NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

[ForKeeps]

I think the show will do good with critics. (near) Universal acclaim doesn't seem entirely out of the question.

I don't know, both David Lynch and Twin Peaks have always been very polarizing with critics (and fans for that matter). I have fairly open expectations, but it wouldn't shock me if season 3 followed suit.

And yet you say Showtime wants reviews out there in front of it because they know the reviews will be good. You can't have it both ways.

[ForKeeps]

That said, if you polled modern TV critics on their general feelings about Twin Peaks, I promise you they would not be polarized.

[N. Needleman]

They're usually right, is the thing. The backlash we speak of re: FWWM...do we see that anymore? I'm not convinced. At least not on my go-to sites.

FWWM is still polarizing, but much less so. I wouldn't call it all the way resolved. Its rep has come a long way since 1992 and it's gained a lot of renown in critical circles and online sites, but there's still plenty of other sites, articles, etc. which still get a quick and easy joke out of talking about the disastrous Twin Peaks movie. There's also still plenty of longtime fans here or even among the cast who don't like it. Neither it nor Season 2 get quite a fair enough shake these days, because the old line always was "Twin Peaks fell apart after the first season" or "the movie was awful". (The funny part is you'll see some sites mentally conflate these things - praising the hell out of Episode 14 or the finale while forgetting that they were part of Season 2.) All that being said, the whole of the show and the film are much more valued today than they were in much of the '90s. I think the tide started turning in the 2000s. The re-release of FWWM in 2014 with the Missing Pieces went a long way for a lot of people too.

I work in this end of the business and I don't think BEARison is making any incorrect insights into the nature of most TV marketing. The thing is that this is an unusual situation - the show is (supposedly) a closed miniseries, not open-ended, not trying for long-term sustained massive ratings and a long-term future. It is not trying for Walking Dead-style market penetration over a course of years. And David Lynch and Mark Frost have always had unprecedented control over the marketing and press going back to 1989, and this time Lynch, a notorious eccentric, has wielded it very, very zealously during production and post, with far less advance marketing/commercials/etc. (thus far, anyway) than the first series. If the show is not going to go on and he wants it his way, then that's how he'll have it, press or marketing or ratings be damned. So I am not convinced he'll show a thing. If this was a normal situation, yes, absolutely, he would and should, and personally I wish he would because I want to see more. But I'm not sure that he will or that he cares. For him the show is made, and possibly that's the end of the story.

And there will still be plenty of marketing and hype and audience share, at least at first. I don't think TP 2017 cares much about courting a massive audience, but it will have a massive audience for the premiere regardless. It will be polarizing, it will be controversial, but it will be watched. Beyond that, how much Lynch cares about anything else is his business. How much I care? I don't really know. I just want to see it.

[ForKeeps]

Also, I would be willing to bet anyone a large sum of money that Lynch, Kyle and Frost get at least a nomination from the Globes or Emmys.

[NightTimeMyTime]

I may not know US culture that well then. In Sweden nobody listen to critics, more or less. They did, from the beginning of the commerce of litterature/film/tv up until somewhere around the new millenium. When the internet became something regular for the majority, opinion of critics have been degraded to an old media habit and the fame, the opinion of people ("people" as in "the large group") and the accessibility are the new influence on people's choice. Critics are now seen as a group which Swedish people get an opinion from through a Rotten Tomatoes rating. Sweden doesn't have a single film/tv critic that people care about a lot. The "amateur critic" (blogger, youtuber next door etc) are regarded just as highly as the critics of the biggest news papers. If a film gets people entertained and gets them talking about it in school and at work, then it is going to have an influence on people and culture at large.

Critics and journalists aren't totally worthless when it comes to litterature/film/tv though, but if they are going to influence anyone, they need to start - or be a part of, a bigger media debate.That's the only time I've really experienced an influence from Swedish critics/journalists on the majority or even minority. If your book/film/tv show touches important or sensitive cultural topics (politics, racism, equality issues, the unheard voice etc), it will be a candidate for the bigger debate and this will get people listening on the opinions of the critics/journalists. You need to break the mould and interest the group, not the individual.

I guess the much larger scope, the political climate and the larger focus on the individual in United States makes it very different to Sweden when it comes to the importance of the critics opinion vs the people's opinion. It is a little sad that you need to make your art start a debate in media to gain anything from critics/journalists. A movie like FWWM could be a critical/medial success (as in "debate fuel") if it was a new movie in Sweden in the first two decades of the new century. Your film/tv show need to be an issue here - show a purpose, if you want go gain anything from critics, otherwise it is dead to them and they are dead to you. Purposeless. Then it's only the fame, the growing opinion of the people and the accessibility online and in cinemas/tv left to gain from.

I now understand the critic in the US still has a lot more individual influence on the people.

But to get back on point; Twin Peaks has a reputation of being a phenomenon and that's great medial fuel. It's in the producers interest to get the phenomenon flag high this time also and gain audience from that, so it is good to get some articles/think-piece reviews out there ahead of May 21th, so the majority is realizing they can be a part of a "new" phenomenon also, influenced on the trends from reviewers/journalists as a group. It's totally possible some journalists will get to see the first four hours so they can write articles/reviews about this perplexing Twin Peaks comeback and buzz it up as an interesting topic in the press based on what the audience will get. I do think Cannes 2017 is a good target for this, if they want to show it to a chosen group of exclusive reporters there.

[indyit]

I may not know US culture that well then. In Sweden nobody listen to critics, more or less. They did, from the beginning of the commerce of litterature/film/tv up until somewhere around the new millenium. When the internet became something regular for the majority, opinion of critics have been degraded to an old media habit and the fame, the opinion of people ("people" as in "the large group") and the accessibility are the new influence on people's choice. Critics are now seen as a group which Swedish people get an opinion from through a Rotten Tomatoes rating. Sweden doesn't have a single film/tv critic that people care about a lot. The "amateur critic" (blogger, youtuber next door etc) are regarded just as highly as the critics of the biggest news papers. If a film gets people entertained and gets them talking about it in school and at work, then it is going to have an influence on people and culture at large.

Hey, another Swede on here! I haven't lived in Sweden the past 9 years, but you're right in saying critics matter very little in Sweden. My more geeky/enthusiast friends who were into TV and film did/does read English publications online, or stuff like IGN to get an indicator on what's new/popular/good - even if they take the review scores with a pinch of salt (especially on IGN). I think this varies from country to country.

In the UK (or London at least) I definitely think from personal experience, that word of mouth holds a lot more weight with people than critics, but many pay attention to what critics rave about. Newspapers regularly write about tv shows that reach a certain level of popularity, even if it is just a puff piece emphasising twitter reactions... this type of publicity does go some way in promoting shows and getting more butts on seats. The buzz that goes around offices and groups of friends about the latest "must watch" show is palpable, and unfortunately I don't think season 3 will hit the kind of popularity things like Stranger Things accomplished (because it requires knowledge of a 25 year old show, and is quite a bit longer at 18 eps). But that's okay. If the show is a critical success and is as strange and beautiful as the original show, I could see people picking it up and being very successful even if it isn't Walking Dead numbers (cause it doesn't need to be that popular to be successful).

[Twink Peaks]

[Agent Earle]

I may not know US culture that well then. In Sweden nobody listen to critics, more or less. They did, from the beginning of the commerce of litterature/film/tv up until somewhere around the new millenium. When the internet became something regular for the majority, opinion of critics have been degraded to an old media habit and the fame, the opinion of people ("people" as in "the large group") and the accessibility are the new influence on people's choice. Critics are now seen as a group which Swedish people get an opinion from through a Rotten Tomatoes rating. Sweden doesn't have a single film/tv critic that people care about a lot. The "amateur critic" (blogger, youtuber next door etc) are regarded just as highly as the critics of the biggest news papers. If a film gets people entertained and gets them talking about it in school and at work, then it is going to have an influence on people and culture at large.

Critics and journalists aren't totally worthless when it comes to litterature/film/tv though, but if they are going to influence anyone, they need to start - or be a part of, a bigger media debate.That's the only time I've really experienced an influence from Swedish critics/journalists on the majority or even minority. If your book/film/tv show touches important or sensitive cultural topics (politics, racism, equality issues, the unheard voice etc), it will be a candidate for the bigger debate and this will get people listening on the opinions of the critics/journalists. You need to break the mould and interest the group, not the individual.

I guess the much larger scope, the political climate and the larger focus on the individual in United States makes it very different to Sweden when it comes to the importance of the critics opinion vs the people's opinion. It is a little sad that you need to make your art start a debate in media to gain anything from critics/journalists. A movie like FWWM could be a critical/medial success (as in "debate fuel") if it was a new movie in Sweden in the first two decades of the new century. Your film/tv show need to be an issue here - show a purpose, if you want go gain anything from critics, otherwise it is dead to them and they are dead to you. Purposeless. Then it's only the fame, the growing opinion of the people and the accessibility online and in cinemas/tv left to gain from.

I now understand the critic in the US still has a lot more individual influence on the people.

Could this - ie. the need for the emphasis on the "big" background themes, topics etc. in order to draw critical, public, media etc. attention to a cultural product - be the general case with the whole of Europe, do you think (not just you, NighTimeMyTime, but other forum members too)? And if so, why do you think this is (as opposed to, say, the situation in the US where sort of an "isolated", for lack of a better term, critical attention still matters)?

Also, Needleman, as you seem to be quite enlightened in the subject, I'd be interested in more of your thoughts about the different phases of Twin Peaks' "life" in regards to the public perception of the universe (both the series and the movie) as these things (let's say the minutiae of a show's shelf existence) really interests me, sometimes more than the actual product itself: for example, why were the 90's a sort of "dark ages" when it comes to TP's popularity and why has the tide turned so radically with the New Millennium, do you think? I apologize if I missed any of your previous writings about this (presumably on this forum), in which case, could you please direct me to them? I also realize much has been written on the subject by the so-called academia, but I'm more interested in the casual thoughts of a fellow TP fan. Thanks in advance.

[mfleite]

Still can't believe the current UFC Middleweight champion is in Twin Peaks. I'm a big fan of The Count!

[blazingmagnums]

Also, I would be willing to bet anyone a large sum of money that Lynch, Kyle and Frost get at least a nomination from the Globes or Emmys.

Absolutely no chance!

[mine]

Could this - ie. the need for the emphasis on the "big" background themes, topics etc. in order to draw critical, public, media etc. attention to a cultural product - be the general case with the whole of Europe, do you think (not just you, NighTimeMyTime, but other forum members too)? And if so, why do you think this is (as opposed to, say, the situation in the US where sort of an "isolated", for lack of a better term, critical attention still matters)?

The first thing to consider is that size matters. The US is big enough to accommodate a large enough critic community and number of outlets for their output. Most of European countries aren't. I mean just the number of individual critics awards in the US is evidence of this. Smaller markets also mean there's less original fiction that would justify production costs, which is where imported products come in handy to fill schedules. Less original material to review means there's less work for critics and by the time foreign material reaches our markets (outside of premium channels) it's been reviewed to death, so the relevance of brand new reviews just isn't there. At least this is how I see it.

I'm not sure critical reception matters in the US that much anymore. Reviews (for TV shows in particular) to me sound more like advertisement than actual reviews lately. I noticed that you can tell the relevance of a show more from the number of articles about it, than the content of the reviews and articles, which tend to be overly positive. This seems to be especially true when shows aired a handful of episodes. It may be a little different for movies but I think weather they make money outweighs critical receptions there too.
It's much easier to come across a well thought out positive or negative review/think peace on a message board than a actual publication very often.

[djerdap]

Still can't believe the current UFC Middleweight champion is in Twin Peaks. I'm a big fan of The Count!

Maybe he smashes Bad Coop's face in.

[Mr. Reindeer]

I could see something similar to 'Mad Men' happening. Matthew Weiner was a notorious spoilerphobe and never sent episodes to critics in advance -- except the season premieres. Even he couldn't get out of that -- so, he would include an annotated list of what critics could and could not reveal (which basically boiled down to, "You can say whether you liked it or not"). That honor system approach seemed to mostly work -- entertainment critics want to preserve good relationships.

[crazyscottishguy]

http://www.ibtimes.com.au/twin-peaks-se ... ly-1540331

Furthermore, while talking about what kept him at bay to revive the show for another season, Lynch said that “Who killed Laura Palmer was a question we did not really want to answer.” He said that the mystery was the goose that laid golden eggs. “At a certain point, we were told we had to wrap that up and it never got going after that.” It seems now the time has come when the audience will finally get to know who killed Laura Palmer almost after 26 years.

[N. Needleman]

For the record, Ibtimes is a clickbait website which funnels news and rumors/gossip from other places (IMDB, etc) to produce content and is in no way legit. But wow, that first paragraph is a doozy. They put someone on that little drop who didn't even check Wikipedia!