I'm going to get laughed out of town for this and I mean it with the utmost respect for Sabrina but I don't think she would have had a need-to-know on the sync thing. As soon as Lynch, Frost or Duwayne Dunham come out and explicitly state that the sync thing is a coincidence and not intentional, I'll accept it immediately but until then I consider it a very strong possibility that the writing and editing was done with sync in mind.
I agree. Wait for Lynch. Probably be a looong wait, though. 😉
I agree that Sabrina would know a lot more about it than us, but with slightly evasive words like these:
Like I said, I'm just hearing of it. Maybe it's something I'm not aware of - could be. I'm not infallible!
Even she doesn't sound completely convinced or convincing. 😉
- /< /\ /> -
Well people love random things fit. Don't care that 90% others things don't fit 🙂 There can be something that Lynch did at the end, this part only looks like sync. But only the end. Rest is like, we see Naido in one screen and Diane in another, wow that fit ! 🙂 Or Sheriff have a hat and another guy too, WOW...
I obviously missed the memo stating that parts were 'meant' to be watched that way.
Some parts work really well together - others don't match up at all. Nobody's making you watch them...
Look, if you are interested in this sync theory, you should't be invested in the idea that it was intentional or that they were supposed to be watched this way. You have the freedom to watch it this way and make your interpretations. But just understand that you are simply creating your own personal relationship with this work. There's nothing at all wrong with doing that, there's just no need to advocate it to anyone else.
Did you actually mean that bit to come across quite as patronising as it reads...?
Well, thank you very much for patting me on the head and explaining that to me. You saw something on a blog post & thought you'd be snarky to people on here. OK.
We've been quite happily exchanging daft theories on here for months (to qualify daft - we are discussing a tv show featuring a talking doorknob & a talking foot!!) There now seem to be some people very keen to dictate what is and isn't relevant. Which I can't say I find very interesting.
Just to re-assure you, I'm perfectly capable of not clinging on in the hope that some tv programme will resolve in a manner that I approve of. *rolls eyes*
I obviously missed the memo stating that parts were 'meant' to be watched that way.
Some parts work really well together - others don't match up at all. Nobody's making you watch them...
Look, if you are interested in this sync theory, you should't be invested in the idea that it was intentional or that they were supposed to be watched this way. You have the freedom to watch it this way and make your interpretations. But just understand that you are simply creating your own personal relationship with this work. There's nothing at all wrong with doing that, there's just no need to advocate it to anyone else.
Did you actually mean that bit to come across quite as patronising as it reads...?
Well, thank you very much for patting me on the head and explaining that to me. You saw something on a blog post & thought you'd be snarky to people on here. OK.
We've been quite happily exchanging daft theories on here for months (to qualify daft - we are discussing a tv show featuring a talking doorknob & a talking foot!!) There now seem to be some people very keen to dictate what is and isn't relevant. Which I can't say I find very interesting.Just to re-assure you, I'm perfectly capable of not clinging on in the hope that some tv programme will resolve in a manner that I approve of. *rolls eyes*
I quoted you because you said you "missed the memo" about people saying the episodes were meant to be viewed together, and I showed you the memo. The rest of the post was a general response to other people who were invested in the notion that it has to be intentional for their theory to be valid. Anyway, since you are castigating me for the tone of my writing, do you think I should aspire to the tone of what you just wrote? I'd hate to see how you'd respond if I did.
Just like watching a movie at a theater, or listening to an album, it is all complete as a whole, not separate parts. The experience of a music album is best experienced of you listen to it as a whole. When you listen to separate tracks or scenes, you break the intention and the tone of it in a way.
You watch the movie or listen to an album, and it makes you feel some ways, and that is true. If you watch something over and over again in a matter of very few time, you kind of break it in a sense. Same with separate songs. Movie is the same. From start to finish, what you feel is and was right to you, in the very first moment, is mostly true. Don't think about it, just experience.
From my point of view, and this is very important in both short and in the long run; to keep the magic, watch the thing from the start to the end, then decide. If not satisfied, do it again. So on.
Not even solving Twin Peaks could get me to listen to Atom Heart Mother again.
Maybe the episodes are actually meant to be watched in reverse? Then we might get some hidden messages, such as "Paul is dead".
Perhaps the Blu-Ray release will contain "David Lynch's Instructions for Watching Twin Peaks: The Return":
- Save all the episodes as video files on your computer.
- Reverse the even-numbered episodes.
- Start with episode 18 played in reverse at the same time as watching episode 17 forwards.
- Follow this with episode 16 in reverse with episode 15 forwards.
- Continue in this way all the way back to watching episode 2 in reserve with episode 1 forwards.
- Then watch all the even numbered episodes forwards in order, but at double speed.
Not even solving Twin Peaks could get me to listen to Atom Heart Mother again.
Sorry man. Here's something more up your alley.
Fire walk with