NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

[Mallard]

Expect the numbers to drop more. It's a very challenging and abstract show and it's very lengthy. I think Showtime is kinda expecting this anyway.

Btw, I told you in another thread that I thought you were underestimating today's general audience, but I was apparently vastly overestimating it. Those numbers are dreadful.

[adl345]

Expect the numbers to drop more. It's a very challenging and abstract show and it's very lengthy. I think Showtime is kinda expecting this anyway.

Yeah, and they'll bottom out even more once Ray Donovan premieres and it's moved up an hour.

[N. Needleman]

Ugh, Ray Donovan.

Either way, I don't really care about the numbers. I think Showtime has gotten what it wants.

[Jerry Horne]

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/twin-pe ... 202441519/

[adl345]

http://variety.com/2017/tv/news/twin-pe ... 202441519/

That is definitely the glass half-full interpretation. Truth probably settles somewhere around "mild disappointment."

[N. Needleman]

That depends on what they legitimately expected from that premiere and given Lynch's phobia towards conventional marketing.

[The Marquis]

On a premium channel whose income is based upon subscriptions rather than advertising, record single day sign-ups has to be a very good thing. Imagine if this were a Netflix original... it'd have 0 watchers on traditional television, but if it set an all-time single day sign-up record for Netflix, it'd likely be considered a tremendous success. Some of the most successful shows of the last 5 years have never actually been on traditional television.

[4815162342]

In a sense, I am sympathetic to the argument women and minorities still have a long way to go in Hollywood and they have a tougher climb to make then men. This does not seem to me to be the best way to approach the issue.

And there are a lot of women of all ages in the cast list - women who are allowed to look their age, too, which filled me with glee. Right now, "has a male protagonist, just like the show and unlike the movie" doesn't seem like a hideous display of Hollywood sexism. If the final product will have nothing but oodles of objectified, non-pov women serving the dudes' narratives, I'll be the first to cry sexism. Right now, I remain optimistic.

Ouch.

[mfleite]

I think another factor in a possible renewal will be awards season. Emmy nominations will be announced July 13

[adl345]

I think another factor in a possible renewal will be awards season. Emmy nominations will be announced July 13

Show won't be eligible until next year's Emmys.

[adl345]

And here's Joe Adalian's analysis of the numbers.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/05/twin-pea ... cares.html

[mtwentz]

I think another factor in a possible renewal will be awards season. Emmy nominations will be announced July 13

Show won't be eligible until next year's Emmys.

All I can say is, it's nice to have this debate knowing all the footage is in the can, so to speak.

I sometimes wonder if that might have been a side reason for Lynch shooting everything at once (to prevent cancellation before all episodes were completed).

[BookhouseBartender]

I'm disappointed in - and a little surprised by - those numbers, I'll admit. Mostly because, as mentioned, they'll likely be a deciding factor in a potential season 4. Then again if my guess is correct, a season 4 may prove extemporaneous. We're headed toward a definitive ending, one way or another, and given the remarkable new ground season 3 is breaking a season 4 which, say, evokes "original Peaks" more may prove...too retrograde a move, creatively. This is all baseless speculation on my part, of course.

As mentioned upthread, I'm most interested in how those numbers break down. We all know it's the specific demographics which are key these days.

[Metamorphia]

Hmm. It was never going to be popular imo - firstly because it's a sequel to a 25 year old series and secondly because it's now massively esoteric in form and style.

I'm surprised Showtime went for this tbh because it's incredibly hard to market (even taking away Lynch's stipulations about extreme secrecy; a wonderful move but not something that works at all as promotion) and they'll probably lose money.

It's sad because the series is a killer and it's great to see one of the great living American artists given a blank canvas. Anyway, the show's done now so there's no danger in not seeing all 18 parts. It just probably rules out any future Peaks (although I'm not upset about this particularly) and worse, is probably the final nail in the coffin for David Lynch if cable TV won't take his ideas. He'll probably formally retire to painting.

[Mallard]

I'm disappointed in - and a little surprised by - those numbers, I'll admit. Mostly because, as mentioned, they'll likely be a deciding factor in a potential season 4. Then again if my guess is correct, a season 4 may prove extemporaneous. We're headed toward a definitive ending, one way or another, and given the remarkable new ground season 3 is breaking a season 4 which, say, evokes "original Peaks" more may prove...too retrograde a move, creatively. This is all baseless speculation on my part, of course.

As mentioned upthread, I'm most interested in how those numbers break down. We all know it's the specific demographics which are key these days.

I was disappointed in the numbers just because I was looking forward to Peaks entering the mainstream cultural consciousness again. I missed out on that during the original series run, due to my age.

Those numbers have kind of dashed my hopes.