Twin Peaks Return: The Profoundly Disappointed Support Group

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

User avatar
N. Needleman
Lodge Member
Posts: 2082
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

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

Postby N. Needleman » Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:29 pm

Dalai Cooper wrote:my point was only that if the untrue statements - deliberate or honest mistakes - are being used in support of otherwise baseless speculation on the psychological motivations behind what is evidently an untroubled and successful collaboration, it's like... just say you don't like it? No need for the alt-facts.


All I ask for. Including the claims of the creators' seething contempt for the show, etc.
The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
Agent Earle
Great Northern Member
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:11 pm

waferwhitemilk wrote:I miss these guys:
Image
I guess what this new season has taught me, all its possible time travel themes notwithstanding, is that you can't go back in time, which admittedly isn't really Lynch's fault per se.


HEAR, HEAR!
AnotherBlueRoseCase
RR Diner Member
Posts: 145
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2017 10:17 am

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

Postby AnotherBlueRoseCase » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:13 pm

Good posts, Venus and Mr Podcast.

By almost any standard measure most of The Return has failed artistically. It is really anti-narrative, in the sense we’ve had the anti-novels of Calvino and Joyce, the anti-comedy of Andy Kaufman and Jerry Sadowitz, and so on.

But because I admired part 8, I’m now happy to wait and see why they’ve decided to take the anti-narrative approach. Some least favourite possibilities: that it’s some art school conceptual pish to do with matter and anti-matter or positive and negative electrical charges or whatever; that Coop is suffering for days so the audience should at least suffer for hours; or that the creators have just turned into misanthropic old men and genuinely dislike their audience. Sadly none of these can be discounted.

One of the more interesting anti-narrative possibilities, though, is that’s it’s connected to Lynch’s interests in Eastern philosophy and practise, much of which is concerned with escaping personal narrative, the ongoing stories we tell ourselves to maintain the illusion of individuality (what is the meditation he so values but the ending of inner narrative?). This would bring The Return into line with the anti-novels of Beckett, whose work it resembles more obviously than that of Kafka IMO. If it turns out that this series is trying something that ambitious – an all-out attack on narrative itself and the illusions it creates – then it’s hats off to all concerned for the bravery of the attempt if nothing else.

Anyway, this seems the most intriguing question now: why have they chosen to make so much of The Return so bad in the traditional sense? Why has the occasional deliberate shoddiness of the previous seasons now become the default? The debate about whether or not this has happened ended weeks ago, while Dougie was scrawling his third/fourth/fifth ladder on an insurance claim.

There’s no way this thread ends with agreement that The Return was actually a good story. The opposite is pretty much guaranteed. But it would be nice to at least know why this route was taken.
Last edited by AnotherBlueRoseCase on Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Lynch on Trump, mid-2018: "He could go down as one of the greatest presidents in history."
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 Jun 27, 2017 3:14 pm

waferwhitemilk wrote:I miss these guys:
Image
I guess what this new season has taught me, all its possible time travel themes notwithstanding, is that you can't go back in time, which admittedly isn't really Lynch's fault per se.

And obviously not his goal.
User avatar
Rudagger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 337
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:29 pm

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

Postby Rudagger » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:23 pm

Hockey Mask wrote:
waferwhitemilk wrote:I miss these guys:
Image
I guess what this new season has taught me, all its possible time travel themes notwithstanding, is that you can't go back in time, which admittedly isn't really Lynch's fault per se.

And obviously not his goal.


Well, to be fair, up until very late in the game, the MFAP was supposed to be in it, along side Mike and archival footage of Frank Silva. So, it's not like his goal was to not use them.

I'm absolutely love the new series, but, the only thing that's missing a bit for me is the MFAP. The Evolution is neat, but, it feels like what it is (a last minute replacement for MJA). Shame the actor had to go off the deep end as there are some moments that I think would carry a bit more weight just by virtue of his character's history. I also just think the Red Room scenes have felt a bit empty, for whatever reason (like, physically shot super wide, and just having Mike with a talking .. brain? Tree brain? Neuron? It feels like everyone's out for drinks and he's the only one there)
Agent Earle
Great Northern Member
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:26 pm

N. Needleman wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:Maybe the poster who made that post jumped to conclusion re Frost's presence on the set as there really weren't that many photos of him there (I remember 1, maybe 2) and everyone has been silent as a tomb re Frost's role in the actual shoot - hence, his speculation seems more than valid to me.


Earle, a huge bulk of the shit we've seen in the last hour alone (and other parts) comes straight out of Mark Frost's book. It may not be explicated through pages of dialogue in the Twin Peaks Sheriff's Department conference room (yet), but it's all there in that text and people have been poring over it for the last 24-48 hours. Mark Frost would seem to be the furthest from out in the cold. BTW Mädchen Amick, among others, has also come out and specifically said a huge portion of Season 3's story is all Frost.

Further: I get that you want to take it as a personal offense that Lynch had an offhand comment about Season 2, but you have to understand the man's own point of view. His baby was fucked with because the network wanted the story wrapped up. He was deeply invested in that story, and the show was never the same after that compromise, nor was his career. If you were a creator in a similar position you'd likely have similar complicated feelings.

I love Season 2 but I know Lynch is not referring to all of it, and I don't take it personally. It's not about me or my love for the show in all its good, bad or both. It's about what he went through. It's not about validating you. Diving deep into a grudge with David Lynch over Season 2 after 25+ years seems like a pointless use of time to me.


You bring up valid points. I'll be the first to admit I am taking this personally, probably too much, but you have to understand, this - well, that - show has been with me for so long now, and certain aspects of Season 2 especially are so profound and near God-like to me, so much so that I'm incapable of rationality when it comes to them. Sigh. It's probably best that I refrain from posting on this forum for some time, at least till I get more perspective on the new stuff as well as Lynch's statements and cool my head and then see how I feel about it all - I'd hate to be an instigator of fruitless arguments about taste and personal preferences, there's been too much of them already. Peace, fellow TP fan.
Last edited by Agent Earle on Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 Jun 27, 2017 3:36 pm

Agent Earle wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:Maybe the poster who made that post jumped to conclusion re Frost's presence on the set as there really weren't that many photos of him there (I remember 1, maybe 2) and everyone has been silent as a tomb re Frost's role in the actual shoot - hence, his speculation seems more than valid to me.


Earle, a huge bulk of the shit we've seen in the last hour alone (and other parts) comes straight out of Mark Frost's book. It may not be explicated through pages of dialogue in the Twin Peaks Sheriff's Department conference room (yet), but it's all there in that text and people have been poring over it for the last 24-48 hours. Mark Frost would seem to be the furthest from out in the cold. BTW Mädchen Amick, among others, has also come out and specifically said a huge portion of Season 3's story is all Frost.

Further: I get that you want to take it as a personal offense that Lynch had an offhand comment about Season 2, but you have to understand the man's own point of view. His baby was fucked with because the network wanted the story wrapped up. He was deeply invested in that story, and the show was never the same after that compromise, nor was his career. If you were a creator in a similar position you'd likely have similar complicated feelings.

I love Season 2 but I know Lynch is not referring to all of it, and I don't take it personally. It's not about me or my love for the show in all its good, bad or both. It's about what he went through. It's not about validating you. Diving deep into a grudge with David Lynch over Season 2 after 25+ years seems like a pointless use of time to me.


You bring up valid points. I'll be the first to admit I am talking this personally, probably too much, but you have to understand, this - well, that - show has been with me for so long now, and certain aspects of Season 2 especially are so profound and near God-like to me, so much so that I'm incapable of rationality when it comes to them. Sigh. It's probably best that I refrain from posting on this forum for some time, at least till I get more perspective on the new stuff as well as Lynch's statements and cool my head and then see how I feel about it all - I'd hate to be an instigator of fruitless arguments about taste and personal preferences, there's been too much of them already. Peace, fellow TP fan.

Keep in mind, there are many who have the same profound, God-like thoughts of Twin Peaks that you have but are loving S3. Part of the arguments are deriving from the frustration that fans like you aren't seeing what we think is obvious in S3's greatness.

I hope you come around to it. You, as a long time fan, deserve it.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Lodge Member
Posts: 2082
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

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

Postby N. Needleman » Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:54 pm

I don't care if people see what I see, that doesn't frustrate me. People are entitled to how they feel, they're not entitled to tell me how I feel (nor I them). I just wish the level of venom could be turned down in the discussions about it, sometimes on both sides.

That being said, yes, I first watched this show when I was very small 25 years ago and it is as important and essential to my life as anyone here. It's integral to me and my imagination. But if I didn't like TPTR, I'd shrug it off as I did the Star Wars prequels when they failed to match the original films. I wouldn't pretend I loved it to spare my heart. I simply do love it. I'm not asking anyone to pretend they do, just know I'm not, and know the show is as important to me as it is to them.
The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
Nikki Grace
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:54 am

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

Postby Nikki Grace » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:06 pm

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:that the creators have just turned into misanthropic old men and genuinely dislike their audience. Sadly none of these can be discounted.


The other, truer option is that they don't care about the audience!
User avatar
Nikki Grace
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2017 11:54 am

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

Postby Nikki Grace » Tue Jun 27, 2017 5:08 pm

Agent Earle wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:Maybe the poster who made that post jumped to conclusion re Frost's presence on the set as there really weren't that many photos of him there (I remember 1, maybe 2) and everyone has been silent as a tomb re Frost's role in the actual shoot - hence, his speculation seems more than valid to me.


Earle, a huge bulk of the shit we've seen in the last hour alone (and other parts) comes straight out of Mark Frost's book. It may not be explicated through pages of dialogue in the Twin Peaks Sheriff's Department conference room (yet), but it's all there in that text and people have been poring over it for the last 24-48 hours. Mark Frost would seem to be the furthest from out in the cold. BTW Mädchen Amick, among others, has also come out and specifically said a huge portion of Season 3's story is all Frost.

Further: I get that you want to take it as a personal offense that Lynch had an offhand comment about Season 2, but you have to understand the man's own point of view. His baby was fucked with because the network wanted the story wrapped up. He was deeply invested in that story, and the show was never the same after that compromise, nor was his career. If you were a creator in a similar position you'd likely have similar complicated feelings.

I love Season 2 but I know Lynch is not referring to all of it, and I don't take it personally. It's not about me or my love for the show in all its good, bad or both. It's about what he went through. It's not about validating you. Diving deep into a grudge with David Lynch over Season 2 after 25+ years seems like a pointless use of time to me.


You bring up valid points. I'll be the first to admit I am taking this personally, probably too much, but you have to understand, this - well, that - show has been with me for so long now, and certain aspects of Season 2 especially are so profound and near God-like to me, so much so that I'm incapable of rationality when it comes to them. Sigh. It's probably best that I refrain from posting on this forum for some time, at least till I get more perspective on the new stuff as well as Lynch's statements and cool my head and then see how I feel about it all - I'd hate to be an instigator of fruitless arguments about taste and personal preferences, there's been too much of them already. Peace, fellow TP fan.


I doubt very much Lynch was serious, and he probably wouldn't have made those comments if he was speaking to someone more clued up on Twin Peaks. He's a cranky old man who hates media interviews; he gave a snappy soundbite to envelop how he generally felt about the show's direction. Do you really think there are "god-like" moments in S2 though that aren't from the beginning or final episodes? Do you put episodes from the dreaded middle run up on that pedestal?
User avatar
counterpaul
RR Diner Member
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:06 am

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

Postby counterpaul » Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:42 pm

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:By almost any standard measure most of The Return has failed artistically.


It's probably inadvisable for me to respond to this statement, but I'm genuinely curious about what you consider to be "standard measure(s)" of assessing artistic success/failure. Unless I'm misinterpreting, you do not seem to be speaking of your own subjective reaction (which: different strokes for different folks and all that), but rather you seem to be implying something more objective.

I can think of several measures by which TPTR, so far, would be considered a resounding artistic success (critical and general fan consensus, the ability to create "buzz," inspiring other artists, how it makes my guts flutter and zing) but I am also totally willing to admit that they may be measures you would consider non-standard.

It's also odd to me that you follow this statement by comparing The Return to the work of some of the greatest artists of the 20th Century. I suppose the comparison could be meant to imply that Lynch has only attempted something these great artists have succeeded at. Or would you contend that Joyce and Calvino and Kaufman and Beckett are also artistic failures, by almost any standard measure?

Man, I can see how most of that might sound really snarky. I genuinely don't mean it that way (I find snark dull and counterproductive in nearly any context). I find your post fascinating in its apparent contradictions!

AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:It is really anti-narrative, in the sense we’ve had the anti-novels of Calvino and Joyce, the anti-comedy of Andy Kaufman and Jerry Sadowitz, and so on.


This is what really prompted me to respond to this post. It's an interesting thought, and there is some textual evidence that Lynch is at least partially taking an anti-narrative approach (the glass box can be read as a TV and the creature murderously breaking out of it and attacking the "viewers" as a commentary on how we as viewers of The Return will not come out of this project unmutilated; ??????? breaking the 4th wall to seemingly appraise us as viewers before going on to essentially appraise the film itself--these are two examples that jump immediately to mind), but I don't think Lynch is interested in Brechtian methods that keep the audience from investing emotionally. It's not his style at all. He's all about immersion, and I do not think TPTR is an exception.

It's actually not new for Lynch to try and have his cake and eat it too in this way. From his very earliest experiments, he has always been interested in simultaneously revealing the seams, even reveling in the artifice of his creations, and encouraging total immersion--getting "lost inside a dream," as he likes to put it. I think it's because, for Lynch, reveling in the tools of art-making is not in any way contradictory to being consumed by the art. The making of the thing (or, for the viewer, being invited into becoming almost a post-facto participant the making of the thing) is a huge part of the joy of art for him. To be reminded of artifice, in this context, is not to be made self-aware and distant from the art. It's part of the immersion!

This isn't a totally unheard-of approach in the world of filmmaking, but it is extremely unusual in the world of narrative filmmaking and possibly unprecedented in the world of narrative filmmaking at this scale/budget/audience size.

It's a big part of the magic, though. It's not so much anti-narrative and narrative-plus. At least from Lynch's point of view.

It works for me like gangbusters!

I like your Beckett comparison. I think Beckett worked similarly in a lot of ways.
User avatar
DoppelBocker
Roadhouse Member
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2017 11:14 pm

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

Postby DoppelBocker » Tue Jun 27, 2017 10:13 pm

I will wait until episode 18 is finished before making a judgement on if this felt like a "return", a sequel to Inland Empire using Twin Peaks characters, or something else entirely. I have enjoyed it so far but do kind of wonder what direction things'll take the remaining episodes.

I have faith Lynch will put out something interesting but have begun to become unsure if it will feel like a "return" for the following POSSIBLE directions I'm hoping the series won't take along with a few storypoints I'm kind of confused by:
-Story possibility of Giant=god and Palmer=some sort of starchild to counteract Bob doesn't feel in keeping with what was established in the 90's if that's the case
-Potential origin of lodge spirits perhaps changing (if says all created in a blast I'm not digging that especially after the history that's been laid out so far has suggested otherwise)
-Confusion over the diary stuff (hope gets clarified in season 3)
-The whole Dougie creation thing is confusing as heck. Hope this is also addressed in season 3.

Minor:
-Location of Twin Peaks and Deer Meadow seemingly changing (minor gripe but still always envisioned Twin Peaks in NE Washington or somewhere further inland)
-The evolution of the arm a bit what the heck... An arm turns into a midget that turns into a tree with a brain... Hmmm... Anyway, I like the theory that the face of Mike is the man from another place that Phillip doesn't wear anymore (like Leland wearing face of Bob) after seeing the light so when Mike inhabits just see Phillip with altered voice minus an arm of course. The tree thing I don't know about... I suppose Phillip has died so is in the lodge now so man from another place is no longer present but a tree with a brain odd choice...
Agent Earle
Great Northern Member
Posts: 987
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

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

Postby Agent Earle » Wed Jun 28, 2017 12:31 am

Nikki Grace wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
N. Needleman wrote:
Earle, a huge bulk of the shit we've seen in the last hour alone (and other parts) comes straight out of Mark Frost's book. It may not be explicated through pages of dialogue in the Twin Peaks Sheriff's Department conference room (yet), but it's all there in that text and people have been poring over it for the last 24-48 hours. Mark Frost would seem to be the furthest from out in the cold. BTW Mädchen Amick, among others, has also come out and specifically said a huge portion of Season 3's story is all Frost.

Further: I get that you want to take it as a personal offense that Lynch had an offhand comment about Season 2, but you have to understand the man's own point of view. His baby was fucked with because the network wanted the story wrapped up. He was deeply invested in that story, and the show was never the same after that compromise, nor was his career. If you were a creator in a similar position you'd likely have similar complicated feelings.

I love Season 2 but I know Lynch is not referring to all of it, and I don't take it personally. It's not about me or my love for the show in all its good, bad or both. It's about what he went through. It's not about validating you. Diving deep into a grudge with David Lynch over Season 2 after 25+ years seems like a pointless use of time to me.


You bring up valid points. I'll be the first to admit I am taking this personally, probably too much, but you have to understand, this - well, that - show has been with me for so long now, and certain aspects of Season 2 especially are so profound and near God-like to me, so much so that I'm incapable of rationality when it comes to them. Sigh. It's probably best that I refrain from posting on this forum for some time, at least till I get more perspective on the new stuff as well as Lynch's statements and cool my head and then see how I feel about it all - I'd hate to be an instigator of fruitless arguments about taste and personal preferences, there's been too much of them already. Peace, fellow TP fan.


I doubt very much Lynch was serious, and he probably wouldn't have made those comments if he was speaking to someone more clued up on Twin Peaks. He's a cranky old man who hates media interviews; he gave a snappy soundbite to envelop how he generally felt about the show's direction. Do you really think there are "god-like" moments in S2 though that aren't from the beginning or final episodes? Do you put episodes from the dreaded middle run up on that pedestal?


I think the middle run of S 2 contains certain parts, elements, aspects etc. that are as good to me as the rest of the series (for the record, I think the absolutely best part of the series are the first 9 episodes of S 2, far surpassing anything in S 1) - I love everything with Windom Earle (and with Leo Johnson by extension) as a way to learn about Cooper's backstory (which I think is really intriguing and well-done: I adore the fact that they made his past such a tragic one and him a deeply scarred man), everything with Annie Blackburn as a way to get to witness our staunch hero in a romantic mode, everything with Jean Renault, everything with the Packards and Thomas Eckhardt, everything with Major Briggs and the Project Blue Book. I have a lot of room for the James & Evelyn stuff and Dick Tremayne (just 'cause he's genuinely funny). I used to detest Little Nicky and John Justice Wheeler as much as the next guy but lately they've managed to grow on me. I still mostly hate Ben's Civil War phase and Nadine the Superwoman.
But overall, what I like most about that segment of the show is how the creators (whoever they were at that point) managed to completely upend the series: on the surface, if kinda became this goofy crazy-event-or-dorky-townie-of-the-week soap opera (which is a miracle in itself, given the profound tragedy and darkness of violence, incest and murder it made us witness just a few eps back!), but below the surface, this mind-blowing, completely one-of-a-kind mythology was slowly creeping in, practically concealed from an inattentive viewer's mind. It's as if they made everything in the last 10-12 episodes in an attempt to lull viewer into a feeling of tranquility, safety, even occasional boredom, just so that the Finale (which is the show firing on all cylinders!) could come along and pull the rug from under his feet, causing a fall from which he would never fully recover.
All in all, S 2 is a wild, erratic, deeply layered, strange and wonderful cocktail of tones, genres and creative approaches unlike anything before or after - whenever I'm watching or thinking about it, it's like I died and went to television heaven! :)
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 » Wed Jun 28, 2017 1:27 am

I definitely don't feel any vitriol or venom towards those of you loving this. But when I drop in on other threads there are always a number of snide/high-handed/sarcastic comments like, 'Oh Episode 8 didn't have any Dougie, I'm sure THEY will still find something to complain about'. Like, yeah, that's what this is all about, a bunch of us wanting to be negative about The Return.

I loved the level the original and FWWM worked on. That photo of Laura - the smiling prom queen. It worked on the level that it was a young girl projecting health and happiness to the outside world, while dying inside. Now with this orb thing, no, actually Laura WAS a heavenly beatific creature! The smile was genuine after all! I mean, I don't get it and maybe I'm missing a lot. Or maybe that whole sequence has another interpretation or whatever. The problem for me is that it was PERFECT before and you can't enhance perfection.

So in retrospect I just with that The Return had never been made. Actually during the wilderness years when people were debating whether they'd want to see TP return a lot of people said they wouldn't. Myself included. Then The Return was announced and we all got carried away by the excitement, so that virtually everyone who didn't want to see it return, suddenly did (again I'm guilty of this). I was right the first time, probably should have stuck to my guns and not watched this. But that would have been pretty impossible. Now TP is honestly ruined for me. Somebody said, well just don't take this as canon. How can I not! Every episode is directed by Lynch! There is nothing more canon than this.

I'm honestly not saying this is bad or terrible or that you who love it are wrong and we're right. Not at all. I just hate it. And we care about different things. I don't care about how amazing every pixel on the screen has been rendered or the level of technical genius. It means nothing to me. Don't get me wrong, if those things contribute to some overall effect then of course they are important, but they mean nothing to me IN ISOLATION. And in The Return those 'brilliant' aspects only exist in isolation because the overall effect is extreme tedium.

I'm just astounded that FWWM got slammed when it was first shown (I loved it from the off) and this is being absolutely gushed over. I don't get it.

Edit: Also NIN in The Roadhouse. Just lol. I loved that Twin Peak existed in its own little bubble. Now it's a major touring spot for well known bands. They should have Justin Bieber and Katy Perry perform in the next two episodes, just to kill this off forever.
User avatar
Driftwood
RR Diner Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 1:40 pm

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

Postby Driftwood » Wed Jun 28, 2017 2:11 am

it's really weird and just completely baffling to me that people who were supposedly twin peaks fans all this time, for this one would just turn into exactly the kind of people who got the original show cancelled in the first place. Or backlashed against fwwm. People learn nothing from history.

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 17 guests