General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome)

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

User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome) (SPOILERS)

Postby mtwentz » Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:59 am

Panapaok wrote:
IcedOver wrote: even if the show turns out to be an artistic failure overall (as is looking likely)
How exactly is it likely, lol? The majority of the audiences' and critics' reactions are overwhelmingly positive. You might consider it a failure but this doesn't make your opinion an objective fact. The show might end up being a commercial failure based on the money they've spent, although even this is doubtful since they're making bank through the various long-term licensing deals they've signed all around the world. They also seem pretty happy with the streaming numbers and subscriptions. And I bet that Twin Peaks is by far their most successful show merchandise-wise.


I keep hearing this term 'artistic failure' thrown around, so I tried to look up the definition, and I found this interesting tidbit: T.S. Eliot considers one of the most famous and revered plays of all time, Hamlet, to be an 'artistic failure'.

So I guess it's just so totally subjective. Maybe 2001 and Citizen Kane were 'artistic failures' as well, from at least someone's perspective.
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
User avatar
Framed_Angel
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:16 am

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome) (SPOILERS)

Postby Framed_Angel » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:44 am

mtwentz wrote:I keep hearing this term 'artistic failure' thrown around, so I tried to look up the definition, and I found this interesting tidbit: T.S. Eliot considers one of the most famous and revered plays of all time, Hamlet, to be an 'artistic failure'. So I guess it's just so totally subjective. Maybe 2001 and Citizen Kane were 'artistic failures' as well, from at least someone's perspective.
I would say that ambitious directors, when they succeed, it's not "pop" success by conventional means because they've asked us (the audience) to reach for something beyond the usual. But it's more than having stretched our imaginations a little, or 'successfully' shared their vision; that vision has to resonate with something within us. Numerous directors have achieved that success while at the same time alienating other viewers; Kubrick among them.

I didn't have any affinity for Coen Bros' "Millers Crossing" or "O Brother Where Art Thou" upon first viewing; today I love both films. Re-watching several times brought forward some aspects I couldn't digest at first. The musical aspect of the latter, while I was also trying to take some messages seriously yet appreciate the comic value of other scenes -- let alone the violence. Call it an acquired taste... And so as I've re-watched the Parts of TP:TR usually they bring forth additional qualities that were obscured previously while I was focusing on some other aspect.

And unlike Kubrick to the same extent (because I find his individual works standalone, linked with some in-common trademarks and tropes), I find I'm rewarded taking time to discover and rediscover Lynch's other works as a means of appreciating what he's doing here. Full appreciation will be an ongoing process, through the finale and beyond for some time. I'm watching Lost Highway all the way through for the first time (as of last night; I nodded off w/ about 10 minutes remaining)... The familiar themes of dreams and mixed identity are there, but also the detachment and apart from a couple of 'wow' moments infused with flattened momentum and suggestions of resolution that don't stick the landing.

For me it comes down to Lynch's singular effect of not just pushing buttons, but prompting this viewer to wonder "what button is he going to push next?"
Critics' opinions won't inform the frequent curiosity or frustration I encounter when watching DKL's presentations. Each of us arrives at them with a capacity for individual opinion of what's perceived; but each of us also is armed with *some* critical faculty even if we don't make a living at it. So I don't validate my opinion when I find identical voices in the critics' column since I'm ALSO reading the critic's words with some critical filter that shapes my opinion, you see? It's nice to see when a work of craftsmanship resonates with both, and is both a popular and critical success.

But Lynch's stuff is too complex for me to assume anything conclusive in the immediate aftermath, I've decided. Measuring full appreciation is complicated by the absence of those who turned off their voices upon feeling alienated by what they saw; some continue to process what they've been shown and others are simply turned off. I don't think they're as vocal as the fans adoring it so I may be wrong but whatever you'd call that 'absence' of viable, measurable UNappreciative quotient will make a difference in how one would size up viewer acceptance. In any case -- although I believe personally that alienated segment is substantial, I have a notion that quite a few of them eventually would develop some curiosity to come back and revisit the series. As someone elsewhere posted: over time a newer more refined (or defined?) understanding of the Parts and the whole could produce altogether fresh perspectives and yes, appreciation!
"Fool me once... shame on me!"
User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby Jasper » Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:24 pm

baxter wrote:So: I still want more Twin Peaks! These articles popping up all over the place saying that there is nowhere for the story to go are baffling and annoying to me. No-one could predict where the story went for 18 hours, so why does it now seem impossible to continue it? :-D


I very much agree. In cases where it's applicable, people shouldn't project their apparent failure of imagination onto Lynch/Frost, especially in light of the fact that there are so many fan readings of the ending (and other parts of the story), many of which are contradictory. Furthermore, the comments made by Lynch and Frost, beginning way back with the original announcement of The Return, not only make it clear that they feel that the story continues (whether or not they write it and film it), but that they probably already have a number of ideas about where it could go. Finally, I not only believe that they likely have ideas pertaining to the potential future direction of the story, but also that one of the reasons that they left numerous plotlines unresolved was due to their cognizance of the fact that they could utilize them at a later date, should they so choose.
Agent Earle
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby Agent Earle » Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:07 pm

Mr. Strawberry wrote:These are just a few things that highlight how strong The Return is, and how it put the Peaks back into a story that had lost its way.


Hardly. More likely, it smashed it to smithereens till there was no "Peaks" left to talk about.
User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 765
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby Jasper » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:42 pm

Since the subject doesn't seem to be dying down...

Twin Peaks from the Showtime business POV

Quartz
August 8, 2017
https://qz.com/1049101/david-lynchs-twi ... illiantly/

CBS, which owns Showtime, expects standalone services CBS All Access and Showtime, which subscribers pay for directly, to reach a combined 4 million subscribers by year’s end, up from nearly 3 million in February, thanks in part to new viewers Twin Peaks brought in, CEO Leslie Moonves said on an earnings call yesterday.

“Our Showtime over-the-top (OTT) service is coming off a terrific quarter as well, thanks largely to Twin Peaks,” said Moonves, referring to the paid service. “The premiere of the show led to our biggest day and biggest weekend ever for OTT signups, and the percentage of viewers streaming Twin Peaks is the highest we’ve ever had for a show, which is good news because OTT subscribers are more profitable for us.”
(….)
Showtime CEO David Nevins credited Twin Peaks for an 11% lift in cable network operating income during the second quarter of 2017, as well, even though the show isn’t nearly as popular as other Showtime series like Shameless, Homeland, Ray Donovan, and Billions.
__________________________________________________

Market Watch
August 7, 2017
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbs-ea ... 2017-08-07
CBS Corp. CBS, -1.79% revenue beat analyst projections in a Monday report, which the company credited to content like the "Twin Peaks" reboot and the NCAA basketball tournament. CBS reported net income from continuing operations of $397 million, or 97 cents a share, on sales of $3.26 billion, up from profit of 82 cents a share on sales of $2.98 billion in the year-ago quarter. Analysts on average expected adjusted earnings of 97 cents per share on revenue of $3.1 billion, according to FactSet. CBS Chief Executive Leslie Moonves said in the announcement that the new "Twin Peaks" show "boosted OTT subscriptions dramatically" for the Showtime streaming service, and the company said ad revenues were helped by the semifinals and finals of the NCAA men's basketball championships.
__________________________________________________

Variety
September 3, 2017
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/twin-pe ... 202545355/

From Showtime’s perspective, the true measure of “Twin Peaks’ ” success won’t come until they know how many of those people decide to stick around beyond the 30-day free window. CBS Corp.’s third and fourth quarter earnings reports will offer clues later this year. CBS’ cable earnings for the second quarter already indicated a “Twin Peaks” bounce, with revenue up 7% and operating income up 11% year-over-year. International licensing of the series has also been strong, given Lynch’s following.

But the lack of live ratings traction for “Twin Peaks” raises questions about the business rationale for the industry-wide mania for reboots and revivals. The promise that vintage titles will bring a built-in audience is seemingly overwhelmed by the sheer volume of programming choices, new and old, that viewers have at their fingertips. For Showtime’s investment in “Twin Peaks” to really pay off, viewers will have to be intrigued by enough of Showtime’s other programming to keep shelling out $11 a month.
(….)
Of all Showtime series, “Twin Peaks” has the biggest proportion of its audience come from the cabler’s authenticated and standalone streaming platforms.

__________________________________________________

/Film
August 8, 2017

“The only thing I would do differently is I would have given him that deal three weeks earlier,” Nevins said.

Showtime subscriptions boomed when Twin Peaks premiered. “I’m really happy with the performance,” Nevins said. “It drove our business in a way that almost nothing else could. Maybe it’s a blinding glimpse of how Netflix looks at the world. The palpable effect on subscribers, even though its overall numbers are not as big as our biggest shows, but a very palpable effect on subscribers for multiple months now.”

That’s not to say Twin Peaks is only there for prestige. It brings the numbers, too.

“It’s not so low either,” Nevins added. “It’s a way higher proportion of streaming than anything else. The multiple compared to the people who watch it on Sunday night live is way higher than anything else. This has always been our weakest quarter. Springtime has always been against Game of Thrones. This year, it’s not so much against Game of Thrones. It went a little bit later, but Q2 has always been our weakest quarter. Cable is up 11% today and you can assume Showtime is up a higher percentage to drive that. That’s new subscriptions driven by Twin Peaks. That’s the biggest factor in that. It kind of did its job for being such an unusual show for us.”
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Thu May 17, 2018 4:09 pm

I agree that S3 was an entity unto itself...as was the Pilot, as was S1, as was S2 pre-killer reveal, as was s2 post-killer reveal, as was FWWM. This franchise is always evolving, as is DKL the artist. It should tell you something that this season had a fair degree of overlap with INLAND EMPIRE in terms of mood/theme, just as the original show similarly had a lot in common with his most recent film at that time, Blue Velvet. If we do indeed get more TP, it’s going to be distinct from EVERYTHING that came before. I agree with Agent Earle insofar as I think anyone who believes TP:TR was a detour/roadblock before a full-on return to owls-and-damn-fine-coffee is engaging in wishful thinking. Of course I have no evidence to back that up other than the arc/evolution of DKL’s career, but I’d bet the farm on it. If there is a S4, it’s going to be as unpredictable as TR was, if not moreso.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Thu May 17, 2018 4:55 pm

I’d characterize Earle’s response less as trolling than as a rather snide expression of his frustration/dissatisfaction with his (realistic IMO) appraisal of the future of the franchise. But I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder.

As far as a “recognizable” Cooper, I think there are two predominant schools of thought on what this season means to his character. One (which perhaps you subscribe to) is that this season split Cooper apart in order to put him back together again into the character we knew and loved. The other (my personal belief) is that this season took us inside the “true” Cooper, whereas we’d only seen the “public persona” he wanted to reveal to the world (and us) on the (much more objective) original show, and that Part 18 is perhaps the closest we’ve come to really getting to see the fully unified, honest Cooper. Let’s face it — as disappointing as it is, when you really get to know a person, no one is as charming or perfect as the guy we saw in S1-S2. I think it’s telling that L/F gave us that immensely satisfying, nostalgic, all-too-short-lived moment of “old-school” Coop with the theme music in Part 16, only to yank it away from us shortly thereafter and give us a darker version of the character that bears much stronger resemblance to Mr. C personality-wise. This season was largely about Cooper confronting some hard truths about himself, and whatever happens to him from here on, I can’t see him returning to the boy scout of the original show. (Which is not to say that he and the show won’t have a happy “ending” or reach some higher enlightened state of being...just that that potential evolution will be something entirely new, integrating everything we’ve seen, as opposed to a straightforward return to the familiar).
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

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

Postby N. Needleman » Thu May 17, 2018 6:48 pm

I promise you all if Twin Peaks ever dissatisfies me I will not burn it in effigy.

