpreting editing glitches as plot elements. There's plenty to be disappointed with in TP:TR without this dogmatic, preachy hollering.


Look back through my exchanges with BGate and you'll see who kicked off "dogmatic, preachy hollering." I have never instigated unpleasantness with any individual TR fan, but if they come at me the way BGate did I'll eventually hit back. There are many instances throughout this thread of my perfectly civil exchanges with TR fans, the most recent with Mr Reindeer.


Your signature is literally a self-quote labeling admirers of the series as "fanboys".

And feel free to give one example of anything I've said that's "dogmatic". I've barely even given an opinion on the quality of the series, I'm just having fun poking holes in your pseudointellectual claptrap. And, btw, don't use me to deflect legit criticisms of yourself from a fellow Return detractor because you can't just lazily dismiss them as a fanboy.

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

Posted: Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:25 pm
by Kilmoore
Venus wrote:So, if what I heard is true, the new book potentially ties up loose ends and what happened to some of the older characters. If so (and it is a big IF as I don't know if it does) why couldn't they have done that during the series? It would have been great to have an explanation of what happened to Audrey in place of the drooling demon child in the car incident for example.

After reading the book, I have to admit it may have been a bit difficult to use the stories in the show. 25 years is a long time, and framing a story where everybody somehow reminiscences through those years is bound to be quite clumsy. Also, on TV you're supposed to show, not tell, and most of these things happened so long ago that putting them in visual form is nonviable.

Surely there must have been middle path between that and what we got, though.

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

Posted: Fri Nov 03, 2017 2:49 pm
by sylvia_north
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?


The book was interesting. A bunch of quiet and straightforward resolutions. No crazy conceits or shock revelations except maybe what you spoilered which was very... literal, which that one review of SH that said MF gave too much background complained. But this is very linear, immediate. If you care at all about the ‘storyline’ at all, it clarifies what it can, reminding you what you just saw, which is to say for better or worse.

Annie’s line in the book reminds me of what Mark Frost’s tweet about the worst question to ask him in the elevator. I felt like I was being told, as a fan who cared, to chill. The book is a chill afterword. Take it or leave it :!:

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

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 3:55 pm
by powerleftist
sylvia_north wrote: If you care at all about the ‘storyline'


You put 'storyline' in quotes as if it was some kind of weird or silly concept. Yet, almost all masterpieces both in literature and film that have stood the passing of time are based on a traditional, silly 'storyline'. Masterpieces which, needless to say, are still vividly praised and consumed by the masses (even centuries later).

The Return, on the other hand, is already fading away and the truth is that only a handful of people have watched all 18 episodes.

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

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:52 pm
by mtwentz
powerleftist wrote:
sylvia_north wrote: If you care at all about the ‘storyline'


You put 'storyline' in quotes as if it was some kind of weird or silly concept. Yet, almost all masterpieces both in literature and film that have stood the passing of time are based on a traditional, silly 'storyline'. Masterpieces which, needless to say, are still vividly praised and consumed by the masses (even centuries later).

The Return, on the other hand, is already fading away and the truth is that only a handful of people have watched all 18 episodes.


Many of the world's 'masterpieces' also faded away and only reached popular acceptance until years later.

Look at Fire Walk With Me...

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

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:34 pm
by Audrey Horne
Some could still maintain that FWWM while having a stellar soundtrack is still a piece of convolution and pretension.

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

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:39 pm
by cowwithfivelegs
Audrey Horne wrote:Some could still maintain that FWWM while having a stellar soundtrack is still a piece of convolution and pretension.


Idiots.

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

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:02 pm
by Audrey Horne
Potato Potatoists.

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

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:41 pm
by Poiuyt
FWWM isn't THAT great of a film, but it's damn entertaining for what it is. it was also the first lynch film i ever saw, even before the series, and it's what got me into him in the first place, so it's cool to see more people appreciating it now.