Twin Peaks FWWM Deleted Scenes Petition
peaks...@my-deja.com
a petition site. Here is an email that I received late last night.
A friend of mine forwarded this to me, so I thought i would forward it
on to everyone else. "It is happening again."
Only YOU Can Make A Difference !
In August of 1992, the Movie Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me was
released. Although a true masterpiece in it's original form, many TP
fans were disappointed that some of their favorite characters from the
TV series did not appear in the movie. What you may not know is that
early reports had indicated that nearly all of series regulars went to
Washington for the filming of the movie. Some of the characters that
were reported to have filmed scenes but were cut completely out of the
movie were:
Ed and Nadine Hurley
Doc and Eileen Hayward
Josie Packard
Sheriff Truman
Deputy Hawk
Andy Brennen
Lucy Moran
Ben, Jerry, Sylvia, and Johnny Horne
Pete Martell
Major and Betty Briggs
and Doctor Jacoby
In March of 2000, New Line DVD approached David Lynch and asked him if
he would be willing to allow the release of some of these deleted
scenes to be included with their upcoming Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me
DVD. David Lynch gave the thumbs up, but only to add these scenes as a
supplement at the end of the disc. Mr. Lynch also personally hand
picked the scenes that he wished to be released with this DVD.
Now at this time, it has been reported that New Line is currently in
negotiations with Ciby 2000 to acquire the rights to add these scenes
to their DVD release. However, in November of 1998, Lynch sued Ciby
2000 for breach of contract and won a 6.5 million dollar settlement.
This may dissuade Ciby 2000 from signing over the rights to include
these deleted scenes, or Ciby 2000 may ask a price too high and make
New Line back down from including these scenes.
What we are trying to do is let New Line know in massive, massive
numbers how much we would like to have these scenes included on this
DVD. We are hoping that if we can get enough people to write or email
New Line and let them know how important the inclusion of these scenes
would be, they will do what it takes to bring these deleted scenes to
us on their upcoming DVD.
At this point, New Line will not confirm whether or not this DVD will
include these scenes. They have confirmed, however that the disc will
be out in the fourth quarter of 2000. (Hopefully an October 10th
planned release date) Although they have yet to make any announcement
on their website.
Time is Running Out !
This is Probably THE Last Chance That We Will Ever Have to See
Anything "New" From the World of Twin Peaks.
We are urging you to write to New Line and let them know that you want
to see the Deleted Scenes to Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me !
You can email New Line at dvd...@newline.com
or write them a letter at:
New Line Cinema
Home Video Dept.
116 N Robertson Blvd # 200
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Tell a Friend ! Feel Free to Forward This Information on to Anyone You
Could Think Will Help This Cause !
We can't stop until they make an official announcement on their
website !
Some of the cut scenes that Lynch has chosen to be featured on the
upcoming Fire Walk With Me DVD could possibly be:
Taken from the Original TP:FWWM Script
Sheriff Harry Truman singing to Josie Packard
Johnny Horne's birthday party
A much longer scene with Phillip Jeffries which includes some material
set in Buenos Aires.
Bobby Briggs' parents reading from The Bible
Doc Hayward performing magic tricks
Several scenes in the Twin Peaks Sheriff's Station
Scenes at Big Ed's Gas Farm
A fight scene between FBI Agent Chester Desmond and Sheriff Cable
A scene with Cooper and Stanley in Sam Stanley's apartment
Some scenes taking place after the final episode of the series that
involve Agent Cooper and Annie Blackburn.
An off screen appearance by Cooper's secretary, Diane.
As well as extended scenes with Laura, Leland and Sarah Palmer, Donna,
Norma Jennings, Shelly Johnson, Agents Desmond and Stanley, Sheriff
Cable, Deputy Cliff Howard, Carl Rodd, Agent Cooper, Annie Blackburn,
Phillip Jeffries, BOB, The Little Man From Another Place, The Tremonds,
Albert Rosenfeld, Gordon Cole, and anything else that Lynch may have
come up with on the spot while filming !
Entertainment Weekly recently wrote this on the upcoming DVD "Lynch is
now putting together a DVD edition of that prequel. And, in his mind,
he's working toward a kind of conclusion, too."
For More Information email: fwwm...@yahoo.com or check out our
website at:
http://www.geocities.com/fwwmfight
-Chet
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
TiN
----------------------------------------------------------
How's Annie?
nickle
--
New Story, the Black Zone, is up at
Horroresq Horror Fiction
http://members.dencity.com/horroresq/
---
<peaks...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8lkofk$2q4$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
damnfine
> Sorry, but they should have deleted the whole movie.
I think you're in the wrong newsgroup, buddy.
Adios!
--
Damnfine,
"There are no condoms in heaven, Doctor Riffleson. Certainly
none that bite." - Luigi Mackeroni, 'Killer Condom'.
Keith Gow
<raoul...@journalist.com> waxed lyrical:
>nickle wrote:
>> Sorry, but they should have deleted the whole movie.
>
>I think you're in the wrong newsgroup, buddy.
>
>Adios!
>
Try alt.tv.twin-peaks-doppelganger
Apparently they hate the series. The weird white-eyed freaks.
|| Keith Gow ||
Tara-for-First Slayer: "The Slayer does not walk in this world."
Buffy: "I walk. I talk. I shop. I sneeze. I'm going to be a fireman
when the floods roll back. There's trees in the desert since you
moved out. And I don't sleep on a bed of bones. Now give me
back my friends."
First Slayer: "No friends. Just the kill. We are alone."
nickle
--
New Story, the Black Zone, is up at
Horroresq Horror Fiction
http://members.dencity.com/horroresq/
---
Keith Gow <kw...@web.solutions.net.au> wrote in message
news:3982782...@news.solutions.net.au...
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 12:38:08 +0930, "damnfine"
> <raoul...@journalist.com> waxed lyrical:
>
> >nickle wrote:
> >> Sorry, but they should have deleted the whole movie.
> >
Pikemann Urge
>
> nickle wrote:
> > Sorry, but they should have deleted the whole movie.
>
>
> Adios!
Now, now, now. We don't want to resort to these sorts of taunts and
jeers. Several people here don't like FWWM. Don't know how they can live
with themselves, but there you go. It makes for interesting discussion,
anyway.
Interesting commentary on our society: we know the Spanish word for
'Bye' but not the one for 'Hello, welcome to my beautiful
home/newsgroup/Web site'.
kbee
<8lu56...@news1.newsguy.com>...
> I loved the series; that's why I hated the movie.
^^^^^^^^
This is the space where you put in all the carefully considered reasons why
you feel this way. Please elaborate.
Meanwhile, y'all have got me thinking about this development over the past
decade+ of entertainment projects jumping around in different media, i.e.
"The Prison/The Garden" as CD/book(let) (Nez' writing's improved
considerably); "The Wall" as movie and album; "The Blair Witch Project" as
movie, book, documentary, comic book; TP's Secret Diary, the Diane/Cooper
tapes, the Guide to the town, the series, the movie. Philip Glass, like
Mr. Lynch, has done stage shows with original music + film/slide shows plus
some dance/acting thrown in (I'm thinking of "The Photographer", here.)
It's a fun way to ferret out an idea, letting the different presentations
bounce off each other, and seems to work especially well for mysteries. I'd
like to see more of this go on, actually.
I would have preferred that TP's suite of stuff had been more carefully
tied together as far as dates and details are concerned, since the
discrepancies (who found the letter at Teresa Bank's autopsy, etc.) are
obviously more accidental than intentional clue-dropping (dammit!)
Say what you want about the Blair Witch Project, Haxon's doing an enjoyable
job of mixing not only their media, but also degrees of reliability in
their stuff. We not only get to collect clues, but also to decide what is
or isn't BS. Nice, and the whole collection will set ya back maybe $35.00
total, which I can well afford for a good two or three-year puzzle. Here's
hoping the story holds up. The latest plot element involves secret Masonic
alphabets. OK...
Thomas Hansen
<raoul...@journalist.com> wrote:
> These so-called TP fans who hate FWWM, I'll never understand.
It's because FWWM completely lack the style and elegance - and method of
story-telling - that we saw in the series. Personally, I thought FWWM
was boring. I don't hate it, I just don't think it's a good movie.
(The first thing I noticed was actually the sound effects in the first
part of the movie - they seem pointless and add nothing of interest to
the scenes shot.) Cooper lifts the movie somewhat with his scary
encounter with David Bowie and short trip to where Teresa Banks was
murdered, but even he is different in FWWM than in the series - he's
been made in to some kind of psychic, who can tell what Laura Palmer is
doing at excactly this and that moment, whereas in TP, he had no idea
that Maddy was being murdered or that bad things would happen to Annie
before the Giant told him so.
And then there's the sex. I don't mind sex scenes in a movie, and I
understand that it's supposed to tell us something about Laura, but it's
very un-TP-ish, at least I can't remember any sex scenes in the series.
There's more I don't like about the movie, but those are mainly details
(the noisy scene where Gerrard yells at Leland in the car, the
pointlessly-odd behaviour of the that little kid with the
grandmother...). Most importantly, perhaps - I don't really feel that
FWWM tells us very much that we didn't already know from the series.
--
Thomas Hansen : Tea first.
<vio...@online.no> : Then be ready.
Jeff Gower
> These so-called TP fans who hate FWWM, I'll never understand.
It's simple: A TP fan is not necessarily a David Lynch fan. I have known
many people who loved TP but hated everything else DL has done. And if
you don't like DL, you won't like the very Lynchian FWWM, especially if
you liked TP. However, FWWM is the crowning achievement in the entire TP
saga, in my opinion - it is the icing on the cake, a truly Lynchian
masterpiece that was and is the perfect end to the TP phenomenon. It was
pure Lynch, pure Lynch-TP, unfettered by the restraints of TV and fickle
programming execs. That is why some TP fans didn't like FWWM - they liked
the restrained stuff much better.
Anyone who disagrees is wrong. Simple as that. ;-)
Jeff
--
Jeff Gower - Quality Individual
http://www.jeffgower.com
Jeff Gower
<vio...@online.no> wrote:
> Personally, I thought FWWM was boring.
????
> (The first thing I noticed was actually the sound effects in the first
> part of the movie - they seem pointless and add nothing of interest to
> the scenes shot.)
?????!!!!!
> And then there's the sex. I don't mind sex scenes in a movie, and I
> understand that it's supposed to tell us something about Laura, but it's
> very un-TP-ish, at least I can't remember any sex scenes in the series.
FWWM was an R-rated film. TP was TV. There is a big difference, here in
US anyway.
> There's more I don't like about the movie, but those are mainly details
> (the noisy scene where Gerrard yells at Leland in the car, the
> pointlessly-odd behaviour of the that little kid with the
> grandmother...).
????????!!!!!!!!
With all due respect, Thomas, this is without doubt the most puzzling
jaw-dropping post I've ever read in this newsgroup. I'm sure you will be
glad to know that I am at a loss for words.
Incredulously,
Thomas Hansen
(Jeff Gower) wrote:
> With all due respect, Thomas, this is without doubt the most puzzling
> jaw-dropping post I've ever read in this newsgroup. I'm sure you will be
> glad to know that I am at a loss for words.
I like to puzzle. :-)
I guess this makes me a non-typical Lynch fan, then, since I like almost
everything else he has done (haven't seen Dune, though).
OwenWolfe
a little better. Third time on it was great, one of my favorite
movies. I was watching it just a few days ago, matter of fact.
Now I'm more than happy to defend the film.
Thomas Hansen <vio...@online.no> wrote:
>In article <3WBg5.53214$N4.17...@ozemail.com.au>,
"damnfine"
><raoul...@journalist.com> wrote:
>
>> These so-called TP fans who hate FWWM, I'll never
understand.
>
>It's because FWWM completely lack the style and elegance
- and method of
>story-telling - that we saw in the series. Personally, I
thought FWWM
>was boring. I don't hate it, I just don't think it's a good
movie.
Boring? Wha? Personally, I think the scenes with Laura are
a bit slow (but the wonderful acting by Sheryl Lee and Ray
Wise more than makes up for it, and that slowness isn't
really even necessarily a bad thing), but the Chet
Desmond/Dale Cooper scenes are brilliant, wonderful, and
far from boring. I think, especially in the beginning, the film
has a nice quick pace. The "elegance" from TP comes from
it's soap opera roots. Lynch films, though many contain
over-acting, are not soap opera-ish. FWWM is no exception.
Lynch's films are more raw, bizarre, and surreal. Twin
Peaks, when compared to his other work, is wildly different,
in my opinion. There are similarities, but the key thing is that
Mark Frost, Harley Peyton, and lots of other writers,
especially in the second season, had a huge hand in the
show, whereas FWWM was pure Lynch.
>(The first thing I noticed was actually the sound effects in
the first
>part of the movie - they seem pointless and add nothing of
interest to
>the scenes shot.)
Sound effects? Like what?
>Cooper lifts the movie somewhat with his scary
>encounter with David Bowie and short trip to where Teresa
Banks was
>murdered, but even he is different in FWWM than in the
series - he's
>been made in to some kind of psychic, who can tell what
Laura Palmer is
>doing at excactly this and that moment, whereas in TP, he
had no idea
>that Maddy was being murdered or that bad things would
happen to Annie
>before the Giant told him so.
Yeah, I found that disconcerting myself the first few times I
watched it. But the visual brilliance of the Bowie scene, as
well as the plot of the scenes in question is great. One bad
thing is that Kyle MacLachlan didn't put a lot of effort into the
role, in my opinion (see the "Just read Lynch on Lynch"
thread for more on the motives behind that).
>And then there's the sex. I don't mind sex scenes in a
movie, and I
>understand that it's supposed to tell us something about
Laura, but it's
>very un-TP-ish, at least I can't remember any sex scenes in
the series.
If David Lynch had tried to do anything close to that in Twin
Peaks it would never have aired. In Norway (since your
e-mail address ends in ".no" I'm making an assupmtion
about that, so forgive me if I screwed up) it might be
different, but in America you can't have nudity unless it's on a
premium channel, because a) you're paying for it and b)
premium channels generally don't have sponsors they can
risk pissing off with such things. Sex/sex-related stuff is
actually big in Twin Peaks..the "grapefruits" of episode one,
Audrey trying to seduce Cooper and others, Donna and
Harold with the whole kind of sexual tension thing, Laura's
alleged sexual wildness, One-Eyed Jacks, etc.
>There's more I don't like about the movie, but those are
mainly details
>(the noisy scene where Gerrard yells at Leland in the car,
the
>pointlessly-odd behaviour of the that little kid with the
>grandmother...).
Well, the Gerrard scene is noisy, sure, but so is Laura
screaming in the last episode of the series (arguably one
the best). The Gerrard scene shows us the bizarre nature of
the whole thing, links the One-Armed Man to the whole
mess, and shows that Lynch can still throw something
totally unexpected in there (I tell ya- I didn't hear that one
coming a mile a way! Get it, hear, noisy scene..I know, I
know I gotta stop with the bad jokes). Oh, also, Leland
racing the engine, which many think was to cover up the
burning oil smell that was probably being produced by their
meeting, is very important, if that theory is correct. As for the
Grandmother in her Grandson, I found those scenes eerie
and very good. Plus, they were bizarre in the series too, what
do you expect?
> Most importantly, perhaps - I don't really feel that
>FWWM tells us very much that we didn't already know from
the series.
>
Actually, if you look at the hidden things in there, I think it
does, as well as presents whole new avenues for theories
and expanding of things we saw in the storylines of TP.
-Owen
-----------------------------------------------------------
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
damnfine
> I loved the series; that's why I hated the movie.
I was about to call that bad logic, until I realized that it wasn't even any
kind of logic at all.
These so-called TP fans who hate FWWM, I'll never understand.
--
damnfine
> > > Sorry, but they should have deleted the whole movie.
> >
> >
> > Adios!
>
> Now, now, now. We don't want to resort to these sorts of taunts and
> jeers.
It was a mildly snide comment that got a mildly snide reply. Malice this
subtle ain't gonna hurt anybody.
> Several people here don't like FWWM.
Let me at 'em.
> Interesting commentary on our society: we know the Spanish word for
> 'Bye' but not the one for 'Hello, welcome to my beautiful
> home/newsgroup/Web site'.
I think it's more an UNinteresting commentry on how one word is a lot easier
to remember than nine. ;)
damnfine
> > These so-called TP fans who hate FWWM, I'll never understand.
>
> story-telling - that we saw in the series.
No, it just had a completely DIFFERENT style, elegance and method of
storytelling.
All the TP fans I've heard from that dislike it seem to do so because they
expected it to be nothing more than a theatrical, feature-length episode of
the TV series. Sorry, but that was a ridiculous expectation.
> (The first thing I noticed was actually the sound effects in the first
> part of the movie - they seem pointless and add nothing of interest to
> the scenes shot.)
Huh?!
> Cooper lifts the movie somewhat with his scary
> encounter with David Bowie and short trip to where Teresa Banks was
> murdered, but even he is different in FWWM than in the series - he's
> been made in to some kind of psychic, who can tell what Laura Palmer is
> doing at excactly this and that moment, whereas in TP, he had no idea
> that Maddy was being murdered or that bad things would happen to Annie
> before the Giant told him so.
So? The giant telling him about things that were happening was merely a visual
representation of some kind of "psychic" process anyway.
> And then there's the sex. I don't mind sex scenes in a movie, and I
> understand that it's supposed to tell us something about Laura, but it's
> very un-TP-ish, at least I can't remember any sex scenes in the series.
IT'S NOT THE SERIES.
It's the movie.
See the TV being smashed right in the opening shot? There's MUCH significance
in that.
> Most importantly, perhaps - I don't really feel that
> FWWM tells us very much that we didn't already know from the series.
Of course it does, it tells us about Laura. And the whole damn thing was about
Laura.
damnfine
> Anyone who disagrees is wrong. Simple as that. ;-)
Careful, you get in trouble for saying things like that... emoticons and all.
Mark Dodd
damnfine wrote:
> nickle wrote:
> > I loved the series; that's why I hated the movie.
>
> I was about to call that bad logic, until I realized that it wasn't even any
> kind of logic at all.
>
> These so-called TP fans who hate FWWM, I'll never understand.
I agree with you. TP fans in fact were the only ones who could fathom what was
going on. That said the movie came across rather choppy...the reason why so
many of us pine for that 4-5 hour thing that it had become. David Lynch is not
a young man any more. Maybe with all the other projects he's put together
since Twin Peaks he'd find time to put humpty dumpty together. Most peakers
would pay a fair chunk of change for a director's cut on that one.
nickle
uncomfortable and embarrassing to watch. It was gross, over-done and silly
in places. I got the feeling that Lynch wanted to finally put TP behind him
and purposely made a terrible movie to finally drive the nails in TP's
coffin. Anybody want a date with a woman wearing a blue rose, pinched face
and stumbling around an airport parking lot?
--
New Story, the Black Zone, is up at
Horroresq Horror Fiction
http://members.dencity.com/horroresq/
---
Mark Dodd <cmdc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3983C006...@earthlink.net...
damnfine
> It's easy to understand why TP fans would hate FWWM: it stank.
Oh, very well done.
> I got the feeling that Lynch wanted to finally put TP behind him
> and purposely made a terrible movie to finally drive the nails in TP's
> coffin.
Yeah. That's what happened.
> Anybody want a date with a woman wearing a blue rose, pinched face
> and stumbling around an airport parking lot?
Date? Who was going on a date with Lil? I think you're a little confused.
Jeez... and you people told me not to be rude to this guy! Man, you are
TOTALLY in the wrong newsgroup.
Thomas Hansen
<owenwolf...@davidbowie.com.invalid> wrote:
> When, I first saw FWWM I hated it. The second time, I liked it
> a little better. Third time on it was great, one of my favorite
> movies. I was watching it just a few days ago, matter of fact.
> Now I'm more than happy to defend the film.
I've seen it three times, the last time was a couple of weeks ago - and
I really wanted to like it, because the series are so great. However, I
didn't.
> Boring? Wha? Personally, I think the scenes with Laura are
> a bit slow (but the wonderful acting by Sheryl Lee and Ray
> Wise more than makes up for it, and that slowness isn't
> really even necessarily a bad thing), but the Chet
> Desmond/Dale Cooper scenes are brilliant, wonderful, and
> far from boring. I think, especially in the beginning, the film
> has a nice quick pace.
It's not just the pace. A film can be moving at high speed and still be
boring. I thought the first part of the movie was the most boring, up
until Cooper appears. Then he lifts it for a couple of scenes before
even he drops and becomes uninteresting (hey, Cooper was my HERO when I
was fifteen!).
> There are similarities, but the key thing is that
> Mark Frost, Harley Peyton, and lots of other writers,
> especially in the second season, had a huge hand in the
> show, whereas FWWM was pure Lynch.
I don't mind surrealism, as long as it's well done. I don't think that's
the case in FWWM. I see more "pure Lynch" in Lost Highway than in FWWM.
> >(The first thing I noticed was actually the sound effects in
> the first
> >part of the movie - they seem pointless and add nothing of
> interest to
> >the scenes shot.)
>
> Sound effects? Like what?
I don't really remember, I just remember sitting in front of the TV
being annoyed by the disturbing sounds they had put on for the first
part of the movie.
> Yeah, I found that disconcerting myself the first few times I
> watched it. But the visual brilliance of the Bowie scene, as
> well as the plot of the scenes in question is great.
I'll agree with you on the Bowie scene.
> If David Lynch had tried to do anything close to that in Twin
> Peaks it would never have aired. In Norway (since your
> e-mail address ends in ".no" I'm making an assupmtion
> about that, so forgive me if I screwed up) it might be
> different, but in America you can't have nudity unless it's on a
> premium channel, because a) you're paying for it and b)
> premium channels generally don't have sponsors they can
> risk pissing off with such things. Sex/sex-related stuff is
> actually big in Twin Peaks..the "grapefruits" of episode one,
> Audrey trying to seduce Cooper and others, Donna and
> Harold with the whole kind of sexual tension thing, Laura's
> alleged sexual wildness, One-Eyed Jacks, etc.
I guess it's a tad more liberal in Norway (we have rules about showing
"erected penises" here :-) ), but my point wasn't really that I wanted
more sex scenes in TP... one thing that's so great about all the scenes
you mention above is the way that sex is obviously a big part of the
lives of some of the people in Twin Peaks (as it was to Laura), but it
is never actually shown. Lynch knows that he doesn't need to visualize
everything for the viewers. In FWWM he does it all wrong. Just because
sex is allowed on film, doesn't meen you have to use it. (Yes, I know
I'm sounding like some old, uptight lady...)
And it's not that I necessarily think that FWWM should be excactly like
TP (although it might be better if it was). There are a lot of ways to
tell the story of Laura Palmer's last seven days, and I just... wish
he'd done it some other way.
I would definately buy a director's cut, though (since that's what we're
really discussing).
> Well, the Gerrard scene is noisy, sure, but so is Laura
> screaming in the last episode of the series (arguably one
> the best).
I agree, but this goes to show the difference between these two
productions, I think. I found Laura's screaming in the last episode,
although surreal, somewhat as a natural part of the events going on.
Gerrard's screaming in FWWM was just noisy and annoying.
> As for the
> Grandmother in her Grandson, I found those scenes eerie
> and very good. Plus, they were bizarre in the series too, what
> do you expect?
I excpected it to be eerie and surreal, but in TP it somehow all seemed
like it could really happen, in FWWM it didn't. The grandson is another
example of the differences - i think the "creamed corn" scene in TP is
great, but I think the scene where the grandson jumps out of a bush and
skips around in FWWM is just plain silly.
It's not the surrealism I dislike, it's the way it's being done,
although I realize I'm having a hard time explaining it to people who
can't read my mind (I guess you'll just have to work on that, all of you
:-) ).
Keith Gow
<raoul...@journalist.com> waxed lyrical:
>Thomas Hansen wrote:
>> > These so-called TP fans who hate FWWM, I'll never understand.
>>
>> It's because FWWM completely lack the style and elegance - and method of
>> story-telling - that we saw in the series.
>
>No, it just had a completely DIFFERENT style, elegance and method of
>storytelling.
>
>All the TP fans I've heard from that dislike it seem to do so because they
>expected it to be nothing more than a theatrical, feature-length episode of
>the TV series. Sorry, but that was a ridiculous expectation.
>
And if it was just a theatrically-released feature-length episode of
the series, there would be a faction of TP fandom who complain "but
it's just like what we used to get on TV. Why didn't they do something
more/different with the *film*?"
They are different mediums and you shouldn't expect the same thing.
OwenWolfe
>I've seen it three times, the last time was a couple of
weeks ago - and
>I really wanted to like it, because the series are so great.
However, I
>didn't.
Ah well, to each his own.
>It's not just the pace. A film can be moving at high speed
and still be
>boring. I thought the first part of the movie was the most
boring, up
>until Cooper appears. Then he lifts it for a couple of
scenes before
>even he drops and becomes uninteresting (hey, Cooper
was my HERO when I
>was fifteen!).
Well, I'm fifteen, but I can't decide whether my hero is John
Lennon, David Bowie, Freddie Mercury, or Roger Waters.
David Lynch was for a little while, but then I figured out he
was an @$$, and Roger Waters is probably gonna be out
the door for that same reason, heh.
>I don't mind surrealism, as long as it's well done. I don't
think that's
>the case in FWWM. I see more "pure Lynch" in Lost
Highway than in FWWM.
Well, to tell you the truth, and I probably will regret saying
this, I'm not a big fan of Lost Highway. I mean, it's one of my
favorite movies of all time, sure, but I think it's one of
Lynch's
weaker films. Of course, I think his second best film is Wild
At Heart, so..
>
>I don't really remember, I just remember sitting in front of
the TV
>being annoyed by the disturbing sounds they had put on
for the first
>part of the movie.
Ok..
>I'll agree with you on the Bowie scene.
I think everybody can agree on that, hopefully. Anyone who
thinks the Bowie scene sucks, or is not visually brilliant, in
addition to FWWM sucking is on my list.
>
>I guess it's a tad more liberal in Norway (we have rules
about showing
>"erected penises" here :-) )
Jeez...I don't think even HBO would risk that one!
>, but my point wasn't really that I wanted
>more sex scenes in TP... one thing that's so great about all
the scenes
>you mention above is the way that sex is obviously a big
part of the
>lives of some of the people in Twin Peaks (as it was to
Laura), but it
>is never actually shown. Lynch knows that he doesn't need
to visualize
>everything for the viewers. In FWWM he does it all wrong.
Just because
>sex is allowed on film, doesn't meen you have to use it.
(Yes, I know
>I'm sounding like some old, uptight lady...)
But Lynch had to do something to appease all those wild,
young Laura fans :) Seriously, if Lynch could've shown it in
the series, I bet he would've. As for the nudity, like I always
say if there's no nudity it isn't a David Lynch movie! Unless of
course it's not rated R, which the majority of his films are.
>And it's not that I necessarily think that FWWM should be
excactly like
>TP (although it might be better if it was). There are a lot of
ways to
>tell the story of Laura Palmer's last seven days, and I just...
wish
>he'd done it some other way.
Well, like how? I can't think of too many other ways to do it..I
guess the deleted scenes might help, but then again, they
may clutter the Laura storyline and detract from the movie
(hence their being cut by Lynch himself).
>I would definately buy a director's cut, though (since that's
what we're
>really discussing).
I would too..I bet everybody here would, if only to see the
deleted scenes. I already own FWWM and I don't have a
DVD player, but hell, I'd still buy it :)
>I agree, but this goes to show the difference between
these two
>productions, I think. I found Laura's screaming in the last
episode,
>although surreal, somewhat as a natural part of the events
going on.
>Gerrard's screaming in FWWM was just noisy and
annoying.
Yeah, but it's still a key scene for us Peakers who love
theorizing about stuff.
>I excpected it to be eerie and surreal, but in TP it somehow
all seemed
>like it could really happen, in FWWM it didn't. The grandson
is another
>example of the differences - i think the "creamed corn"
scene in TP is
>great, but I think the scene where the grandson jumps out
of a bush and
>skips around in FWWM is just plain silly.
Well, I think it's very Lynchian myself. It's this feeling that
anything can happen, anytime. BOB and these other
creatures out in daylight, out in the open, out of the blue, it's
frightening. I find an image of a young boy dancing around in
a parking lot with a crude white mask on while a low voice
says "the black dog runs at night" (I think this is the scene
you are referring to) rather eerie and surreal.
>It's not the surrealism I dislike, it's the way it's being done,
>although I realize I'm having a hard time explaining it to
people who
>can't read my mind (I guess you'll just have to work on that,
all of you
>:-) ).
Time to call up the 'ol psychic powers..
Thomas Hansen
<owenwolf...@davidbowie.com.invalid> wrote:
> Well, to tell you the truth, and I probably will regret saying
> this, I'm not a big fan of Lost Highway. I mean, it's one of my
> favorite movies of all time, sure, but I think it's one of
> Lynch's
> weaker films. Of course, I think his second best film is Wild
> At Heart, so..
I'm a bit of a WAH fan myself. and I think I'd rate it as third, behind
LH and The Straight Story.
> >I guess it's a tad more liberal in Norway (we have rules
> about showing
> >"erected penises" here :-) )
>
> Jeez...I don't think even HBO would risk that one!
Well, that is - we have rules about NOT showing erected penises. Just in
case someone thought it was mandatory for Norwegian TV series to have
erected penises in them.
> >It's not the surrealism I dislike, it's the way it's being done,
> >although I realize I'm having a hard time explaining it to
> people who
> >can't read my mind (I guess you'll just have to work on that,
> all of you
> >:-) ).
>
> Time to call up the 'ol psychic powers..
Let me know if you find anything...
Thomas Hansen
<raoul...@journalist.com> wrote:
> > Let me know if you find anything...
>
> Like why he hasn't replied to MY post. ;)
*ahem* Well, I was really gonna write something, but then I saw Owen's
posting and replied to that instead, thus feeling that I had really
responded to both of you.... *coughing inexplicably while looking away*
Jeff Gower
<vio...@online.no> wrote:
> I don't mind surrealism, as long as it's well done. I don't think that's
> the case in FWWM.
Well, I have heard similar things said about all of Lynch's surrealism (by
the likes of Ebert et al.), how it is not effective, not well-done, not
"genuine" surrealism but mere chain-pulling and vacuity, etc.. I am no
expert on surrealism (in fact, I was under the impression that there WERE
no parameters for doing surrealism in a "well-done" fashion - I thought
that was the point?) - anyway, like I said, I am not a surrealism expert,
but I know what works for me. And FWWM definitely worked for me - one of
the very most disturbing, frightening, joyfully weird, and moving films
I've ever seen. So whether it was "well-done" or not, I say to Lynch
"well done!".
> Gerrard's screaming in FWWM was just noisy and annoying.
You didn't find that scene amazingly disturbing (I mean, other than
annoyingly so, haha)? I thought it was a real shocker when I first saw it
- it was so unexpected. Just imagine yourself in the shoes of either
Laura or Leland when that happened. Yikes!
> I think the scene where the grandson jumps out of a bush and
> skips around in FWWM is just plain silly.
Haha, I loved it. The way Leland looked behind him when that boy jumped
out and started skipping around. Perfect!
You know, most people I know (MOST!) thought the whole Red Room stuff in
TP was the silliest, dumbest crap they'd ever seen. They could (can) not
understand why a little man talking backwards and dancing around in a red
room would give me the shivers. Simpsons made fun of it, as did other
shows. And that ain't all about TP that was "just plain silly" to many
folks.
Funny how different things affect each of us in different ways. Sometimes
I wonder why here I am, a middle-aged man, enjoying David Lynch and other
"foolish" things so much when the rest of the people my age that I know
are consumed with work, lawns, investments, hair loss, erectile
disfunction, what school to send their kids to, etc.. Hahaha!
> It's not the surrealism I dislike, it's the way it's being done,
> although I realize I'm having a hard time explaining it to people who
> can't read my mind (I guess you'll just have to work on that, all of you
> :-) ).
Haha! Well, I know how you feel, Thomas - it is a very hard thing to
explain or justify a subjective connection (or lack thereof) to
something. Like I wrote, what about Lynch is it that moved us so deeply
to start with, and that keeps us so enthralled? Shouldn't we be spending
our time on "better, more important" things? Naaah!! ;-)
Hey, Thomas, do you know of Norwegian guitarist/composer Terje Rypdal?
I've been running his webpage for the past several years. Great musician
and composer and very nice person.
Takk for interessant drøfting om FWWM! (Tilge min dårlig Norsk!! hehe)
Ha det bra,
Thomas Hansen
(Jeff Gower) wrote:
> You didn't find that scene amazingly disturbing (I mean, other than
> annoyingly so, haha)? I thought it was a real shocker when I first saw
> it
> - it was so unexpected. Just imagine yourself in the shoes of either
> Laura or Leland when that happened. Yikes!
I think what I'm trying to say is that in TP and LH I always felt there
was some plan behind the surrealism, that it wasn't just there to be
weird (although some of it was, but that was mostly humorous). In FWWM I
feel like bits and pieces of surreal scenes have more or less been
thrown together without any structure.
> You know, most people I know (MOST!) thought the whole Red Room stuff in
> TP was the silliest, dumbest crap they'd ever seen. They could (can) not
> understand why a little man talking backwards and dancing around in a red
> room would give me the shivers. Simpsons made fun of it, as did other
> shows. And that ain't all about TP that was "just plain silly" to many
> folks.
I know. I love that scene. I think the last TP episode is the best of
them all, not least due to the thrill in these scenes (with Cooper
running from room to room and all that).
> Sometimes
> I wonder why here I am, a middle-aged man, enjoying David Lynch and other
> "foolish" things so much when the rest of the people my age that I know
> are consumed with work, lawns, investments, hair loss, erectile
> disfunction, what school to send their kids to, etc.. Hahaha!
Guess who's having the most fun...
> Hey, Thomas, do you know of Norwegian guitarist/composer Terje Rypdal?
> I've been running his webpage for the past several years. Great musician
> and composer and very nice person.
I've definately heard of him, but I'm not very familiar with his music,
I'm afraid.
> Takk for interessant drøfting om FWWM! (Tilge min dårlig Norsk!! hehe)
Wow. Jeg er imponert.
--
Thomas Hansen : Te først.
<vio...@online.no> : Vær så klar.
TiN
>the scenes shot.)
Wow....they creeped me out. I thought they were excellent. Lynch is so good
at setting moods.
> at least I can't remember any sex scenes in the series.
>
That's because the series was on network TV. Lynch would have done all that
stuff if the show was on...say...HBO...heh
>(the noisy scene where Gerrard yells at Leland in the car, the
>pointlessly-odd behaviour of the that little kid with the
>grandmother...)
God!!!!!! No offense, but...what's wrong with you!!!!!!??? Are you even a
Lynch fan? Have you seen his other work. These scenes are pure Lynch, there
beautiful, moody, and symbolic.
--
How's Annie?
Thomas Hansen
awfu...@aol.com (TiN) wrote:
> God!!!!!! No offense, but...what's wrong with you!!!!!!??? Are you even
> a
> Lynch fan? Have you seen his other work. These scenes are pure Lynch,
> there
> beautiful, moody, and symbolic.
If you'd seen my appartment, you wouldn't ask if I was a Lynch fan. :-)
Jeff Gower
<vio...@online.no> wrote:
> > Takk for interessant drøfting om FWWM! (Tilge min dårlig Norsk!! hehe)
>
> Wow. Jeg er imponert.
Hehe, takk! ;-)
Jeg bare begynne å lære norsk. Hittil jeg bare kunne få order, men ikke
god grammatikk dog. Men jeg er lærer, langsomt. Hehe!!
Du så 1995 norsk film "Kjærlighetens Kjøtere" - direktør = Hans Petter
Moland? Det er meget god film! Musikk skrivet nær Terje Rypdal - Det er
skjønn musikk!!
(Terje Rypdal Web Pages - http://www.jeffgower.com/rypdal.html)
Ha de bra,
Thomas Hansen
(Jeff Gower) wrote:
> Du så 1995 norsk film "Kjærlighetens Kjøtere" - direktør = Hans Petter
> Moland? Det er meget god film! Musikk skrivet nær Terje Rypdal - Det er
> skjønn musikk!!
Beklager, så ikke den - men jeg skal gjøre det neste gang jeg får
sjansen. Men dette begynner vel å bli litt off-topic (godt norsk uttrykk
:-)
To all you others; yes, we'll probably stop writing in Norwegian now.
But this really isn't any more off-topic than many of the other
discussions here... ;-)
Joshua Zyber
news:violon-054570....@news.eunet.no...
> If you'd seen my appartment, you wouldn't ask if I was a Lynch fan. :-)
Red curtains along all the walls?
- Josh
---------------------
Joshua Zyber
Curator, Laserdisc Forever Review Archive
www.mindspring.com/~jzyber/laserdiscforever.htm
Thomas Hansen
<jzy...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > If you'd seen my appartment, you wouldn't ask if I was a Lynch fan. :-)
>
> Red curtains along all the walls?
Not that eccentric, no. Just a couple of big movie posters, plus a quite
visible video collection in the bookshelf.
Jeff Gower
<prosper...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> No, I saw the movie first and loved it. I had a fresh view of what was
> happening, and were more sensitive to the particularities of the film.
I think this is a good point. I saw the TP pilot movie, then FWWM, and it
(the movie) was amazingly shocking to me. Perhaps this did take away from
some of the shock of the series (surely), but perhaps this is also why I
enjoyed the movie more than many who went through the whole series first.
Who knows.....
Jeff
damnfine
> > Time to call up the 'ol psychic powers..
>
Like why he hasn't replied to MY post. ;)
--
SiCk BoY
Joshua Zyber a écrit :
> Thomas Hansen <vio...@online.no> wrote in message
> news:violon-054570....@news.eunet.no...
> > If you'd seen my appartment, you wouldn't ask if I was a Lynch fan. :-)
>
> Red curtains along all the walls?
>
> - Josh
A woman once mailed me from my site to ask me if I had
a good scanned copy of the cave's petroglyphs, because her
husband wanted to paint it on one wall of their guest's
chamber, and cover all three other walls with red curtains.
Unfortunately, I did have a copy of it...
Have a good night's sleep... don't let killer BOB bite...
--
SiCk BoY - http://perso.wanadoo.fr/prospero.milan/
SiCk BoY
Mark Dodd a écrit :
> damnfine wrote:
>
> > nickle wrote:
> > > I loved the series; that's why I hated the movie.
> >
> > I was about to call that bad logic, until I realized that it wasn't even any
> > kind of logic at all.
> >
> > These so-called TP fans who hate FWWM, I'll never understand.
>
> I agree with you. TP fans in fact were the only ones who could fathom what was
> going on.
No, I saw the movie first and loved it. I had a fresh view of what was
happening, and were more sensitive to the particularities of the film.
--
damnfine
> *ahem* Well, I was really gonna write something, but then I saw Owen's
> posting and replied to that instead, thus feeling that I had really
> responded to both of you...
Oh.
Right.
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
>Most peakers
>would pay a fair chunk of change for a director's cut on that one.
>
There ain't another cut of the film and there will never be one. Why?
David Lynch is the director. He's had final cut on all his movies from
Blue Velvet onward. The theatrical cut we have of FWWM is *his* cut.
And Lynch being director - that makes it a director's cut!
I hate the need people have for unexpurgated cuts of films - without
considering how it would make the film look and feel. If we were to
have all those scenes put back in the film would be very choppy in
rhythm and flow. It'd would be more like a TV show, but not *at all*
like a TV show.
It would, IMHO, suck.
FWWM is a brilliant piece of cinema. Leave it as it is. That's how
Lynch wants it.
damnfine
> David Lynch is the director. He's had final cut on all his movies from
> Blue Velvet onward. The theatrical cut we have of FWWM is *his* cut.
> And Lynch being director - that makes it a director's cut!
Not strictly. We've seen his cut of the film allowing for the length
restriction imposed by the studio.
Keith Gow
<raoul...@journalist.com> waxed lyrical:
>Keith Gow wrote:
>> David Lynch is the director. He's had final cut on all his movies from
>> Blue Velvet onward. The theatrical cut we have of FWWM is *his* cut.
>> And Lynch being director - that makes it a director's cut!
>
>Not strictly. We've seen his cut of the film allowing for the length
>restriction imposed by the studio.
>
He has stipulated he wouldn't re-edit the film for DVD release. This
pretty much says he doesn't want to make another cut of the film.
damnfine
> >> David Lynch is the director. He's had final cut on all his movies from
> >> Blue Velvet onward. The theatrical cut we have of FWWM is *his* cut.
> >> And Lynch being director - that makes it a director's cut!
> >
> >Not strictly. We've seen his cut of the film allowing for the length
> >restriction imposed by the studio.
>
> He has stipulated he wouldn't re-edit the film for DVD release. This
> pretty much says he doesn't want to make another cut of the film.
Of course, but it doesn't say the film would not have been longer in 1992 if
he had TRUE artistic freedom.
peaks...@my-deja.com
kw...@web.solutions.net.au (Keith Gow) wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 04:27:53 GMT, Mark Dodd <cmdc...@earthlink.net>
> waxed lyrical:
>
> >Most peakers
> >would pay a fair chunk of change for a director's cut on that one.
> >
>
> There ain't another cut of the film and there will never be one. Why?
>
> Blue Velvet onward. The theatrical cut we have of FWWM is *his* cut.
> And Lynch being director - that makes it a director's cut!
>
> considering how it would make the film look and feel. If we were to
> have all those scenes put back in the film would be very choppy in
> rhythm and flow. It'd would be more like a TV show, but not *at all*
> like a TV show.
>
> It would, IMHO, suck.
>
> FWWM is a brilliant piece of cinema. Leave it as it is. That's how
> Lynch wants it.
True. But Mr. Lynch has chosen selcet deleted scenes from FWWM for us
to see. I would never want an extended cut of the movie, but if Mr.
Lynch has selected scenes that he wants us to see, I trust that they
are scenes that will exentuate the already existing movie. Also, all
these people that don't liek FWWM really need to get themselves another
newsgroup to post in, and take their thumbs out of their mouths.
>
> || Keith Gow ||
>
> Tara-for-First Slayer: "The Slayer does not walk in this world."
> Buffy: "I walk. I talk. I shop. I sneeze. I'm going to be a fireman
> when the floods roll back. There's trees in the desert since you
> moved out. And I don't sleep on a bed of bones. Now give me
> back my friends."
> First Slayer: "No friends. Just the kill. We are alone."
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
TiN
>and stumbling around an airport parking lot?
I'm sorry, but was that a question brought up in the movie? All of the points
you made are...well...I dunno. Are you a Lynch fan?
--
How's Annie?
TiN
>skips around in FWWM is just plain silly.
I don't know what it is about that scene. I think we all can admit it's very
odd, but to me it's beautiful. Also, "The black dog runs at night" is playing
in the background, a very creepy jazz piece on the FWWM soundtrack. I love
that scene, it's Lynch's symbolism.
--
How's Annie?
The log
>a little better. Third time on it was great, one of my favorite
>movies. I was watching it just a few days ago, matter of fact.
>Now I'm more than happy to defend the film.
Same things happening to me with Lost Highway.
The log
http://www.angelfire.com/ok2/evilontheweb
http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/bladerunner
"Life is great. Without it, you'd be dead"
Steve Lovejoy
nickle wrote:
> It's easy to understand why TP fans would hate FWWM: it stank. It was
> uncomfortable and embarrassing to watch. It was gross, over-done and silly
> in places. I got the feeling that Lynch wanted to finally put TP behind him
> and purposely made a terrible movie to finally drive the nails in TP's
> coffin. Anybody want a date with a woman wearing a blue rose, pinched face
> and stumbling around an airport parking lot?
>
> --
WOW BOB WOW
...i just can't understand this...but thank you for having the courage to
express your thoughts and perceptions...It adds so much to keeping the
discussion alive...kudos
steve
Steve Lovejoy
Jeff Gower wrote:
>
> I think this is a good point. I saw the TP pilot movie, then FWWM, and it
> (the movie) was amazingly shocking to me. Perhaps this did take away from
> some of the shock of the series (surely), but perhaps this is also why I
> enjoyed the movie more than many who went through the whole series first.
> Who knows.....
>
> Jeff
When I saw this film on opening night in Southern California, I was with a
group of friends, some Peaks fans--some not, and I remember leaving the
theater in complete shock...almost trauma. I couldn't speak...my friends kept
asking me "how'd you like it ?" All I could say is "I Don't Know!"...all I
knew is that I wanted to go home and take a shower...a long hot cleansing
shower...sleep with the light on....get up and go see it again the next
day...masochistic? maybe....but undeniably a powerful experience.
steve
TiN
>visible video collection in the bookshelf.
How 'bout a white floor with black zig-zags?
--
How's Annie?
bkhouseboy
cmdc...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
>
> I agree with you. TP fans in fact were the only ones who could fathom
what was
> >
> >
> > --
> >Precicely---Which is why I have a hard time holding it up to Lynch's
other films that were self contained stories and stand on their own. If
none of us had seen the series and saw FWWM would it still have the same
value? I'm not anti FWWM or anything, I just think the praise some
people heap on it is a bit overstated.
>
>
--
"shut up with your 'oh God' or we'll kill ya milk or no milk"
Jeff Gower
<bkhou...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> I'm not anti FWWM or anything, I just think the praise some
> people heap on it is a bit overstated.
There IS no amount of verbal overstatement that can adequately describe my
own personal reaction to FWWM (or for that matter, LH and EHead also).
You didn't get the same reaction with FWWM, or you think it is flawed -
fine. But how can you tell someone else that THEIR reaction (and
subsequent praise) is "overstated"?
(Keep in mind that when someone writes "FWWM is a beautiful masterpiece",
the "in my opinion and based on my own experience with the film" part is
inferred.)
Jeff
Frog of Da West
what doesnt, thats just ridiculous, people like certain aspects of the show,
and you might even say theyre "fans" of it. if that aspect is lacking, then
they have a reason to not like a few episodes or a movie
nickle
liked, Stigmata for instance, that I've liked that others have hammered, so
I know how you feel.
--
New Story, the Black Zone, is up at
Horroresq Horror Fiction
http://members.dencity.com/horroresq/
---
Steve Lovejoy <watc...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3985C7A8...@pacbell.net...
nickle
point wasn't raised in the movie, I was using it to make a point at how
ridiculous the scene was. I'm am a TP fan. I loved that show and what Lynch
did with it. But FWWM is just simply a bad movie.
--
New Story, the Black Zone, is up at
Horroresq Horror Fiction
http://members.dencity.com/horroresq/
---
TiN <awfu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000731132457...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> >Anybody want a date with a woman wearing a blue rose, pinched face
> >and stumbling around an airport parking lot?
>
Joshua Zyber
news:8m4n6m$elb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > >Precicely---Which is why I have a hard time holding it up to Lynch's
> other films that were self contained stories and stand on their own. If
> none of us had seen the series and saw FWWM would it still have the same
> people heap on it is a bit overstated.
Fire Walk With Me is definitely not self-contained. It required a full
knowledge of the series to truly appreciate all of its intracacies. That
does not in any way make its achievement any less powerful. The film builds
off and expands upon the body of the series, thus enriching the entire
experience on both ends of the equation. It is the culmination of everything
Twin Peaks, the focal point and essense of the show's true nature.
To dislike Fire Walk With Me is to not understand Twin Peaks at all.
Pikemann Urge
>
> are scenes that will exentuate the already existing movie. Also, all
> these people that don't liek FWWM really need to get themselves another
> newsgroup to post in, and take their thumbs out of their mouths.
I wouldn't mind seeing all the FWWM footage that hit the cutting room
floor. But I don't think that it should be obligatory for TP fans to
like FWWM, even though I think it's one of the best movies ever made.
damnfine
> I admire the talent and personality of Lynch. About the blue rose woman, the
> point wasn't raised in the movie, I was using it to make a point at how
> ridiculous the scene was.
Have you ever actually stopped to think about the significance of the scene?
If you like TP, you have to like Lil... because Lil is TP.
> But FWWM is just simply a bad movie.
And you are just simply incorrect. Sorry.
TiN
>Lynch has selected scenes that he wants us to see, I trust that they
Exactly. I don't want a new cut of the film (It's pefect as is). All I want
is to see some bonus footage.
--
How's Annie?
Keith Gow
<raoul...@journalist.com> waxed lyrical:
>Keith Gow wrote:
>> >> David Lynch is the director. He's had final cut on all his movies from
>> >> Blue Velvet onward. The theatrical cut we have of FWWM is *his* cut.
>> >> And Lynch being director - that makes it a director's cut!
>> >
>> >Not strictly. We've seen his cut of the film allowing for the length
>> >restriction imposed by the studio.
>>
>> He has stipulated he wouldn't re-edit the film for DVD release. This
>> pretty much says he doesn't want to make another cut of the film.
>
>Of course, but it doesn't say the film would not have been longer in 1992 if
>he had TRUE artistic freedom.
>
I know why you and Josh are good friends - you're both pedants! ;-)
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
>But FWWM is just simply a bad movie.
>
I can understand people who are *not* fans of Twin Peaks hating FWWM
or, at least, not understand it. (Often, because they know there is a
series out there and they assume answers can be found there. They are,
for the most part, wrong about that, too.)
But I cannot understand someone who claims to be a fan of the series
not liking the film.
And I truly cannot understand any fan of the series calling the film
"bad."
Keith Gow
<watc...@pacbell.net> waxed lyrical:
>...get up and go see it again the next
>day...
I saw it once a day for the first three days of its release and once
more before it left the cinemas. I have seen it twice more at the
cinema since then and countless times on video.
I haven't watched it in almost a year (just after I saw Chris Isaak
live) and it's about time for me to sit down again... but I think I've
got the stamina to wait for the DVD
>masochistic? maybe....
Isn't it technically pleasure from someone else's pain? Making you a
sadist... ;-)
>but undeniably a powerful experience.
>
Undeniably.
Keith Gow
Keith Gow
<jzy...@mindspring.com> waxed lyrical:
>bkhouseboy <bkhou...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:8m4n6m$elb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>> > >Precicely---Which is why I have a hard time holding it up to Lynch's
>> other films that were self contained stories and stand on their own. If
>> none of us had seen the series and saw FWWM would it still have the same
>> value? I'm not anti FWWM or anything, I just think the praise some
>> people heap on it is a bit overstated.
>
>Fire Walk With Me is definitely not self-contained. It required a full
>knowledge of the series to truly appreciate all of its intracacies.
To fully appreciate them, yes. But it's also a potent cinema
experience for those who don't know the series that well.
>That
>does not in any way make its achievement any less powerful. The film builds
>off and expands upon the body of the series, thus enriching the entire
>experience on both ends of the equation. It is the culmination of everything
>Twin Peaks, the focal point and essense of the show's true nature.
>
>To dislike Fire Walk With Me is to not understand Twin Peaks at all.
>
<deafening applause>
SiCk BoY
Keith Gow a écrit :
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:41:47 -0700, Steve Lovejoy
> <watc...@pacbell.net> waxed lyrical:
>
> >masochistic? maybe....
>
> Isn't it technically pleasure from someone else's pain? Making you a
> sadist... ;-)
Not as long as you put yourself in Laura's skin, as the films
purposes to. And anyway, the movie's a shock (for people
receptive, that is).
> >but undeniably a powerful experience.
>
> Undeniably.
Undeniably...
--
SiCk BoY - http://perso.wanadoo.fr/prospero.milan/
damnfine
> >But FWWM is just simply a bad movie.
>
> I can understand people who are *not* fans of Twin Peaks hating FWWM
> or, at least, not understand it.
Josh articulated it the best...
"To dislike Fire Walk With Me is to not understand Twin Peaks at all."
Damn straight.
Joshua M. Bean
----------
In article <8m52i...@news2.newsguy.com>, "nickle" <horr...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks for allowing me my comments. Hey, there's been movies lately I've
> liked, Stigmata for instance, that I've liked that others have hammered, so
> I know how you feel.
Hmmm.... Stigmata, eh? This explains a lot. ;)
J. Bean
Joshua M. Bean
----------
In article <3986bc3...@news.solutions.net.au>,
kw...@web.solutions.net.au (Keith Gow) wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:41:47 -0700, Steve Lovejoy
> <watc...@pacbell.net> waxed lyrical:
>
>>...get up and go see it again the next
>>day...
>
> I saw it once a day for the first three days of its release and once
> more before it left the cinemas. I have seen it twice more at the
> cinema since then and countless times on video.
Lucky bastard!
J. Bean (who didn't see FWWM at the cinema) :(
Frog of Da West
hey, lets refrain from using this as arguments. It doesnt do much for you.
Sorry.
Frog of Da West
like a monster is coming to get me or something, but it had a whole universal
theme, how much more could be out there, it was much darker than the series,
and it made subplots like Nadine, Big Ed, James Donna and MAddie, seem
insignificant.
Steve Lovejoy
SiCk BoY wrote:
> Keith Gow a écrit :
>
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 11:41:47 -0700, Steve Lovejoy
> > <watc...@pacbell.net> waxed lyrical:
> >
> > >masochistic? maybe....
> >
> > Isn't it technically pleasure from someone else's pain? Making you a
> > sadist... ;-)
>
> Not as long as you put yourself in Laura's skin, as the films
> purposes to. And anyway, the movie's a shock (for people
> receptive, that is).
>
>
Especially if you are an incest survivor...
damnfine
Why?? You gonna try to tell me the world is flat?
nickle
--
New Story, the Black Zone, is up at
Horroresq Horror Fiction
http://members.dencity.com/horroresq/
---
Joshua M. Bean <jmb...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:8m6lnq$hpc$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
nickle
mean how people see different things in the same movie.
--
New Story, the Black Zone, is up at
Horroresq Horror Fiction
http://members.dencity.com/horroresq/
---
damnfine <raoul...@journalist.com> wrote in message
news:hXKh5.63975$N4.18...@ozemail.com.au...
nickle
scene?
> If you like TP, you have to like Lil... because Lil is TP.
I _loved_ TP but hated the Lil scene, and the rest of the movie. I did like
the song Questions in a World of Blue however. I've tried to figure out what
the Lil scene meant and I've come to the _opinion_ that possibly Lynch was
tired of TP and wanted to do things to dimismish the demand for it, with
silly scenes like the Lil scene.
nickle
But like I posted before, people see different things in the same movie,
especially an expressionist filmmaker like Lynch.
--
New Story, the Black Zone, is up at
Horroresq Horror Fiction
http://members.dencity.com/horroresq/
---
Keith Gow <kw...@web.solutions.net.au> wrote in message
news:3986bc3...@news.solutions.net.au...
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:29:55 -0400, "nickle" <horr...@hotmail.com>
> waxed lyrical:
>
> >But FWWM is just simply a bad movie.
> >
>
> I can understand people who are *not* fans of Twin Peaks hating FWWM
> or, at least, not understand it. (Often, because they know there is a
> series out there and they assume answers can be found there. They are,
> for the most part, wrong about that, too.)
>
> But I cannot understand someone who claims to be a fan of the series
> not liking the film.
>
> And I truly cannot understand any fan of the series calling the film
> "bad."
>
damnfine
> I _loved_ TP but hated the Lil scene, and the rest of the movie. I did like
> the song Questions in a World of Blue however. I've tried to figure out what
> the Lil scene meant and I've come to the _opinion_ that possibly Lynch was
> tired of TP and wanted to do things to dimismish the demand for it, with
> silly scenes like the Lil scene.
Actually he wanted to summarize the series at that point, wherein;
Gordon Cole = Lynch
Chet Desmond = Old TP Fan
Sam Stanley = New TP Fan
Lil = TP
Blue Rose = Laura Palmer
etc...
It's really quite simple... and absolutely, completely and utterly relevant,
important and brilliant.
damnfine
> The world is flat reference is good. I was thinking that about the movie, I
Or, fail to see anything at all.
damnfine
> It just was simply a bad work of film-making.
And for the dozenth time you are simply incorrect. SORRY.
> I was embarrassed for Lynch.
Well, I'm sure he's glad about that.
damnfine
> The directors cut albeit.
Oh boy...
bkhouseboy
jgo...@gator.net (Jeff Gower) wrote:
> In article <8m4n6m$elb$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, bkhouseboy
> <bkhou...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not anti FWWM or anything, I just think the praise some
> > people heap on it is a bit overstated.
>
describe my
> own personal reaction to FWWM (or for that matter, LH and EHead also).
> You didn't get the same reaction with FWWM, or you think it is flawed
-
> fine. But how can you tell someone else that THEIR reaction (and
> subsequent praise) is "overstated"?
>
Isn't agreeing or disagreeing over each others reactions a big part of
what goes on here? If two people see the same movie and one is blown
away and the other one isn't, the one who was not blown away is
naturally going to think the other's praise is overstated. It's just
kind of automatic.
> (Keep in mind that when someone writes "FWWM is a beautiful
masterpiece",
> the "in my opinion and based on my own experience with the film" part
is
> inferred.)
>
Not everyone seems to be as fair minded as you. There are some who
make statements like that as pure fact and if you disagree you're just
an idiot.
>
>
--
"shut up with your 'oh God' or we'll kill ya milk or no milk"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
nickle
--
New Story, the Black Zone, is up at
Horroresq Horror Fiction
http://members.dencity.com/horroresq/
---
damnfine <raoul...@journalist.com> wrote in message
news:qSRh5.66487$N4.18...@ozemail.com.au...
peaks...@my-deja.com
masterpiece.
We could go back and fourth all day and night and argue this, but it
would be just a waste of time.
I remember in high school when FWWM came out, a friend of mine and I
had this same arguement. The argument ended in my saying that people
that didn't like the FWWM movie generally favored and were more likely
able to relate to characters like Andy and Lucy. Before I could finish,
my friend stormed off.
In article <8m8fo...@news1.newsguy.com>,
"nickle" <horr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It just was simply a bad work of film-making. I was embarrassed for
Lynch.
> But like I posted before, people see different things in the same
movie,
> especially an expressionist filmmaker like Lynch.
>
> --
> New Story, the Black Zone, is up at
> Horroresq Horror Fiction
> http://members.dencity.com/horroresq/
>
> ---
> Keith Gow <kw...@web.solutions.net.au> wrote in message
> news:3986bc3...@news.solutions.net.au...
> > On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:29:55 -0400, "nickle" <horr...@hotmail.com>
> > waxed lyrical:
> >
> > >But FWWM is just simply a bad movie.
> > >
> >
> > I can understand people who are *not* fans of Twin Peaks hating FWWM
> > or, at least, not understand it. (Often, because they know there is
a
> > series out there and they assume answers can be found there. They
are,
> > for the most part, wrong about that, too.)
> >
> > But I cannot understand someone who claims to be a fan of the series
> > not liking the film.
> >
> > And I truly cannot understand any fan of the series calling the film
> > "bad."
> >
> > || Keith Gow ||
> >
> > Tara-for-First Slayer: "The Slayer does not walk in this world."
> > Buffy: "I walk. I talk. I shop. I sneeze. I'm going to be a fireman
> > when the floods roll back. There's trees in the desert since you
> > moved out. And I don't sleep on a bed of bones. Now give me
> > back my friends."
> > First Slayer: "No friends. Just the kill. We are alone."
>
>
TiN
>that didn't like the FWWM movie generally favored and were more likely
>able to relate to characters like Andy and Lucy.
Exactly. Maybe if Lynch made Andy Laura's killer. That'd be a good comedy.
It might take him a little while just to figure out how to use the murder
weapon.
--
How's Annie?
Keith Gow
<raoul...@journalist.com> waxed lyrical:
>nickle wrote:
>> I _loved_ TP but hated the Lil scene, and the rest of the movie. I did like
>> the song Questions in a World of Blue however. I've tried to figure out what
>> the Lil scene meant and I've come to the _opinion_ that possibly Lynch was
>> tired of TP and wanted to do things to dimismish the demand for it, with
>> silly scenes like the Lil scene.
>
>Actually he wanted to summarize the series at that point, wherein;
>
>Gordon Cole = Lynch
>Chet Desmond = Old TP Fan
>Sam Stanley = New TP Fan
>Lil = TP
>Blue Rose = Laura Palmer
>
>etc...
>
>It's really quite simple... and absolutely, completely and utterly relevant,
>important and brilliant.
>
Plus it's cool! Cole loves his little codes. And I, in turn, love
them, too :-)
|| Keith Gow ||
"Ah, but it's not factually incorrect since your entire frame of reference to
TTRL is subjective. Therefore, your own view of it is much more of an
opinion than mine. That makes my view more factual than yours and my
statement more factually correct."
- some jerk in alt.movies losing badly to damnfine in a Magnolia debate
Mark Dodd
SiCk BoY wrote:
> Mark Dodd a écrit :
>
> > damnfine wrote:
> >
> > > nickle wrote:
> > > > I loved the series; that's why I hated the movie.
> > >
> > > I was about to call that bad logic, until I realized that it wasn't even any
> > > kind of logic at all.
> > >
> > > These so-called TP fans who hate FWWM, I'll never understand.
> >
> > I agree with you. TP fans in fact were the only ones who could fathom what was
> > going on.
>
> No, I saw the movie first and loved it. I had a fresh view of what was
> happening, and were more sensitive to the particularities of the film.
I could be wrong, but my sense when the movie came out was that most TP fans took to
it instantly as it seemed very directed at them, but that most newcomers stumbling
into the theatre or home video for that matter essentially walked away with a "What
in the hell was that?!!" - which I think accounts for the polarized reviews at the
time....the majority panning it as incomprehensible. I'd say you have a more
exploritive nature than most to fathom that film as a first visit to Twin Peaks and
journey from there.
My only criticism and that we see resurface here with familiar regularity is that
chunks of that movie and a number of characters ended up on the cutting room floor
and if the time contraints were thrown out and humpty dumpty could be put back
together, it would've been one heck of a magnum opus to the show. Instead my sense
is we got parts of a Rolls Royce scrunged into a Ford Taurus. They are shiny and
brilliant but there's something about the whole that is incomplete, lacking its
intended context, and leaving most of the uninitiated scratching their collective
heads (not that Lynch films are lacking in that characteristic mind you).
Mark Dodd
Keith Gow wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 04:27:53 GMT, Mark Dodd <cmdc...@earthlink.net>
> waxed lyrical:
>
> >Most peakers
> >would pay a fair chunk of change for a director's cut on that one.
> >
>
> There ain't another cut of the film and there will never be one. Why?
>
> David Lynch is the director. He's had final cut on all his movies from
> Blue Velvet onward. The theatrical cut we have of FWWM is *his* cut.
> And Lynch being director - that makes it a director's cut!
Forgive me if I got my information mangled, but I recall it that when all
the scenes had been shot, Lynch ended up with a film in the 4 1/2 hour
vicinity...which necessitated it being essentially pared in half to make
it into the movie houses. As it was basically a flop to non-TPers, and
most TPers as you know would have endured 40 hours if that's what it took
to tell the story. I am sure there are more knowledgable TP historians
than myself on this, so perhaps they will jump in with comment. I
personally believe that if and when these cutting floor scenes make it
back onto the film there will alway be a hole of what could've and
probably should've been.
Mark Dodd
peaks...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <3984d5f...@news.solutions.net.au>,
> kw...@web.solutions.net.au (Keith Gow) wrote:
> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 04:27:53 GMT, Mark Dodd <cmdc...@earthlink.net>
> > waxed lyrical:
> >
> > >Most peakers
> > >would pay a fair chunk of change for a director's cut on that one.
> > >
> >
> > There ain't another cut of the film and there will never be one. Why?
> >
> > David Lynch is the director. He's had final cut on all his movies from
> > Blue Velvet onward. The theatrical cut we have of FWWM is *his* cut.
> > And Lynch being director - that makes it a director's cut!
> >
> > I hate the need people have for unexpurgated cuts of films - without
> > considering how it would make the film look and feel. If we were to
> > have all those scenes put back in the film would be very choppy in
> > rhythm and flow. It'd would be more like a TV show, but not *at all*
> > like a TV show.
> >
> > It would, IMHO, suck.
> >
> > FWWM is a brilliant piece of cinema. Leave it as it is. That's how
> > Lynch wants it.
>
> True. But Mr. Lynch has chosen selcet deleted scenes from FWWM for us
> to see. I would never want an extended cut of the movie, but if Mr.
> Lynch has selected scenes that he wants us to see, I trust that they
> are scenes that will exentuate the already existing movie. Also, all
> these people that don't liek FWWM really need to get themselves another
> newsgroup to post in, and take their thumbs out of their mouths.
And what newsgroup is that? (OK I have a problem with the facist line of
thought that any ng is somehow the province of the singleminded and other
people should get out.) I think by dividing the FWWM view into either a
love or hate judgment you are missing a third view of many Peakers....that
there are a number of Twin Peaks fans who liked FWWM but mourned the fact
that so much footage had to be taken out for it to confine itself within
traditional movie time boundaries. Just because David Lynch was director
doesn't mean he had carte blanche to release the film in whatever length he
and he alone felt like. Movie directors, regardless of visibility and
status rarely get away with more than two-to-two-and-a-half hours of
audience time and I think you would've seen many venues simply not
accomodate showing the film had Lynch left it alone at double to triple the
standard length of a feature film. As it was the movie fell well short of
the box office success they were working for and in hindsight they probably
would have been better off keeping with the full script, living with
limited release art house-type venues a 4-5 hour film would dictate, and
giving their fans who make the trek a real indulgance.
Unfortunately in the commercial realm, expediency typically reigns
supreme. Most directors consider it part of the price they pay in getting
their films to market.
SiCk BoY
Mark Dodd a écrit :
> Keith Gow wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 04:27:53 GMT, Mark Dodd <cmdc...@earthlink.net>
> > waxed lyrical:
>
> > >Most peakers would pay a fair chunk of change for a director's cut on that one.
>
> > There ain't another cut of the film and there will never be one. Why?
>
> > David Lynch is the director. He's had final cut on all his movies from
> > Blue Velvet onward. The theatrical cut we have of FWWM is *his* cut.
> > And Lynch being director - that makes it a director's cut!
>
> Forgive me if I got my information mangled, but I recall it that when all
> the scenes had been shot, Lynch ended up with a film in the 4 1/2 hour
> vicinity...which necessitated it being essentially pared in half to make
> it into the movie houses. As it was basically a flop to non-TPers, and
> most TPers as you know would have endured 40 hours if that's what it took
> to tell the story. I am sure there are more knowledgable TP historians
> than myself on this, so perhaps they will jump in with comment. I
> personally believe that if and when these cutting floor scenes make it
> back onto the film there will alway be a hole of what could've and
> probably should've been.
The truth...
The truth about FWWM director's cut...
Is out there... in Lynch on Lynch.
So, let's sum up all available informations :
1) Lynch knew from the start that his film was to be 2h15 long
2) But FWWM is taken from a loooong series with *many* characters
3) Lynch likes to film by instinct and loved every side of the first season
4) He filmed more than 3h (around 3h45 I believe) *knowing* he'll have to cut it
5) He did cut it *himself* without CIBY obliging him cutting anything more
SO, technically it IS a director's cut. But frankly, as much as I
love the film, it's very poorly balanced. THEREFORE, if we said
to Lynch : OK, do it again, no time limit this time, he would
probably do something *else* than the existing film.
But he won't, because he's angry at people for disliking FWWM
so much, and he's tired of Twin Peaks. So there won't be a "free"
director's cut on the DVD.
Anyone disagree ?
peaks...@my-deja.com
didn't want us to see any of the deleted scenes, he wouldn't have given
the OK and chosen then scenes he wants us to see.
It's up to New Line now...
In article <3989A873...@earthlink.net>,
nickle
found Dale Cooper to be a nerdy type of geek, but a brilliant one. But I've
had my say about FWWM and read, I think, most of the posts so I'm moving off
this subject for now. Thanks for the chatter.
--
New Story, the Black Zone, is up at
Horroresq Horror Fiction
http://members.dencity.com/horroresq/
---
<peaks...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8mafvb$og1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> To you it may be a bad movie. To others like myself, it is a
> masterpiece.
>
> We could go back and fourth all day and night and argue this, but it
> would be just a waste of time.
>
>
> I remember in high school when FWWM came out, a friend of mine and I
> had this same arguement. The argument ended in my saying that people
> that didn't like the FWWM movie generally favored and were more likely
> > > || Keith Gow ||
> > >
> > > Tara-for-First Slayer: "The Slayer does not walk in this world."
> > > Buffy: "I walk. I talk. I shop. I sneeze. I'm going to be a fireman
> > > when the floods roll back. There's trees in the desert since you
> > > moved out. And I don't sleep on a bed of bones. Now give me
> > > back my friends."
> > > First Slayer: "No friends. Just the kill. We are alone."
> >
> >
>
>
Joshua Zyber
news:3989A873...@earthlink.net...
> Forgive me if I got my information mangled, but I recall it that when all
> the scenes had been shot, Lynch ended up with a film in the 4 1/2 hour
> vicinity...which necessitated it being essentially pared in half to make
> it into the movie houses.
Myth upon myth upon myth.....
The first cut of *any* movie can be over 4 hours long. That's why you edit
them. You take out the filler, the flubs, the multiple takes, and the scenes
that don't work or are unnecessary. Then, when you've done that, you
fine-tune the rest so that it flows along at a pace that keeps the
audience's attention. That's what editing is. That's how it works.
A four hour cut of FWWM would probably be a very *boring* cut of FWWM.
- Josh
---------------------
Joshua Zyber
Curator, Laserdisc Forever Review Archive
www.mindspring.com/~jzyber/laserdiscforever.htm
damnfine
> I'm not stormy off. I like all of the characters, my fav Dale. On that, I
> found Dale Cooper to be a nerdy type of geek, but a brilliant one. But I've
> had my say about FWWM and read, I think, most of the posts so I'm moving off
> this subject for now. Thanks for the chatter.
Um.
Right.
--
Damnfine,
"I'm quietly judging you."
Mark Dodd
Joshua Zyber wrote:
> Mark Dodd <cmdc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:3989A873...@earthlink.net...
> > Forgive me if I got my information mangled, but I recall it that when all
> > the scenes had been shot, Lynch ended up with a film in the 4 1/2 hour
> > vicinity...which necessitated it being essentially pared in half to make
> > it into the movie houses.
>
> Myth upon myth upon myth.....
>
> The first cut of *any* movie can be over 4 hours long.
> That's why you edit
> them. You take out the filler, the flubs, the multiple takes, and the scenes
> that don't work or are unnecessary.
Believe me I worked 9 years at a film school. I know the process. What I
understood and maybe I am wrong is that FWWM after multiple takes, flubs, etc
essentially scripted out at 4 and a half hours.
> Then, when you've done that, you
> fine-tune the rest so that it flows along at a pace that keeps the
> audience's attention. That's what editing is. That's how it works.
A tad condescending there, eh? I think we all know how editing works. What
has been alleged, and again I could be wrong, is that FWWM *after* editing out
multiple takes, flubs, useless scenes still was looking like four to five hours
to tell the complete story and that chunks, including some characters and
threads from the show, had to be dropped out completely to get in the vicinity
of normal viewing time. Again I am not a TP scholar though I do come across
this issue regularly.
>
>
> A four hour cut of FWWM would probably be a very *boring* cut of FWWM.
I would have to disagree if indeed characters and threads got discarded not for
botches and irrevelency as you postulate but if the movie overreached within
the normal confines of time and audience and had to lop off some hands and legs
to fit. We all have our different experience with the movie but I felt it had
a choppiness to it that the overediting-to-fit-time context could explain.
Still, I like the movie a lot but if those supposed character threads found
their way back in and they were indeed relevant to the TP story, I might like
it even better. I know some might find that blasphemy but...well...there it
is.
Keith Gow
<jzy...@mindspring.com> waxed lyrical:
>Mark Dodd <cmdc...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:3989A873...@earthlink.net...
>> Forgive me if I got my information mangled, but I recall it that when all
>> the scenes had been shot, Lynch ended up with a film in the 4 1/2 hour
>> vicinity...which necessitated it being essentially pared in half to make
>> it into the movie houses.
>
>Myth upon myth upon myth.....
>
>The first cut of *any* movie can be over 4 hours long. That's why you edit
>them. You take out the filler, the flubs, the multiple takes, and the scenes
>that don't work or are unnecessary. Then, when you've done that, you
>fine-tune the rest so that it flows along at a pace that keeps the
>audience's attention. That's what editing is. That's how it works.
>
>A four hour cut of FWWM would probably be a very *boring* cut of FWWM.
>
I'm glad someone else has said it. I'm tired of making the same
refrain every time someone else comes along with word of a magical cut
of the movie.
Joshua Zyber
> > The first cut of *any* movie can be over 4 hours long.
>
> > That's why you edit
> > them. You take out the filler, the flubs, the multiple takes, and the
scenes
> > that don't work or are unnecessary.
>
> understood and maybe I am wrong is that FWWM after multiple takes, flubs,
etc
> essentially scripted out at 4 and a half hours.
No. The extra scenes in the script might add up to maybe 20 minutes, if they
were even all filmed. The 4 hour claim is pure myth.
> > Then, when you've done that, you
> > fine-tune the rest so that it flows along at a pace that keeps the
> > audience's attention. That's what editing is. That's how it works.
>
> A tad condescending there, eh? I think we all know how editing works.
Didn't mean to be (no more than usual, anyway). It's just that we get these
questions over and over again. Somebody hears that there's a 13 hour cut of
Wild at Heart "and I'm just dying to see it!". No, believe me, no.
> Again I am not a TP scholar though I do come across
> this issue regularly.
So do we. That's why we have to put a swift end to them!
Keith Gow
waxed lyrical:
>Still, I like the movie a lot but if those supposed character threads found
>their way back in and they were indeed relevant to the TP story, I might like
>it even better. I know some might find that blasphemy but...well...there it
>is.
>
The film, as it was conceived, is about Teresa Banks and the last week
in the life of Laura Palmer. Not even all of the script was shot,
probably when Lynch realised the focus for FWWM was on Laura, instead
of the rest of the town as it had been for the series.
If you have read the script then you would know most of the stuff that
was lost bore little or no relevance to Laura's story. Hence, Lynch
dropped it.
TiN
>was lost bore little or no relevance to Laura's story. Hence, Lynch
>dropped it.
Not even most of it. There were some very interesting scenes that were cut.
More having to do with Jefferies, more dialogue between Cooper and the LMFAP,
and also the footage that takes place AFTER episode 29, with Annie in the
hospital. Some really interesting stuff that I would love to see. I doubt
there will be much bonus footage anyway...if any at all :(
--
How's Annie?