Notifications
Clear all

I Am Like The Blue Rose  

Page 2 / 3
  RSS
(@myn0k)
Deputy
Posted by: The conversation is lively

So yes, the exposition makes Blue Rose specifically about doppelgängers. That really closes down a lot of the mystery about Blue Rose cases. In FWWM, Blue Rose clearly was intended to mean something supernatural, strange and something we weren't entirely supposed to understand. Like many things in Lynch films, I was completely happy with it signalling something without having a definitive explanation. Doesn't anyone else think that giving these things a specific explanation just closes down its meaning and makes it much less interesting. The Return seems to be closing down a lot of possibilities about what things could be. I want to spend more time with Blue Rose, not necessarily have it explained away so that there is no mystery left. 

The Scene with bowie in FWWM could remain a mystery forever. It's been a great scene all theses years. I'd love to know more but I don't want an explanation.  

But previously you said we were 11, 12, 13 episodes in and in need of answers and instead we've been given unecessary filler (I paraphrase, correct me if I'm wrong). Now you have some answers about Blue Rose and you're unhappy. 

Or are you only happy with some answers and not others?

Personally I don't think all Blue Rose cases are doppelganger related. We've only been made aware of several cases - the one in EP14 (Doppelganger) and the one from previous cases (BOB). 

You also said it would have been better with a filmed scene, and to not do so is lazy storytelling. I disagree. Filming and explaining everything that takes place leads to lazy viewing and pop TV series, where everything is explained so that you follow a set line of thought. I.e. you are told what to think. 

FWIW this is not a personal affront. I'm just a bit confused about understanding your criticisms of the show. 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 11:39 am
(@b-randy)
Chief Moderator

Welcome back Mynok!

I've been pondering this thread a lot and I too am confused about the criticism.

I think 2 "flashback" story tellings would have been excessive for this scene.  And we had to get Jeffries in there.  The masses would have been screaming for Lynch's head if he's just "told" that one. So the other one had to be spoken, IMHO anyways.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 12:03 pm
Lynn Watson and Myn0k liked
(@myn0k)
Deputy
Posted by: Brandy Fisher

Welcome back Mynok!

I've been pondering this thread a lot and I too am confused about the criticism.

I think 2 "flashback" story tellings would have been excessive for this scene.  And we had to get Jeffries in there.  The masses would have been screaming for Lynch's head if he's just "told" that one. So the other one had to be spoken, IMHO anyways.

Thanks 🙂

Something tells me that if it had gone the other way, the criticism would have been about missing an opportunity about Jeffries 😉

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 12:14 pm
(@b-randy)
Chief Moderator
Posted by: Myn0k
Posted by: Brandy Fisher

Welcome back Mynok!

I've been pondering this thread a lot and I too am confused about the criticism.

I think 2 "flashback" story tellings would have been excessive for this scene.  And we had to get Jeffries in there.  The masses would have been screaming for Lynch's head if he's just "told" that one. So the other one had to be spoken, IMHO anyways.

Thanks 🙂

Something tells me that if it had gone the other way, the criticism would have been about missing an opportunity about Jeffries 😉

Oh most definitely.  People would have been storming Lynch's house with torches and pitchforks for not showing the late and immensely great David Bowie.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 12:19 pm
Lynn Watson and Myn0k liked
(@ezekielmoist)
RR Diner Patron
Posted by: Myn0k

Let's talk about the importance of this scene. 

We know now that the issue of doppelgangers is one that dates back, at least in terms of FBI involvement, to the 70s, where a young Gordon Cole and Philip Jeffries are investigating a suspect in a murder case. And then the doppelganger, in her dying breath, essentially acknowledged that she is artificial - a doppelganger. Then she disappears. 

To me, this suggested that the FBI has been investigating a lot of doppelganger cases under the blue rose flag. Not just lodge or supernatural cases. But cases involving doppelgangers. 

The lady shot her doppelganger. And the doppelganger died/disappeared. Now we know two things: doppelgangers disappear when they're killed, and you CAN kill your doppelganger. I'm jumping slightly to conclusions as we don't know what events took place between the original lady and her doppelganger, nor the events that led to her having a double in the physical world. 

Doppelgangers, therefore, are more common than we've so far been led to believe. How does it/the cloning happen? Did she enter the lodge and have a copy made of her? Were Theresa Banks, Laura Palmer and hey, maybe Maddie, subject to having Tulpas created after their murder?

Lots of questions. Definitely one of my favourite scenes in the series so far. 

Edit - and for what it's worth, I didn't feel this exposition needed a scene to explain it. We had the FWWM exposition and flashback. Didn't need an extra backstory filmed here - would've been overkill IMO. 

Interesting that the ones who complained about the "slow dragging" of episodes 12 and 13 are the same ones now wanting more exposition and unecessary shots 😉

Not a dig, just highlighting the difference of opinion. We can agree to disagree 🙂

To me for instance slow means good usually 😉 I can't speak for others complaining in this thread but the point i was talking about is that i saw a difference in this episode: when creativity is coming from a large space and freedom, and when the way is restricted by the urge of plot.  This was the slight disappointment of mine, basically that in terms of the plot there were epic facts happening but in terms of the realization i felt too much control almost. The scenes weren't as epic as the revelations (like there's not much time left for that).

Edit: Yes you can kill your doppelganger,  but you forgot to mention that after she did it she commited suicide... this is very interesting for me and makes me wonder a lot! 

 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 12:41 pm
Estera and Myn0k liked
(@myn0k)
Deputy
Posted by: ezekielmoist

Edit: Yes you can kill your doppelganger,  but you forgot to mention that after she did it she commited suicide... this is very interesting for me and makes me wonder a lot! 

That's a good point, I'd forgotten she killed herself. 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 1:08 pm
(@samxtherapy)
Detective

Maybe the doppelganger found a way to reach out and force her hand.  Or maybe she was too traumatized by the experience to carry on living.  

Or none of the above.

But, back to the side issue of answers:  I like answers.  Exposition be buggered; it's vagueness and uncertainty that shouts "Poor/lazy writing" like nothing else.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 1:16 pm
(@mj_gilbert)
Deputy
Posted by: The conversation is lively

So yes, the exposition makes Blue Rose specifically about doppelgängers. That really closes down a lot of the mystery about Blue Rose cases. In FWWM, Blue Rose clearly was intended to mean something supernatural, strange and something we weren't entirely supposed to understand. Like many things in Lynch films, I was completely happy with it signalling something without having a definitive explanation. Doesn't anyone else think that giving these things a specific explanation just closes down its meaning and makes it much less interesting. The Return seems to be closing down a lot of possibilities about what things could be. I want to spend more time with Blue Rose, not necessarily have it explained away so that there is no mystery left. 

The Scene with bowie in FWWM could remain a mystery forever. It's been a great scene all theses years. I'd love to know more but I don't want an explanation.  

I don't take that meaning at all- Blue Rose encompasses doppelgangers, but I don't think we are told that it is "specifically ABOUT doppelgangers".

For my part, I am fine with the exposition here, rather than a filmed scene. I got it, and hope they save the screen time- maybe for more cleaning-up (since we now have window-washing to add to the sweeping).

And I say this as a person who still can't get past the fact that Peter Jacskon didn't film the Scouring of the Shire...

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 2:06 pm
(@myn0k)
Deputy
Posted by: MJ Gilbert

And I say this as a person who still can't get past the fact that Peter Jacskon didn't film the Scouring of the Shire...

Could've been worse. 

He could've chosen to film Tom Bombadil!

Oh, Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadil-ohh!

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 2:11 pm
(@b-randy)
Chief Moderator
Posted by: SamXTherapy

 

But, back to the side issue of answers:  I like answers.  Exposition be buggered; it's vagueness and uncertainty that shouts "Poor/lazy writing" like nothing else.

Then I gotta ask you Detective Sam, what on earth are you doing watching this show?  🙂

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 2:14 pm
(@samxtherapy)
Detective
Posted by: Brandy Fisher
Posted by: SamXTherapy

 

But, back to the side issue of answers:  I like answers.  Exposition be buggered; it's vagueness and uncertainty that shouts "Poor/lazy writing" like nothing else.

Then I gotta ask you Detective Sam, what on earth are you doing watching this show?  🙂

Because there are answers.  Not always but the show isn't half as ambiguous as some believe.

The questions are all arising from various events which are leading to a conclusion.  Maybe some - most - won't be answered... but some will.

Think back to Episode 8, for example.  Some people - not here - thought it was incomprehensible but a little thought gets you a long way.  Same goes for most of the show.  The information is there but not always in an easily accessible form.  Sure, there are lots of things we don't know but it's not as if everything is left unanswered.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 2:39 pm
(@mj_gilbert)
Deputy
Posted by: Myn0k
Posted by: MJ Gilbert

And I say this as a person who still can't get past the fact that Peter Jacskon didn't film the Scouring of the Shire...

Could've been worse. 

He could've chosen to film Tom Bombadil!

Oh, Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadil-ohh!

Lest this forum become "Welcome to Arnor", there is analogy to be made here. Tom Bombadil, while giving us glimpse into a bigger, stranger world that the narrative is never going to fully explore, is not central to the narrative. The scouring of the Shire IS, and to have the entire war of the ring happen and leave the Shire entirely untouched is just ridiculous.

So, I think the film makers have to triage- I want them to! Who is Clark going to end up with? I don't care (I hope he ends up alone, cuz that Clark is a DOG). There are other more central plot lines I would like the focus to be on.

As for "answers" in general, as in science, there are no ultimate answers. Each answer we find begs more questions.

And in terms of television, when has the exposure of "answers" ever really been as satisfying as our endless speculation?

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 2:47 pm
(@mj_gilbert)
Deputy
Posted by: Myn0k
Posted by: MJ Gilbert

And I say this as a person who still can't get past the fact that Peter Jacskon didn't film the Scouring of the Shire...

Could've been worse. 

He could've chosen to film Tom Bombadil!

Oh, Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadil-ohh!

I have always wondered what happened to the Entwives. Could they have been Sycamores??

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 2:49 pm
(@myn0k)
Deputy
Posted by: MJ Gilbert
Posted by: Myn0k
Posted by: MJ Gilbert

And I say this as a person who still can't get past the fact that Peter Jacskon didn't film the Scouring of the Shire...

Could've been worse. 

He could've chosen to film Tom Bombadil!

Oh, Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadil-ohh!

I have always wondered what happened to the Entwives. Could they have been Sycamores??

I did wonder if they were there all along, and the Ents just never paid attention to them, so they never knew they were staring them in the face all this (that?) time. 

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 2:56 pm
(@myn0k)
Deputy
Posted by: MJ Gilbert

As for "answers" in general, as in science, there are no ultimate answers. Each answer we find begs more questions.

I think it was Neil Degrasse Tyson who said that all science, specifically quantum mechanics, is ultimately just a language used to speculate how the universe works. The language continuously changes as we understand more about the workings of reality and our calculations become more accurate, but the questions and answers become far more bizarre.

ReplyQuote
Posted : 19/08/2017 2:59 pm
Page 2 / 3
Share: