Double-speed for Video? Ep 12 needs it especially IMO  

Page 1 / 7
  RSS
(@mad-sweeney)
Roadhouse Regular

You know how when you listen to an audiobook on your ipod you can play it at double speed? Is there any sort of video app that can do the same thing? I get the point of the loooonnnnng pauses and slllloooooooow pacing but I don't need it, especially on a re-watching. I'd love to be able to re-watch this episode (and perhaps a couple others, too) in about 27 minutes.

Quote
Posted : 31/07/2017 9:09 am
(@kuzpo)
Dweller

What a coincidence, 27 minutes (at normal speed) is approximately where it turned to shit imo.

Harry, I really have to urinate.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 9:13 am
(@elad-repooc)
Roadhouse Regular

I have very mixed feelings about Part 12. Some of it was good, but Lynch went waaaay overboard with the long scenes in this one. As much as it was great to see Audrey, that scene felt like almost a total waste of time. 

This is the first I've said this, but now I'm going to say it: I think this whole thing of it being an 18 hour film cut into (just under) 1 hour pieces was not the best way to do this. This could have been a really solid 9-episode mini series. 

We're getting a lot of superfluous footage that would normally end up on the cutting room floor. We're getting a lot of conversations that don't flow like normal conversations, a lot of shots of people just staring at each other, and things getting dragged out far longer than they need to be. 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 9:26 am
(@yambag021)
RR Diner Patron
Posted by: laughingatsky

I have very mixed feelings about Part 12. Some of it was good, but Lynch went waaaay overboard with the long scenes in this one. As much as it was great to see Audrey, that scene felt like almost a total waste of time. 

This is the first I've said this, but now I'm going to say it: I think this whole thing of it being an 18 hour film cut into (just under) 1 hour pieces was not the best way to do this. This could have been a really solid 9-episode mini series. 

We're getting a lot of superfluous footage that would normally end up on the cutting room floor. We're getting a lot of conversations that don't flow like normal conversations, a lot of shots of people just staring at each other, and things getting dragged out far longer than they need to be. 

Amen.

 

Of course you will be hit with the "you just don't get lynch" and "no the pacing is perfect" nonsense.

I've felt theres been takeaways from ever episode but there's so much extraneous stuff every week, it's becoming a chore to watch.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 9:34 am
(@elad-repooc)
Roadhouse Regular

I hate to say it, but this is the first time I've genuinely wondered whether Showtime should have stuck to their guns. 9 tight episodes without all the time wasting would have gone down just fine. 

I even saw someone on Twitter say they switched over part way through this episode to watch a Nine Inch Nails concert instead. This is someone who had loved some of the previous episodes, but Part 12 was just too much of a waste of their time. 

I'm starting to think this whole approach of writing it as one long script is showing itself to be a failed experiment. Some "parts" just don't quite hang together properly. I mean, either something is a film or it's a series. 18 hours is far too long for a single film, which is why they had to cut it up. So why not just make a proper series and make each episode hold together properly and have proper pacing?

Sorry Lynch, Part 12 made something snap inside me. I no longer quite have faith in what's going on here...

Parts 9, 10 and 11 were so good, and now THIS...

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 9:57 am
(@judy)
Dweller

There's an iPad app called "SpeedUpTV" that will play videos at 1.5x or 2x speed.  Of course you have to find the episodes "out there" on the 'net first...

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 10:28 am
(@ordinary-agent-crow)
Lodger
Posted by: laughingatsky

I have very mixed feelings about Part 12. Some of it was good, but Lynch went waaaay overboard with the long scenes in this one. As much as it was great to see Audrey, that scene felt like almost a total waste of time. 

This is the first I've said this, but now I'm going to say it: I think this whole thing of it being an 18 hour film cut into (just under) 1 hour pieces was not the best way to do this. This could have been a really solid 9-episode mini series. 

We're getting a lot of superfluous footage that would normally end up on the cutting room floor. We're getting a lot of conversations that don't flow like normal conversations, a lot of shots of people just staring at each other, and things getting dragged out far longer than they need to be. 

I understand that from point of view of current usual film storytelling and editing what you say is true. However, Lynch was always above convenient (ways of) story 😉 at least for me, if you remove any expectation, all parts in itself and series as a whole make sense (including small details and long shots). Some parts of this approach come from other forms of art as well. Anyway, I think this series (again) will open some doors into mainstream TV which have remained closed before.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 10:32 am
(@ffbsoundguy)
Town Visitor

i'm generally a, "wait and see how this plays out in the end" and a, "sit back and enjoy the ride" kinda guy, but i have to admit, this week was a little trying on my m.o. ok cool we got tammy being officially welcomed, and hey look sarah's being weird, and oooh look it's finally audrey.... but a lot of that, like the "don't donate blood" scene, the scene with gordon's french lady, and even some of the audrey scene...ouch.

that said....maybe this appeases some of the "i want it like the original" crowd, since the original had some wandering, slightly pointless episodes. 😉

 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 10:42 am
(@mad-sweeney)
Roadhouse Regular
Posted by: charlesheld

There's an iPad app called "SpeedUpTV" that will play videos at 1.5x or 2x speed.  Of course you have to find the episodes "out there" on the 'net first...

Cool! Thank you.
Oh damn. I don't have an iPad. But maybe it will work in MacOS, too. I'll check it out.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 10:53 am
(@badalamenti-fan)
Roadhouse Regular
Posted by: Yambag021
Posted by: laughingatsky

I have very mixed feelings about Part 12. Some of it was good, but Lynch went waaaay overboard with the long scenes in this one. As much as it was great to see Audrey, that scene felt like almost a total waste of time. 

This is the first I've said this, but now I'm going to say it: I think this whole thing of it being an 18 hour film cut into (just under) 1 hour pieces was not the best way to do this. This could have been a really solid 9-episode mini series. 

We're getting a lot of superfluous footage that would normally end up on the cutting room floor. We're getting a lot of conversations that don't flow like normal conversations, a lot of shots of people just staring at each other, and things getting dragged out far longer than they need to be. 

Amen.

 

Of course you will be hit with the "you just don't get lynch" and "no the pacing is perfect" nonsense.

I've felt theres been takeaways from ever episode but there's so much extraneous stuff every week, it's becoming a chore to watch.

If it is a chore to watch, why do you watch?

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 11:27 am
(@badalamenti-fan)
Roadhouse Regular
Posted by: laughingatsky

I hate to say it, but this is the first time I've genuinely wondered whether Showtime should have stuck to their guns. 9 tight episodes without all the time wasting would have gone down just fine. 

I even saw someone on Twitter say they switched over part way through this episode to watch a Nine Inch Nails concert instead. This is someone who had loved some of the previous episodes, but Part 12 was just too much of a waste of their time. 

I'm starting to think this whole approach of writing it as one long script is showing itself to be a failed experiment. Some "parts" just don't quite hang together properly. I mean, either something is a film or it's a series. 18 hours is far too long for a single film, which is why they had to cut it up. So why not just make a proper series and make each episode hold together properly and have proper pacing?

Sorry Lynch, Part 12 made something snap inside me. I no longer quite have faith in what's going on here...

Parts 9, 10 and 11 were so good, and now THIS...

OP, Yambag, Laughinatsky, et. al:

I have some questions for you.

Why is a filmmaker obligated to make a film that pleases her audience? 

Why does artistic experimentation need to be evaluated as a success or failure in terms of prevailing conventions in a given medium such as television?

I suppose one might argue that consumers who pay for a cultural product and are disappointed/dissatisfied with their purchase have been wronged by the producer, but I can't help but feel that this reduces the promise of mass mediated "art" to a transactional relationship between producer and viewer.  It's only if we give Lynch artistic license to realize his creative vision that we are able to enjoy mass mediated art outside the boundaries/confines of what we find elsewhere on "TV."

Twin Peaks: The Return is as different, IMO, from so-called "prestige TV" today as the original series was from broadcast television circa 1990.  As such, it should be polarizing, and it should provoke conversation and thought.  But reducing these conversations to statements of taste or preference limits their potential to expand horizons, to inspire one to think outside of oneself-- a potential that, for me, distinguishes art from escapist entertainment.

(e.g., I am more-or-less addicted to Game of Thrones, albeit with misgivings-- its production value and several cast members' tremendous performances make it worthy of description by analogy to art, but it has yet to challenge me to reassess my worldview or orientation with the social world...  by and large, I see nothing wrong with the escapist pleasures of genre film or TV, but I find them most exciting when they strain against the boundaries of genre/convention in a way that challenges viewers to examine their own preferences, prejudices, etc.)

Some time ago, Hawk asked whether or not 'This is about the Bunny."  I think what Lynch has instead shown us-- or invited us to ask-- is the possibility that this show "is not about contemporary/corporate fan culture," the kind that, ironically, one finds at San Diego Comic Con. Ostensibly, it is fan devotion that made it possible for Showtime to deliver The Return, but this doesn't necessarily mean Lynch owes his audience anything at all-- he's not trying to ensure that he maximizes revenue from their purchase of merchandise or from repeat viewers whose loyalty to superhero franchise(s) stays true across many new iterations of reboots .... 

I find that not only refreshing, but a valuable critique of the narrow preferences toward generational nostalgia and doctrinaire evaluation of authenticity or "canon vs. not-canon" one finds in franchise "nations," e.g., silly partisanship about "Star Wars vs. Star Trek," "Old Star Wars vs. New Star Wars," etc.

To other forum participants with misgivings:

1) Do you find Twin Peaks: The Return onerous or alienating and feel resentful about it?

     Stop watching and I expect you will feel better.

2) Curious about why other people like it and you don't?  

    Why not ask the members of this forum who do what it is they find valuable/rewarding about it?

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 11:50 am
(@badalamenti-fan)
Roadhouse Regular

Oops, I see I drifted far off the original topic. I beg your pardon, all. 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 12:24 pm
(@yambag021)
RR Diner Patron
Posted by: Badalamenti Fan
Posted by: Yambag021
Posted by: laughingatsky

I have very mixed feelings about Part 12. Some of it was good, but Lynch went waaaay overboard with the long scenes in this one. As much as it was great to see Audrey, that scene felt like almost a total waste of time. 

