JJ Abrams Officially Gets My Most Frustrating Man in Hollywood Reward

(Image taken from: weekinrewind.com)

Oh, my God. Super 8 is so...good. It's very good, actually. But dammit, JJ, why can't it be great? Why can't ANYTHING you do be great? For directors and creators who make crap some of the time but greatness most of the time, I don't mind that. Scorsese is guilty of this offense and so is Spielberg, and they're always forgiven because when they're great, they're REALLY great. And I mean really. But JJ Abrams, you make such GOOD material that has so much potential and you always raise the bar SO high that when we finally get to the end, we're always like, "MAN, WHAT HAPPENED? You started off so WELL."



Take for example the mythos of Lost, which he co-created. The first season was great beyond measure. Smoke monsters, a survivalist who was once a cripple before he got to the island, polar bears (!). Everything was setting up for what could have possibly been the great sci-fi epic of our day. A serialized Twilight Zone with a continuous plot. Some people actually DID wind up staying to the end and loving the entire series, but many were disappointed. And you know why? Because anything Abrams is connected to, he can't conclude satisfyingly. He gets your blood boiling and your interest piqued, but it's never met with the excellent kind of ending that you would nod in approval and say, "Good, Lord, that was a masterpiece."

Instead, you always wind up saying, "Good, Lord, can't that man ever wind down a story correctly."

His most recent film Super 8 is in similar territory. Just watch the trailer.



Magnificent, right? From the stirring music, to the great pacing of the shots, to the looks on the children's faces, everything about it just spells classic. But it's not. Instead, it reaches soaring, majestic, precipitous heights, and then...it falls flat on its face. God, Abrams, you're so FRUSTRATING. And it's all because you're just so...good. And not great.

How the Hell was Twin Peaks So Popular Back In the Day?

(Image taken from: online-enquirer.com)

Now, don't get me wrong. I love, love, LOVE David Lynch. Love him. I consider all of his films classics (Except for Dune, which blows, and Inland Empire, which is unwatchable). But Twin Peaks, which ran for two seasons back in 1990 and 1991 is, well, weird. Not only weird, but David Lynch weird, and I'm surprised that anybody really liked it back when it was on.

Now, I'm not saying that I'm surprised that David Lynch has his fans, because as much as I would like not to believe it, there are actually people out there who are just as weird as I am. But how did this show become SO popular back then? I watched the pilot last night, and man, it's as strange as it gets. The characters act all goofy, which is typical of Lynch, the plot is reeeeeally slow, and the atmosphere is more important than the story (At least, this early on, it is), so I'm really wondering how people would have enjoyed such a show like this. I mean, it's not like any of Lynch's movies are blockbusters or anything like that, so how did so many people cling onto THIS show like they did?

(Image taken from: tv.ign.com)

I hear a lot of people compare it to Lost these days, but no, so far, from what I've already seen, Twin Peaks is NOTHING like Lost. I mean, just watch this:



What the hell was THAT? For Lynch fans, that's normal, but for everyday America? How could they have accepted that? I guess people were just more accepting of the abstract in the early 1990s.

Here's the excellent intro to the show. It's so serene, but haunting, which again, is typical of Lynch.



And for those who don't even know what the term "Lynchian," means, I try to display it here in this video. I'm not sure if I really do it any justice though.