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.
Why would this be desirable?
Why would removing all the extraneous/unneccessarily drawn out stuff be desirable?
Uh so the pace of the show would improve and not feel like I'm watching grass grow.
I know, it's "art". Spoiler, the "art" and drawn out scenes will ultimately lead to it not being renewed (if it's even left open to another season).
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.
Why would this be desirable?
Why would removing all the extraneous/unneccessarily drawn out stuff be desirable?
Uh so the pace of the show would improve and not feel like I'm watching grass grow.
I know, it's "art". Spoiler, the "art" and drawn out scenes will ultimately lead to it not being renewed (if it's even left open to another season).
It is desirable if it fits the effect it intends to make. Also, this show just exists in itself without any intention to be renewed, and why would it need that?
I'm confused. We got things in this episode that people have been clamouring for since the start.
Return of Audrey - check.
Explanation as to what blue rose meant - check.
A hint that Truman is going to seek out Cooper or at least contact the FBI, following handover of the key - check
I'm confused. Is it the way the information was presented that was the problem? It's not 1990 anymore 😀
I get what you're saying. However, the bottom line is that people watch TV to be entertained. It's supposed to be enjoyable. If people come away from watching something with a feeling that they have had their time wasted, it's failed as entertainment.
I think the reason most films and TV follow a typical structure and tight editing is because that's what works. That's what's most entertaining for people.
It's like if you build a car with triangular wheels. It may work as an artistic statement, but it doesn't work as a car. Similarly, if you create TV that makes people feel like you're wasting their time, you may think you're making some kind of artistic statement, but it doesn't really work as entertainment. People aren't being entertained.
And how does Mark Frost feel about all this, I wonder? He wrote the script with him, but he didn't direct it. I wonder if sometimes he's been watching it and thinking, "No, this scene is going on for far too long". I mean, you can't just write stuff and then film it and not cut anything. There's a reason why superfluous footage gets cut.
And this whole thing about only giving actor their lines and not the whole script. So this means no table reads where they get a feel for the pacing and whether scenes actually work or not? Rather, they just write one huge script, film it all, not cut anything out, and put the whole thing out as a broadcast. Sorry, but I feel like that experiment has failed a bit.
Or perhaps they did cut a bunch of stuff. Maybe this would be 36 episodes long if nothing was cut, and we'd have a whole hour of Audrey screaming at her husband about Billy.
I think that people need to get a grip. Yes, it was a poor episode. No, speeding it up won't help (why not take some drugs and watch it again.... EXACTLY).
Yes there were good parts, but overall, it was thin, like not enough butter scraped over too much bread.
We need not despair; all shows that air a good season have a bum note now and then, t'is life.
I think that people need to get a grip. Yes, it was a poor episode. No, speeding it up won't help (why not take some drugs and watch it again.... EXACTLY).
Yes there were good parts, but overall, it was thin, like not enough butter scraped over too much bread.
We need not despair; all shows that air a good season have a bum note now and then, t'is life.
The work of David Lynch is not designed for a single viewing or for immediate gratification. It's not a shot of freeze-dried, instant coffee. It's a pot of the good stuff. It needs time to perculate a while before all the different tastes and aromas can be truly appreciated.
Badalamenti Fan I believe that a lot of your response comes from what you have been used to as an American audience and I can see how something as boldly different as The Return has you impassioned. However this forum and it's posters are fairly international.
I'm Northern Irish myself (incidentally I'm from the North Coast where a lot of GoT filming takes place) and used to Public Service Broadcasting from both Irish and British broadcasters. This has even spilled over to Channel 4 who self-describe as a Public Service Broadcaster paid for by advertising. As such television over here is more willing to take risks, unafraid to make niche programmes that won't appeal to the widest audience, not constantly searching for the bottom line in terms of returns.
So as you react towards the reactions, I hope that I nudge you into the view that not all posters on this forum are entirely steeped in American culture. Maybe as such we take these risks that Showtime embarked on more lightly.
As humans we will always make value judgements about things, it's part of our nature, you yourself have made judgements about The Return and decided that it is unequivocally worthy of attention, thought and debate. Others have made value judgements different to yours and voiced these thoughts on a forum designed for fans. They enjoy the show but have found elements of it dull and unworthy of further consideration. That may be difficult and against your own value judgement but it's not worth any less consideration or understanding.
Badalamenti Fan I believe that a lot of your response comes from what you have been used to as an American audience and I can see how something as boldly different as The Return has you impassioned. However this forum and it's posters are fairly international.
I'm Northern Irish myself (incidentally I'm from the North Coast where a lot of GoT filming takes place) and used to Public Service Broadcasting from both Irish and British broadcasters. This has even spilled over to Channel 4 who self-describe as a Public Service Broadcaster paid for by advertising. As such television over here is more willing to take risks, unafraid to make niche programmes that won't appeal to the widest audience, not constantly searching for the bottom line in terms of returns.
So as you react towards the reactions, I hope that I nudge you into the view that not all posters on this forum are entirely steeped in American culture. Maybe as such we take these risks that Showtime embarked on more lightly.
As humans we will always make value judgements about things, it's part of our nature, you yourself have made judgements about The Return and decided that it is unequivocally worthy of attention, thought and debate. Others have made value judgements different to yours and voiced these thoughts on a forum designed for fans. They enjoy the show but have found elements of it dull and unworthy of further consideration. That may be difficult and against your own value judgement but it's not worth any less consideration or understanding.
Bout ye!
I get what you're saying. However, the bottom line is that people watch TV to be entertained. It's supposed to be enjoyable. If people come away from watching something with a feeling that they have had their time wasted, it's failed as entertainment.
I think the reason most films and TV follow a typical structure and tight editing is because that's what works. That's what's most entertaining for people.
It's like if you build a car with triangular wheels. It may work as an artistic statement, but it doesn't work as a car. Similarly, if you create TV that makes people feel like you're wasting their time, you may think you're making some kind of artistic statement, but it doesn't really work as entertainment. People aren't being entertained.
And how does Mark Frost feel about all this, I wonder? He wrote the script with him, but he didn't direct it. I wonder if sometimes he's been watching it and thinking, "No, this scene is going on for far too long". I mean, you can't just write stuff and then film it and not cut anything. There's a reason why superfluous footage gets cut.
And this whole thing about only giving actor their lines and not the whole script. So this means no table reads where they get a feel for the pacing and whether scenes actually work or not? Rather, they just write one huge script, film it all, not cut anything out, and put the whole thing out as a broadcast. Sorry, but I feel like that experiment has failed a bit.
Or perhaps they did cut a bunch of stuff. Maybe this would be 36 episodes long if nothing was cut, and we'd have a whole hour of Audrey screaming at her husband about Billy.
They definitely cut things, I'm sure. Film is after all made with editing mainly. You see, I do not watch TV almost at all. I understand there is this pacing thing, and that yes, if it would not make sense (long shots just for the matter of long shots) it would be a fail. However I'm pretty sure it's intentional and in a way universal. In example, snippets of so called long shots could be looped indefinitely and played in gallery as audiovisual installation, and they still work in the context of film.
Sometimes (successful) artwork is not only piece of art, but also reaction to it. Now, why we think that entertainment is just development of story and not watching a woman put a lipstick on or some domestic conflict? Isn't the point of entertainment to waste and kill our time? Aren't things which challenge thinks we take for granted great, as they lead to new experiences?
Yes, usually this kind of role is played by experimental art, however all findings of experiments get into mainstream (after 20-30 years at least). So, there 😉
Also, there is always calm before storm, to emphasize its effectiveness. I guess episode 12 might be a stormcrow, but let's see. 🙂
I'm unfamiliar with the prevailing conventions of modern television against which you are measuring this high art so in an attempt to answer your second question I searched through your argument and I'd like to ask you: How did watching a lengthy scene of a French woman putting on her shoes and lipstick challenge me to examine my own preferences and prejudices, expand my horizons or challenge me to reassess my worldview or orientation with the social world?
I guess he was referring to Carl and the do not sell your blood statement
I watched part 12 a second time and found the scene with Gordon's companion most amusing. The difference seeing it the first time I was hanging out then like an addict for a fix desperately wanting to hear what Albert had to report. The second time, I was able to set that aside and see it for what it was, the comedic value. It was hilarious.
I could argue I felt the same when Frank and Ben laboured handing over the key to room 315. I was thinking just give him the offing key. Second time, hilarious.
Even Audrey's scene which I found irritating, mostly because of the abuse she was giving him, was much less so the second time.
I would suggest those who found the whole part infuriating to watch it again and see how you feel then.
That said, the Chromatics didn't really move me like the last time they were on at the end.
🙂
My feelings after viewing this part was "huh, not that much happened this time", not that it was "bad" as such. Admittedly I kept wanting for more after the thrilling first half, but after a couple of intense episodes there can easily be a pause.
Not every original Twin Peaks episode was 100% perfect either. Also, plotlines and time advanced very slowly. In this respect the Return seems similar to the original. We're just used to watching it all in one go now. I'm glad that the Return is not as "hyper" as many TV series nowadays are.
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?
No, a filmmaker is not obligated to make a film that pleases the audience. However, a viewer is also not obligated to like everything they see, even if they have liked a lot of what they filmmaker has made before. We're entitled to express our opinions if we feel that something could have been done better/differently. It's like if you buy an album by a band you like, but there are just a couple of songs on it that you just don't like.
The thing is, I've been on board with this most of the way so far. I have enjoyed most of what I have seen. The only bits I really had trouble with were some of Part 3 and a lot of Part 8. Apart from that, I've had a great time watching The Return and have welcomed the change of style from seasons 1 and 2. In my opinion, episodes 7, 9, 10 and 11 were awesome.
Even with Part 12, I really liked some of it, which is why I said I had mixed feelings about it. I found the scenes with Sarah Palmer exciting, I enjoyed the scene with Ben, and I liked it when Tammy got welcomed into the Blue Rose project.
But some other aspects of the episode did go on too long. The Audrey scene was the worst example of that. I don't even see it as artistic experimentation. It's just bad writing and editing, IN MY OPINION. That's all, in my opinion. I'm not saying my opinion is any more valid than anyone elses. But surely if I genuinely felt something was wrong about an episode, this discussion board is the place to air those feelings, right?
I think the problem stems from the way it was written as one huge script. With such a huge script, having to rewrite it must have been a huge task. And because Lynch only gave actors their lines rather than the whole script, there was no read-through like they usually do for films and TV. Maybe that read-through process is necessary to get a feel for whether a scene flows right or is going on too long. And isn't the process of of writing actually REwriting?
I mean, a writer writes lines, but it's not until they are actually spoken that you get a feel for whether they sound right. Something that reads well on paper can sound wrong when said aloud by the actors. I've noticed throughout this whole season that much of a dialogue sounds unnatural. Up until now it's not really bothered me and I've just thought of it as a quirk of Lynch's style. But now I'm wondering whether it's actually a result of not having read-throughs. Dialogue got written without knowing for sure whether it's going to sound right once the actors actually say the lines in the scenes. The actors themselves have said there was no rehearsal. They just turned up on set, were given their lines, and had to say them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't quite work, IN MY OPINION.
I totally get that The Return is an experiment. But the thing with experiments is that sometimes they succeed and sometimes they fail. If you don't want to risk failing, don't experiment. But I also understand that it's all subjective. We're all going to experience this experiment differently.
But just to end this reply on a positive note, I want to say again that I have really enjoyed most of what I've seen on The Return. There have been times when I have felt that it has been a lot better than seasons 1 and 2. Episodes 7, 9, 10 and 11 sometimes made me feel like that.
For me, it's frustrating to wait a week for the next episode. But the pacing makes sense. I believe this kind of storytelling is just one of another things that does not match up with our current culture. David Lynch's daily meditating probably has a whole lot to do with this long game. I started looking at the tempo of my own day, movements and choices, always trying to get something done to move on to the next. I eat fast. I have productivity requirements at work. But moving that way is not enjoyable and you miss all the nuances happening around you. I really feel forced by this show to savor all the minutia, silences, all the things that are needed to make a moment of action really POP - Dale fighting off an attacker for example after a good deal of tedious Dougie stuff. I don't think you can enjoy this episodic movie and show up with the same expectations you bring to your daily life. This show is out there and it won't be more or less than that regardless of your opinion, expectations or understanding.
You know what, it's interesting that you bring up meditation. I mentioned the same thing on the Dugpa forum a while back in response to someone who was finding earlier episodes too slow. I said back then how I wondered if meditation is something to do with it. I said that I meditate, and that maybe this is why I am okay with the slower scenes.
And this is the thing. I've been fine with most of the slower scenes up until now. This is why this is so surprising to me. My own reaction to Part 12 has surprised me. I've become one of the critics who dislikes the slow scenes, when previously I was okay with them and defended them.
Something about Part 12 snapped something in me. Maybe it's because earlier slow scenes were often about the mood of the scene, which I really appreciate. Whereas an extended scene of a middle-aged Audrey shouting obscenities at her weird-looking husband is just a middle-aged woman spending ages shouting obscenities at her weird-looking husband. And the main thing I got from that scene was the constant thought of "How the hell did these two end up together since she's clearly way above his league and they clearly hate each other?" Oh, and wondering why there was no me mention of Richard in that scene. Also, no mention of Audrey in the scene where Ben was talking about Richard.
Fire walk with