Fan edits, fan art, official editing, etc...

Discussion of Twin Peaks and Fire Walk With Me

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

Forum rules
Welcome to the forum. We know our members are passionate about their love for all things Twin Peaks. You wouldn't be here if that wasn't the case. Despite having differing viewpoints it is a policy that we all treat each other with mutual respect.

Posting abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated, or any material that may violate any laws be it of your country or the country where this forum is hosted will get you permanently banned.

Posting of spoilers are allowed as long as you indicate (Spoilers) in the topic name and use the Spoiler Tag.
User avatar
LostInTheMovies
Posts: 1558
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 12:48 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby LostInTheMovies » Sat May 16, 2015 7:07 pm

Kmkmiller wrote:Ok.... The fan edit showing INCEPTION dream levels in real time in four different frames on one screen was pretty cool. So I can see what you mean about showing a cool different perspective.


At that point I think it's more like a video essay. Which I guess is the aspect of fanedits that interests me most in the first place, its overlap with that form. But it almost seems like that's incidental in most cases, and people think they are actually creating replacements for the original works? Or at least that's how a lot of people seem to receive them.

I agree that there's a disconcerting tendency today to repeat past stories/subjects/characters ad nauseum. Thrilled as I am about 2016 Twin Peaks, it's a part of that trend (and hopefully can be a shining example of it).

Yet all these stories/subjects/characters began as original content, created for the most part by unique individual creators. I think that gets lost when it becomes "everyone's" and is transformed into a sort of hazy collective mythology. That the best part of this whole #NoLynchNoTwinPeaks experience - in an age that tends way away from auteurism, a reminder that individual consciousness lies at the heart of mass phenomena.
User avatar
Jonah
Posts: 763
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Jonah » Sat May 16, 2015 7:11 pm

Agree with Kmkmiller. I'm against fan edits on principle too. Also against fan fiction.Now, I understand writing fan fiction, or participating in fan-edits on a private basis, for experience, but releasing it out there into the world is sort of tacky in my opinion. I think there's something obnoxious about it, like you're trying to "improve" on something the original creator did or can't come up with your own ideas or trying to set the record straight. I think the original creator and creation should be honoured, not meddled with. I get the homage thing, I just feel it's a bit off if I'm honest, and as a writer, I find it offensive. If I was a filmmaker, I think I would too. I think people should make their own kind of music too, not mimic others. Just my take on it. My own personal view. I don't campaign against fan fiction or fan edits, but I don't endorse them either.
Last edited by Jonah on Sat May 16, 2015 7:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Actually, now that some time has passed, I like "The full blossom of the evening".
User avatar
JordinGoff
Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 12:51 am

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby JordinGoff » Sat May 16, 2015 7:24 pm

I'm actually having a gathering of friends to watch the 3.5 hour edit of Fire Walk With Me tonight in celebration of the fantastic news. Will be my second time. I think the extended run time and shifts in tone make it really immersive, it feels a bit like living real life in an alternate reality and I love it for that. The early Palmer dinner scene and a few of the other lighthearted moments definitely add to the intensity of the dark bits as well. It's also cool to see the Double R from a long wide shot, just seeing the whole town through different eyes. I recommend it to anyone who is curious and hasn't watched it yet.
Neosmith
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:56 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Neosmith » Sat May 16, 2015 7:26 pm

Agreed. Someday I will watch that fanedit as a thought experiment. But while I've heard quite a few people suggesting an extended cut for broadcast I don't like the idea. The Missing Pieces are cool as curio fragments (I also like them as a bridge between show & film but seem to be alone in that). Some are as good as/better than certain scenes in the movie and a few would not feel out of place back in it. But by and large FWWM is the movie it needs to be and an late age version would inevitably dilute it's intense, claustrophobic aura. Also, it is a moot point because Lynch is extremely stubborn about sticking to final decisions. I don't think he would even "fix" Dune if give the chance. Which is also what a s2 recut would never happen.


I wouldn't agree with the idea that Lynch is really that stubborn. He did add little things to FWWM before, like the different fadeouts with Desmond, the monkey audibly saying Judy, etc.

In addition, I know a Russian fan, who claims to have a seen a TV broadcast of the extended [likely workprint] FWWM over 20 years ago - she didn;t know it was a movie, but an extended episode (the Desmond fight was in there). I wouldn't put this up as implausible - Russia had a huge pirate market, and many workprints, screeners, etc. tended to leak at the time, usually on VHS.

In the case of Dune, I've read an interview from the 80s, where Lynch openly talks about wanting to release a 4-hour cut of Dune on VHS, claiming the theatrical version is "too short." This, however, was shortly before the film's infamous TV release, which suggests that the TV cut was what permanently turned Lynch away from Dune.

Now the impression I get is majority positive. I think The Entire Mystery may have been the tipping point to to a cautiously positive shift in the conventional wisdom about FWWM. There's still a fair amour of negativity out here but the balance has shifted subtly toward "it's underrated"/"best part of Twin Peaks"/"powerful depiction of abuse"/"love the David Bowie craziness" (the praise comes in all forms).


The thing about the box set is that it reframes the film as part of the whole TP experience - and really, it's always played less as a standalone picture or even a prequel, than an extended epilogue that builds on a lot of the show's mythology from the first two seasons, even though it depicts what happened before.

This is a structure that, at the time, was practically unheard of when it comes to television. Now, a lot of shows do it.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 1887
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby N. Needleman » Sat May 16, 2015 7:27 pm

I don't have a problem with fans wanting to create their own edits in tribute to something they love. The only time that annoys me is when someone tries to tout their thing as superior when it isn't - which rarely happens, really. Or when people say something is superior to the original when it's kludgily cut together.

I've always been curious to see, let's say, the much-hyped Topher Grace edit of the Star Wars prequels. And I still have Steven Soderbergh's two-hour cut of Michael Cimino's disastrous Heaven's Gate sitting on my bookmarks to watch. I think those are much more interesting experiments, working with deeply flawed material. I think there are very, very few people, though, who can keep the throughlines and narrative intact in those kind of edits without it feeling slapdash, which is what I heard Northwest Passage did.

I am curious to see it as an experiment, but the FWWM edits don't interest me. Lynch made it very clear what he wanted in and out of that film.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
Neosmith
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:56 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Neosmith » Sat May 16, 2015 7:34 pm

LostInTheMovies wrote:I think a fanedit is interesting as a kind of alternate perspective on the work, sort of like a different way of viewing it (like a museum piece running two films next to each other or whatever). What makes me skittish is when claims are made that they replace or improve upon the original work (which seems to be an implicit or explicit argument behind the general idea of fanedits, admittedly). Not saying Q2 has necessarily said this about Twin Peaks. But it kind of bugged me that within a week of the blu-ray coming out there was this rush to re-incorporate the deleted scenes and that many people waited to watch them in that context (I've even heard people recommend watching the fanedit instead of/before the film which...ugh, just makes my skin crawl). I've dragged my feet to watch the FWWM/MP fanedit for that reason and also because the idea that you can just jam together two completely different works (however they were shot, Lynch cut and mixed them in radically different fashion) bugs me.

If it was presented in a "hey, here is this interesting experiment that it isn't supposed to gel as a film but just offers an approximation of Lynch's original script" then ok (although even that's problematic, since many of these elements may have been cut before he finalized other scenes that are in the movie). But it seems like it's been presented - and a lot of people are taking it - as a legitimate realization of an extended FWWM, which I just don't buy. But again, haven't seen it, maybe I'll be shocked at how well it flows. Doesn't change the fact that the principle behind it seems very misguided.

In the past year I've come to appreciate fan culture way more than I did in the past and Twin Peaks was definitely the gateway to that for me. That said, there are aspects of fan culture I really don't like, and one aspect is the idea of fans sort of seizing the work from the creator or claiming it's theirs, or (especially) demanding that a work comply to expectations and getting furious when it doesn't - a big thing in comic-book adaptations it seems. That's not much present in Twin Peaks, where there's a tendency to revere Lynch (and Frost) - although I'd imagine it was a bit more common back in 1992. But it's definitely a big thing in other fandoms and I feel it's essentially a gateway into cookie-cutter corporate ownership of individually-created enterprises. A big bummer.


The thing you have to understand is that fan editors have a fundamentally different attitude towards authorship and towards films. They view films not as finished texts, but raw materials ripe for recombination. But even the very act of reworking a text carries admiration for the original work, even as it suggests a inherent critique of that work. [Plus, a popular cultural perspective is that all authors draw on pre-existng elements and that all texts are already made up of citations.]

I'd attribute this to the fact that many consumers have gained cinephile-level knowledge from the vast availability of movies and supplements on VHS and DVD. Many viewers can now criticize a movie in terms of plot, structure, editing, etc. So, it's not surprising that lots of fans are able to spot deficiencies in the editing of films they appreciate on a certain level and rework films to improve on them. Many movies are actually made better this way, such as in the case of Silent Hill.

Heck, Steven Soderbergh himself is a fan editor - he's made at least four fan cuts, one of which was officially released on DVD. (Keane)

I hope to see the FWWM fan edit at some point - unfortunately, there is currently no opportunity.
Last edited by Neosmith on Sat May 16, 2015 7:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Jonah
Posts: 763
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Jonah » Sat May 16, 2015 7:37 pm

I'm even opposed to fanedits to cut the bad eggs from Season 2. And I hate Little Nicky and Lana and Evelyn as much as anyone! I don't know, just don't like the whole idea. And where does the line between homage and plagiarism fall? Though admittedly, I might be letting my feelings against fan fiction cloud my view on fan-edits, the latter being something I'm not hugely familiar with. I just think creations and creators should be respected. Isn't someone making a fan edit basically being a critic of a kind? Didn't like it THAT way, so here's MY way... I don't get it. I'm fine with it being done in private for experience at editing, etc. But if someone thinks they love something enough that they want to release their own version of it out there in the world, then clearly they didn't love the original all that much. "I love it - but here's how we can improve it." Or am I missing the concept of fan fiction? It's entirely possible I am, as I said don't know a lot about that world.
Actually, now that some time has passed, I like "The full blossom of the evening".
Neosmith
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 7:56 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Neosmith » Sat May 16, 2015 7:46 pm

Jonah wrote: I just think creations and creators should be respected. Isn't someone making a fan edit basically being a critic of a kind? Didn't like it THAT way, so here's MY way... I don't get it. I'm fine with it being done in private for experience at editing, etc. But if someone thinks they love something enough that they want to release their own version of it out there in the world, then clearly they didn't love the original all that much. "I love it - but here's how we can improve it." Or am I missing the concept of fan fiction? It's entirely possible I am, as I said don't know a lot about that world.


You have to understand that respect and critique are not always separable.

Take the case of Superman 2. The film was famoudly taken out of Richard Donner's hands and released in a heavily re-edited version. Fans gathered the lost Donner footage from the various TV cuts, removed Lester's from the theatrical and pasted the Donner stuff back in , then ciriculated it for free until WB shut them down.

That sent a message - people wanted the Donner cut. So, WB ponied up some cash, got Donner and allowed him to release a new cut of Superman 2 on DVD. That cut critiqued the "original" text and resulted in the official release of the "more original" text.
Kmkmiller
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 6:44 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Kmkmiller » Sat May 16, 2015 7:57 pm

Yeah as an essay. Works for me. Gimmicks. Errata.

I get the sense the guy who made the INCEPTION thing did it for fun and doesn't care if it ever helps him professionally. But what do I know.

Re: fan fiction I think it's awesome ...

I will attempt to makes a subtle distinction on this issue....

1) If I see fan fiction posted to a dumb website with no or very little advertising I will actually read it and consider it quite harmless. It really is fan engagement with the work in a way that I think is awesome.

BUT......

2) If I see someone post a link to a monetized social media web address with advertising saying "come check out my fan fiction!!!!" then I think that's wrong.

We all get to decide where we stand on these issues in an ever changing world... and those two situations describe where I stand to the best of my ability at this time.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 1887
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby N. Needleman » Sat May 16, 2015 8:17 pm

Jonah wrote:I'm even opposed to fanedits to cut the bad eggs from Season 2.


As am I. But then, my screen name is taken from one of the more reviled mid-Season 2 subplots.

While they certainly exist in other fandoms, I have yet to encounter any TP fansites (or fan edits or efforts) which are attempting to exploit anyone or the source material. And I've looked. Simply the presence of a social media effort or a crowdfunded project is not, by its nature, exploitative.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
Ygdrasel
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:37 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Ygdrasel » Sat May 16, 2015 8:49 pm

N. Needleman wrote:The only time that annoys me is when someone tries to tout their thing as superior when it isn't...Or when people say something is superior to the original when it's kludgily cut together.


You're basically just saying "I get annoyed when people prefer things that I don't!" in a less immediately ridiculous combination of words. It's pretty silly.

Anyway, unrelated but I'm currently having my mind blown by the realization that this psychopath is the guy who publishes Twin Peaks' favorite newspaper. :lol: (Also realizing that I'll have to experience the entire revival on a delay while waiting for episodes to inevitably appear online, what with Showtime being a subscription channel and all...)

As for fanedits, I like the FWWM one that inserts everything into place. And the 3.5 hour series edit makes for a distinctly different and enjoyable experience than the series so it's fine too. Though in trimming various subplots away, it fails to explain some things. For example, Leo's comatose state in the wheelchair is seen but never explained in the edit...
Twin Peaks has layers, man. Twin Peaks is an onion. 8)
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 1887
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby N. Needleman » Sat May 16, 2015 9:39 pm

Ygdrasel wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:The only time that annoys me is when someone tries to tout their thing as superior when it isn't...Or when people say something is superior to the original when it's kludgily cut together.


You're basically just saying "I get annoyed when people prefer things that I don't!" in a less immediately ridiculous combination of words. It's pretty silly.


No, I'm not saying that at all. I welcome fan projects and edits, even if they're flawed. What I'm saying is that I think that people who tout their amateur product as superior to the original - particularly when their product is usually not properly cut together on a variety of levels - are obnoxious and almost always wildly off-base. I could go into chapter and verse of the usual pitfalls accompanying those kind of cuts, but that's even more off-topic.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
Ygdrasel
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2014 11:37 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Ygdrasel » Sat May 16, 2015 10:11 pm

N. Needleman wrote:
Ygdrasel wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:The only time that annoys me is when someone tries to tout their thing as superior when it isn't...Or when people say something is superior to the original when it's kludgily cut together.


You're basically just saying "I get annoyed when people prefer things that I don't!" in a less immediately ridiculous combination of words. It's pretty silly.


No, I'm not saying that at all. I welcome fan projects and edits, even if they're flawed. What I'm saying is that I think that people who tout their amateur product as superior to the original - particularly when their product is usually not properly cut together on a variety of levels - are obnoxious and almost always wildly off-base. I could go into chapter and verse of the usual pitfalls accompanying those kind of cuts, but that's even more off-topic.


"Superior", "amateur", "off-base"...Opinion words.

>They think their thing is better than the original
>You think their thing is amateur, and the original is better
>You get annoyed when they talk about their thing being superior, because you disagree.

Thus you are annoyed by them expressing a preference for a thing which you do not prefer.


But never mind. Back on the topic: I wonder if we'll see any new (or old) Lodge spirits. I want to see more of the Jumping Man.

And if the season is successful, I wonder if Lynch will have more in store. I would love to see the Twin Peaks universe expanded via more movies.

@Audrey: On the note of "They all look great", the initial revival announcement spawned hordes of those clickbaity "WHAT DO THEY LOOK LIKE NOW" 'articles' and...They all do look great...But you couldn't tell looking at some of the shots these sites went with. I had to look up Shelley myself to see if she regularly looked like a monster or not. (Thankfully not. The picture on the site was just really really terrible. Why would they pick awful photos for these things...)
Twin Peaks has layers, man. Twin Peaks is an onion. 8)
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 1887
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby N. Needleman » Sat May 16, 2015 11:13 pm

Ygdrasel wrote:"Superior", "amateur", "off-base"...Opinion words.

>They think their thing is better than the original
>You think their thing is amateur, and the original is better
>You get annoyed when they talk about their thing being superior, because you disagree.

Thus you are annoyed by them expressing a preference for a thing which you do not prefer.


No, I'm just annoyed by the presumption of some of those parties who trash the original even when their skill in post-production or constructing a coherent narrative doesn't match up. I can hardly stop you from telling us which fan edit you find superior, nor would I want to - go for it.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
Si78
Posts: 116
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:03 am

Re: Twin Peaks: Season Three confirmed for 2016 on Showtime

Postby Si78 » Sat May 16, 2015 11:39 pm

I am all for fan edits that try to fix known studio interference. The Fantasticks comes to mind.

Return to “Twin Peaks”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 18 guests