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

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

User avatar
mtsi
Posts: 246
Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 8:56 pm

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

Postby mtsi » Thu May 25, 2017 9:41 am

Going back and rewatching episodes 1 and 2, I felt like I got it. I still miss the music but I do agree that it's probably coming.

I've laughed really hard many times, especially at scenes that should be disturbing. I find them oddly hilarious. So far, the only troubling character is Tamara.

Now, THAT is some shit acting.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk
We live inside a dream.
User avatar
Venus
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:10 pm
Location: England

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

Postby Venus » Thu May 25, 2017 10:52 am

pinefloat wrote:

So I find myself asking the worst possible question:

Would we have seen something better, if Lynch had indeed walked away from the project?


Now there's a question. You are very brave for uttering it! I don't know. I think Peaks needs Lynch. But it also needs Frost and without being privy to them working together, how much input each had and how much balance there was in that input, it's a tough one to judge. Dare I also say that maybe in the end it wasn't the cut Frost wanted, maybe that is why they weren't seen together at the launch, maybe he wasn't happy with what was finally cut - but that would be total conjecture and guesswork and I have no way of knowing either way. Either way they both got a huge pay cheque out of it.

They are both likely to be changed by time and life experiences. So their output would likely change with it. However they are both smart enough to be able to write and style in a similar way to how they did before. I have a real issue with people who say that it would be 'fan servicing' like there is something wrong with giving people what they want. After all, we are the ones who made the first two series a success and held the flame for it all these years. I think it could definitely be considered a selfish and egotistical move to not consider those who loved the world they created. There's way too much of that in the world enough already. There is a legacy there, that they created, so to just disregard it in a careless manner, as it appears, is very shortsighted.

Sadly this does feel like other shows I have seen of late. I also echo Mtsi's post that it feels like watching a stage play without music on it and yes, Chrysta's acting is the human equivalent of a Douglas fir.
When Jupiter and Saturn meet...
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Thu May 25, 2017 11:04 am

Venus wrote:
pinefloat wrote:

So I find myself asking the worst possible question:

Would we have seen something better, if Lynch had indeed walked away from the project?


Now there's a question. You are very brave for uttering it! I don't know. I think Peaks needs Lynch. But it also needs Frost and without being privy to them working together, how much input each had and how much balance there was in that input, it's a tough one to judge. Dare I also say that maybe in the end it wasn't the cut Frost wanted, maybe that is why they weren't seen together at the launch, maybe he wasn't happy with what was finally cut - but that would be total conjecture and guesswork and I have no way of knowing either way. Either way they both got a huge pay cheque out of it.

They are both likely to be changed by time and life experiences. So their output would likely change with it. However they are both smart enough to be able to write and style in a similar way to how they did before. I have a real issue with people who say that it would be 'fan servicing' like there is something wrong with giving people what they want. After all, we are the ones who made the first two series a success and held the flame for it all these years. I think it could definitely be considered a selfish and egotistical move to not consider those who loved the world they created. There's way too much of that in the world enough already. There is a legacy there, that they created, so to just disregard it in a careless manner, as it appears, is very shortsighted.

Sadly this does feel like other shows I have seen of late. I also echo Mtsi's post that it feels like watching a stage play without music on it and yes, Chrysta's acting is the human equivalent of a Douglas fir.


I respectfully disagree.
The ultimate form of disrespect in art is delivering the product that the people want, disregarding the artist's own feelings. X-Files has demonstrated that.
When you look at a Dali painting, he wasn't thinking about you, or me. He was expressing his own soul. Same when you read a book that is not commercial in nature.
Now, the artist's job when picking up an old product is to find some balance between what was, and what is. Right now we're judging 1/5 of a product, it's the equivalent of looking at the top right corner of the Starry Night... a big yellow dot on a blue canvas. Obviously it's more complex, and the artist himself told us that this product has to be seen as a whole.
Now, we have been offered 'glimpses of hope', that is we have seen parts of the old Twin Peaks. We don't really know how they are in the big design of things, in the big canvas of Twin Peaks. It is clear that the legacy isn't forgotten. Admit that you, like me, melted when Bobby saw Laura's picture and cried. Worse, he kept crying and no one even went to confort him, they actually just stared at him. Even Lucy and Andy. Heck, even Hawk didn't say anything to Bobby.
But Laura is there, and Leland even told Cooper to find her (that is, find the soul of the show).

