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

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

User avatar
Snailhead
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 2:45 pm

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

Postby Snailhead » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:45 am

Castledoque wrote:So according to the spoiler thread of the coming Mark Frost book,
Spoiler:
Laura Palmer is now missing instead of dead and Sarah hosts a demon since she was a teenager, which means that two demon hosts got married and fathered a being of white lodge light.
Does anyone else find all this convoluted mess profoundly dissappointing and a far cry (a) from the sublime simplicity of the first season of twin peaks and (b) from the beguiling and mystical mystery of the first half of season 2?


WTF. That's not good.
Welcome to Canada...
User avatar
powerleftist
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:40 pm

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

Postby powerleftist » Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:15 pm

The Sarah thing is also completely incoherent with her portrayal and behavior during Season 1.

This is what we call a 'retcon' in comic-books. I have often mentioned comic-books in this thread before; The Return feels at times like an X-Men story: time travelling, superpowers, Fireman = The Watcher, parallel dimensions, dark versions of the heroes, teleportation... I like the X-Men but that's not what Twin Peaks was about.

I would also note that Mark Frost has written Marvel superheroes before.
User avatar
Taperecorder
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed May 17, 2017 7:53 am

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

Postby Taperecorder » Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:02 pm

Castledoque wrote:So according to the spoiler thread of the coming Mark Frost book,
Spoiler:
Laura Palmer is now missing instead of dead and Sarah hosts a demon since she was a teenager, which means that two demon hosts got married and fathered a being of white lodge light.
Does anyone else find all this convoluted mess profoundly disappointing and a far cry (a) from the sublime simplicity of the first season of twin peaks and (b) from the beguiling and mystical mystery of the first half of season 2?


Yes. Absolutely.
-
As above, so below.
-
User avatar
rugerblackhawk357
Posts: 48
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2017 7:57 pm

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

Postby rugerblackhawk357 » Mon Oct 30, 2017 5:34 pm

Taperecorder wrote:
Castledoque wrote:So according to the spoiler thread of the coming Mark Frost book,
Spoiler:
Laura Palmer is now missing instead of dead and Sarah hosts a demon since she was a teenager, which means that two demon hosts got married and fathered a being of white lodge light.
Does anyone else find all this convoluted mess profoundly disappointing and a far cry (a) from the sublime simplicity of the first season of twin peaks and (b) from the beguiling and mystical mystery of the first half of season 2?


Yes. Absolutely.


I'm starting to think that something as "genuine" and innovative like Twin Peaks Seasons 1 and 2 could really not exist in 2017. Maybe that's what Frost and Lynch did wrong. Think about it: We are constantly craving backstory, explanation, entire world building. Where-as a storyteller just told a story. He or she used archetypes and experiences to feed your imagination, creating a dance that made you feel wonder. I am totally fine with subtle hints and mystery. The Return was not that. They literally destroyed the museum that the works of art lived in. And maybe that's our fault. We expected Twin Peaks Season 3, and they said "F*** It, i can't do that. You want us to make you feel like a kid again. We aren't Santa Claus. Here's an expressionist painting. Maybe you will see meaning somewhere and we will get paid."
Sometimes i wish i was better off dead. No wait. Not me. You.
User avatar
Snailhead
Posts: 528
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 2:45 pm

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

Postby Snailhead » Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:18 pm

I really wouldn't mind the revisionism if the whole thing was off the wall bonkers. If the whole thing was in the style of the beginning of Part 3, Part 8, and the end of Part 17/18, fine. It would have been easier to accept as a tangent based on the imagery and ideas of Twin Peaks. But it's the fact that the questionable narrative additions of those more abstract parts exist in conjunction with all of the bland exposition of the rest of it.
Welcome to Canada...
User avatar
Aqwell
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2017 9:03 am
Location: France

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

Postby Aqwell » Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:01 pm

It reminds me of Highlander II, and the all planet Zeist thing... or the Midi-chlorian bs from Star Wars The Phantom Menace, arrrh... Stupid ideas to explain things that didn't need to be explain in the first place. Keep magic magical for god's sake. But Lynch did much worse, transforming a credible down to earth character into what, Superman? Which makes The Fireman and his lady friend Jor-El and Lara? Good job Mr Fireman, she ended up a coke addicted whore, what a savior. :|
Lynch really needs to be locked up before he makes more damages, but it's already too late for TP I'm affraid.
User avatar
powerleftist
Posts: 97
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:40 pm

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

Postby powerleftist » Tue Oct 31, 2017 12:03 am

Snailhead wrote:I really wouldn't mind the revisionism if the whole thing was off the wall bonkers. If the whole thing was in the style of the beginning of Part 3, Part 8, and the end of Part 17/18, fine. It would have been easier to accept as a tangent based on the imagery and ideas of Twin Peaks. But it's the fact that the questionable narrative additions of those more abstract parts exist in conjunction with all of the bland exposition of the rest of it.

I would have liked the show a lot more if every chapter was in the mood of Part 3 and 8 (not so much 17 and 18, though).

Specially skipping Las Vegas which, after all was said and done, was a colossal waste of time.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:13 pm

Sigh. So let's try this again, this time bending over backwards to accommodate the denials of the show's fans. Let's try to establish some stuff that even they can't deny, no matter how contorted and desperate their attempts.

1. The Return is at the very least equivocal about nostalgia. (In reality the show is plainly anti-nostalgic, but bending over backwards etc...). It has many moments, a number of them at pivotal moments, that might be understood as anti-nostalgic.

2. This site contains a six page thread on the topic of references in the show to Lynch's other works, a thread populated mainly by the show's fans, incidentally. Very few if any other TV dramas have ever prompted such a thread. These references are in no way equivocal. They're nostalgic.

So here's the question for the fans, once again: would you yourself make such a show? I.e. one capable of prompting a six page thread on its nostalgic references to your own career, while the show itself features so much anti-nostalgia at pivotal moments?

Can you see that this combination might be troubling for viewers? If no, why not? If yes, but you'd decide to go ahead with it anyway, why is that? Why would celebrating your own career be so vital that you'd risk such an embarrassing clash with the (cough) equivocal treatment of nostlagia elsewhere? Can you point to any other works that do this that you admire, or even better to any comments you've made elsewhere praising such works? This would really help overcome the impression that we're now deep into 'defend TR at all costs, just because' territory, even by the standards of this site.

But let's begin with the first question. Yes or no. Would you yourself make such a show?
Ad hominems, straw men and selective blindness are the default tactics of fanboys served up a turkey.
BGate
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:15 am

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

Postby BGate » Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:12 pm

I read that thread and nearly every single example is not a "reference to Lynch's work", it's either a major stretch or just someone saying "Hey, it was probably unintentional, but this kinda reminded me of this." The fact that you wield that thread as some kind of hammer of empirical evidence in lieu of making an argument yourself is quite telling.
Castledoque
Posts: 19
Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2017 1:34 am

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

Postby Castledoque » Wed Nov 01, 2017 4:51 am

I am relieved to see that I am not alone in being disappointed with the explanations given with the new book.
At least all the spoilers regarding the Mark Frost book strongly imply that Frost's writing is at least as much to blame as Lynch's excesses for the mess that Season 3 turned into.
Most of the things I am unhappy with seem to come from the original screenplay
Spoiler:
(Rewriting of history, merging of two Coopers, worst of all: demon hosts getting married and birthing saviors, etc).

It is a pity that Frost seems to have lost his touch for credible storytelling, but at least there is the small silver lining that David Lynch (whom I deeply respect as an innovative artist) was only partly to blame for this disaster.

However, from everything I have heard, Frost's book unfortunately seems to hammer the final nail on the coffin of what was once Twin Peaks.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Wed Nov 01, 2017 8:55 am

BGate wrote:I read that thread and nearly every single example is not a "reference to Lynch's work", it's either a major stretch or just someone saying "Hey, it was probably unintentional, but this kinda reminded me of this." The fact that you wield that thread as some kind of hammer of empirical evidence in lieu of making an argument yourself is quite telling.


You can spin it however you wish, but that thread exists. That's what my last post was about, to drag discussion back to consensual reality. Surely even you would not deny that that thread exists (It exists in a parallel dimension? Something to do with quantum mechanics?). Such a thing exists for very few if any other TV dramas.

That TR is unusually nostalgic about the writer-director's own career is hardly news. After hundreds of pages of this thread this is the first sustained denial of such nostalgia, even from fans who've been posting here all along, and the reason for this seems obvious: the juxtaposition of this nostalgia with the show's (twitch) equivocal treatment of nostalgia is artistically disastrous.

We might even view the suddenness and desperation of these denials as acknowledging how damaging this juxtaposition is, so poor artistically that it must be denied no matter what. And yeah, they're right, it is indeed disastrous, as bad in its own way as BOB vs Green Glove, the erasure of Laura's murder, the 'it was all a dream' garbage, or 'Not [soft] where it counts, buddy'. I myself winced on Lynch's behalf when it was pointed out to me.

But if that thread’s existence doesn’t do the trick for you, let’s aim for consensual reality another way. Presumably you’ve read upthread the question put to Lynch by an admirer:

JENSEN: It seemed like we encountered so much of you in this show. We felt like we saw allusions to other films, implied, implicit. Were you reflecting a lot on your life and your work while you were making this?


Can we agree that question actually exists in our universe? It’s really real. Its existence cannot be denied.

Good. So my question once again (third time I’ve asked it): would you personally make a TV show like this?:

– (Theme) Make nostalgia a prominent issue and have many pivotal moments that are anti-nostalgic.
– (Execution) Make the show in a such a way that journalists ended up asking you questions like the one above. [And dugpa had a thread about the same thing].

It’s an extremely simple thought experiment to test whether TR defenders would put their money/credibility where their mouths are. If there’s nothing wrong with Lynch doing the above then there should be no problem whatsoever saying you’d do the same. You can copy and paste this, if you like:

I would be proud to put my name to such a show. YES/NO.
Last edited by AnotherBlueRoseCase on Wed Nov 01, 2017 1:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Ad hominems, straw men and selective blindness are the default tactics of fanboys served up a turkey.
User avatar
Xavi
Posts: 130
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 5:23 am

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

Postby Xavi » Wed Nov 01, 2017 9:47 am

YES or NO, did I ever wasted any time on Lynch's biggest failure by means of using more than two words in any social media or elsewhere?

NO !

PS. I am talking about Dune here. Now, about 5,000 posts expressing "profound disappointment", month after month, is ways above my head.
AnotherBlueRoseCase
Posts: 127
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:56 pm

"Twin Peaks" Was The Ultimate Argument Against Nostalgia - BuzzFeed
https://www.buzzfeed.com/alisonwillmore/what-year-is-it

'Twin Peaks: The Return' Finale: Why It Defied Nostalgia - Vulture
www.vulture.com/2017/09/twin-peaks-the- ... algia.html

Twin Peaks: The Return Defied Nostalgia - Yahoo
https://www.yahoo.com/.../twin-peaks-re ... 27688.html

These pieces are written by fans of the show. There are plenty more like this.

I doubt those vehemently denying that TR is anti-nostalgic were also doing so when the above articles appeared, just as none of them jumped into dugpa's thread on Lynch's self-references and furiously denied their existence.

But bring these two together and point out the blundering clash between them and suddenly it's a different story. The desperate scrambling about above to deny these two aspects of The Return is just absurd. They exist, they clash, it's a horrible blunder. How you accommodate this blunder into your admiration for the series is up to you, but stop insulting our intelligence and wasting our time with silly denials.
Ad hominems, straw men and selective blindness are the default tactics of fanboys served up a turkey.
BGate
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 11:15 am

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

Postby BGate » Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:59 pm

"Consensual reality". I have no idea what that is, but as long it's consensual I suppose it's okay.

Anyway, I'll just quote myself from a few pages ago

BGate wrote:Filmmakers having recurring themes or concerns or aesthetic motifs is not the same thing as "nostalgia for their own careers"


There are two parts to what you're saying. I'm not quibbling with the observations that The Return is in some ways working against the idea of nostalgia. I'm talking about the ridiculous "self-references" part. You'll notice that nowhere in that thread that you're obsessed with, nor the interviewer's question, does the word "nostalgia" appear. That's you projecting your subjective notion onto other people, because you're so desperate to prove that this inane nostalgia/anti-nostalgia thing is an objective, empirical, undeniable "reality".


Twin Peaks 2017 is very different than the original series in many ways, and in other ways it's not. I have no interest in arguing with you over whether that's a good or bad thing, because it would be incredibly dumb, and quite frankly already is (the argument itself I mean, not you or anyone else specifically)
Rik Renault
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 6:41 am

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

Postby Rik Renault » Thu Nov 02, 2017 3:57 am

BGate wrote:"Consensual reality". I have no idea what that is, but as long it's consensual I suppose it's okay.

Anyway, I'll just quote myself from a few pages ago

BGate wrote:Filmmakers having recurring themes or concerns or aesthetic motifs is not the same thing as "nostalgia for their own careers"


There are two parts to what you're saying. I'm not quibbling with the observations that The Return is in some ways working against the idea of nostalgia. I'm talking about the ridiculous "self-references" part. You'll notice that nowhere in that thread that you're obsessed with, nor the interviewer's question, does the word "nostalgia" appear. That's you projecting your subjective notion onto other people, because you're so desperate to prove that this inane nostalgia/anti-nostalgia thing is an objective, empirical, undeniable "reality".


Twin Peaks 2017 is very different than the original series in many ways, and in other ways it's not. I have no interest in arguing with you over whether that's a good or bad thing, because it would be incredibly dumb, and quite frankly already is (the argument itself I mean, not you or anyone else specifically)


+1

Also see: Auteur theory. I completely agree that there is a wealth of Lynch self-reference in TR but not quite sure how this can be construed as 'nostalgic'. To take Ronnie Rocket as an example. This is heavily referenced in TR, but it's from an unfilmed script as far as I'm aware. This might be nostalgic for Lynch, but it's not nostalgic for anyone else because nobody else saw the original. Where is the clash there?

Not sure what the whole nostalgia/anti-nostalgia thing proves anyway. Why would a clash necessarily be a bad thing? Clashes (or more poetically: contrasts) like this are often used for effect, especially in Twin Peaks (even the original run).

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aqwell and 9 guests