BookhouseBartender wrote: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.
Yeah, me too. I really hoped this would be the time and place for it - and, it's early days admittedly, but S3 seems to hint at a very interesting commentary on the America 25 years later and what kind of world we live in. Lynch is incredibly adept at tapping into the cultural zeitgeist and we'd probably all be better off if we listened.
I was optimistic initially because TV does generally seem to be frequently complex and challenging and still draw big crowds, but I think S3 is maybe just too far for have any broad appeal. Although it's not like a huge number watched the first episode and then turned off so it seems like it just never landed promotionally.
Really disappointing numbers. I wasn't expecting much but not that low. And yeah it's probably gonna keep sinking. I'm starting to doubt a season 4 is gonna happen. Unless streaming, foreign sales, and merchandise can keep it going. I do kind of wonder what showtime was expecting.
The numbers are about what I expected them to be. We've talked about it here before, but I think it's shortsighted to think Showtime got into this for traditional ratings. It has way more to do with prestige and buzz, and yes, subscriptions. If they can convince someone of David Lynch's ilk to do an 18 part opus with more or less complete creative control, imagine who else they could get on board? This is a great look for them, and despite how many people physically tuned into Showtime on Sunday, everyone knew Twin Peaks was coming back and that's very important. I think this is still a big win for them, pragmatically speaking.
Last edited by BEARisonFord on Tue May 23, 2017 11:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
The Marquis wrote: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.
Yeah Netflix is streaming it here. The response on the official posts was pretty good compared to other shows, and TP is not big here. Like, not at all.
Metamorphia wrote: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.
I doubt the show will lose money. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it made back a good amount of its budget in International distribution sales already. And there's still home video sales to consider, merchandise, soundtrack, etc. TWIN PEAKS is a far bigger brand than anything on their network, and even if their broadcast of it is short-lived, the show is pretty much guaranteed to have a long life based on the track record of its predecessor.
That said, there's no doubt in my mind that the marketing played a big role in failing to bring massive numbers to the premiere. Everything was geared toward the uber-fan: key art based on an iconic image from the old show, a tag line based on an old line of dialogue, trailers that, up until about 2 weeks ago, ONLY consisted of footage from the original series. There was very little in the marketing that was aimed at bringing in new converts to the faith, so I'm not surprised that they didn't show up.
Granted, I don't think it was a *bad* campaign at all - it was very effective in what is set out to do. I just don't think it set out to bring in massive new viewers.
I think Peaks has reentered the cultural consciousness with a bang, actually. It's just that not everyone watched live. And even if they fall off more, it's still there. This isn't going away anytime soon. It was a major event here in America.
I do agree with BEARison - this has always been about prestige for Showtime. Do I think they'll necessarily choose to renew (if Lynch wants to continue) based just on that? I don't know. But I think it's possible. I'm just not worrying about it.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
Metamorphia wrote: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.
I doubt the show will lose money. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it made back a good amount of its budget in International distribution sales already. And there's still home video sales to consider, merchandise, soundtrack, etc. TWIN PEAKS is a far bigger brand than anything on their network, and even if their broadcast of it is short-lived, the show is pretty much guaranteed to have a long life based on the track record of its predecessor.
That said, there's no doubt in my mind that the marketing played a big role in failing to bring massive numbers to the premiere. Everything was geared toward the uber-fan: key art based on an iconic image from the old show, a tag line based on an old line of dialogue, trailers that, up until about 2 weeks ago, ONLY consisted of footage from the original series. There was very little in the marketing that was aimed at bringing in new converts to the faith, so I'm not surprised that they didn't show up.
Granted, I don't think it was a *bad* campaign at all - it was very effective in what is set out to do. I just don't think it set out to bring in massive new viewers.
I do not believe it will lose money for Lynch and Frost. Us rabid fans are their insurance against that. It may be a 'loss leader' for Showtime- that is, Showtime always expected to lose money on Twin Peaks but they consider it an investment in the network's future.
I must agree that the marketing angle was a mistake -- they should have been framing the central questions of the show for a new audience rather than being so damn mysterious.
I don't think that kind of campaign would've ruined any sense of mystery for the fan base.
Coffee wrote:I must agree that the marketing angle was a mistake -- they should have been framing the central questions of the show for a new audience rather than being so damn mysterious.
I don't think that kind of campaign would've ruined any sense of mystery for the fan base.
Agreed. ABC gets a lot of flack for their mishandling of Twin Peaks back in '91, and it's totally deserved with respect to scheduling, but their marketing of the show in its first season - particularly in the run-up to the pilot's premiere - was enormously effective. It lured you in with a central mystery, promised it would be something like you've never seen before, hell, it even gave you FOMO before that term existed (one of the original promos said 'if you miss it tonight, you won't know what everyone's talking about tomorrow')!
N. Needleman wrote:I think Peaks has reentered the cultural consciousness with a bang, actually. It's just that not everyone watched live. And even if they fall off more, it's still there. This isn't going away anytime soon. It was a major event here in America.
Yeah, it would a mistake to equate "cultural event" with good TV ratings. That hasn't been the case for a very long time.
Coffee wrote:I must agree that the marketing angle was a mistake -- they should have been framing the central questions of the show for a new audience rather than being so damn mysterious.
I don't think that kind of campaign would've ruined any sense of mystery for the fan base.
Agreed. ABC gets a lot of flack for their mishandling of Twin Peaks back in '91, and it's totally deserved with respect to scheduling, but their marketing of the show in its first season - particularly in the run-up to the pilot's premiere - was enormously effective. It lured you in with a central mystery, promised it would be something like you've never seen before, hell, it even gave you FOMO before that term existed (one of the original promos said 'if you miss it tonight, you won't know what everyone's talking about tomorrow')!
Yep, something akin to the original promos would've been perfect. It could have pulled in a small new audience and prodded the imagination of the fan base, whist also indicating the direction the series was headed -- which may have helped kerb some of the negative reactions we've seen.
adl345 wrote:
Yeah, it would a mistake to equate "cultural event" with good TV ratings. That hasn't been the case for a very long time.
Very true. But still, this reception does make me wonder if linear TV (even if it's premium cable), doled out in weekly installments, was really the best choice for distribution. If a Netflix, Hulu or Amazon show was generating this kind of social conversation two days in, it would be hailed as nothing less than a sensation. As it is, if Twin Peaks continues to decline in ratings over the next 16 weeks, it's going to be hard for the overall feeling to stay positive.
I know that Lynch and Frost felt strongly about this not being a binge-show, but that philosophy feels somewhat at odds with the '18-hour movie' structure. If the show had more in common with traditional episodic TV, with each week offering a series of setups/payoffs, A-stories and B-stories, etc., I could understand that approach. But a sprawling, complex, challenging epic doled out over the course of 16 weeks might cause a lot of people to jump ship before they can see what we hope is a truly magnificent forest for the trees.
