Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

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

User avatar
StrangerDanger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 am
Location: Another Place

Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by StrangerDanger »

I don't like to fanboy and so l almost can't believe l'm going to type the following, also l like Beatniks, l like sugar, and l aint very good with words, but l feel l'm making a trenchant argument, l may yet shine as a film critic, and l may yet even myself grow to truly hate Series 3:

[PLEASE NOTE: I'm repeating the same basic point over and over, in this OP, so don't worry that it looks lengthy, it's just one simple concept that l go over and over]

I feel some people have automatic issues with Series 3 compared with the old series and FWWM because they expect a repeated pattern, whereas the Twin Peaks franchise is bigger than that.

I think a repeated pattern is subjective, where nothing has any real meaning, everything just goes round and round with slight variations per cycle like a Beat poem with homophonic (?) words i.e. words that sound similar.

An actual story has an objective start, middle and ending, like a ballad or saga.


The disappointed fans of earlier parts of the Twin Peaks franchise (versus Series 3) seem like they want some kind of Beat poetry full of homophonic words, or days full of a bong-for-breakfast routine with slight variations in the essentially same-old day, and so they get distressed when, as the piece progresses, they meet a new word and they don't like it because it's nothing like the previous words - when in fact the franchise was working at the macro level in constructing a line with a beginning, middle and end, and dissenters are getting stuck because they're like Beatniks just wanting the same single word repeated over and over in slightly different homophonic (?) forms, like a romantic cycle or fantasy or something. Makes me think of how things cycling (e.g. the fan in Laura's house) are bad in Twin Peaks.

In light of this, l'd hope people could be more objective in their criticism. Like, for example, the part in Series 3 when that person disappears - they suddenly zoom upwards, which is *everything* l hate about CGI, it looks nothing but fakery. But that's just one moment (a major faux pas though). I also don't like the pace of the show - BUT that's not a major criticism because the main thing to me is the story itself, the beginning, the middle and the end (the pace seems to be a dealbreaker to the "Beatnik" types).

I can see the virtue of living in the present, and maybe that's why the present series has to be candy, there's no virtue in the present series being gritty, cold just because it's part of a wider sequence where it goes from sweet to sour over the long haul, and we're just in a sour part now. Why should we suffer at all?

However, l feel this romantic, cyclic approach ( i.e. settling on one moment over and over, mulling over its sweetness) is unlike the virtue of living in the present.

I think the virtue of living in the present = Living in the present come what may (be it sweet or sour), whereas a cyclic, romantic fixation = naive, gleeful, wanting the same candy over and over again, in slightly different forms but all of the forms have to be candy nevertheless (reminds me of the gleeful monkey-demon in FWWM consuming his Garmonbozia, nothing else matters to the creature). I think my way of seeing it, separates the virtue of living in the present, from the vice of a mere romantic fixation on a cyclic event (= being haunted) where the franchise always has to be like candy and you're maintained on a sugar high. I really think some folks fall into a mindset of demanding all of their candy; l feel this is bereft of virtue.

[P.S.: As l've said elsewhere, l think romantic fantasy is great, but it should be abstract in relation to the storyline itself - like how Julee Cruise's music is an abstraction of Twin Peaks, so it's like a nice romantic accompaniment to it. The problem is when people want that sweet romantic feeling to be "one-and-the-same" as the storyline itself. The romantic feeling is abstract, subjective. The storyline is defined, objective, with start, middle, finish, sweet parts, cold parts, sour parts, all within its wide arc.]
leeeET's ROCK!
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the :?: :idea: ]
User avatar
StrangerDanger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 am
Location: Another Place

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by StrangerDanger »

By the way, l much prefer the preceding stuff to Series 3 so far. For example, the Convenience Store meeting - l doubt we'll ever see anything like that again, within the franchise nor anywhere else. And the engrossing exchange between Jack Nance and the bank manager about the 2x4 plank of wood - that alone is better than all of Series 3 so far, it's so absorbing, as opposed to the jarring Series 3 so far.

My point is: it's not about aesthetics anymore. It's about the message, and the message of the franchise must flow, l'm willing to set aside my feelings for that. Inconsolable detractors seem as if caught up in the romance of youth, and when they reach middle / old age they just want to binge whistfully on more romantic notions / cloister themselves / commit suicide because the pretty birds have flown. Thing is, a forum predicated on the franchise then becomes like an old folks home with people's lives progressing to the end there. And the inconsolable detractors? They would by analogy be a bunch of ageing stalwarts barricaded within the old folks home, in some weird suicide bid rather than age gracefully. That's my point i guess: the franchise is like a home, rather than a hotel (a hotel would be like other franchises that you can dictate terms to). You can do what you want in a hotel.

My point about entrenched malcontents, comparing them to the demon-monkey of FWWM was: the franchise is so robust it answers critics in terms of the franchise itself (e.g. the concept of being hooked on Garmonbozia / c.f. eye and ear candy that the critics - myself included - crave so badly). Nothing personal - l totally empathise with the critics and l see how they validate the franchise by showing how the franchise defends itself in terms of itself. Those inconsolable non-progressives = bad romantics in that they dwell on a cyclic present where what is sweet to them, is spoonfed over and over, whereas l feel true romantics can live in the present virtuously, by taking whatever comes to them, in the present (be it sweet or bitter). The bad romantic in us all, wants all of our Garmonbozia on our terms, nothing else. It feels like a neurotic fixation, like a bong addiction, like permanent munchies, this is the sensuous hippie not the spiritual hippie, the latter lives in the present come what may, the former just wants his Garmonbozia.

Anyway l've said all l have to say and l suspect my point has become irretrievably lost! Best conversation l've had with myself in ages though. I will leave it there.
leeeET's ROCK!
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the :?: :idea: ]
User avatar
enumbs
RR Diner Member
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by enumbs »

Wally Brando, is that you?
User avatar
LurkerAtTheThreshold
RR Diner Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:02 pm

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by LurkerAtTheThreshold »

I like the way you expressed that.

But honestly I don't think that's it. As one of the disappointed fans, whilst you're right, I would've loved a return to the original beat for nostalgic value-- I still was ready to be open minded for anything.

What blows my mind, is that it seems like all these new people ready to embrace this, where no one would have liked Twin Peaks if it had started in the middle of Season Two. This Season makes season two looks like Dostoevsky.

What were getting here is hour upon hour of Josie in the door knob, and people are lapping it up. There's too much fantasy, too much abstraction, it's just not a narrative. It's repeat little Nicky, repeat Evelyn Marsh ten fold.
The only way it seems to be sustaining itself so far is posing more and more ridiculous questions with no answer
How's Annie?
What happens to Josie?
What's the thing in the box?
Who's Dougie?
Why vomit creamed corn?
What's with all the numbers?
Who's the woman with no eyes?

I get Lynchs game, but I honestly don't think the series can sustain itself on constant non sequiturs without a central mystery and a strong narrative thread
User avatar
StrangerDanger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 am
Location: Another Place

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by StrangerDanger »

LurkerAtTheThreshold wrote:I like the way you expressed that.

But honestly I don't think that's it. As one of the disappointed fans, whilst you're right, I would've loved a return to the original beat for nostalgic value-- I still was ready to be open minded for anything.

What blows my mind, is that it seems like all these new people ready to embrace this, where no one would have liked Twin Peaks if it had started in the middle of Season Two. This Season makes season two looks like Dostoevsky.

What were getting here is hour upon hour of Josie in the door knob, and people are lapping it up. There's too much fantasy, too much abstraction, it's just not a narrative. It's repeat little Nicky, repeat Evelyn Marsh ten fold.
The only way it seems to be sustaining itself so far is posing more and more ridiculous questions with no answer
How's Annie?
What happens to Josie?
What's the thing in the box?
Who's Dougie?
Why vomit creamed corn?
What's with all the numbers?
Who's the woman with no eyes?

I get Lynchs game, but I honestly don't think the series can sustain itself on constant non sequiturs without a central mystery and a strong narrative thread
Hi there, thanks! I'll try to be succinct:
- Show is still in first quartile
- Agree that unresolved mystery profile has been filled, would now like major windfalls in story resolution before more mysteries

I'd like to make 2 more points:
- Twin Peaks (series 1, 2, and FWWM) originally had a jaunty boondocks feel, in sync with the far flung middle class northwest. It was like a sabbatical year, with added murder, what's not to like?
- I've discovered that the key is: Not to see it as Twin Peaks, see it as a new entity? It was wrong that the show was described as "pure heroin" because that amplified everybody's expectations thru the roof, in each person's specific way. In my case, l was expecting the Lodge meeting above the convenience store x 4 hours (?). So: l've now cleared my mental registers of wanting Twin Peaks (which as l've shown in the preceding point, was tied to the feel of geographical Twin Peaks, whereas Series 3 is not tied down geographically) and wanting "pure heroin".


In other words, l'm not saying let's please like it, because that's not my business and it'd be downright condescending. I'm suggesting that folks that are so bizarrely upset clear their minds of 2 concepts: Twin Peaks the geographical show, and pure heroin. With that in mind l'll renew my efforts with the new show.
leeeET's ROCK!
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the :?: :idea: ]
User avatar
StrangerDanger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 am
Location: Another Place

Disturbing confession

Post by StrangerDanger »

OK something had been bugging me, people kept mentioning stuff in the first 4 parts that l must have missed despite rewatching once or twice. I had been coming off a medication and also had been on painkillers recently so everything was a bit of a blur.

Long story short - l had in fact unwittingly only seen Episode 1 (Part 1 & Part 2). The entire Episode had been split into 4 quarters with Twin Peaks title screens, and l had somehow thought l had therefore watched 4 parts spanning 4 hours.

I've only now just seen Episode 3 (Part 3) and am now commencing Episode 4 (Part 4), and l have to say, Part 3 was the Lynch + Frost that l've been familiar with, you know, that slightly bashful weirdness that just merges into the background so you're constantly on a plateau of weirdness. I don't get why some people complain, this is very much like FWWM.

Maybe there's confusion as to whether to take it as the Series or the FWWM film / outtakes, well l think it fulfills both. That's all else l have to say for now, l'm going to get absorbed into this. See you.

[P.S.: Shoot both bands so far, they seem too cocky (although the Chromatics do sound much better upon 3rd / 4th listen). The quality of music seems strained these days. No weirdos in the music industry now, just straightcats doing things by the book.]
leeeET's ROCK!
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the :?: :idea: ]
User avatar
Rudagger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Disturbing confession

Post by Rudagger »

StrangerDanger wrote: No weirdos in the music industry now, just straightcats doing things by the book.][/i]
:roll:

Not to get too off topic, but, this is just silly and feels really out of touch ("things were better back then .."). There are plenty of bizarre musicians working today, no more and no less than there were decades ago. You're just seeing what you want to see (because as time goes on, most of those straight laced musicians from the 60s have long been forgotten about, whereas in the present everyone is still sorting through what will go on to become classics).
User avatar
StrangerDanger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 am
Location: Another Place

Re: Disturbing confession

Post by StrangerDanger »

Rudagger wrote:
StrangerDanger wrote: No weirdos in the music industry now, just straightcats doing things by the book.][/i]
:roll:

Not to get too off topic, but, this is just silly and feels really out of touch ("things were better back then .."). There are plenty of bizarre musicians working today, no more and no less than there were decades ago. You're just seeing what you want to see (because as time goes on, most of those straight laced musicians from the 60s have long been forgotten about, whereas in the present everyone is still sorting through what will go on to become classics).
Hi there. Just seen Part 4 and l can confirm that it's 3 bands that need to be shot, with perhaps the exception of Chromatography or whatever their name is, as they're growing on me slightly, even though l don't actually hear them play guitar yet they have guitars, so ya might as well shoot them too *waves*.

Can you name the inspired (= bizarre, alive, lively, inspiring, radical, fresh) musicians that are around today? They're all franchised somehow. Or more precisely, the inspired acts featured in Series 3 so far? They don't approach how unearthly Julee Cruise was in sound and makeup. Btw l'm not just wanting weirdos, l think a band that merges into the ambience would equally be alright.

Frankly l could do better than all of those acts, and l'd do it for free as well if Lynch is concerned. I'd need a singer and some lyrics though.
leeeET's ROCK!
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the :?: :idea: ]
User avatar
Rudagger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2015 6:29 pm

Re: Disturbing confession

Post by Rudagger »

StrangerDanger wrote: Can you name the inspired (= bizarre, alive, lively, inspiring, radical, fresh) musicians that are around today? They're all franchised somehow. Or more precisely, the inspired acts featured in Series 3 so far? They don't approach how unearthly Julee Cruise was in sound and makeup. Btw l'm not just wanting weirdos, l think a band that merges into the ambience would equally be alright.

Frankly l could do better than all of those acts, and l'd do it for free as well if Lynch is concerned. I'd need a singer and some lyrics though.
I'm not even saying the bands in question are particularly great (though, I am very excited to see if Sharon Van Etten performs), but, that statement was a complete dismissal of all modern music.

I mostly listen to smaller bands (though in the age of the internet, it feels like what I think are small bands are actually quite big), Bon Iver, The National, Sharon Van Etten, Jose Gonzalez, etc. There's also stuff like CocoRosie, Father John Misty. Animal Collective. Antlers. Iron & Wine. Daft Punk. Sigur Ros. Lykke Li. Hell, I'm not even a music conneseur, so, I have friends who could give dozens and dozens of great modern acts, just as one can name dozens of 00's/90's/80's/70's/60's musicians.

Anyway, I think your issue is moreso how the bands are *employed*. The concert footage is jarring, as it doesn't feel like it's in the Roadhouse. And none of it is ambient because it's not really occurring within a scene (except for the Shelly/James scene, which I feel works and gives a good vibe), instead, it's just tacked on. So, I think even if Julee Cruise re-appears, if it's not edited into a scene proper it's never going to act as ambience the way you want (which, I agree with personally, I'm not crazy about how they're handling the musical acts .. I was hoping they'd just be playing during Road House scenes).
User avatar
StrangerDanger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 am
Location: Another Place

Re: Disturbing confession

Post by StrangerDanger »

Rudagger wrote:I'm not even saying the bands in question are particularly great (though, I am very excited to see if Sharon Van Etten performs), but, that statement was a complete dismissal of all modern music.
The rubbish on the radio, the rubbish on YouTube ads, the rubbish everywhere, has merged into one for me, the only contemporary like for me is the Tropical House genre.

Rudagger wrote: I mostly listen to smaller bands (though in the age of the internet, it feels like what I think are small bands are actually quite big), Bon Iver, The National, Sharon Van Etten, Jose Gonzalez, etc. There's also stuff like CocoRosie, Father John Misty. Animal Collective. Antlers. Iron & Wine. Daft Punk. Sigur Ros. Lykke Li. Hell, I'm not even a music conneseur, so, I have friends who could give dozens and dozens of great modern acts, just as one can name dozens of 00's/90's/80's/70's/60's musicians.
I'm an 80s and 90s person. Especially the late 80s and early 90s.

I don't get why Lynch got onboard modern commercial sounds. I only recognise Lykke Li from a Lynch collab (which was on 3rd listen decent - "I'm Waiting Here"), and Daft Punk for pretty good music over the years, but l feel Daft Punk are ultimately a commercial act for beer boys.

Rudagger wrote:Anyway, I think your issue is moreso how the bands are *employed*. The concert footage is jarring, as it doesn't feel like it's in the Roadhouse.
Yep.
leeeET's ROCK!
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the :?: :idea: ]
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by Gabriel »

I'd argue against there being any shade of Romanticism in this series; Romanticism generally involves characters having volition, controlling the space in which they operate. In this series, everyone is victim of a big cruel world, awash in a sea of indifference. That couldn't be more naturalistic, curiously enough.
User avatar
StrangerDanger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 am
Location: Another Place

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by StrangerDanger »

Gabriel wrote:I'd argue against there being any shade of Romanticism in this series; Romanticism generally involves characters having volition, controlling the space in which they operate. In this series, everyone is victim of a big cruel world, awash in a sea of indifference. That couldn't be more naturalistic, curiously enough.
Hi there, it was more a speech contra the "Profoundly Derpy Support Group" thread that's now on its 15th page. I felt some inconsolable critics of Season 3 were being premature and perhaps the problem was their romanticism, which reduces to a monkey-demon eating Garmonbozia, which yeah we all have within us. It's bad romance, not good romance.

Following from that, l would say that the path to the Black Lodge is bad romance (Coop giving it all up for Annie, Leland abusing Laura, etc.) - impressed at how Twin Peaks defends itself on its own terms! It's robust, elegant, intricate, sophisticated. Sure, it may yet disappoint, l'm keeping an open mind - my point being that some ppl seem stern, blinkered, in prematurely damning Lynch and Frost. Feel free to comment.
leeeET's ROCK!
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the :?: :idea: ]
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by Gabriel »

StrangerDanger wrote:Hi there, it was more a speech contra the "Profoundly Derpy Support Group" thread that's now on its 15th page. I felt some inconsolable critics of Season 3 were being premature and perhaps the problem was their romanticism, which reduces to a monkey-demon eating Garmonbozia, which yeah we all have within us. It's bad romance, not good romance.
For a start, you're being rude. 'Derpy' indeed! That's no way to debate anything. You're also using terms such as 'Romanticism.' Do you mean 'romance' in a Barbara Cartland sense, or the Romantic movement? Very different things. It looks like you don't understand the Romantic movement and arguments such as objectivity and subjectivity, which relate to that movement.

I think you're basically using high-falutin' terms to say people are wearing rose tinted spectacles about the old show and like aspects of the old show that you don't, so you're suggesting that they're in the wrong for saying the emperor is naked?
Following from that, l would say that the path to the Black Lodge is bad romance (Coop giving it all up for Annie, Leland abusing Laura, etc.) - impressed at how Twin Peaks defends itself on its own terms!
The above isn't really English, but I'm guessing you feel the more melodramatic material is tacky?
Sure, it may yet disappoint, l'm keeping an open mind - my point being that some ppl seem stern, blinkered, in prematurely damning Lynch and Frost. Feel free to comment.
The thread you are sneering at is generally calm and friendly. If people are on the fence or disappointed after watching a length comparable to that of Lawrence of Arabia or Dr Zhivago, I think that's fair. It has nothing to do with Nicotine-stained mid-20th century social inadequates spouting bad verse while wearing sunglasses and berets! ;)
User avatar
StrangerDanger
RR Diner Member
Posts: 160
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 am
Location: Another Place

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by StrangerDanger »

Gabriel wrote:
StrangerDanger wrote:Hi there, it was more a speech contra the "Profoundly Derpy Support Group" thread that's now on its 15th page. I felt some inconsolable critics of Season 3 were being premature and perhaps the problem was their romanticism, which reduces to a monkey-demon eating Garmonbozia, which yeah we all have within us. It's bad romance, not good romance.
For a start, you're being rude. That's no way to debate anything.
What l mean is, the complaints thread got too long for my liking (and grew to attract some pretty bad content, if you noticed?), especially seeing as the story is only quarter way through. Yep, 4 hours is still a long time, but really, it's only the first 2 hrs that were slow, the last 2 hours were way too fast. And as l said: that's not enough to dismiss Lynch + Frost, considering everything that's gone before (Ser 1, 2, FWWM). Btw as you doubtless know, l've often spoken up in defence of ppl demonised just for criticising the new style of Series 3 ...
Gabriel wrote: You're also are using terms such as 'Romanticism.' Do you mean 'romance' in a Barbara Cartland sense, or the Romantic movement. Very different things. It looks like you don't understand the Romantic movement and arguments such as objectivity and subjectivity, which relate to that movement.

I think you're basically using high-falutin' terms to say people are wearing rose tinted spectacles about the old show and like aspects of the old show that you don't, so you're suggesting that they're in the wrong for saying the emperor is naked?
I've been trying to avoid sounding flippant, but originally, all l wanted to say was: please can you read the OP? No offence. Thank you.
Following from that, l would say that the path to the Black Lodge is bad romance (Coop giving it all up for Annie, Leland abusing Laura, etc.) - impressed at how Twin Peaks defends itself on its own terms!
Gabriel wrote: The above isn't really English, but I'm guessing you feel the more melodramatic material is tacky?
Please check out OP & Seasons 1 & 2 ...

It's robust, elegant, intricate, sophisticated.
Sure, it may yet disappoint, l'm keeping an open mind - my point being that some ppl seem stern, blinkered, in prematurely damning Lynch and Frost. Feel free to comment.
Gabriel wrote:The thread you are sneering at is generally calm and friendly ... It has nothing to do with Nicotine-ed-up 20th century social inadequates spouting bad verse while wearing sunglasses and berets!
I've honest to God explained all this in the OP. Can we progress from that? Welcome.
Last edited by StrangerDanger on Mon May 29, 2017 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
leeeET's ROCK!
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the :?: :idea: ]
User avatar
Gabriel
Great Northern Member
Posts: 787
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 12:53 pm

Re: Problem with Series 3 - Romance / Fantasy, versus absolute, objective storytelling (SPOILERS)

Post by Gabriel »

Yes, I read it, StrangerDanger. If you explained it, it wasn't clear. You can't throw around terms such as 'romanticism,' 'objectivity ' and 'subjectivity' in an artistic context without being picked up on it.
Post Reply