This is the first I've said this, but now I'm going to say it: I think this whole thing of it being an 18 hour film cut into (just under) 1 hour pieces was not the best way to do this. This could have been a really solid 9-episode mini series. 

We're getting a lot of superfluous footage that would normally end up on the cutting room floor. We're getting a lot of conversations that don't flow like normal conversations, a lot of shots of people just staring at each other, and things getting dragged out far longer than they need to be. 

Amen.

 

Of course you will be hit with the "you just don't get lynch" and "no the pacing is perfect" nonsense.

I've felt theres been takeaways from ever episode but there's so much extraneous stuff every week, it's becoming a chore to watch.

If it is a chore to watch, why do you watch?

Honestly, I expected the first third to be slow bc, well, lynch.

 

Second third has become a chore. Just feels like it drags so slowly.

 

Why I continue to watch, is because I have some faith lynch will close it well. I felt like season 2 dragged lot at points but the end was worth it so I'm trusting him.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 12:53 pm
(@yambag021)
RR Diner Patron
Posted by: Badalamenti Fan
Posted by: laughingatsky

I hate to say it, but this is the first time I've genuinely wondered whether Showtime should have stuck to their guns. 9 tight episodes without all the time wasting would have gone down just fine. 

I even saw someone on Twitter say they switched over part way through this episode to watch a Nine Inch Nails concert instead. This is someone who had loved some of the previous episodes, but Part 12 was just too much of a waste of their time. 

I'm starting to think this whole approach of writing it as one long script is showing itself to be a failed experiment. Some "parts" just don't quite hang together properly. I mean, either something is a film or it's a series. 18 hours is far too long for a single film, which is why they had to cut it up. So why not just make a proper series and make each episode hold together properly and have proper pacing?

Sorry Lynch, Part 12 made something snap inside me. I no longer quite have faith in what's going on here...

Parts 9, 10 and 11 were so good, and now THIS...

OP, Yambag, Laughinatsky, et. al:

I have some questions for you.

Why is a filmmaker obligated to make a film that pleases her audience? 

Why does artistic experimentation need to be evaluated as a success or failure in terms of prevailing conventions in a given medium such as television?

I suppose one might argue that consumers who pay for a cultural product and are disappointed/dissatisfied with their purchase have been wronged by the producer, but I can't help but feel that this reduces the promise of mass mediated "art" to a transactional relationship between producer and viewer.  It's only if we give Lynch artistic license to realize his creative vision that we are able to enjoy mass mediated art outside the boundaries/confines of what we find elsewhere on "TV."

Twin Peaks: The Return is as different, IMO, from so-called "prestige TV" today as the original series was from broadcast television circa 1990.  As such, it should be polarizing, and it should provoke conversation and thought.  But reducing these conversations to statements of taste or preference limits their potential to expand horizons, to inspire one to think outside of oneself-- a potential that, for me, distinguishes art from escapist entertainment.

(e.g., I am more-or-less addicted to Game of Thrones, albeit with misgivings-- its production value and several cast members' tremendous performances make it worthy of description by analogy to art, but it has yet to challenge me to reassess my worldview or orientation with the social world...  by and large, I see nothing wrong with the escapist pleasures of genre film or TV, but I find them most exciting when they strain against the boundaries of genre/convention in a way that challenges viewers to examine their own preferences, prejudices, etc.)

Some time ago, Hawk asked whether or not 'This is about the Bunny."  I think what Lynch has instead shown us-- or invited us to ask-- is the possibility that this show "is not about contemporary/corporate fan culture," the kind that, ironically, one finds at San Diego Comic Con. Ostensibly, it is fan devotion that made it possible for Showtime to deliver The Return, but this doesn't necessarily mean Lynch owes his audience anything at all-- he's not trying to ensure that he maximizes revenue from their purchase of merchandise or from repeat viewers whose loyalty to superhero franchise(s) stays true across many new iterations of reboots .... 

I find that not only refreshing, but a valuable critique of the narrow preferences toward generational nostalgia and doctrinaire evaluation of authenticity or "canon vs. not-canon" one finds in franchise "nations," e.g., silly partisanship about "Star Wars vs. Star Trek," "Old Star Wars vs. New Star Wars," etc.

To other forum participants with misgivings:

1) Do you find Twin Peaks: The Return onerous or alienating and feel resentful about it?

     Stop watching and I expect you will feel better.

2) Curious about why other people like it and you don't?  

    Why not ask the members of this forum who do what it is they find valuable/rewarding about it?

My issue is it just drags. There's stuff that i take away from episodes, but I feel that after 12 episodes, the same content could have been covered in 9 with very little being left out.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 12:55 pm
(@klynched)
RR Diner Patron

Speed it up. Clip it down to 9h. Watch it on your phone.

?

ReplyQuote
Posted : 31/07/2017 1:14 pm
Myn0k, Darko Colic, Badalamenti Fan and 1 people liked
Page 1 / 7
Share: