NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

[Audrey Horne]

That's an interesting question. I'm in SAG and I barely understand some of the contracts I've signed, and residuals are so confusing ...I've had checks for $7 and change before. My understanding is the production company own your likeness on the product and character. But I guess it gets confusing with commercials, trailers, etc. And say if a review in TIMEmagazine ran with your image, my understanding is the actor is not compensated for that. Or like when the Gold Box came out and there was a trailer, the actors are not paid if their footage is used. (Like when ABC ran commercials during the week for the next episode.) However, they are entitled to a piece of the profits of the DVD sales. And production does not need their permission to use them in said trailer.

However, back to the interesting question... Is this new Twin Peaks a new product? Is the contract signed in 1989 null and void for use of actors not appearing in the new season? If not, then yes those actors would have to be paid if past footage is used. Is it based on their prior contract plus inflation factored in? But if this is considered a new product (maybe based on the statute of time) I believe they can not use footage of any actor who did not sign a contract or waiver.

I don't know... Contracts are complicated.

[adl345]

This conversation is reminding me of the Crispin Glover "Back To the Future 2" lawsuit. Based on that, I assume that they'd be in trouble if they used digital technology and previously shot footage to try to "manufacture" a new Michael J. Anderson performance, but they'd probably be in the clear if they just presented old footage as is, for like flashbacks or something. But the law is kind of murky on the subject, and the standards seem to get slightly altered with each new lawsuit.

Hollywood Reporter has a pretty good rundown of it and similar cases.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-es ... gal-833705

[vicksvapor77]

I find it interesting that when you click on Man From Another Place, the first fan art image that loads is a headless MJA with "When you see me again, it won't be me" (by Rinaldo).

[FrostedCherries]

It's too bad, he was such a great presence. I'm not sure I can see another actor taking his role, so that picture indeed hints at an interesting option, a hollow suit walking, talking (and dancing) like a miniature invisible man. Wouldn't that be creepy? Then again, the "it won't be me" line seems to indicate the former. Or maybe it will be the Jumping Man who takes his place after all? Either way MJA's uncanny facial expressions and body language were such a vital part to anything happening in the red room/above the convenience store scenes that I'm still sad he's not going to be able to be in it.

[madeleineferguson]

Just checking to be sure I didn't miss anything: there is still no definite word on whether Season 3 will be broken into two seasons, right?

I wonder if Lynch will actually finish all of the editing now, before any of it airs? It would be an amazing feat for him (or anyone!) to finish the entire 18 hours before anything airs, and then leave it alone.

[N. Needleman]

IIRC they are either cutting it all now or are done with it at this point.

I think it is going to air uninterrupted but I don't think they've said definitively either way.

[dronerstone]

I think it is going to air uninterrupted but I don't think they've said definitively either way.

I believe I read somewhere they're airing it consecutively (?) each Sunday until it's done, didn't KM even post something along these lines...? Help me remember.

[eyeboogers]

Yes, the season will run weekly until it's done. There has never been any official statement or even hint that they were considering breaking the season up into halves - that was purely fan speculation.

[Agent Earle]

According to MJA...

LOL.

A good one, Jerry! LOL indeed

[Agent Earle]

As for MJA .... It's a shame he won't be a part of Season 3.

-Mordeen

You know that for a FACT, Mordeen? I'm only asking as you're, according to your own words, privy to oodles of S3-related info we down below aren't.
And let me ask you another thing (feel free to answer or not, of course): would you say, going by what you know, that the series allows (or maybe even invites) a further continuation, the one that goes beyond S3, that is? THX.

[mtwentz]

Yes, the season will run weekly until it's done. There has never been any official statement or even hint that they were considering breaking the season up into halves - that was purely fan speculation.

You obviously understand how the industry works better than most, so here's a question: isn't it in Showtimes best interest to drag the series out as long as possible? That way it would keep new subscribers hooked for a longer period, and hopefully they would then become longer term subscribers?

Or do they really just want Twin Peaks to get as much critical acclaim, awards social media buzz as possible to get Showtime positive advertising, and then they move on to the next show in that time slot?

[Dead Dog]

As far as the MJA or MFAP issue, I see his omission as an exciting chance to see something new. I'm probably in the minority here, but I really have no desire to see the Red Room or MFAP. It's iconic and beautiful, but I've seen it SO many times, not just in TP, but mocked and parodied in comedies and cartoons that it doesn't hold much power (for me) anymore. I'd much rather see a completely new interpretation of the Lodges or the Waiting Room and its inhabitants. Of course, changing that up now may be problematic. Perhaps you could say that every 25 years the door to the Lodges re-opens and it is a new iteration, or something to that effect. Not anything to fuss about for me, I'm a lot more interested in what's going on outside of the Lodges, always have been.

[laughingpinecone]

Yes, the season will run weekly until it's done. There has never been any official statement or even hint that they were considering breaking the season up into halves - that was purely fan speculation.

You obviously understand how the industry works better than most, so here's a question: isn't it in Showtimes best interest to drag the series out as long as possible? That way it would keep new subscribers hooked for a longer period, and hopefully they would then become longer term subscribers?

Or do they really just want Twin Peaks to get as much critical acclaim, awards social media buzz as possible to get Showtime positive advertising, and then they move on to the next show in that time slot?

A negative consideration that occurred to me while reading your post (and i don't know the first thing about this industry, by all means please shoot it down): what if they are not too confident it will do well with the general public? In that case, the opposite of what you suggest would be true, wouldn't it? It would be better to keep it running all at once to keep the momentum going, because perplexed viewers on the fence may stick along for a single, longer ride but not come back after a hiatus...?

[mtwentz]

Yes, the season will run weekly until it's done. There has never been any official statement or even hint that they were considering breaking the season up into halves - that was purely fan speculation.

You obviously understand how the industry works better than most, so here's a question: isn't it in Showtimes best interest to drag the series out as long as possible? That way it would keep new subscribers hooked for a longer period, and hopefully they would then become longer term subscribers?

Or do they really just want Twin Peaks to get as much critical acclaim, awards social media buzz as possible to get Showtime positive advertising, and then they move on to the next show in that time slot?

A negative consideration that occurred to me while reading your post (and i don't know the first thing about this industry, by all means please shoot it down): what if they are not too confident it will do well with the general public? In that case, the opposite of what you suggest would be true, wouldn't it? It would be better to keep it running all at once to keep the momentum going, because perplexed viewers on the fence may stick along for a single, longer ride but not come back after a hiatus...?

Well, it's David Lynch, which means it's always a crap shoot as to how it will be received by the public. But Showtime should have known that going in.

I read somewhere the other day that for a pay TV show to be successful, they need either 1) Critical Praise, 2) Awards or 3) Large Viewership numbers.

So Twin Peaks value is not just in how many direct subscribers come from this one limited series alone, but the overall good publicity and praise it gives Showtime as a network. I guess in that sense, it doesn't really matter how long it runs, as long as Showtime has other good shows to follow up with and continue to build its reputation.

[madeleineferguson]

The Emmy eligibility period for 2017 is June 1, 2016 to May 31, 2017. So Twin Peaks will be eligible for Emmys in both 2017 and 2018, even if they don't break it up.

I wonder if this is part of the reason Showtime is releasing 4 hours of Twin Peaks all at once? If Twin Peaks starts strong in those first four hours, it could generate a lot of Emmy nominations. The nominations will be announced on July 13!