NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Discussion of Twin Peaks TV Series, Fire Walk With Me, and Books

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

Forum rules
Welcome to the forum. We know our members are passionate about their love for all things Twin Peaks. You wouldn't be here if that wasn't the case. Despite having differing viewpoints it is a policy that we all treat each other with mutual respect.

Posting abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, sexually-orientated, or any material that may violate any laws be it of your country or the country where this forum is hosted will get you permanently banned.

Posting of spoilers are allowed as long as you indicate (Spoilers) in the topic name and use the Spoiler Tag.
User avatar
Dead Dog
Posts: 162
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 7:25 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Dead Dog » Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:26 am

I think critics get a bad wrap. More often than not, they like the good movies and don't like the bad movies.
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby mtwentz » Thu Apr 20, 2017 6:06 am

Dead Dog wrote:I think critics get a bad wrap. More often than not, they like the good movies and don't like the bad movies.


Yes, but I became really disillusioned over The Force Awakens. It was at best an 'OK' movie, but the way the critics hyped it up, it was like the blockbuster movie of all time- I was almost expecting it to sweep the Oscars based on the description.

Then I actually saw it and was very much underwhelmed.

So it is a mixed bag with critics.
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
Agent Earle
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Agent Earle » Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:02 am

Dead Dog wrote:I think critics get a bad wrap. More often than not, they like the good movies and don't like the bad movies.


I don't know about that. Critics tend to make mistakes very often, or are simply unfair towards a movie, judging it by some warped set of criteria when they should strive for a leveled critique that takes in account various factors, least of which is belonging to a certain genre - for instance, you can't judge a bottom-of-the-barrel horror B movie with same eyes as you do a mainstream Academy Award contender, common sense should tell you that. Yet with some critics, exactly the latter happens - instead of assessing a film on its own merit and/or on a merit of a category to which it belongs, they mix everything up and stubbornly cling to their own preconceived notions of what makes a good and a bad movie, like the two are some absolute categories.
The mentioned Siskel & Ebert, per example, made some notorious blunders back in the 80's, what with their sickening crusade against slasher movies (and horror movies in general) - truly, the pair was positively "thatcheristic" in their holy wrath against "misogynistic, vile films that are out to corrupt our youth and destroy our society" or some such witch-hunting drivel. But what's downright bizarre, they loved John Carpenter's Halloween, calling it an instant classic, while they despised almost literally any other similar flick made in its wake, and not because it ripped-off Halloween (which would at least be a legitimate complaint, although clearly stemming from deep ignorance as to how a genre cinema ticks), but simply for daring to adhere to the (sub)genre criteria Halloween (and other genre classics) helped to establish.
Come to think of it, didn't Ebert trash Blue Velvet also?
LateReg
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby LateReg » Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:11 am

Agent Earle wrote:
Dead Dog wrote:I think critics get a bad wrap. More often than not, they like the good movies and don't like the bad movies.


I don't know about that. Critics tend to make mistakes very often, or are simply unfair towards a movie, judging it by some warped set of criteria when they should strive for a leveled critique that takes in account various factors, least of which is belonging to a certain genre - for instance, you can't judge a bottom-of-the-barrel horror B movie with same eyes as you do a mainstream Academy Award contender. Yet with some critics, exactly the latter happens - instead of assessing a film on its own merit and/or on a merit of a category to which it belongs, they mix everything up and stubbornly cling to their own preconceived notions of what makes a good and a bad movie, like the two are some absolute category.
The mentioned Siskel & Ebert, per example, made some notorious blunders back in the 80's, what with their sickening crusade against slasher movies (and horror movies in general) - truly, the pair was positively "thatcheristic" in their holy wrath against "misogynistic, vile films that are out to corrupt our youth and destroy our society" or some such witch-hunting drivel. But what's downright bizarre, they loved John Carpenter's Halloween, calling it an instant classic, while they despised almost literally any other similar flick made in its wake, and not because it ripped-off Halloween (which would at least be a legitimate complaint, although clearly stemming from deep ignorance as to how a genre cinema ticks), but simply for daring to adhere to the (sub)genre criteria Halloween )and other genre classics) helped to establish.
Come to think of it, didn't Ebert trash Blue Velvet also?


Ebert trashed Blue Velvet, yes, and every Lynch movie up until The Straight Story. Sometimes they get things "wrong," obviously, and each has his or her own taste. But mostly, as Dead Dog said, they (as a whole) like "good" movies and don't like "bad" ones, historically speaking. There's a ton of ground in between, and sometimes mediocre movies get a high "like" ratio whereas more daring films get mixed reviews, but you have to read between the lines and inside the concensus. And I do think that there are a lot of critics who acknowledge exactly what you're saying re: genre films. They grade them within their genre and overall at the same time. Which is how it should be, I think. And very few slashers lived up to Halloween's execution and sense of pure evil, so their dislike of so many is understandable.
Last edited by LateReg on Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Agent Earle
Posts: 936
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2017 12:55 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Agent Earle » Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:15 am

LateReg wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
Dead Dog wrote:I think critics get a bad wrap. More often than not, they like the good movies and don't like the bad movies.


I don't know about that. Critics tend to make mistakes very often, or are simply unfair towards a movie, judging it by some warped set of criteria when they should strive for a leveled critique that takes in account various factors, least of which is belonging to a certain genre - for instance, you can't judge a bottom-of-the-barrel horror B movie with same eyes as you do a mainstream Academy Award contender. Yet with some critics, exactly the latter happens - instead of assessing a film on its own merit and/or on a merit of a category to which it belongs, they mix everything up and stubbornly cling to their own preconceived notions of what makes a good and a bad movie, like the two are some absolute category.
The mentioned Siskel & Ebert, per example, made some notorious blunders back in the 80's, what with their sickening crusade against slasher movies (and horror movies in general) - truly, the pair was positively "thatcheristic" in their holy wrath against "misogynistic, vile films that are out to corrupt our youth and destroy our society" or some such witch-hunting drivel. But what's downright bizarre, they loved John Carpenter's Halloween, calling it an instant classic, while they despised almost literally any other similar flick made in its wake, and not because it ripped-off Halloween (which would at least be a legitimate complaint, although clearly stemming from deep ignorance as to how a genre cinema ticks), but simply for daring to adhere to the (sub)genre criteria Halloween )and other genre classics) helped to establish.
Come to think of it, didn't Ebert trash Blue Velvet also?


Ebert trashed Blue Velvet, yes, and almost every Lynch movie up until The Straight Story. Sometimes they get things wrong, obviously, and each has his or her own taste. But mostly, as Dead Dog said, they (as a whole) like good movies and don't like bad ones, historically speaking. There's a ton of ground in between, and sometimes mediocre movies get a high "like" ratio whereas more daring films get mixed reviews, but you have to read between the lines. And I do think that there are a lot of critics who acknowledge exactly what you're saying re: genre films. They grade them within their genre and overall at the same time. Which is how it should be, I think.


What's "good" and what's "bad" is relative, and then some.
LateReg
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby LateReg » Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:18 am

Agent Earle wrote:
LateReg wrote:
Agent Earle wrote:
I don't know about that. Critics tend to make mistakes very often, or are simply unfair towards a movie, judging it by some warped set of criteria when they should strive for a leveled critique that takes in account various factors, least of which is belonging to a certain genre - for instance, you can't judge a bottom-of-the-barrel horror B movie with same eyes as you do a mainstream Academy Award contender. Yet with some critics, exactly the latter happens - instead of assessing a film on its own merit and/or on a merit of a category to which it belongs, they mix everything up and stubbornly cling to their own preconceived notions of what makes a good and a bad movie, like the two are some absolute category.
The mentioned Siskel & Ebert, per example, made some notorious blunders back in the 80's, what with their sickening crusade against slasher movies (and horror movies in general) - truly, the pair was positively "thatcheristic" in their holy wrath against "misogynistic, vile films that are out to corrupt our youth and destroy our society" or some such witch-hunting drivel. But what's downright bizarre, they loved John Carpenter's Halloween, calling it an instant classic, while they despised almost literally any other similar flick made in its wake, and not because it ripped-off Halloween (which would at least be a legitimate complaint, although clearly stemming from deep ignorance as to how a genre cinema ticks), but simply for daring to adhere to the (sub)genre criteria Halloween )and other genre classics) helped to establish.
Come to think of it, didn't Ebert trash Blue Velvet also?


Ebert trashed Blue Velvet, yes, and almost every Lynch movie up until The Straight Story. Sometimes they get things wrong, obviously, and each has his or her own taste. But mostly, as Dead Dog said, they (as a whole) like good movies and don't like bad ones, historically speaking. There's a ton of ground in between, and sometimes mediocre movies get a high "like" ratio whereas more daring films get mixed reviews, but you have to read between the lines. And I do think that there are a lot of critics who acknowledge exactly what you're saying re: genre films. They grade them within their genre and overall at the same time. Which is how it should be, I think.


What's "good" and what's "bad" is relative, and then some.


Yeah, I revised my own post with quotations as well, and added other comments. But that's why I said "historically speaking." Some things come to be considered "good" over time as though it were a fact. Sometimes critics get those wrong, and a reassessment must take place. But much of the time they get it right in the first place. For example, there are very few Fire Walk With Me's, that get THAT trashed upon release only to undergo a near-complete critical rehabilitation over the years. I can think of others, but not many in the grand scheme of things.
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby mtwentz » Thu Apr 20, 2017 8:43 am



Well the big takeaway is that Nafessa has more than one scene :-)
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
Dalai Cooper
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:15 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Dalai Cooper » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:05 am

We get a character name too, right? That's a bit of a departure from SOP
User avatar
Mordeen
Posts: 706
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Near Mr. Gerard's Cabin

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Mordeen » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:18 am

There's a spoiler in that article. Unless the production approved it.

-Mordeen
Moving Through Time. . .
Dalai Cooper
Posts: 385
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 3:15 am

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Dalai Cooper » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:21 am

Oops! Just a name though, I doubt she'll be fined a million bucks for it, approved or not.
User avatar
Mordeen
Posts: 706
Joined: Tue Sep 22, 2015 7:03 am
Location: Near Mr. Gerard's Cabin

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Mordeen » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:27 am

It's a confirmed spoiler. Luckily for her they pulled it from IMDB and she didn't comment on it. That NDA is rock solid and unforgiving.

-Mordeen
Moving Through Time. . .
User avatar
Chester Desmond
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Chester Desmond » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:37 am

mtwentz wrote:


Well the big takeaway is that Nafessa has more than one scene :-)


Oh my God I’m a huge fan of “Full House,” how exciting was that for me to see.
:shock:
Hang loose, Houlies
User avatar
Twink Peaks
Posts: 169
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 2:01 pm

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Twink Peaks » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:38 am

weve had her character name for months :lol:
User avatar
Chester Desmond
Posts: 65
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:09 pm

Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017

Postby Chester Desmond » Thu Apr 20, 2017 9:38 am

Any rumors about a trailer date or at least another teaser with new footage? like 33/32 days out now..
Hang loose, Houlies

Return to “Twin Peaks Movie, TV, Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests