World of Blue - Archived Forum 2007-2022

I'm writing an article around criticisms of The Return and want to try and get an idea of the main issues people had with the season. Obviously peoples opinions are more complex than this, but if you could identify your main problem (if any) with The Return, please let me know.
If you have a main complaint that isn't in the list, feel free to add it in replies!

(Edited poll to add all of the above, and none options, after consideration!)

Dropped plotlines. I didn't really have any issue with the creative decisions such as many locales, different use of music or pacing.

My main criticism of the show as a whole was many scenes were too slow. My main criticism of Part 18 is that it did nothing to resolve all the many story arcs that were set up in the previous 17 parts. Combine the two together, and David Lynch just wasted a lot of our time. This could have been a really tight 9-part mini series with an awesome final episode. What a missed opportunity.

Plus many of the scenes were badly acted, as if Lynch just rushed through it and said, "Yeah, that'll do..."

But Lynch got to do exactly what he wanted, which was the whole point really. The point wasn't really to entertain us, it was for Lynch to have fun doing whatever he wanted. I've seen him say that he thinks the artistic process is more important than the end result, so that says it all really. David Lynch cared more that he got to enjoy the process of making this than he did about whether or not it was actually a good viewing experience.

That said, I did enjoy a lot of it. Some episodes were superb!

Elad Repooc wrote: But Lynch got to do exactly what he wanted, which was the whole point really. The point wasn't really to entertain us, it was for Lynch to have fun doing whatever he wanted. I've seen him say that he thinks the artistic process is more important than the end result, so that says it all really. David Lynch cared more that he got to enjoy the process of making this than he did about whether or not it was actually a good viewing experience.

That said, I did enjoy a lot of it. Some episodes were superb!

Lynch has gotten exactly what he wanted in terms of creative control since Blue Velvet.

Panapaok wrote:Dropped plotlines. I didn't really have any issue with the creative decisions such as many locales, different use of music or pacing.

Yes, I have to agree with that. I am still mulling over the reason. Were they basically leaving them open for a potential Season 4? Or was the point to show little vignettes of life, not to have full blown subplots.

For the record, some subplots were ultimately resolved:
1. Richard
2. Chad
3. Nadine/Dr. Amp
4. Ed/Norma/Walter
5. Dougie/Janey-E/Sonny Jim (if you consider that a 'subplot')

I was actually considering making a poll like this, but including more options. I voted "dropped plotlines," but could also say "lack of character development". This show was obviously made primarily as an exercise in absurdism and existentialism. However, that doesn't excuse Lynch from just basic, nuts and bolts service to a story. You can give basic plot resolution to things and still keep the air of mystery. Mulholland Drive's shoddiness in this respect was due to it being a pilot with added scenes, but with this it feels like Lynch was trying to copy the results of that situation without having to, considering S3 was supposed to be a whole work, a closed-end movie. Almost nothing that was introduced that had an air of mystery and promise was followed up on. As the show went on, I kept assuming that the next episode would return to some of these things, then the next, then the next, then we got to the two-part finale, and it felt like too little time to address many of these things, and in fact none of them were addressed.
*Who is the money man behind the glass box?
*What was Mr. C's real purpose, what did he want to do in the "White Lodge" (if that's what that is)?
*Buenos Aires, and the device that turned to silver.
*What was the purpose of the Woodsmen? It felt like they were going to be the "men" who are "coming," but after Part 8, they had only one significant comeback, in Part 11.
*Sarah's revealed to be a monster, but almost nothing more with her.
*Audrey.

None of the above bothered me much at all, which is not to say I won't find some things to criticise over time in the coming years.

As it stands my point of criticism would begin and end with the representation of women, but given this is an ongoing critique I hold with all of Lynch's work, it doesn't make much sense to raise it as if it were a failing of The Return in particular. I've learned to adjust my expectations accordingly, and with that done, I still find S3 remarkable.

IcedOver wrote:I was actually considering making a poll like this, but including more options. I voted "dropped plotlines," but could also say "lack of character development". This show was obviously made primarily as an exercise in absurdism and existentialism. However, that doesn't excuse Lynch from just basic, nuts and bolts service to a story. You can give basic plot resolution to things and still keep the air of mystery. Mulholland Drive's shoddiness in this respect was due to it being a pilot with added scenes, but with this it feels like Lynch was trying to copy the results of that situation without having to, considering S3 was supposed to be a whole work, a closed-end movie. Almost nothing that was introduced that had an air of mystery and promise was followed up on. As the show went on, I kept assuming that the next episode would return to some of these things, then the next, then the next, then we got to the two-part finale, and it felt like too little time to address many of these things, and in fact none of them were addressed.
*Who is the money man behind the glass box?
*What was Mr. C's real purpose, what did he want to do in the "White Lodge" (if that's what that is)?
*Buenos Aires, and the device that turned to silver.
*What was the purpose of the Woodsmen? It felt like they were going to be the "men" who are "coming," but after Part 8, they had only one significant comeback, in Part 11.
*Sarah's revealed to be a monster, but almost nothing more with her.
*Audrey.

I'll play devil's advocate: does Mr. C's real purpose really matter all that much? We know whatever he wanted, it was not going to be good for humanity, possibly catastrophic, so why do we need to know the specifics?

I was more annoyed by lack of resolutions with Audrey, Sarah and Red (whom I thought was going to be a major character but turned out to be a cameo).

mtwentz wrote:

IcedOver wrote:I was actually considering making a poll like this, but including more options. I voted "dropped plotlines," but could also say "lack of character development". This show was obviously made primarily as an exercise in absurdism and existentialism. However, that doesn't excuse Lynch from just basic, nuts and bolts service to a story. You can give basic plot resolution to things and still keep the air of mystery. Mulholland Drive's shoddiness in this respect was due to it being a pilot with added scenes, but with this it feels like Lynch was trying to copy the results of that situation without having to, considering S3 was supposed to be a whole work, a closed-end movie. Almost nothing that was introduced that had an air of mystery and promise was followed up on. As the show went on, I kept assuming that the next episode would return to some of these things, then the next, then the next, then we got to the two-part finale, and it felt like too little time to address many of these things, and in fact none of them were addressed.
*Who is the money man behind the glass box?
*What was Mr. C's real purpose, what did he want to do in the "White Lodge" (if that's what that is)?
*Buenos Aires, and the device that turned to silver.
*What was the purpose of the Woodsmen? It felt like they were going to be the "men" who are "coming," but after Part 8, they had only one significant comeback, in Part 11.
*Sarah's revealed to be a monster, but almost nothing more with her.
*Audrey.

I'll play devil's advocate: does Mr. C's real purpose really matter all that much? We know whatever he wanted, it was not going to be good for humanity, possibly catastrophic, so why do we need to know the specifics?

Because it fits in with the Black Lodge stuff. For instance, why does the Lodge want him back? Why does he not want to go? Why does he think capturing the evil entity will do for him? Is this why the Black Lodge spirits decided to help Coop?

I'm fine with figuring some things out, but audience members need to know why things are important and what the mechanics of the world are so we can become emotionally involved in them. Why open up the world beyond Twin Peaks if it's just going to be dropped?

mtwentz wrote: I'll play devil's advocate: does Mr. C's real purpose really matter all that much? We know whatever he wanted, it was not going to be good for humanity, possibly catastrophic, so why do we need to know the specifics?

Yes, it does matter. Some things that were hanging can be dismissed, and one can say it doesn't much matter, but this does. It would have given much more emotional weight and high stakes to the proceedings to get some clue-in on who he is, what he wants, what he's been doing for 25 years aside from hanging out with lowlifes. It's not a minor character; it's the doppelganger of the main character. Same thing with the Woodsmen, to know at least a bit about what they want, assuming their goal and Mr. C's goal was intertwined (or maybe they were working against each other, maybe it was a Woodsman who called him in Part 2 . . . who knows?). Instead we get nothing, no emotion (after his scene where he shows emotion with Ray, Darya and Jack in the diner, he's a blank), and no idea what he's doing. Is he or the Woodsmen leading an invasion of aliens, some sort of psychic invasion of depression . . . what? This could all have been addressed so simply by having him talk about his plans to Richard on the way to the rock. Instead it's just silent driving. So many missed opportunities. He arrives at the station, and we have no idea what he's doing or what he wants, and goes out being shot by Lucy instead of confronting Cooper. We knew Freddie was going to do more punching at some point, so the better idea would have been for him to go up against One-Punch Man Mr. C, not an orb with a deceased actor's face inside. So . . . sloppy.

I thought the poll would maybe be looking at academic criticism (hmmm, how will that get put into a poll? I wondered), but this is more along the lines of a Jay Sherman review, "It Stinks!"

I enjoyed having my expectations undermined, and since there is no option for "none of the above" I'm sitting this one out. For an "It Stinks!" aspect of the show, I would say . . . the opening montage is pretty lame, except for the long silence before the music starts. The silence could have been longer.

Bad writing - I guess lack of character development and dropped plotlines would fall into that, but I wouldn't choose one over the other. Stylistically I enjoyed it, aside from some aspects of the cinematography. Some really cool ideas thrown around. But whatever Lynch and Frost were trying to communicate with this thing I feel did not come across, and there was sloppiness in the way that the different narrative strands fit together.

Thoughtless gender representation.

I still like it, but it badly missteps in ways I don't feel most other Lynch productions do. That's both slightly alleviated by the story coming back to Laura's abuse narrative and the way it's written onto the world, and made slightly worse by it, for being thoughtless at points with a subject it clearly cares deeply about.

Where's the "all of the above" option?

Dropped plotlines were the worst, but the others all figure to some extent in my criticism. Then again, I believe destinations are the priority, not journeys. Essentially, TPTR was four months of wasted time!