Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

IcedOver
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

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

Postby IcedOver » Thu Feb 15, 2018 9:05 pm

NormoftheAndes wrote:I always took this comment as a wry statement on the male sexual urge, which was always there in Twin Peaks for sure - for good and for very bad! Isn't this line staged in such a way that Cole is well aware that it makes him look out of step with modern times? Its partly self-mocking but also possibly hinting that Cole knows a lot more than he lets on and knows what he's doing as FBI Chief.


"Out of step" in what way?

Honestly, I can't believe such analysis has been done over five words, a throwaway comedic line.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
Kilmoore
Posts: 110
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2017 12:20 pm

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

Postby Kilmoore » Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:10 am

IcedOver wrote:Honestly, I can't believe such analysis has been done over five words, a throwaway comedic line.

Well, there's no plot or characters to analyze, so the attention is drawn to editing glitches and awkward jokes.
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

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

Postby mtwentz » Sat Feb 24, 2018 11:33 am

Well, I am going to try, as best I can, to depart dupga.com for a while, partly because I need to focus on some other things, and partly because I want to forget about TP:TR for a few months, so I can finally marathon it in the full 18 hour watch someday.

Whether you enjoyed immensely or intensely disliked the TP:TR, I've enjoyed the banter/interaction on this thread. I thought even though we disagreed a lot here, the discussions were very cool. And if there's another season, maybe it can be a little less divisive :-).
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2473
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:57 pm

mtwentz wrote:Well, I am going to try, as best I can, to depart dupga.com for a while, partly because I need to focus on some other things, and partly because I want to forget about TP:TR for a few months, so I can finally marathon it in the full 18 hour watch someday.

Whether you enjoyed immensely or intensely disliked the TP:TR, I've enjoyed the banter/interaction on this thread. I thought even though we disagreed a lot here, the discussions were very cool. And if there's another season, maybe it can be a little less divisive :-).


Agreed! I’ll miss you MT, but can certainly understand the need to get a little distance. Look forward your Return!
Agent Earle
Posts: 920
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Sat Feb 24, 2018 12:59 pm

mtwentz wrote:Well, I am going to try, as best I can, to depart dupga.com for a while, partly because I need to focus on some other things, and partly because I want to forget about TP:TR for a few months, so I can finally marathon it in the full 18 hour watch someday.

Whether you enjoyed immensely or intensely disliked the TP:TR, I've enjoyed the banter/interaction on this thread. I thought even though we disagreed a lot here, the discussions were very cool. And if there's another season, maybe it can be a little less divisive :-).


I always appreciated your ability to address disagreements on the basis of the subject, not on the basis of those who are in disagreement, no matter how heated the discussion (and heated it should be, when it comes to hardcore fans). Even if I often felt/feel the opposite of you, your arguments always had calming effect on me. Anyway, good luck to you and no hard feelings! :)
User avatar
Mr. Strawberry
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:17 pm
Location: Nevada City, CA
Contact:

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

Postby Mr. Strawberry » Fri Mar 09, 2018 3:04 pm

So I've been thinking about Twin Peaks since the Season 3 finale aired and I have to say, after plenty of reflection, it simply lacks magic for this particular viewer. Nothing left me wondering about the mysteries or speculating about the events that unfolded in the years between. It's just left a really bad taste in my mouth, and that's about it.

The show did feature some very strong scenes early on, scenes that were packed with mood and implication, and it certainly felt like it was heading in a very deep, dark and frightening direction. Yet even though the mystery felt thick and heavy at the outset, the reality is that we were strung along every episode, and all the anticipation and starved speculation was rewarded with a bunch of unrelated and underwhelming bullshit capped off with terrible lip-synced performances from mostly obnoxious bands that seemed heavily invested in image but not in music. The experience was not pleasant, and whether or not it was good, or bad, it was still nothing like any of the original show. Nothing at all!

It would have been very difficult to make Twin Peaks work after a 25 year break. I'm not denying that. But it's almost as though Lynch and Frost experienced tremendous stage fright and ultimately did not try to make a new season at all. It felt like a new show featuring cameos from the Twin Peaks cast, and it contained a small handful of scary scenes and truly intriguing material interspersed among endless "setup" that in actuality sets one up for nothing but more setup, ultimately being a hype trail that leads to a disappointing dead end. That’s how it left me feeing, in any case.

mtwentz wrote:Since The Return, I've thought more about the afterlife, dualism, identity, memory, amnesia, the passage of time and ultimately, whether 'we live inside a dream', then I ever have in my life.

I think the folks who were disappointed were looking for something that wasn't there (the soap opera and/or murder mystery aspects of the original series) without realizing they missed what is there: one of the great 'mind bending' psychological films of all time.

But then again, the mind bending stuff is not everyone's cup of tea. I come from the background of being a mind explorer/mind warrior from a young age, '2001' being my first favorite film. So I am very prejudiced toward this type of cinema.

For me it wasn't the lack of soap opera / murder mystery elements, but rather the lack of focus. In the original show we followed the characters and got to peek into their lives. As things changed around them, we were able to ride along and subsequently feel as they felt. This time, we were given but a few fragmented glimpses into the lives of individuals we've come to know and love. For some, seeing the original characters thrown a handful of cameos was downright heartbreaking. When you consider the time spent on new characters who didn't impact us like the original characters did, along with the investment in Roadhouse performances and other such side story, it can be maddening. It's all the more frustrating when you see these Twin Peaks characters featured in a new film that was great, perhaps even the greatest Lynch film yet, but one that mostly failed to harness the things that made Twin Peaks magical to begin with.

A few things also occurred outside the bounds of creative control, and how the creators dealt with those factors was also a problem for the new Twin Peaks. Two of the larger examples would be the loss of David Bowie and the absence of Michael Ontkean. Make no mistake, dealing with those realities must have been hell for Lynch and Frost.

There's nothing subtle about the magic that was created when Agent Cooper teamed up with Harry S. Truman, and Season 3 was denied it, but moving another Truman brother into position did nothing to patch the issue up. Others have voiced the opinion that placing Hawk in the role of Sheriff would have been the best route to take and I have to agree. More Hawk is hard to argue with, and though Frank Truman was one cool dude, we could have just as easily done without him. Personally I'd have preferred to see Andy, Hawk, Bobby, and Big Ed working in unison. I mean, we're already crazy about these four, and the Sheriff's Department has an established history of working with the Bookhouse Boys.

As far as Phillip Jeffries goes, that's another area that was handled fairly poorly. Phillip was never much more than a side note in the larger picture. Though I greatly admire the clear attempt to pay homage to the actor behind the character, I believe the outcome represents a good case of how not to deal with loss of an actor during production. If the actor passes and hasn't filmed scenes or recorded dialogue yet, you're left with a limited set of avenues to take. In this instance, hiring someone to impersonate the original actor's voice just didn't work for me. It only served to bring me out of the story as I lamented the route taken. It felt forced, I guess, as though Lynch and Frost simply could not accept the situation they landed in, and their insistence on including Jeffries birthed a workaround that seemingly created more problems than it solved.

Ultimately, when going into Season 3 of Twin Peaks, one bases their expectations on the previous two seasons, and not on the general oeuvre of David Lynch, though it of course should be factored in.

I would like to add, however, that being a fan of his films, hearing that he would be the sole director for all episodes was the best news at the time. The Lynch episodes of Seasons 1 and 2 were great, so expecting more of that did not seem unreasonable. The way it worked out, however, was that the third season is really more of a related story to the original, rather than a continuation. If it were its own disconnected film, I would be able to enjoy it much more (sans Roadhouse!). As it stands, the original characters making cameos amidst brief glimpses of Twin Peaks sure makes for some extremely depressing viewing.

After having given it some thought, it seems to me that straying from the approach used to create the first two seasons was a mistake. Initially, I thought that by ditching the slew of writers and directors, the work would be more focused and more "Twin Peaks" than ever. But even though we've got another decent Lynch film on our hands, we've missed a great opportunity to get the continuation we all hoped for.

