Probably posted at some point but here's La La Land as directed by David Lynch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-suOHmYLbo
one of the comments sums it up - Mulholland Drive is already David Lynch's La La Land.
Probably posted at some point but here's La La Land as directed by David Lynch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-suOHmYLbo
I wonder if Bob is going to be like.. actually speaking in this season. Obviously Frank Silva passed away 20 years ago so he can't some back.
They got Don Davis to speak, I'm expecting some audio from Silva. Just use outtakes from FWWM/TMP.
My mind is blanking, when?
Part 3. Don Davis's disembodied head floats across the screen saying "blue rose"My mind is blanking, when?
Well not all the deleted scenes from FWWM made it into the Missing Pieces. So my guess is it's one of those.Did Garland ever say blue rose in the series? I can't remember when that happened or why it would've happened (isn't "blue rose" just Gordon Cole's thing, and only mentioned in FWWM with Desmond and Stanley?).
Don't know the source but this is hilarious.
Did Garland ever say blue rose in the series? I can't remember when that happened or why it would've happened (isn't "blue rose" just Gordon Cole's thing, and only mentioned in FWWM with Desmond and Stanley?).
Shouldn't be better with Wario?
It's a play on the new possession mechanic from Mario Odyssey.
Shouldn't be better with Wario?
I wonder if Bob is going to be like.. actually speaking in this season. Obviously Frank Silva passed away 20 years ago so he can't some back.
is it though? i feel like the violence is a lot less centralized in the new series. he is painting a more broader picture of evil and murder. the first people we see killed are the couple in NYC, which has nothing to do with the town of Twin Peaks, as far as we can tell. it is heavily implied Evil Cooper has been killing people for 25 years. then there is Ike the Spike, who imo isn't necessarily related to Bob (Cooper sees the arm during their confrontation Spike doesn't). it's just this random chaos. same thing w the kid getting hit by a car. that was so shocking because it was senseless. he is bringing the senselessness back to murder.
the original series sort of made an idol out of Laura's murder, here we have a more cynical, more chaotic view of murder and death. it's not just some romanticized thing, the plot of one conveniently identifiable evil force invading one small town father and committing a handful of murders. it is this all-encompassing thing. like the mutant born from our atomic tests, it is an ugly truth of humanity.
I'm not sure if he ever did. The way his face moves looks pretty darn unnatural, so if the shot was manufactured, they could have easily assembled the "blue rose" from fragments of other words.Did Garland ever say blue rose in the series? I can't remember when that happened or why it would've happened (isn't "blue rose" just Gordon Cole's thing, and only mentioned in FWWM with Desmond and Stanley?).
lol "the consensus". fuck the consensus.
some people will pretend they've "figured out" Mulholland Drive. hilarious. these people entirely miss the point.
Mulholland Drive is not exceedingly cryptic and it's quite easy to "figure out" within a reasonable margin of ambiguity. There is little unknown in that movie.
I mean, isn't Mulholland Drive basically just about how brutal it is to be a young actress in LA?
the main characters change names and identities halfway through the movie. this is unconventional.
yes you can explain it w a list or something but it isn't explicitly made clear in the movie that "your theory about it all being a dream is 100% what we meant". this is missing the point imo. if this movie is about anything it is about saying fuck the narrative. i watched it for the first time when it came out in theater. i was giddy at many scenes. it was largely exciting because it made no sense, there was an atmosphere that anything could happen, and it did.
yes and 2001 is just about a killer computer and nothing else.
Flipyap said:
Arsenic13 said:
A few thoughts:
I think this episode pretty much confirms that the "off" looking visual effects are entirely intentional.
Literally the opposite.
They spent the money where they thought it mattered the most.
They had a limited budget.
Sure but many people (and critics) tend to dismiss every explanation and theory because they didn't understand anything about the film themselves, so they think the film cannot be explained or understood at all! I'm not saying you are like this, but I have heard it many times in relation to Mulholland Drive in particular.
Is the "Secret History of Twin Peaks" worth reading? Because it costs fucking 40 here, lol.
I'd like to hear some theories as to why they'd intentionally alternate between using high and low quality effects at random (sometimes in the same scene or same context). It doesn't make any sense to me.A few thoughts:
I think this episode pretty much confirms that the "off" looking visual effects are entirely intentional. Look at the muzzle flash for the gunshots near the beginning. They are clearly an effect. We know that Lynch hired some serious armorers for the series; every weapon shown on camera so far has been a nasty, heavy looking piece of hardware, several of which have been almost lovingly pictured. Just using some stage blanks would have cost nothing and would have produced a convincing muzzle flash, but they go with the shoddy looking visual effect here -- clearly they have the budget for more ambitious visuals, which we soon see after this point, so the video effects have to be a stylistic choice.
I don't know and it's freaking me out!What is going on?!?!
Wonder if this has anything to do with the warping effects in part 2 when Mr. C shot the principal's wife and her distorted bullet wound.I'd like to hear some theories as to why they'd intentionally alternate between using high and low quality effects at random (sometimes in the same scene or same context). It doesn't make any sense to me.
They clearly used blanks in Part 7, so maybe they just couldn't get a permit to fire a gun during that night shoot...?
Or maybe it's related to Lynch's obsession with secrecy. This was likely an extra-secret scene, so if he wanted to cut down on potential leakers, it would make sense to shoot it in a way that doesn't require an armorer and safety services.
I don't know and it's freaking me out!
I found it to be pretty fun. Heavy on the mythology of the show, and there's a lot of real life trivia too included in the stories, reports and documents. The dossier style is neat and well done. 40 is kind of steep though.Is the "Secret History of Twin Peaks" worth reading? Because it costs fucking 40 here, lol.
Is the "Secret History of Twin Peaks" worth reading? Because it costs fucking 40 € here, lol.
oh yeah. i just don't like to commit to a narrative when the director purposefully did not put an explicit one in the work.
at this point im going to step aside and say my idea of "explaining" the film or "understanding" it may be different from yours. Lynch comes from an experimental background. a background in avant garde, painting, stop motion, and animation. he works with forms and cuts, with imagery, with design. he creates as he works. he improvises. he does not know what a movie is about while he is making it. creating it is part of the process. thus the creative process becomes part of the movie.
you can watch an experimental piece and "understand" it on an emotional level. you can see the shapes and colors and light and have an experience. you do not need to know what real world form it is supposed to mimick. this is the magic of film. it can use things that are not just form. this is why film is not painting. why film is not photography. it presents images, one after the other, in quick succession. the entire thing is a lie, the entire thing is a series of still images that exists in your head, that YOU put together.
saying that "you understand" just seems like the ultimate back-patting, like congrats, you out of everyone actually knows what David Lynch was thinking every moment of the months he spent writing and filming and editing this and doing the sound work. its just a hilarious statement to make. im fine w saying "i dont know and that excites me". Lynch is dealing mystery after mystery, especially with the latest, and i don't ever want anything explained. there is nothing to understand. they are making this up as they go along. Twin Peaks is not a thing that happened in real life that they are documenting. they are making it up as they went along. but that isn't a bad thing. it is glorious, it is Good News.
people that think the effects suck would change other things to in order to make this more like other shows. they are mistaking artistic intent for technical ineptitude. again, Lynch has been working with painting, film, stop motion, animation, sound design, editing, etc. for over 4 decades. he knows what he is doing. he is doing it on purpose. he has been working with digital (enthusiastically and exclusively) for over a decade now. if you have only seen one or two of his feature films before this you may not understand. you need to watch more of what he has done, listen to interviews with him on his process, you will understand it is a very hands-on project. again these people that claim he is failing to meet a technical standard are assuming he wants to aim for that standard. they are imposing a convention on someone who has made a career of subverting convention.
Is the "Secret History of Twin Peaks" worth reading? Because it costs fucking 40 here, lol.
Find a free trial for aubible, get TSHOTP with your credit, then cancel the account sub. Voila, free and legal TSHOTP.
The hardback book is lovely though.
A plus to the audiobook is that it is read by cast members. Plus, multitasking.
Aye, I just realized you definitely don't have Mulholland Dr without Bergman's Persona.
Slightly disappointing turn by Kyle though, he seemed to be sleeping through it. Only sounded like Coop when talking about Norma's um... pie.