As for S3, I thought there was a lot of human truth in the stuff with Cooper/Dougie/Mr. C - the whole season is a deep dive inside him, even if it is not explicated in dialogue and largely visual and performance (as is the core of film). Same with Diane/Tulpa Diane, Janey-E, etc. There are smaller but equally deep moments with Bobby and his family, with Carl Rodd, with a lot of folks. Even Audrey's very enigmatic storyline is clearly rooted in her in ways I can only begin to fathom.

Would I have been just as happy or moreso with something more traditionally structured in the style of the old show or other serialized TV today, and with more traditional payoffs? Sure, probably. But I knew going in we were never going to get something much like the first two seasons. I had a feeling we were in for a quantum shift like FWWM or MD, and by the end of the first two hours I loved it but knew I was right. Lynch has gone very far into a different place since, and it started with FWWM. And he slapped me in the face again in Part 18, just like those last 30 mins of MD - almost exactly how I felt watching the bottom fall out of Betty and Diane's fantasy world - and both times I was devastated but fascinated, I loved it. I can't fault people who weren't. All I can say is I process both my love for the characters and the town and continuing story and my love for the material and new story in complimentary ways. I don't think loving the dark ending means I am abandoning old-school Twin Peaks.

So much of the season is about time, age, the past, regret, longing, trauma, how the world's gotten worse or just changed - and a lot of that comes out of, first and foremost, the lost Cooper and the TP/FBI investigations into him with the players reflecting on yesteryear, but also out of the glimpses we get of the town in little pockets and vignettes, not just of the past characters like Norma or Shelly or Nadine or Ed but in the consistently baffling Roadhouse conversation scenes. Maybe they mean something, maybe they mean nothing, but they show not only the darkness and corruption at the core of the town but also just life going by sometimes. Lynch just wanted to show these little slices of life in Twin Peaks. Anyway, this stuff is all suited for another topic.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
Agent Earle
Posts: 765
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Fri May 18, 2018 1:12 am

Dear Mr. Reindeer - always so gracious and insightful. You once again nailed it with your speculation about the nature of my "Santa Claus" post - that is exactly what I meant. Reading your and some of the other S3 lovers' (Needleman's, for instance) comments about the season, I'm almost compelled to give it another shot, that's how good you make its intentions and mechanisms sound. Trouble is, I've got a nagging feeling that a lot of it is you ascribing to it things that just weren't there or, better, are so poorly conveyed that they might as well not be; and since the viewer, a fan of certain property in particular, is inclined to strive to make sense out of what is on the screen, he comes up with a theory that sheds positive light on the show no matter what. Don't get me wrong, theorizing about a beloved show/movie/book/whatnot is certainly a fan and fun thing to do, and Lynch in particular is well known for encouraging it, but in order for it to be, at the end of the day, meaningful and satisfying, there has to exist a strong enough groundwork provided by the creator. It's in this respect that I find TP: S3 to be grossly lacking - to me, it comes across as one giant rigamarole of loosely/un- connected fragments of not-quite storylines, half-ideas and wannabe concepts, where the majority of characters are swimming in a vast universe completely independent/unaware of one another, so much so that they might as well be inhabiting different shows. That was never the case with the original show, for all its multi-writer, multi-director, multi-showrunner, behind-the-scenes-meddling shenanigans and exotically different tones - you always felt that these characters are all a part of one living, breathing, functioning entity, a part of wonderfully, if secretly cohesive world, universe, tapestry. A poster earlier in this thread (I think it was WhiteLodge something) described it beautifully in his long reflection in which he speaks of poor treatment of the show's returning characters - playing off one another before, they're now confined to their single for-lack-of-a-better-term "storyline" for the whole duration of the show. It's like a product of a creative writing school, where a class of future writers were given the assignment to each come up with a story for one of the existing TP characters separately ("Write a scene in which you 'catch up' with TP character AB after 25 years and see what he/she might be doing now"), ie. without the knowledge of a classmate's work. The resulting effort would be not unlike chaos we've witnessed in the official S3: some of it good, some of it bad, some of it even brilliant, but on the whole, not a work where the original creators had a good number of years to come up with a compact, thought-out narrative that would respect what came before and lift in on the whole new quality level. A lot of the "unconnected" feeling comes not only from the script, I gather, but from the way Lynch decided to pull off the third season in, that is by keeping everything under maximum secrecy and maintaining conditions in which the actors didn't have a clue about the bigger picture, and not one actor (including MacLachlan, who in recent interviews seems a tad surprised with what ended up on the screen at the end of the day) knew just what in the Sam hill it is he/she's supposed to be a part of. Hell, even now, months after the show concluded, they still collectively choose their words when it comes to describing the evolution and intentions of the production. One would think at least some of it (how they've come to shape this exact story, what went on during the endless production process, what was left out and what shoved in on behalf of "outside" circumstances and what on behalf of preexisiting storytellers' intentions), would find its way onto the BluRay special features, but no - another missed opportunity. I hope at least a book detailing it all (like Brad Dukes' Reflections) materializes at some point.

Which brings me to NormoftheAndes' response: I hope what I just wrote makes it clear I was not trolling. I'm sorry if my cynical comment offended you in any way as that was not my intention. I'm not hiding the new season of my beloved show has left me disappointed, perhaps even profoundly, and I'm at a point where listening to fans trying to make sense of it all makes me tired and depressed, yet I'm unable to look away and part from it all, not just yet, anyhow. For what it's worth, I always try to avoid argumentation ad hominem during my ramblings here, and it never crossed my mind to label the show's creators as dishonest, ill-intentioned, senile etc. (though I'll admit Lynch trashing S2 just prior to the S3 premiere didn't make me any greater fan of his, to put it extremely politely) - I truly think what they gave us comes from their genuine creative process where they followed their muse and who they are as creators at the moment. It just wasn't (good enough) for me. I'd never go as far as some of the disappointed ones (Gabriel, sylvia_north ...) did, that is chucking out all my TP stuff, as TP's been an integral part of my life, of me, even, for too long. If a continuation of it ever happens (you make a good point with Lynch's comments about a "bronze" and "golden age"), I'll certainly give it a whirl, although I realize a return to the original creative recipe (a pinch of Engels & Peyton, for instance) is a pipe dream.

P.S.: Sorry for any grammatical errors, English is not my first language, and I have to work with what I have.
Last edited by Agent Earle on Fri May 18, 2018 1:39 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Soolsma
Posts: 989
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:28 pm
Location: Netherlands

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

Postby Soolsma » Fri May 18, 2018 1:27 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote:This season was largely about Cooper confronting some hard truths about himself, and whatever happens to him from here on.


That's what I've always figured the Return would be about, beforehand and throughout. However, have we ever had any real confrontations? Yes, Coop saw his doppelgänger on the floor, slid the ring on and all was done, but that was pretty much most of it. Admittedly, the annihilated soul of Cooper is indeed a major drive, but the fragments are spread so widely across the board. What disappoints me a lot here is that in the end it all went down without any dialog or interaction between Coop/Mr c./BOB. I do love the post part 17, half evil, half good Coop. I love how Lynch played his Lynch hand there and the ambiguity of it. However, I don't think it was necessary to keep Cooper so predominantly tight lipped then, and all the way throughout. Maybe modern day Lynch thinks this is best, letting imagery and mystery do most of the work, but I can certainly remember a Cooper who could be very mysterious while still being the verbal, expressive and even poetic person he is/was.

That and lack of music were my biggest disappointments. I'm still waiting for someone to cut the entire thing with old TP music. :lol: I might even do it myself one day, if my pc is powerful enough perhaps. And yes, you could tell me that's barbaric sacrilege. I know it is, but I honestly don't give a fuck.
I believe all these phenomena that our putted-up egos and busy ant minds persist in trying to label, categorize, penetrate, and comphrehend, all spring from this same uncanny source. This is the mother of all "others".
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 1843
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

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

Postby N. Needleman » Fri May 18, 2018 3:34 am

Agent Earle wrote:Trouble is, I've got a nagging feeling that a lot of it is you ascribing to it things that just weren't there or, better, are so poorly conveyed that they might as well not be; and since the viewer, a fan of certain property in particular, is inclined to strive to make sense out of what is on the screen, he comes up with a theory that sheds positive light on the show no matter what.


But if that were so why didn't we do it for, say, the Milford brothers drama? Or Evelyn Marsh? The best that can be said about that story is that it's a loving homage/ripoff to Otto Preminger's Angel Face (as Harley Peyton freely admitted when I asked him about it a while back).

Anyway, first let me say I never thought you were trolling. I simply vehemently disagree with you. And all I can tell you is what I genuinely took away from the show both as I watched it in the moment as well as when I considered it over the weeks and months later, in addition to absorbing the creators' own commentary on some of the material (like Lynch's comments when questioned about the Roadhouse scenes - something like that became my hunch as the season went on, but his later comments did solidify it). I didn't feel I had to invent or wish up the context any more (or less) than I did when dealing with the mysteries of the original series or FWWM, or MD or whatever else. Some things were evident onscreen, others were inferred, others were very subjective for different viewers obviously as we process. As we've always done with Twin Peaks, the night of the show, the day after, weeks, years later on the Internet at alt.tv.t-p or dugpa or wherever else. I can't speak for what other people see or don't see or feel or don't feel. I only know what I felt in the moment as I watched, and then what I thought over later.

And yes, the show was fundamentally different, structurally, from its setup in 1991. It was much more in the mold of a Mulholland Drive film treatment - scenes collected much more loosely and dreamily, concurrent narratives, looking in on various stories and characters as certain stories progress and/or converge. But that's what Lynch does now. He was also never going to adhere to conventional premium cable rhythms where, say, the Starks spend a season traveling to Winterfell or whatever. Even now in the new season of Westworld, people are always getting lost in 'fetch quest,' time-sink narratives - who will get where when, and what will they find and what does it mean? It becomes like treading water in a book. I quite like Westworld, it's excellent in many ways, but the overall predictability of the now-standard narrative loop of fetch-travel-stop-travel again in a lot of big shows to fill hours has begun to wear on me. Whereas in Season 3, say what you will about the storyline but Cooper did not spend weeks traveling - he either was somewhere, or went somewhere else. That was refreshing.

Either way, we simply see it differently. And that's fine.

Also: As for Lynch's jab at Season 2, I love Season 2 but didn't take it too seriously. Firstly, Lynch was clearly brusque and out of sorts throughout that interview and fed up doing advance press, which he is not a fan of. Second, we all know Lynch, like Fred Madison in Lost Highway, likes to remember things his own way - for decades he's been insisting he wasn't around for S2 vs. S1 when it was factually the other way around. He seems to do this as a psychological defense mechanism re: his own intense sadness over the failure of Season 2 following the end of the Laura Palmer arc, which hit him very hard. We know how involved he was in early Season 2 and the finale, and we know he was involved in hiring and auditioning a number of new players, including Heather Graham. But the overall trauma of S2 for most of the cast and crew stayed with Lynch, and he distances himself from it a lot in his mind - especially when he clearly wasn't in the mood to be interviewed. But it's not what he did or I suspect what he feels. I doubt he truly associates much of early S2 with "Season 2" in his mind, anyway. Lynch is not a stickler for fan exactitude. It's just not that big a deal.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

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

Postby mtwentz » Fri May 18, 2018 4:14 am

At the end of the day, don't we expect great art to be divisive? It's like the classic scenario where two friends go to a museum of modern art;; whatever one thinks is a work of genius the other thinks of as a piece of utter pretentious garbage.

Neither of the friends is right or wrong; the art speaks to one persons tastes, but not the other's.
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
User avatar
NormoftheAndes
Posts: 101
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:00 am

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

Postby NormoftheAndes » Fri May 18, 2018 8:20 am

Agent Earle wrote:
Which brings me to NormoftheAndes' response: I hope what I just wrote makes it clear I was not trolling. I'm sorry if my cynical comment offended you in any way as that was not my intention. I'm not hiding the new season of my beloved show has left me disappointed, perhaps even profoundly, and I'm at a point where listening to fans trying to make sense of it all makes me tired and depressed, yet I'm unable to look away and part from it all, not just yet, anyhow. For what it's worth, I always try to avoid argumentation ad hominem during my ramblings here, and it never crossed my mind to label the show's creators as dishonest, ill-intentioned, senile etc. (though I'll admit Lynch trashing S2 just prior to the S3 premiere didn't make me any greater fan of his, to put it extremely politely) - I truly think what they gave us comes from their genuine creative process where they followed their muse and who they are as creators at the moment. It just wasn't (good enough) for me. I'd never go as far as some of the disappointed ones (Gabriel, sylvia_north ...) did, that is chucking out all my TP stuff, as TP's been an integral part of my life, of me, even, for too long. If a continuation of it ever happens (you make a good point with Lynch's comments about a "bronze" and "golden age"), I'll certainly give it a whirl, although I realize a return to the original creative recipe (a pinch of Engels & Peyton, for instance) is a pipe dream.

P.S.: Sorry for any grammatical errors, English is not my first language, and I have to work with what I have.


Great post Agent Earle.

Such a short post seemed like trolling to me but clearly that was not your intention so I apologise. I hope we can get on damn fine here. :D

In terms of the production, I think the final product was definitely shaped by that but I don't think that Lynch's penchant for secrecy really had much to do with that.

What I DO think had a major effect was the decision to go from 9 episodes to 18. Even though Showtime did offer more budget for that, I don't think that they DOUBLED the budget. It is well known that the production was operating as if it was a low-budget indie film. Over 9 episodes the budget could have looked pretty impressive, but stretched over 18 the minor increase in budget overall gives the show a certain quality which I would describe as 'evidently basic' at times! The camera set-ups and overall look is quite bare-bones I would say. That works well for certain scenes like in the trailer park sequences, but Ben's office for instance looks like a pretty obvious set. It doesn't feel lush, like the original show.

Another good example is part 8 - amidst 17 other episodes this one coalesces into a big mish-mash I feel, whereas if this was originally intended to be one of 9 then it would have stood out more. Sabrina Sutherland the exec. producer has said there were a couple of sequences which had to be dropped due to budget constraints. So, instead of some more impressive sequences we got more sequences involving Dougie and the office space, or the Buckhorn FBI set-up - another obvious set.

I am sure that the vortex special effect was deliberately wacky and lo-fi deliberately, but on the other hand this was still dictated by the budget somewhat.

I've got a huge love for season 3 but also a disappointment that is inevitable considering the shortcomings of the production. Showtime just didn't offer a substantial budget for what was planned in the script - but at the same time it seems like Lynch was given free reign to shoot that script however he wanted. I don't think that Frost had major disagreements or discussions with Lynch for how it would all be planned since they were both so happy at being given this chance and I think Frost is now very easy-going.

Do I think Lynch would have benefited from having Engels and Peyton also work on this season - absolutely! Do I think it suffered in the expansion from 9 episodes to 18? Definitely. I wonder if they really had enough material to fill 18 episodes - explaining the driftings longeurs of the Dougie storyline, the lightweight and rather throwaway Mitchums etc. Even the Buckhorn FBI scene are repetitive and feel forced at times.

Considering all of that, how s3 turned out is completely understandable. Its the inevitable result of having too much time that can't be substantially filled by the script they must have had fairly completed back in 2014. Expanding sections or adding extra scenes due to Showtime giving more episodes at that stage is always going to be apparent. Most significantly, give Lynch complete reign over those 18 episodes and you're asking for trouble. So you end up with something that is as baffling as INLAND EMPIRE mixed with delightful, fantastic scenes and other parts which feel less vital.

However, I am still optimistic because the behind-the-scenes make it very clear that Lynch was unhappy with the time restraints on set - linked to budget of course. But if they had not opted to film so many locations and with so many actors, wouldn't they have had more time and money for shooting at the Fireman's theatre?

At the Emmy's screening of part 18 for critics, Kyle said he would love to see Twin Peaks continue. I am not sure if Showtime would opt for another 18-part run. It might be more sensible to go for 10 episodes and focus more closely on a specific storyline, most likely centred around the place the show is named after. I do think that Lynch had a dogged determination to make season 3 the 'doppleganger/ tulpa' season and by that alone I see it as more of a loose story than any sort of ending.
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1593
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

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

Postby mtwentz » Fri May 18, 2018 8:30 am

sylvia_north wrote:
mtwentz wrote:At the end of the day, don't we expect great art to be divisive? It's like the classic scenario where two friends go to a museum of modern art;; whatever one thinks is a work of genius the other thinks of as a piece of utter pretentious garbage.

Neither of the friends is right or wrong; the art speaks to one persons tastes, but not the other's.



Not a sentiment that hasn’t come up repeatedly. This dedicated critical thread is in general ok/happy others like it, just not sure why they need the reassurance (or concessions to it) being great on the merits OF its divisinesness. From people whose opinions they disagree with. 8) Edit: If the post was not directed at the critical but the rest of the board, I stand corrected.

Crappy art is also divisive. Literally anything anyone does is going to garner varieties of opinions, went entirely without saying


No, I disagree. Not everything is as divisive as when a beloved artist breaks new ground, does something different from what his core audience has come to expect . I was just listening to the audio book of 48 Laws of Power the other day, and apparently Pablo Picasso used to create his own 'Profoundly Disappointed' group of followers on a regular basis.

I'm not saying Lynch is Picasso, but I do consider him an artist that likes to shake things up. One should know going into a Lynch project that you may love it, you may hate it, but if nothing else, some of the images/sounds will likely stick with you for a very long time. I personally did not expect much coherence to the new season given the 'pure heroin Lynch' comment by Nevins and was fairly certain even before it aired that a pure heroin Lynch approach was not going to be universally embraced by all fans, even some of those who, in theory, thought they desired the unfiltered Lynch.
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2059
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Fri May 18, 2018 8:41 am

Soolsma wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:This season was largely about Cooper confronting some hard truths about himself, and whatever happens to him from here on.


That's what I've always figured the Return would be about, beforehand and throughout. However, have we ever had any real confrontations? Yes, Coop saw his doppelgänger on the floor, slid the ring on and all was done, but that was pretty much most of it. Admittedly, the annihilated soul of Cooper is indeed a major drive, but the fragments are spread so widely across the board. What disappoints me a lot here is that in the end it all went down without any dialog or interaction between Coop/Mr c./BOB. I do love the post part 17, half evil, half good Coop. I love how Lynch played his Lynch hand there and the ambiguity of it. However, I don't think it was necessary to keep Cooper so predominantly tight lipped then, and all the way throughout. Maybe modern day Lynch thinks this is best, letting imagery and mystery do most of the work, but I can certainly remember a Cooper who could be very mysterious while still being the verbal, expressive and even poetic person he is/was.

That and lack of music were my biggest disappointments. I'm still waiting for someone to cut the entire thing with old TP music. :lol: I might even do it myself one day, if my pc is powerful enough perhaps. And yes, you could tell me that's barbaric sacrilege. I know it is, but I honestly don't give a fuck.


I think much of the season reflected Cooper’s internal journey, similar to MD in a way, albeit in a more abstract sense, as opposed to the more literal “Cooper confronting his doppelganger” approach many seem to have wanted/expected. DKL at this point in his career just doesn’t work in such straightforward terms.

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

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests