Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

User avatar
wxray
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 5:04 am

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

Postby wxray » Thu May 25, 2017 5:53 pm

yaxomoxay wrote:
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

It basically existed, and crashed and burned badly. It was called On The Air.

As for nostalgia, my wife really didn't like 1&2 due to the lack of it. I loved 3 because it gave me nostalgia for Eraserhead. But after 4, wife is back on board. She got a bit of it, and sees a path to more.
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 5:55 pm

wxray wrote:
yaxomoxay wrote:
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

It basically existed, and crashed and burned badly. It was called On The Air.

As for nostalgia, my wife really didn't like 1&2 due to the lack of it. I loved 3 because it gave me nostalgia for Eraserhead. But after 4, wife is back on board. She got a bit of it, and sees a path to more.


Does your wife like the original series and FWWM?


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 6:00 pm

wxray wrote:As for nostalgia, my wife really didn't like 1&2 due to the lack of it. I loved 3 because it gave me nostalgia for Eraserhead. But after 4, wife is back on board. She got a bit of it, and sees a path to more.

Problem is, the first four hours are essentially two hours of 'draggily-edited' content with about half an hours' worth of Missing Pieces.

Damn! I love Lynch's work, but he drives me mad at the same time!
User avatar
wxray
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed May 24, 2017 5:04 am

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

Postby wxray » Thu May 25, 2017 6:06 pm

yaxomoxay wrote:Does your wife like the original series and FWWM?

She likes the original. She does not like FWWM. She liked the campy stuff of the original, and there was just enough of the weird - but not too much - that she even liked that.

I'm an admitted Lynch fan and wanted more weird and less soap opera. For example, my low point in the series is the Billy Zane character.

I was bummed and disappointed in The Return 1 & 2 due mostly to the 'draggily-edited' pace. I even knew this was coming, but it still drives me crazy. I had my conversion in EP 3, and for some reason watching 1 & 2 is better in retrospect now. I guess I'm ultimately a Lynch homer. (Although I've never seen Inland Empire and have little desire to do so.)
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 11:47 pm

wxray wrote:She likes the original. She does not like FWWM. She liked the campy stuff of the original, and there was just enough of the weird - but not too much - that she even liked that.

I'm an admitted Lynch fan and wanted more weird and less soap opera. For example, my low point in the series is the Billy Zane character.

I was bummed and disappointed in The Return 1 & 2 due mostly to the 'draggily-edited' pace. I even knew this was coming, but it still drives me crazy. I had my conversion in EP 3, and for some reason watching 1 & 2 is better in retrospect now. I guess I'm ultimately a Lynch homer. (Although I've never seen Inland Empire and have little desire to do so.)


Yeah, much of the above sounds like my experience, except that I loved FWWM. While I love the weird stuff, too much messes up Twin Peaks. Thing is, I'm a David Lynch enthusiast and a Twin Peaks fan. The two things have crossovers, but aren't necessarily the same thing. Twin Peaks worked best when there were several hands on the wheel, with a dash of the Lynch magic in the recipe. Twin Peaks going 'full-on Lynch,' given his interests in more, shall we say, esoteric camcorder chic in the last decade isn't necessarily the best combo. I find myself wondering whether Lynch as producer and other people directing might have been better for a Twin Peaks show, although we'd have missed out on some of the glorious insanity like the opening of part three.

Inland Empire is best watched drunk, although I defyb you not to fall asleep halfway through! ;)
Agent Earle
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Fri May 26, 2017 12:31 am

Kudos to Gabriel for the last couple of posts (the one debunking the idea that we couldn't have had a continuation that would feel more in tune with what came before and still be a valid, relevant, and - crucially - updated TP experience and the one explaining his attitude towards Lynch and TP). Exactly what I wanted to say, but you said it so much better! :)

On a side note, I do wonder what Mark Frost truly thinks of all of this that wound up on the screen; I have a sinking feeling (call it a suspicion) that the originally envisioned 9 parts being stretched to double amount was all Lynch's doing and didn't have an O.K. from Frost (who was silent as a grave during the spring-of-2015 negotiation crisis) - but since the writing process, where the two participated, was well over by that time, he no longer had a say in the matter (presuming the deal was "We write it together, than you direct it all how you see fit" kind of thing). Oh well, I guess we'll never know; Frost is too classy a guy to include his Lynch-related reservations in his memoirs, should he ever conceive them...
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 » Fri May 26, 2017 1:44 am

That ties in with what we were told about the script length. The thinking is that, on paper, this was probably quite tightly plotted.

The question is why might Frost potentially allow a re-run of the S2 finale, where his script is largely thrown away.
mlsstwrt
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:35 am

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

Postby mlsstwrt » Fri May 26, 2017 1:58 am

Jesus Gabriel, I remember a few years back having a pretty heated 'disagreement' with you but you're absolutely killing it in your posts these days, I have to admit.
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 » Fri May 26, 2017 2:39 am

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 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.


Gabriel. A massive thank you. You put my thoughts into words. Excellent writing, so articulate. Completely on point.
When Jupiter and Saturn meet...
pinefloat
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2014 7:28 am

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

Postby pinefloat » Fri May 26, 2017 3:31 am

Regarding the above 9hr -> 18hr point: perhaps eventually someone will create a brilliant, tightly-edited 9hr fan edit :)

There's good content there, but stretched soooo thin.
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

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

Postby LurkerAtTheThreshold » Fri May 26, 2017 4:56 am

I've had a mild change of heart

Just posted this in the Twin Peaks sub reddit;
Pretty much sums up my feelings at present

https://www.reddit.com/r/twinpeaks/comm ... h=c587c6f9
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 » Fri May 26, 2017 5:27 am

pinefloat wrote:Regarding the above 9hr -> 18hr point: perhaps eventually someone will create a brilliant, tightly-edited 9hr fan edit :)

There's good content there, but stretched soooo thin.


Of all the criticism, honestly, this is the one I don't get.
After reviewing it - thus removing expectations- it is clear that lots is happening.
We have:
- murders
- a conspiracy
- an adventure in the outside world
- an adventure returning from such world
- missing people
- exchange of personalities
- an active investigation
- a blue rose situation
- Wally Brando :)

Is Lynch also "expanding time"? Yes.
But how can we complain when the original gave us amazing stuff but also:
- Nadine's rails
- Pete's sad marriage life
- Earle.
- Dick Tremaine/Lucy's triangle
- invitation to love
- Harold (a wasted opportunity in my opinion)
- Madeline, aka the last thing a show should do that is the "twin" that pops out without warning.
- The Ghostwood deal which didn't bring to anything
- A millionaire turned in a mock version of General Lee
- Audrey's completely useless millionaire boyfriend
- few more things I can't think of until I have more coffee.

The truth is that the original series had amazing moments - often brought to life by Cooper, Sarah and Leland Palmer, and Leo - mixed with completely useless, cheesy stuff. (I also think that Major Briggs elevated S2 by a notch compared to what it really is).

As for pacing, the main difference is that the old series padded stuff. A meaningful sentence was put inside a large and long conversation. In this new series it seems the opposite. Almost each sentence and each action seems meaningful (it's to early to tell if I am completely wrong). Sarah Palmer's scene is without a single word, but it's very strong in my opinion.

The truth is that there is no way for Lynch to replicate the mystery of Twin Peaks - both Laura's murder and the secrets of the town - just by update. The "who killed Laura Palmer?" storm is not coming back; that stuff is a rarity similar to "who shot JR?" or Lost's "What is the Island?" (Which was a wasted opportunity).

The only thing that is slightly off putting for me is the virtual lack of music. I think that the more Cooper gets close to normalcy and TP the more we will listen to music. We had several hints of that.



Sent from my iPhone 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 » Fri May 26, 2017 5:38 am

yaxomoxay wrote:
pinefloat wrote:Regarding the above 9hr -> 18hr point: perhaps eventually someone will create a brilliant, tightly-edited 9hr fan edit :)

There's good content there, but stretched soooo thin.


Of all the criticism, honestly, this is the one I don't get.
After reviewing it - thus removing expectations- it is clear that lots is happening.
We have:
- murders
- a conspiracy
- an adventure in the outside world
- an adventure returning from such world
- missing people
- exchange of personalities
- an active investigation
- a blue rose situation
- Wally Brando :)

Is Lynch also "expanding time"? Yes.
But how can we complain when the original gave us amazing stuff but also:
- Nadine's rails
- Pete's sad marriage life
- Earle.
- Dick Tremaine/Lucy's triangle
- invitation to love
- Harold (a wasted opportunity in my opinion)
- Madeline, aka the last thing a show should do that is the "twin" that pops out without warning.
- The Ghostwood deal which didn't bring to anything
- A millionaire turned in a mock version of General Lee
- Audrey's completely useless millionaire boyfriend
- few more things I can't think of until I have more coffee.

The truth is that the original series had amazing moments - often brought to life by Cooper, Sarah and Leland Palmer, and Leo - mixed with completely useless, cheesy stuff. (I also think that Major Briggs elevated S2 by a notch compared to what it really is).

As for pacing, the main difference is that the old series padded stuff. A meaningful sentence was put inside a large and long conversation. In this new series it seems the opposite. Almost each sentence and each action seems meaningful (it's to early to tell if I am completely wrong). Sarah Palmer's scene is without a single word, but it's very strong in my opinion.

The truth is that there is no way for Lynch to replicate the mystery of Twin Peaks - both Laura's murder and the secrets of the town - just by update. The "who killed Laura Palmer?" storm is not coming back; that stuff is a rarity similar to "who shot JR?" or Lost's "What is the Island?" (Which was a wasted opportunity).

The only thing that is slightly off putting for me is the virtual lack of music. I think that the more Cooper gets close to normalcy and TP the more we will listen to music. We had several hints of that.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What don't you get?
When Jupiter and Saturn meet...
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 » Fri May 26, 2017 5:48 am

Venus wrote:What don't you get?


How can anyone wait for an edited 9hr version of this complex (for now) new series when the old two series could easily be put in a four hour long editing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Fri May 26, 2017 5:53 am

pinefloat wrote:Regarding the above 9hr -> 18hr point: perhaps eventually someone will create a brilliant, tightly-edited 9hr fan edit :)

There's good content there, but stretched soooo thin.


Some great posts here, and kudos to the S03 enthusiasts who’ve come in and defended their case without the abuse we sceptics get elsewhere. This is now the most interesting thread on the Return.

My disappointment probably wouldn’t have been so great had the original 9-hour plan been stuck to. Of the aspects I dislike, top of the heap is the extension of virtually every scene to at least twice its needed length, and in many cases to more than x10 that length. This more than anything made my rewatch, um, unrewarding. (To those defending the two-minute painting shovels scene: why stop at two minutes? Why not four? Why not twenty? It would be genuinely interesting to know at what point you’d have found watching paint dry unbearable and considered that Lynch is not on his game here).

But of course the absurd length of scenes, the absence of decent music, the at times pitiful acting and the dead air that often results from it, the poorly shot and lit scenes of Las Vegas suburbia are not only problematic in themselves. It’s the way they all play off and accentuate each other that made my rewatch sometimes remind me a little of coming down off E. The desolation, the meaninglessness, the ugliness, the longing for this to end, etc. And I’m sure that as the enthusiasts say, this is entirely deliberate on Lynch’s part.

But this just isn’t good enough. Endlessly repeating that Lynch intends everything onscreen is in no way a proper defence of it. Parts of S03 are now lodged in the same place in my brain as Michael Bay and shitty superhero movies; all of them feature gee-whizz effects and moments of intensity that in no way compensate for the extreme contempt for the audience and the sense of not GAF about the events or central characters they induce. Now, few would claim that Bay and superhero movies haven’t been committeed and test-screened to death; every last thing onscreen is 100% deliberate, in other words. But this doesn’t get them off the hook for how dreadful these films are, and it doesn’t get Lynch off either.

There’s nothing particularly mysterious or interesting about what’s happened here. Lynch has given us one of the most extreme acts of high-profile audience contempt since Joyce’s Finnegans Wake, and some of us feel like returning some of that contempt. And I say that as someone whose favourite sequence in all of cinema is the Bowie and convenience store bit in FWWM. That film is a masterpiece because it was wild, extremely emotionally engaging and disciplined.

The Return? It’s ballsy, for sure. I would never question Lynch’s courage. And it will probably become a stoner classic. Stuff like ‘There they are, Albert. Faces of stone’ (Cole makes a face of stone) is funny now but would be far more so on weed, I imagine. Stoners might also be able to handle the longueurs better. But courage and druggie giggles are nowhere near enough to make a half-decent work of art.

Chins up, fellow group members. Together we’ll get through the looming hours of DroolCoop stotting around the Vegas suburbs.
Lynch on Trump, mid-2018: "He could go down as one of the greatest presidents in history."

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests