Parts 1 & 2 - My log has a message for you & The stars turn and a time presents itself (SPOILERS)

Discussion of each of the 18 parts of Twin Peaks the Return

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

User avatar
Cappy
Posts: 462
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2016 8:27 am

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby Cappy » Mon May 22, 2017 11:09 am

I think the Chromatics' lyric at the end summarized the experience on a lot of levels: "I took your picture from the frame / and now you're nothing like you seem"
User avatar
Jerry Horne
Posts: 4511
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 9:28 pm
Location: Private Portland Airport
Contact:

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby Jerry Horne » Mon May 22, 2017 11:14 am

kupe wrote:Do we know who the actor playing the burnt wide eyed figure in the jail cell is?


My first thought was David Patrick Kelly. Probably not though.
User avatar
iar
Posts: 127
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 5:17 pm
Location: Wales

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby iar » Mon May 22, 2017 11:14 am

I haven't posted around these parts for ages. But I check in all the time! So here I go....

So far I've only watched Part 1 + 2. I'll probably head over to 3 and 4 later this week, and before next Sunday.

I loved it. But I confess right now, I am a David Lynch fan, not a Twin Peaks fan (in other words, I am a fan of the latter by virtue of my love for everything the former makes). I have always experienced Twin Peaks as living on one side of David Lynch's output, and MD, LH and IE on the other. Maybe like a venn diagram. IMO 1990s television and Mark Frost are a big part of the reason Twin Peaks Season 1 and 2 was a great proportion lighter than Lynch's other stuff. Light-er. It was always dark.

Now in 2017, TV can't control Lynch. And Mark Frost, well I think he's giving this structure and I think we'll probably see more and more of his handiwork as we move through these 18 episodes.

David has developed as an artist, making not only those aforementioned films but Rabbits, 2D and 3D artwork, music.. that whole online experimentation phase (remember that??). I saw traces of all of his art in 1 + 2, and I was delighted. It feels like an evolution. But I also understand that if you're primarily a TP fan, then you might not love what you just saw. I admit that I DO hope we see more of the old characters, I DO hope we get some more music.

Finally, I want to interject on the FX situation. I dunno.. but I just don't understand the complaints. The FX back in 1990 sucked. The FX in all of Lynch's films have sucked. I've always thought it to be completely intentional, an attempt at reaching a certain aesthetic. It's also now 2017 and technologically-speaking, budget allowing, he could do almost anything he wanted to do and have it look fairly real. But why would Lynch ever do that? FX today are overused and as a consequence create predictable scenes. His hokey, hand made, ridiculous effects - when they land - wow... let me just say, that charcoal man in the jail cell. I will see that in my nightmares.


Finally finally.. whatever you think... isn't it wonderful that social media and the blogosphere doesn't really know what to say or do with this? I'd say that's a victory unto itself.
User avatar
Audrey Horne
Posts: 1954
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:20 pm
Location: The Great Northern

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby Audrey Horne » Mon May 22, 2017 11:15 am

N. Needleman wrote:I loved the ending at the Roadhouse. Adored it.



Me too.. I've probably watched it six or seven times.

The opening credits... The Falls run upward and inward into the screen... And quite frankly gives me uneasy vertigo... A metaphor for the show.

Tracy and No Name Guy watch the box like we watch our tv box, they watch us, we watch them... They try to figure us out, we try to figure them out.
God, I love this music. Isn't it too dreamy?
User avatar
Agent Sam Stanley
Posts: 1021
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:04 pm

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby Agent Sam Stanley » Mon May 22, 2017 11:17 am

Ok, a little late to the party but here's my first impressions:

The red room scenes looked terrible to me. Can't believe this was made by the same person who directed the brilliant ep 29. The CGI, FX or whatever it was looked really bad. The talking sycamore LMFAP evolved into looks terrible, it's very Lynchian but I don't like it. And I don't understand the concept of the Lodge inhabitants aging. I get that Cooper would, but the spirits? Hopefully it will be cleared up in later eps.

I liked the rest of it tho. Bad Cooper is better than I expected, the Chromatics scene was really beautiful and the glass box and Matthew Lillard plots were very Lynchian and engaging. Can't wait to see more.
oldforce
Posts: 52
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 9:18 am

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby oldforce » Mon May 22, 2017 11:21 am

N. Needleman wrote:I loved the ending at the Roadhouse. Adored it.


Yeah it was beautiful. A taste of the homecoming some were expecting and don't think they got?
User avatar
Mallard
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:47 pm

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby Mallard » Mon May 22, 2017 11:30 am

FanboyBen wrote:Hey all, this is my first post. I just caught up with Twin Peaks (the show, movie, and books) within the last month, and have been spending the last week pretty much just lurking around here, digesting as much as I can. I just watched the first two episodes and overall really dug the vibe of them–it definitely doesn't feel like "old Twin Peaks," but I'm okay with that, at least so far.

One observation and one question (okay, I actually have a TON of questions, but one that I'm especially curious about :)). Observation: I LOVED the blinking flashlight when they were looking in the back of Lillard's trunk. Such a cool, clever callback to the pilot. Question: what was that thing that they found in his trunk? I watched the episode on my computer, which is old and has a fairly dim screen light, so I couldn't really tell...was it a piece of skin?


I really wanted it to be an ear.
Welcome...to the third...place.
User avatar
garethw
Posts: 436
Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 8:48 pm
Location: Deep River

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby garethw » Mon May 22, 2017 11:31 am

FanboyBen wrote:Hey all, this is my first post. I just caught up with Twin Peaks (the show, movie, and books) within the last month, and have been spending the last week pretty much just lurking around here, digesting as much as I can. I just watched the first two episodes and overall really dug the vibe of them–it definitely doesn't feel like "old Twin Peaks," but I'm okay with that, at least so far.

One observation and one question (okay, I actually have a TON of questions, but one that I'm especially curious about :)). Observation: I LOVED the blinking flashlight when they were looking in the back of Lillard's trunk. Such a cool, clever callback to the pilot. Question: what was that thing that they found in his trunk? I watched the episode on my computer, which is old and has a fairly dim screen light, so I couldn't really tell...was it a piece of skin?


It looked kinda like sushi.

Maybe human sushi.
User avatar
Moz
Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Aug 03, 2012 7:11 am

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby Moz » Mon May 22, 2017 11:36 am

asmahan wrote:Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but in the last scene... was the the Bartender Walter Olkiewicz with a beard? I didn't see him in the credits.


It sure looked like him!
Rami Airola
Posts: 233
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:31 am

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby Rami Airola » Mon May 22, 2017 11:37 am

iar wrote:Finally, I want to interject on the FX situation. I dunno.. but I just don't understand the complaints. The FX back in 1990 sucked. The FX in all of Lynch's films have sucked. I've always thought it to be completely intentional, an attempt at reaching a certain aesthetic. It's also now 2017 and technologically-speaking, budget allowing, he could do almost anything he wanted to do and have it look fairly real.


It's just that we compare it to what we have previously seen in the Red Room.
Before things there completely looked like actual real things which made the Red Room feel like a very mysterious place that is at the same time concrete but still not concrete at all.

Now there were tons of things that took that feeling completely out of it. Completely.

I could tolerate that better in somewhere else than in the Red Room. Now it feels more like a computer game than an actual place you could visit some day.
User avatar
Soolsma
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby Soolsma » Mon May 22, 2017 11:47 am

The monster in the cube is what I imagine a lodge spirit without a vessel is.
Carrie Page: "It's a long way... In those days, I was too young to know any better."
Josh
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 4:34 am

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby Josh » Mon May 22, 2017 11:47 am

GrapesOnTheEdge wrote:Is the charred/black figure in the cell next to Hastings the same being that was seen in the woods just before Major Briggs was abducted in Ep 17?


I immediately thought the chap in the cell was The Electrician or possibly The Woodsman from FWWM.
User avatar
twin-b
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 8:28 pm

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby twin-b » Mon May 22, 2017 11:48 am

iar wrote:Finally, I want to interject on the FX situation. I dunno.. but I just don't understand the complaints. The FX back in 1990 sucked. The FX in all of Lynch's films have sucked. I've always thought it to be completely intentional, an attempt at reaching a certain aesthetic. It's also now 2017 and technologically-speaking, budget allowing, he could do almost anything he wanted to do and have it look fairly real. But why would Lynch ever do that? FX today are overused and as a consequence create predictable scenes. His hokey, hand made, ridiculous effects - when they land - wow... let me just say, that charcoal man in the jail cell. I will see that in my nightmares.


Setting aside Eraserhead and Inland Empire I'm sincerely curious to be reminded of a few examples of bad FX in his films?

Also, I'm curious if people thought the decapitated corpse looked real. I can appreciate the argument around how do you make an electric tree with an amorphous head look real. But if you balance that with really good, believable FX in more realistic situations, I think the more artistic stuff would feel more purposeful.
User avatar
SpookyDollhouse
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby SpookyDollhouse » Mon May 22, 2017 11:50 am

There's all this praise for Frost on the board and then turning around and saying "well it's weird where's Frost??" makes him seem like a one trick pony. And that's not the only time I've seen him and Lynch referred to as such. Who says he can't write like that?

Sing his praises, call it a group effort, but then you don't see a mark of "normality" and then go "wut that not he it only Lynch!!"

He deserves more credit right? Well right now I think he definitely does. :D
User avatar
RoddimusPrime
Posts: 14
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 3:05 pm

Re: Parts 1 + 2 (Spoilers)

Postby RoddimusPrime » Mon May 22, 2017 11:51 am

Josh wrote:
GrapesOnTheEdge wrote:Is the charred/black figure in the cell next to Hastings the same being that was seen in the woods just before Major Briggs was abducted in Ep 17?


I immediately thought the chap in the cell was The Electrician or possibly The Woodsman from FWWM.


Although the beard was shorter, this is exactly what I thought upon my second viewing. If the Woodsman is indeed the Log Lady's husband, as some suspect, it could be a very interesting turn.

Return to “Parts Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mr. Reindeer and 3 guests