Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

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

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

User avatar
ScarFace32
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby ScarFace32 » Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:58 pm

Wonderful & Strange wrote:
When people get upset or annoyed about some of the Lodge FX, it's because they have a preconception of the "real." .


No, everyone keeps ignoring what I've said to tell me the effects don't have to be realistic. No shit. I never said they had to be realistic. I'm all for surrealistic or completely unnatural special effects. The problem is these effects are shitty and cheap and look like they are from some stupid game like fucking candy crush or one of those stupid instagram apps where it transposes shit over the picture
User avatar
SpookyDollhouse
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby SpookyDollhouse » Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:59 pm

ScarFace32 wrote:
SpookyDollhouse wrote:People are still going off about the CGI? Has everybody been conditioned so widely that CGI must inherently equal realism, and that intentionally wanting to look like something else is unthinkable/nigh implausible? I'm not saying "you have to like it" but jeez louise is it getting old. "MUH BUDGET!" all you want I guess. lol


Please dude those special effects looked so shitty. Nobody said "CGI must equal realism". CGI fucking sucks, but that was just so awful and stupid and cheap


Everybody's argument that "they look shitty" is almost always in regards to them not looking specifically realistic as-per typical opinion on CGI. They look exactly how they wanted them to look, there's no need to continuously go over this. If it doesn't look like how you wanted to or say it should, then too bad I guess.

BTW CGI is another tool and doesn't inherently suck just like any other doesn't. :P
User avatar
ScarFace32
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby ScarFace32 » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:07 pm

SpookyDollhouse wrote:
ScarFace32 wrote:
SpookyDollhouse wrote:People are still going off about the CGI? Has everybody been conditioned so widely that CGI must inherently equal realism, and that intentionally wanting to look like something else is unthinkable/nigh implausible? I'm not saying "you have to like it" but jeez louise is it getting old. "MUH BUDGET!" all you want I guess. lol


Please dude those special effects looked so shitty. Nobody said "CGI must equal realism". CGI fucking sucks, but that was just so awful and stupid and cheap


Everybody's argument that "they look shitty" is almost always in regards to them not looking specifically realistic as-per typical opinion on CGI. They look exactly how they wanted them to look, there's no need to continuously go over this. If it doesn't look like how you wanted to or say it should, then too bad I guess.

BTW CGI is another tool and doesn't inherently suck just like any other doesn't. :P


No that's not the point at all. Do they look exactly like they wanted it to look? Or did the special effects guy do the shittiest fucking job ever on a 1995 computer? How do you know they didn't use up the budget and had to go super cheap on these digital effects with the tulpa scenes? These effects were fucking awful, it has nothing to do with realism at all. & CGI totally fucking blows always, the Lodge was so sinister and dark and intriguing before, the kind of place you only see in dreams....now it's like a place where people turn into really really really fucking shitty computer animations. It's lost what made it special because of terrible digital effects.
User avatar
Saturn's child
Posts: 394
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:38 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby Saturn's child » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:09 pm

ScarFace32 wrote:The problem is these effects are shitty and cheap and look like they are from some stupid game like fucking candy crush or one of those stupid instagram apps where it transposes shit over the picture


Wholeheartedly disagree with you. I've loved all of the digital effects used so far, despite being quite sceptical of digital manipulation in general. They just take me to the right place.
User avatar
referendum
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:29 am

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby referendum » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:12 pm

The problem is these effects are shitty and cheap and look like they are from some stupid game like fucking candy crush or one of those stupid instagram apps where it transposes shit over the picture


look - shitty effects: https://theapproach.co.uk/artists/john-stezaker/images/
''let's not overthink this opportunity''
User avatar
ScarFace32
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby ScarFace32 » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:19 pm

referendum wrote:
The problem is these effects are shitty and cheap and look like they are from some stupid game like fucking candy crush or one of those stupid instagram apps where it transposes shit over the picture


look - shitty effects: https://theapproach.co.uk/artists/john-stezaker/images/


I don't get it, those aren't digital effects
Last edited by ScarFace32 on Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
SpookyDollhouse
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby SpookyDollhouse » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:19 pm

ScarFace32 wrote:
SpookyDollhouse wrote:
ScarFace32 wrote:
Please dude those special effects looked so shitty. Nobody said "CGI must equal realism". CGI fucking sucks, but that was just so awful and stupid and cheap


Everybody's argument that "they look shitty" is almost always in regards to them not looking specifically realistic as-per typical opinion on CGI. They look exactly how they wanted them to look, there's no need to continuously go over this. If it doesn't look like how you wanted to or say it should, then too bad I guess.

BTW CGI is another tool and doesn't inherently suck just like any other doesn't. :P


No that's not the point at all. Do they look exactly like they wanted it to look? Or did the special effects guy do the shittiest fucking job ever on a 1995 computer? How do you know they didn't use up the budget and had to go super cheap on these digital effects with the tulpa scenes? These effects were fucking awful, it has nothing to do with realism at all. & CGI totally fucking blows always, the Lodge was so sinister and dark and intriguing before, the kind of place you only see in dreams....now it's like a place where people turn into really really really fucking shitty computer animations. It's lost what made it special because of terrible digital effects.


Dude it's so incredibly intentional compared to everything else. There's no way in hell it was the budget or incompetence. These effects are essentially ripped straight from a short film Lynch did some years ago, both in execution and aesthetic. I can't see how one can't see this unless you got it drilled in your head so deeply that nobody would ever want anything to look this way, which once again, I see ppl harp on special effects all the time. This isn't new. If you wanna keep screaming MUH BUDGETS then be my guest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uDsVi2EU_E

EDIT: video won't emb properly so here's the bare link
Last edited by SpookyDollhouse on Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
SpookyDollhouse
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby SpookyDollhouse » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:21 pm

ScarFace32 wrote:
referendum wrote:
The problem is these effects are shitty and cheap and look like they are from some stupid game like fucking candy crush or one of those stupid instagram apps where it transposes shit over the picture


look - shitty effects: https://theapproach.co.uk/artists/john-stezaker/images/


I don't get it, those aren't digital effects


Nobody's saying those are digital effects. It's an example of physical collage work in comparison to what's essentially being done with computers in Twin Peaks.
User avatar
Deep Thought
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2016 7:05 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby Deep Thought » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:22 pm

ScarFace32 wrote: How do you know they didn't use up the budget and had to go super cheap on these digital effects with the tulpa scenes?


Because if that was the case they could have acheived much more realistic effects with freeware and an intern.
There's your roast beef and cheese.
User avatar
ScarFace32
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:45 pm

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby ScarFace32 » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:27 pm

SpookyDollhouse wrote:
ScarFace32 wrote:
referendum wrote:
look - shitty effects: https://theapproach.co.uk/artists/john-stezaker/images/


I don't get it, those aren't digital effects


Nobody's saying those are digital effects. It's an example of physical collage work in comparison to what's essentially being done with computers in Twin Peaks.


What's the comparison? Those collages are well executed while the Tulpa disappearing scenes look like shit
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2914
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:28 pm

ScarFace32 wrote:No that's not the point at all. Do they look exactly like they wanted it to look? Or did the special effects guy do the shittiest fucking job ever on a 1995 computer? How do you know they didn't use up the budget and had to go super cheap on these digital effects with the tulpa scenes?


By looking at DKL's paintings, drawings, Photoshop "experiments," &c. He loves playing around with dimensions, space, overlaying one forced perspective onto a completely different perspective. Doesn't mean you have to like it, or that it can't take you out of the scene, but it's definitely intentional.
User avatar
Saturn's child
Posts: 394
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:38 pm
Location: Blue Mountains

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby Saturn's child » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:30 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:By looking at DKL's paintings, drawings, Photoshop "experiments," &c. He loves playing around with dimensions, space, overlaying one forced perspective onto a completely different perspective. Doesn't mean you have to like it, or that it can't take you out of the scene, but it's definitely intentional.


:!:
User avatar
SpookyDollhouse
Posts: 312
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby SpookyDollhouse » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:32 pm

ScarFace32 wrote:
SpookyDollhouse wrote:
ScarFace32 wrote:
I don't get it, those aren't digital effects


Nobody's saying those are digital effects. It's an example of physical collage work in comparison to what's essentially being done with computers in Twin Peaks.


What's the comparison? Those collages are well executed while the Tulpa disappearing scenes look like shit


I think ur wanting to argue just for the sake of it now. :P
Watch the video I linked.
cgs027
Posts: 132
Joined: Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby cgs027 » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:40 pm

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
ScarFace32 wrote:No that's not the point at all. Do they look exactly like they wanted it to look? Or did the special effects guy do the shittiest fucking job ever on a 1995 computer? How do you know they didn't use up the budget and had to go super cheap on these digital effects with the tulpa scenes?


By looking at DKL's paintings, drawings, Photoshop "experiments," &c. He loves playing around with dimensions, space, overlaying one forced perspective onto a completely different perspective. Doesn't mean you have to like it, or that it can't take you out of the scene, but it's definitely intentional.


Just look at Dumbland as a reference. Super crude, base animation. And lo and behold, the head of the teddy bear in the Horne scene was taken 100% from this. So yes, he is definitely intentional in some of these "amateurish" looking effects, they all mirror an aesthetic he's been cultivating for his entire adult life.
User avatar
referendum
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:29 am

Re: Part 16 - No knock, no doorbell (SPOILERS)

Postby referendum » Fri Sep 01, 2017 1:41 pm

mr reindeer
looking at DKL's paintings, drawings, Photoshop "experiments," &c. He loves playing around with dimensions, space, overlaying one forced perspective onto a completely different perspective. Doesn't mean you have to like it, or that it can't take you out of the scene, but it's definitely intentional.


yes this is the thing i really like about this series, he throws all this into the soup, and the kitchen sink, and then all the stuff you have never even thought about that lurks behind the kitchen sink. Does it always add up to one great dish? No. Is it amazing to watch? Yes. Do you ( we) know what is going to happen next? No.
Last edited by referendum on Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
''let's not overthink this opportunity''

Return to “Parts Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests