I missed this in the rush. Thanks for another thoughtful response. I have to tell you that I'm not seeking to enforce a given response. Perhaps you are right and differences between US and European media environments account for some of the differences of opinion here. That might be fodder for further discussion. Nevertheless, I think I have fairly and consistently directed my line of critique/debate away from a dispute about differences of taste to a dispute about whether Lynch has any obligation to his impatient viewers that would justify their indignation. Some feel entitled to be satisfied-- I see the promise of more interesting discussion emerging from suspending expectations/preferences, and I've grown weary of others' asserting their tastes/preferences to be normative, justified, natural, or inevitable.
Hi Badalamenti Fan,
I'd like to reassert what I said about making value judgements, you have made yours as have others. How each individual comes about these value judgements is for them to decide. You've categorised, labelled and drawn tribal lines down a pop vs art divide, segregated it into an Us vs Them.
Why shouldn't some of the decisions made by Lynch and Frost be called into question? At least the show is being discussed and some form of discourse has come from it. If you fear/loathe/grow weary of criticism of it perhaps steer away from threads likely to be discussing just that. I am not sure what you would wish for those who enjoy it in an imperfect way to do? I'm also not sure that all these participants can be simply labelled as the obliged, entitled viewership. Other threads are available discussing exactly what you do want to discuss perhaps that would be a better way to spend your energy.
Accept that the value judgements of others may not match your own and go about discussing what you value and care about. (Honestly sometimes people just enjoy a good moan!)
I missed this in the rush. Thanks for another thoughtful response. I have to tell you that I'm not seeking to enforce a given response. Perhaps you are right and differences between US and European media environments account for some of the differences of opinion here. That might be fodder for further discussion. Nevertheless, I think I have fairly and consistently directed my line of critique/debate away from a dispute about differences of taste to a dispute about whether Lynch has any obligation to his impatient viewers that would justify their indignation. Some feel entitled to be satisfied-- I see the promise of more interesting discussion emerging from suspending expectations/preferences, and I've grown weary of others' asserting their tastes/preferences to be normative, justified, natural, or inevitable.Hi Badalamenti Fan,
I'd like to reassert what I said about making value judgements, you have made yours as have others. How each individual comes about these value judgements is for them to decide. You've categorised, labelled and drawn tribal lines down a pop vs art divide, segregated it into an Us vs Them.
Why shouldn't some of the decisions made by Lynch and Frost be called into question? At least the show is being discussed and some form of discourse has come from it. If you fear/loathe/grow weary of criticism of it perhaps steer away from threads likely to be discussing just that. I am not sure what you would wish for those who enjoy it in an imperfect way to do? I'm also not sure that all these participants can be simply labelled as the obliged, entitled viewership. Other threads are available discussing exactly what you do want to discuss perhaps that would be a better way to spend your energy.
Accept that the value judgements of others may not match your own and go about discussing what you value and care about. (Honestly sometimes people just enjoy a good moan!)
Point well taken, Gary. It's in the quality of discussion/argumentation that I see where disagreements about value judgments can grow into valuable threads for the widest audience, or narrow communities of like-minded opinion. But, of course, the frustrated and impatient are certainly deserving of their own space for moaning!. I'll steer clear of that going forward and ask only that those seeking a community for moaning identify their posts as such, something James Sweeney rightly observed is, by and large, already happening here.
Since this has gone way off topic already, and the topic was answered on the first page anyway, let's just keep going with the new current topic, eh? 😉
We're all gonna differ on our opinions. Can we all agree to that? Hm.
Again, some of the stuff I've read on this forum about "giving up" or "quitting," about how people can't believe this is how they're doing it, it sucks, I'm disappointed because it's not what I wanted.... I stayed quiet on that. I disagreed and thought it was a little silly to be thinking those things so early on, but I just didn't want to jump in on it. I'm finally saying something now, maybe because I know we're getting close to the end and I think we should start getting closer to wrapping it all up. Maybe a second watching will make me feel better about 12. I mean, i didn't hate it in the first place, but I think I must've felt like Rhiannon's husband feels about Lynch's stuff for this one episode...and I tend to like weird/abnormal/out-of-the-ordinary type stuff.
I wonder what kind of an impact binge watching has had, consciously or subconsciously, on the typical, old-style format of series watching. The ability to have instant gratification and watch everything at once if we so choose, vs. having to wait a WHOLE WEEK to find out the next piece of the story, and having to wait 3.5 months to find out what the whole story is. (I won't even mention BBC Sherlock's cliffhangers.)
For whatever it's worth, this is the only show that I watch right now that I NEED to watch as it's on...or, at least, the same night that it's on. And it's only the second show that I've ever sought out a fan forum for, the first being Lost, which was also a "gotta watch it right away" show for me. I suppose that if the internet was around back then as it is now, I probably would've done so for Quantum Leap. 🙂
The first third of the season should be like a roller coaster going up he hill. Second third when you get up top and admire the scenery. Final third imo should be going down the coaster. The fact that lynch is JIST introducing audrey to the mix tells me we aren't close to the downhill..
Why should David Lynch's work conform to your expectations, Yambag? If we have a professional film critic in our midst, I'll defer to your authority, but I'm not sure why anyone should defer to your taste. Why do you feel others should?
Others have generalized from what is conventional that such conventions are, in fact, natural and, as such, correct. Orthodoxy about conventions of television editing, pacing, writing? Really?? What a sad, dreary world if folks rush to a) complain about their discomfort with something unconventional, then b) defend their preferences as the natural order to which others should conform.
Woof. Like I said before, I hope that you find what you're looking for, here or elsewhere.
I'm not a professional film critic. I'm simply sharing my observation on how successful shows usually work. Hell, it's how season 1-2 worked.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but there's nothing unconventional about this season at all. Lynch is doing what lynch does. The lynch die hards could watch a 60 minute episode of a French bulldog chewing a tennis ball in black and white and wil rush here to post how amazingly gifted Lynch's vision is while others will say "wtf did I just watch" only to be browbeaten by some try hard philosophical gibberish.
I think lynch continuing to enter new plotlines this far into the season is simply biting off more than he can chew. I can't see him cleaning up these plotlines in six episodes. If he does, awesome, but I fear if he does it'll be sloppy.
Badalamenti Fan, you seem to be turning this into a discussion of whether or not we should be discussing Twin Peaks on the Twin Peaks forum. Seems a bit strange to me. You seem to have an issue with people expressing how they felt after watching an episode, whereas to me that seems to be part of the point of a forum such as this.
"I don't begrudge anyone their right to express discomfort and dissatisfaction with Lynch's pacing and editing being different than what a given viewer is normally accustomed to, but I do feel an obligation to suggest that voicing such misgivings is of dubious value to Pieter's Welcome To Twin Peaks web forum"
So you're fine with us expressing how we felt after viewing Twin Peaks, as long we don't do it here? Where should we do it then? In a forum about a different TV show?
And why do you feel an "obligation" to suggest this? Seem strange...
Maybe Pieter should change the name of the website to "Welcome to Twin Peaks, Unless There's Anything About It You Want to Criticise"?
I don't see anything in Pieter's short and simple forum rules that say we can't express how we feel if we thought an episode wasn't as good as it could have been:
In fact, I think it's pretty antisocial or trollish to first stake out a community of frustration within a community of fans, then take issue with others who feel impatient with this... But hey, this forum that is clearly designed to be large enough to accommodate a diversity of opinion and a variety of conversations, some more narrow than others. So I'll get in line.
I came here with excitement of the third season.
I continued to come bc of some of the insight and info of stuff I may not have picked up on in episodes.
However the weekly dissertations of how amazing inane and (what seems to be) worthless scenes are "brilliant" has become boring. There's some posters who I havent seen them make one criticism of 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).
I'll eat my hat if The Return has a second season. The Return is a farewell, career-retrospective gesture. Lynch is free from answering to audience expectations. IMO, this is a rare and special thing. Others disagree, evidently.
I don't see a second season either.
The second part of your post I couldn't disagree with more. I think lynch saw a chance to finish something he never finished and make a few bucks.
Far from "this is a farewell"
tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/twin-peaks-another-revival-david-lynch-says/
Ah Yambag! Glad to hear from you-- I realize I derailed this thread into what proved to be a heated discussion between you, laughingatsky, Gary and yours truly so I'm glad that you have had a chance to weigh in.
I maintain that there's something fishy about complaining about David lynch on a fan forum dedicated to his work (akin to an atheist attending a bible study in order to indict Christian dogma, no?) But I have to concede that I was wrong to hijack James Sweeney's topic and to acknowledge that my remarks proved alienating for the reasons you identified.
I've tried repeatedly to point out that The Return is different from other tv programs for a variety of reasons and that--perhaps-- this calls into question the criteria you have used to evaluate it, or at very least invites reconsideration in other terms. I raised the issue of professional criticism because a professional critic would be responsible for establishing a context for prescriptions about what would improve a series beyond the implication that what makes a good tv series is what has proven viable for other tv series. I suggested that the conventions of genre tv/ "prestige tv" might be the frame within which you were couching your judgments and I think-- correct me if I'm wrong-- your remarks above have confirmed this. This is your right, obviously, but dismissing my best efforts to articulate why this frame might not be appropriate /valid for The Return as 'philosophical gibberish' and 'weekly dissertations' confirms these efforts fell on deaf ears, making it clear we are still talking past each other. Let's agree to disagree-- I think you should continue to approach the show how you see fit and I will stay out of spaces on the forum where folks like you are interested in voicing frustration and dissatisfaction.
A parting thought: you will encounter people here on this forum and elsewhere in life who DID write dissertations on film, music, philosophy and cultural criticism, more broadly. It's up to you whether you dismiss what comes of years of dedicated study as pretentious or elitist, or whether instead you look to what you can learn from other people. If this sentiment strikes you as sanctimonious, know that I'm merely proposing that tv and film critics/scholars like Emily nussbaum, Michel Chion, Todd McGowan and A.o. Scott might have more insight to offer than your dismissal of such lines of inquiry suggests you feel they do. In the end, I trust you'll decide for yourself. Truce?
However the weekly dissertations of how amazing inane and (what seems to be) worthless scenes are "brilliant" has become boring. There's some posters who I havent seen them make one criticism of season.
I thought I'd said my peace. I was wrong. After rereading the thread, I realized that what I suspect accounts for much of the "talking past each other" I've mentioned could well be that we are invoking different senses of the term 'criticism.'
[ And Gary, I should add that this also pertains to what you had said earlier about 'value judgments.']
Whereas the colloquial usage of the word means something like "fault finding," when I invoke the words "critique" or "criticism," I'm aiming for an admittedly elevated (or, arguably, pedantic) sense that involves both textual hermeneutics (a decidedly pretentious word for the 'interpretation of texts,' be they filmic, literary, televisual or multimedia, etc.) and analytical rigor, entailing both the clear demarcation of what sort of context is appropriate for considering a given text and a systematic approach to its description and evaluation. [Here, I'm more or less paraphrasing the explanation of the term provided by N.Y. Times film critic A.O. Scott in his book, Better Living Through Criticism]. The point is that this sense of the word has less to do with finding fault than with opening something up for interpretation, understanding, and, as necessary or purposeful, evaluation.
I can see why this would run afoul of the colloquial sense that informs expressions like "everyone's a critic!" or "don't be an armchair critic." But it's important as well, I feel, to clarify that "value judgments" as such are absolutely fair game when it comes to criticism in either sense of the word. Critique/criticism does not appeal to objectivity-- I don't claim that my interpretations/analyses/assessments are the last word. That's for others to judge based on how persuasive they find my "readings" of Lynch's films. But I do maintain that the reflex to extrapolate from "I don't like this" to "this is bad" is a tendency that comes more from the sense of 'criticism' meaning "fault finding" than from the more rarefied sense of the term.
As such, Yambag, I think I owe you an apology for misunderstanding why you would have been chagrined by the failure of members of this forum--myself included-- to "make one criticism of the season." My bad, once more-- you have every right to conclude that all of this is so much intellectual claptrap. But I hope you'll give me the benefit of the doubt and at least take my remarks as food for thought.
Alright, 'nuff said. Bury the hatchet?
This is not a show for people with A.D.D.
Just because you don't understand/relate to the art does not mean that "it ain't art."
Some of us are quite tired of the response of "How DARE David Lynch not do HIS creative work EXACTLY as *I* want him to!!" Art is not made from a universal cookie-cutter to appeal to the greatest possible number of viewers.
There are in fact plenty of modern tv shows available on streaming/cable which do not allow you to binge-watch, as they are week-to-week. As a middle-aged adult ( if I live to be 110 ), I have no problem with seeing shows I like in this format vs. being able to binge. There have been some things in real life I have had to wait much longer than that for.
This is not a show for people with A.D.D.
Just because you don't understand/relate to the art does not mean that "it ain't art."
Some of us are quite tired of the response of "How DARE David Lynch not do HIS creative work EXACTLY as *I* want him to!!" Art is not made from a universal cookie-cutter to appeal to the greatest possible number of viewers.
Well.... As someone pretty severely constrained by ADD with0ut pharmacological intervention... I beg to differ ... though now I'm caught in a loop... I suppose I enjoy Lynch's expressive editing for the very reason that it demands my sustained attention!
There are in fact plenty of modern tv shows available on streaming/cable which do not allow you to binge-watch, as they are week-to-week. As a middle-aged adult ( if I live to be 110 ), I have no problem with seeing shows I like in this format vs. being able to binge. There have been some things in real life I have had to wait much longer than that for.
I agree. I honestly don't like binging, as I prefer to theorise about what is going on. I've unfortunately got a 5-week-long holiday coming up which means I miss the finale and I'm devastated. I know I can just watch it later but to miss out on such a substantial part of the theorising truly annoys me.
There are in fact plenty of modern tv shows available on streaming/cable which do not allow you to binge-watch, as they are week-to-week. As a middle-aged adult ( if I live to be 110 ), I have no problem with seeing shows I like in this format vs. being able to binge. There have been some things in real life I have had to wait much longer than that for.
I agree. I honestly don't like binging, as I prefer to theorise about what is going on. I've unfortunately got a 5-week-long holiday coming up which means I miss the finale and I'm devastated. I know I can just watch it later but to miss out on such a substantial part of the theorising truly annoys me.
So you'll be away from the internet, then? Many of us watch it on streaming.
Ah Yambag! Glad to hear from you-- I realize I derailed this thread into what proved to be a heated discussion between you, laughingatsky, Gary and yours truly so I'm glad that you have had a chance to weigh in.
I maintain that there's something fishy about complaining about David lynch on a fan forum dedicated to his work (akin to an atheist attending a bible study in order to indict Christian dogma, no?) But I have to concede that I was wrong to hijack James Sweeney's topic and to acknowledge that my remarks proved alienating for the reasons you identified.
I've tried repeatedly to point out that The Return is different from other tv programs for a variety of reasons and that--perhaps-- this calls into question the criteria you have used to evaluate it, or at very least invites reconsideration in other terms. I raised the issue of professional criticism because a professional critic would be responsible for establishing a context for prescriptions about what would improve a series beyond the implication that what makes a good tv series is what has proven viable for other tv series. I suggested that the conventions of genre tv/ "prestige tv" might be the frame within which you were couching your judgments and I think-- correct me if I'm wrong-- your remarks above have confirmed this. This is your right, obviously, but dismissing my best efforts to articulate why this frame might not be appropriate /valid for The Return as 'philosophical gibberish' and 'weekly dissertations' confirms these efforts fell on deaf ears, making it clear we are still talking past each other. Let's agree to disagree-- I think you should continue to approach the show how you see fit and I will stay out of spaces on the forum where folks like you are interested in voicing frustration and dissatisfaction.
A parting thought: you will encounter people here on this forum and elsewhere in life who DID write dissertations on film, music, philosophy and cultural criticism, more broadly. It's up to you whether you dismiss what comes of years of dedicated study as pretentious or elitist, or whether instead you look to what you can learn from other people. If this sentiment strikes you as sanctimonious, know that I'm merely proposing that tv and film critics/scholars like Emily nussbaum, Michel Chion, Todd McGowan and A.o. Scott might have more insight to offer than your dismissal of such lines of inquiry suggests you feel they do. In the end, I trust you'll decide for yourself. Truce?
I thought this was a twin peaks fan forum rather than a lynch forum. I think someone can be a big fan of peaks and not a huge lynch fan (and vice versa).
While I did bring up standard show process (or my opinion of it at least), the only show I compared it to was peaks seasons 1-2. IMO by being on showtime, lynch had the freedom to be more "lynchian" than he could be with seasons 1-2, which to many it will turn them off from the experience. The artsy fartys will crave the french girl scenes but the majority (imo aren't huge lynch fans imo) want to stay focused on the story.
However the weekly dissertations of how amazing inane and (what seems to be) worthless scenes are "brilliant" has become boring. There's some posters who I havent seen them make one criticism of season.
I thought I'd said my peace. I was wrong. After rereading the thread, I realized that what I suspect accounts for much of the "talking past each other" I've mentioned could well be that we are invoking different senses of the term 'criticism.'
[ And Gary, I should add that this also pertains to what you had said earlier about 'value judgments.']
Whereas the colloquial usage of the word means something like "fault finding," when I invoke the words "critique" or "criticism," I'm aiming for an admittedly elevated (or, arguably, pedantic) sense that involves both textual hermeneutics (a decidedly pretentious word for the 'interpretation of texts,' be they filmic, literary, televisual or multimedia, etc.) and analytical rigor, entailing both the clear demarcation of what sort of context is appropriate for considering a given text and a systematic approach to its description and evaluation. [Here, I'm more or less paraphrasing the explanation of the term provided by N.Y. Times film critic A.O. Scott in his book, Better Living Through Criticism]. The point is that this sense of the word has less to do with finding fault than with opening something up for interpretation, understanding, and, as necessary or purposeful, evaluation.
I can see why this would run afoul of the colloquial sense that informs expressions like "everyone's a critic!" or "don't be an armchair critic." But it's important as well, I feel, to clarify that "value judgments" as such are absolutely fair game when it comes to criticism in either sense of the word. Critique/criticism does not appeal to objectivity-- I don't claim that my interpretations/analyses/assessments are the last word. That's for others to judge based on how persuasive they find my "readings" of Lynch's films. But I do maintain that the reflex to extrapolate from "I don't like this" to "this is bad" is a tendency that comes more from the sense of 'criticism' meaning "fault finding" than from the more rarefied sense of the term.
As such, Yambag, I think I owe you an apology for misunderstanding why you would have been chagrined by the failure of members of this forum--myself included-- to "make one criticism of the season." My bad, once more-- you have every right to conclude that all of this is so much intellectual claptrap. But I hope you'll give me the benefit of the doubt and at least take my remarks as food for thought.
Alright, 'nuff said. Bury the hatchet?
There was no hatchet to bury, but consider it buried 😉
Fire walk with