• 0 Posts
  • 15 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • Lol, thanks! But no worries. I have no illusions about where I am. I’m a dog in a pile of one denigrating the subject of a post honoring a recently deceased abstract artist. I’m literally speaking ill of the dead - albeit a transcendental meditation-ist.

    A cult classic cultist! A man who could worship a pyramid as effortlessly as he could scheme one!! He came here to do things, film and fleece, and he’s all out of [time]. 😂

    If I wanted to get upvoted I would just do what every other respectable Lynch fan does and simply post a respectful, “He had emphysema…”


  • Lol,

    direct choice? 🤷

    inability? 💁

    Seriously though, what’s the difference? If the end result is identical does it really matter what we label it? Whether he can’t or won’t conclude anything doesn’t really matter. Either way, he doesn’t.

    And I’m glad you can appreciate those things. To me, it’s still a load of cleft asshole claptrap parading in a human skin suit of, “you just don’t get it, and I’m not going to explain it (without a heavy application of ‘magic’).” Movies like 2001 get a pass because they are almost indiscernibly linear and would be making a neck breaking heal-turn were they to end linearly any other way than the way they did.

    But season one of twin peaks has not much more than a passing glance from complete focus on linearity. Even the parts that abstract from reality conform to the convention of a linear narrative. So, fine, season one is telling a story that is at least a narrative miniseries and at best a cynical critique of rural life in the northwest. Even though they show little intention of revealing major questions introduced of the plot by the end, they still demonstrate unwavering dedication to a linear style.

    And I get that season two and the myriad network blunders combine to describe a project that is nothing if not needlessly nuanced (I don’t think any two words have ever more accurately described how I feel about David fucking Lynch 😆), but the fact remains and evidenced by lynch himself that he had a greater creative influence in the direction of the plot in season two than he did in season one. Even considering the episodes he had no credit in, at the very least he has claimed that he had more influence.

    He shows absolutely no sign of deviation from this narrative method in his further works, so I have a hard time believing that poor little davey was merely a victim of Mr Frost’s incomprehensibly abstract direction. I would argue he leans in a bit more without frost at all.

    And, finales are usually the highest rated episodes in a season, so in a two season release with two season finales, one of those finales being outside the top two is telling more of the story than lynch ever did. 🤭

    Otherwise, everything else you’ve said is something I either agree with, am wrong about, or won’t dignify. But I really enjoyed reading it nevertheless. You’re obviously far more familiar with him and his works than I am and my frivolous accusations carry little water. But I tried my best! Thanks


  • Completely agree. Everyone loves to credit lynch for twin peaks success but it was frost who would let lynch off the leash in season 1. But halfway through season 2, lynch gives you both barrels and it sucks.

    He’s done some good things, but in my opinion, at the end of the day lynch is just another artist who doesn’t always tell a complete story and pretends like this inability is some sort of gift to the viewer.

    He’s like the Papa Murphy’s of storytellers. Here’s the ingredients, now you figure it out. And you’re welcome.


  • Honestly, part 2 was so poorly done that you’re really not missing out on anything. You remember how violence oriented part 1 was? Do you remember how there were cutscenes that depicted violent actions that you had literally no control over? Do you by any chance recall the final events in part 1 that require you to take violent actions in order to progress the game in literally any perceivable way?

    Well part 2 drukkmann says, STOP THAT! Violence never solved anything idiot!!! Unless you didn’t play part 2 at all… In which case, I suppose violence was the only way, and it solves everything. Part 1 drukkmann literally couldn’t tell the story without assurance that you used violence.

    “And why was violence important to the narrative and success of part 1,” Jan asked…

    Mr. Brown says


  • Lol, maybe next time just think before you type. It’s not hard. And maybe the fact that you have met so many “pretentious douches” should tell you that maybe the rest of the world isn’t as pretentious as you are simple. Maybe the common denominator in all of your experiences with assholes is you. And maybe outsourcing your critical thought to everyone around you makes you an incorrigible drag on society. Good thing you didn’t read this though.


  • words are hard

    You’ve made it this far while entirely avoiding taking a fucking hint so expecting you to read words and be permitted to interpret them yourself is just completely unfair, so here is the definition:

    No shit, Sherlock:

    • That is or was completely obvious or self-evident.
    • The ironical reference to the famous fictional detective Sherlock Holmes is meant to emphasize that the thing mentioned did not require any great intelligence or deduction to determine or know.

    What you said, that I responded, “no shit sherlock”, to is superfluously obvious. It required literally no work of thought to comprehend.







  • This is equally as infuriating to me as the rising cost of stamps. 😐

    If you are going to pretend to have scruples then at least pretend to have standards, or dignity for that matter. 😂 If you are so involved (even in the most modest terms) in the ecosystem of predatory games like World of Warcraft, to the point that you are even tenuously aware of news relating to them then you deserve all of it.