In any case the last thing I wanted, personally, is a nostalgia fest, a product that was designed to replicate my feelings of the 1990's. Although Laura's theme from the originals will always give me goosebumps, I am a different man. I was 11 or so, and now I am 36, I live in a different continent, and I have a family and children.

Heck I am even appreciating the original series even more now.
Yesterday I was watching with my 10yo kid the scene in the originals after Cooper was shot.
Well, I appreciated that discussed scene because (spoiler from 3 and 4):
Spoiler:
I recognized that the waiter's behavior, and clear connection to the lodge, is IDENTICAL to droolingCooper.


Of course, I am not criticizing your point of view in itself. As any piece of art, some will love it, some will just enjoy it, some will be meh, and others will hate it. They are all valid expressions.





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
Venus
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:10 pm
Location: England

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

Postby Venus » Thu May 25, 2017 11:12 am

yaxomoxay wrote:
Venus wrote:
pinefloat wrote:

So I find myself asking the worst possible question:

Would we have seen something better, if Lynch had indeed walked away from the project?


Now there's a question. You are very brave for uttering it! I don't know. I think Peaks needs Lynch. But it also needs Frost and without being privy to them working together, how much input each had and how much balance there was in that input, it's a tough one to judge. Dare I also say that maybe in the end it wasn't the cut Frost wanted, maybe that is why they weren't seen together at the launch, maybe he wasn't happy with what was finally cut - but that would be total conjecture and guesswork and I have no way of knowing either way. Either way they both got a huge pay cheque out of it.

They are both likely to be changed by time and life experiences. So their output would likely change with it. However they are both smart enough to be able to write and style in a similar way to how they did before. I have a real issue with people who say that it would be 'fan servicing' like there is something wrong with giving people what they want. After all, we are the ones who made the first two series a success and held the flame for it all these years. I think it could definitely be considered a selfish and egotistical move to not consider those who loved the world they created. There's way too much of that in the world enough already. There is a legacy there, that they created, so to just disregard it in a careless manner, as it appears, is very shortsighted.

Sadly this does feel like other shows I have seen of late. I also echo Mtsi's post that it feels like watching a stage play without music on it and yes, Chrysta's acting is the human equivalent of a Douglas fir.


I respectfully disagree.
The ultimate form of disrespect in art is delivering the product that the people want, disregarding the artist's own feelings. X-Files has demonstrated that.
When you look at a Dali painting, he wasn't thinking about you, or me. He was expressing his own soul. Same when you read a book that is not commercial in nature.
Now, the artist's job when picking up an old product is to find some balance between what was, and what is. Right now we're judging 1/5 of a product, it's the equivalent of looking at the top right corner of the Starry Night... a big yellow dot on a blue canvas. Obviously it's more complex, and the artist himself told us that this product has to be seen as a whole.
Now, we have been offered 'glimpses of hope', that is we have seen parts of the old Twin Peaks. We don't really know how they are in the big design of things, in the big canvas of Twin Peaks. It is clear that the legacy isn't forgotten. Admit that you, like me, melted when Bobby saw Laura's picture and cried. Worse, he kept crying and no one even went to confort him, they actually just stared at him. Even Lucy and Andy. Heck, even Hawk didn't say anything to Bobby.
But Laura is there, and Leland even told Cooper to find her (that is, find the soul of the show).

In any case the last thing I wanted, personally, is a nostalgia fest, a product that was designed to replicate my feelings of the 1990's. Although Laura's theme from the originals will always give me goosebumps, I am a different man. I was 11 or so, and now I am 36, I live in a different continent, and I have a family and children.

Heck I am even appreciating the original series even more now.
Yesterday I was watching with my 10yo kid the scene in the originals after Cooper was shot.
Well, I appreciated that discussed scene because (spoiler from 3 and 4):
Spoiler:
I recognized that the waiter's behavior, and clear connection to the lodge, is IDENTICAL to droolingCooper.


Of course, I am not criticizing your point of view in itself. As any piece of art, some will love it, some will just enjoy it, some will be meh, and others will hate it. They are all valid expressions.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


It's ok. I've gotten used to people disagreeing with my point of view on this. It's happened a lot on here and someone always wants to put me right it would seem or educate me. It does wear you down after a bit though I must admit. Again, more assumptions and assuming I wanted a nostalgia fest is an incorrect one. I'll continue watching and see what happens. I do have an open mind to it so will see what happens.
When Jupiter and Saturn meet...
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Thu May 25, 2017 11:16 am

Venus wrote:
It's ok. I've gotten used to people disagreeing with my point of view on this. It's happened a lot on here and someone always wants to put me right it would seem or educate me. It does wear you down after a bit though I must admit. Again, more assumptions and assuming I wanted a nostalgia fest is an incorrect one. I'll continue watching and see what happens. I do have an open mind to it so will see what happens.


Let me assure that I am not trying to change your mind... only the show can :)



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Thu May 25, 2017 11:32 am

pinefloat wrote:I was coping until Part 4.

Although I agree with all the comments about lack of empathy for characters, and the overall tone and pace... Parts 1,2,3 had a few moments of genuine intrigue, atmosphere, originality and general creepiness. Enough to keep me hooked.

But Episode Four. The acting. The awful framing of each shot. The Cera scene. The unfunny jokes. There's no warmth or humour or passion. It feels so sloppily made. There were some truly awful scenes in that episode - were it not TP, I would want quit watching right now.

And yet we know he still CAN make material that's compelling, with strong acting, story, emotion... like a few of the Lillard scenes in Part 2.

So I find myself asking the worst possible question:

Would we have seen something better, if Lynch had indeed walked away from the project?


I agree completely about Part 4. I did a full rewatch of the first four hours last night (never again) and my opinion, already fairly low, plummeted even further, with Part 4 inducing something close to disgust at times.

Fellow Brit here (or Scot), by the way. Thanks for setting this thread up and for the incisive and honest comments so far.

A quote from another Brit, Martin Amis, on James Joyce:

"Tell a dream, lose a reader, said Henry James. Joyce told a dream, Finnegans Wake, and he told it in puns - cornily but rightly regarded as the lowest form of wit. This showed fantastic courage, and fantastic introversion. The truth is Joyce didn't love the reader, as you need to do. Well, he gave us Ulysses, incontestably the central modernist masterpiece; it is impossible to conceive of any future novel that might give the form such a violent evolutionary lurch. You can't help wondering, though. Joyce could have been the most popular boy in school, the funniest, the cleverest, the kindest. He ended with a more ambiguous distinction: he became the teacher's pet."

Remind you of anyone?

For me, Lynch has gone from being my favourite artistic uncle to the poor old soul who still turns up at family weddings and performs terrific magic tricks for the kids but then gets blind drunk and coked up and ends up slumped against a wall muttering at his own groin and snarling obscenities at passers-by.

After a first watch, I was still fairly sure I'd make it through the remaining 14 hours of S03. That's no longer the case. I really am not sure I can sit through more two minute scenes of literally watching paint dry followed by a three minute quiet journey in a limousine and then a wait outside a house.

As you can probably tell, at the moment I feel like reciprocating Lynch's snarled obscenities. My view of The Return won't remain this low, I'm sure, if only because it can hardly get much lower. What seemed initially an artistic failure is getting close to being an outright disaster.

(But we'll always have FWWM).
Ad hominems, straw men and selective blindness are the default tactics of fanboys served up a turkey.
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 » Thu May 25, 2017 11:35 am

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:
pinefloat wrote:I was coping until Part 4.

Although I agree with all the comments about lack of empathy for characters, and the overall tone and pace... Parts 1,2,3 had a few moments of genuine intrigue, atmosphere, originality and general creepiness. Enough to keep me hooked.

But Episode Four. The acting. The awful framing of each shot. The Cera scene. The unfunny jokes. There's no warmth or humour or passion. It feels so sloppily made. There were some truly awful scenes in that episode - were it not TP, I would want quit watching right now.

And yet we know he still CAN make material that's compelling, with strong acting, story, emotion... like a few of the Lillard scenes in Part 2.

So I find myself asking the worst possible question:

Would we have seen something better, if Lynch had indeed walked away from the project?


I agree completely about Part 4. I did a full rewatch of the first four hours last night (never again) and my opinion, already fairly low, plummeted even further, with Part 4 inducing something close to disgust at times.

Fellow Brit here (or Scot), by the way. Thanks for setting this thread up and for the incisive and honest comments so far.

A quote from another Brit, Martin Amis, on James Joyce:

"Tell a dream, lose a reader, said Henry James. Joyce told a dream, Finnegans Wake, and he told it in puns - cornily but rightly regarded as the lowest form of wit. This showed fantastic courage, and fantastic introversion. The truth is Joyce didn't love the reader, as you need to do. Well, he gave us Ulysses, incontestably the central modernist masterpiece; it is impossible to conceive of any future novel that might give the form such a violent evolutionary lurch. You can't help wondering, though. Joyce could have been the most popular boy in school, the funniest, the cleverest, the kindest. He ended with a more ambiguous distinction: he became the teacher's pet."

