Talk:Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Unknown This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot overview, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film. We are always looking for new members! Join us today!

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)