For Those Who Were (Mostly) Satisfied with The Return

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

Post Reply
User avatar
Jonah
Global Moderator
Posts: 2815
Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:39 am

For Those Who Were (Mostly) Satisfied with The Return

Post by Jonah »

As we created a new thread for those who are disappointed, it seems only fair to start a thread for those who want to praise the show. A lot of praise for the show already occurs in the General Discussion thread and in the individual Parts/episodes discussion - so you may find this thread is redundant, but to be fair it is being created.

This thread follows the basic rules of the forum (check here: http://www.dugpa.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3340) with additional rules - no predominantly or overly negative or critical opinions on The Return are allowed here and no debating or discussing those who have critical views of the series. That's not to say you are only to praise the show here. You can express some disappointment and gripes but this thread is for those who mostly like it (or large elements of it) and want to share their reasons why with like-minded people. For those who are 50/50 on it like me, feel free to post in the General Discussion thread, the episode threads, or even in both of these threads - but if doing so, just try to keep your posts appropriate to each thread. All we're trying to avoid is heated discussion between those who like and dislike the show - so if you're mixed on it, post what you dislike in the Disappointed thread and what you like in the Satisfied one or just stay clear and use the other threads. Please do not cross-post between the threads or refer/reply to comments in the other thread.
I have no idea where this will lead us, but I have a definite feeling it will be a place both wonderful and strange.
User avatar
mtwentz
Lodge Member
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: For Those Who Were (Mostly) Satisfied with The Return

Post by mtwentz »

Ok, since it says 'mostly satisfied', I will air my one grievance on this thread.

The one scene I have a hard time slogging through, that competes with how I felt about the worst part of Season 2, is the Wally Brando scene. It somewhat hurts my enjoyment of Part 4, which would otherwise be one of my favorite episodes with the wrapping up of the casino scene, the intro of Bobby, Jesse and Chad, the Mr. C interrogation etc.

So can someone explain this scene to me? It is the one part of The Return that is supposed to be funny, but doesn't make me laugh at all, and it is the only part of The Return where I am tempted to hit fast forward.
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
enumbs
RR Diner Member
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: For Those Who Were (Mostly) Satisfied with The Return

Post by enumbs »

mtwentz wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 12:20 pm Ok, since it says 'mostly satisfied', I will air my one grievance on this thread.

The one scene I have a hard time slogging through, that competes with how I felt about the worst part of Season 2, is the Wally Brando scene. It somewhat hurts my enjoyment of Part 4, which would otherwise be one of my favorite episodes with the wrapping up of the casino scene, the intro of Bobby, Jesse and Chad, the Mr. C interrogation etc.

So can someone explain this scene to me? It is the one part of The Return that is supposed to be funny, but doesn't make me laugh at all, and it is the only part of The Return where I am tempted to hit fast forward.
I don’t find it as funny as some - the hysterical lady making strange noises as her child rises up from the passenger seat is more my kind of humour. I still find it quite enjoyable though, especially on rewatches. The idea of Michael Cera as Lucy and Andy’s kid is pretty funny in itself, as is his ‘The Wild One’ inspired outfit. The way he acts as though offering his childhood bedroom for conversion into a study is some kind of noble sacrifice is also amusing, and there are lots of enjoyably ridiculous turns of phrase like “Lewis, and his friend Clark”. Forster’s deadpan reaction to all this unfolding is what makes the scene work though, along with the sight of Wally’s parents grinning and beaming proudly behind him.

I think LateReg has some more substantial thoughts regarding how the speech is relevant to the themes of both the series and Secret History, but I mostly enjoy it as a whimsical non-sequitur.
User avatar
mtwentz
Lodge Member
Posts: 2185
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: For Those Who Were (Mostly) Satisfied with The Return

Post by mtwentz »

Getting back to directorial indulgence, I feel it is mostly a meaningless term. It means the director did not water down their vision to make the film more marketable to popular tastes, and they instead made the film they wanted to make.

The only area where I would personally use this term is when a director puts themself in the film, which Lynch did do in this case. But he also did in Season 2, bit here it eas more than expected.

Even with all that, I think it was tbe right choice and filled in the Meta narrative. Gordon Cole is FBI director and David Lynch is film director.

I did initially not like the French woman scene but the stare that Albert gives Gordon after the woman leaves is hilarious. That is one scene that definitely plays better on rewatch.
F*&^ you Gene Kelly
User avatar
kitty666cats
RR Diner Member
Posts: 131
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:38 pm

Re: For Those Who Were (Mostly) Satisfied with The Return

Post by kitty666cats »

enumbs wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 12:42 pm
mtwentz wrote: Tue Dec 21, 2021 12:20 pm Ok, since it says 'mostly satisfied', I will air my one grievance on this thread.

The one scene I have a hard time slogging through, that competes with how I felt about the worst part of Season 2, is the Wally Brando scene. It somewhat hurts my enjoyment of Part 4, which would otherwise be one of my favorite episodes with the wrapping up of the casino scene, the intro of Bobby, Jesse and Chad, the Mr. C interrogation etc.

So can someone explain this scene to me? It is the one part of The Return that is supposed to be funny, but doesn't make me laugh at all, and it is the only part of The Return where I am tempted to hit fast forward.
I don’t find it as funny as some - the hysterical lady making strange noises as her child rises up from the passenger seat is more my kind of humour. I still find it quite enjoyable though, especially on rewatches. The idea of Michael Cera as Lucy and Andy’s kid is pretty funny in itself, as is his ‘The Wild One’ inspired outfit. The way he acts as though offering his childhood bedroom for conversion into a study is some kind of noble sacrifice is also amusing, and there are lots of enjoyably ridiculous turns of phrase like “Lewis, and his friend Clark”. Forster’s deadpan reaction to all this unfolding is what makes the scene work though, along with the sight of Wally’s parents grinning and beaming proudly behind him.

I think LateReg has some more substantial thoughts regarding how the speech is relevant to the themes of both the series and Secret History, but I mostly enjoy it as a whimsical non-sequitur.
Intentional reference, or unconscious reference? Wally's line "...that's a lovely turn of phrase" in response to Truman's "may the road rise to meet your wheels", heh :) That scene was fun
User avatar
AXX°N N.
Great Northern Member
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2017 8:47 pm

Re: For Those Who Were (Mostly) Satisfied with The Return

Post by AXX°N N. »

I like the Wally scene just because I'm a fan of extended metaphors, and he extends the metaphors to the point they flay in two. It reminds me of my time as a writing consultant. :) But the thing is that it doesn't feel like a take-down, he seems extremely sincere and good-natured about his absurd poeticism. It's kind of endearing and inspiring even if it makes me cringe at the core of my being.
Recipe not my own. In a coffee cup. 3 TBS flour, 2 TBS sugar, 1.5 TBS cocoa powder, .25 TSP baking powder, pinch of salt. 3 TBS milk, 1.5 TBS vegetable oil, 1 TBS peanut butter. Add and mix each set. Microwave 1 minute 10 seconds. The cup will be hot.
User avatar
enumbs
RR Diner Member
Posts: 255
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2015 4:44 pm

Re: For Those Who Were (Mostly) Satisfied with The Return

Post by enumbs »

kitty666cats wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 11:13 pm Intentional reference, or unconscious reference? Wally's line "...that's a lovely turn of phrase" in response to Truman's "may the road rise to meet your wheels", heh :) That scene was fun
Entirely unconscious, ha!
User avatar
NormoftheAndes
RR Diner Member
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 4:00 am

Re: For Those Who Were (Mostly) Satisfied with The Return

Post by NormoftheAndes »

mtwentz wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 9:58 am Getting back to directorial indulgence, I feel it is mostly a meaningless term. It means the director did not water down their vision to make the film more marketable to popular tastes, and they instead made the film they wanted to make.

The only area where I would personally use this term is when a director puts themself in the film, which Lynch did do in this case. But he also did in Season 2, bit here it eas more than expected.

Even with all that, I think it was tbe right choice and filled in the Meta narrative. Gordon Cole is FBI director and David Lynch is film director.

I did initially not like the French woman scene but the stare that Albert gives Gordon after the woman leaves is hilarious. That is one scene that definitely plays better on rewatch.
The main way in which The Return is indulgent is in it having 18 parts, where 10 would have been ample for the material. Again, filling those parts with so many actors is arguably indulgent but it seems they had an idea of making the world of those 18 parts as varied and expansive as possible through the use of different actors. However, filming Las Vegas in California, Buckhorn also in the same general area does limit the variation of landscapes and tonal shifts. Whilst the Twin Peaks settings do look genuine enough, they did film in later summer or fall similar to the shooting schedule of FWWM, which makes the images look somewhat hazy or washed-out at times. None of this adds up to recreating the Twin Peaks feel in general, but that was clearly not something high on the goals for the project. Again you have to bear in mind that whilst the budget was not incredibly small they did shoot as if they were on a low-budget film set. That is very much visible in the finished 18 parts. Should the budget have been concentrated in on just 8 episodes?

In terms of satisfaction with The Return, you inevitably end up in a lose-lose situation if you compare it to FWWM or the first two seasons. I would argue that there is at NO point an attempt to stylistically recreate any particular moment from the preceding work by Lynch or in the writing from Frost and David. Yes, there are nods to moments in FWWM and so on but it never goes so far as to fully engage with the Twin Peaks of olde - clearly a decision that has made some fans feel like they were discarded or not thought of. I can appreciate that but at the same time I do think its a case of fans not being able to see the wood for the trees.
Teetotaling and prayer. Their hands touch yours and mine.
LateReg
Bookhouse Member
Posts: 1435
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: For Those Who Were (Mostly) Satisfied with The Return

Post by LateReg »

NormoftheAndes wrote: Mon Feb 28, 2022 6:33 am
mtwentz wrote: Wed Dec 22, 2021 9:58 am Getting back to directorial indulgence, I feel it is mostly a meaningless term. It means the director did not water down their vision to make the film more marketable to popular tastes, and they instead made the film they wanted to make.

The only area where I would personally use this term is when a director puts themself in the film, which Lynch did do in this case. But he also did in Season 2, bit here it eas more than expected.

Even with all that, I think it was tbe right choice and filled in the Meta narrative. Gordon Cole is FBI director and David Lynch is film director.

I did initially not like the French woman scene but the stare that Albert gives Gordon after the woman leaves is hilarious. That is one scene that definitely plays better on rewatch.
The main way in which The Return is indulgent is in it having 18 parts, where 10 would have been ample for the material. Again, filling those parts with so many actors is arguably indulgent but it seems they had an idea of making the world of those 18 parts as varied and expansive as possible through the use of different actors. However, filming Las Vegas in California, Buckhorn also in the same general area does limit the variation of landscapes and tonal shifts. Whilst the Twin Peaks settings do look genuine enough, they did film in later summer or fall similar to the shooting schedule of FWWM, which makes the images look somewhat hazy or washed-out at times. None of this adds up to recreating the Twin Peaks feel in general, but that was clearly not something high on the goals for the project. Again you have to bear in mind that whilst the budget was not incredibly small they did shoot as if they were on a low-budget film set. That is very much visible in the finished 18 parts. Should the budget have been concentrated in on just 8 episodes?

In terms of satisfaction with The Return, you inevitably end up in a lose-lose situation if you compare it to FWWM or the first two seasons. I would argue that there is at NO point an attempt to stylistically recreate any particular moment from the preceding work by Lynch or in the writing from Frost and David. Yes, there are nods to moments in FWWM and so on but it never goes so far as to fully engage with the Twin Peaks of olde - clearly a decision that has made some fans feel like they were discarded or not thought of. I can appreciate that but at the same time I do think its a case of fans not being able to see the wood for the trees.
I appreciate this insight, Norm. Perhaps 18 parts was indulgent, but then again I think that nearly every decision makes perfect sense in the scheme of what Lynch/Frost were going for, regardless of whether fewer parts would have made a more perfect final product. With only 10 parts, we don't feel the passage of time in the same way. The 18 parts allows us to viscerally feel the toll of time as we're watching, not just in the way the characters/actors look older after 25 years, but also within the new work itself as we wait even longer for Cooper to return, glimpse more slice of life moments that mark time's passage, glean hints of the surrounding town and American landscape, etc., and even question the way Lynch uses time within the narrative, debating whether time is running out to satisfactorily wrap things up while paradoxically watching something we know is a fully thought-out, completed Limited Series.

And MT, I agree about Lynch being a necessary visible presence in The Return due to the themes of the work. But even ignoring that and homing in on the most basic aspect of character, what really bugs me is the notion that just because Lynch put himself in it, it's automatically indulgent. Gordon Cole is the director of the FBI, and head-honcho of the Blue Rose Task Force. That character is certain to play a big role in a series about the disappearance and reappearance of one of their own. At its most basic, the character is necessary, and Lynch happens to play him. From there, there's plenty to explore that makes the decision not just worthwhile, but necessary for the complete vision of the narrative.
Post Reply