Remind you of anyone?

For me, Lynch has gone from being my favourite artistic uncle to the poor old soul who still turns up at family weddings and performs terrific magic tricks for the kids but then gets blind drunk and coked up and ends up slumped against a wall muttering at his own groin and snarling obscenities at passers-by.

After a first watch, I was still fairly sure I'd make it through the remaining 14 hours of S03. That's no longer the case. I really am not sure I can sit through more two minute scenes of literally watching paint dry followed by a three minute quiet journey in a limousine and then a wait outside a house.

As you can probably tell, at the moment I feel like reciprocating Lynch's snarled obscenities. My view of The Return won't remain this low, I'm sure, if only because it can hardly get much lower. What seemed initially an artistic failure is getting close to being an outright disaster.

(But we'll always have FWWM).


Oh the beauty of the human genre! How the same thing can yield a vast spectrum of feeling!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
DirkG
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 1:04 pm

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

Postby DirkG » Thu May 25, 2017 11:57 am

Agent Earle wrote:
mtsi wrote:The only thing that actually bothers me, so far, is the lack of music in all scenes. Sure, many themes were majorly overplayed in the original but the stark silence has been tough to overcome. It makes every scene feel like we are watching a stage play.

I didn't sign up for a stage play.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


YES! A "stage play" is definitely the most perfect term to describe what I've witnessed of the new series so far (the first hour). That Ben & Jerry Horne sequence, for instance - God, what a deplorable thing (can't imagine how Lynch and Frost thought this was going to work when they wrote it)! I feel downright sorry for Beymer and Kelly that they had to degrade themselves to the level of that abomination...


Seriously?? It was so far the one scene that felt the MOST like the original show for me. By far the most doubtlessly Frostian scene of them all. It contained words from pages of the dictionary that Lynch seldom opens up.
Agent Earle
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Thu May 25, 2017 12:34 pm

DirkG wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
mtsi wrote:The only thing that actually bothers me, so far, is the lack of music in all scenes. Sure, many themes were majorly overplayed in the original but the stark silence has been tough to overcome. It makes every scene feel like we are watching a stage play.

I didn't sign up for a stage play.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


YES! A "stage play" is definitely the most perfect term to describe what I've witnessed of the new series so far (the first hour). That Ben & Jerry Horne sequence, for instance - God, what a deplorable thing (can't imagine how Lynch and Frost thought this was going to work when they wrote it)! I feel downright sorry for Beymer and Kelly that they had to degrade themselves to the level of that abomination...


Seriously?? It was so far the one scene that felt the MOST like the original show for me. By far the most doubtlessly Frostian scene of them all. It contained words from pages of the dictionary that Lynch seldom opens up.


Yeah, seriously. Everything in that scene was off in regards to how the Hornes have been portrayed in the first series. They've been relegated to the level of halfwits blabbering nonsense (I've likened them to the two leads of Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Mr. Godot on another thread - not a favorable comparison in my book) - a long shot from crafty, quirky but always compelling duo they were before.
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Thu May 25, 2017 12:54 pm

Agent Earle wrote:
DirkG wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
YES! A "stage play" is definitely the most perfect term to describe what I've witnessed of the new series so far (the first hour). That Ben & Jerry Horne sequence, for instance - God, what a deplorable thing (can't imagine how Lynch and Frost thought this was going to work when they wrote it)! I feel downright sorry for Beymer and Kelly that they had to degrade themselves to the level of that abomination...


Seriously?? It was so far the one scene that felt the MOST like the original show for me. By far the most doubtlessly Frostian scene of them all. It contained words from pages of the dictionary that Lynch seldom opens up.


Yeah, seriously. Everything in that scene was off in regards to how the Hornes have been portrayed in the first series. They've been relegated to the level of halfwits blabbering nonsense (I've likened them to the two leads of Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Mr. Godot on another thread - not a favorable comparison in my book) - a long shot from crafty, quirky but always compelling duo they were before.


You can't seriously complain about the Hornes blabbering nonsense 30 seconds in S3, while one of the two spent half of S2 winning the Civil War for the South, and the other one spent enough screen time talking about an amazing sandwich!!! :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Rami Airola
Posts: 222
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:31 am

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

Postby Rami Airola » Thu May 25, 2017 1:13 pm

One thing that still bugs me a bit is the coldness of Bad Coop.
He seems too emotionless. He kills people with a gun. I like that he hits with his fist, straight to the face. That's brutal to me. That's terrifying to watch. That's what Leland did to Maddy too.
But to shoot his victims with a gun doesn't feel like there is some evil force taking pleasure of it. It feels like he just kills to kill. Just to have a person not exist anymore, and not to get something emotional out of it.

To me the best example of what Bob was all about was in Maddy's death scene where Bob has got Maddy cornered and he shows the "come on" gestures with his hands.

Sure, this is assuming the Bad Coop is with Bob. So perhaps there is a reason for that coldness.
But still I wish he wouldn't kill with guns. It's way took quick for Twin Peaks and there isn't enough connection with the killer and the victim.
Now, obviously the original series also had guns but to me when it's Coop who is doing it, it should be something more terrifying as the last thing we saw in the original series was Bob looking at him in the mirror, and both of them were not anyway near that cold as Bad Coop now seems to be. Sure its been 25 years, but stil... The scene with Darya had great potential but I feel him just using the gun in the end was kind of an anticlimax.

Oh well, we'll see how it goes in the next episodes. I'm sure they have written one more "twin peaks like" death scene in at least one of the episodes not seen yet.

It's not BAD, but I'd prefer something else.
User avatar
Doppler
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2016 1:02 pm

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

Postby Doppler » Thu May 25, 2017 1:16 pm

When you realize MJA was actually right...
Attachments
IMG_20170525_221130.jpg
IMG_20170525_221130.jpg (35.47 KiB) Viewed 678 times
Agent Earle
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Thu May 25, 2017 1:19 pm

Rami Airola wrote:One thing that still bugs me a bit is the coldness of Bad Coop.
He seems too emotionless. He kills people with a gun. I like that he hits with his fist, straight to the face. That's brutal to me. That's terrifying to watch. That's what Leland did to Maddy too.
But to shoot his victims with a gun doesn't feel like there is some evil force taking pleasure of it. It feels like he just kills to kill. Just to have a person not exist anymore, and not to get something emotional out of it.

To me the best example of what Bob was all about was in Maddy's death scene where Bob has got Maddy cornered and he shows the "come on" gestures with his hands.

Sure, this is assuming the Bad Coop is with Bob. So perhaps there is a reason for that coldness.
But still I wish he wouldn't kill with guns. It's way took quick for Twin Peaks and there isn't enough connection with the killer and the victim.
Now, obviously the original series also had guns but to me when it's Coop who is doing it, it should be something more terrifying as the last thing we saw in the original series was Bob looking at him in the mirror, and both of them were not anyway near that cold as Bad Coop now seems to be. Sure its been 25 years, but stil... The scene with Darya had great potential but I feel him just using the gun in the end was kind of an anticlimax.

Oh well, we'll see how it goes in the next episodes. I'm sure they have written one more "twin peaks like" death scene in at least one of the episodes not seen yet.

It's not BAD, but I'd prefer something else.


Agreed 100%! Well said.
Agent Earle
Posts: 702
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Thu May 25, 2017 1:19 pm

Doppler wrote:When you realize MJA was actually right...


From when is that tweet? From after the premiere?
User avatar
Venus
Posts: 448
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:10 pm
Location: England

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

Postby Venus » Thu May 25, 2017 1:23 pm

yaxomoxay wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
DirkG wrote:
Seriously?? It was so far the one scene that felt the MOST like the original show for me. By far the most doubtlessly Frostian scene of them all. It contained words from pages of the dictionary that Lynch seldom opens up.


Yeah, seriously. Everything in that scene was off in regards to how the Hornes have been portrayed in the first series. They've been relegated to the level of halfwits blabbering nonsense (I've likened them to the two leads of Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Mr. Godot on another thread - not a favorable comparison in my book) - a long shot from crafty, quirky but always compelling duo they were before.


You can't seriously complain about the Hornes blabbering nonsense 30 seconds in S3, while one of the two spent half of S2 winning the Civil War for the South, and the other one spent enough screen time talking about an amazing sandwich!!! :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Wasn't so much a fan of the civil war section but I loved all the amazing sandwich talk! Love the coined term 'Frostian' in Yaxomoxay's quote. Great term. I do think they should have done a few more takes on the Horne's scene. It was more like a rehearsal than a take. Was good to see them again though.
When Jupiter and Saturn meet...

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests