Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

User avatar
Novalis
RR Diner Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:18 pm

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

Postby Novalis » Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:53 am

referendum wrote:
mtwentz wrote:
We could start a separate thread on this, but I think the more radical changes flow from FWWM. FWWM changed the mythology more than The Return, IMHO.

1. Blue Rose/Jeffries- Directly contradicts the original series, in which the only reason to investigate the Laura Palmer case was because Ronette crossed state lines.

2. Garmonbozia/Creamed Corn- Completely upended the motivations of Mike/The One Armed Man

3. Electricity- What happened to the owls?

4. Woodsmen/Jumping Man/Convenience Store- Never mentioned in the original, introduced in FWWM.

5. Laura as a spiritual figure- This is somewhat alluded to in the series but further cemented with Laura's decision to take the ring and her visions of angels in the end.

6. Cooper being trapped in the Lodge, as opposed to merely possessed.


The three major updates in The Return are:

1. A nuclear explosion perhaps opening the doors to the Lodge

2. The ability of spirits (Woodsmen, Mother) to do more than just inhabit other beings, but to directly kill humans.

3. The ability of the Lodge to manufacture decoys.
(Right now, I'll leave the Sarah Palmer situation aside until we know more).

So if you look at it in perspective, it was utterly predictable that the mythology and the rules would change, because Lynch did just that with FWWM. That does not mean anyone has to like these changes, I am just surprised that anyone is surprised by it.


hey nice post. I would like to add one other thing as a major update for The Return. The nature of representation. Things like Catherine Martell woman re-appearing as mr nakamura ( sp?) were obvious ' fourth wall' breaks - bob jumping at the camera in an empty room, etc. But this series is MUCH more explicit about that, the Monica Belucci sequence being as far as you can go in that direction, '' who is the dreamer'' - and then Lynch looks over his shoulder to HIS OWN GALLERY SHOW !! This series CONSTANTLY spells out the artifice, mockney cockney boy and michael cera being obvious examples. And all the references to other Lynch works, made and unmade, and his central role as an actor and plot mover. We are 14 hours in, making for HIM to make the connections, and hearing about Tulpas !!

That is new, the artifice being made so explicit. I can see why it pisses people off.


Opinions are divided on this being a new thing. In The Art of The Ridiculous Sublime, Slavoj Zizek says that in Lost Highway Lynch projected the vertical difference between fantasy and the symbolic language it sustains (i.e. reality) onto a horizontal axis in a way that allowed the artifice to become entirely visible; whereas in The Strange World of David Lynch Wilson is at pains to differentiate between the postmodern proscenium-shattering irony of Tarantino and the more modernist, religious romantic irony of David Lynch films.

Personally I think it's a matter of degree. Lynch has, in my eyes, not become more postmodern as such but more romantic, in the sense of a transcendental impulse dominating his work. It's as if he wants to paint us into the picture at every turn, as well as constantly escaping from the frame in a cascade of meta-referencing. He's writing 'tangled hierarchies', like Escher's hand drawing itself: Hofstadter's strange loops. It's almost like a kind of hysteria, a via negativa that seeks to prove he's neither Cole NOR Lynch but something third and unknowable. This mirrors the romantic irony of the fruhromantik movement, who sought to elevate the figure of the creative genius above any one identity, and frequently signed each other's works in disdain of the power of the signature.

I'm not saying this turn is good, or profound, incidentally. Actually, all this is pretty standard and unremarkable fare in art from as early as late eighteenth century up until at least early twentieth century modernism. But it is noticeable in Lynch, and fully describable.

This is the kind of post I can engage with, thanks.
Last edited by Novalis on Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
As a matter of fact, 'Chalfont' was the name of the people that rented this space before. Two Chalfonts. Weird, huh?
mlsstwrt
RR Diner Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:35 am

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

Postby mlsstwrt » Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:55 am

Mallard wrote:
mlsstwrt wrote:
Mallard wrote:
I'll take this as a cue to quit lurking in here.

Just remember, most of us don't take any pleasure in the fact that you didn't like this show, and honestly feel bad that it's starting to ruin the whole series for you. As a courtesy to the "non-disappointed" who posted here in good faith, try not to take out your frustration on us. We can't help liking the show any more than you can help hating it.


Don't, I've really enjoyed your posts. That wasn't meant to be a 'Get out of this thread!' more like don't get too offended. I don't know. I started the thread but it's not my thread anymore than yours. I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do, just that really in a thread with this title, venting (rather than debate) should be expected.


Thanks, mlsstwrt. Hope things turn around for you over the next couple of episodes, but I imagine the die's pretty much cast for you at this point.

PS - I don't like Green Glove anymore than you do. Unless it's supposed to be some kind of commentary on the glut of superhero shows/films being released now, I can't fathom why they thought it was a good character concept for the show. Granted, I also disliked super-strength Nadine, so take it for what it's worth.


Ha ha glad you're staying Mallard. And glad you didn't like the Green Glove scene either. Although as I said I liked seeing James as a security guard. All that angst, fire, rage, etc just sort of gets flattened out with age and the reality of having to earn a living I guess.

It's sad though, I felt like the Original had so much energy, so much fire and now there's just a kind of sad and flat tone, like our beloved original characters are now just living out their days, past their peaks (no pun). That's not at all a criticism, it's inevitable but I absolutely loved the electricity in the pilot, the huge tension in the air culminating in the brawl at the Roadhouse. There's none of that now because there is no central event bringing all these people together, so they're just floating around, disparate.
User avatar
referendum
RR Diner Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:29 am

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

Postby referendum » Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:57 am

Lynch has, in my eyes, not become more postmodern as such but more romantic, in the sense of a transcendental impulse dominating his work. It's as if he wants to paint us into the picture at every turn, as well as constantly escaping from the frame in a cascade of meta-referencing. He's writing 'tangled hierarchies', like Escher's hand drawing itself: Hofstadter's strange loops. It's almost like a kind of hysteria


yes.

[ edit] the point i was trying to make is that the artifice is a device. The endless mirrors and the worlds within worlds and the dreams and the repurposing of old material and the post modern / wizard of oz ' pull back the curtain music hall joke, are actually all consistent, even at the level of terrible puns, like the turnip. Lynch is doing a funny, an in-joke , he is turning the mirror on himself to make people look at something else. He is trying to represent representation and place himself as a living being in his own work in order that the work itself becomes a living being. He is relentlessly literal - Escher like, as you say.

i can DEFINITELY see how that pisses some people off.
Last edited by referendum on Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:17 am, edited 7 times in total.
''let's not overthink this opportunity''
User avatar
boske
Great Northern Member
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:15 am

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

Postby boske » Tue Aug 15, 2017 7:58 am

mtwentz wrote:We could start a separate thread on this, but I think the more radical changes flow from FWWM. FWWM changed the mythology more than The Return, IMHO.

Let's rock! :-)

mtwentz wrote:1. Blue Rose/Jeffries- Directly contradicts the original series, in which the only reason to investigate the Laura Palmer case was because Ronette crossed state lines.

How would they know it is a Blue Rose case? Do they assume any cross-state crime is a Blue Rose case? Maybe I am missing a FWWM detail?

mtwentz wrote:2. Garmonbozia/Creamed Corn- Completely upended the motivations of Mike/The One Armed Man

And Tremonds/Chalfonts are eating what from Meals on Wheels?

mtwentz wrote:3. Electricity- What happened to the owls?

Nothing. There was an owl overflying Dougie's house in part 3, or was it 4? :-)

mtwentz wrote:4. Woodsmen/Jumping Man/Convenience Store- Never mentioned in the original, introduced in FWWM.

"We live above the convenience store. I mean it like it is. His name is Bob, my name is Mike". ?

mtwentz wrote:5. Laura as a spiritual figure- This is somewhat alluded to in the series but further cemented with Laura's decision to take the ring and her visions of angels in the end

So if it is alluded, should we bring it up here?

mtwentz wrote:6. Cooper being trapped in the Lodge, as opposed to merely possessed.

What about Cooper's dream scene? 25 years into the future?

mtwentz wrote:The three major updates in The Return are:

1. A nuclear explosion perhaps opening the doors to the Lodge

Personally, no issues there.

mtwentz wrote:2. The ability of spirits (Woodsmen, Mother) to do more than just inhabit other beings, but to directly kill humans.

The way Sarah Palmer slashed that trucker is problematic. Removing her face mask and so on. It is a bit silly, but what can you do.

mtwentz wrote:3. The ability of the Lodge to manufacture decoys.

Not an issue. We had Dugpas, and now there are Tulpa though forms that can solidify. If Mr C is as competent as suggested, no reason why he could not pull it off.

mtwentz wrote:(Right now, I'll leave the Sarah Palmer situation aside until we know more).

This is the deal-breaker. It is hard to reconcile the frog-bug and first two seasons, honestly.

mtwentz wrote:So if you look at it in perspective, it was utterly predictable that the mythology and the rules would change, because Lynch did just that with FWWM. That does not mean anyone has to like these changes, I am just surprised that anyone is surprised by it.

The point is that these rules would be expanded, evolved, but not that they would contradict or trash the first two seasons. That's the problem.
pinballmars
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 74
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2016 10:08 am

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

Postby pinballmars » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:09 am

RedRum wrote:
boske wrote:
mtwentz wrote:
Not those exact lines, but they recall the One-Armed Man's poem of 'through the darkness of future's past'...


Yeah, I can see that too.



I wonder how many of those that like season three are new to the series or only recently got into twin peaks?

And how many of those that hate the season are long standing original watchers of the series?

I have a feeling that those that love it are mostly from the Millennial generation and therefore not watched the original because they were yet to be born.

Perhaps we could have a poll?


(BIg fan of THE RETURN here)

I'm 40 and watched the original series when it came out 1990. I taped every episode back then watched it over and over until the next one. I loved it and it had a huge effect on my tastes that continues to this day.

THAT SAID, one big difference that I see between myself and many of the Profoundly Disappointed is that they have been a lot more committed to re-watching the series over time. "Twin Peaks has been a big part of my life for twenty-five years", "I rewatch it every year". I've read that in this thread.

By contrast, I have probably not watched the entire series in at least twenty years. There are episodes that I have not laid eyes on in at least twenty years. For me, old Twin Peaks episodes are kind of like Beatles or Pixies albums, all of which I loved as a teenager (around the same time that Twin Peaks was on) and listened to so much that I never feel the urge to listen to them anymore as an adult. I still like the Beatles and the Pixies. If someone else puts on one of their records, I enjoy it. But I wouldn't play them for myself at all anymore. I'd rather listen to something different.

And my hope for THE RETURN was that it would be something different.

I feel that I got what I wanted.
Last edited by pinballmars on Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

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

Postby Gabriel » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:11 am

So, there's finally some momentum in the final hours of the show. My regret is that I feel I've wasted vast amounts of time watching mediocre material to get here. Chrysta Bell is still hilariously bad as Tammy. She couldn't even act listening to Albert speak convincingly. But maybe that's why Lynch cast her – to seem out of place.

Interesting bits:

Amnesia affecting Gordon and Albert regarding Jeffries' appearance during FWWM.
Amnesia affecting the intrepid adventurers in the woods.
Clearly that 'fog' has kept many of the townspeople under
Andy suddenly becoming less dopey. Were we watching some sort of information/intelligence download into his brain?
Is Andy the new vessel for the Giant/Fireman?
Was the Giant using Margaret's husband as a vessel?
Was the monster behind Sarah Palmer's face the same thing that spoke to Major Briggs in Episode 29? I actually thought it was kinda cool.
I seriously thought Andy was being given Cooper's shoes in the Fireman scene.


