Just finished the third season. What a waste of time

>What is the point?
>Why?
Filtered.

Because the reasons you Lynch retards give for liking it are nonsensical. It'd be one thing if you just said "I find random spooky imagery and loosely connected random shit fun", but you insist you all sat down and watched it and have some grand artistic understanding of his work like art snobs. It's just annoying.

Attached: 7.jpg (1920x1080, 300.24K)

>I can't answer a basic question
Top kek. I thought it all had significance? Why can't you explain even one basic bit of imagery if it's so simple?

Oh wait, let me guess. You're one of those "explanation is the ultimate evil in Twin Peaks" guys because you read some fag's interpretation.

>I thought it all had significance?
Who said that?

youtube.com/watch?v=7AYnF5hOhuM

I liked the third season, but it wasn't Twin Peaks, guess I got Lynched

So you admit that you can't explain the large majority of his imagery presented in his film or otherwise just accept that it all has no point.

You accused me of just "not getting it" and now you're turning around and saying you don't get it either and that trying to "get it" is somehow wrong.

Trying to get it is not getting it.

Yeah, trust me, I've heard that gay theory too. Know how I know you're a brainlet faggot? You try to justify your like of a series by claiming the imagery is all interconnected and that having a deeper understanding of it makes it great, and then turn around and claim that anything you can't explain isn't meant to be understood and that the creator was intentionally claiming the desire to know and understand is bad.

If you don't get why you're a hypocritical retard and a snob, I can't help you.

>claiming the imagery is all interconnected and that having a deeper understanding of it makes it great
You said that not me.
>claiming the desire to know and understand is bad
This is true. All desire is bad.

Why is it that LYNCHEDfags always make up the the same Lynch fan strawman
>They always say "you don't understand it!!"
David Lynch doesn't make art to be understood. That's a waste of time, to him. His films are meant to resonate with the subconscious. If you're trying to understand the logic of what's happening on screen when you watch a Lynch film, you're doing it wrong. Instead pay attention to the emotion the film evokes in you. Then you'll "get it."

Attached: 1585140062350.jpg (1080x1080, 140.27K)

Okay well The Return made me feel bored, annoyed, and sleepy. Let me guess, it was "meant" to suck and meant to make me feel disinterested Wow, what an artistic experience. Thanks, Lynch.

If you want to get it, just ignore the people who pretend that they do. That's a start. you don't need anyone to tell you, that's what Lynch wanted

"I didn't understand any of it and even trying to understand is a waste of time and Lynch doesn't even want anyone to understand his work. The goal is that you FEEEEL something"

That sounds even more snobby and retarded than what you claim is a strawman. It sounds like once you're busted for not even understand his work yourself, you've just given up entirely and fallen back on "Well, it made me feel stuff". Fucking pathetic.

I watched it impartially forever ago. I inferred my own meanings from it. I still hated The Return with all my heart, so I opened my mind to other people's interpretation of it. I still found it to be shit despite all the other ways people inferred meaning in it. So insisting I just ignore the explanations and I'll get it is pointless; that's already what I did to begin with. I only looked at other explanations when I hated and was done with the series anyways.

Mulholland Drive is generally considered the best film of the 21st century. People are generally able to agree on the meaning of his films, so it's not just a bunch of nonsense people pretend to like. You might just be a brainlet?

Implying your time is valuable.

>Mulholland Drive is generally considered the best film of the 21st century.
By whom?

>People are generally able to agree on the meaning of his films, so it's not just a bunch of nonsense people pretend to like.
99.9% of the people that saw Mulholland Drive for the first time did not understand it until they read explanations for it. But it's also a film that is significantly less convoluted in its meaning than Twin Peaks is, and significantly shorter. And part of the reason it's considered as good as it is is, surprise, it can actually be understood and appreciated and very little in the film is truly unanswered.

It was, and I've been thoroughly enjoying BCS as well, thank you very much.

I went into the show knowing full well I would perhaps be weirded out at first. This was partially the case, but the first season's comfy peculiarity and characters nevertheless grew on me. By the end of the season I had learned to accept all of the supernatural shit (like the characters themselves did) and to just go with the flow. Throughout the second season I felt more and more that the charm the show had in the beginning was wearing off. I was still interested in what was happening but increasingly it seemed there was no point to anything. This escalated in the third season, and I was frankly irritated by the filler content that plagued each episode. I'm fine with having no "traditional" narrative structure or even closure but ultimately I would have liked to feel some other emotions besides confusion.
Thanks for reading my blog.

In interviews Lynch always says he specifically avoids explanation and closure. watch the first part of this you don't have to watch all 4 1/2 hours, just the beginning where he talks about Lynch's open-ended philosophy on explanations

did you know that i fucking hate twin peaks

Lynched plotfag autists: The Thread

I already saw that retard try(and fail) to explain Twin Peaks. Yes, I know David Lynch apparently hates explanation and closure, but I'm not actively thinking about Twin Peaks anymore or puzzling over it or anything. I just fucking hate it at this point, primarily due to his snobby retarded fans.

>I would have liked to feel some other emotions besides confusion
Humanity is not built for that.

Truth is Twin Peaks sesson 1 and ending of season 2 are very good, mainly due to the atmosphere of the show that is created by unconventional characters, great music and good location.
You can't replicate this, there is no music in the air

Attached: Facial_Chronicle_-_b.16 _p._462_-_Great_standing_on_the_Ugra.jpg (823x1524, 819.35K)

>Nobody really understood Twin Peaks much without looking up explanations for everything
There's no need to understand. TP is about and FBI agent investigating a murder in a peculiar little town.

>95% of it still just random silly shit that makes no sense
Did you even watch the show?

First season was kino. Second season was good but the last episode is probably the best piece of television to ever be aired. Third season is Lynch autofellating over how weird he is.

>By whom?
You have the same google that I do. But BBC, Sight and Sound, and I believe Cahiers du Cinema, just off the top of my head.
>99.9% of the people that saw Mulholland Drive for the first time did not understand it until they read explanations for it. But it's also a film that is significantly less convoluted in its meaning than Twin Peaks is, and significantly shorter. And part of the reason it's considered as good as it is is, surprise, it can actually be understood and appreciated and very little in the film is truly unanswered.
So any film that doesnt beat you over the head with its meaning is somehow bad? That having to digest, think about, and perhaps (oh no) watch it again to truly understand it is somehow a negative thing?
The fact that you're so defensive and weird about the fact that people like Lynch movies and you don't leads me to believe that you are indeed a brainlet. It's okay dude, not everyone has to like the same things, but I promise were not just pretending.

Attached: 1498510421966.webm (1280x692, 1.2M)

>What is the point of the Jumping Man?
Jumping Man is an entity of the Black Lodge. Your question is like asking what's the point of Bob or the Man from another place or any other spirirt from the lodge.

>Why is mini-Lynch wearing his mask and somewhat imitating him?
Both can be seen above the convenience store, maybe he likes the jumping man and made a mask to look like him or maybe they are linked somehow.

>Why is his face superimposed over Sarah Palmer in The Return?
To show that Sarah is somehow linked to different Black Lodge entities.

those are such vague non-answers that you might as well have not posted them

Explain Carrie Page please

>So any film that doesnt beat you over the head with its meaning is somehow bad?
Any film that is so convoluted in meaning that even the most diehard of fans that create 4 hour long videos trying to make sense of it wind up making up shit that is obviously wrong and skip over huge portions of the show and can only kinda explain the main jist of it means it's a problem.

While art doesn't have to be so concrete that anyone can understand it, it is a problem if it's so esoteric that nobody can genuinely understand it.

I want you to consider the following, because it's important to understanding my point of view on this series.

What is the fundamental difference in an entertainment or intrigue sense of giving me an artistic film that is purely randomly generated imagery and symbolism where certain themes are repeated or presented to me, and an artistic film where the CREATOR and only the creator truly understands the imagery and themes being presented and it isn't random to him?

The answer is it makes no difference to me. Lynch's Twin Peaks cannot be understood by a casual viewer, no matter how much attention they pay to it. Mulholland Drive is significantly less convoluted and does a much better job from a directorial standpoint of actually illustrating what it's trying to portray.

Nobody understands Twin Peaks. Not a single fan can truly explain the work, and they probably never will. And the best they can come up with is since Lynch doesn't like closure and explanation, we're not meant to understand.

As a viewer, handing me an impossible puzzle does not intrigue me. It removes any interest whatsoever. If the art cannot be understood by anyone but its creator, then what value does it really have to anyone but the creator?

>not everyone has to like the same things, but I promise were not just pretending.
Oh I trust many of you are genuine, but I think most Lynch fans can be simplified into two camps. The guys that like it just for its artistry and strange moods and imagery(these guys are fine), and then there's the retarded faggy snobs that insist they understand it, that sense can be made of it, that they understood it all along even though all of them just looked up explanations on the internet, and that anyone who doesn't understand is an idiot. The latter is unfortunately far more prevalent and popular, and most of the people on this board fall into the latter category.

If you don't want vague answers don't ask vague questions. Vague answers is what you get when you try to analyze Lynch's work through a magnifying glass. The answers are also vague because they are only my interpretation and I don't intend to make it sound like I hold the ultimate truth.

>impossible puzzle does not intrigue me
That's the game though. That's life.

>aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Attached: beqtitwljspvupnu2ss6.jpg (1024x576, 51.94K)

>talking electric tree with a flesh bag on top of it
Stopped watching right there. Fuck off with this nonsense.

for you
Were you not entertained?

>without looking up explanations for everything
Imagine being illiterate and a coomer

There is a missing diary page. Phillip Gerard had an opportunity to place it in the restroom stall in the original run.

Attached: JUDY.png (800x534, 452.02K)

>Fuck off with this nonsense.
They had to improvise because Michael Anderson turned out to be a retard

>If the art cannot be understood by anyone but its creator, then what value does it really have to anyone but the creator?
It's clear a lot of fans of Lynch value this, the fact that it genuinely makes no sense at all. Some people just enjoy that and as you say there are a lot of Lynch fans who use the old "you just don't get it" line, for some people it feels great to tell others that they don't understand something and with Lynch stuff there's plenty of opportunities to fall back on that defense. I think Lynch is probably one of the last few directors people can get this experience from, hence why he's still pretty popular. His fans can get pretty fucking annoying though so I can see where you are coming from there

A 4 1/2 video dissecting and analyzing 44 hours of content, three seasons and a movie on notoriously dense subject matter.

As to the rest of your post, I guess we just disagree. You're acting like it's this impenetrable labyrinth that no mere mortal could possibly comprehend when in reality it's just the most expansive undertaking into abstract filmmaking that's ever been attempted and as such requires more engagement and contemplation to get enjoyment out of. The Sopranos is my favorite show of all time and even with that, the symbolism couldn't give less of the shit if the "casual viewer" likes or understands it or not, maybe it wasn't made for them. And I feel like I should remind you that when it first aired it was WILDLY successful. Does it matter if every single viewer could thoroughly explain his or her interpretation of every single character, scene, etc? The answer is no.
>Nobody understands Twin Peaks. Not a single fan can truly explain the work, and they probably never will. And the best they can come up with is since Lynch doesn't like closure and explanation, we're not meant to understand.
Even if we accept what you originally said, which is that people watch Twin Peaks and then have to go read essays online to understand it (which I disagree with), that of course presupposes that at least one person has understood it on their own, no? This is of course absurd. But more importantly, if the idea of being presented a puzzle (not "impossible" as you claim) doesnt intrigue you that's fine, but ultimately, who gives a shit? And who cares if not every single person who's ever watched the show can write a thesis on the complexities and symbolism and semiotic context of everything in the show? So what if the eerieness and imagery and surface level aspect of the plot is enough? You can complain about it all you want, it wont change the fact that Twin Peaks is a beloved and critically acclaimed show.

Idk what happened, sentence got cut off, but when I briefly referenced the Sopranos being my favorite show, my point was that even with a show so relatively straightforward, even with THAT a lot of the symbolism went over people's heads. The "casual viewer" is not the benchmark for whether or not a work of art is too complex. And for what it's worth, David Chase cites Lynch as a huge influence. Is he just pretending to like him too?

>If you don't want vague answers don't ask vague questions.
I didn't, you retard. I asked very direct questions. Your answers were so vague that they essentially mean nothing. You could have just answered saying "The Jumping Man means nothing, his connection to mini-Lynch means nothing, and Sarah Palmer having his face superimposed over hers means nothing". Because that's exactly what you responded with. Those are not answers or explanations.

>Vague answers is what you get when you try to analyze Lynch's work through a magnifying glass
That's a nice way of saying you don't understand the meaning of it, in which case you shouldn't have bothered trying to answer the question.

>The answers are also vague because they are only my interpretation and I don't intend to make it sound like I hold the ultimate truth.
In other words, you don't understand it. Either your assertion is that the imagery makes sense to Lynch, and thus CAN be understood, but is not understood, or you're saying Lynch is just making weird shitty imagery without a clear intent in mind, in which case that would just make him a hack. Anyone can make up weird shit and then connect that imagery to other weird shit in their film. If there is no intent behind it, it's meaningless garbage.

>or you're saying Lynch is just making weird shitty imagery without a clear intent in mind, in which case that would just make him a hack

Wrong
>Anyone can make up weird shit and then connect that imagery to other weird shit in their film
Then why don't you instead of complaining about other directors?

>If there is no intent behind it, it's meaningless garbage
Not everything needs a point or intent, are you autistic by any chance?

>A 4 1/2 video dissecting and analyzing 44 hours of content, three seasons and a movie on notoriously dense subject matter.
And yet still, almost 75% of that video can be easily shat on and torn apart. It isn't even a good analysis. I've watched it, and it's shit past the first hour or so.

And even then, what this would boil down to is that you would need to fucking watch David Lynch interviews and learn all of his personal philosophies and all sorts of other private life shit about him just to understand the film. Something which 99% of people watching Twin Peaks are not going to do.

>that of course presupposes that at least one person has understood it on their own, no?
No. Twin Peaks in its entirety, to this day, is not understood by a single person other than Lynch and anyone he may have directly explained it to, which he probably hasn't. While some of its more broad, simple messages have been interpreted, the very vast majority of the imagery or messages in it can only be fumbled at and theorized about(and usually clearly wrong about)

It is literally an impossible puzzle because so much of it is so exclusive to Lynch's perspective that it's unlikely anyone can genuinely figure it out.

And the end of your post is just falling back on popularity. "People like it, so that's all that matters". That's irrelevant. I'm critiquing the attitude people have towards his work. I think Lynch is given a pass on his work because there is an automatic assumed deep meaning behind all of it even though even his own fans don't understand most of his work.

"I didn't understand it, but the man is a genius" - Lynch fans

How do you not understand why that's such an idiotic thing to say?

Watch the movie its even worse

>in which case you shouldn't have bothered trying to answer the question.

I answered because I didn't expect you to be so retarded about it and also because I wanna keep the thread alive cause there aren't many TP threads lately

>I am entertained by random imagery with no meaning
In other words, you're an intense brainlet.

Holy shit what a lack of taste

taste deez dubs bitch

You gave me shitty explanations that don't actually work because you didn't expect me to "be so retarded about it"?

Just stop with the lame excuses admit you don't know shit and stop trying to pin this on me.

Anyways, I have to head out now, though I'll check this thread later.

I mean, if that's your opinion go with it, I don't agree but whatever.

Attached: ugh.jpg (598x415, 59.83K)

>Just finished the third season. What a waste of time.
LYNCHED

Attached: 1579566381033.jpg (784x608, 91.63K)

I responded to the entirety of your post, you picked two sentences of mine and got really angry about them. The fact that you are THIS upset and defensive over the fact that people like Lynch says a lot more about you than anything else.

Again, is David Chase and every other artist who cites Lynch as a huge influence just pretending to like him like the rest of us? I'd love to know.

>You gave me shitty explanations that don't actually work

They are explanations that I truly believe could be true, they're only shitty for you cause you are very negative about the show.
I'm not biased though, TP is my favourite show, I understand they appear to be shitty explanations for you.