Personally, I've grown weary of reading so many posts that claim fans were disappointed due to expecting one thing but getting another. I think that's unfair. The burden is not on the audience here. Lynch and Frost had a precedent to follow. This was not a new show. They should have attempted to balance making something that was satisfying for them with something that would have also been satisfying for us. Otherwise, what's the point of making more Twin Peaks? Seeing Big Ed for 5 minutes is outright depressing. Same goes for Shelly, Norma, Dr. Jacoby, Nadine, James, and all the rest. It seems unconscionable that after all this time the creators would bring the old cast back only to use them as sparingly as possible. They pop on camera for a quick moment then it's back to Las Vegas and other spots to showcase random henchmen that are 100% uninteresting.


TL;DR

I was hoping to
-Get some of the same feelings that the original series imparted
-Catch up with the characters we have come to know and love and follow their lives once again
-Go on a journey with Good Cooper / Evil Cooper
-Feel the same dread and horror that was so commonplace in the original story

But didn't
-Get that same feeling as much as get hints that it would be back
-Catch up with our beloved townsfolk as much as say a quick hello before heading off to watch random vignettes with strangers
-Go anywhere other than an insurance office and suburban residence
-Feel scared at all after the first few episodes

New disappointments included
-The Roadhouse scenes! Yuck!!!
-Base villains ("Uh oh, my head is gonna get crushed" V.S. "I will be taken over and made into a host of unspeakable evils")
-Tons of throwaway characters who superseded the main characters in order to appear, contribute nothing to the narrative and at most a smidgen to the mood, then vanish from the story altogether
-An amorphous and intangible narrative that appears to be a product of whimsical notions and rough concepts, threatening to destroy its own foundation in the name of "Nothing means anything; Make it whatever you like"
Not taking any calls.
IcedOver
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

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

Postby IcedOver » Fri Mar 09, 2018 8:34 pm

^^I share a few, but not all, of your disappointments. My problems with it stem from issues the show had in and of itself, less of how it related back to the original. I actually believe it would potentially have fallen more flat had he tried to replicate the moods and rhythms of the original exactly. Sometimes it hurt not to have that familiarity, not even to have the main character back fully until the last two plus eps (his mostly silent Lodge scenes barely count as Cooper). However, the show was asking us in a sense why that was important to us. If you got all you wanted, why would that be preferable to reality where nobody ever gets what they want? The world of 27 plus years ago is gone, for us and the characters. The show is partly about that, and Lynch may even have unmade the whole world with the awful "Back to the Future" stuff.

It is, as you said, pretty much "nothing" -- make of it what you want. It's a pretty negative work, the product of a 70-year-old man saying "Fuck it, and fuck you too. I'm just going to play around". It's that aspect of it I liked to a certain extent. I just wish that that playfulness had had more engaging characters and perhaps at least one plot thread that held together in a satisfying way. Another huge problem I have is that none of the characters offer any introspection. In the original show you had characters talking about their feelings and offering that window, but in this, so many were so cardboard, including most of the returnees. Perhaps that's part of the complete break with the past(?) -- not just total break with story and characters, but we're not even going to get to feel anybody in the same way. The most "Peaks"-ish stuff for me was the Big Ed/Norma scenes, and it's indicative of how different this show was that they almost felt out of place.

Even with these problems, I've found myself thinking of this show more than any new movie I've been to in the last few years. Of course part of that is because being a fan since 1990 sort of predisposes you to be more interested than a casual fan. However, when I watch movies that are so basic and boring in their structure, it makes me look a tad more fondly on this, which is so loose. Even if you look at something which is also surreal like Darren Aronofsky's "mother!", that film left no "room to dream" despite being weird. It sets up a scenario and totally resolves it -- asked and answered. Whatever the serious problems with this show, at least some aspects stick with you. Sometimes I feel in sync with it, others not. It's that kind of thing -- you just have to go with it.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
User avatar
Mr. Strawberry
Posts: 277
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2017 10:17 pm
Location: Nevada City, CA
Contact:

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

Postby Mr. Strawberry » Sun Mar 11, 2018 3:52 am

IcedOver wrote:^^I share a few, but not all, of your disappointments. My problems with it stem from issues the show had in and of itself, less of how it related back to the original. I actually believe it would potentially have fallen more flat had he tried to replicate the moods and rhythms of the original exactly. Sometimes it hurt not to have that familiarity, not even to have the main character back fully until the last two plus eps (his mostly silent Lodge scenes barely count as Cooper). However, the show was asking us in a sense why that was important to us. If you got all you wanted, why would that be preferable to reality where nobody ever gets what they want? The world of 27 plus years ago is gone, for us and the characters. The show is partly about that, and Lynch may even have unmade the whole world with the awful "Back to the Future" stuff.

My problems mostly stem from the same. I think that my disappointment with the lack of any similarity to the old show was born from my extreme frustration regarding a total lack of direction or meaning in the new one. It's as though I resorted to thinking, "Well fuck, guys... if it's this hard for you to conjure up or commit to anything concrete, you could have at the very least revisited some of the old feelings!"

I suppose a healthy balance would have been nice. Sure, we never get everything we want, but life is rough, so is it too much to ask for a scrap here and there?

IcedOver wrote:It is, as you said, pretty much "nothing" -- make of it what you want. It's a pretty negative work, the product of a 70-year-old man saying "Fuck it, and fuck you too. I'm just going to play around". It's that aspect of it I liked to a certain extent. I just wish that that playfulness had had more engaging characters and perhaps at least one plot thread that held together in a satisfying way.

I'm not convinced that age is a factor here, though negativity could be, of course. But think of Claude Debussy, just as an example. Even dying from cancer didn't make him a creatively negative force. Lynch appears to be in fine health, physically and mentally. He's a celebrated artist and is free from many of the struggles people like you and I endure on a daily basis just to survive. Yet sometimes our emotional state doesn't reflect our reality, so there's that too.

IcedOver wrote:Another huge problem I have is that none of the characters offer any introspection. In the original show you had characters talking about their feelings and offering that window, but in this, so many were so cardboard, including most of the returnees. Perhaps that's part of the complete break with the past(?) -- not just total break with story and characters, but we're not even going to get to feel anybody in the same way. The most "Peaks"-ish stuff for me was the Big Ed/Norma scenes, and it's indicative of how different this show was that they almost felt out of place.

You've really hit the nail on the head there. Regardless of the story or much of the content displayed, there's simply no connection to the characters -- something that was paramount in the first two seasons is essentially missing here, and it really shows.

IcedOver wrote:Even with these problems, I've found myself thinking of this show more than any new movie I've been to in the last few years. Of course part of that is because being a fan since 1990 sort of predisposes you to be more interested than a casual fan. However, when I watch movies that are so basic and boring in their structure, it makes me look a tad more fondly on this, which is so loose. Even if you look at something which is also surreal like Darren Aronofsky's "mother!", that film left no "room to dream" despite being weird. It sets up a scenario and totally resolves it -- asked and answered. Whatever the serious problems with this show, at least some aspects stick with you. Sometimes I feel in sync with it, others not. It's that kind of thing -- you just have to go with it.

You're right about the deep introspection that the show can generate. And yes, compared with many other shows and movies, it's got a lot of unique ideas and cool imagery that get the mind turning in a way that other stories simply do not. However, for me at least, that fact only piles on more frustration. It spotlights how great the potential was here, and gives you an idea of just how stellar the show could have been, if only they'd tried harder. Season 3 could have easily been twice as good or more so, and all of the posts speculating where the show was going (posts which turned out to be dead wrong) illustrate this fairly well. Those posts also serve to illustrate how powerful the implications of the early scenes were. They were strong and packed with a promise of great dread and deep mystery to come. If only the feelings could have been matched down the road, and those dark dreams have come true. We would have had our Twin Peaks yearnings satisfied after all these years of waiting.
Not taking any calls.
IcedOver
Posts: 430
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 1:31 pm

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

Postby IcedOver » Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:52 am

Mr. Strawberry wrote:You're right about the deep introspection that the show can generate. And yes, compared with many other shows and movies, it's got a lot of unique ideas and cool imagery that get the mind turning in a way that other stories simply do not. However, for me at least, that fact only piles on more frustration. It spotlights how great the potential was here, and gives you an idea of just how stellar the show could have been, if only they'd tried harder. Season 3 could have easily been twice as good or more so, and all of the posts speculating where the show was going (posts which turned out to be dead wrong) illustrate this fairly well. Those posts also serve to illustrate how powerful the implications of the early scenes were. They were strong and packed with a promise of great dread and deep mystery to come. If only the feelings could have been matched down the road, and those dark dreams have come true. We would have had our Twin Peaks yearnings satisfied after all these years of waiting.


Yes, I agree. The early parts promised things that never came to fruition in any way, and things don't add up or are contradicted later. I can't help but look at that as carelessness, but if one goes down that route, what else is just carelessness? Even as far as Part 8 you had the clear implication of some sort of "invasion" idea (whether physical or some kind of "psychic/negativity/depression" thing), but it's pretty much dropped except perhaps in Sarah's case. That was very disappointing. Then you have the Cooper time travel idea which dominates the finale, which comes out of left field.

The show had the potential to be so much better than it was given the time and freedom, but to be fair, that could be said about any flawed work. You can think of any thousands of ways this thing could have been presented or resolved itself given what was presented. However, we just have to take what's on the screen even though we have the "woulda/coulda/shouldas" playing over and over. The Roadhouse scenes you mention disliking I didn't mind. They're part of the looseness I found intermittently engaging, even if I disliked most of the songs. It would have been preferable if it hadn't focused so much on little-known hipster groups where it felt like they had applied to be on the show, and instead had some songs written specifically for the show.
I DON'T FEEL GOOD!!!!!
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2473
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

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

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Sun Mar 11, 2018 8:25 pm

Mr. Strawberry wrote:Lynch appears to be in fine health, physically and mentally. He's a celebrated artist and is free from many of the struggles people like you and I endure on a daily basis just to survive. Yet sometimes our emotional state doesn't reflect our reality, so there's that too.


That last sentence could serve as a mission statement for DKL’s entire artistic output! See Nikki Grace, Fred Madison, etc. etc.

It spotlights how great the potential was here, and gives you an idea of just how stellar the show could have been, if only they'd tried harder.


This is probably the best interview I’ve seen with DKL about the new season: https://www.reddit.com/r/twinpeaks/comm ... _lynch_by/

I have no desire to tell anyone else how they should feel about the show, but if nothing else, I think this interview should dispel the idea that L/F half-assed this season, or could have “tried harder,” as you say. DKL says he didn’t paint, sculpt or create anything aside from TP for 2.5 years while the production was going on. Anyone familiar with DKL’s sensibiities and lifestyle will realize what an ENORMOUS commitment it was to divert all of his artistic attentions to this one project for that span of time. You don’t have to like the result, but I don’t think there’s any doubt — based on this interview as well as the BTS footage — that DKL put in as much effort as he humanly could on this project.
User avatar
sylvia_north
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:41 pm

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

Postby sylvia_north » Mon Mar 12, 2018 3:16 am

https://www.kqed.org/pop/95873/the-musi ... ry-episode

“The Musical Guests in Twin Peaks Ruin Almost Every Episode”
LFB > S3 < green tea latte Frank
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:42 am

Mr. Strawberry wrote:There's nothing subtle about the magic that was created when Agent Cooper teamed up with Harry S. Truman, and Season 3 was denied it, but moving another Truman brother into position did nothing to patch the issue up. Others have voiced the opinion that placing Hawk in the role of Sheriff would have been the best route to take and I have to agree. More Hawk is hard to argue with, and though Frank Truman was one cool dude, we could have just as easily done without him. Personally I'd have preferred to see Andy, Hawk, Bobby, and Big Ed working in unison. I mean, we're already crazy about these four, and the Sheriff's Department has an established history of working with the Bookhouse Boys.


I really have no opinion on Hawk as sheriff. Sometimes good people decide not to be leaders, and stay in the more “philosophical” parts of the job rather than having to deal with the day-to-day activities of being the highest authority. Who knows, it’s not uncommon for a good employee to refuse a promotion.
I liked Frank Truman enough to not really care about it. Not a fan of him by any means, I missed our old Harry, but it was an ok solution.

As for the “old team” I thought about it quite a deal, since the moment The Return was announced. Why? Because I feared to see the old guys ruining the magic of the previous seasons. Look at Andy, or Lucy, Big Ed, or even Nadine and Jacoby. They look old, they are old, and even in real life they... feel old. I don’t mean to diminish their acting abilities or their personality, but the truth is that their age is visible and it definitely took a tool...as it did on me. You can see it even in incredible actors such as DeNiro or Jack Nicholson.
I think that focusing on them would’ve been an exhibit of the show’s age. I think that one minute more of Ed and Norma would’ve felt like an high-school reunion where you see your HS beau... and are somewhat disappointed by it. If you think about it, this lack of focus on the old guard, as you say, indeed kept the magic of the old guard alive.
By reading your comment, you don’t see them as the old, tired, stale guys that never left the small town and are ready for a new adventure just because the stars aligned, but they are still the good ‘ol guys of 1989 in everything. For me that’s a big mission accomplished by Lynch. I already compared TP:TR to the Gilmore Girls in previous posts. If you look at the new GG, most of the characters feel somewhat stale, there is little progression, and I could not see it going on for more than four episodes (the “recital” scene was already WAY too long). It’s just impossible to bring back even one tenth of the original magic.
Obviously that doesn’t mean that you have to like what was put in its place by any means.
Last edited by yaxomoxay on Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 767
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

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

Postby yaxomoxay » Mon Mar 12, 2018 7:52 am

sylvia_north wrote:https://www.kqed.org/pop/95873/the-musical-guests-in-twin-peaks-ruin-almost-every-episode

“The Musical Guests in Twin Peaks Ruin Almost Every Episode”


If there is one article I disagree almost completely with, it’s this one.
For one, who cares about the musical piece. If you like the music good, if you don’t, it’s ok. I’d rather have this than see the slow mo video accompanied by Beckley’s Hallelujah or stuff like that.
Second, it’s a town of 52K people. True. It’s indeed unlikely to see that many bands in a few days.
The place where they do Coachella has a population of 60K. The place where they did Woodstock has a population of 5K.
Difficult, but not impossible especially considering the region.
As far as we know, the “Big Hipster Coachella Woodstock Festival of Twin Peaks” might go on. Of all the many things to criticize about this show, this is probably the silliest one... and I am not even a fan of many of the performers.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
User avatar
Snailhead
Posts: 547
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2016 2:45 pm

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

Postby Snailhead » Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:04 pm

sylvia_north wrote:https://www.kqed.org/pop/95873/the-musical-guests-in-twin-peaks-ruin-almost-every-episode

“The Musical Guests in Twin Peaks Ruin Almost Every Episode”


I agree with that assessment EXCEPT for Nine Inch Nails. Their performance is part of what makes Part 8 so special.
Welcome to Canada...
User avatar
sylvia_north
Posts: 423
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2016 1:41 pm

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

Postby sylvia_north » Wed Mar 14, 2018 2:05 pm

Posted a grip of links on the Gender thread but this one stood out, if anyone who cares about the male violence against women topic is still here. The mission statement on the site can answer any of the usual ‘but, art.. reality’ defenses, and no, no one advocates censorship. Also for all those who feel validated in the materialistically-motivated arc of Janey-E who brought Dougie’s hoeing on by being a #untamableshrew , the author sees this interpretation as the correct one.

https://www.exquisite-misogyny.com/2017 ... /#more-630
LFB > S3 < green tea latte Frank

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: a whole damn town and 9 guests