I liked a lot of tonight's episode. It was what I was hoping for circa parts three and four of the new show.

For all my profound irritation with the latest season, particularly the lack of the good Dale Cooper, I increasingly hope for a fourth season that will have Good Dale back as the lead character and maybe see the return of Harry alongside the other characters. Hey ho! Wait until next week!

(Edited to add: I'm still 'Profoundly Disappointed' but more that I've had to wade through so much chaff to get to the good stuff.)
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Great Northern Member
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:16 am

Gabriel wrote: Chrysta Bell is still hilariously bad as Tammy.


To me this will remain the greatest mystery in the universe of Twin Peaks: Do I like Tammy or not? (Well, physically speaking, yes but that's not what I am talking about ;) ). Each time I see her I have different reactions... even if it's a rewatch. I think I will never figure it out... unless in Season 4 she enters the newly created Gray Lodge (unionized), removes her face, and shows that she is possessed by President Eisenhower.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
Novalis
RR Diner Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:18 pm

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

Postby Novalis » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:22 am

referendum wrote:
Lynch has, in my eyes, not become more postmodern as such but more romantic, in the sense of a transcendental impulse dominating his work. It's as if he wants to paint us into the picture at every turn, as well as constantly escaping from the frame in a cascade of meta-referencing. He's writing 'tangled hierarchies', like Escher's hand drawing itself: Hofstadter's strange loops. It's almost like a kind of hysteria


yes.

[ edit] the point i was trying to make is that the artifice is a device. The endless mirrors and the worlds within worlds and the dreams and the repurposing of old material and the post modern / wizard of oz ' pull back the curtain music hall joke, are actually all consistent, even at the level of terrible puns, like the turnip. Lynch is doing a funny, an in-joke , he is turning the mirror on himself to make people look at something else - he is trying to represent representation. Like i say, no wonder that pisses some people off.


Do you imagine it feels a little preachy sometimes? I'm never sure if it does or not. I think of the role-playing in Brecht's 'learning plays' where the point is (simplistically put) to visibly try out different identities to bring to the foreground the social relations those identities are embedded in. Obviously this is different, but I think the didactic element, trying to teach something to the audience about identity as such, is present in Lynch. Even in his interviews he is so visibly playing himself, so that the gap between that strategic adoption of the eagle-scout 'yes-ma'am' identity and the void from which his voice emanates is really laid bare. In some respects he reminds me of Warhol in interviews, but only some respects. It's true, this laying-bare can get annoying, infuriating, because it leaves nothing real to anchor onto, that you can say 'here he is' to. And, in retrospect, I suspect this is the case with many of his written characters too. He doesn't write them to be 'real' as such but instrumental in showing something forth; it's a strange thing they became real for so many of us. Perhaps that's the real lesson here.
Last edited by Novalis on Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
As a matter of fact, 'Chalfont' was the name of the people that rented this space before. Two Chalfonts. Weird, huh?
User avatar
Hockey Mask
RR Diner Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:31 pm

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

Postby Hockey Mask » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:22 am

boske wrote:
Novalis wrote:
boske wrote:To some (myself included), the fact that Sarah Palmer is a throat-slashing monster, removing her face as if a mask, is a big problem that mutilates the previous series as we have known it for 25+ years. The some it is not, as simple as that.

Now to people who like this season, does this Sarah Palmer transformation bother you and affect the viewing of the original in any way? If not, do you at least acknowledge that we have a legitimate issue with it?


I like season 3 and this Sarah scene bothers me somewhat. I'm prepared to give it the benefit of the doubt for the moment though. What we've seen doesn't necessarily entail a retcon of her role in the original series; the indwelling chin-vampire may be a recent development.

Why do you need us to acknowledge or legitimate your having issues with the scene? Are you not already expressing that feeling openly in a much-read thread? I wonder how I would convince you that your expressions are being acknowledged more than this. Do we need to have some kind of formal ceremony? :lol:

I really don't know what I'm doing here. Help me out someone.

Well, for one example, we have people that parachute into this thread and tell us to "suck it up" because we have issues with it. There?


That was me that commented "suck it up" (you forgot the buttercup part which I feel really nails the sentence).

Not sure what you mean by "parachuting in" but I've been here from the beginning but don't post as often to give everyone room to vent their feelings.

As far as another data point goes...
I'm a liberal who watched the original run of S1 and S2, saw FWWM in the theater (hated it but love it now), had homemade tapes of the entire series, bought the video tape release, the gold box release, the Chinese pilot release, , the FWWM release, the missing pieces, a dozen or so TP books and I have revisited S1 and S2 every two years or so and I am loving The Return, buttercup. :wink:
User avatar
boske
Great Northern Member
Posts: 534
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2016 4:15 am

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

Postby boske » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:28 am

Hockey Mask wrote:
boske wrote:Well, for one example, we have people that parachute into this thread and tell us to "suck it up" because we have issues with it. There?


That was me that commented "suck it up" (you forgot the buttercup part which I feel really nails the sentence).

Not sure what you mean by "parachuting in" but I've been here from the beginning but don't post as often to give everyone room to vent their feelings.

As far as another data point goes...
I'm a liberal who watched the original run of S1 and S2, saw FWWM in the theater (hated it but love it now), had homemade tapes of the entire series, bought the video tape release, the gold box release, the Chinese pilot release, , the FWWM release, the missing pieces, a dozen or so TP books and I have revisited S1 and S2 every two years or so and I am loving The Return, buttercup. :wink:


Fine ;-) Let us please leave politics out of this. I never asked that question and I do not care what anybody's affiliations are.
LateReg
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1105
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

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

Postby LateReg » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:29 am

RedRum wrote:
referendum wrote:watched TP as it came out. I have not re watched it since. Season 2 i really actively disliked about 1/3 of, but i stuck with it for the good stuff. There is nothing quite as bad as the worst bits of season 2 ( wyndham earle, civil war, etc) in TP TR. That said, the best aspects of TP TR have ( for me ) been the stuff that has little or no relation to the original series.

I like this series ALOT


Firstly I will agree that there were some really cringe worthy things in the original, such as Catherine as Mr Tojamura and the whole Annie and dale love making scene.

But none of that detracted from the coherence of the story or the overall feel of the series.

I think the key point here is how many times you watched the Original series... you watched it once. Those of us who became fans have watched it more times than we can count, and know it so intimately that it influenced our lives.

Touching us by stimulating our ideals on style, class and peaking out curiosity on mysteries that require a leap of logic to solve, but still tangible enough to be just on the outside of the periphery.

Such wisdom as ' everyday give yourself a present' and a deeper meaningful aspects of our lives as to listen to your inner self more.

If Twin peaks was a painting then seasons one and two had a huge palette of colours that resulted in a photo realistic image, where as Season three has very few colours and so the image is like a cartoon pulp version... no where near the fidelity of the original.

I think it comes down to just what the original meant to you and how much did you know it...


Just to contribute to the data:

I'm 36. My first Lynch film was Lost Highway in 1999, followed by Eraserhead and then everything else. I watched the original Twin Peaks for the first time in college c. 2000 on a Bravo airing. They only showed the Pilot and the first 6 episodes! Then I bought the first season DVD set, and then rented Region 2 discs from my college campus to finish the second season. I bought bootlegs of the series at a comic convention, and then bought season 2 when it was released as a standalone. Then I bought the gold box, and then the beautiful Blu-ray set. And then I bought a 65" OLED TV to make sure I could take in this new season.

I've probably seen the original series around 10 times (and FWWM a little less than that), including three times in the nine months leading up to The Return (I also did a marathon of all of Lynch's work in the weeks leading up to May 21). Like a lot of you, I'm in love with the world of Twin Peaks and its warmth and atmosphere. I am also, however, one who never thought the show would come back, but had longed for a new film by David Lynch. I expected the unexpected with The Return, and I'm still surprised by it. To me, it feels like a logical extension of the Twin Peaks we know and love, albeit mutated by 25 years that none of us or the creators/cast/crew can ever get back. It's certainly jarring, but that's a very important component of The Return. Another, as pointed out prior to its airing by Matt Zoller Seitz, is that Twin Peaks was always an imperfect playground for Lynch/Frost to test out ideas, and while I had never considered it that way until I read Seitz's article, I'm amazed at how prophetic his comment proved to be, since this new series fits that aspect of the original perfectly. Not everything in The Return hits me on first viewing, but what doesn't usually does on second viewing. And as far as all the Sarah stuff, I still have to see where it goes, but so far I can interpret everything through a metaphorical lens (from the origin of evil in Part 8 to Sarah's darkness within in Part 14), and thus nothing from the original has yet been corrupted, for me.

So, I have seen the original nearly a dozen times, I love its atmosphere, and I still think the new series is a logical extension of everything we've already seen. My best friend is a few years older than me, has seen it just as many times as me, and watched the original with her parents when it first aired. It's her favorite thing ever. And she also feels the new one belongs within the world of Twin Peaks. I can see how people don't feel that way. But I just wanted to respond with a little data of my own.
User avatar
referendum
RR Diner Member
Posts: 312
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 2:29 am

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

Postby referendum » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:34 am

Novalis wrote:

Do you imagine it feels a little preachy sometimes? .


the ''Lynch as guru/guide'' aspect is part of my irritation ( rather than disappointment) with TP TR ( i can't see it as series 3) but my answer to your question in short, hearing aid turned down, is:

YES

[ note : series not over yet, opinions subject to revision :) ]

ps , maybe the problem is that Lynch has fallen into that old trap that happens to people when they get old, they can't just tell stories, they always have to put themselves in the story. But then you know teenagers are like that. And ancient legends. So maybe it is our problem as a modern viewer we have lost the connection between the story-teller and the story. and prefer artifice to reality - if we are liberal voters [ thanks redrum]. Republicans would prefer Eastenders, obviously. Surprised it's not syndicated.
Last edited by referendum on Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:46 am, edited 4 times in total.
''let's not overthink this opportunity''
User avatar
N. Needleman
Lodge Member
Posts: 2076
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

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

Postby N. Needleman » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:34 am

I watched the show live as it first aired on ABC when I was a young child, made my mom buy all the merchandise and had a huge poster of Cooper and Harry on my wall at the time, and have watched it and FWWM at least 30-50 times since over the long years. Will that suffice as a real fan, or should I have tattooed the Owl Cave symbol on my scalp?
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
Hockey Mask
RR Diner Member
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:31 pm

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

Postby Hockey Mask » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:36 am

N. Needleman wrote:I watched the show live as it first aired on ABC when I was a young child, made my mom buy all the merchandise and had a huge poster of Cooper and Harry on my wall at the time, and have watched it and FWWM at least 30-50 times since over the long years. Will that suffice as a real fan, or should I have tattooed the Owl Cave symbol on my scalp?

Thank you for the data point.
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Great Northern Member
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Tue Aug 15, 2017 8:36 am

N. Needleman wrote:I watched the show live as it first aired on ABC when I was a young child and have watched it and FWWM at least 30-50 times since over the long years. Will that suffice as a real fan, or should I have tattooed the Owl Cave symbol on my scalp?


Are you saying that you don't have the tattoo already? Gosh, what are you doing on this forum then!
Also, don't forget to cut off your left arm.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests