Talk:Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

POV alert

For an encyclopedia, I feel we should stay away from interjecting our opinion into articles whenever we can. E.g., in this article, the assumption that folks who view this film without prior knowledge of the series will find FWWM "stylish but incomprehensible" is an opinion and not a fact. As is the comment: "[T]he film is a much darker vision of the same town without the occasions of humor that made Twin Peaks so endearing to many viewers." First of all, the statement that qualifies the film as a "much darker vision" is not factual. Either is the comment that suggests the film is devoid of humor, or at least the kind of humor that made Twin Peaks "endearing". Of course, it remains difficult to explain why a film is of value without occasionally reverting to blind praise.

Too many articles about films, music, and books (as well as every other media) are merely reviews that do not take into consideration the historical significance of the thing being written about. Aesthetic judgments do not have a place in articles that expect to command serious appreciation for both their informative value and their readability.

Finally, I am not particularly fond of the current layout. I loathe to just start hacking away at it so I've posted this as a warning that I will do so if no viable objections are posed. I argue that we should either kill the box office and Cannes reaction info, or just move it down near the bottom. The impression it leaves is not pretty as one begins reading the article.

Curtsurly 07:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

On some parts I disagree with you - it will be incomprehensible if you haven't seen the film. It was never meant to be seen as a seperate entity to the film by Lynch IIRC but rather an extension of it. The Cannes reaction is not PoV either and should therefore remain there - it's a stated fact that the film did not do well when it was launched but has been reappraised in recent years by many critics (that's their PoV not necessarily the authors). The impression it leaves is your PoV IMHO. I don't think the article could really avoid stating the reception the film received. I disagree that stating it is a "darker vision" is not factual - it's an accepted difference with the series.However the "endeared to fans" should probably be removed as it is probably PoV. (I may have actually written that bit in fact).

What worries me the most is in efforts to remove PoV or consensus opinion (and lets face it, you can almost find it in any article on wikipedia), we are going to remove the very essence of these articles. By all means remove clear PoV or reviewing but I think the majority of what you're complaining about is not actually PoV. For example, stating that Eraserhead is strange and unusual - is that PoV, generally accepted consensus or fact? Or the Tom Waits article that refers to his first album as melancholic and country-tinged, is that fact or PoV?

Finally the article is indeed a mess - it doesn't really flow at all so a re-edit will be necessary at some point.

MarkB 02:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While "incomprehensible" might be a bit of a stretch, it's definitely worth mentioning that the movie proceeds from a vantage point where the mystery of TWIN PEAKS is already solved for the viewer, and thus acts as a spoiler for series if viewed first. 24.33.28.52 20:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Fire-walking?

In some countries, it was released as Twin Peaks: The Movie due to difficulty translating the term “fire walk”.

Really? I though the phrase was not be to interpreted as "Firewalk with me", but rather as:

Fire, "walk with me"

or something. Is there any indication that this has anything to do with firewalking? —Gabbe 11:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've always thought as well, but I'm not sure. Any Peaks fans that can give a definite answer?

—Robbe 7:11, 18 April 2006 (GMT)

Could be deliberately ambiguous. — goethean ॐ 14:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

When the phrase is spoken it always sounds like "Fire... walk with me." So I don't think there is any fire-walking connection either. Lfh 23:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's never explained, in the series or the movie. I'm pretty sure it's deliberately ambiguous, as goethean said. NighTrekr 11:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to firewalking, I just watched some of the episodes and the phrase is consistently pronounced "Fire, walk with me". There's absolutely no evidence that it's a reference to firewalking. If they'd wanted to make it ambiguous they would have pronounced it more ambiguously.

Nature of the Black Lodge

"This is particuarly apparent in the scenes in which Dale Cooper is seen to be physically present in the Black Lodge, somewhere he does not arrive until the TV series final episode. These parts of the film, at least, must take place after the series."

Because of Lynch's ongoing interests in occult and metaphysical areas, I believe that the Black Lodge is representative of a 'location' in a higher plane of reality. It is a widely held metaphysical belief that time holds a looser grip in such locations, and that time is in fact dualistic in nature, and these dualities fade as one ascends to higher planes of existence. Therefore this isn't an inexplicable quirk, the black lodge is external to the time/space of this world, and I believe that was heavily backed up by some of the other discoveries made by characters in the series. Please expand this if you have any other ideas/arguments on this topic.

Article status

I think the lead could use a bit of tidying up and the synopsis could be expanded, but the article might be on its way to becoming GA-quality. (Ibaranoff24 16:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC))

From past experience, the article may need a few more sources (i.e. references) before it's considered for GA status. It should at least be submitted to a Peer Review first. I've added a Soundtrack section btw. --J.D. 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

David lynch never left the show to make wild at heart. Wild at heart and episode two of twin peaks were being edited at the same time, according to editor duwayne dunham's DVD commentary. This is a common misconception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonanzataz (talk • contribs) 01:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot

The plot summary is too long and detailed for an encyclopedia article. The amount of the film being described gets to the point where it's incomprehensible to read. It pretty much says every little detail of the film. The section reads like "[Character A] goes to the store. Then he walks home. Then he picks up the phone. Then he dials a number. The phone rings and it's [Character B]. [Character A] and [Character B] discuss lawn jockeys." We're not writing a transcript of the movie here. Try to cut it down a bit. (Ibaranoff24 15:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

I tightened up the synopsis and clarified some ambiguities and inaccuracies. Jordanr (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Laura's Ascension

I have several times edited this "The film ends with Laura's face in white, indicating that she has ascended to the White Lodge" because someone has added "and possibly Cooper" to it.

If this was indicated by the film and series I would keep it. However, it is Laura's face and NOT Dale's alone in the white light at the end of the film. The fact that Dale appears old in the dream 25 years later while Laura remains young also indicates that Dale did not ascend to the White Lodge by the end of the film.

Forgivenessmercy (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay so since Dale can't go to the White Lodge, neither can Laura? Real mature there. I know when I can't win. I will rest assured, however, that Laura did go to the White Lodge whether it says so at Wikipedia or not. Forgivenessmercy (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not take interpretation, only sourced information. Honestly, it's just a movie. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Untitled

Is the section about BOB being Laura's attempt to bury the knowledge of incest conjecture? It doesn't seem to tie in with other characters' knowledge of him in the series. Weavehole (talk) 13:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)weavehole

Two more films?

Found this in the Legacy and Sequel section: "After Fire Walk with Me was released, Lynch reportedly planned two more films that would have continued and then concluded the series' narrative." There's no source of this that I know of, and I've been looking. Hearsay or is a little more digging in order? It seems to imply that Lynch announced these sequels shortly after release. I've reason to consider that FWWM wasn't a comfortable end of the series in David Lynch's mind, considering the new series coming out in 2017, and a sequel does seem like it would've been logical. That said without a source this information isn't looking too credible. Joethetimelord (talk) 07:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Plot section.

@Beyond My Ken: In reverting your removal of the plot section I noticed the overlong/detailed template in the section, which might explain why you removed it. If this is correct, the section should be rewritten to a more suitable length rather than blanked. 79.42.124.160 (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I'm out of town for the next couple of days, without access to internet; I will reply to any answer of yours when I'm back. 79.42.124.160 (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I won't reverse your action, but I'll give you my reasoning: the film is extremely complex in its storyline, so it's my judgment that it requires a longer-then-usual plot section to be accurately representative. It's either that or a very short description on the order of "Strange goings-on in the small town of Twin Peaks involving blah-blah-blah..." Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough. The longer-than-usual plot section seems the most reasonable option; I wonder whether a template describing the situation might be created and survive scrutiny. 82.57.57.62 (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

P.S. I've apparently jumped IP, I apologize for that. 82.57.57.62 (talk) 10:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That's called WP:POINT and it's a frequent tactic employed by BMK. Bright☀ 00:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Horror

At first I have to say that deleting any sentence which has a reliable source is a form of vandalism. When you do it twice, it means that you probably haven't read the rules. In fact, it's very disappointing to see this going on and I hope I won't see something like that again.

So, cut to the chase. What Neptune's Trident is doing is anything but objectivity. So dear Neptune's Trident, you don't see any horror in this very film but I, for example, do. There are lots of horror genre tropes and, vice versa, there is really no mystery becuse from the very start we already know what's going to happen. But does your opinion or mine have any weight unless it's confirmed by reliable sources? I guess NO. You can't delete what is confirmed with the reliable source (and BBC IS the reliable source), you can search a different source. So at first, please find the source that says TP:FWWM is not a horror film.

Until then, stop vandalising the page. It's not your own site where your subjective opinion gives you right to delete whatever you want.--82.208.100.79 (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Just because a single source says something, doesn't mean it's necessarily the final word. Categorizing films by genre can be contentious and different people and sources don't always agree. I wouldn't support defining this film, in the lede, as any genre of film unless there's a clear consensus of reliable sources for that categorization. Otherwise, there might be room under "Reception" to discuss how different critics and analysts view the film with an eye to comparing and contrasting their responses - "BBC writer so-and-so views it as a horror film, while others disagree," etc. I don't think that single source is sufficient to support "horror" in the lede. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The film, like much of Lynch's stuff, is decidedly weird, but there's no way it qualifies as a "horror film". Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with BMK and NBSB here, one critic casually referring to a movie as horror doesn't mean the movie is a horror movie. I would think we would require more sources that state as such. Valeince (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080207072429/http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html to http://www.saturnawards.org/past.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:08, 9 December 2017 (UTC)