General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome) (SPOILERS)

Moderators: Annie, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne, Brad D

User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome) (SPOILERS)

Postby mtwentz » Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:59 am

Panapaok wrote:
IcedOver wrote: even if the show turns out to be an artistic failure overall (as is looking likely)
How exactly is it likely, lol? The majority of the audiences' and critics' reactions are overwhelmingly positive. You might consider it a failure but this doesn't make your opinion an objective fact. The show might end up being a commercial failure based on the money they've spent, although even this is doubtful since they're making bank through the various long-term licensing deals they've signed all around the world. They also seem pretty happy with the streaming numbers and subscriptions. And I bet that Twin Peaks is by far their most successful show merchandise-wise.


I keep hearing this term 'artistic failure' thrown around, so I tried to look up the definition, and I found this interesting tidbit: T.S. Eliot considers one of the most famous and revered plays of all time, Hamlet, to be an 'artistic failure'.

So I guess it's just so totally subjective. Maybe 2001 and Citizen Kane were 'artistic failures' as well, from at least someone's perspective.
User avatar
Framed_Angel
Posts: 249
Joined: Thu Nov 12, 2015 10:16 am

Re: General Discussion on the New Series (All Opinions Welcome) (SPOILERS)

Postby Framed_Angel » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:44 am

mtwentz wrote:I keep hearing this term 'artistic failure' thrown around, so I tried to look up the definition, and I found this interesting tidbit: T.S. Eliot considers one of the most famous and revered plays of all time, Hamlet, to be an 'artistic failure'. So I guess it's just so totally subjective. Maybe 2001 and Citizen Kane were 'artistic failures' as well, from at least someone's perspective.
I would say that ambitious directors, when they succeed, it's not "pop" success by conventional means because they've asked us (the audience) to reach for something beyond the usual. But it's more than having stretched our imaginations a little, or 'successfully' shared their vision; that vision has to resonate with something within us. Numerous directors have achieved that success while at the same time alienating other viewers; Kubrick among them.

I didn't have any affinity for Coen Bros' "Millers Crossing" or "O Brother Where Art Thou" upon first viewing; today I love both films. Re-watching several times brought forward some aspects I couldn't digest at first. The musical aspect of the latter, while I was also trying to take some messages seriously yet appreciate the comic value of other scenes -- let alone the violence. Call it an acquired taste... And so as I've re-watched the Parts of TP:TR usually they bring forth additional qualities that were obscured previously while I was focusing on some other aspect.

And unlike Kubrick to the same extent (because I find his individual works standalone, linked with some in-common trademarks and tropes), I find I'm rewarded taking time to discover and rediscover Lynch's other works as a means of appreciating what he's doing here. Full appreciation will be an ongoing process, through the finale and beyond for some time. I'm watching Lost Highway all the way through for the first time (as of last night; I nodded off w/ about 10 minutes remaining)... The familiar themes of dreams and mixed identity are there, but also the detachment and apart from a couple of 'wow' moments infused with flattened momentum and suggestions of resolution that don't stick the landing.

For me it comes down to Lynch's singular effect of not just pushing buttons, but prompting this viewer to wonder "what button is he going to push next?"
Critics' opinions won't inform the frequent curiosity or frustration I encounter when watching DKL's presentations. Each of us arrives at them with a capacity for individual opinion of what's perceived; but each of us also is armed with *some* critical faculty even if we don't make a living at it. So I don't validate my opinion when I find identical voices in the critics' column since I'm ALSO reading the critic's words with some critical filter that shapes my opinion, you see? It's nice to see when a work of craftsmanship resonates with both, and is both a popular and critical success.

But Lynch's stuff is too complex for me to assume anything conclusive in the immediate aftermath, I've decided. Measuring full appreciation is complicated by the absence of those who turned off their voices upon feeling alienated by what they saw; some continue to process what they've been shown and others are simply turned off. I don't think they're as vocal as the fans adoring it so I may be wrong but whatever you'd call that 'absence' of viable, measurable UNappreciative quotient will make a difference in how one would size up viewer acceptance. In any case -- although I believe personally that alienated segment is substantial, I have a notion that quite a few of them eventually would develop some curiosity to come back and revisit the series. As someone elsewhere posted: over time a newer more refined (or defined?) understanding of the Parts and the whole could produce altogether fresh perspectives and yes, appreciation!
"Fool me once... shame on me!"
User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby Jasper » Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:24 pm

baxter wrote:So: I still want more Twin Peaks! These articles popping up all over the place saying that there is nowhere for the story to go are baffling and annoying to me. No-one could predict where the story went for 18 hours, so why does it now seem impossible to continue it? :-D


I very much agree. In cases where it's applicable, people shouldn't project their apparent failure of imagination onto Lynch/Frost, especially in light of the fact that there are so many fan readings of the ending (and other parts of the story), many of which are contradictory. Furthermore, the comments made by Lynch and Frost, beginning way back with the original announcement of The Return, not only make it clear that they feel that the story continues (whether or not they write it and film it), but that they probably already have a number of ideas about where it could go. Finally, I not only believe that they likely have ideas pertaining to the potential future direction of the story, but also that one of the reasons that they left numerous plotlines unresolved was due to their cognizance of the fact that they could utilize them at a later date, should they so choose.
:arrow: Kindly VOTE in the final POLL of reactions to The Return: → VOTE HERE
Agent Earle
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby Agent Earle » Sat Sep 09, 2017 5:07 pm

Mr. Strawberry wrote:These are just a few things that highlight how strong The Return is, and how it put the Peaks back into a story that had lost its way.


Hardly. More likely, it smashed it to smithereens till there was no "Peaks" left to talk about.
Agent327
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:12 pm

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby Agent327 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 9:52 am

yaxomoxay wrote:
Agent327 wrote:There wont be a season four because there is no financial foundation for


And you know this... how?

At any rate CBS and Showtime disagree with you. It was a financial success, so there is enough financial foundation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Of course they talk more positively about the show than an objective voice would!!!!! But please show me where they back this up, in more specific terms than the exact type of company bs you get literally after ANY show?

The ratings, even the streams on places like HBO have been disastrous, not anywhere in the top 20, not to mention the fact that infomercials got higher ratings on tv.

The ONLY specifically named positive, has been the number of people signing up for it, BEFORE a second of it had aired.

Thus it's solely based on the reputation of a classic, iconic show; the original TP.

They could have showed a blank screen for 18 hours, you'd still have those exact numbers to "brag about".

You don't get that anticipation off the back of the original show twice.

Unless this had been a ratings-grabber on it's own merits, there is no financial foundation for a 4th season. That should be completely obvious.

You know, you don't have to defend something SIMPLY to defend it. It's really tiresome. Same thing in the "profoundly disappointed thread", where you jumped in to defend the series several times often with nothing of substance to contribute, other than the desire to defend.

And just to be clear, I would love a 4th season. There's plenty of room for improvement over season 3, and I've enjoyed Lynch as a director basically throughout his entire career.
But you have to be realistic, you can't just naively ignore reality because you're hoping for something.
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby yaxomoxay » Sun Sep 10, 2017 12:07 pm

Agent327 wrote:
yaxomoxay wrote:
Agent327 wrote:There wont be a season four because there is no financial foundation for


And you know this... how?

At any rate CBS and Showtime disagree with you. It was a financial success, so there is enough financial foundation


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Of course they talk more positively about the show than an objective voice would!!!!! But please show me where they back this up, in more specific terms than the exact type of company bs you get literally after ANY show?

The ratings, even the streams on places like HBO have been disastrous, not anywhere in the top 20, not to mention the fact that infomercials got higher ratings on tv.

The ONLY specifically named positive, has been the number of people signing up for it, BEFORE a second of it had aired.

Thus it's solely based on the reputation of a classic, iconic show; the original TP.

They could have showed a blank screen for 18 hours, you'd still have those exact numbers to "brag about".

You don't get that anticipation off the back of the original show twice.

Unless this had been a ratings-grabber on it's own merits, there is no financial foundation for a 4th season. That should be completely obvious.

You know, you don't have to defend something SIMPLY to defend it. It's really tiresome. Same thing in the "profoundly disappointed thread", where you jumped in to defend the series several times often with nothing of substance to contribute, other than the desire to defend.

And just to be clear, I would love a 4th season. There's plenty of room for improvement over season 3, and I've enjoyed Lynch as a director basically throughout his entire career.
But you have to be realistic, you can't just naively ignore reality because you're hoping for something.


1) you ask me to back up the info. I can give you CBS and Showtime's press releases/comments. CBS is also publicly traded so they can't straightforward lie without having some analysis behind their statements. You assume much (HBO etc), yet you don't provide anything to back up your statements. So get off my case, please
2) I am not defending anything on the profoundly disappointed thread. I actually defended the disappointed group, multiple times. The fact that I say I like it and find some merit doesn't mean that I am defending anything. I am just providing another opinion, respecting the group and trying to be constructive. Are you one of those people that can't stand different opinions during a discussion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Agent327
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:12 pm

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby Agent327 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:39 pm

yaxomoxay wrote:
Agent327 wrote:
yaxomoxay wrote:
1) you ask me to back up the info. I can give you CBS and Showtime's press releases/comments .


Please do. I asked for something more specific than the type of 'grasping at straws, trying to sound positive' type comments you always see by the networks in regards to their own investments. So I'm still waiting for that.

Show me something that has nothing to do with the number of people signing up based on the OLD TP like I said, because that literally has nothing to do with any of the "Return" content. It was before a second of the thing aired, carried by the goodwill of fans who knew the original, a show that in many ways was completely different from The Return. You expect a large number of people to sign up for Showtime based on that, and you expect them to at least pay the relatively humble subscription until the show is done.

So show me the specific numbers where it's clear that The Return has, on it's OWN merits, been such a big ratings winner that a season 4 would be a financially sound investment.

And yes, I did have some back and forth with you in the 'profound' threat, where you sometimes defended things seemly just to defend them, and no, that doesn't mean it was all you did. But it's the same dynamic again here. You can praise the show all you want, but a ratings winner on it's own merits it just wasn't. Even online, the podcasts about TP had very few views compared to other shows. And that's despite the fact that it lends itself to pod and videocasts more than just about any other show. I know NO ONE locally who watched the show, and I know plenty of people who watch a lot of tv shows. I watched the show each week with a friend I converted into a Lynch fan a while back, who also didn't know a single person watching. Now, anecdotal evidence is not enough in itself, but it does tell you something. It does contribute to the overall picture.

Similarly, I've heard podcasts hosts have express how TP is different, in that they also know no one else who watched it. The fact that week after week it failed to make the list of the 20 most streamed shows. If it was so popular, why didn't it?

Even far more obscure shows, at least by title, got more weekly streams.

And even though TV ratings are not end-all-be-all today, combined with everything else the scandalous tv ratings do tell you something.
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby mtwentz » Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:49 pm

Agent327 wrote:
yaxomoxay wrote:
Agent327 wrote:


Please do. I asked for something more specific than the type of 'grasping at straws, trying to sound positive' type comments you always see by the networks in regards to their own investments. So I'm still waiting for that.

Show me something that has nothing to do with the number of people signing up based on the OLD TP like I said, because that literally has nothing to do with any of the "Return" content. It was before a second of the thing aired, carried by the goodwill of fans who knew the original, a show that in many ways was completely different from The Return. You expect a large number of people to sign up for Showtime based on that, and you expect them to at least pay the relatively humble subscription until the show is done.

So show me the specific numbers where it's clear that The Return has, on it's OWN merits, been such a big ratings winner that a season 4 would be a financially sound investment.

And yes, I did have some back and forth with you in the 'profound' threat, where you sometimes defended things seemly just to defend them, and no, that doesn't mean it was all you did. But it's the same dynamic again here. You can praise the show all you want, but a ratings winner on it's own merits it just wasn't. Even online, the podcasts about TP had very few views compared to other shows. And that's despite the fact that it lends itself to pod and videocasts more than just about any other show. I know NO ONE locally who watched the show, and I know plenty of people who watch a lot of tv shows. I watched the show each week with a friend I converted into a Lynch fan a while back, who also didn't know a single person watching. Now, anecdotal evidence is not enough in itself, but it does tell you something. It does contribute to the overall picture.

Similarly, I've heard podcasts hosts have express how TP is different, in that they also know no one else who watched it. The fact that week after week it failed to make the list of the 20 most streamed shows. If it was so popular, why didn't it?

Even far more obscure shows, at least by title, got more weekly streams.

And even though TV ratings are not end-all-be-all today, combined with everything else the scandalous tv ratings do tell you something.


Ive never heard of a list of the most streamed shows. Can you provide a link? I thought streaming numbers were private information
Agent327
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:12 pm

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby Agent327 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 4:58 pm

mtwentz wrote:
Ive never heard of a list of the most streamed shows. Can you provide a link? I thought streaming numbers were private information


That is available inside the apps themselves, "Most popular" on HBO for instance which is a 20 show list. No one expected Twin Peaks to be top 3 on HBO Nordic for instance, even though the original was very popular. But to not crack the top 20, again, should tell you something about the overall picture.
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1361
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby mtwentz » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:07 pm

Agent327 wrote:
mtwentz wrote:
Ive never heard of a list of the most streamed shows. Can you provide a link? I thought streaming numbers were private information


That is available inside the apps themselves, "Most popular" on HBO for instance which is a 20 show list. No one expected Twin Peaks to be top 3 on HBO Nordic for instance, even though the original was very popular. But to not crack the top 20, again, should tell you something about the overall picture.


I don't see that on the Showtime app. What am I missing?
Agent327
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:12 pm

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby Agent327 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:35 pm

mtwentz wrote:
Agent327 wrote:
mtwentz wrote:
Ive never heard of a list of the most streamed shows. Can you provide a link? I thought streaming numbers were private information


That is available inside the apps themselves, "Most popular" on HBO for instance which is a 20 show list. No one expected Twin Peaks to be top 3 on HBO Nordic for instance, even though the original was very popular. But to not crack the top 20, again, should tell you something about the overall picture.


I don't see that on the Showtime app. What am I missing?


I'm not talking about the Showtime app, I saw it on the HBO app where I've been following it each week. But in fact I WOULD expect it to be high on any list Showtime could provide. Why wouldn't it?
People signed up for Showtime based on the reputation and legendary status of old Twin Peaks, in record numbers. You'd expect a decent number of them to stream The Return on that platform. Anything else would be beyond disappointing. I'm talking about platforms where it's directly competing with other shows. When even fairly obscure HBO shows squash it on it's platform, and infomercials get higher TV rating, plus it seems impossible to find someone who watches the show, it all adds up to a show that' s not truly setting the world on fire in terms of broad viewership.
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby yaxomoxay » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:37 pm

Agent327 wrote:
yaxomoxay wrote:
Agent327 wrote:


Please do. I asked for something more specific than the type of 'grasping at straws, trying to sound positive' type comments you always see by the networks in regards to their own investments. So I'm still waiting for that.

Show me something that has nothing to do with the number of people signing up based on the OLD TP like I said, because that literally has nothing to do with any of the "Return" content. It was before a second of the thing aired, carried by the goodwill of fans who knew the original, a show that in many ways was completely different from The Return. You expect a large number of people to sign up for Showtime based on that, and you expect them to at least pay the relatively humble subscription until the show is done.

So show me the specific numbers where it's clear that The Return has, on it's OWN merits, been such a big ratings winner that a season 4 would be a financially sound investment.

And yes, I did have some back and forth with you in the 'profound' threat, where you sometimes defended things seemly just to defend them, and no, that doesn't mean it was all you did. But it's the same dynamic again here. You can praise the show all you want, but a ratings winner on it's own merits it just wasn't. Even online, the podcasts about TP had very few views compared to other shows. And that's despite the fact that it lends itself to pod and videocasts more than just about any other show. I know NO ONE locally who watched the show, and I know plenty of people who watch a lot of tv shows. I watched the show each week with a friend I converted into a Lynch fan a while back, who also didn't know a single person watching. Now, anecdotal evidence is not enough in itself, but it does tell you something. It does contribute to the overall picture.

Similarly, I've heard podcasts hosts have express how TP is different, in that they also know no one else who watched it. The fact that week after week it failed to make the list of the 20 most streamed shows. If it was so popular, why didn't it?

Even far more obscure shows, at least by title, got more weekly streams.

And even though TV ratings are not end-all-be-all today, combined with everything else the scandalous tv ratings do tell you something.


Ok you're just flaming for the sake of it.
Showtime and CBS are happy with it. They know more than you or me. So, you're either calling them liars, or you simply have to provide proof of what you're saying. The burden of proof is on you - who's claiming that what the CEO of a publicly traded company is lying/incorrect - not on me. As a matter of fact, I don't even really care about ratings.
The proof that you're just flaming is in the request to prove that S3 is a success on its own merits. That's a paradoxical, nonsensical request. It's season 3, after 25 years of wait. Of course the curiosity/nostalgic factor was a big part of it. Can you prove that Lost S2 stands on its own merits and not on what was built with S1? It's a silly request, to say the least.

You're also moving the goalpost from financial success (=enough $$$ to open to the possibility to a S4) to pure viewership ratings which is not what is discussed as it's not necessarily a 1:1 relationship. FWWM budget was $10M. It made $4.2M at the box office. If we had to look at those numbers - and just those numbers - we would have never seen a S3. Yet, we had TP:TR.
Nevins said that Twin Peaks had about 2M viewers per week, and that it was a financial success. "It exceeded expectations," in his own words. You're a random dude on the internet - no offense intended, as I am also one - so please excuse me if I give him more credit than I could give to you. One other thing to keep in mind is that TP was sold to many other countries, especially in Europe where it was always more popular and we have no idea of the financial impact of it.
Now, I would hope that you never thought for a single second that TP:TR was going to have the same viewers - or anything even remotely comparable - to TP1 or TP2.

As for my presence on the disappointed thread, I am sorry that you perceive my posts as such. I can't really do anything about it, and given the fact that others in the disappointed expressed gratitude at my presence I believe that in this case the problem is not me. I am also saddened that you didn't notice that with the exception of a very brief post I decided not to say anything on the thread for at least a week (or two) after the finale to let the disappointed thread stay on topic without me disrupting its natural flow (among other reason). Yet, you come here and think that one of my goals is just to defend TP:TR.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
User avatar
Jasper
Posts: 665
Joined: Wed May 08, 2013 9:24 am

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby Jasper » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:42 pm

Since the subject doesn't seem to be dying down...

Twin Peaks from the Showtime business POV

Quartz
August 8, 2017
https://qz.com/1049101/david-lynchs-twi ... illiantly/

CBS, which owns Showtime, expects standalone services CBS All Access and Showtime, which subscribers pay for directly, to reach a combined 4 million subscribers by year’s end, up from nearly 3 million in February, thanks in part to new viewers Twin Peaks brought in, CEO Leslie Moonves said on an earnings call yesterday.

“Our Showtime over-the-top (OTT) service is coming off a terrific quarter as well, thanks largely to Twin Peaks,” said Moonves, referring to the paid service. “The premiere of the show led to our biggest day and biggest weekend ever for OTT signups, and the percentage of viewers streaming Twin Peaks is the highest we’ve ever had for a show, which is good news because OTT subscribers are more profitable for us.”
(….)
Showtime CEO David Nevins credited Twin Peaks for an 11% lift in cable network operating income during the second quarter of 2017, as well, even though the show isn’t nearly as popular as other Showtime series like Shameless, Homeland, Ray Donovan, and Billions.
__________________________________________________

Market Watch
August 7, 2017
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/cbs-ea ... 2017-08-07
CBS Corp. CBS, -1.79% revenue beat analyst projections in a Monday report, which the company credited to content like the "Twin Peaks" reboot and the NCAA basketball tournament. CBS reported net income from continuing operations of $397 million, or 97 cents a share, on sales of $3.26 billion, up from profit of 82 cents a share on sales of $2.98 billion in the year-ago quarter. Analysts on average expected adjusted earnings of 97 cents per share on revenue of $3.1 billion, according to FactSet. CBS Chief Executive Leslie Moonves said in the announcement that the new "Twin Peaks" show "boosted OTT subscriptions dramatically" for the Showtime streaming service, and the company said ad revenues were helped by the semifinals and finals of the NCAA men's basketball championships.
__________________________________________________

Variety
September 3, 2017
http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/twin-pe ... 202545355/

From Showtime’s perspective, the true measure of “Twin Peaks’ ” success won’t come until they know how many of those people decide to stick around beyond the 30-day free window. CBS Corp.’s third and fourth quarter earnings reports will offer clues later this year. CBS’ cable earnings for the second quarter already indicated a “Twin Peaks” bounce, with revenue up 7% and operating income up 11% year-over-year. International licensing of the series has also been strong, given Lynch’s following.

But the lack of live ratings traction for “Twin Peaks” raises questions about the business rationale for the industry-wide mania for reboots and revivals. The promise that vintage titles will bring a built-in audience is seemingly overwhelmed by the sheer volume of programming choices, new and old, that viewers have at their fingertips. For Showtime’s investment in “Twin Peaks” to really pay off, viewers will have to be intrigued by enough of Showtime’s other programming to keep shelling out $11 a month.
(….)
Of all Showtime series, “Twin Peaks” has the biggest proportion of its audience come from the cabler’s authenticated and standalone streaming platforms.

__________________________________________________

/Film
August 8, 2017

“The only thing I would do differently is I would have given him that deal three weeks earlier,” Nevins said.

Showtime subscriptions boomed when Twin Peaks premiered. “I’m really happy with the performance,” Nevins said. “It drove our business in a way that almost nothing else could. Maybe it’s a blinding glimpse of how Netflix looks at the world. The palpable effect on subscribers, even though its overall numbers are not as big as our biggest shows, but a very palpable effect on subscribers for multiple months now.”

That’s not to say Twin Peaks is only there for prestige. It brings the numbers, too.

“It’s not so low either,” Nevins added. “It’s a way higher proportion of streaming than anything else. The multiple compared to the people who watch it on Sunday night live is way higher than anything else. This has always been our weakest quarter. Springtime has always been against Game of Thrones. This year, it’s not so much against Game of Thrones. It went a little bit later, but Q2 has always been our weakest quarter. Cable is up 11% today and you can assume Showtime is up a higher percentage to drive that. That’s new subscriptions driven by Twin Peaks. That’s the biggest factor in that. It kind of did its job for being such an unusual show for us.”
:arrow: Kindly VOTE in the final POLL of reactions to The Return: → VOTE HERE
Agent327
Posts: 96
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 6:12 pm

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby Agent327 » Sun Sep 10, 2017 5:53 pm

yaxomoxay wrote:Ok you're just flaming for the sake of it.
Showtime and CBS are happy with it. They know more than you or me. So, you're either calling them liars, or you simply have to provide proof of what you're saying. The burden of proof is on you - who's claiming that what the CEO of a publicly traded company is lying/incorrect - not on me. As a matter of fact, I don't even really care about ratings.


There is so much wrong with your entire post, but lets take one thing at a time.

Now it's the third time I ask you to provide specifics, BEYOND the usual positive corporate BS that any company would give that didn't just praise how many people signed up based (on the reputation of the original.). Give me relevant numbers detailing how well The Return did on it's own merits.

You even said:

1) you ask me to back up the info. I can give you CBS and Showtime's press releases/comments .


And I will ask you, yet AGAIN.....please do. I've seen those press releases.

I am not calling them liars, as you're eager to straw man me into. Because the press releases referenced above by Jasper DID NOT lie about numbers. In the most charitable scenarios they put a positive spin on things. That is not the same as lying. That is company talk. And they also give NO good reason for why a season 4 would be a financially sound idea.

Here is the reason why I say this, once again:

People signing up based purely on anticipation stemming from having seen the old iconic show, a show that turned out to be vastly different from what was then delivered, tells you nothing about the potential popularity of a season 4.


And though you may not care about the ratings as you directly and confusingly state, they actually matter. It is not just some irrelevant piece of data that has nothing to do with financial choices, no matter how much you want to pretend that is the case.

The extremely low TV ratings, low podcast numbers compared to ones about other tv shows, platforms that allow us to directly compare showing low popularity of the show, the fact that it's hard to locate people who watch etc, these are ALL indicators that directly connect to the territory of The Return, not old 'TP nostalgia hype'.
User avatar
yaxomoxay
Posts: 636
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 4:50 pm

Re: Part 18 - What is your name? (SPOILERS)

Postby yaxomoxay » Sun Sep 10, 2017 6:14 pm

Agent327 wrote: take one thing at a time.


Oki.

Now it's the third time I ask you to provide specifics


We will never have specifics. Never. We know about the 2M viewers, about the financial success statement, and little more. Do you have any specific to prove your claim? I thought so.

, BEYOND the usual positive corporate BS


Oh you say that it's BS. Can you provide any data?

Give me relevant numbers detailing how well The Return did on it's own merits.


This request - as I explained in the previous post - is wrong on many levels. No follow up, or reboot, can prove its own merits. Prove me that the Gilmore Girls reboot stood on its own merits. Guess what, you can't because it's a reboot and people will watch it because of the previous season(s). It's incredible that you even ask for this.


I am not calling them liars, as you're eager to straw man me into. Because the press releases referenced above by Jasper DID NOT lie about numbers. In the most charitable scenarios they put a positive spin on things.


You said that it wasn't a financial success. CEO said that it was. You call it BS. CEO is head of a traded company (that is, determining what is successful financially is important for investors). I would say yeah, you're calling them liars (and possibly criminals, esp since CBS reported the 11% increase and pointed at Twin Peaks for it in statements that have relevance on Wall Street).

That is not the same as lying. That is company talk. And they also give NO good reason for why a season 4 would be a financially sound idea.


Well, at this moment no one knows if a S4 would be a financially sound idea. It depends on what S4 is. 18 hours? 4 hours? A movie? A reboot? A spinoff?


And though you may not care about the ratings as you directly and confusingly state, they actually matter. It is not just some irrelevant piece of data that has nothing to do with financial choices, no matter how much you want to pretend that is the case.


Of course they do matter. I do not care, and Showtime does care. I never said that ratings are irrelevant; I am not crazy.
But ratings are not the ultimate God of high end tv anymore, especially due to streaming, paraphernalia, and more importantly international sales.
Look, neither of us have inside information. We don't even know why Showtime accepted S3. We don't know how much CBS made out of it, and we don't know how the ratings directly affect their earnings. The only four things we know are that we had S3, that Nevins said it was a financial success (albeit we do not know the definitions), and that CBS pointed at TP for its improved earnings. Ultimately we know that many professional reviewers loved the show for whatever it's worth (not much in my opinion, but I don't know how investors look at that). We don't know anything else. We don't even know if Lynch is thinking about S4.
To conclude, I am not even sure what is your problem with this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Return to “Season 3 (2017) The Return (Spoilers)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: SallyBethDraper and 10 guests