Coop did what he needed to do, he successfully found laura, woke her up, and destroyed judy in a self sacrifice. Good coop still lives on with JANEY E as a tulpa but hes still there
Coop did what he needed to do, he successfully found laura, woke her up, and destroyed judy in a self sacrifice. Good coop still lives on with JANEY E as a tulpa but hes still there
I am still not getting where people are coming up with the "destroyed judy" theory. Please somebody explain the evidence or even the inclination that Judy was destroyed.
Coop did what he needed to do, he successfully found laura, woke her up, and destroyed judy in a self sacrifice. Good coop still lives on with JANEY E as a tulpa but hes still there
I am still not getting where people are coming up with the "destroyed judy" theory. Please somebody explain the evidence or even the inclination that Judy was destroyed.
I think folks who have chosen to understand the ending this way assume a) Judy is a possessing spirit, in possession of Sarah Palmer and b) her cry, the loud electrical sound and the flash of lights in the Palmer House indicate...
... that Cooper martyred himself/became Richard, and extinguished Judy. Really.
FWIW I don't find this theory any more compelling than others, nor am I convinced that the explanatory theory competition is interesting or worthwhile at this point... Sam's recent thread pointed out as much and received a good discussion about why Lynch and Frost might have aimed for this result ...
But I certainly think the lack of consensus illustrates why folks who claim to have the ultimate theory might need to reexamine their assumptions....
The safest conclusion one can reach is that The Return is an open-ended text. All rationalizing theories are only as good as the frame the theorist lays out and the evidence she selects and locates within it...
I'll keep mine free from rationalizing influence, thanks... but, of course, I respect anybody who wishes to do otherwise.
I get where a lot of the theories are conceived and I can see a possibility in most of them or at least understand how they came to be, possibly even value and entertain them. This one just absolutely eludes me. It seems to me that it was born of even more of a preconceived idea as well as extreme need for a happy ending than most. I'm waiting for a subscriber of this theory to point out the support or "evidence" or any basis whatsoever. I feel like I am overlooking something that would at least help me understand why this hypothesis makes sense to others.
Coop did what he needed to do, he successfully found laura, woke her up, and destroyed judy in a self sacrifice. Good coop still lives on with JANEY E as a tulpa but hes still there
I am still not getting where people are coming up with the "destroyed judy" theory. Please somebody explain the evidence or even the inclination that Judy was destroyed.
I think folks who have chosen to understand the ending this way assume a) Judy is a possessing spirit, in possession of Sarah Palmer and b) her cry, the loud electrical sound and the flash of lights in the Palmer House indicate...
... that Cooper martyred himself/became Richard, and extinguished Judy. Really.
FWIW I don't find this theory any more compelling than others, nor am I convinced that the explanatory theory competition is interesting or worthwhile at this point... Sam's recent thread pointed out as much and received a good discussion about why Lynch and Frost might have aimed for this result ...
But I certainly think the lack of consensus illustrates why folks who claim to have the ultimate theory might need to reexamine their assumptions....
The safest conclusion one can reach is that The Return is an open-ended text. All rationalizing theories are only as good as the frame the theorist lays out and the evidence she selects and locates within it...
I'll keep mine free from rationalizing influence, thanks... but, of course, I respect anybody who wishes to do otherwise.
Indeed. I read the theory that I assume OP is referring to (the one about the "Cage" and the "Bomb"). It's long, detailed, and pretty thoroughly thought out - so once you're immersed in it, you start to feel like, Wow, maybe this really is the only explanation. But it also depends on a lot of the theorist's own assumptions and inventions. And that's fine, because Lynch/Frost left a whole lot of missing pieces that inquisitive viewers were bound to fill in on their own. I'm sure they expected us to. But the truth is still that there are a LOT of different ways you can fill them in. So I'm with you: the theory is fine, as they go, but no more compelling than several others. I really doubt there's a One Right Answer.
Coop did what he needed to do, he successfully found laura, woke her up, and destroyed judy in a self sacrifice. Good coop still lives on with JANEY E as a tulpa but hes still there
I am still not getting where people are coming up with the "destroyed judy" theory. Please somebody explain the evidence or even the inclination that Judy was destroyed.
I think folks who have chosen to understand the ending this way assume a) Judy is a possessing spirit, in possession of Sarah Palmer and b) her cry, the loud electrical sound and the flash of lights in the Palmer House indicate...
... that Cooper martyred himself/became Richard, and extinguished Judy. Really.
FWIW I don't find this theory any more compelling than others, nor am I convinced that the explanatory theory competition is interesting or worthwhile at this point... Sam's recent thread pointed out as much and received a good discussion about why Lynch and Frost might have aimed for this result ...
But I certainly think the lack of consensus illustrates why folks who claim to have the ultimate theory might need to reexamine their assumptions....
The safest conclusion one can reach is that The Return is an open-ended text. All rationalizing theories are only as good as the frame the theorist lays out and the evidence she selects and locates within it...
I'll keep mine free from rationalizing influence, thanks... but, of course, I respect anybody who wishes to do otherwise.
Indeed. I read the theory that I assume OP is referring to (the one about the "Cage" and the "Bomb"). It's long, detailed, and pretty thoroughly thought out - so once you're immersed in it, you start to feel like, Wow, maybe this really is the only explanation. But it also depends on a lot of the theorist's own assumptions and inventions. And that's fine, because Lynch/Frost left a whole lot of missing pieces that inquisitive viewers were bound to fill in on their own. I'm sure they expected us to. But the truth is still that there are a LOT of different ways you can fill them in. So I'm with you: the theory is fine, as they go, but no more compelling than several others. I really doubt there's a One Right Answer.
Can you point me in the direction of the theory about "the cage and the Bomb?" I must have missed that one.
Can you point me in the direction of the theory about "the cage and the Bomb?" I must have missed that one.
Here it is. It was posted on this forum before, but it's probably pretty far down now and seems worth re-posting on this thread so people know where the OP is (probably) coming from.
FWIW I don't find this theory any more compelling than others, nor am I convinced that the explanatory theory competition is interesting or worthwhile at this point... Sam's recent thread pointed out as much and received a good discussion about why Lynch and Frost might have aimed for this result ...
I have to admit to being very skeptical at first, but I have started to come around to this a little more. Absolutely everything we know about 430-land is premised on the instructions of the Giant/?????: the Giant showed Andy the 6 on the telephone pole; he also told Cooper about Richard and Linda. The intent of the mission, then must be good. The Giant gave Cooper very specific instructions to take Laura home in order to "kill two birds with one stone" - to free Laura and to defeat Judy for good. It may, perhaps, be Laura's destiny - the reason she was created in Ep. 8.
I think "what year is it?" means that Dale temporarily thinks they have failed in their mission - he expected to find Judy there; that's what the Giant had told him. But then, sure enough, Judy is there.
In the final sequence of shots, Sarah calls out for Laura, which awakens her somehow to recall the abuse, triggering the scream, triggering the lights going out. Not a scream and fade to black - we definitely see the lights popping out - the electricity has overloaded. Something's happened to the house. The shot lingers so we take that in.
We then see Laura in the lodge smiling and telling Dale something. It doesn't make Dale happy, but it seems to leave Laura fulfilled. Maybe it means that he must die in order to defeat Judy. Maybe she told him that she was already dead and a lodge spirit and nothing would change that, which means that he can't save her.
A depressing/bleak ending, on balance, doesn't fit the facts as well. The only way that happened is if Dale misunderstood something or Judy outwitted him.
That's as far as I've gotten, anyway.
Absolutely everything we know about 430-land is premised on the instructions of the Giant/?????: the Giant showed Andy the 6 on the telephone pole; he also told Cooper about Richard and Linda. The intent of the mission, then must be good.
I was (sort of) thinking along these lines, but there's another possibility. They may not be instructions: they may be reminders - of things Coop has already done, with or without permission. Recall that the Giant precedes all this with "Remember." I've thought the "clues" may actually be landmarks for retracing his steps out of whatever he's gotten himself into. As in: "Remember: You drove 430 miles to get here, so that's how far you'll have to drive to get out." Coop also says, "I understand" - which might make more sense if he's focusing on things that have already happened, not puzzling out cryptic clues on the spot.
I don't remember all the details, but someone made the case that the scene with the Giant comes at the very end of everything, and the rest of the show is essentially one long flashback. I don't know if this is right, but you could think it's like Coop has been summoned to the principal's office to be called to account for something he's done and told to make amends. "It is in our house now" starts to sound like "Look what you did."
We don't even know who or what Judy is besides that loose definition that Cole gave us. So to say Judy was destroyed is a huge leap of an assumption. It's like one of those math word problems that you cannot answer because you do not have enough information. There is simply not enough information given about Judy or even what Cooper's primary mission is. We do not know definitively who/what the Fireman is and how he relates to Laura, Gerard, etc. I've said it many times before, but I really do not think that's the point. People are focusing more on how to defeat Judy, and disregarding the overall message of this story. The existential part of the story line contains the most substance. Search the subtext and try to abandon the tendencies of literal interpretations.
In other words, the only we know is that we nothing.....
We don't even know who or what Judy is besides that loose definition that Cole gave us. So to say Judy was destroyed is a huge leap of an assumption. It's like one of those math word problems that you cannot answer because you do not have enough information. There is simply not enough information given about Judy or even what Cooper's primary mission is. We do not know definitively who/what the Fireman is and how he relates to Laura, Gerard, etc. I've said it many times before, but I really do not think that's the point. People are focusing more on how to defeat Judy, and disregarding the overall message of this story. The existential part of the story line contains the most substance. Search the subtext and try to abandon the tendencies of literal interpretations.
Three weeks ago, people thought Judy was Josie's sister.
Which is not to say we're definitely wrong about what we're thinking now. Just gotta put things in perspective. 😉
We don't even know who or what Judy is besides that loose definition that Cole gave us. So to say Judy was destroyed is a huge leap of an assumption. It's like one of those math word problems that you cannot answer because you do not have enough information. There is simply not enough information given about Judy or even what Cooper's primary mission is. We do not know definitively who/what the Fireman is and how he relates to Laura, Gerard, etc. I've said it many times before, but I really do not think that's the point. People are focusing more on how to defeat Judy, and disregarding the overall message of this story. The existential part of the story line contains the most substance. Search the subtext and try to abandon the tendencies of literal interpretations.
I don't disagree with this at all, but the "overall message" and the "existential part" of the story are not much clearer to me!
Yes, the main emphasis of the project is on dream-logic and on emotional truth rather than logical truth. That being said, I don't think it's being over-literal to wonder whether this is meant to be a positive ending or not based on the balance of the evidence. There is no conclusive way to prove it, and I love that. But there's nothing wrong with choosing one interpretation that you find compelling.
We don't even know who or what Judy is besides that loose definition that Cole gave us. So to say Judy was destroyed is a huge leap of an assumption. It's like one of those math word problems that you cannot answer because you do not have enough information. There is simply not enough information given about Judy or even what Cooper's primary mission is. We do not know definitively who/what the Fireman is and how he relates to Laura, Gerard, etc. I've said it many times before, but I really do not think that's the point. People are focusing more on how to defeat Judy, and disregarding the overall message of this story. The existential part of the story line contains the most substance. Search the subtext and try to abandon the tendencies of literal interpretations.
I don't disagree with this at all, but the "overall message" and the "existential part" of the story are not much clearer to me!
Yes, the main emphasis of the project is on dream-logic and on emotional truth rather than logical truth. That being said, I don't think it's being over-literal to wonder whether this is meant to be a positive ending or not based on the balance of the evidence. There is no conclusive way to prove it, and I love that. But there's nothing wrong with choosing one interpretation that you find compelling.
I agree. Yes, the subtextual content is just as unclear, but at least it's open ended and flexible for a variety of interpretations. But I think people are focusing too much on conventional story lines and I don't think it matters whether we know if Sara Palmer is Judy or not. To me, if it really mattered who\what Judy is, we would have gotten a lot more references thank Jeffrie's and coles mention of Judy. I guess Mr. C too. Yeah, the best part about twin peaks is the ambiguity
That's just one interpretation and not even close to definitive. Sorry.
Fire walk with