Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Satisfied Support Group

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

LateReg
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Mon Dec 18, 2017 3:33 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:Also, while he has called this work a “film,” he has specified that it is NOT a “feature,” which is apparently what he calls more conventional-length theatrical movies — a pretty arbitrary semantic distinction IMO, but it is telling as to his mental state about where this work lies in the pantheon.


I'm not trying to bring this up again, but while leafing back through early articles (and emotionally reminiscing about times before the show aired) I did notice that Lynch was in fact quoted as referring to The Return as a feature, which is how I remembered him speaking about it. "This is a feature. An 18-hour feature, broken up into 18 parts." That's from the New York Times. I think he was quoted as such by other publications as well (Entertainment Weekly, I think), with slightly different wording.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/t-ma ... peaks.html
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2855
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Mon Dec 18, 2017 6:34 pm

LateReg wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:Also, while he has called this work a “film,” he has specified that it is NOT a “feature,” which is apparently what he calls more conventional-length theatrical movies — a pretty arbitrary semantic distinction IMO, but it is telling as to his mental state about where this work lies in the pantheon.


I'm not trying to bring this up again, but while leafing back through early articles (and emotionally reminiscing about times before the show aired) I did notice that Lynch was in fact quoted as referring to The Return as a feature, which is how I remembered him speaking about it. "This is a feature. An 18-hour feature, broken up into 18 parts." That's from the New York Times. I think he was quoted as such by other publications as well (Entertainment Weekly, I think), with slightly different wording.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/t-ma ... peaks.html


I think I was thinking of this interview:
https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/feature ... ve-w482337

When asked if he sees himself making features for television, he responds, “No. I don’t know what will happen next, but this is an 18-hour film in my mind. And I love the idea of a continuing story. A feature is over in two-and-half, three hours. The stories that you tell on cable can go on and on.”

He seems to be playing a bit fast and loose with terminology.
LateReg
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Mon Dec 18, 2017 8:05 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
LateReg wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:Also, while he has called this work a “film,” he has specified that it is NOT a “feature,” which is apparently what he calls more conventional-length theatrical movies — a pretty arbitrary semantic distinction IMO, but it is telling as to his mental state about where this work lies in the pantheon.


I'm not trying to bring this up again, but while leafing back through early articles (and emotionally reminiscing about times before the show aired) I did notice that Lynch was in fact quoted as referring to The Return as a feature, which is how I remembered him speaking about it. "This is a feature. An 18-hour feature, broken up into 18 parts." That's from the New York Times. I think he was quoted as such by other publications as well (Entertainment Weekly, I think), with slightly different wording.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/12/t-ma ... peaks.html


I think I was thinking of this interview:
https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/feature ... ve-w482337

When asked if he sees himself making features for television, he responds, “No. I don’t know what will happen next, but this is an 18-hour film in my mind. And I love the idea of a continuing story. A feature is over in two-and-half, three hours. The stories that you tell on cable can go on and on.”

He seems to be playing a bit fast and loose with terminology.


I remember that article, but I never interpreted it that way. At the time, I thought he just meant that he won't be making 2 to 3 hour movies that air on TV as opposed to the cinema. He'd rather make longer stuff if he's working on TV. I never viewed what he said as the distinction between a feature and The Return, but rather how he'd prefer to use the TV medium. I always felt that quote confirmed that The Return was indeed a feature/film, despite its length, and that he's interested in making more things that use the medium that way rather than just using it to make a 2 hour film. I still see it that way.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2855
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Mon Dec 18, 2017 10:29 pm

LateReg wrote:I remember that article, but I never interpreted it that way. At the time, I thought he just meant that he won't be making 2 to 3 hour movies that air on TV as opposed to the cinema. He'd rather make longer stuff if he's working on TV. I never viewed what he said as the distinction between a feature and The Return, but rather how he'd prefer to use the TV medium. I always felt that quote confirmed that The Return was indeed a feature/film, despite its length, and that he's interested in making more things that use the medium that way rather than just using it to make a 2 hour film. I still see it that way.


At the end of the day, it’s all semantics, and DKL is on record as being far more comfortable expressing himself visually than in words, so I don’t want to nitpick him too much. I still do feel that the Rolling Stone quote indicates a distinction between “films” and “features,” with “features” having a set runtime cap in DKL’s mind. But if he says differently elsewhere, all well and good. Call it “the Return,” “season 3,” “a limited event series,” “a film,” “a feature,” or whatever else we can come up with....this was one of the most unusual experiences in modern entertainment, and one that continues to smudge the increasingly blurry line between television and feature films. I maintain that the show is more episodic than some fans claim (I just rewatched Part 6, and think it functions incredibly well as a self-contained — albeit unconventional — episode of television), but I also see the other side. What makes the work fascinating is that it doesn’t conform to the typical narrative conventions of either a feature film or a television season. Viewed through either lens, it is an adventurous, fascinating, frustrating, strange, challenging, rewarding, and beautifully unique work.
User avatar
Xavi
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:23 am

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

Postby Xavi » Wed Dec 20, 2017 3:45 am

It’s art, baby! Vulture can exclusively report that the MoMA will screen the entire season of The Return over the course of three days in early January, as part of the museum’s annual series on “the year’s finest films.”


http://www.vulture.com/2017/12/twin-peaks-the-return-moma-screening.html?utm_source=tw&utm_medium=s3&utm_campaign=sharebutton-t
LateReg
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:03 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
LateReg wrote:I remember that article, but I never interpreted it that way. At the time, I thought he just meant that he won't be making 2 to 3 hour movies that air on TV as opposed to the cinema. He'd rather make longer stuff if he's working on TV. I never viewed what he said as the distinction between a feature and The Return, but rather how he'd prefer to use the TV medium. I always felt that quote confirmed that The Return was indeed a feature/film, despite its length, and that he's interested in making more things that use the medium that way rather than just using it to make a 2 hour film. I still see it that way.


At the end of the day, it’s all semantics, and DKL is on record as being far more comfortable expressing himself visually than in words, so I don’t want to nitpick him too much. I still do feel that the Rolling Stone quote indicates a distinction between “films” and “features,” with “features” having a set runtime cap in DKL’s mind. But if he says differently elsewhere, all well and good. Call it “the Return,” “season 3,” “a limited event series,” “a film,” “a feature,” or whatever else we can come up with....this was one of the most unusual experiences in modern entertainment, and one that continues to smudge the increasingly blurry line between television and feature films. I maintain that the show is more episodic than some fans claim (I just rewatched Part 6, and think it functions incredibly well as a self-contained — albeit unconventional — episode of television), but I also see the other side. What makes the work fascinating is that it doesn’t conform to the typical narrative conventions of either a feature film or a television season. Viewed through either lens, it is an adventurous, fascinating, frustrating, strange, challenging, rewarding, and beautifully unique work.


I think Lynch was just deflecting whether he'd be making 2-hour films for television. You know, responding bluntly and waiving off the actual question. But regardless, what you wrote there was beautifully put.
User avatar
Xavi
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:23 am

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

Postby Xavi » Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:09 am

Image

Personally I had more problems with Nadine in the "old series" with that nonsense of having enormous physical powers than with the green glove guy. TV series, a feature, a movie, art? Why not all at the same time?
Kilmoore
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:20 pm

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

Postby Kilmoore » Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:33 am

Xavi wrote:Personally I had more problems with Nadine in the "old series" with that nonsense of having enormous physical powers than with the green glove guy. TV series, a feature, a movie, art? Why not all at the same time?

The difference is, BOB was the main villain in the original series, and we've been wondering about how the inevitable confrontation against him will go. Turns out, it was just a pointless side character who beat him with a superglove. So, in the end, the confrontation didn't matter, and BOB didn't matter.

It's understandable to be annoyed by the Nadine storyline in original episodes, but at least it was just a side plot.
User avatar
Xavi
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:23 am

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

Postby Xavi » Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:47 am

Kilmoore wrote:
Xavi wrote:Personally I had more problems with Nadine in the "old series" with that nonsense of having enormous physical powers than with the green glove guy. TV series, a feature, a movie, art? Why not all at the same time?

The difference is, BOB was the main villain in the original series, and we've been wondering about how the inevitable confrontation against him will go. Turns out, it was just a pointless side character who beat him with a superglove. So, in the end, the confrontation didn't matter, and BOB didn't matter.

It's understandable to be annoyed by the Nadine storyline in original episodes, but at least it was just a side plot.


Hmm, don't know about that. What I do know is that Nadine's metamorphosis, and love for Ed, was even more impressive than Ed's love for Norma and vice versa. Love is an extremely complicated phenomenon. The Book of Life describes "7 possible ingredients" : http://www.thebookoflife.org/what-is-love-2/.
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Thu Dec 21, 2017 5:47 pm

Kilmoore wrote:
Xavi wrote:Personally I had more problems with Nadine in the "old series" with that nonsense of having enormous physical powers than with the green glove guy. TV series, a feature, a movie, art? Why not all at the same time?

The difference is, BOB was the main villain in the original series, and we've been wondering about how the inevitable confrontation against him will go. Turns out, it was just a pointless side character who beat him with a superglove. So, in the end, the confrontation didn't matter, and BOB didn't matter.


Yes and no.
It wasn’t “a side character” that beat BOB.
It was the combined effort of a supernatural entity called “Fireman”, an enlightened human called Major Briggs, and a good man called Dale Cooper.
Glove guy (definitely not one of my favorite characters) was there for a reason, at the specific time for a reason, and with a specific power for a reason. Glove guy is the product of the fusion of the work of the three individuals named above, all combined moving chess pieces such as Andy, Sheriff Truman, and maybe even Naido.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
krishnanspace
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2015 5:15 am

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

Postby krishnanspace » Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:48 pm

I thought the green gloved kid was supposed to be the representation of cliches in Superhero films.When the world needs help,the hero just pops in and saves everyone.Thats what happens in every Marvel movie
User avatar
laughingpinecone
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:45 am
Location: D'ni
Contact:

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

Postby laughingpinecone » Thu Dec 21, 2017 7:53 pm

Or, he's there precisely to prevent Cooper from having a much-needed confrontation, so he can avoid facing his issues and can continue making the same mistakes, which he promptly does...
] The gathered are known by their faces of stone.
User avatar
Xavi
Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:23 am

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

Postby Xavi » Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:09 am

yaxomoxay wrote:
Kilmoore wrote:
Xavi wrote:Personally I had more problems with Nadine in the "old series" with that nonsense of having enormous physical powers than with the green glove guy. TV series, a feature, a movie, art? Why not all at the same time?

The difference is, BOB was the main villain in the original series, and we've been wondering about how the inevitable confrontation against him will go. Turns out, it was just a pointless side character who beat him with a superglove. So, in the end, the confrontation didn't matter, and BOB didn't matter.


Yes and no.
It wasn’t “a side character” that beat BOB.
It was the combined effort of a supernatural entity called “Fireman”, an enlightened human called Major Briggs, and a good man called Dale Cooper.
Glove guy (definitely not one of my favorite characters) was there for a reason, at the specific time for a reason, and with a specific power for a reason. Glove guy is the product of the fusion of the work of the three individuals named above, all combined moving chess pieces such as Andy, Sheriff Truman, and maybe even Naido.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


Certainly, yes. It was the sum being bigger than the parts; a joined effort. Of course my ideas about Dale Cooper died at 2:53, when he "woke up from his coma in the hospital" are absurd, but he (Dale in the "role" of Dougie) saw that fragment of Sunset Blvd on his TV; which is in fact a story that's been told by a dead guy, isn't it. On top of that, as far as I know, there are only two possible ways to face the Giant; firstly by a vortex, and secondly after being dead - Major Briggs' head found its way through non-existence (the mauve world) towards Him. Now, Dale did not enter some vortex during his stay in hospital, did he?
In short, without love life has a tendency to diverge people and focus, whereas death converges them, brings them back to the source (a return indeed) - Dale Cooper becomes whole/one again thanks to all witnesses/believers in the sheriff's station. Meanwhile the Giant silently remained the invisible force that brought them together of course. His golden dust is the miracle of love. That's why Jacoby's shovels work, you better believe it. Just a little side note, Jerry also had one foot in higher realms, for he was always very near to otherworldly occurrences; "You can't fool me, I've been here before."

cheers
User avatar
eyeboogers
Posts: 552
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 3:35 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

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

Postby eyeboogers » Fri Dec 22, 2017 5:24 am

krishnanspace wrote:I thought the green gloved kid was supposed to be the representation of cliches in Superhero films.When the world needs help,the hero just pops in and saves everyone.Thats what happens in every Marvel movie


Yes, Mark Frost specifically stated that they are playing with breaking the deus ex machina rule here. It is meant to feel inauthentic, to make audiences feel cheated. Like the battle was won too easily. Like the others in this thread have just pointed out, this easy victory makes Cooper's subsequent hubris-powered folly that much more believable Maybe I can pull off another miracle, this is easy. If the show had ended with episode 17 the green glove scene would have been as disappointing as the "Lost" finale, but everything that happens afterwards really justifies and necessitates the deus ex machina trick.
User avatar
Saturn's child
Posts: 394
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:38 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

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

Postby Saturn's child » Fri Dec 22, 2017 7:38 am

laughingpinecone wrote:Or, he's there precisely to prevent Cooper from having a much-needed confrontation, so he can avoid facing his issues and can continue making the same mistakes, which he promptly does...


Bingo; that was my takeaway also.

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests