Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

Agent327
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:12 pm

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

Postby Agent327 » Mon Aug 28, 2017 2:55 pm

douglasb wrote:This thread has been notably harsh on Lynch - Frost less so.


True. I think in general, Lynch gets 99 % of the praise as well. When I watch reviews, they pretty much assume that everything, every part of the writing is Lynch.
Same with the criticism, it's directed at Lynch.

And of course that's wrong. We know that Frost was responsible for key elements of the original TP. We even know that some of the most beloved lines had nothing to do with Lynch OR Frost........"Every day, once a day, give yourself a present. Don't plan it. Don't wait for it. Just let it happen" for instance, written by other writers. But credited as examples of "The brilliance of Lynch" by fans. That's just how it goes.

I think it's safe to assume that the hamfisted Jacoby Infowars stuff, as well as Nadine later going "he is the only one telling it like it is" is Frost. You don't have to spend more that 10 seconds on his twitter to expect things like that shoehorned into the show. Wally Brando's speech also struck me as something Frost would have written. He used to be known as the guy who kept the show fairly grounded, although this time it seems very hard for me personally to relate to ANY of it, while the original TP does a MUCH better job of that.
kleio
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:32 am

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

Postby kleio » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:10 pm

Venus wrote:The Audrey dance scene, even in her imagination - was it a 'you can never go back' footnote, a commentary on history not being able to repeated. Even if it was that it was still wrong, wrong, wrong. Quite cringey. On an online Q&A with Sherilyn Fenn I actually asked her how she felt about doing that dance scene in the original series and she said it was really embarrassing. I wonder how she felt about doing this now?

Continuing my Audrey analysis, I think it actually was a “you can go back” moment. Audrey has reclaimed her ability to a) move freely and b) enjoy things she used to. If we assume that her current comatose(?) state was a result of trauma either from the explosion or the explosion combined with evilCoop’s sexual assault (I’m starting to feel like I’m trapped in a Diana Gabaldon novel), then her inability to move to move freely is due to her fragmented state from not processing the trauma or from brain injury. Once she begins to re-integrate, she is free to move in a natural way. She finally makes it to the Roadhouse and the M.C. announcing Audrey’s Dance is the tipping point for her healing/reintegration. That she is able to dance allows her to wake up. The M.C. is her mind telling her she can do it. This is the moment to bring everything together. The fight is an attempt to derail it, but the process has progressed far enough that it cannot be derailed this time. She is strong enough to make it back.

I’ve started watching TP again and just watched the original of the dance last week. It’s been a long time since I’ve watched my DVDs (my work schedule precluded a run through prior to the new eps). Watching her do the dance again last night, I caught glimpses of the girl she used to be….the innocent one trying to find her place in the world who got carried away by the music.

Although I liked her character less in the original, I like her arc in the new. It's actually proved one of the most interesting parts for me.
User avatar
referendum
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:29 am

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

Postby referendum » Mon Aug 28, 2017 4:33 pm

Interesting AV club article on the use of sound & music in TP past and present:

''In fact, where its predecessor oozed sensuality, an all-encompassing lust rendered perverse by Killer Bob, this show’s sprawling cast of freaks, creeps, and immaculate-looking women exist within a largely sexless world. Relationships exist but passion does not; sex seems to be something engaged in meaninglessly or as a precursor to violence. When Gordon Cole chirps, “Last night I had another Monica Bellucci dream,” you don’t expect a utilitarian dump of philosophical exposition to ensue, but that is exactly what you get. Compare the cold marriages and broken romances of The Return with the keening, unrequited lusts of the original show, the criss-crossing love triangles and expressionistic longing, the agony people felt over just wanting to touch—and corrupt—Laura Palmer. What has been removed in The Return is more than just the music; it’s the warmth. In Lynch’s typically dualistic cosmos, The Return shows a universe drained of light, youth, love, and sex. It’s no wonder it’s gone silent.''

http://www.avclub.com/if-you-want-to-un ... 1798362242
''let's not overthink this opportunity''
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Mon Aug 28, 2017 8:48 pm

It is absolutely batshit insane to me that some people seem incapable of understanding how or why others might find this work to be a self-indulgent artistic failure.

I have reservations about the show, and am concerned that it might not add up to the sum of its "Parts," but overall, it's been an incredible experience for me, personally. I love it unabashedly. But I'm biased -- DKL has always resonated on my wavelength psychologically and emotionally. As I said in another post in this thread, I've been viewing the show not as an 18-hour movie, but as a series of vaguely interconnected beautiful short films. 16 hours in, I honestly think the piece succeeds the way I've been viewing it, but completely fails at being the 18-hour film DKL pitched it as. And I can certainly see where the glacial pacing within scenes could be viewed as pretentious, and the choppy presentation of the Becky, Walter/Norma, &c. storylines could be seen as ridiculously sloppy. If those things work for you, great! Most of it works for me (not the Walter/Norma story, tho', that was flat-out lazy writing). But it's tough to deny that, objectively, this thing has defied a ton of storytelling conventions. And IMO it's a completely justifiable position as a fan to say that L/F's radical choices just don't work for you. I love the show -- I love Part 16 in particular -- and I truly wish all you Disappointed folks could share my joy. But I don't understand some posters' constant poking-the-hornets'-nest impulse to try to gain converts. This is a "love it or hate it" show, and neither viewpoint is more or less valid.

I also do find the comments about Frost vs. Lynch fascinating. Many of the exposition/mythology-heavy "tell-don't show" scenes feel much more Frostian to me. I'm not looking to point fingers, but I do think a lot of the stuff that hasn't worked for me personally has been the more "story-driven" aspect...and that stuff feels -- to me -- like DKL trying unsuccessfully to honor stuff that Mark was passionate about, where DKL just couldn't find a way in as director despite his noblest intentions to truly honor the partnership this time around.

dronerstone wrote:I didn't like Eraserhead and have only seen Inland Empire once because it made me have slight panic attacks even days after watching, plus I'm not too fond of the whole TM Cult thing.


Sounds to me like IE had a pretty profound impact on you. Personally, if a work affects me that strongly, I don't consider it a failure, even if I never want to revisit it again.
User avatar
Venus
Posts: 457
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:10 pm
Location: England

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

Postby Venus » Mon Aug 28, 2017 10:49 pm

kleio wrote:
Venus wrote:The Audrey dance scene, even in her imagination - was it a 'you can never go back' footnote, a commentary on history not being able to repeated. Even if it was that it was still wrong, wrong, wrong. Quite cringey. On an online Q&A with Sherilyn Fenn I actually asked her how she felt about doing that dance scene in the original series and she said it was really embarrassing. I wonder how she felt about doing this now?

Continuing my Audrey analysis, I think it actually was a “you can go back” moment. Audrey has reclaimed her ability to a) move freely and b) enjoy things she used to. If we assume that her current comatose(?) state was a result of trauma either from the explosion or the explosion combined with evilCoop’s sexual assault (I’m starting to feel like I’m trapped in a Diana Gabaldon novel), then her inability to move to move freely is due to her fragmented state from not processing the trauma or from brain injury. Once she begins to re-integrate, she is free to move in a natural way. She finally makes it to the Roadhouse and the M.C. announcing Audrey’s Dance is the tipping point for her healing/reintegration. That she is able to dance allows her to wake up. The M.C. is her mind telling her she can do it. This is the moment to bring everything together. The fight is an attempt to derail it, but the process has progressed far enough that it cannot be derailed this time. She is strong enough to make it back.


I think you completely missed my point which was based in reality and not in the storyline.

Also if I had any idea on how on earth you multi quote from different posters on here I would be quoting Mr Reindeer and just saying, 'We love you Mr R'. As measured and fair as ever. V interesting too.
When Jupiter and Saturn meet...
Rialto
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:56 am

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

Postby Rialto » Tue Aug 29, 2017 12:32 am

With the demise of Chantal and Hutch, I'm left wondering - has Lynch been waiting since 1994 to let us know he's not that keen on Tarantino?

Honestly, what was the point of these two except to carry out acts of pointless violence, bitch about fast food, then get dispatched in an over the top shower of bullets as a result of a banal road rage altercation, unconnected to the main plot (such as it is).

This really is Lynch's Love Actually - a rag bag of incomplete ideas stitched together under a nominally unifying banner.
mlsstwrt
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:35 am

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

Postby mlsstwrt » Tue Aug 29, 2017 1:51 am

Rialto wrote:With the demise of Chantal and Hutch, I'm left wondering - has Lynch been waiting since 1994 to let us know he's not that keen on Tarantino?

Honestly, what was the point of these two except to carry out acts of pointless violence, bitch about fast food, then get dispatched in an over the top shower of bullets as a result of a banal road rage altercation, unconnected to the main plot (such as it is).

This really is Lynch's Love Actually - a rag bag of incomplete ideas stitched together under a nominally unifying banner.


Maybe that's it. I mean why else use Tim Roth? But I think if he wanted to stick a middle finger up to Tarantino he could have done it in one scene, not make us spend significant time with these tedious characters. Plus it just seems that so much of TPTR is Lynch/Frost enacting petty vengeances like this, rather than focusing on creating a great work.
User avatar
boske
Posts: 443
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:15 am

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

Postby boske » Tue Aug 29, 2017 2:01 am

douglasb wrote:This thread has been notably harsh on Lynch - Frost less so. Yet I wonder if the lack of simple entertainment that many have highlighted should be laid at his door. I think you could see a problem even before the series began - that hidden supposed message in the spines of books in an image in TSHOTP. That kind of clever-clever wink-wink shtick that is a smokescreen for the lack of a decent story. I can appreciate it - even if I have to have other people point it out - but first and foremost make the ride worth taking. Then you can have your esoteric fun.

Both should share critiques or praises in measure to their respective contributions. I have no interest in the Return starting next Monday with one exception: the original script. I would very much like to read it. I have enjoyed TSHOTP, it seems as if more care went into producing it (compelling stories, illustrations, different designs and layouts) than the show. I mean Frost was into recreating postage stamps. On the downside there are continuity errors there, and we have not yet been given any explanations (with only two hours remaining).

With that said, I do not think Frost had anything to do with the following, and I'd like to read the original script just to see if I am right here or not:
  • Roadhouse bands;
  • Vile language (Trucker from part 14, Steven while with Gersten in the forest, etc.);
  • Monica Belucci;
  • Unwarranted overemphasis on the character of Gordon Cole, his boring and braindead cassocks/cossacks style jokes and multiple mishaps involving his hearing equipment;
  • The South Dakota escort lady;
  • Keeping Harry Truman as part of the script if there is no intention to have him reprise the role (even if for a brief moment; the jury is still out on this one);
  • Nudity, where it would have been just fine without it (e.g. Jade, even Naido); There are more subtle ways of inferring what happened or is going on;
This applies to plot only, and I have certainly forgotten a few more. I do not think we should involve Frost with what kind of equipment they were going to use and so on, the sloppy editing and various glitches, etc.

However, somebody else has observed yesterday here (edit: it was Mr. Reindeer), that some of the failures may have been due to Lynch trying to preserve as much of Frost's intentions as possible and that it simply did not work. That I think is a very fair assessment. Maybe this thing would have been better with just Lynch doing it on his own.
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

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

Postby mtwentz » Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:14 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote:It is absolutely batshit insane to me that some people seem incapable of understanding how or why others might find this work to be a self-indulgent artistic failure.

I have reservations about the show, and am concerned that it might not add up to the sum of its "Parts," but overall, it's been an incredible experience for me, personally. I love it unabashedly. But I'm biased -- DKL has always resonated on my wavelength psychologically and emotionally. As I said in another post in this thread, I've been viewing the show not as an 18-hour movie, but as a series of vaguely interconnected beautiful short films. 16 hours in, I honestly think the piece succeeds the way I've been viewing it, but completely fails at being the 18-hour film DKL pitched it as. And I can certainly see where the glacial pacing within scenes could be viewed as pretentious, and the choppy presentation of the Becky, Walter/Norma, &c. storylines could be seen as ridiculously sloppy. If those things work for you, great! Most of it works for me (not the Walter/Norma story, tho', that was flat-out lazy writing). But it's tough to deny that, objectively, this thing has defied a ton of storytelling conventions. And IMO it's a completely justifiable position as a fan to say that L/F's radical choices just don't work for you. I love the show -- I love Part 16 in particular -- and I truly wish all you Disappointed folks could share my joy. But I don't understand some posters' constant poking-the-hornets'-nest impulse to try to gain converts. This is a "love it or hate it" show, and neither viewpoint is more or less valid.

I also do find the comments about Frost vs. Lynch fascinating. Many of the exposition/mythology-heavy "tell-don't show" scenes feel much more Frostian to me. I'm not looking to point fingers, but I do think a lot of the stuff that hasn't worked for me personally has been the more "story-driven" aspect...and that stuff feels -- to me -- like DKL trying unsuccessfully to honor stuff that Mark was passionate about, where DKL just couldn't find a way in as director despite his noblest intentions to truly honor the partnership this time around.

dronerstone wrote:I didn't like Eraserhead and have only seen Inland Empire once because it made me have slight panic attacks even days after watching, plus I'm not too fond of the whole TM Cult thing.


Sounds to me like IE had a pretty profound impact on you. Personally, if a work affects me that strongly, I don't consider it a failure, even if I never want to revisit it again.


What is the difference between declaring something an artistic failure and stating one simply does not like a piece of art? That's my issue with the term 'artistic failure'- it give the air of something that is a critical consensus but really it's a personal opinion.

In my view there are 3 categories of evaluating art 1) each person's subjective opinion, 2) commercial success or failure, and 3) critical/awards success or failure

Note: in the age of streaming number two is increasing ly hard to assess from the outside.
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Tue Aug 29, 2017 4:56 am

mtwentz wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:What is the difference between declaring something an artistic failure and stating one simply does not like a piece of art? That's my issue with the term 'artistic failure'- it give the air of something that is a critical consensus but really it's a personal opinion.


I don't know that there is a difference. I was taught at some point that you never use the words "In my opinion..." when writing a critical analysis because it's implied in every single sentence. I understand why you think "artistic failure" sounds like a sweeping objective statement, but I don't take it that way. Like pretty much everything else in critical review, I think it's a deeply subjective phrase meant to convey a PERSONAL opinion that the artist has failed that particular viewer/patron/consumer. I might be wrong, and I'm sure a few users on here (both pro and con) feel their opinion is objective truth, but I truly believe that "in my opinion..." is implied in most of the posts in this thread.
User avatar
Bookworm
Posts: 66
Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2016 8:13 am

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

Postby Bookworm » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:18 am

Rialto wrote:With the demise of Chantal and Hutch, I'm left wondering - has Lynch been waiting since 1994 to let us know he's not that keen on Tarantino?

Honestly, what was the point of these two except to carry out acts of pointless violence, bitch about fast food, then get dispatched in an over the top shower of bullets as a result of a banal road rage altercation, unconnected to the main plot (such as it is).

This really is Lynch's Love Actually - a rag bag of incomplete ideas stitched together under a nominally unifying banner.


This. It's among the things that annoyed me the most. That guy who pop out of nowhere and kill two competent (for once) professional killers was a really lame move. Again I was under the impression that was Lynch doing Lynch. In fact what I like in a work is when the author disappear behind his story, just being a voice who tell a tale. And with the Return since the beginning Lynch, well it's like a text popped up on my screen every five minutes reminding me "You're watching a Lynch show" "Hey, did I told you you're beholding a Lynch show?" "This is a Lynch production you're beholding there!" Also too much emphasis on Gordon Cole. And to think they told Cooper would be at the center of the story. Now that sound like a cruel and unfair joke. Because honestly how long was Cooper on screen? The real one, not that ridiculous and tired Zombie joke. And Mr.C? And how long for Gordon and Albert? I'd really like to know, even a simple estimation.

I know, the Return isn't solely Lynch, Frost was there too, but still, for me that new season was an excuse for Lynch to create a sort of testament, a melting-pot of everything Lynch so much that it become a cliché. It was as if Lynch paid homage to himself, nodding to himself with a knowing wink.

This is what happen when you give too much creative freedom to someone like Lynch. For the majority it's pure genius and never seen before television. For me it's just disappointment and tired Lynch tropes.

boske wrote:When TP aired originally I was 18. I remember watching that very last scene with maniacal/giddy Cooper as Frost and Lynch names appeared on the screen. And I said to myself "can this really be it?" It was such a loss at the end of that dark, tragic, and yet beautiful and magical journey, to imagine that this iconic character would be resigned to such a fate without any possibility of redemption.

Does it matter? Sure it does, why not? Hundreds of years have passed and Shakespeare's plays still resonate, the same so with Dante's or Goethe's work, for example.

I always felt that Lynch sincerely liked this world that he and Frost have created, and that if it were up to him, and if the right moment and inspiration came along, he'd revisit it and give this world and its characters some closure, some peace and justice. So I never gave hope, just like the people who set up and ran this site. I was on this board in early 2000s (did not register until much later), when the show was as dead as a door knob. Why? So that I can be called a "hater" 15 years later? Some people feel like this thread is a like a zoo with some exotic animals. What I see are genuine fans of the show (not to take anything from people who like the Return), whose issues with the Return strike a chord with me. I understand them, I get what it is that bothers them, it bothers me too.

Anyway, in the intertwining years, I was still rewatching the originals occasionally, and the accompanying music was always (and still is) nearby (in the air) whenever I feel like listening to it. Soundtracks and both Julee Cruise's albums are still in my collection and on my phone and will remain there. Last autumn as I was travelling late at night, I played the entire TP Archive, that is about 7 hours of music. Yes, and some of that was while driving through forests, that was quite an experience.

And then: "Dear Twitter friends, that gum that you like is coming back in style". And here we are right now. That gum did not come back in style, there was no style whatsoever, and the gum was nowhere to be seen either.

The past pages of this thread give the reason why this Return for me is such a missed opportunity. This is once in a lifetime chance, and they blew it. Yes, it may receive some critical acclaim, and yes, most of the people will love it. But this is a pale shadow (no pun intended) of what it may have been. Would Return create a fan base that would wait another 25 years for it to continue if it were possible? Honestly?

We should have gotten a compelling story with real and compassionate characters. Around here nobody is watching it anymore. Years ago all my friends were, nowadays it is hard to find anybody who does. We did get some news articles when the Return was just about to air and that was it, nothing since then. Complete silence. Even HBO Europe is not advertising it anymore, has not been for at least a month if not more.

There can be no excuses for what they have done with Dougie, how that was played and executed. The same with these myriad characters. What was the goal here? What was their aim? What were they trying to achieve? The past pages also go into the feel, mood, atmosphere, heart. There is barely any.

So yes, at this point I do not care. Yes, I know, Coop is back. But it is like a story of a boy who courts a girl and week after week she gives him some excuses. One after another. Soon enough he feels the she may be playing him for sports and even suspects she tells her friends how dumb he really is. And then he goes cold, that's it. Whatever interest there was is now no more, it is not coming back. She may finally say yes to him, but that train has left the station and is not coming back. Yes, this may sounds cheesy or silly, but there are limits in teasing your audience. If your main goal is to tease them week after week and give that what they want in the eleventh hour or later, maybe it is better to have not given it to them at all. Otherwise it feels like you are having some pity for having humiliated them for so long.

I'll try to approach the last two hours as a standalone feature, maybe there will be just that one positive thing about it all. And then the curtain falls on it. As I said earlier, I should have read a book or two instead of watching this. For people who like the show, I hope you gets season 4, I'm not watching though.


I just want to thanks you because it's what I feel exactly. You put it better than I would ever been able to. It was like watching a cruel parody of what was once a beautiful story. It's like watching a kid who don't like a toy anymore and just destroy it with a hammer. It was a beautiful and precious toy, and now it's just reduced to broken pieces scattered on the ground.
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

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

Postby mtwentz » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:39 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
mtwentz wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:What is the difference between declaring something an artistic failure and stating one simply does not like a piece of art? That's my issue with the term 'artistic failure'- it give the air of something that is a critical consensus but really it's a personal opinion.


I don't know that there is a difference. I was taught at some point that you never use the words "In my opinion..." when writing a critical analysis because it's implied in every single sentence. I understand why you think "artistic failure" sounds like a sweeping objective statement, but I don't take it that way. Like pretty much everything else in critical review, I think it's a deeply subjective phrase meant to convey a PERSONAL opinion that the artist has failed that particular viewer/patron/consumer. I might be wrong, and I'm sure a few users on here (both pro and con) feel their opinion is objective truth, but I truly believe that "in my opinion..." is implied in most of the posts in this thread.


On the contrary Mr. Reindeer, I see you using qualifiers all the time, which I think is one of the reasons your posts cause the least amount of acrimony. You may not specifically use 'in my opinion', but other phrases like, 'that scene did not work FOR ME'

I think if everybody generally qualified their opinions as such, there'd be a lot less arguments on this forum and much more actual film analysis. Because facts can always be argued, while it's basically folly to argue personal opinions/feelings/preferences/tastes.
Last edited by mtwentz on Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
mlsstwrt
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:35 am

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

Postby mlsstwrt » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:45 am

Are you serious? Every time we express a view we have to qualify our opinion? It's implicit in saying, 'This is good' or 'This is bad' that the view is subjective. GTFO.

Reindeer is well received here because he is balanced and doesn't go out of his way to be condescending or acerbic. He always shows awareness that he's posting in a thread that has manifestly not been created for lovers of TPTR. It goes a long way. You on the other hand, add very little.
Last edited by mlsstwrt on Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2494
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Tue Aug 29, 2017 5:46 am

mtwentz wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote: don't know that there is a difference. I was taught at some point that you never use the words "In my opinion..." when writing a critical analysis because it's implied in every single sentence. I understand why you think "artistic failure" sounds like a sweeping objective statement, but I don't take it that way. Like pretty much everything else in critical review, I think it's a deeply subjective phrase meant to convey a PERSONAL opinion that the artist has failed that particular viewer/patron/consumer. I might be wrong, and I'm sure a few users on here (both pro and con) feel their opinion is objective truth, but I truly believe that "in my opinion..." is implied in most of the posts in this thread.


On the contrary Mr. Reindeer, I see you using qualifiers all the time, which I think is one of the reasons your posts cause the least amount of acrimony. You may not specifically use 'in my opinion', but other phrases like, 'that scene did not work FOR ME'


Heh, glad I'm doing some good for the forum while disappointing my old college professor. :lol:
Metamorphia
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2015 4:52 am

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

Postby Metamorphia » Tue Aug 29, 2017 6:02 am

Rialto wrote:With the demise of Chantal and Hutch, I'm left wondering - has Lynch been waiting since 1994 to let us know he's not that keen on Tarantino?

Honestly, what was the point of these two except to carry out acts of pointless violence, bitch about fast food, then get dispatched in an over the top shower of bullets as a result of a banal road rage altercation, unconnected to the main plot (such as it is).

This really is Lynch's Love Actually - a rag bag of incomplete ideas stitched together under a nominally unifying banner.


You don't think they typify an underlying culture of ignorance/violence/hatred prevalent in America (and the world) today? They're only unconnected to the plot if you're totally incapable of reading anything vaguely thematic into what you're watching.

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests