Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Thu May 25, 2017 1:28 pm

Venus wrote:
yaxomoxay wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
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.


I really never liked the interactions between the two brothers, if I have to be honest... they always seemed too off for me, and S3's scene does not feel much different. I think that they wasted Benjamin's character in S2 with the civl war nonsense (a small sketch would've been fine).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
Venus
Posts: 457
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 1:46 pm

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).


I think it's fascinating that there are so many Brits in this thread. Maybe bad Coop's playing card was actually a spade and we're calling it. Or Jacoby's golden spades :lol: I didn't want to but I found some of your post amusing and I think I am in denial that there is a possibility it is painfully true. But I will be watching to the end.
When Jupiter and Saturn meet...
User avatar
The Archivist
Posts: 34
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 2:54 pm

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

Postby The Archivist » Thu May 25, 2017 1:53 pm

I am still struggling to understand whether I am liking it or not.
It is terribly slow. 4 minutes of Dr. Jacoby painting shovels is way too much. And the absence of music makes everything seem neverending.

More than once I found myself thinking "Ok, fine, I got it, what's next?".

I believe the Horne brothers, Lucy and Andy are a bit too "woody" as character, and their scenes seem a bit off...

To be honest, I hope it starts picking up and they bring the actual Cooper back. And the music. What happened to "...and there is always music in the air"? In the original Twin Peaks, it all seemed like a smooth dance. Not only Audrey dancing, but the whole cast seemed to dance. Music was fundamental. I am also afraid many of our beloved character might be relegated to cameos.

While here I am satisfied by what I see from a visual point of view and sometimes thanks to the recalls to the original plot, I haven't found anything that makes me giggle like Leland as I found myself doing during the original.

I am sure watching 4 episodes at once has helped, had they released these four week by week, I would have been even more disappointed by the contents and rythm of the series.

However, once the episode is over, I find myself thinking about it. A lot...
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 2:01 pm

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


From when is that tweet? From after the premiere?

About week before the premiere
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Thu May 25, 2017 2:13 pm

Venus wrote: But I will be watching to the end.


I think that this is the best approach.
We all know that this new product is to be seen as a unique product, even if due to TV constraints it has been split in 18 totally uneven pieces (we have no cliffhanger etc.). In other words, it is truly impossible to know if what we're seeing sucks or if it's amazing. No matter what, whatever we see is 100% out of context.

As I mentioned, so far I am liking it, but the fact the second time I watched E3 and E4 I liked them even more tells me that it is difficult to see an "episode" without some form of context. I almost reversed, for example, my opinion on the casino scene. Spoiler from E3 and E4...
Spoiler:
I thought it was ok, but too long. On a second watch, knowing that Coop was going to get the money, that he was not going to recover soon, and knowing that he would've been under observation, also knowing that he would've ended up in Dougie's house


made it all more enjoyable. I guess it's because it removed all my expectations (the wait for the oh! moment) and desire to know what was next. In other words, I was just watching without any self-imposed idea of what was going to happen.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Last edited by yaxomoxay on Thu May 25, 2017 2:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Thu May 25, 2017 2:13 pm

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


From when is that tweet? From after the premiere?

About week before the premiere


If he hates TP so much, why does he keep a profile depicting the only role he's recognized for?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
douglasb
Posts: 241
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 1:51 pm
Location: Exiled in England
Contact:

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

Postby douglasb » Thu May 25, 2017 2:23 pm

I think the folks saying they didn't want nostalgia are being a little disingenuous. Most would have been happy with more of the same, updated for 2017, supported by an engaging storyline, intriguing new characters and quotable dialogue.

If it *had* been more of the same, would we be having this conversation? Not, I suspect, with quite the same intensity.
Agent Earle
Posts: 869
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 2:33 pm

douglasb wrote:I think the folks saying they didn't want nostalgia are being a little disingenuous. Most would have been happy with more of the same, updated for 2017, supported by an engaging storyline, intriguing new characters and quotable dialogue.

If it *had* been more of the same, would we be having this conversation? Not, I suspect, with quite the same intensity.


File me under that category for sure! :) I'd much rather have an exercise in nostalgia than what we're getting so far.
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 2:34 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.


The explanation must probably be that he now has a bigger quest. Characters are no longer only sources of pain and suffering for him, but they now serve as pawns in a bigger game. He's looking for that certain thing that he wants and when they're no longer needed he kills them without any unnecessary delay that could put him in danger. His supply of garmonbozia has probably gotten big enough as it is over the years.
oldforce
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:18 am

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

Postby oldforce » Thu May 25, 2017 2:40 pm

Seems to be a transatlantic difference in how its being received. I suspect the cozy-mystery nature was what drew many who are disappointed now (as separate from a purely nostalgic and reductive impulse). Quite simply it isn't going to be in everyone's taste who liked the first two seasons.
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Thu May 25, 2017 2:40 pm

douglasb wrote:I think the folks saying they didn't want nostalgia are being a little disingenuous. Most would have been happy with more of the same, updated for 2017, supported by an engaging storyline, intriguing new characters and quotable dialogue.


Personally, absolutely NOT.
Do you really want the same characters from the 1990's, with a new job, and just a new mystery added to it? How can we have the same characters 25 years later going through similar - updated - motions?
There's is nothing that can update Norma, Ed's, and Nadine's triangle. There is nothing that can update James Hurley, Laura, Maddie's triangle.
Can you have an updated Cooper?
Can we really have another mystery as intriguing as Laura Palmer's murder?
There is nothing that can bring an update to all the dynamics that were in the originals. Heck, Season 2 lost most of the dynamics!

Now, if we were talking about a 2 hour reunion, yes. It's cool knowing how's Audrey doing as an adult, and have an update.
But if this was just an update - as good as it might have been - we would've just witnessed to a pathetic attempt to restore something that is gone forever, a feeling that was true in the 1990's and that it can only be emulated now. It would've been a photography taken in the same place of an amazing moment we lived at a certain point in our lives. It brings back some feelings, and some memories, but that's just it, a solitaire experience based entirely on the past, while what we need is a brand new experience based on parts of the past.
Just look at X-Files. Or even the Gilmore Girls, which actually did a decent job... but that was just a nostalgia fest that will go mostly forgotten in the hearts of many fans.

I already have more of the same. I have at least 2 series, a movie, a Secret Diary, an authobiography, and a recording of Cooper's tapes.
I can't wait to see the old TP back - as I am sure it will be back - but only if it's inside of a much larger, complex design. I don't need 18 extra hours of Dick Tremaine and co. I want new experiences.

My 2c :)





Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
The Marquis
Posts: 54
Joined: Wed May 10, 2017 10:07 am
Location: SW Washington State

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

Postby The Marquis » Thu May 25, 2017 3:04 pm

Hey now... Don't go tarnishing the good goddamned name of Dick Tremaine. :D
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Thu May 25, 2017 4:05 pm

The Marquis wrote:Hey now... Don't go tarnishing the good goddamned name of Dick Tremaine. :D


Well, let's ask for a Dick Tremaine spinoff :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
Gabriel
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

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

Postby Gabriel » Thu May 25, 2017 5:24 pm

yaxomoxay wrote:Do you really want the same characters from the 1990's, with a new job, and just a new mystery added to it?


Yes!

How can we have the same characters 25 years later going through similar - updated - motions?


Easily. You write them 25 years older, minus dribbling 'Call for help!' New shoes?

There's is nothing that can update Norma, Ed's, and Nadine's triangle.


Yes there is: they all exist and they're 25 years older.

There is nothing that can update James Hurley, Laura, Maddie's triangle.


Well, two are dead, so ...

Can you have an updated Cooper?


Yes. Coop got rescued from the Black Lodge 25 years ago, but something happens to force him to confront his past demons once more, so he returns to a Twin Peaks.

Can we really have another mystery as intriguing as Laura Palmer's murder?


Absolutely we can. You just have to come up with a good idea.

There is nothing that can bring an update to all the dynamics that were in the originals.


I disagree. You can easily make a beautifully filmed drama series with good performances telling stories set in the town.

Heck, Season 2 lost most of the dynamics!


Due to lack of creative control. Due to lack of a producer who could make a definitive decision. Behind the scenes problems messed things up. Better control would have avoided the problems. The weaknesses weren't inherent in the concept of the show, but rather those in charge.

Now, if we were talking about a 2 hour reunion, yes. It's cool knowing how's Audrey doing as an adult, and have an update.


Nope. This wouldn't be the way to do it. No one wanted that and it's disingenuous to imply that's what we wanted.

But if this was just an update - as good as it might have been - we would've just witnessed to a pathetic attempt to restore something that is gone forever, a feeling that was true in the 1990's and that it can only be emulated now.


Nope, we'd have seen a classy, well-shot, well-acted, tightly scripted drama series, made in a modern way, picking up on past threads and telling new stories.

It would've been a photography taken in the same place of an amazing moment we lived at a certain point in our lives. It brings back some feelings, and some memories, but that's just it, a solitaire experience based entirely on the past, while what we need is a brand new experience based on parts of the past.


No, that's not what anyone who is disappointed wanted. You're doing the postmodernist equivalent of clapping your hands to your ears and screaming 'SHUT UP! IT'S GOOD, IT'S GOOD!!'

Just look at X-Files. Or even the Gilmore Girls, which actually did a decent job... but that was just a nostalgia fest that will go mostly forgotten in the hearts of many fans.


They weren't terrible, but they were narratively weak. More of the same, updated, isn't bad if the content is good. The writing was weak on the X-Files. Had it been better, there'd have been no argument.

I already have more of the same. I have at least 2 series, a movie, a Secret Diary, an authobiography, and a recording of Cooper's tapes.


How nice for you. We wanted a third season continuing the TV show, not a 9-hour wobblecam, handheld DV camcorder-fest extravaganza stretched to 18 hours.

I can't wait to see the old TP back - as I am sure it will be back - but only if it's inside of a much larger, complex design. I don't need 18 extra hours of Dick Tremaine and co. I want new experiences.


It's easy for a postmodernist such as yourself to imply that we modernist retards 'don't get it.' Using the minor character Dick Tremayne as an ad-hominem method of breaking down our complaints because the old show had flaws is tacky and simplistic. We do get it, as it happens. We had a filmed, beautifully-crafted TV show featuring believable characters that we loved and desperately wanted to see return.

Instead, we've got a cheap-looking videotaped sketch show featuring actors dressed up like the Twin Peaks actors they used to play, who clearly know nothing of the script beyond their scenes. The music isn't there, there's no emotional engagement, there's not even any disbelief to suspend, because the whole show eschews any believability from the outset. I'm a modernist and a romantic. I don't do relavatism. If you can honestly tell me that a scene such as that where Leland is told Laura is dead and a Sarah hears Truman on the phone and has any serious equivalent in season three thus far, then I call you a liar.

By all means, think we're not 'arty' enough to understand what we're seeing. But it is possible to make an objective assessment and right now, if the original Twin Peaks can be likened to, say Breaking Bad, then season three, on such a scale, is the equivalent of Monty Python's Flying Circus, weird animations and all.

I like the new show for what it is, but let's not pretend that there couldn't have been a good series made in the style of the two original seasons and the movie. Give us some level of respect for our intelligence.
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Thu May 25, 2017 5:30 pm

Gabriel wrote:
yaxomoxay wrote:Do you really want the same characters from the 1990's, with a new job, and just a new mystery added to it?


Yes!

How can we have the same characters 25 years later going through similar - updated - motions?


Easily. You write them 25 years older, minus dribbling 'Call for help!' New shoes?

There's is nothing that can update Norma, Ed's, and Nadine's triangle.


Yes there is: they all exist and they're 25 years older.

There is nothing that can update James Hurley, Laura, Maddie's triangle.


Well, two are dead, so ...

Can you have an updated Cooper?


Yes. Coop got rescued from the Black Lodge 25 years ago, but something happens to force him to confront his past demons once more, so he returns to a Twin Peaks.

Can we really have another mystery as intriguing as Laura Palmer's murder?


Absolutely we can. You just have to come up with a good idea.

There is nothing that can bring an update to all the dynamics that were in the originals.


I disagree. You can easily make a beautifully filmed drama series with good performances telling stories set in the town.

Heck, Season 2 lost most of the dynamics!


Due to lack of creative control. Due to lack of a producer who could make a definitive decision. Behind the scenes problems messed things up. Better control would have avoided the problems. The weaknesses weren't inherent in the concept of the show, but rather those in charge.

Now, if we were talking about a 2 hour reunion, yes. It's cool knowing how's Audrey doing as an adult, and have an update.


Nope. This wouldn't be the way to do it. No one wanted that and IRS disingenuous to imply that's what we wanted.

But if this was just an update - as good as it might have been - we would've just witnessed to a pathetic attempt to restore something that is gone forever, a feeling that was true in the 1990's and that it can only be emulated now.


Nope, we'd have seen a classy, well-shot, well-acted, tightly scripted drama series, made in a modern way, picking up on past threads and telling new stories.

It would've been a photography taken in the same place of an amazing moment we lived at a certain point in our lives. It brings back some feelings, and some memories, but that's just it, a solitaire experience based entirely on the past, while what we need is a brand new experience based on parts of the past.


No, that's not what anyone who is disappointed wanted. You're doing the postmodernist equivalent of clapping your hands to your ears and screaming 'SHUT UP! IT'S GOOD, IT'S GOOD!!'

Just look at X-Files. Or even the Gilmore Girls, which actually did a decent job... but that was just a nostalgia fest that will go mostly forgotten in the hearts of many fans.


They weren't terrible, but they were narratively weak. More of the same, updated, isn't bad if the content is good. The writing was weak on the X-Files. Had it been better, there'd have been no argument.

I already have more of the same. I have at least 2 series, a movie, a Secret Diary, an authobiography, and a recording of Cooper's tapes.


How nice for you. We wanted a third season continuing the TV show, not a 9-hour wobblecam, handheld camcorder fest extravaganza stretched to 18 hours.

I can't wait to see the old TP back - as I am sure it will be back - but only if it's inside of a much larger, complex design. I don't need 18 extra hours of Dick Tremaine and co. I want new experiences.


It's easy for a postmodernist such as yourself to imply that we modernist retards 'don't get it.' Using the minor character Dick Tremayne as an ad-hominem method of breaking down our complaints because the old show had flaws is tacky and simplistic. We do get it, as it happens. We had a filmed, beautifully-crafted TV show featuring believable characters that we loved and desperately wanted to see return.

Instead, we've got a cheap-looking videotaped sketch show featuring actors dressed up like the Twin Peaks actors they used to play, who clearly know nothing of the script beyond their scenes. The music isn't there, there's no emotional engagement, there's not even any disbelief to suspend, because the whole show eschews any believability from the outset. I'm a modernist and a romantic. I don't do relavatism. If you can honestly tell me that a scene such as that where Leland is told Laura is dead and a Sarah hears Truman on the phone and has any serious equivalent in season three thus far, then I call you a liar.

By all means, think we're not 'arty' enough to understand what we're seeing. But it is possible to make an objective assessment and right now, if the original Twin Peaks can be likened to, say Breaking Bad, then season three, on such a scale, is the equivalent of Monty Python's Flying Circus, weird animations and all.

I like the new show for what it is, but let's not pretend that there couldn't have been a good series made in the style of the two original seasons and the movie. Give us some level of respect for our intelligence.


In short, to each his own. Personally I don't think that any of what you said would've worked, especially in the long term.
Far from me believing that you or anyone else is not artsy enough. It's art and as such it will bring different feelings even to the same person, let alone different people! As a matter of fact, this is the first time I have been called a post modernist. I usually don't like post modernism in any form of art. I do admit that there are exceptions, such as Mulholland Drive, to remain in Lynch's world.

In any case, I do respect your point of view; I just disagree with it.

Hopefully you will keep watching the rest of the opera, and hopefully it will meet your expectations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests