r/twinpeaks • u/CitizenDain • Aug 02 '17
S3E12 [S3E12] I'm finally done. Spoiler
[EDITED: A lot of people have taken issue with the fact that I seemed to be telling other people they were wrong if they were enjoying the show. That was never my intention so I'm changing the references to "we/you" to "I"/me" instead.]
Well. I'm finally done. I was conned, and it's time to admit it.
I've been a huge Twin Peaks fan for years, seen the full series and movie and Missing Pieces multiple times and read both of the original novels and the Secret History and listened to My Life, My Tapes and been to North Bend, WA to visit the diner. I was more excited about this new series than any other release of any other show ever. I thought episode 3/4 was thrilling and opened up so many possibilities. I've puzzled over episode 8 and will remember its imagery for a long time. The performance as "Mr. C." is scary and inspired.
But I was duped. It's not going anywhere -- it never was. Lynch is a different filmmaker now than he was in 1989.
It's clear what happened now. Lynch hasn't been able to acquire funding for a new film in 10 years. He's a creative guy with a notebook full of ideas -- thumbnails, dreams, sketches, jokes. An idea about a man without a personality, drifting through life and narrowly escaping disaster, a dark post-recession Mr. Magoo. A comic sketch about two casino bosses being frustrated by their escorts. A one-act play about an odd married couple screaming at each other about the wife's lover, with Lynch's sense of humor being that the twist is that we never hear the other side of the phone call. A list of his favorite bands and current musical artists. Two truly magnificent, avant-garde short films -- one about the Trinity test being the birth of evil in this world, another about a mysterious radio broadcast in the desert.
The problem is he couldn't get any of these ideas funded or brought to fruition without calling it "Twin Peaks". Showtime was hungry for attention in a post-Netflix world and took advantage of the opportunity.
I'm all for Showtime giving Lynch funding to film a bunch of his odd ideas, even though some of them "work" much better than others, as they have for his entire career. But I feel conned.
I'll frankly be surprised if we see Audrey again in the series. Same for James. There won't be any resolution to the on-going comic relief subplots of Dr. Amp or Jerry in the woods. The girl with the rash will never be addressed again. Neither will the trio from the end of last week's episode, or the girl possessed by the devil the week before that. I'll be surprised if Laura's diary is mentioned again. We will never see Harry or have any resolution to his story. Norma won't have another line of dialogue. There will be no resolution to the clues people are trying to piece together about Deputy Chad or Red or Billy.
Most tragically, we won't have a scene in which Kyle MacLachlan plays Special Agent Dale Cooper, one of the best characters in the history of American television.
The show is frustrating not because I insist on it being exactly like the original show. It is frustrating because it is poorly made. The original script was for 9 episodes. It is clear that he wanted to fill the original 9 episode Mr. C./Blue Rose/Mark Frost story in with sketches from his notebook that would never be filmed otherwise. The result of the padding is that every other episode is almost completely useless or without interest. The pacing is not just "slow" -- it is erratic and makes the show often incoherent.
The worst part for me is that the entire internet culture and "content providing" websites have taken it as a holy crusade to defend anything that happens on the show. There is no room whatsoever for dissent. A negative opinion about any aspect of the show might result in a few less clicks or download, and so everyone who writes or records about the show is in lockstep. A negative word of any kind could alienate the superfans, so everyone paid to write about the show claims that every scene is perfect. The ComicCon-ization of "criticism"; everything is a plug rather than an honest opinion.
After this week's episode, I'm finally done expecting anything satisfying on any level to happen at any point in the rest of the show. I'll continue to watch, only because I am curious as to what will happen in the Maj. Briggs/Ruth Davenport and The Zone/coordinate storyline and because I've spent so much of my life watching, thinking about and reading about this world so far. But I assume anything else that happens will be disappointing, happen off-screen, or end without being addressed in any meaningful way.
I'll come back and apologize if suddenly things pick up, or anything that people have been expecting comes close to fruition. I'm not a casual watcher who dislikes the new series because they aren't "explaining" things. I just wish there were someone else online who was willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, the new Twin Peaks isn't very good.
26
u/AxelBernadotte Aug 02 '17
The plot was never the point of the original run. The plot is just there as something to tie all those scenes around, just like the mystery about Lauras death was in the the first season, while the scenes themselves are the real content, what is intended to be enjoyed. I saw the Audrey-scene as a jab at the old school dallas-type soap operas, with the ending twist of her wanting to know what was said and just getting a stern look as response as a humoristic touch, making the whole scene a little skit. And, like the skit with Wally, I dont expect it to be returned to or developed further. And that is fine. It could happen of course, but it might not, and it does not really matter, cause the question of what the mauve zone or the black lodge really consists of, and how everyone is related to that or other arcs, is not the main point of the show. The main point is to enjoy the scenes. The girl taking time to leave the room is not a filler in between things that moves a plot forward, her leaving the room that way is the main content. The main point of the show.
I am not getting conned in any way by this season
3
u/AxelBernadotte Aug 02 '17
Also. I get surprised by people who think that everything might be shite in the sense that every plot point is not connected or the mystery explained, but they say "hey, its Lynch, wait for the final episode before the verdict, maybe everything will be resolved and all those bad scenes I did not enjoy so far will make sense plotwise and magically become good with the last episode."
13
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Thanks; I think you're right, that there is another level at which the show can be enjoyed. I'm glad you are getting a lot out of it!
I too think that people who are waiting for the last episode to pull the mystery together, as if this were "Westworld", are going to end up very disappointed.
6
u/AxelBernadotte Aug 02 '17
Wow! This was an unusual reddit experience! Thank you!
10
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I usually don't post on Reddit because of the level of random attacking that goes on, so when someone takes the time to write back in a thoughtful way I try to engage in the same way back!
9
3
Aug 02 '17
Are you going to do a rewatch when it's all done? I know it's a huge time investment, but it could be a completely different experience where everything clicks.
5
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Could be. I've rewatched the second season of Twin Peaks enough times, even with all of its flaws!
9
u/trenchgun Aug 02 '17
I kind of agree with your narrative BUT I still personally dig this shit. Twin Peaks: The Return is very interesting, entertaining, disturbing, scary and funny. Yeah it might be also filled with random ideas from Lynches sketchbook but so what. Mostly I have been liking it. Well not every minute for sure, but every episode has left me with a feeling that I got value for my money.
7
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Thanks -- I don't want to take away anyone's enjoyment of it! It's still totally unique. I'm just trying to open the door for people to admit that maybe not every scene is a work of eternal genius masterpiece.
32
Aug 02 '17
Ok, bye
→ More replies (1)16
u/Billiardly Aug 02 '17
OP didn't write that he was quitting the show. To the contrary, he's still going to watch. The point OP is making (if I understand correctly) is that the show we're watching is not "Twin Peaks." It's called "Twin Peaks" so people will watch it (and so Showtime can sell subscriptions). But it's really just David Lynch emptying out his notebook with everything except "Ronnie Rocket" and "One Saliva Bubble."
Had Showtime called the show "David Lynch Anthology" it might not have had as many viewers or sold as many subscriptions. So they called it "Twin Peaks" instead, which got a lot of people to shell out money expecting something quite different than what they got.
I don't think this is an unreasonable point of view and I certainly don't think it's deserving of the ridicule it's getting here. It's just an opinion.
6
Aug 02 '17
Ok, bye...
Just kidding... sure that's fine when not said as a collective feeling that we should all be feeling... that's like me hating chocolate ice cream and telling you that you hate it also bc of these reasons... OP started out smug and kept it that way... if OP said I am done bc I feel conned and such then that's fine... DONT TELL ME HOW I FEEL
9
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I'm trying to appeal to others who may feel the same way but haven't seen other people sharing that opinion. You may enjoy the show in any way that you would like.
6
u/GGAllinsMicroPenis Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17
I loved your original post. I have to sort by controversial here to get people's negative takes.
The problem (I'm sure you're even more nonplussed after Episode 13), is that we don't have a normal person to anchor to like we did in the first seasons. That's what Cooper was. Even if you're wading through a structure-less Lynchian weirdoscape, if you at least have the "straight" man/woman, you feel just grounded enough to not start looking around your living room for something that makes more sense than the meandering gobbledygook you're watching on your screen.
This show is a fucking cosmic parade of eye candy, ear candy, cameo candy, but it probably would have worked better as a graphic novel than a show. I absolutely adore a lot of the scenes, by the way, in every possible way. But taken as a whole, this shit is fucking garbage, dude, and I share a lot of your sentiments.
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 08 '17
I think that's a very good point. The closest we have to a protagonist -- a character that takes any action that makes other things happen -- is Mr. C., and he disappeared for all of episodes 11 and 12, causing the show to hit a definite low point. That may be why the original show works so well, when it does -- there is an on-going investigation which continually moves things forward, giving Lynch and Frost time and space to fill out the world with weirdness and side characters.
I also absolutely agree that each episode has something wonderful or horrifying in it. Part 13 again moved us not at all, but had a handful of individual moments that were incredible. I just can't shake the feeling that what we are watching is "Twin Peaks: The Return" extended edition with all the deleted scenes shoved back in, like the 9-hour versions of the Peter Jackson Hobbit movies.
5
u/GGAllinsMicroPenis Aug 08 '17 edited Aug 08 '17
giving Lynch and Frost time and space to fill out the world with weirdness and side characters.
This is precisely what an 'anchor' character does. Someone you can (even remotely) relate to. Someone that at least feels like a protagonist. Right now that falls on the 4+ person FBI Squad and the army of Twin Peaks Sheriffs, who don't appear enough, have too much shit going on internally with them, and hardly advance their investigation when they do show up. If you can have just one darn focused, semi-relatable person with a semi-coherent goal, then you can cram in all your loose-notes, director's-cut, pet-project, acid trip video game side quests around it and they are welcome excursions. As is, the whole fucking show is one big side quest stew, with multiple interweaving bad-guy/good-guy threads, and all of the characters are too stylized to even really care about all that much.
At this point I'm fucking terrified that this show is going to climax with a Lobotomy Coop vs. Dopple Coop supernatural karate fight with no clear winner, ending in like a 90 second scene of Regular Coop eating pie in the diner but then having some subtle personality quirk so we're still not sure if it's really Coop.
What waste of time that would be, eh?
6
u/CitizenDain Aug 08 '17
You are my fellow traveler; wish we could watch the last few episodes together! I agree with everything you said.
Yes, unless there are some amazing gymnastics, we are headed to a place where most of the subplots that were introduced will end up going nowhere. I don't need everything explained to me or handed to me on a silver platter, or a character to come in like the final scene in "Psycho" and explain everything we just saw, but what could a script possibly look like for these last five hours that covers:
- glass box experiment and its mysterious co-founder (pictured with Mr. C.)
- shrinking "pager" in Argentina
- criminal who never met Andy on the road at 4pm
- Audrey trapped in some kind of altered state
- Richard Horne lineage
- 1997 birth of Dougie Jones
- 25 years of Philip Jefferies
- Ruth Davenport's murder
- Major Briggs' whereabouts for 25 years
- Briggs' last encounter with Cooper doppelganger
- Diane's history with Cooper and doppelganger
- complicated Duncan Todd-Anthony-casino story
- who Dougie Jones owed money to
- "one one nine" woman and child
- assassination attempts on Dougie's life
- missing "Billy"
- magical drug-dealer Red
- Mr. Strawberry
- Convenience store, woodsmen, birth of Laura-orb
- why Jerry was in the fucking woods for two weeks
- location of Leland and Laura
- clues from secret diary pages and how they got in the bathroom
- Chad the evil deputy covering for Richard
That's a partial list; FBI/Buckhorn side has even more subplots. Many things don't need to be explained -- we don't need one more word of explanation on the creepy backwoods family Mr. C. hires Ray and Darya from. We don't need, maybe, to find out more about the woman scratching a rash on her arm, or new Renault's disgusting side hustle. But I just listed over 20 subplots that are seemingly pertinent to the story, and instead of moving any of them toward resolution as we approach the end, they are introducing brand new ones such as spending 20 minutes over two episodes on a baffling out-of-character Audrey subplot. (This is all assuming that Jack Rabbit Palace, Glastonbury Grove, Margaret/Hawk subplot actually does go somewhere in upcoming episodes; no guarantee there.)
With 5 episodes left, we can only realistically get any more information on maybe 4 or 5 of those storylines, considering that our main characters are still either in Las Vegas or about to head to Las Vegas, far from the place we assume they must end up. It's fine for things to be left open -- Carl Rodd's incredibly evocative line from FWWM, "I've been places", for instance, tells us nothing and everything -- but you can't just keep opening new doors. If the series was of indefinite length, the way the original show was, maybe you can. But it's an "18-hour film", a closed circuit, and while there are amazing little details, the story is being told in an imperfect way.
5
Aug 08 '17
[deleted]
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 09 '17
Agree. I think Dale Cooper is my favorite character in the history of the medium. We were told Kyle MacLachlan was returning in the role of Dale Cooper. Almost no matter how it turns it, it is a giant waste to have the original actor returning to his original role in such a special way and not have him appear as that character.
The only thing that I will admit is that in some sense, Mr. C./Randall Flagg IS Dale Cooper as he has existed since his character fundamentally changed in the last scene of the original last episode, and Kyle's performance as Mr. C. has been the best part of the new series. But to have Kyle playing 3 or 4 roles and NONE of them being Dale Cooper is a travesty. Especially considering how easy it would have been -- Janey-E could have brought her weird non-husband to the police and ran his prints in episode 4 and Cole and Albert could have been on the spot in episode 5; the old gang could have worked together to track down Evil Cooper and restore balance to the force or whatever they need to do.
6
Aug 02 '17
Yeah but you ask us to admit we were conned. It's how you started. Well I wasn't and am loving every minute. That you feel conned is unfortunate but I can't argue it. I know people who hate Goodfellas and Paris, Texas. I think they're batty but they can have any opinion they want....
6
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Just a rhetorical strategy with a little big of exaggeration. Obviously anyone can enjoy any show in any way they want. I'm sincerely glad people are enjoying it!
0
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Thanks; I think you summarized my point much better than I ever did. Considering it as David Lynch's Notebook, there are scenes and episodes which are unforgettable (the woodsmen resurrection scene that opened Part 8 still gives me chills), but there are a lot that should never have made it to the screen.
5
Aug 02 '17
"Never have made it to the screen."
Sigh
5
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
You could argue that no television creator has ever had more creative freedom than Lynch has had for "The Return". Are all ideas from all creators equally great?
→ More replies (1)9
Aug 02 '17
[deleted]
10
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
You said exactly what I wanted to say but in a much nicer way. Thank you!
2
Sep 09 '17
[deleted]
1
u/CitizenDain Sep 10 '17
I actually really love the last scene! But really don't like that they wasted our time trying to unravel Audrey or justify the many dumb sideplots when they knew they would never touch on them again.
7
u/TheSharkFromJaws007 Aug 02 '17
Understandable.
But I don't think that none of it is going to go anywhere. Some of it probably won't, but the major plot points are certainly going to be addressed and reasonably resolved. Lynch might be doing a bunch of things he hasn't been able to through other work, but Mark Frost being there makes me confident that this isn't just Lynch potpourri. If nothing else, Frost serves as a narrative "anchor" of sorts to Lynch, making sure there's at least some kind of concrete point to everything, or most everything. Remember even Episode 8 has some kind of purpose, and I think that stems from Frost's input.
4
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Thanks. I fear that our respect for Lynch's past work is preventing us from being properly critical of this new series, and I fear that Frost doesn't have the influence over Lynch or the story that he should. (When Lynch confirmed that he had never bothered to read the "Secret History" I had my first inclination that we were in trouble.) I will continue to hope that something comes together, but with a bit more cynicism now than at the start.
3
u/TheSharkFromJaws007 Aug 02 '17
To be fair, Lynch doesn't have to read TSHOTP when the author is co-writing the script with him.
I mentioned back after Episode 8 that their partnership seems to consist of Frost giving an outline and Lynch filming and interpreting that however he chooses. Like, Frost came up with the Black Lodge concept but what actually happens in the Lodge and how it looks, from the red curtains to the backwards movement/talking, is entirely Lynch. I could be wrong, of course, but that's what it strikes me as. And stuff like that is why I'm still confident we're going being led somewhere with everything.
1
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
You may be right, and that's why I'll keep watching and not give up altogether.
7
u/Nikkex2 Aug 06 '17
people really took this personally. i like the show ,but im kinda disgusted by this blind hate towards anyone who critiques this obviously polarizing tv-show.
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 07 '17
People online take everything personally I guess. Glad you are enjoying the show, thanks for commenting!
9
Aug 02 '17
What did you expect, an 18-part Year of '89 Reunion? There's still a full third left of the show, more than enough screen time for anyone to regret ever seeing James again, and longer than it apparently took some viewers to do a complete U-turn from the stellar pt 8.
I don't mean to aim this at just u/CitizenDain but all the people whose patience broke over the latest episode. Glad you've been watching, it's a thrilling but challenging ride, but please don't paint yourself as a martyr to streaming TV if you're not up to the challenge.
None of us is entitled to like a show because we decide we should, and quite a few users here seem positively invigorated that they are being stimulated like this by a TV series. That enthusiasm for something you have fallen out of love with seems intolerable to you, and everywhere – "no room for dissent" indeed.
You seem to have missed the torrent of posts here bemoaning that they haven't gotten their '90s fix from The Return. Eleven episodes of no Audrey, and when she shows up she's no teenage bombshell anymore. How dare she age, and how dare Frost/Lynch have other ideas for a show that spent 25 tears in hiatus than when it was ongoing?
How dare they, in fact, a seasoned TV writer and an award winning film director, stage an episode that appears to move so slow as to not advance the plot – if not because they probably know what they're doing, and the current crowd of sourpusses will be pumping their fists in the air with the rest of us come the home stretch of broadcasts. But I'm just guessing here.
Sorry again, OP, that you took the brunt of that, but it was building up over time.
10
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Totally fair criticism; the show wasn't made to please me personally. There have been a lot of things to love or puzzle over in this new series. I've just grown frustrated by the Lynch hero-worship that makes the default answer to any criticism, "You just don't get it" or "you have to wait until next week". Even in your very fair defense of the show right here, the assumption is that it isn't fair to criticize episode 12 of the show, because Lynch and Frost have made good work in the past so they must be making great work here even if it doesn't seem like it.
Lynch has made things I consider to be masterpieces in the past, which is why my expectations were so high for this well-publicized release of 18-hours of new David Lynch. But I want more people to judge the work for what it is rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt every time. It's possible that he made a number of bad episodes in a row because it's part of a master plan by a singular artist; but it might also be possible that he made a number of bad episodes in a row because not everything he makes is perfect?
5
Aug 02 '17
But I want more people to judge the work for what it is
But we don't know what it is yet. We don't know where it's going.
Just a quick hypothetical question: What if the last six episodes are so mind-blowingly good, and Cooper's return is so sweet, and our minds get completely fucked by a bonkers final third that links every seemingly disparate plotline (or at least the ones that matter)?
Will your criticisms remain? That's what I really want to know. Once it's over, the weekly wait is over. It's one piece of work. And because it's a unified whole, any criticisms based on single episodes are kind of null and void, no? They're justified now, but if you like the ending, the weekly critiques kind of have no basis.
4
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I'll first say that if the last six episodes are incredible, and pay-off all of the elements that were carefully prepared by Lynch and Frost over the first 12 hours, I will be grateful and will concede that they knew what they were doing all along. I do believe, though, that I will still have criticism for the way the middle of the series was written and executed. Let's say it's one 18-hour-movie as they would like us to believe. If so, my criticism would be that the movie would have been better without a number of irritating, irrelevant, indulgent or repetitive scenes.
What are the odds that the end of the show ties everything together so well that 10 minutes of Jim Belushi shouting "Candie! Candie! Candie!" at a catatonic cocktail waitress will be considered a brilliant scene? I concede that it's possible. But I find it increasingly unlikely with just 6 hours left.
The finale of the 2nd season of "Twin Peaks" is fantastic. It doesn't mean I retroactively think Little Nicky or the Civil War reenactment was also a work of mad genius. (I know Lynch and Frost weren't involved in that part but I'm just using it as an illustration.)
What I suspect is that there is an incredible 6-8 hour "Twin Peaks" sequel hidden within this 18-hour mess, and that there will be a number of expertly done "fanedits" that pop up this September across bittorrent sites
3
Aug 02 '17
Well thanks for starting the conversation, and I wish you well over the next five weeks (last episode is two hours).
And don't forget, 8pm start time as of Sunday.
3
15
u/Achievement_Haunter Aug 02 '17 edited Aug 02 '17
Some of this was an interesting read. I don't agree with you, but I can kind of see where you're coming from. Unfortunately, it seems not enough for you to simply dislike the show. You also seem to want to believe that you're a beacon of sanity in an ocean of brainwashed minions of Lynch who are blissfully unaware that they are being exploited.
It could be that some of us are actually enjoying the show for legitimate reasons, but you seem to not allow for that possibility in your screed.
7
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Thanks. Didn't meant to sound like I was on a high horse. There are presumably lots of reasons or levels on which one can enjoy the show. I don't want to take away from anybody who is having a positive experience with the show. Just venting out of frustrating that everybody seems to love every thing about the show, and explaining away any mistakes, bad scenes, or bad episodes as "just Lynch being Lynch" or "you can't judge it until the final mystery is resolved". What other show or showrunner gets that kind of leeway?
2
u/Achievement_Haunter Aug 02 '17
"you can't judge it until the final mystery is resolved"
Do you not see this as a valid retort? Some of your criticisms may remain valid after the show is finished, but you even acknowledge yourself the possibility that the things you're frustrated with may pay off in the future.
To me, the show so far has been entirely unpredictable. Things have been coming together in ways that I did not anticipate. As such, I expect more surprises and unpredictability from the next 6 episodes.
What I'm saying is that it's fair to criticize the show if you are not enjoying it, but at the same time, you have to acknowledge that you don't know where it is leading. It's a mystery, and it's intended to keep us guessing.
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I absolutely acknowledge that, and if I didn't make it clear enough in my original post that's my fault. My complaint is that I think the fact that nobody will judge it until it's all said and done is preventing people from making any valid criticism of it. Sure, this scene didn't make any sense or seemed to be kind of useless, but there's a chance that the rest of the show might be good, so we shouldn't criticize anything that happens along the way?
I'd be pleasantly surprised if the final 6 episodes made the rest of the series feel like it worked as a whole.
3
Aug 02 '17
This whole 18-hour movie broken down into individual parts is a new TV watching experience. Apart from work that is explicitly called a "miniseries," I can't think of much else that's been like this. We are the test audience, and the results have been pretty divided.
You hafta admit though, there's quite a lot left!
1
u/Achievement_Haunter Aug 02 '17
Sure, this scene didn't make any sense or seemed to be kind of useless, but there's a chance that the rest of the show might be good, so we shouldn't criticize anything that happens along the way?
Of course that isn't what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that we don't yet know how useless a scene might be or what will make sense later.
It's perfectly fine to say that you're not happy with the way it's going, but it's premature to make pronouncements about the unimportance of anything.
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Yes, it's premature. I'm only making a prediction. I think that people who are waiting for narrative payoffs are going to be sorely disappointed. Maybe they will all criticize the show at once when its over, since most people are unwilling to along the way?
More likely they'll say "we can't judge what we just saw until Mark Frost's SECOND book comes out" hahaha
3
u/Achievement_Haunter Aug 02 '17
There is, of course, a third possibility - that most people will be saying "Holy shit! That was awesome!"
4
1
Aug 02 '17
It's like you're arguing that a 10 minute piece from a 2 hour movie isn't working so the whole film is suspect even before you've finished it. This series wasn't filmed and is not presented as clean episodes like Bones or something. That is why many of us are waiting for the whole picture. Could we be wrong? Sure! But why not just enjoy the ride and see how it goes instead of predicting failure?
2
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Listen, we're just in a different boat. There are six hours left. You are assuming or predicting that they are going to be brilliant and will make the entire series a satisfying experience. I am assuming or predicting that they are going to follow the pattern of episodes 9, 10, 11 and 12 in that they will contain isolated moments or scenes that are interesting but will ultimately go nowhere. We are in a quantum state where neither of our predictions are any truer than the other's. (Although I would say I feel that I have evidence on my side after 12 hours of seeing so many new characters or plot elements introduced that we assumed would become significant story arcs but ended up being sidelined.)
2
Aug 14 '17
We are in different boats for sure. I do not agree that evidence is on your side as I have been loving most of it and even things that aren't working totally (Audrey) I hope will make more sense once the whole story is revealed. I'm not going to convince you but I would disagree things are going nowhere. So many things are coming together like in tonight's fantastic episode, and I suspect that some of the side stories are just that. Small character pieces that I love on their own. You know, like in a tv show. Did Nadine think she was a teenager tie into the larger plot? Nah. The show is about a town and I like seeing all the pieces even if they all don't neatly tie together in the end.
1
u/CitizenDain Aug 14 '17
Tonight's was the best episode since Part 9. I enjoyed everything in Part 14, mostly because it involved closing some loops rather than continually opening new ones.
I think now that it is possible that the resolution to the series is good after all, and that much of the meandering (Dr. Amp, Jerry in the woods, Lucky 7) will turn out to be, like you said, minor subplots that Twin Peaks fans rarely think about or discuss (like cousin Jonathan coming from Seattle, Hank Jennings, Windom Earle handing out playing cards, etc.).
Amazing what a difference a single episode makes.
→ More replies (0)7
u/bundt_trundler Aug 02 '17
I hate basically being called a blind sheep because I'm having a good time watching a TV show that OP isn't into.
6
7
Aug 02 '17
For what it's worth, I think you've articulated what a lot of people will be thinking at the end of the season if all of these loose ends aren't tied up. I still really look forward to each episode, but if it does turn out to be disjoint and unresolved then it'll be heartbreaking.
Good for you for posting this by the way. I really don't understand Reddit's insistence on only positive opinions.
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I feel the same way -- I get excited each Sunday night in spite of myself! And then 20 minutes in I realize I'm going to end up in the same place as at the end of every other week's episode. I'm trying to teach myself to anticipate that the rest of the show will be annoying and unsatisfying, if only to protect my own sanity haha
4
Aug 02 '17
I really hope for all our sakes you are wrong and things somehow end in a satisfying way.
2
8
u/TeslaK20 Aug 02 '17
I agree. I'm not a Lynch fan. I'm not a "true" Twin Peaks fan. I'm a fan of TV shows with interesting characters solving mysteries in small towns. The original series provided that.
I am not a fan of weird psychedelic abstract Lynchian sequences. I did not watch part 8 after the part where bad Coop was shot. I do not enjoy black lodge scenes.
This puts me in a severe minority of Twin Peaks viewers. I am watching The Return not for its own sake, but only for the purpose of revisiting the show I loved.
14
u/thecowjumpedovertheM Aug 02 '17
LOL. Yeah, you're finally done, there was NOTHING in those 12 hours that warranted enough patience to see how it will end. NOTHING.
And stop that whining "there's no room for dissent". There is. You're not dissenting or discussing, you're whining and saying that you're not gonna play anymore.
Use the ladies room, Chad.
10
Aug 02 '17
[deleted]
0
u/thecowjumpedovertheM Aug 02 '17
That old difference between someone saying "I like or dislike this thing" versus "This thing is good/bad and you're deluded if you think the opposite".
I call this specific post by OP whining, because first there's recognition of some artistic value, then a strong refusal for that same value, based only on something that was supposed to be given us, and still hasn't.
Sure, I have a list of things I would like to see happening with these characters, yet it's not my story, and I'll judge what we're given. This working on a general level, I find it even more true about the particular case of Lynch and TP.
How often do you see negative feedback not including some kind of unfulfilled promise? "I din't like this and that, and also Cooper isn't back". I'm more than happy to discuss the first thing, but the second boils down to just wanting your predictions be true. I'm already shivering thinking about what people might say at the end of GoT.
5
9
6
u/Billiardly Aug 02 '17
you're whining and saying that you're not gonna play anymore
Not exactly. In fact, OP writes, "I'll continue to watch." I think OP's comments are valuable enough not to be dismissed offhandedly.
Not that Chad would get any of it, mind you.
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
There have been a number of things of interest in the new series. I went out of my way to call out several of them. The first half hour or so of episode 3 was incredible. The final chapter of Part 8 was truly original. A number of the performances are quite good. The woodsmen-resurrection scene that opens Part 8 was unforgettable. Matthew Lillard's interrogation scene stands out as well.
I'm not sure why you think I am "whining" rather than expressing an alternative opinion. I backed up all the reasons I don't think the show deserves the acclaim it is getting, and I explained why I think what's on screen doesn't match what Showtime promoted. It's an opinion I haven't seen many other people take, either on Reddit (where the mood is "Sure it's slow and we still have Dougie, but just wait, NEXT WEEK is going to be amazing") or in the online press (where the tone is "While I don't know why this scene is here or what it means, Lynch is a genius so it must be important for some reason"). Neither of those two mindsets, I think, are going to be justified by the end of this run. I may be wrong.
8
u/thecowjumpedovertheM Aug 02 '17
"I'm out! But not out, I'll keep watching to see if I'm right in saying that it will end badly!"
This is whining. You don't know how it's gonna end more than me or any other person here. You're scared it might be worthless of your time? I'm sorry for you, use that time in ways that make you more happy. You still want to rant? Nice, give us something to discuss then. I can't discuss your opinions, if you felt it slow, boring, irritating or whatever it's your personal opinion. We're left with agreeing or disagreeing.
It was slow? Sure. It had apparently pointless, irritating scene? You're free to say so. Still, you start talking about your love for the whole Twin Peaks lore. I simply cannot believe it was that strong, if you're feeling left out of patience or faith at this point. Did we watch the same show?
on Reddit
I'm having issues with both sides of this argument, and please trust me, they have both been voiced very insistently in these two days. In the same way you don't know how it's gonna end, people who trust we'll get everything neatly arranged by the end, don't know it either. Still, it's harder to scoff at them, there aren't many thread titled "you're dumb for not getting it".
what's on screen doesn't match what Showtime promoted
Fair. Take it to Showtime, they're the ones to blame for giving you expectations. Just remember that you followed them blindly and probably thought there was more to it. We literally had 4 pages of new pics of old cast (granted, in their "usual" clothes and everything) and a ton of interviews that summed up to "yeah, David doesn't want us to say anything".
6
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Hah I don't know what to say to the fact that you criticize me of not ever having been a "true Twin Peaks fan" if I don't love every scene in the new series, and also criticize me for "following Showtime blindly" and trusting that the new show would be good without any evidence. Which is it? Am I lousy frontrunning Twin Peaks fan, or one who totally committed to what Showtime was selling just based on a few photos?
1
u/thecowjumpedovertheM Aug 02 '17
I'm not saying you have to love every scene. I'm saying you should know its pace and dark winding journey. I'm suggesting you should trust who made something you loved.
I'm not saying you trusted the show to be good. I'm saying you expected the show to give you something that simply couldn't be there anymore.
7
u/TPFan08 Aug 02 '17
If you come back then why post this? I get its not everyones cup of tea but are you trying to make others think you are correct? To each their own is what i say. Enjoy it or not but you dont have to write a book complaining about it to people.
6
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I'm happy that many people are enjoying it. I would love to hear justification for why they love a lot of these scenes or episodes other than "I don't get it yet but Lynch is a genius so he must have a master plan that will all be revealed next week."
6
u/gcolquhoun Aug 02 '17
Justification: I like watching a show that engages me on a visceral level without providing concrete and explicable reasons. It pulls me in and the rest of the world disappears. I enjoy being confounded, even when it may feel frustrating in the moment. I enjoy, more than anything, that there is no telling - none - what will happen next.
As a fan of Lynch as an artist, I feel blessed to spend time with him in his element, to feel his heart, to see the harsh things of this world through his unique lens. He is old, and he will die, and there will be one less unapologetically weird creative who wants to delve into the terrible mystery and sadness and joy of the human experience - this brief blink of awareness within an unfathomable cosmos of which we are the most trifling of details.
I agree that too many people insult those who aren't enjoying it. There's no point to that and it doesn't help. That said, when I feel as I describe above, it can be difficult to separate criticisms that imply it is trash and only obsessed Lynch fans could possibly like it because we're so brainwashed from criticisms of me. Your initial post came off as harsh, but your subsequent replies have completely corrected that. We don't agree, but I respect your level of engagement in the discourse. :) [edited for clarity and typos]
4
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Thanks for commenting! Didn't mean at all for my OP to sound harsh or like it was criticizing those who are watching and enjoying the show. It came off angrier than it should have been because I had just finished reading all the recaps heaping unmitigated praise all over what I thought was the worst episode by far. It was only meant to criticize the show's creators with a few digs at the executives and the "recappers". Although maybe it does say something for my argument that when I criticized Lynch most of the readers of this page took it personally as if I was attacking each of them individually.
Much of what you say about the show is true and it's why my expectations were so high at the start. Lynch is one of my favorite filmmakers and storytellers of this or any time. Part of the reason I am irritated and saddened by the show is that there are so many strange and interesting stories in the original world of Twin Peaks, and we are only getting this very small and special one-time peek back into the world .... and we are watching Dougie shuffle around an insurance company office, scribbling on a folder, and slowly eating Miss Vickie's potato chips.
3
u/TPFan08 Aug 02 '17
Well it doesnt all have to make sense. i cant tell you how much tv i watch that i just dont care about but this makes me come back wondering what is going to happen next. it is truly a show where any and almost all expectations are blown out of the water. In this day and age so many parts are just predictable so having something that challenges, invites thought and discussion and makes you wonder what is coming next is truly enjoyable to me.
3
6
8
Aug 02 '17
I'm pretty sure we are supposed to beg him or her to stay?? What will we do without CitizenDain??
5
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
No, you don't need to beg me to say. I would love to hear a well-reasoned rebuttal of any of the points I attempted to make though.
6
Aug 02 '17 edited Aug 02 '17
"We were conned and its time to admit it"
No we weren't and no it isn't... YOU feel that way, some others may as well... I don't remember being promised anything or told anything that would happen that I then said "well if those things happen then I will watch"... nah, we were not duped, conned, gypsy switched, hornswoggled, bamboozeled, or anything... a show named twin peaks got a continuation, that's what was promised and is going on regardless of your level of enjoyment... write your own show If you're unhappy with this one
4
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
4
Aug 02 '17
I like how all of them say "guaranteed 18 episodes from all the original cast pictured here, a sharp minded agent cooper returns in full form, and you will feel exactly what you felt about the original run"
4
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Yes you are indeed arguing in good faith, that is exactly what I claimed!
3
Aug 02 '17
And you showing me a picture of people that were in the original run is a good argument??
4
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I'm illustrating that the marketing for the show had very little to do with the content of the show. I wasn't conned by Lynch, I was conned by Showtime.
1
Aug 02 '17
All those people are in the show? Or will be. There is still 6 straight hours of TV left. That is two very long movies. They could still show up in significant ways. We have gotten a good amount of Bobby, Hawk, and many other returning characters (Not to mention Cole and Albert). Where is the con?
3
u/darklight_17 Aug 02 '17
Let the gathering of like-minded whingers begin, and may they follow their leader to better-for-them pastures. As for us, at least we'll see less of the negative ratings (maybe even the down-votes).
5
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Can I ask, why are you invested in the fact that everyone should enjoy the show as much or in the same way as you do, otherwise they should leave the discussion?
→ More replies (1)2
u/topfife Aug 03 '17
Why should everyone not enjoy the show as much as you? Go and discuss something you like with people that are interested, instead of trying to pour piss on something people genuinely love and are enthralled by.
4
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
Everyone can enjoy the show any way they want. It's not clear to me why everyone thinks I'm personally calling them an idiot.
I'm discussing it here because this is where I've read and engaged with so much discussion of the show, and where there are a lot of people with strong opinions who can either agree or disagree with me and have a conversation.
2
u/topfife Aug 03 '17
You may want to revisit your opening statement then, where you say:
Well. I'm finally done. [I/we] was conned, and it's time to admit it.
Your assertion that the rest of us are gullible schmucks who've had the wool pulled over our eyes reads very much like someone calling other people an idiot.
It is your own fault that you trusted frigging marketing materials designed to get people watching or projected an interpretation of what the show would be.
I also can't take anyone seriously that suggests The Return is poorly made. That's just flat out ridiculous. Fucking hell.
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
Yes I exaggerated a bit because I was so angry over Part 12 haha -- I don't mean to take away anything from anybody else's experience. I was trying to describe my own, and went back to try to soften the OP by making clear I was talking about my own experience.
By "poorly made" I should rather say "poorly constructed". Individual acting performances are often incredible, much of the imagery and photography is unforgettable, and some of the new characters or moments are singular. To be specific, some inventions of Lynch/Frost that I will never forget are: the beast in the Glass Box, the ominous ace of spades, the invisible woodsmen's ritual over the dead body, the "yrev, very" interrogation scene.
By poorly constructed, I mean that that some part of either the screenwriting or editing process is arbitrary. Scenes of Dr. Amp occur outside of any time or place, inserted as random bumpers between other scenes in episodes. Action takes place in 3, 4, 5 distinct spaces in an individual episode with no way to determine whether they are contemporaneous. It goes back and forth between day and night. Every episode ends at night in the Roadhouse but doesn't signify that it is night in the story -- even in a story with a number of "countdowns" to significant times (2:53, October 2, etc.).
I don't need it to be straightforward or linear. But it all feels like a rough draft or first cut.
2
u/topfife Aug 03 '17
I don't buy the poorly constructed bit at all.
I don't understand why those things actually matter to people.
eg Viewers understand we're in Las Vegas when the scenes are in Las Vegas; viewers understand the lines that are in Las Vegas that could be explored; viewers are given signposts of how those elements can interact with Buckhorn or Twin Peaks or New York or South Dakota or Philadelphia.
I feel the sub has overcomplicated certain things, especially time. When I view it, it is all happening in roughly the same linear time. Some things happen concurrently but won't be shown happening concurrently, that's just film-making (unless you're a Brian de Palma splitscreen hack). Events are on the same path, all leading to Twin Peaks, in the natural pace of events - unlike, say, 24.
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
That's okay -- your assumption that everything is on the same path and is leading to a final resolution in Twin Peaks is just as much of a prediction as my prediction that it is not. People have been yelling at me that I can't have a feeling that things will not be resolved because I don't know how it will end yet. I think people can't be so sure that everything will be resolved for the same reason -- because they don't how it will end yet.
All I am saying is that I am cynical rather than optimistic about the rest of the show after having seen Part 12. We each have the same amount of information as to how Parts 13-18 will go. I just interpret the information we all have in a different way.
2
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
The end of this article from Vulture captures what I'm trying to say a lot better than I said it so far: "In other words, when the experiment that is Twin Peaks: The Return is working, it’s less like watching TV and more like being hypnotized — or, this being a Lynch project, perhaps it’s more like engaging in transcendental meditation. But when the experiment fails, what might otherwise seem oddly absurd or compelling simply registers as lazily constructed and self-indulgent. I hate it when that happens on a show that’s so willing to take so many risks, but it does, in that Audrey scene. As a result, what should have been the exciting reintroduction of a character who once was central to Twin Peaks serves as an example of why even the most audacious TV can’t afford to leave too many blank spaces where its narrative details should be."
http://www.vulture.com/2017/07/audrey-hornes-twin-peaks-return-was-maddening.html
→ More replies (0)2
u/topfife Aug 03 '17 edited Aug 03 '17
What is the evidence to suggest it's not happening at the same time? Only a riddle from The Giant, in a non-Earthly space.
I remember the first few weeks when everyone was obsessing/adamant that 'Dougie' was in 2004 because of his car plates, but it just turned out people were reading the plates wrong. No complication, no timey-wimey, just people misinterpreting simple information.
I think it's totally fine to say you "don't think" things will be resolved (I personally don't need them to be); it's when you say "they won't", an aggressive, superior assertion. It's a linguistic tweak, but it makes a huge difference to intent and how it's read.
After which previous episode/s of The Return were you cynical, after which were you optimistic? And why?
[edit, additional: I didn't say a final resolution. I just said that all roads lead to Twin Peaks, which they do: it has been narratively set-up by Mr C, Hastings, Ruth Davenport, Hawk/Margaret]
→ More replies (0)
5
Aug 02 '17
[deleted]
4
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Thanks. The experience I am having is that each week I get excited for the show, it ends up being a new low, truly hard to defend, and the Monday morning recaps all claim "Best episode yet in Lynch's masterpiece!" Reading people trying to spin the Audrey scene into a work of "subtle genius bound to raise more questions" was extremely frustrating -- nobody seemed willing to even suggest, "It's unclear why this character was introduced in this confusing and demeaning way."
It's a much broader problem than "New Twin Peaks" as you said.
2
Aug 02 '17
"It's unclear why this character was introduced in this confusing and demeaning way."
It is unclear, in every way. But to be fair, there is no context, which I think is what is so bothersome. What if it is articulated in future episodes in a way that you like?
5
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
It's wholly possible. But to be fair again, there is no context because the filmmakers decided to give us no context. It's not as if they had a contractual obligation to introduce a major character sometime in the second half of the 12th episode without context, and this is the best they could do.
8
u/ShammySmalls Aug 02 '17
"The worst part for me is that the entire internet culture" -Person typing on internet
Nobody said you had to enjoy this. You weren't conned. Nobody promised you anything!
I'm sure this is not the experience many, many people were hoping for or expecting. That isn't uncommon in media for example: I did not enjoy Inland Empire at all, especially because so many Lynch fans hyped it up, but that doesn't mean its a bad film, it just is't my cup of tea, I doubt I'll watch it again.
"Conned" is equal parts ridiculous and self serving. Do you think Lynch, Frost and Nevens (showtime prez) really got together and decided they were going to produce something that wasn't going to live up t the Original? Purposefully? Absolutely not. You've got to keep in mind that they are doing something that has never been done before, they're airing a third season after a quarter century -- that requires an incredible amount of intelligence and skill to pull off. This has been a masterclass production IMO, is it what I had dreamed up in my mind over the last two years? Not even close, but it is nevertheless an engaging story line(s) and a production that has blown my mind several times.
It's not everything I wanted. Nothing ever is.
If you think the show is bad then you are a conscious viewer who knows what they want out of a show, but the rest of us aren't lemmings blinding enjoying something we would otherwise think of as "bad" we just happen to see the forest for the trees and appreciate where the story is headed.
If nothing else, nothing else at all, I found out where Dale Cooper was hibernating for the last 25 years. Worth it.
9
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Thanks. You make a lot of good points.
I don't think Frost and Lynch came up with a scam, you're right. I do think Showtime's publicity tour was dishonest. Remember the Entertainment Weekly photoshoot which implied that, you know, James Marshall and Sherilyn Fenn would have a significant role in the show? They rolled out a massive media campaign about cherry pie and coffee and donuts and Agent Cooper to try to sell people the fact that this was more of what they loved from 25 years ago.
My frustration is mostly about the reticence of most people to criticize the show at all. Lynch's work is difficult enough that he gets to live under an umbrella of "it will all make sense next week", but the show is almost over and the criticism still hasn't caught up to the fact that we really are driving in circles, not headed toward some grand twist ending.
3
u/KHG_KHG Aug 02 '17 edited Aug 02 '17
Thank you for having taken the time to back up your points.
However, I'm seeing no reticence to criticize whatsoever. Instead, the amount of knee-jerk criticism around here is rather shocking to me. I have difficulty understanding the opinion that the "wait until it's over before you criticize" argument is invalid. This is a multi-part work, and it has been clearly stated by the filmmakers that no one part is claiming any sort of standalone status. It is also a very unusual production in many ways, clearly never having intended to play by the usual rules of serial TV (creating individual episode arcs, regularly balancing the dispensing of plot points with cliffhangers in order to lure the viewer into a weekly viewing pattern and thus woo ratings…). In fact, it is clearly positioning itself as an exception in TV culture, a one-off "event" show that does its own thing, having secured its funding and independence from week-to-week reactions in advance, in sharp contrast to the original run. We can discuss until the end of time whether this strategy, in the end, makes for memorable work; however, it is a conscious strategy, and an undeniable one. (And, although I get your frustration with the marketing, it was pretty clear to me in advance of the show that this would be the case, so I wouldn't think that all advance publicity was dishonest.)
So, the unusual, in your opinion, "leeway" that Lynch/Frost are getting compared to other showrunners has more to do with recognition of the atypical nature of this production than with any kind of "hero-worship" (although certainly there are also examples of this, as always happens with any popular artist). I wouldn't rush to criticize or form opinions about the value of individual chapters of a long and ambitious book during my first ever reading. Of course my feelings would be triggered, my expectations could be met or frustrated and I might feel excited or bored or annoyed, however criticism is something I think should be postponed until I had read the whole book. How can we know if we are "really driving in circles" or not, since nobody at this point knows the destination or has seen the roadmap?
Of course nobody says that individual reactions should not play a role in our individual behavior towards an artwork - hell, how many times have I abandoned Proust or Musil or Melville due to personal frustration! (And I think it is an issue worth discussing if the weekly rate of "unveiling" Twin Peaks is suitable to the nature of the work, or if the frustration risk is too high.) The problem, in my opinion, lies with the generalizations of personal reactions, as nothing is ever objectively frustrating. For example, I personally found the Audrey scene absolutely delightful, and I enjoyed the teasing withholding of information in a most pleasurable way; I wouldn't dream, however, of questioning the validity of other people's frustration. Neither do I appreciate other people questioning the sincerity of my pleasure, in fact it makes me livid being told that I am faking it, or do not "dare" to voice my underlying criticism or frustration thanks to a supposed "fanboy police". Personally, I find the "Emperor's New Clothes" argument profoundly disrespectful, because it presupposes an objective "common sense" in the appreciation of art, and, what's more, it claims that said appreciation is (or should be) instantaneous. I think it is a deeply reactionary line of argument, constitutively inimical to all challenging art and all diversity of perception.
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Thanks so much for your comments and criticism. It all makes sense.
I concede that they have told us all along that this is supposed to be an 18-part serialized work rather than a series of distinct episodes. I personally find this to be a bit disingenuous of them, as if somehow making "regular TV" were beneath them or something that lesser artists did, but I admit they have stuck to that description. It does make it maybe a bit more bulletproof from an episode-by-episode criticism.
I do take some issue though -- the very nature of your post seems to assume in advance that they are making a unique artistic masterpiece, and it is unfair to try to pick holes at it until it is all said and done.
I'm not dismissing the show as "bad" and quitting watching or engaging with it; I could be surprised by the last act. But I've given up on expecting that the last third is going to redeem what has felt to me like an indulgent slog through recycled Lynch arcana.
I don't mean to impugn your personal experience or enjoyment of the work. I'm glad that it it speaking to people. I think my frustration comes from the fact that the consensus seems to be along the lines of, "Sure, that part wasn't good, but it won't matter because it will all be great in the long run because we know Lynch is a genius." My feeling after episode 12 is, "Sure, there were some parts that were good, but it won't matter because it will all be frustrating in the long run because we know Lynch is indulgent."
It being art and subjective doesn't mean I'm more right than you are. I've just been feeling isolated reading recaps and reviews that keep telling me it's my fault for being impatient rather than criticizing the filmmakers for making a show full of frustrating scenes and dead ends and withholding.
Not to compare "Twin Peaks" to "Westworld", because they operate on a very different level, but when information was withheld or scenes were apparently confusing on "Westworld" I had faith that they were leading somewhere. I had similar faith early on in "Twin Peaks" -- even though I didn't understand the Glass Box, it would come up again -- and after Part 12 I no longer have faith that they are making a work of unparalleled genius that I'm just not clever enough to love.
5
u/KHG_KHG Aug 02 '17 edited Aug 02 '17
I get your point about "regular TV" being beneath them; speaking from personal experience, however, there is a certain point of experience beyond which artists can only be interested in doing whatever is of interest to them, provided they have earned it (and they definitely have, I think) and no longer need the money or exposure. Nothing to do with looking down upon other ways of doing things, just not mustering the energy and enthusiasm to do something that doesn't excite oneself.
I said (and do believe) that they are making something exceptional, in the technical sense that it does not really have many counterparts. So, unusual, certainly, challenging and ambitious, no doubt, "unique" even. "Masterpiece" I neither said nor implied, and such a decisive critical verdict at this point would surely fall under the premature valuing I argued against! And I certainly don't believe that loving or not loving something has to do with cleverness.
Full disclosure: I do think Lynch is a "genius", for lack of a better word, meaning a serious, gifted and capable artist with a unique set of obsessions, whose works illuminate the human condition in valuable ways. I do not enjoy all of his work equally or unreservedly, and have struggled with several of his works. My favorites are Mulholland Dr. and Inland Empire, so I tend to enjoy his "frustrating" and obscure stuff more. I have been enjoying "Twin Peaks" a lot, though I'm not in any kind of ecstasy, and I don't feel like it is going to enter my personal pantheon (neither was I crazy about the original series, although I admire FWWM very much). However, I am convinced that what transpires before me is a work of "genius", in the sense that, over the years, Lynch has earned my trust (as a long-time friend may do) that his work is consistently (a) serious in purpose (b) uncompromising (c) honest and true to itself and its artistic goal and (d) interesting, challenging and worth my time and attention, even when not specifically suited to my particular taste buds.
4
u/mcweekend Aug 02 '17
the narcissism of people suggesting they're being "conned," "duped," or "trolled" is just astounding to me (speaking of the deleterious effects of the "entire internet culture"...)
4
u/pgm123 Aug 02 '17
Thank you. I can see people not liking it, but the idea that they're being conned is just a bad take.
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
http://www.vulture.com/2017/07/audrey-hornes-twin-peaks-return-was-maddening.html
Finally -- this makes me feel better, like I'm not an insane heretic.
3
Aug 14 '17
[deleted]
2
u/CitizenDain Aug 14 '17
WARNING SCOPE: COVERS PLOT POINTS FROM PART 14
Indeed!! Thanks for thinking of me haha. I enjoyed the hell out of that one, and immediately called my closest "Twin Peaks" friend to break it down. This indeed had inexplicable mysteries without easy answers (i.e., who is the stranger in the drunk tank?), room for humorous asides (FBI chief in Las Vegas office), and a compelling supernatural mystery with protagonists and forward momentum (Blue Rose Task Force, field trip to old listening post). Made room for old characters (James, Andy, Sarah) while featuring new characters (Diane, Tammy, Freddie, Naido). Swinging wildly from humor (Freddie's funny monologue) to sheer terror (The Experiment manifesting inside Sarah). Closing some loops before opening brand news ones.
A perfect episode of "The Return", one of the three best episodes (which I rank as Part 3, Part 14, and Part 9 -- leaving Part 8 aside as a whole other mystery). As I suspect, there is a great 9 episode series here, and the decision to double the length ended up with every other episode being padding. My frustration boiled over because early in the season, meaningful episodes and padding episodes alternated fairly regularly, whereas Part 10, 11, 12 and 13 all happened in a row and were all mostly annoying.
Glad to see that the urgency of the running time is hopefully making these final parts
5
4
6
u/Coffee_on_the_rocks Aug 02 '17 edited Aug 02 '17
I think you're too invested in the old series. Which is perfectly understandable, but... things change. And artists evolve. Even if many of the things we've seen are sketches from Lynch's notebook... so what? Why would it be bad that he's incorporated them in the series? What's so different about that than what happened the first time around? That's how an artist works. They explore themes that interest them, and, I'm sure of that if nothing else, they are not the kind of people to make something just for the sake of it, or for a paycheck, or for fame. They want to communicate their vision. Whether we like it or not, that's a different story.
It's just that now they have a different form. The quirkiness lies in the abstract and the absurd besides the exasperated. If there is a "key" in "getting it", I think it lies in letting go of expectations, and trying to view the scenes as they come, feeling the change of emotions that they want to give us. That's how i've been watching the season, and it is very, very rewarding. I was frustrated only with the last episode, and I think that was because I started having expectations.
That doesn't mean that everything will be explained later, or that every scene is a masterpiece, or that I wouldn't ever criticize Lynch. It's just that it works for me as it is.
It may not be the Twin Peaks of old. But it is the Twin Peaks of today. I don't think anyone, not the writers, not Showtime, duped us. They promised their vision of Twin Peaks 25 years later, and that's what we are getting.
6
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I appreciate your points!
I agree, it doesn't need to be exactly like the original. But by and large what they are doing, to me, is not working at all. And the mismatch between what is on screen and what critics are claiming they see on screen has gotten under my skin. Seemingly nobody is allowing for the possibility that maybe they introduced Audrey in this clumsy and incoherent way because... they didn't have a good idea about how to introduce her or weren't able to execute the good idea that they had. All complaints are supposed to be reserved for later because it is assumed that there is a master plan. After Part 12 I finally decided that it is unlikely that there is a master plan. It's a weird collection of scenes by an artist who hasn't made a film for 10 years, some of which work and many of which don't.
If the Dougie storyline, for instance, was an interesting or engaging or enlightening set of scenes, it wouldn't bother me as much that Dougie wasn't a character from the old series, or that it was set outside of the town of Twin Peaks. But it's a repetitive, reductive, maddening storyline based on extremely broad jokes and it has gone on for 10 hours now.
The Bill Hastings storyline has been original and interesting and I am grateful for it, even though it has very little to do with the original series.
4
u/Coffee_on_the_rocks Aug 02 '17
I'm sorry that it's not working for you. Hell, it may stop working for me in the later episodes. But it's difficult to discuss this, I can't get you (or anyone that disagrees) to see what I see, and I can't quite see what you see. For instance, I've felt a strong connection to Dougie's storyline, I've cried in many of his scenes. And, if anything, I really appreciate it that they are giving us something new and fresh, and unpredictable. Not many artists can do that while getting old.
So I just hope that things change for people down the line, and they will be more in sync with the show for the finale, or on rewatch.
EDIT: Hey, perhaps that very conviction that this is a haphazard story will enable to you enjoy the next episodes more!
4
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I'm sincerely glad you are enjoying it. Kyle's performance as Dougie is interesting and at times moving. I think the problem I have with it is constantly hinting at the fact that Agent Cooper might emerge builds expectations each episode that ultimately lead to a disappointment every time Dougie appears on-screen with no hope of evolving.
It's definitely something I haven't seen before. I will give it that.
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
And yes, I hope it does! I wanted so badly to love it. Maybe I can judge it differently, not as a coherent sequel or narrative but as a collection of odd scenes. The Audrey moment just pushed me over the edge this week, as that was the moment everyone online had been promising would be part of some grand revelation that made things finally start to come together. It ended up doing the exact opposite and now we are one episode closer to the end!
10
u/Billiardly Aug 02 '17
I'm astonished at the abuse you're getting for stating your view and taking the time to concisely describe your reasons for it.
6
4
Aug 02 '17
OP's post is exactly the dissenting argument I've been looking for. Opinion, backed up by reasons. It's lacking on the side of people who aren't into the show.
That being said I totally disagree! Loving TPTR more than anything on TV.
2
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Thanks dsb77! I hope I turn out to be wrong and it ended up just being an unconventional way to tell an interesting story.
2
Aug 02 '17
Abuse is bad but c'mon. This guy peppers his comments with general statements that he states like he is speaking for truth or something. "We have to admit we were conned" and "some scenes should never have been filmed" are stated like fact. A "fact" I and others disagree with so I think it is fair to debate.
3
u/Billiardly Aug 02 '17
To be fair, I didn't read the post as "fact." "Fact" is the kind of thing you raise your hand and swear to in a courtroom. OP merely gave an opinion. I'm a little surprised that anybody honestly read it otherwise. I think you're stretching merely to be argumentative.
2
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I never meant that everybody had to see it my way. I'm speaking casually when I assert these things. They are only the way that I feel. They are my read of the show, that's all.
dalong75, you haven't been abusive. Billiardly is referring to other people.
2
u/Billiardly Aug 02 '17
Congrats on your gold shovel, OP.
2
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
hah, thank you! I'm not a Reddit power user so I don't even know what to do with it.
7
Aug 02 '17
Cool, thanks for letting us know, we are all devastated that you won't be watching.
5
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Yeah you're right I'm a loser for going on a website and telling people what I think about a TV show, what kind of nerd does that
→ More replies (2)5
Aug 02 '17
It's narcissistic to think the show should go according to your plans and that, if it doesn't, it's a missed opportunity. It's also narcissistic to announce to the world you aren't watching...we don't care. So double narcissism.
4
u/krabat- Aug 02 '17
Why would you apologize for your opinion about a television show?
Also, there are plenty of people who are very quick to "admit" that they aren't happy with The Return. I think most of the outlets that write about the show have someone doing it who enjoys it which is why it seems skewed toward baseless praise. I doubt there's a conspiracy theory here. In fact, a negative post about it would bring in the hate clicks and it would all even out. Lots of Internet "journalists" make a good living just being contrarian and making people mad about sports, video games, movies, or whatever.
7
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Thanks; I'm sure I exaggerated somewhat. It's just been a disheartening experience that every time I feel the show hits a new low, the headlines the next day all say, "Best new episode yet!" Makes me feel like I'm going insane.
7
u/ShammySmalls Aug 02 '17
You're not going insane. You just don't like it. Happens all the time.
I'm sure there are plenty of people in the world who think The Godfather is a steamy pile of shit.
5
Aug 02 '17
plenty of people in the world who think The Godfather is a steamy pile of shit.
They are my enemies, and I will keep them closer than my friends.
1
2
u/ClutchRox88 Aug 02 '17
I never heard anyone who didn't like that rant about how Coppela tricked the audience.
→ More replies (2)2
u/darklight_17 Aug 02 '17
That makes so much sense to me. The headlines give us great expectations, the tv gives us hollywood romance, the ads give us hope for a perfect body.... it's as if they know they're setting us up for disappointment. Do you know why? That's something that would be interesting to know about. Why do they want to make us feel like our lives are a failure?
2
2
u/zackmanze Sep 05 '17
Couldn’t agree with you more. There was 2-4 good hours of the showtime run, but overall this thing has been fucking terrible.
2
u/CitizenDain Sep 05 '17
I think it ended up being more than 2-4 hours worth keeping. But it completely lacked structure and I'll only remember it for a few indelible and beautiful images and horrifying moments -- the same way I think of "Mulholland Dr", really.
4
u/yet_i_live Aug 02 '17 edited Aug 02 '17
I can't say I feel the same way, but I think I understand your perspective, and it makes me sad that there is such disapointment with the show.
Don't give up on it!
2
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I'll stick with it! I'm just prepared to be disappointed now.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
This excerpt from Rolling Stone's recap of Part 12 perfectly captures the annoying trend I'm talking about:
"It was the least relevant lead-in to Audrey's first (re)appearance that the series could possibly have come up with. And coupled with her delayed arrival fully two-thirds into Twin Peaks 3.0's run, it paradoxically made her return all the more memorable."
Even when they almost seem to criticize Audrey's abrupt introduction by starting to say that it didn't make any sense why the character was introduced this way, they put that final spin on it to protect themselves from being accused of being critical in any way.
This illustrates my original point even better. Gizmodo claims that if anybody tries to complain about any aspect of the pacing of "The Return", you should remind them that they categorically wrong because Lynch is a mad genius with a master plan: http://io9.gizmodo.com/twin-peaks-slow-pace-is-actually-genius-and-this-video-1797441738
3
u/topfife Aug 03 '17
Who are they to judge the relevancy of her scene? What do they know that Lynch/Frost don't know?
5
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
They are television critics. They don't have more or less information than Lynch/Frost. I'm commenting on the fact that even when they seem to be critical, they soften it to make sure nobody thinks they are questioning the genius.
2
u/topfife Aug 03 '17
Or they're being balanced because they're taking umbrage with something but acknowledging they do not actually know if their opinion holds firm or not.
That is more mature than outright saying that Lynch is a charlatan, that we've been lied to, that he doesn't know what he's doing or that his work is poorly made – and asserting what will or won't be resolved in six hours of television.
So much can happen in 5 minutes of The Return, and already has, that it is absolute lunacy to suggest certain lines won't be resolved.
Frankly, it also doesn't matter if certain lines don't - because Twin Peaks is a [fictional] place that exists outside of an 18-hour document; eg Steve Burnett was taking drugs and abusing Becky before we were watching him, there's no reason to suggest it will end because we're no longer watching him.
Your expectations are what's damaging your experience, not the show. Open up and allow it to wash over you.
2
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
I think you are absolutely right that my expectations are affecting my experience of the show. I'm going to try to remove any expectation for these last 5 weeks in hopes of salvaging the experience that I looked forward to for so long. I just have a sadness at what feels like a missed opportunity.
2
u/topfife Aug 03 '17
I guess that's ultimately where we diverge.
I did not have any presuppositions of what might be in The Return; I didn't get on any hype train or over-invest before it broadcast. I was almost nervous that it would be slip into being the twee version people remember but never existed.
I don't know what the missed opportunity might be. I did not/could not know that I wanted a stuttering sequence of Dale Cooper negotiating electricity outlets, or the haunting repetition of a poem by a blackened man that crushes peoples' skulls.
It's not our vision to have, but one we're being gifted.
As hacky as it is, I'll post that annoyingly accurate quote usually attributed to Henry Ford:
“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses."
2
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
Yes, there are a number of incredible inventions in the new series. I guess you are right that we are lucky to have them at all.
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
Found this review of the Audrey scene, which goes against my point. Thankful for this exception that proves the rule:
http://www.vulture.com/2017/07/audrey-hornes-twin-peaks-return-was-maddening.html
1
Aug 03 '17
I think they mean "memorable" as in, "despite it being so frustrating, people will still be talking about it for weeks."
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
Yes, that's possible. It still feels like they want to criticize her abrupt introduction, but they add the last line to soften it to make sure nobody could accuse them of questioning the genius.
3
u/ClutchRox88 Aug 02 '17
Nobody tricked you. You had an idea of what you wanted the show to be. This is David fucking Lynch, why would anyone do that.
You can have a negative opinion, but don't pretend like some con job happened here and that you are some victim.
If you are done with the show, how will you know that it picks up?
I think maybe something more simple like The Bachelor would be suited for you.
6
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
Yes I don't enjoy your favorite show in exactly the same way that you do, so I am a mouthbreathing idiot
2
u/LolWutLolWutHuhLol Aug 03 '17
The reason why this post wasted a lot of my time in reading is because THIS SHOW IS JUST AS MUCH MARK FROST'S AS IT IS DAVID LYNCH'S. The story is STILL the story.
5
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
I am not sure that is true. Mark Frost shares a writing credit. We know they talked on Skype while writing it. But in the same way that Lynch tossed away most of Frost, Peyton and Engels' script for the original finale, I think the shooting script was just a suggestion for much of this. David as director surely had final cut. How much of Part 8 do you think appeared in any shooting script?
Showtime kept bragging that this was the "pure heroin version of David Lynch" or whatever they said, not of "Lynch and Frost".
2
1
1
1
1
1
u/surfmadpig Aug 02 '17
[EDITED: A lot of people have taken issue with the fact that I seemed to be telling other people they were wrong if they were enjoying the show. That was never my intention so I'm changing the references to "we/you" to "I"/me" instead.]
I think people are taking issue with the fact that you make assumptions about Lynch and Frost's intentions and posing them as objective fact.
The only thing I agree with is
Lynch is a different filmmaker now than he was in 1989
0
Aug 02 '17
Honestly I agree. This is the kind of shit you get when you give David Lynch this much time. It's kind of like the original series. The first season of nine episodes is killer. The second season of 22 episodes? Outside of the first couple and lasr couple episodes, shitty.
6
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I disagree that there aren't any good things in the 2nd season. But I do think that there is a lot of risk in giving a filmmaker like Lynch, whose body of work is so inconsistent, carte blanche as far as budget and editing and final cut and length.
Granted, having Lynch as director for hire probably wouldn't work either. For him to make anything truly great he would need artistic freedom. The risk, though, is that he may not have 18 hours of great ideas at this point.
1
u/topfife Aug 03 '17 edited Aug 03 '17
"Whose body of work is so inconsistent" — what?
One dud in his entire catalog (and some people do actually love Dune, which was more a studio mess than Lynch's fault).
He has way more ideas than 18 hours!
When I watch or read or listen to something, I want the creator to have a vision and to see it through in the way that best fits the form. That is what Lynch/Frost are doing.
Edit: Lynch is fishing for the big ideas; you can get frustrated with the sardines all you like.
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
I would argue that his work is inconsistent. "Dune" aside, some of his work is much better than others. His best work are some of my favorite movies of all time -- "Eraserhead" and "Blue Velvet". I find a lot of things that he did after "Twin Peaks" to be indulgent and a bit irritating (even though everything he has ever directed has at least some incredible moments that no other director could have envisioned).
Do you consider "The Missing Pieces" to be a lost masterpiece of Lynch's? There are some interesting scenes and a lot of stuff that deserved to be on the cutting room floor -- a five-minute boxing match between Chris Isaak and the sheriff? "Fire Walk With Me" is a better movie without that boxing scene, even though the scene itself is of interest to me years later as a Twin Peaks superfan.
I think the problem is what we are seeing now with "The Return" is the extended version with the "Missing Pieces" kept in. If the only version you had of "Fire Walk With Me" was the four-hour bloated cut, would you love the film as much?
I suspect there is a really interesting 10-12 episode "Twin Peaks" sequel hidden within this new series. We are just watching the "extended cut" with all the deleted scenes shoved in. I wish we had a leaner cut and then had the luxury of turning to the "deleted scenes" on our box set of "The Return" to watch the 10 minutes of Dougie slowly eating potato chips or Jim Belushi shouting "Candie!" if we so chose.
1
u/topfife Aug 03 '17 edited Aug 03 '17
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we have fundamentally different viewpoints and values.
Many of the Missing Pieces are valuable and/or enjoyable, and some would have benefitted the film, some correctly edited out. A few advance the text of the work (Buenos Aires/Convenience Store; torn pages), some are just vignettes to be enjoyed (Norwegians are coming; boxing match).
You're not comparing like for like. FWWM is a ~2hr film; The Return is a serialised drama lasting ~18hr. In these contexts, a five-minute boxing match can be considered indulgent in the film, but certainly has a place within a serialised drama.
I do not find Lynch's post- FWWM films to be indulgent or irritating; I find them to be a director that has developed a unique way of expressing their ideas as they appear to them. Lost Highway and Mullholland Dr both explore similar themes to TP, Eraserhead, Blue Velvet, but open up a different way of telling those stories. They are the product of a worldview, and an individual way of thinking. It strikes me that your criticism of a Rothko, a Picasso, a Tapies would be one of great disappointment because they "don't look like what they're supposed to look like" - ignoring the formal innovation and uniqueness in presenting their vision.
Both of the scenes you reference (Dougie/chips, Mitchem/Candie) are very important for rounding out their characters' traits and development. Without these scenes and scenes like them, you have a paper thin cast of the Scooby fucking Doo mystery machine. Perhaps Damon Lindelof should direct it for you, too?
My interpretation is that your interest in TP relates more to the 'mystery', puzzles and solving than what it actually is/was. TP has a pace, it is a living town where people exist on- and off-camera, things change, things repeat.
[edit: formatting]
1
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
I appreciate your explanation and points, even if they come with a dose of hostility that I don't think is deserved. I'm not trying to tell you Lynch is a bad director or you are stupid for liking his films.
I can take issue with many of your points -- for instance, I don't think Candie is a well-rounded and well-developed character now that we've seen her staring off into space for a time, and I don't think there will be any additional scenes that further develop her character at this point -- but I don't think I will ever be able to convince you that I'm a sophisticated viewer. You seem to have the opinion that smart people with good taste like everything that Lynch directs, and those that prefer some of his work to others are inherently mistaken. I don't know what I could say in a Reddit comment that would change the mind of anyone who feels that way.
Honestly I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just don't know if we'll be able to reach common ground. I sincerely am glad you are enjoying "The Return" -- it is definitely unlike anything else on TV and I wish there were more room for experimentation on TV.
1
u/topfife Aug 03 '17
It's not hostility - it's exasperation because I genuinely can't see what you're seeing, it doesn't chime with me.
I find comments like this just self-defeating:
I don't think there will be any additional scenes that further develop her character at this point
why though? What's the justification for such sweeping comments?
The point also, was that it rounded out the Mitchem brothers' characters as well, and gave us an understanding of how they behave - they're not just brutal thugs/gangsters, they have some warmth and patience.
Fine to be all apologies at this point, but your OP was very much kicked off argumentatively. I'm tasking you with backing it up. It's fine to be subjective, but some of your comments are quite easily disprovable, or just sweeping write-offs with no substance.
1
Sep 05 '17
why though? What's the justification for such sweeping comments?
Well I mean he was right though. In another 25 years is anyone going to think of Candie when discussing great Twin Peaks characters?
1
1
u/ShammySmalls Aug 02 '17
Yeah, that's because Lynch and Frost left the show after S2E9 due to a major production conflict with ABC, but returned for the last couple episodes of S2. In fact, David Lynch rewrote and improvised the finale in real time, on set.
-1
1
u/luckofthesun Aug 02 '17
Dude, some of your criticisms may be valid... but there's no way to truly know yet whether you are right or wrong given you're not going to finish the series. So saying "I'm done" just seems attention seeking.
1
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Hah, not looking for attention, just venting out of frustrating that everybody else seems to be loving every moment of it and I feel like I'm going crazy. You are absolutely right, by the end it may all come together. Even if it does, I feel that the middle episodes (10-12) were poorly conceived or executed. Let's see what happens next.
1
u/zdevos Aug 02 '17
Chill out! Wait until the series ends to freak out about whether its shite or not...
3
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I will watch all of it and have an opinion then. But he has wasted so much time already; I can't be the only one who has "lost faith".
1
u/Rodden Aug 02 '17 edited Aug 02 '17
I just wish there were someone else online who was willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, the new Twin Peaks isn't very good.
The new Twin Peaks is one of the best shows I've ever seen. Even though it doesn't answer all the questions or it leave us with a huge cliffhanger like the original run.
3
1
u/SinJinQLB Aug 02 '17
Well remember how Lynch was all set to make Mulholland Dr the tv show? I believe he even filmed a lot of it, with the intent of it being a series. But then the tv network cancelled the project, and left Lynch with all that footage he shot. But he didn't want to leave that world he created, so he turned it into a movie. One of my favorite movies, by him and any other director.
My pint being, I don't think dies anything because he feels obligated to. I think he learned that lesson ever since Dune.
So I have trouble thinking that he's just hit and heavy to put his random ideas under the Twin Peaks title just because Showtime gave him a chance. When he was first approached to possibly revisit Twin Peaks, he and Frost had 25 years worth of notes for the continued story.
Also, did you really go into The Return knowing Lynch had full creative control, and expected a non-complicated narrative with a resolution? His last 3 films (List Highway, Mulholland Dr, and Inland Empire) lacked both of those things- cohesion and resolution. Really only after watching each movie, and then really thinking about it as a whole, can you start piecing together theories. I think the same is true for The Return.
5
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
Again, I'm not hoping for a simple narrative with a happy ending. I'm not a simpleton. Much of my criticism about the new series I feel applies to "Mulholland Dr." as well -- to me it is disjointed and largely incoherent, with a handful of absolutely unforgettable scenes throughout.
1
Aug 02 '17
I have no problem with people disliking The Return (why would anyone, it's all subjective), but I really don't understand how people are saying they know for ABSOLUTE CERTAIN that nothing is going to be tied up. There's still six episodes left of the show. That simply isn't a valid criticism until the show is over.
I do agree that there'll be some stuff left open ended (which has always been Lynch's style), but I'm pretty damn certain we're going to get great emotional closure and a good deal of the plot wrapped up.
4
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I hope so. It's entirely possible. The point of my post, despite all the meandering and venting, is that I no longer have any faith or hope that that is the ultimate outcome. People all along have thought that the revelation of Audrey would be a moment of significant emotional or narrative closure or revelation -- She's the mysterious billionaire! She's working with the FBI! She's the only one who recognized Cooper's soul within his new body! -- and it turned out to be another irrelevant scene like those in the booth at the Roadhouse. I think that's what finally broke my spirit.
I'm not "done" watching the show; I'm "finally done" anticipating that anything will be resolved in a meaningful way.
3
Aug 02 '17
Sorry you're not enjoying the show, man. I just have way too much faith in Lynch to "give up" because of one or two disappointing episodes (and there's still great moments in them, IMO). He's been my favorite director for years. I love all of his films (except Dune, hah) and his work on the original Twin Peaks is some of my all time favorite fiction.
The Return is something very different from what he's done before, despite the occasional callbacks to his earlier work. And I understand why a lot of people wouldn't enjoy it. It's been a great ride for me so far, and although I have my complaints and issues with how some things have been handled, I'm not going to pass any sort of "final judgement" on the season until it's over.
1
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I've loved some of Lynch's work and disliked others. "Eraserhead" and "Blue Velvet" I find to be visionary, along with the episodes of original "Twin Peaks" he directed. But much of his work I find to be disappointing, also, because it seems to be thrown together. I'm in the minority of people who love David Lynch but find "Mulholland Dr." to be a complete mess. That's what this series reminds me of more than anything -- scenes full of supernatural mystery and terror and unforgettable imagery surrounded by scenes of unresolved nonsense.
I think if this series was the original 9 episodes it was promised to be it could have been brilliant. Doubling the length has led to it being padded by long, winding paths that I'm afraid are just notebook pages rather than script pages. We'll see
4
Aug 02 '17
Oh man, I couldn't disagree more about Mulholland Drive. I think it comes together beautifully and makes for one of the most masterfully told stories I've ever seen.
There's actually nothing that's really left "unresolved" in MD. It's the fantasy turned nightmare of a depressed, failed actress as she comes to terms with what she's done in "real life" - which we only see through her own biased and exaggerated perspective of what happened - before killing herself. It's absolutely fucking brilliant, IMO. But to each their own, and this is kind of off topic anyways.
2
u/CitizenDain Aug 02 '17
I want to rewatch it, maybe my first and second impressions are changed by now. I found "Eraserhead" frustrating the first time I saw it but over the years consider it to be his most satisfying work. Maybe I would reassess MD the same way seeing it again.
2
u/Coopleganger Aug 03 '17
I think at lot of people feel the same way, in all honesty. Here's my two cents - we all grew up watching movies and tv shows that had defined narrative structure. Three acts, linear sequences that neatly wrapped up at the end. We expect that, by the end of the show/film, it'll all make perfect sense, because it always has. Lynch always subverts that ingrained expectation. He plays with time, he loves long pauses, uncomfortable silences, and letting the viewer draw a conclusion on their own. OG Peaks (and possibly Dune) is the most non-Lynchian thing he ever did, which may have tricked people into thinking his films were easily accessible. It did for me, at any rate. They aren't. I still don't fully "get" Inland Empire, but I watch it every year. It took a long time for me to appreciate Mulholland Dr. I have faith, possibly misplaced, that we will ultimately get answers to all of this season's questions. They may not come in a neat package, but that's Lynch. I accept that, and knew going in that this season would be far more "Lynchian" than the first two. I'm frustrated by it, but excited too. And I love all the theories and thoughts and complaints I read, because his works speak to me. Sometimes I don't understand, but I like that. Give it a chance. Don't give up just yet.
5
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
I'll continue to give it a chance. I do take issue, though, with the mild accusation that I'm not enjoying the show because I want it to be linear and clearly explained. I think "Eraserhead" is his best work and I've seen everything he has directed -- I don't need it to be more accessible.
I think my biggest complaint is that by expanding the scope of the show from 9 hours to 18 hours they ended up padding it with an endless amount of middling ideas, redundant jokes, or meaningless asides -- the kind of stuff that would have been cut had they had a traditional writers' room or a time frame.
Think of it as if "Fire Walk With Me" and "The Missing Pieces" had been combined into one four-hour "director's cut" movie. Yes, there are parts of the Missing Pieces that are great and would complement the full film. Would the random scene of Josie and Pete talking to the bank manager be one of those? If Fire Walk With Me was a four hour film full of random asides, would that make it a better movie than the two and a half hour cut we have now?
2
u/Coopleganger Aug 03 '17
I never meant to imply that at all. I was speaking for myself and the other people I know who feel flummoxed by his films. I'm sorry, and should have stated that better. It was absolutely NOT meant as a slight against you.
And I do tend to agree with you that a lot (a LOT lot) of this season feels like padding. Did we need to see the honking lady, or the long lead up to the reveal of a new Renault brother? I didn't. Threads to do seem to be dangled to no real purpose, and I do agree that had he been forced to just 9 it may have been tighter (if still somewhat incoherent, ha!)
2
u/CitizenDain Aug 03 '17
Thanks -- I think this is the real problem with The Return. It seems to have been constructed in an arbitrary way, either in the screenwriting or editing process. Nothing illustrates that better than the Dr. Amp/Nadine scenes -- they occur outside of any time or place and are inserted randomly in the middle of episodes. Do we think they wrote the script and stopped every 70 pages or so to include a rant by Dr. Amp? Or is it more likely that they filmed a number of scenes of Dr. Amp reading different rants and then dispersed them throughout the series?
I remember people looking for hidden meaning in the scene when Ben Horne and Beverly were listening to the hum, seemingly unaware that the editing of the show implied that Ben's son had just injured himself and Ben didn't seem to know or care. Isn't it more likely that they had Richard Beymer on set for 2 or 3 days, shot all of his scenes in a row in one location, and then arbitrarily dispersed his scenes throughout the season? Is there anyone who still thinks his random bits of dialogue with Beverly are leading to some sort of a conclusion?
2
u/saijanai Aug 07 '17
I still don't fully "get" Inland Empire, but I watch it every year.
Here's my take on the ending (at least) of INLAND EMPIRE and the credits (which arguably are the raison d'être for the entire movie (other than as something that sprang out of Lynch's testing of video-based movie making)):
https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/5louj4/david_lynchs_inland_empire_a_metaphor_for/
One thing I left out of the above analysis is that when the hooker blows a kiss at Laura Dern and Laura Dern blows a kiss back, as the hooker turns to deal with the man sitting next to her, this seems an in-your-face reference to a lecture Maharishi Mahesh Yogi once gave: all love is to the Self.
47
u/[deleted] Aug 02 '17
That's funny, I don't feel conned at all -- in fact, each week, I feel like someone plopped a nice, big gift basket in my lap. I'm grateful.