From an artistic standpoint, why was The Return needed at all?

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

User avatar
AgentEcho
Posts: 249
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:57 am

Re: From an artistic standpoint, why was The Return needed at all?

Postby AgentEcho » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:29 am

RetconMetatron wrote:
Deep Thought wrote:
RetconMetatron wrote:
I actually liked some S3 episodes, but the ending is... "Cooper altered the timeline" (or tried to alter it, or did try it in a dream.. whatever exactly happened, the time travel part was certainly there)

Stuff like that belongs in a Star Trek episode or a Back to the Future sequel. No matter how artsy the last two episodes were, at the end if all came down to a cliched Star Trek/Outer Limits-like time travel gone wrong plot. Ugh.


But Major Briggs traveling through time didn't bother you?


Do you mean in the original? As far I can remember, he had visions of the future. That and time working different in the lodges is something different than a character travelling literally physically into the past and interacting with it to change the "timeline". That's a Star Trek plot.


I mean, it's nothing new for either Twin Peaks or Lynch.
Spoiler:
Fred saying "Dick Laurent is dead" in LH and one of Laura Dern's alter egos turning out to be the stranger in the soundstage in IE


But I guess dugpa forum posters are a higher authority on what belongs in Twin Peaks than David Lynch and Mark Frost. Ah, internet.
User avatar
Deep Thought
Posts: 280
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:05 pm
Location: Florida

Re: From an artistic standpoint, why was The Return needed at all?

Postby Deep Thought » Sat Sep 09, 2017 9:48 am

RetconMetatron wrote:
Deep Thought wrote:
RetconMetatron wrote:
I actually liked some S3 episodes, but the ending is... "Cooper altered the timeline" (or tried to alter it, or did try it in a dream.. whatever exactly happened, the time travel part was certainly there)

Stuff like that belongs in a Star Trek episode or a Back to the Future sequel. No matter how artsy the last two episodes were, at the end if all came down to a cliched Star Trek/Outer Limits-like time travel gone wrong plot. Ugh.


But Major Briggs traveling through time didn't bother you?


Do you mean in the original? As far I can remember, he had visions of the future. That and time working different in the lodges is something different than a character travelling literally physically into the past and interacting with it to change the "timeline". That's a Star Trek plot.


Maybe he was just in a community theater version of South Pacific. :lol: You do have strong opinions though. I like that! :roll:
Attachments
briggs.jpg
briggs.jpg (63.49 KiB) Viewed 226 times
"E.g." means "for example". What I think you want to say is "i.e.".
User avatar
referendum
Posts: 309
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:29 am

Re: From an artistic standpoint, why was The Return needed at all?

Postby referendum » Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:00 am

AgentEcho wrote: Fred saying "Dick Laurent is dead".


there is a documentary on Lynch on youtube from about 1997 that covers the shooting of Lost Highway and interviews all the actors including Lynch. At one point he claims that this actually happened to him, that he was sitting at home, the doorbell rang, someone said '' Dick Laurent is dead'' and by the time he had got to the window to see who was at the door, there was no-one there.

....
''let's not overthink this opportunity''
User avatar
Nikki Grace
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:54 am

Re: From an artistic standpoint, why was The Return needed at all?

Postby Nikki Grace » Sat Sep 09, 2017 11:03 am

RetconMetatron wrote:I thought Lynch and Frost were unhappy with the cliffhanger of Season 2, and that's why the whole endeavor was started in the first place.

Yet TR ends.. with a cliffhanger! It really is a cliffhanger, nothing is resolved, tons of theories floating around (are Cooper and Laura stuck in an alternative dimension, was it Judy, will they defeat Judy, was it all a dream, is Cooper still in the lodge, was the timeline altered or not, will Cooper's "what year is it"-epiphany help him solve it all ???????????)

NOTHING IS RESOLVED AT ALL.

So what was the point of doing this, if you end this like E29 again? Actually, it's more of a cliffhanger than E29! It was pretty clear what happened at the end of S2, but this? Now TWO classic characters are in limbo except of one. Just fabulous.

It also has nothing to do with "dark ending" as such - I actually would have prefered a defnitive super-dark ending (like the whole of Twin Peaks being nuked by the bomb from S3 E8) than a damn cliffhanger. At least there would be closure. But another cliffhanger after 25 years?! Really? We had this already for 25 years! This brings nothing new, clever or exciting to the table. It's not even a mindfuck, just an altered E29-like ending. Been there, done that.

I actually think that the "problem" of the orignal TP ending, at least according to Lynch, is that it was not cliffhangery enough and he had to top it with an even bigger one.


An unresolved ending is still an ending; and the ending to The Return may well be more final than we all think if Laura really did destroy Judy and collapse the dream reality.
Agent Earle
Posts: 671
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: From an artistic standpoint, why was The Return needed at all?

Postby Agent Earle » Sun Sep 10, 2017 1:12 am

RetconMetatron wrote:I thought Lynch and Frost were unhappy with the cliffhanger of Season 2, and that's why the whole endeavor was started in the first place.

Yet TR ends.. with a cliffhanger! It really is a cliffhanger, nothing is resolved, tons of theories floating around (are Cooper and Laura stuck in an alternative dimension, was it Judy, will they defeat Judy, was it all a dream, is Cooper still in the lodge, was the timeline altered or not, will Cooper's "what year is it"-epiphany help him solve it all ???????????)

NOTHING IS RESOLVED AT ALL.

So what was the point of doing this, if you end this like E29 again? Actually, it's more of a cliffhanger than E29! It was pretty clear what happened at the end of S2, but this? Now TWO classic characters are in limbo except of one. Just fabulous.

It also has nothing to do with "dark ending" as such - I actually would have prefered a defnitive super-dark ending (like the whole of Twin Peaks being nuked by the bomb from S3 E8) than a damn cliffhanger. At least there would be closure. But another cliffhanger after 25 years?! Really? We had this already for 25 years! This brings nothing new, clever or exciting to the table. It's not even a mindfuck, just an altered E29-like ending. Been there, done that.

I actually think that the "problem" of the orignal TP ending, at least according to Lynch, is that it was not cliffhangery enough and he had to top it with an even bigger one.


... not to mention having to smash and ransack whatever came before on account of getting back at whoever took his baby away from him back in '91 (and at fans for loving it all these years since). Hmmmm ... Should the guy ever consider looking at himself in a mirror, some revelations should come to him not unlike those befalling Coop at the end of S 2 finale. :)
An all-around great and thoughtful post, btw, don't mind the haters and bullies! It's your legacy as well as theirs that Lynch (and his partner in crime Frost, I'm not taking him outta this by any means - even if the series was hijacked by Lynch, as some have speculated, he can't escape the responsibility for putting forth the mother of all retcons with his shoddy The Secret History) has the audacity to mess with.

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 15 guests