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.
dkenny78
Posts: 112
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 7:36 am

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby dkenny78 » Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:14 am

On a related note, does anyone have a reliable guesstimate on how much the show actually cost (in production, not marketing)? There have to have been cost synergies with shooting as one long movie as opposed to episodically, not to mention the fact that all cast sans Kyle MacLachlan reportedly worked for scale.

I am curious to see where this landed in terms of cost.
User avatar
mtwentz
Posts: 1846
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 10:02 am

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby mtwentz » Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:41 am

dkenny78 wrote:On a related note, does anyone have a reliable guesstimate on how much the show actually cost (in production, not marketing)? There have to have been cost synergies with shooting as one long movie as opposed to episodically, not to mention the fact that all cast sans Kyle MacLachlan reportedly worked for scale.

I am curious to see where this landed in terms of cost.


Yes, that topic came up many times, and we can only speculate based on what other shows cost. If I recall speculation ranged between $1mil and $3mil per hour/part/episode. But that's pure speculation.
"Dougie is COOPER? How the Hell is this!?"
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2050
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby N. Needleman » Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:00 pm

dkenny78 wrote:As much as I would love the show to be taking the nation by storm like 'Game of Thrones' or 'The Walking Dead,' it somehow seems appropriate that 'Twin Peaks' is struggling in the ratings - it's like the Winter/Spring of 1991 all over again!


Ratings aside the show is currently a huge part of online buzz and conversation, driving content and websites on social media - in that sense, yes, it is quite big at the moment in pop culture. But no, it is not and was never designed to be actual competition for GOT and TWD.

Nor is it out there desperate for renewal, which is a paradigm people seem to keep returning to as though TP should be doing more to compete for that. It's not going to play that game and we're not all sitting around hoping not to be cancelled. The show is made. Relax.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
counterpaul
Posts: 233
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 1:06 am

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby counterpaul » Wed Jun 07, 2017 12:58 pm

N. Needleman wrote:Ratings aside the show is currently a huge part of online buzz and conversation, driving content and websites on social media - in that sense, yes, it is quite big at the moment in pop culture. But no, it is not and was never designed to be actual competition for GOT and TWD.


Right. People are definitely talking about it. Then again, I'm pretty clueless when it comes to zeitgeisty pop-culture things, so I have no idea at all how the "buzz" compares to stuff like Game of Thrones, etc.

I do wonder (and this is pure speculation based on pretty much nothing) if comparing Twin Peaks's live ratings to other Showtime series might be misleading, though. Again, based on purely anecdotal evidence and an absurdly small sample size, the people I know who have ordered Showtime to watch this do not have cable TV and so they're ordering the online service (either from Showtime directly or through Amazon or Hulu). I wonder if this might be significantly more common amongst Twin Peaks fans than it is for, say, Ray Donovan fans.

In fact, I can easily imagine that something like Ray Donovan or Billions would be the types of shows that people with cable would accidentally discover and enjoy enough to tune in every week, but that neither would be at all likely to specifically drive new subscriptions.

With Twin Peaks, the opposite is true. There probably aren't too many random Showtime subscribers checking TP out on a whim (and those who do are, for the most part, probably going to be completely confused and not terribly likely to keep tuning in). However, there are A LOT of people subscribing to Showtime for no other reason than Twin Peaks--people who are not interested in TV in general, who do not have cable and don't want it, but who are willing to pay for this series.

That's unusual, is it not? That's also uniquely valuable.

If Showtime recognizes this as a significant trend, then that would be a pretty obvious incentive to bankroll more programming with similarly passionate fanbases. Wasn't a big part of Showtime's stated goal with Twin Peaks to become the network for artists with name recognition who have previously been hesitant to work in TV? If Showtime could line up just a small handful of these kinds of projects every year--the kind that may tank from a ratings perspective but bring in subscribers who otherwise do not pay for TV at all--they would have a constant stream of new subscribers.

Just throwing that out there. I do think Twin Peaks's audience is different. I have no idea whether it's big enough to justify the cost of the show, but I do think comparing the live ratings to more conventional shows is probably at least a bit misleading.

Nor is it out there desperate for renewal, which is a paradigm people seem to keep returning to as though TP should be doing more to compete for that. It's not going to play that game and we're not all sitting around hoping not to be cancelled. The show is made. Relax.


Very, very true. Twin Peaks will not be cancelled, for the simple reason that it is a limited series. There's nothing to cancel! Just like there is nothing to renew. It's not designed as an ongoing series.

Even if the ratings were unambiguously, absurdly fantastic (Game of Thrones times 10!), Twin Peaks would not be "renewed" in any conventional sense. Another series would happen if and only if Lynch and Frost sat down and decided there was an idea worth pursuing.
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2050
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby N. Needleman » Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:24 pm

I'd like to make my formal request now: To whichever European nation-state Sky Atlantic leaks Episode 6 to early this week, please bring your screencaps and spoilers to us first here at Dugpa.

Only half-kidding. ;)
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
laughingpinecone
Posts: 725
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2016 6:45 am
Location: D'ni
Contact:

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby laughingpinecone » Wed Jun 07, 2017 4:36 pm

Forget viewership numbers, subscriptions etc. If there was a clause in a contract somewhere about owning up and paying for leaks, Showtime must've gotten their investment back thanks to Sky alone...
] The gathered are known by their faces of stone.
User avatar
AgentEcho
Posts: 313
Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2017 11:57 am

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby AgentEcho » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:33 pm

I think the biggest potential downfall of the ratings not being good is it is unlikely another network will invest competently in another idiosyncratic artists vision again. But it was unlikely before the show started.
User avatar
Major Briggs
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Major Briggs » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:04 pm

N. Needleman wrote:
dkenny78 wrote:As much as I would love the show to be taking the nation by storm like 'Game of Thrones' or 'The Walking Dead,' it somehow seems appropriate that 'Twin Peaks' is struggling in the ratings - it's like the Winter/Spring of 1991 all over again!


Ratings aside the show is currently a huge part of online buzz and conversation, driving content and websites on social media - in that sense, yes, it is quite big at the moment in pop culture. But no, it is not and was never designed to be actual competition for GOT and TWD.

Nor is it out there desperate for renewal, which is a paradigm people seem to keep returning to as though TP should be doing more to compete for that. It's not going to play that game and we're not all sitting around hoping not to be cancelled. The show is made. Relax.


So because the show is baked, we can't want or expect it to be successful so that more people enjoy what we love for 25 years?
User avatar
N. Needleman
Posts: 2050
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby N. Needleman » Wed Jun 07, 2017 8:13 pm

That's not what I'm saying. But I don't think we should approach it as though it's a definite goal for the production or Lynch/Frost. This is a unique situation.
Last edited by N. Needleman on Thu Jun 08, 2017 4:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2493
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Thu Jun 08, 2017 3:53 am

Major Briggs wrote:So because the show is baked, we can't want or expect it to be successful so that more people enjoy what we love for 25 years?


FWWM was a box office dud, but it is being talked about 25 years later and is probably more popular than ever. I think even before the new series was announced and people revisited the franchise, FWWM had become a much bigger part of the conversation. The new show is (so far anyway) a stunningly unique work that will be out there for people to discover. Instant success would be nice, but the show can always pick up steam later. I imagine that if it sticks the landing (as DKL always has), good buzz will encourage people to binge watch the whole thing. This is my dad's plan, he hates waiting a week between series episodes (he forgets what had happened in prior episodes -- a particularly valid concern on a show as dense as this one. Not everyone spends all week thinking about the show like we do!)
User avatar
Hockey Mask
Posts: 336
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 3:31 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Hockey Mask » Thu Jun 08, 2017 6:41 am

The real question is who is going to do the ultimate binge and watch 18 hours straight?
LateReg
Posts: 941
Joined: Sun May 10, 2015 5:19 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby LateReg » Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:32 am

Hockey Mask wrote:The real question is who is going to do the ultimate binge and watch 18 hours straight?


Oh, me, for sure!
User avatar
Major Briggs
Posts: 239
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:08 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Major Briggs » Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:56 am

Mr. Reindeer wrote:
Major Briggs wrote:So because the show is baked, we can't want or expect it to be successful so that more people enjoy what we love for 25 years?


FWWM was a box office dud, but it is being talked about 25 years later and is probably more popular than ever. I think even before the new series was announced and people revisited the franchise, FWWM had become a much bigger part of the conversation. The new show is (so far anyway) a stunningly unique work that will be out there for people to discover. Instant success would be nice, but the show can always pick up steam later. I imagine that if it sticks the landing (as DKL always has), good buzz will encourage people to binge watch the whole thing. This is my dad's plan, he hates waiting a week between series episodes (he forgets what had happened in prior episodes -- a particularly valid concern on a show as dense as this one. Not everyone spends all week thinking about the show like we do!)


My point is that me and a lot of other people are not wanting the show to be successful just to get more seasons. We want it 'cause it's something we hold dear for 25 frickin' years, and the more people knowing and liking it, the better. I see no problem whatsoever in that
User avatar
Mr. Reindeer
Posts: 2493
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:09 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby Mr. Reindeer » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:07 am

Major Briggs wrote:
Mr. Reindeer wrote:
Major Briggs wrote:So because the show is baked, we can't want or expect it to be successful so that more people enjoy what we love for 25 years?


FWWM was a box office dud, but it is being talked about 25 years later and is probably more popular than ever. I think even before the new series was announced and people revisited the franchise, FWWM had become a much bigger part of the conversation. The new show is (so far anyway) a stunningly unique work that will be out there for people to discover. Instant success would be nice, but the show can always pick up steam later. I imagine that if it sticks the landing (as DKL always has), good buzz will encourage people to binge watch the whole thing. This is my dad's plan, he hates waiting a week between series episodes (he forgets what had happened in prior episodes -- a particularly valid concern on a show as dense as this one. Not everyone spends all week thinking about the show like we do!)


My point is that me and a lot of other people are not wanting the show to be successful just to get more seasons. We want it 'cause it's something we hold dear for 25 frickin' years, and the more people knowing and liking it, the better. I see no problem whatsoever in that


It's not a huge concern for me -- most of DKL's films (and many of my favorite films in general) are cult works appreciated by a relatively small but dedicated group. I'm used to it. But I agree that it would be nice if the new show reached a larger audience, and there's certainly nothing wrong with wanting that. My only point is that even if it doesn't happen this week or this month, it can still happen.
User avatar
sackboy97
Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2016 2:01 pm

Re: NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

Postby sackboy97 » Thu Jun 08, 2017 8:21 am

Hockey Mask wrote:The real question is who is going to do the ultimate binge and watch 18 hours straight?

I mean, the idea sounds appealing, I'm not sure I'll find a day where I can spend 18 hours watching TP though.

Return to “Twin Peaks Movie, TV, Books”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests