You know, in a Swedish Morning Show, a couple of movie critics sat down to discuss this revival, and for some strange reason, they all agreed that David Lynch probably was persuaded to do this new season. They said that David Lynch "is an artist" and that he never would want to repeat the same thing again, and that's why he is doing this totally new thing.
Anyway, any commercial business is depending on their buyers/customers. If they try to run a proper business, they really need to care about ratings. Showtime would never put millions into a project without expecting anyting in return. They MUST have calculated with some income to cover their costs, and also, being a business, they must have calculated with some profit too. Maybe over a specific time period, not all at once, but still.
Seeing the ratings TPTR has got, I guess maybe someone at Showtime was a little bit too optimistic when it came to the interest people would have in Twin Peaks nowadays. To get money these days, I think it's better to go mainstream. That's why this TPTR is a such a surprise to me. I had hoped for something more mainstream, (since that is what Showtime would need to generate some serious income).
I don't recall the orignal TP getting "way more negative feedback". I guess I was too young at the time to care about such things. I just remember everyone talking about it, and how different it was. But I got the feeling that it was made for a mainstream audience, hence the so called "soap opera feel" to it.
And I will stop using the word "reboot". I thought i stood for any kind of life bringing life to old cancelled TV shows.
Actually, about 'reboot', I think you're kind of both right. When you re-start something from scratch, ignoring the previous continuity, you can as well call it a remake -- maybe with the exception of something like the new Star Trek movies, where the premise is also slightly different. At the same time, something like Star Wars - The Force Awakens, even if it's a direct continuation, goes to greath lenghts to re-establish the dynamics, the structure, the lore and mythos so it could easily be categorized as a (soft) reboot.
I do agress, however, that in the case of this new TP season there is nothing "re" (-booted, -made, -peated or -whatever) so, yeah, the "techincal" term would be sequel, continuation or... Return, really.
Eric, when it come to the "mainstreamness" of the whole thing, I do see your point. I'm absolutely, astonishingly bamboozled at how all of this came to be. To quote a tweet I read on the main site, here: (@JustinMcElroy said) "At some point, the Showtime exec that paid for Twin Peaks watched tonight's episode of Twin Peaks, and that fact brings me a lot of delight".
It's positively glorious to think about a bottomline/profit-oriented suits sitting in a screen room and the gut-wrenching panic attack something like this must have caused.
There's also one thing to consider: if you look at the credits you'll see that there's a crazy number of "Additional" and "Assistant" editors attached to this episodes which is generally a sign that the network tried to have some influence over the product (which is obvious and normal and completely understanding). And - as in any normal show - there are producers, and execs, and script supervisors, and dialogue supervisors and editors who worked on this.
I guess the commercial angle they are going for is more on the "Oh, look, Showtime just changed the history of television"/Cult-status side of things?
Another angle to take into account: these are David Lynch and Mark Frost.
DL is a successful and accomplished full rounded artist, not just a filmmaker. Director, screenwriter, editor, sound designer, actor, producer - this is just a part of the deal. The guy's a painter, a photographer and all around visual artist; a writer; a craftsman (he designs and builds pieces of forniture); a musician (composer, singer, author) with several albums on his shoulders and a producer for several bands. And -- in more than 50(!!) years of experience in all of these disciplines -- he authored and produced pieces that are largely acknowledged to range from "interesting" to "ground breaking" to "masterful".
This is someone who worked in movies and tv, mainstream and not, shooting on film and digitally, and managed to navigate the mainstream/Hollywood system without compromising (too much of) his artistic vision.
On the other hand we have Mark Frost, a novelist who also has a several decades long -- although, not as successful -- experience as a writer, producer and a filmmaker in both cinema and television.
The reason I'm making these guy's resumee is to emphatize why I believe they deserve more than a bit of trust. I don't feel they expected this thing to appeal to an incredibly vast audience but they ended up with titles like "Twin Peaks s03e08: the most important hour of television of 2017".
You know, in a Swedish Morning Show, a couple of movie critics sat down to discuss this revival, and for some strange reason, they all agreed that David Lynch probably was persuaded to do this new season. They said that David Lynch "is an artist" and that he never would want to repeat the same thing again, and that's why he is doing this totally new thing.
Anyway, any commercial business is depending on their buyers/customers. If they try to run a proper business, they really need to care about ratings. Showtime would never put millions into a project without expecting anyting in return. They MUST have calculated with some income to cover their costs, and also, being a business, they must have calculated with some profit too. Maybe over a specific time period, not all at once, but still.
Seeing the ratings TPTR has got, I guess maybe someone at Showtime was a little bit too optimistic when it came to the interest people would have in Twin Peaks nowadays. To get money these days, I think it's better to go mainstream. That's why this TPTR is a such a surprise to me. I had hoped for something more mainstream, (since that is what Showtime would need to generate some serious income).
I don't recall the orignal TP getting "way more negative feedback". I guess I was too young at the time to care about such things. I just remember everyone talking about it, and how different it was. But I got the feeling that it was made for a mainstream audience, hence the so called "soap opera feel" to it.
And I will stop using the word "reboot". I thought i stood for any kind of life bringing life to old cancelled TV shows.
I think the thing that seems to be dividing the perspectives on either side of this discussion is which aspect of the show do you give greater credence to, the commercial integrity or the artistic integrity? I will always stand for the artistic integrity, where the commercial integrity is merely a means to an end within a capitalist culture.
When thinking about commercial integrity v. artistic integrity, I like to use the analogy of Radiohead and Coldplay: to an untrained ear they sound similar, but Radiohead's music is a vehicle that echoes our existential dread and anxieties, rewards repeat listens, and subverts accessibility in favor of moving forward, while Coldplay's music is pastiche and a derivative of something that once contained substance. There's a place for both, but since there's only so much time we have to partake in things, I stand with Radiohead.
I also stand with Part 8.
All this being said, I just want to take the time here to appreciate and acknowledge the civility the Welcome to Twin Peaks forum has maintained. It is a wonderful breathe of fresh air from the YouTube and Twitter comment feeds.
You know, in a Swedish Morning Show, a couple of movie critics sat down to discuss this revival, and for some strange reason, they all agreed that David Lynch probably was persuaded to do this new season. They said that David Lynch "is an artist" and that he never would want to repeat the same thing again, and that's why he is doing this totally new thing.
Anyway, any commercial business is depending on their buyers/customers. If they try to run a proper business, they really need to care about ratings. Showtime would never put millions into a project without expecting anyting in return. They MUST have calculated with some income to cover their costs, and also, being a business, they must have calculated with some profit too. Maybe over a specific time period, not all at once, but still.
Seeing the ratings TPTR has got, I guess maybe someone at Showtime was a little bit too optimistic when it came to the interest people would have in Twin Peaks nowadays. To get money these days, I think it's better to go mainstream. That's why this TPTR is a such a surprise to me. I had hoped for something more mainstream, (since that is what Showtime would need to generate some serious income).
I don't recall the orignal TP getting "way more negative feedback". I guess I was too young at the time to care about such things. I just remember everyone talking about it, and how different it was. But I got the feeling that it was made for a mainstream audience, hence the so called "soap opera feel" to it.
And I will stop using the word "reboot". I thought i stood for any kind of life bringing life to old cancelled TV shows.
I think the thing that seems to be dividing the perspectives on either side of this discussion is which aspect of the show do you give greater credence to, the commercial integrity or the artistic integrity? I will always stand for the artistic integrity, where the commercial integrity is merely a means to an end within a capitalist culture.
When thinking about commercial integrity v. artistic integrity, I like to use the analogy of Radiohead and Coldplay: to an untrained ear they sound similar, but Radiohead's music is a vehicle that echoes our existential dread and anxieties, rewards repeat listens, and subverts accessibility in favor of moving forward, while Coldplay's music is pastiche and a derivative of something that once contained substance. There's a place for both, but since there's only so much time we have to partake in things, I stand with Radiohead.
I also stand with Part 8.
All this being said, I just want to take the time here to appreciate and acknowledge the civility the Welcome to Twin Peaks forum has maintained. It is a wonderful breathe of fresh air from the YouTube and Twitter comment feeds.
Or to put it another way, Radiohead are first class and Coldplay are complete and utter shite.
Hahaha. I was trying to be more diplomatic, but yes, I agree.
You know, in a Swedish Morning Show, a couple of movie critics sat down to discuss this revival, and for some strange reason, they all agreed that David Lynch probably was persuaded to do this new season. They said that David Lynch "is an artist" and that he never would want to repeat the same thing again, and that's why he is doing this totally new thing.
Anyway, any commercial business is depending on their buyers/customers. If they try to run a proper business, they really need to care about ratings. Showtime would never put millions into a project without expecting anyting in return. They MUST have calculated with some income to cover their costs, and also, being a business, they must have calculated with some profit too. Maybe over a specific time period, not all at once, but still.
Seeing the ratings TPTR has got, I guess maybe someone at Showtime was a little bit too optimistic when it came to the interest people would have in Twin Peaks nowadays. To get money these days, I think it's better to go mainstream. That's why this TPTR is a such a surprise to me. I had hoped for something more mainstream, (since that is what Showtime would need to generate some serious income).
I don't recall the orignal TP getting "way more negative feedback". I guess I was too young at the time to care about such things. I just remember everyone talking about it, and how different it was. But I got the feeling that it was made for a mainstream audience, hence the so called "soap opera feel" to it.
And I will stop using the word "reboot". I thought i stood for any kind of life bringing life to old cancelled TV shows.
First, no-one cares about Syrideen.
Second, your starting to sound like and boarding on trolling
if you hate it so much, just tune in, stream, and but don't watch or complain about it.
You know, in a Swedish Morning Show, a couple of movie critics sat down to discuss this revival, and for some strange reason, they all agreed that David Lynch probably was persuaded to do this new season. They said that David Lynch "is an artist" and that he never would want to repeat the same thing again, and that's why he is doing this totally new thing.
Anyway, any commercial business is depending on their buyers/customers. If they try to run a proper business, they really need to care about ratings. Showtime would never put millions into a project without expecting anyting in return. They MUST have calculated with some income to cover their costs, and also, being a business, they must have calculated with some profit too. Maybe over a specific time period, not all at once, but still.
Seeing the ratings TPTR has got, I guess maybe someone at Showtime was a little bit too optimistic when it came to the interest people would have in Twin Peaks nowadays. To get money these days, I think it's better to go mainstream. That's why this TPTR is a such a surprise to me. I had hoped for something more mainstream, (since that is what Showtime would need to generate some serious income).
I don't recall the orignal TP getting "way more negative feedback". I guess I was too young at the time to care about such things. I just remember everyone talking about it, and how different it was. But I got the feeling that it was made for a mainstream audience, hence the so called "soap opera feel" to it.
And I will stop using the word "reboot". I thought i stood for any kind of life bringing life to old cancelled TV shows.
How did we end up about talking about Showtime income, risk prediction, Incoming covering, costs, business and profit? Are we fans or are we managers? To point at the fact that something could be a waste of money or due to failure seems just like a way to validate the point you are making which is "I feel uncomfortable with the way the show decided to go". Lynch movies almost never were blockbusters (NEVER actually) but when a producer, ora a production company such as CANAL + or mk2 or even Laura Dern(!!! INLAND EMPIRE anyone?) decide to invest in something they POSSIBLY cleverly think they are investing on a long term plan of business.
Lynch is a renouwed and respected artist and I find it annoying (yes, this is the term I guess) that a fan applies an "art/non art market logic" upon art itself. It just makes little to no sense to me. Sorry i don't wanna sound rude. English is not my mother language and this is difficult stuff to explain, at least for me.
THIS is actually depressing from the POV of an artist that would love to express his/her ideas and give em to people to enjoy/reject.
It is narrowminded way of putting it.
If every audience would think the same they would NOT watch a movie or a piece of art or a frigging table IF NOT by having being assured that what they are giving their time and concentration to is one way or another a success.
If the audience applies the manager/producer logic upon themselves (audience vs consumer) prior to enjoy art we can't expect no change in art for the future. And everything would be stagnant. That is the main reason patronage does not exists anymore, and it is so Hard for new artist to emerge without being already popular to start with.
Artist will start seeing art as a mere product. This is too judgmental.
But Twin Peaks was a world wide phenomena when it first aired. That's what even made David Lynch a household name.
Anyway, to sum things up, I would like to quite what the guys over at GameSpot Universe said in ther episode 8 review on youtube: This is the episode where Twin Peaks Fans and David Lynch fans collided. Well, atleast some of them did. I'm more of a Twin Peaks fan than a David Lynch fan.
I also feel that Mark Frost is the more "down to earth guy" when it comes to screenwriting, that's why I wondered what his contribution was to this episode. I'm thinking that in the script for this episode, Frost just wrote a few lines to descripe what was happeing, a few lines for the executives to read, then gave it to Lynch -and his free hands- do direct and produce. Anyway, it's been great reading all your thoughts about this.
Back when the original TP aired here in Sweden, I recall EVERYONE talking about it. It was so strange and odd, but people still kept watching it. We only had two channels in Sweden at that time (yes, it's true). Now, when I for instance try talk with my colleagues at work about this, nobody else but me is watching. I try to talk them in to it, but, no. And it makes me a little sad. Same with my friends. Everybody is just watching "Game of Thrones". Nothing else matters. And that's a little bit strange to me, that a fantasy series could reach such a wide audience. But here I go again: "Game of Thrones" is mainstream.
Maybe the new Twin Peaks got less marketed/promoted. I don't know. But when I watch it, in my eyes, it's not mainstream. For some that's a good thing, for others it's not. Some people just don't care. And episode 8, in my eyes, didn't help to make it any more interesting for a mainstream audience. It will only scare them away. And I don't want that.
But Twin Peaks was a world wide phenomena when it first aired. That's what even made David Lynch a household name.
Anyway, to sum things up, I would like to quite what the guys over at GameSpot Universe said in ther episode 8 review on youtube: This is the episode where Twin Peaks Fans and David Lynch fans collided. Well, atleast some of them did. I'm more of a Twin Peaks fan than a David Lynch fan.
I also feel that Mark Frost is the more "down to earth guy" when it comes to screenwriting, that's why I wondered what his contribution was to this episode. I'm thinking that in the script for this episode, Frost just wrote a few lines to descripe what was happeing, a few lines for the executives to read, then gave it to Lynch -and his free hands- do direct and produce. Anyway, it's been great reading all your thoughts about this.
Back when the original TP aired here in Sweden, I recall EVERYONE talking about it. It was so strange and odd, but people still kept watching it. We only had two channels in Sweden at that time (yes, it's true). Now, when I for instance try talk with my colleagues at work about this, nobody else but me is watching. I try to talk them in to it, but, no. And it makes me a little sad. Same with my friends. Everybody is just watching "Game of Thrones". Nothing else matters. And that's a little bit strange to me, that a fantasy series could reach such a wide audience. But here I go again: "Game of Thrones" is mainstream.
Maybe the new Twin Peaks got less marketed/promoted. I don't know. But when I watch it, in my eyes, it's not mainstream. For some that's a good thing, for others it's not. Some people just don't care. And episode 8, in my eyes, didn't help to make it any more interesting for a mainstream audience. It will only scare them away. And I don't want that.
Now your just trolling.
You're not anything but whining and annoying people clearly more intelligent and sophisticated than any who uses mainstream as a measurement for quality
Peace be with you.
Dunno about trolling, at least I'd hope Eric is trying to engage in discussion, rather than getting people to bite. I couldn't possibly guess about Eric's intelligence, either.
I do think he's wrong, though. I don't think the Peaks Crew give a rat's ass if it's mainstream or not. They had an idea, they went with it, Showtime aired it. The end.
Said before, I'll say again... you don't like it, then don't watch it. Simple.
Thoughts after having read through most of the thread....
1.) The original show didn't have to compete in the over-saturated "everything's available all the time" field we have now-which made it stand out, in much the same way "Twilight Zone" did when it first aired. It's the "binge" era now....we're not so good at waiting for things.
2.) People will actually respond positively to something they haven't seen or heard before if it's both unique, and done well. Frank Zappa was living proof of this-it doesn't necessarily have to be a whole lot of people for it to work.....
3.) It seems a bit bipolar to expect DL to be one person when he's making films, then another when he's working in the "TV" format. To continue the musical analogy, I know Zappa fans who can't sit still for his orchestral work, or think the comedy stuff is dumb and just want to hear his guitar solos (hence the "shut up and play your guitar" set)....they still love the guy's work, just not all of it.
4.) If you're getting more than 2 million people to watch each episode, your show isn't in trouble. Showtime likely did this as a "prestige" project-the payoff?...down the road they'll be able to get meetings with directors who wouldn't normally even talk to them. Over time, TPR may actually make them money as well....Paramount/CBS is still making money on Star Trek TOS....!
5.) DL did tell us this was an 18-hour film. You can't really judge "Sgt Pepper" by any one of it's songs-it's greater than the sum of it's parts. I get that humans are pattern-seeking animals, I understand the drive to "make sense of it"....sometimes you just have to turn that off and "take the ride".
6.) This is an enormous amount of FUN!
Thoughts after having read through most of the thread....
1.) The original show didn't have to compete in the over-saturated "everything's available all the time" field we have now-which made it stand out, in much the same way "Twilight Zone" did when it first aired. It's the "binge" era now....we're not so good at waiting for things.
2.) People will actually respond positively to something they haven't seen or heard before if it's both unique, and done well. Frank Zappa was living proof of this-it doesn't necessarily have to be a whole lot of people for it to work.....
3.) It seems a bit bipolar to expect DL to be one person when he's making films, then another when he's working in the "TV" format. To continue the musical analogy, I know Zappa fans who can't sit still for his orchestral work, or think the comedy stuff is dumb and just want to hear his guitar solos (hence the "shut up and play your guitar" set)....they still love the guy's work, just not all of it.
4.) If you're getting more than 2 million people to watch each episode, your show isn't in trouble. Showtime likely did this as a "prestige" project-the payoff?...down the road they'll be able to get meetings with directors who wouldn't normally even talk to them. Over time, TPR may actually make them money as well....Paramount/CBS is still making money on Star Trek TOS....!
5.) DL did tell us this was an 18-hour film. You can't really judge "Sgt Pepper" by any one of it's songs-it's greater than the sum of it's parts. I get that humans are pattern-seeking animals, I understand the drive to "make sense of it"....sometimes you just have to turn that off and "take the ride".
6.) This is an enormous amount of FUN!
Very well said.
@wow_bob_wow: hold your horses right there, buddy : -) I don't think he is trolling. From where I read it, it seems to me that he is caring for something he likes and he's doing his best to like it more but he's frustrated because - for the moment - he didn't find a satisfactory way to do so.
Ok, yeah, his opening post was a bit incendiary, but it was clearly out of anger for something he cared about. Telling him how "unsophisticated" he is it's not something that makes you better nor it is going to be useful to him (or anyone else) in any way.
I'm just sayin' : -) I don't want to come off as aggressive, and english is not my first language, so.. Peace : -)
Now, Eric, I do see your point, really -- but the question here is: whose fault is that?
Is it Lynch's and Frost's for trying something new and unprecedented (which is the same approach that made the original series so important and you have to consider what is the context of modern television)?
Is the audience's, for refusing to be challenged and to approach something new?
Is it of shows like Game of Thrones that - good as they can be - are basically glorified soap-operas dripping in expositional galore?
If it can put your mind at ease: I've never seen Lynch delivering something that was just "weird for the sake of weird, and you can't do anything with it or about it". There's always a direction, there's always a point, there's always a pay off. He's taking 18 hours (or so) to get there? I think we can trust him (and Frost and all the other professionals involved) for that long.
EDIT: crosspost with the world 😛
Eric – maybe you should start by asking yourself how an episode of a TV show made you angry enough to post a rant with the subject "To all you episode 8 lovers" - hint: because it IS a work of cinematic art, and art that causes a stir in the audience (like the anger you're displaying) is actually art that is worth talking about. Is Lynch not an artist? Should he be anything other than an artist? Don't like part 8, that's okay – if everyone loved it, it wouldn't be worth talking about/dissecting/pondering. I'm personally excited that Showtime is taking a risk in giving creative license to one of the greatest American filmmakers of our time to let him do his creation (with Frost) the way HE wants to do it, and not being censored by some group of network execs who only worry about ratings.
Fire walk with