Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

[N. Needleman]

Also, don't forget to cut off your left arm.

A rookie mistake.

[Manwith]

We can't help liking the show any more than you can help hating it.

But how can you like it when it literally corrupts the original material so completely?

Do you like the season as a stand alone?

Or do you like the fact it changes the meaning of the original so completely.?

Does that then mean you didn't really like the original?

Do you see why those of us that hate what season three cannot see eye to eye with those that love season three?

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.

This isn't really a contradiction. Harry assumes Cooper is there because she crossed state lines and says so. Cooper doesn't talk about the blue rose in Fire Walk With Me (Missing Pieces scene) so he presumably would not have told Harry even if he was there because of the blue rose.

[Aqwell]

...I have revisited S1 and S2 every two years or so and I am loving The Return, buttercup.

[Hockey Mask]

...I have revisited S1 and S2 every two years or so and I am loving The Return, buttercup.

Well played.

[Mallard]

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.

Who was I kidding? I couldn't have resisted peeking in.

And trust me, I can see why this show doesn't resonate with some people. Even for me, it walks a very fine line between enthralling and irritating. Parts 12 (and proabably Part 10) are the only ones that I think really fell flat, but every part has had something that I've complained about.

Im fact, after part 12, my wife told me she was sorry that I was so disappointed by this new
show, especially since I had been looking forward to it so much. I looked at her with confusion, and explained how much I liked it and how I thought it had lived up to my expectations. She responded, "Are you sure? All you ever do is point out the stuff you don't like about it."

[referendum]

Im fact, after part 12, my wife told me she was sorry that I was so disappointed by this new
show, especially since I had been looking forward to it so much. I looked at her with confusion, and explained how much I liked it and how I thought it had lived up to my expectations. She responded, "Are you sure? All you ever do is point out the stuff you don't like about it."

that is a great description of your relationship with your wife. I like the way that TP TR / Lynch opens doors to other people saying stuff they would not normally have said by the simple virtue of being willing to go out on a limb and not be ashamed of it. This to me is part of the business of margins blurring between different worlds and why i find this forum fascinating.

the handmade - borderline crap sometimes - aspect of twin peaks makes it feel very PERSONAL - as much as it makes other people flinch or turn off. It CONNECTS - 25 years ago as now, Lynch can do that. The difference is the audience is ....25 years on.

<jumps in the same river twice, swims off>

[RedRum]

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.

Thank you for this very interesting comment, I laughed outwardly when I read about the TV

When FWWM was released I spent nearly £3000 on an HD projector, and back then there wasn't LED, most of the cost was the bloody bulb assembly.

This is what I simply cannot understand about your experience, the very essence of Twin Peaks was the following of a single story as told through the eyes and following the lives of the inhabitants of Twin Peaks.

It was the characters themselves that brought life to the show, with all their idiosyncrasies and how they reacted to and interacted with the creeping dark and each other, at the very edges of their lives. It was through this mechanism that we were able to 'get into' the story. How interlaced and interwoven the the lives of those characters were.

Season Three actually changes the meaning of that story so completely that all of what we previously knew to be true and understood twin peaks to be about are twisted...

So I simply do not understand how someone can reconcile the new series with the original... not even stating 25 years has passed things have changed is enough as the series format doesn't stay long enough with any single character for us to even define how or what changed for them.

Season one at its viewer peak had 34 million viewers and in season one an average of just over 20 million viewers. Those viewers were made up of mostly ordinary people who until that point had never seen anything by David Lynch.

So Twin Peaks appealed to people from all walks of life and it was ground breaking because of David Lynch's influence, but it worked because of the plethora of Directors that grounded the show and made it into something that people could enjoy but speculate over.

I think if there was ever a statement that would be true of Season three... Too much of a good thing can ruin it... and in this case the too much element is Lynch himself....

[LateReg]

Re: the dreaminess of it all, one thing I liked about 'Inland Empire' was this idea of a bottomless dream, which btw I also agree with on a philosophical level, and to me the succesful thing about that experiment was exactly that it didn't make a lot of sense, every scene just followed the other without trying to. The original 'Twin Peaks' off course was a lot more conventional with a narrative that veered into the absurd here and there but that on a basic level made sense. That also worked great and was a succes. Now for 'The Return' it's mostly the senseless dream vibe we're getting, but this is then mixed with these -imo- very clunky explanatory dialogue where they suddenly act as if it's a conventional narrative where there's a plot that actually matters! This to me is a less succesful mix, and I'd go as far as saying it's the worst of both worlds: a plot that doesn't work because of the senseless dreamquality of it all and a dream that doesn't work because it keeps getting interrupted by a clunky plot. And i'd go even further and say that the middleground between a conventional narrative on the one hand and an experimental dream on the other often seems to be -to me at least- a clunky trolley vibe.

That's very interesting and I see what you mean. I just wanted to comment on the clunky exposition you mention, as I was pondering this yesterday. Sometimes we get ZERO information; other times, like when Truman is on the phone with Cole about "two Coopers," we get oddly truncated information, and then other times we get something explained to us nearly completely (sometimes I feel like a bug on a wall, witnessing a natural conversation for a second time, while others I feel like the audience, witnessing a dump of information for my benefit). Beyond the fact that I personally think the more expositional elements don't feel much different from certain scenes in the original series and therefore may either be totally sincere or an inside-joke that I'm meant to chuckle at, I think there has to be some intentionality to all of this. At the very least, it adds to the playful and jarring nature of The Return, never allowing a viewer to become comfortable with the way the story is being told.

[Rialto]

For our American friends, it's the equivalent of watching a British drama and the only American character is a fat, obnoxious loudmouth who constantly exclaims 'Gee Whiz!', 'Real Neat!' or 'Hot Dog!' Offensively bad.

I completely agree with your broader point but, amusingly, I can think of one American who talks pretty much exactly like that.

And it's David Lynch.

Good point!

[Mallard]

Im fact, after part 12, my wife told me she was sorry that I was so disappointed by this new
show, especially since I had been looking forward to it so much. I looked at her with confusion, and explained how much I liked it and how I thought it had lived up to my expectations. She responded, "Are you sure? All you ever do is point out the stuff you don't like about it."

that is a great description of your relationship with your wife. I like the way that TP TR / Lynch opens doors to other people saying stuff they would not normally have said by the simple virtue of being willing to go out on a limb and not be ashamed of it. This to me is part of the business of margins blurring between different worlds and why i find this forum fascinating.

the handmade - borderline crap sometimes - aspect of twin peaks makes it feel very PERSONAL - as much as it makes other people flinch or turn off. It CONNECTS - 25 years ago as now, Lynch can do that. The difference is the audience is ....25 years on.

<jumps in the same river twice, swims off>

I'll second that as to why I like this forum.

[yaxomoxay]

So Twin Peaks appealed to people from all walks of life and it was ground breaking

I don't think that this will happen again. Successful shows that also include some artistic element are very specialized nowadays. Yes, you can have your CSI but if you look at anything even slightly deeper than your typical crime drama it's all going into very small playing fields. And TP carries a very heavy baggage with it.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[mtwentz]

(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.

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.

Ok, I have to admit to being a little confused. Do we know anything about the Frog Moth other than what we saw on the screen on that particular episode? As far as I know, that scene could be completely metaphorical and as far as I know, we have not established the identity of the girl.

Some posters have stated they think she is Sarah Palmer, and that's probably a good guess, but it could also end up that that scene is never explained and could be left up to interpretation.

[LateReg]

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.

I admit the notion that Lynch putting himself front and center in this film is at all a questionable thing is lost on me. I love his performance, love his character, love the guide aspect of his character, especially since he often doesn't know any more than the rest of us. I also think it makes perfect logical sense for his character to be so front and center, as he probably feels somewhat responsible for his agents going missing; and as a director, feels great about having that most special agent/actor back in his films. And as I already stated, the Bellucci sequence works so well for me not as a wink, but as an actual representation of a bottomless dream that is life/art/cinema, etc, as well as a haunting acknowledgment of looking back and only then seeing one's younger self. This is a bottomless and constantly expanding work and Lynch's presence is, imo, a huge part of that.

[RedRum]

So Twin Peaks appealed to people from all walks of life and it was ground breaking

I don't think that this will happen again. Successful shows that also include some artistic element are very specialized nowadays. Yes, you can have your CSI but if you look at anything even slightly deeper than your typical crime drama it's all going into very small playing fields. And TP carries a very heavy baggage with it.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I disagree..

Look at Series that were directly influenced by Twin peaks that are infinity better than season three...

The Killing
Northern Exposure
Top of the Lake
Wayward Pines

Non of the above could out TP season one or two... but Season Three they have it hands down!

[referendum]

This is a bottomless and constantly expanding work and Lynch's presence is, imo, a huge part of that.

yes but don't you think there is a point where it becomes ' alfred hitchcock presents' rather than a world you can get lost in ( aka the twilight zone)