Around the dinner table, the conversation was lively. Thank you but for now, the forum has been archived.
Just think about the cigarette scene with Gordon, Diane and Tammy. There's an entire narrative, within that scene, a story being told primarily through looking and emoting. The things all three of them do with they're eyes, and their non-verbal language, actually constitute a dialogue - but you have to work with that scene to 'hear' that dialogue: if you don't pay attention to the details, if you don't draw conclusions based on those details and you don't question those conclusions on the base of new details, all you're watching are three people standing there for the good part of two minutes before one of them take a smoke. Which is exactly what happens but there's also so much more, there: so much more information, so much more characterization.
Also it showcases Tammy's hips and ass yet again, that cannot stay still.
I personally don't really get why we get all these seemingly pointless scenes like Sarah Palmer watching TV, when we could have focused more on the plotline that this season started off with. It's a very unconventional way of telling a story. They focused more on the Dougie story. than the Hasting one, but then cut to different types of "none-important" stuff, it seems, like Dr Jacoby's shovels. Its very fragmented, as we've discussed before, and I'm afraid that's not a doing the series any good. That's why we easily forget small scenes like Mr C at the garage.
But maybe we will get to see more in flashbacks, or something.
You're taking your own subjective experience of the show and applying to others. Stop it. You keep using language like "we". I did not forgot the scene at the garage, because the image of Mr C squeezing the guys face stuck in my mind. I love the scattered story telling, it gives a lot to look forward to, I think that fragmenting the story in such a way builds immense tension, and it is fantastic when you've waited an entire week and an extra bit of the puzzle if revealed, for you to piece back together. I am aware though, that is my own personal impression. I won't just begin to impose this experience on everyone else just because we've seen the same show. Just because you're having trouble following a non-linear narrative with scene-to-scene plot development doesn't mean that you can apply that as a criticism to the show, because its not a show problem, it's subjective.
Moaning about these kind of things on forums hinders discussion and interaction. Half your posts are just complaints about the show. Every episode, another complaint about how you hate the way things are being done. Gets a little bit boring. "That's not doing the series any good"... I think what you meant to say here was "that's not doing me any good". The plot-line the season started off with is arbitrary, Lynch himself said he hadn't decided what order to present events a few months before the show was edited together. What if the season "started" off with a different plot from the show?? Would you love that plot and hate all the others? Is this just the show being a victim of circumstance?I feel like patience is needed to be able to sit through this 18 hour movie. Binge-watching culture where everything is available to you if you can sit through something quick enough without any breaks seems to have rubbed off on a lot of people, who don't have the patience to wait week by week for the story to unravel, and get angry when their entitled vision doesn't come through. As people say on here a lot, Twin Peaks isn't what you want it to be, it's what Lynch wants it to be.
Would you read a quarter of a novel, put it down, and then criticize it when you pick the book up a week later, only to find that you're at "Part 2" which follows a different character in a different setting? Would you make the same "fragmented" argument? I feel like a lot of your reservations and judgement about the show will be solved and sorted by episode 18 when you have the full picture. Maybe try and focus more on discussing the show in a positive vibe and aiding theory-building rather than complaints about the methods of storytelling? Why not set up your own forum about how terrible the new series thematic styling is?
🙂
Yeah, I liked that garage scene, it was creepy.
Jack was never once heard speaking, he was grubby and coarse, and ate like a pig. I felt kinda sorry for the character. DoppelDale massaged him gently, and by the end of it, Jack had become completely still. The demonic-possessed FBI agent killed him then and there using a very weird trick - he died standing.
I am enjoying every little bit, even the seemingly throwaway, unimportant, unrelated sections. Knowing the way the guys work, and remembering the way things were put together in the first two series, I'm sure all the separate parts will make sense.
Then again, I enjoy reading Iain (M) Banks, too. He was a master of the same sort of plot structure.
I'm still finding it a bit odd that we didn't get to see any of the development in the Hastings plotline until episode 9. Maybe there will be some bonus scenes of it in a DVD/Blu-Ray release. Or maybe they didn't think it would be necesarry to show anything from it, so they never even shot it.
I'm still finding it a bit odd that we didn't get to see any of the development in the Hastings plotline until episode 9. Maybe there will be some bonus scenes of it in a DVD/Blu-Ray release. Or maybe they didn't think it would be necesarry to show anything from it, so they never even shot it.
I think you're right that they had a lot of scenes for this shot, but ultimately chose not to feature all of it. Maybe Showtime restrictions?
Well, we already got one car explosion. Maybe two explosion would be too expensive, or too repetitive. Or too much.
Well, we already got one car explosion. Maybe two explosion would be too expensive, or too repetitive. Or too much.
It could be some form of a red herring, like a faked death or a deeper mystery which may explored via exposition dialogue later on?
Fire walk with 
