|
Ten Wasted Dollars posted:Also, it seems logically impossible to criticize David Lynch for some of you. Anything that might be considered unacceptable in other works is hand waved away as being part of Lynch's grand design. If a scene is boring it's apparently because it's supposed to make you feel bored. Can't the scene just be boring and self-indulgent? Can't Lynch gently caress up sometimes? It's just that Lynch never wanted the original run to be about actually solving Laura's murder, and from watching this season so far its clear the same is true of what is ostensibly the main conflict of this season. Really all the slice of life vignettes are the important part, not Cooper vs. Cooper. Just like Laura's murder was the excuse the show needed to dig up all of Twin Peak's drama and dirt for us, this show is just using the main conflict as an excuse to explore its real themes: ageing, impermanence, entropy, and people reliving the same mistakes over and over again. That doesn't make Lynch, Frost, or this season infallible of course. But it should be judged for what it actually is.
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
Where's Julee Cruise at anyway?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 04:46
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:This is really the best reason to watch Twin Peaks. Even if you don't care about 90% of the show, there's still scenes that make you feel a specific way and thats what Lynch does really well. Trying to "understand" why Lynch is doing something is insane to me. He creates scenes to make people feel certain ways, and if that means an entire episode to convey anticipation and frustration, then so be it. I tried this, but the show is so goddamn boring. And saying people will only care about 10% of the show isn't a ringing endorsement. I could understand if I had enough free time or high as gently caress, but watching a person sitting around for 10 minutes isn't entertaining to me, I'd rather mow the lawn and listen to music. *man stares for 5 minutes* *woman who can't speak sits for 5 minutes* *Man stares for another 5 minutes*. I'll watch the season once I can get stoned again so I don't have a sense of time, I'll probably love it then.  
Barreft fucked around with this message at 04:55 on Aug 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 04:48
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:It's just that Lynch never wanted the original run to be about actually solving Laura's murder, and from watching this season so far its clear the same is true of what is ostensibly the main conflict of this season. Really all the slice of life vignettes are the important part, not Cooper vs. Cooper. Just like Laura's murder was the excuse the show needed to dig up all of Twin Peak's drama and dirt for us, this show is just using the main conflict as an excuse to explore its real themes: ageing, impermanence, entropy, and people reliving the same mistakes over and over again. Even if the mystery was never meant to be solved, the existence and intrigue of the mystery gave meaning and context to smaller characters and plot threads. When the mystery was solved, the smaller characters and plot threads diverged and the result was that a lot of the content of the show just wasn't that interesting. I think we differ on what we interpret the focus of the show to be (and that's perfectly fine), but to me the new series has lost a bit of momentum in the last few episodes because the Cooper story has not moved forward in any substantial way. When we get 30 seconds of Coop and 11 minutes of Audrey berating some dude we don't know about people that we are not invested in, that's when I start to become disappointed with what we are being offered here.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
You know that you don't have to like it, right? If you watch it and you dislike it why go do the things you'd rather be doing?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:03
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:You know that you don't have to like it, right? If you watch it and you dislike it why go do the things you'd rather be doing? I'm not watching it, just wanted to give my opinion. I exited after the 20 minutes of the sewed eye woman or whatever on the couch, which was like episode 3 I think?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
Is that what they call "drive-by shitposting"?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:07
|
|
|
Ten Wasted Dollars posted:Even if the mystery was never meant to be solved, the existence and intrigue of the mystery gave meaning and context to smaller characters and plot threads. When the mystery was solved, the smaller characters and plot threads diverged and the result was that a lot of the content of the show just wasn't that interesting. I think we differ on what we interpret the focus of the show to be (and that's perfectly fine), but to me the new series has lost a bit of momentum in the last few episodes because the Cooper story has not moved forward in any substantial way. When we get 30 seconds of Coop and 11 minutes of Audrey berating some dude we don't know about people that we are not invested in, that's when I start to become disappointed with what we are being offered here. You're right, that's where we differ. But to me the fact that the show isn't focusing on solving the Cooper vs. Cooper conflict tells me that conflict is not the main focus of the show. For better or worse. Seems like pretty straightforward reasoning to me; the show shows us what its about. Like I said, the central themes of the new season are ageing, impermanence, entropy, and people reliving the same mistakes over and over again. The absence of a fully-functional Cooper as we knew him gives meaning and context to everything else by how it fits with those themes, and the show thwarting our expectations of how and when he should return to his senses is key to that. Let me just reiterate its not that Lynch et al can do no wrong. I just think he's failing at doing what some viewers want because he's succeeding at doing something entirely different.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
I, too, like to come into TV show threads to tell people a show is a waste of time after I stopped watching it months ago. My time is very important.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:08
|
|
|
I, too, only want positive thoughts put forth on a discussion forum. I even said I'll probably like it when I'm hosed up. Sorry for sharing my opinion. goddamn.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
I, too, poo poo my bed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:23
|
|
|
kaworu posted:It's annoying to me because I feel as if people are ragging on scenes like these not because they are good or bad, but simply because "they take too long" or because "they waste time" or because "nothing really happened of importance". I feel compelled to point out that using this logic, you are saying that it is actually impossible for a scene to be too long or drawn out. Like if I took that Audrey scene and edited it so there was a 15 minute pause between each line of dialogue, you would be unable to say that it was too long, or that too little happened, because you've decided those criticisms are off the table. Twin Peaks is different than anything on TV and I love it, and sometimes it's pacing is a very welcome change from other shows where the director assumes you will switch the channel if nothing happens for more than ten seconds. But just because it's doing things differently doesn't mean it's doing things in the best possible way. Personally I feel that the scene does a good job of communicating Audrey's frustration, but also that the scene could still have been a bit shorter or tightly edited without losing anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:25
|
|
|
Barreft posted:I, too, only want positive thoughts put forth on a discussion forum. I even said I'll probably like it when I'm hosed up. Sorry for sharing my opinion. goddamn. you joined a discussion about the most recent episode of a show that you haven't watched for like ten episodes - why do you think your opinion would be valuable right now? and since every post keeps bringing it up, I will sacrifice myself: I'm the guy who thinks David Lynch can do no wrong
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Breadallelogram posted:you joined a discussion about the most recent episode of a show that you haven't watched for like ten episodes - why do you think your opinion would be valuable right now? I like everything about the show and haven't had a single thing to whine about except for Harry not being in it. I like it because it's far more David Lynch than the originals and has eschewed the romanticism of S1 and 2 in favour of arty farty poo poo that I find very satisfying to watch.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:54
|
|
|
Breadallelogram posted:you joined a discussion about the most recent episode of a show that you haven't watched for like ten episodes - why do you think your opinion would be valuable right now? This is a discussion about the show on the whole unless I missed another thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Barreft posted:This is a discussion about the show on the whole unless I missed another thread. It is a general thread for the show and I believe your opinion from eight weeks ago has been noted. So in closing, that lawn won't mow itself. E: definitely get stoned and watch it though. I've been doing that this season on my first run since I watched the originals when I was a kid and it is the purest experience. JBP fucked around with this message at 06:13 on Aug 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:05
|
|
|
Barreft posted:This is a discussion about the show on the whole unless I missed another thread. I can sympathise with your opinion a little bit because when I started watching the original series I felt a little put out and didn't watch it for some time, it just didn't appeal to me. A few months later I tried it again and it clicked. Season 3 has me completely hooked. If you've got this far in to the show and your criticism is that a hosed up woman with no eyes in a bizarre nightmarish universe isn't doing things quickly enough I dunno why you're bothering trying to like it. Being stoned isn't going to help. edit: ^^^ I stand corrected on the last point then MonoAus fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Aug 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:14
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:I can sympathise with your opinion a little bit because when I started watching the original series I felt a little put out and didn't watch it for some time, it just didn't appeal to me. A few months later I tried it again and it clicked. Season 3 has me completely hooked. Twin Peaks is basically Dark Souls the TV show.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
Getting stoned and doing anything that requires you to pay attention seems like a bad idea, but maybe it makes the long-rear end scenes more entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
Hey so in the poem is it "one chance out" or "one chants out"? And it's "fire walk with me" as in hey fire, come travel with me or "firewalk with me" as in doing something crazy and extreme like walking across hot coals
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:19
|
|
|
There's a Twin Peaks rewatch/general thread, I think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:21
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Getting stoned and doing anything that requires you to pay attention seems like a bad idea, but maybe it makes the long-rear end scenes more entertaining. Depends on what you smoke/how weed works on you. I always blaze before shows or movies I am super excited about-- it makes me pay way more attention to the little details and the acting. Plus the atmosphere becomes like x2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:Getting stoned and doing anything that requires you to pay attention seems like a bad idea, but maybe it makes the long-rear end scenes more entertaining. I'm one of those weirdos that watches it to have feelings and chill in the art of it rather than agonise over finding out what's up with Cooper or whatever. The mindfuckery is obviously more pronounced whilst blazed as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:23
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Hey so in the poem is it "one chance out" or "one chants out"? I always thought it was like calling on the fire to protect the person as they walked between worlds. As for chance or chants, either works.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:24
|
|
|
Lord Krangdar posted:I always thought it was like calling on the fire to protect the person as they walked between worlds. It's chants. He's calling on the fire to accompany him is my take as well and chants makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
regulargonzalez posted:Hey so in the poem is it "one chance out" or "one chants out"? 
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:31
|
|
|
The shooting script says "chance", fwiw.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:34
|
|
|
i always heard it as chants out and assumed that the dual firewalk with me/fire, walk with me meaning was intentional and both.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:50
|
|
|
a magician chants "FIRE!! ... Walk with me" it's meant to be an invocation of "fire" within the context of Hawk's native lore and the Lodge stuff - Fire has a lot of meaning within this context you can really hear the pause after he says "Fire" in this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIzimmrDtTg&t=131s
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
esperterra posted:Depends on what you smoke/how weed works on you. I don't smoke that often anymore, and I usually save it for special occasions, but I smoked before s3e8 on a whim, not knowing what I was getting into. Just one of those nice little miracles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 07:01
|
|
|
Hadn't thought about it too much but I always interpreted it as "Fire, walk with me" as in, you're invoking the "fire" to join/possess you. It' like how Laura (or whoever) says that you have to let the spirit in, they can't just take over you. Chanting "Fire walk with me" is like saying "come in BOB, I'm ready". I dunno though, I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 07:37
|
|
|
kaworu I love ya but you give me a goddamn migraine I stg
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
Was it implied in FWWM that Philip Jeffries and Coop had never met?
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 08:09
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:
( I subscribe to Netflix, Stan and Getflix so I can get my Daily Show hit )
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
Cicadalek posted:I feel compelled to point out that using this logic, you are saying that it is actually impossible for a scene to be too long or drawn out. Like if I took that Audrey scene and edited it so there was a 15 minute pause between each line of dialogue, you would be unable to say that it was too long, or that too little happened, because you've decided those criticisms are off the table. I also believe that people who are pro-choice literally believe in murdering babies, too. Taking logical arguments to extremes always makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 08:11
|
|
|
ZombyDog posted:Just remember that Stan gets Ash vs Evil Dead in October. How well does Stan work for you? Seems like it always fucks up when I want to watch something during peak times when Netflix or anything else is fine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 08:14
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:How well does Stan work for you? Seems like it always fucks up when I want to watch something during peak times when Netflix or anything else is fine. Stan on PS4 has always been fine, but it's total poo poo on everything else. I also end up keeping Netflix and Stan year round because they stagger poo poo that interests me so perfectly that I am bound to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 08:18
|
|
|
MonoAus posted:How well does Stan work for you? Seems like it always fucks up when I want to watch something during peak times when Netflix or anything else is fine. JBP posted:I also end up keeping Netflix and Stan year round because they stagger poo poo that interests me so perfectly that I am bound to them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 08:24
|
|
|
kaworu posted:I suppose I feel frustrated by people ragging on the Audrey scene because to me, it smacks of impatience. It seems like the same people complained about the Green Onions scene. It's annoying to me because I feel as if people are ragging on scenes like these not because they are good or bad, but simply because "they take too long" or because "they waste time" or because "nothing really happened of importance". This seems really nonsensical to me. The entire scene is a big test of patience, not only because it's long and slow, but also because it's very deliberately placed at the end of the second act. We even got a confirmation of this notion when Diane said "Let's rock". It's announcing that poo poo is about to pop off. Instead, we get an entire episode worth of deliberately slow, low-stakes scenes, culminating in one that is only rivaled by the nuclear explosion when it comes to length. If you didn't feel really goddamn impatient while that scene was happening, you didn't understand what the scene was about.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 08:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:45 |
|
|
I might have to try the PS4 then. Tried watching Twin Peaks on a Monday night a few weeks ago and it took me 2 hours due to the amount of times it paused and I had to restart it / wait for it to buffer but I was using the LG Smart TV app.
|
|
#
?
Aug 3, 2017 08:33
|
|