NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

[Agent Earle]

I couldn't care less about any silly awards. That's high school popularity contest BS.

LOL! More power to you, man!

[Rudagger]

I couldn't care less about any silly awards. That's high school popularity contest BS.

For stuff like the Grammys, I agree. I don't think they have much if any credibility left.

But, I've generally found Emmys/Oscars to do a good job, at the very least, picking good films/television series to award (even if they can overlook smaller stuff, or give the Best Picture Oscar to something that ends up being forgotten about a year later). If it were a popularity contest, you'd have Captain America: Civil War going for Best Picture at the Oscars, and NCIS: Los Angeles or The Walking Dead going for Best Dramatic Series.

Like, look at the Emmy's list here from last year;

Game of Thrones (HBO)
The Americans (FX)
Better Call Saul (AMC)
Downton Abbey (PBS)
Homeland (Showtime)
House of Cards (Netflix)
Mr. Robot (USA)

Sure, you can disagree with Game of Thrones winning for that season, perhaps that was a popularity contest (even if the pure scope of that show is absurd for television, and the production value is bar-none), but, I think it's silly to completely dismiss the more reputable television/film awards as they've done a pretty decent job of recognizing some of the better shows currently running. I don't think they're being easy on Game of Thrones because it's popular, otherwise the Walking Dead wouldn't take the critical ravaging it gets each year. Even if some of that stuff wasn't any of the shows best seasons (Homeland peaked long ago), nothing on there sticks out in a way like when you look at the Grammys list (Taylor Swift? Look, not to be elitist, but, it's easy listening music, that's all! That is the Captain America: Civil War equivalent I'm talking about).

For Limited Series:

The People v. O. J. Simpson: American Crime Story (FX)
American Crime (ABC)
Fargo (FX)
The Night Manager (AMC)
Roots (History)

I'm excited as hell for Twin Peaks, but, if Fargo Season 3 and the second go round of American Crime Story are even just half as good as their previous seasons, it's going to be in for some *very* strong competition. Besides, critics like David Lynch, the guy's been Oscar nominated, he's won a Palme D'Or, so, if Twin Peaks doesn't get nominated for some reason, I'm not going to go on a conspiracy theory that critics just suddenly did a 180 on him. But, I think as someone else suggested that the one stumbling block for Twin Peaks might end up being consistency. Fargo/American Crime Story were pretty much impeccably crafted from start to finish (there weren't any episodes that stuck out as weak). We really don't have any idea how Lynch/Frost will handle 18 hours of straight content. It's going to be great to finally find out in just a few more months though!

[Panapaok]

Any discussion about awards' potential is obviously very premature but I wouldn't be surprised to see Kyle getting recognized by the Emmys and the Globes.

[ForKeeps]

Considering there are going to be about a million guest appearances as well they'll probably get a nom there just by sheer odds

[Soolsma]

There might just be an award here or there, but I don't expect TP to be the major prize winner. Like Rudagger says, in today's TV landscape the competition is pretty strong. There are a lot incredibly creative and visionary writers, directors and talented actors working on a lot of amazing stuff.
(But what the hell is up with Game of Thrones? Tried it like, thrice, does not appeal to me at all. Looks kind of fake, plastic. Though I normally really love just about any kind of fantasy, and I'm a die-hard Tolkien and Middle earth freak)

I myself might even have to acknowledge that certain other series will surpass Peaks in terms of overall 'quality'. The difference being that I feel a deep, unique fondness for Twin Peaks and David Lynch. Which, I believe, sometimes can leave me a bit biased in my opinions. Guess what I'm trying to say is; it's hard to be objective when something or someone you've fallen in love with comes into play. I do think critics and the public have a weak spot for Lynch and Peaks, but that's it, a little weak spot.

[dronerstone]

If GoT takes the cake instead of Peaks next year around, I'll just take it as a sign of the times we live in.

I never understood the hype it had/has going. Medieval stuff isn't my cup of tea on the other hand. I strongly turn my back on it every time I stumble upon "Knights and princesses" fests or any other comparable undertaking... Yuck!

And with Got there are a crazy huge lot of people going "you should watch it, I'm sure you'll get hooked" to which I usually answer "have you seen Twin Peaks?" which usually ends in "no," me going "well then I'm definitely NOT watching GoT, f**k you! It seems you didn't get my point at all."


And pardon my french, but most people's viewing habits nowadays really grind my gears.


Therefore, I'd appreciate Peaks receiving awards and a positive acclaim, but seeing how scarcely recognized it usually is amongst non-Lynch-fans, I suppose Showtime are in for an adventure.

At least it'll make us geeks happy, but I expect nothing too big when it comes to praise from the outside world.

[LateReg]

I think some of you are really underestimating this thing. Assuming that it's THAT good, I think it will factor big at awards shows, or at the very least on critics' lists. It's been 25+ years since the original series, and not only has it influenced just about every program on television, it's also widely respected nowadays. Not only that, since it aired David Lynch has officially become a household name as well as solidified his status as one of the greatest directors who ever lived. His idiosyncratic choices are at this point given the benefit of the doubt. His last three movies - The Straight Story, Mulholland Drive and Inland Empire - average an 80 on metacritic, and despite Inland Empire's status as a divisive and difficult film that was somewhat difficult to see in time for year-end consideration, it still placed in the top ten of year-end polls by The Village Voice and Film Comment, and a few years later placed in the top 30 of the decade in polls by Indiewire and Film Comment. If this thing is good and the slightest bit grounded, the acclaim will be there and the excitement already is. On top of all that, it's going to be huge with TV and film people, as evidenced by the amount of articles that have been written already about a series we still know nothing about. I've read numerous message boards relating to the most anticipated films (not TV) of 2017, and numerous people have said something along the lines of "all that matters is the return of David Lynch." How it catches on with general audiences I don't know, but I think that it would be crazy to bet against it with critics groups in this era of challenging TV.

That said, regarding awards shows, I do think there is a chance that Peaks plays better with critics than it does with Emmys/Globes. Sometimes those programs don't embrace the weird (and it took forever for The Americans to get any recognition). But I still think that if Twin Peaks is THAT good, it will be nominated. It's the most anticipated, prestigious, fully director-controlled thing happening on TV in 2017, and the right people know that it's an event. Provided it's THAT good, viewers are poised to embrace it in all its twists and turns. And as I said before, Lynch loves the original pilot so much and understands why it worked so well that I fully expect the labored over first two hours of this series to both be awesome and be regarded as awesome by critics. Those initial, most likely great reviews for the first two hours will go a long way towards setting the tone of its reception and getting people on board.

[mtwentz]

I fully expect this series to be everything we've hoped for and will be good enough to get some awards. If Lynch gets an Emmy, he'll probably hang it in the bathroom right above the commode.

[N. Needleman]

It'll take some awards on principle. Certain shows do regardless of quality vs. prestige. Twin Peaks has both. We are in the era of 'peak TV,' and whatever anyone thinks of the show any number of critics will be falling all over themselves to pay homage to the unfairly maligned legend that spawned a thousand of these shows.

Awards shows and culture in Hollywood are often about narrative. Twin Peaks' narrative speaks for itself.

[Major Briggs]

If GoT takes the cake instead of Peaks next year around, I'll just take it as a sign of the times we live in.

I never understood the hype it had/has going. Medieval stuff isn't my cup of tea on the other hand. I strongly turn my back on it every time I stumble upon "Knights and princesses" fests or any other comparable undertaking... Yuck!

And with Got there are a crazy huge lot of people going "you should watch it, I'm sure you'll get hooked" to which I usually answer "have you seen Twin Peaks?" which usually ends in "no," me going "well then I'm definitely NOT watching GoT, f**k you! It seems you didn't get my point at all."


And pardon my french, but most people's viewing habits nowadays really grind my gears.


Therefore, I'd appreciate Peaks receiving awards and a positive acclaim, but seeing how scarcely recognized it usually is amongst non-Lynch-fans, I suppose Showtime are in for an adventure.

At least it'll make us geeks happy, but I expect nothing too big when it comes to praise from the outside world.

TP and GoT are not going to compete on the same category. TP fits in the limited series slot

[Agent Sam Stanley]

If GoT takes the cake instead of Peaks next year around, I'll just take it as a sign of the times we live in.

You don't need to wait until next year, the fact that GoT keeps winning every year while The Americans hasn't won once says a lot about what the Emmys are really about.
Personally I couldn't care less if TP is going to get nominations or not.

[Rudagger]

There might just be an award here or there, but I don't expect TP to be the major prize winner. Like Rudagger says, in today's TV landscape the competition is pretty strong. There are a lot incredibly creative and visionary writers, directors and talented actors working on a lot of amazing stuff.
(But what the hell is up with Game of Thrones? Tried it like, thrice, does not appeal to me at all. Looks kind of fake, plastic. Though I normally really love just about any kind of fantasy, and I'm a die-hard Tolkien and Middle earth freak)

For what it's worth, the production value on the first season is pretty weak. It just gets visually stronger after that (probably due to a bigger budget when they realized they weren't looking at a Rome situation in terms of budget-viewership). There are points where it looks as good as Jackson's Lord of the Rings (even if the climactic battle scenes in some seasons, despite being as incredible as they are for television, never quite reach that sense of scale .. probably due in part by design [saving it for the final season, while also using it as an excuse to save on budget])

I'm surprised you didn't like it though, as it converted me from a Tolkien fanatic to a Game of Thrones fan, though, I just like the more brutal world Thrones takes place in. I'll put it this way, as someone who read both read and watched Lord of the Rings, I'll sacrilegiously say that it bugs me that Boromir was the only member of the Fellowship to bite it, I think more needed to die at the end, especially as Legolas/Gimli serve little purpose by the end. I think in the novel it works fine, and Jackson would've been killed by fans for changing it, but on film it really starts to highlight the absurdity (and also robs us of any scene as gorgeous as Boromir's death/last words with Aragorn).

If you finished the first season, and it didn't do anything for you, then you probably won't like the rest. Having said that though, the show's third and fourth seasons are pretty fantastic, and there are some moments of storytelling that are downright Shakespearean tragedy. Every once in a while though, there are settings or storylines that drag the show down a bit, or reek of 'generic fantasy' (I'm looking at you Qarth and Dorne).

[Rudagger]

And with Got there are a crazy huge lot of people going "you should watch it, I'm sure you'll get hooked" to which I usually answer "have you seen Twin Peaks?" which usually ends in "no," me going "well then I'm definitely NOT watching GoT, f**k you! It seems you didn't get my point at all."

I'm not sure I follow here

So, you haven't seen GOT, and someone says it's good. And you respond to that by bringing up an entirely different show, and if they haven't seen *that*, even though they're bringing up Game of Thrones, you swear at them and say they're missing the point (even though all they're doing is recommending a currently running television series?)

I mean, I love Twin Peaks as much as the next guy, but, I don't get mad if someone recommends me Mad Men, and they .. haven't seen Twin Peaks? Sounds terribly elitist.

Anyway, I find "I'm not interested in Westerns" "I'm not into sci-fi" "I'm not into this subject" is a bit silly when it comes to media. A good show or television series tends to transcend it. Moneyball is a prime example; I could not possibly care less about baseball or baseball statistics, but, damn if Moneyball isn't two captivating hours of film. So, I never innately write off something that is critically well-received just based on it's subject matter. I mean, if you boil it down, Twin Peaks is a murder-mystery, a genre that's been done to death (and then brought back to life, and killed over and over again, for the past 90 years). I think a lot of people wear their skepticism of medieval or sci-fi, or any genre-film as some sort of badge of honour, and it just puts me off a little bit (maybe it's because I went to film school, so I kind of try to engage with material outside of stuff I'd normally watch, and I truly don't mean that as a humble brag, I slept through most of that program).

(Evidently, I've found myself in a position where I look like a massive Game of Thrones fanboy, but, it's not even my favourite show on television! That's Fargo!)

I think part of that though is I know how frustrating it is to have a truly great piece of media you want to recommend to a friend, like Sorkin's Steve Jobs movie, and you know that the material overcomes the subject matter, and how much it sucks to just get shut down with "Eh, I'm not interested in Steve Jobs".

[Jerry Horne]

Great interview with Chrysta Bell:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aa3DP9yVLbo

[dronerstone]

And with Got there are a crazy huge lot of people going "you should watch it, I'm sure you'll get hooked" to which I usually answer "have you seen Twin Peaks?" which usually ends in "no," me going "well then I'm definitely NOT watching GoT, f**k you! It seems you didn't get my point at all."

I'm not sure I follow here

So, you haven't seen GOT, and someone says it's good. And you respond to that by bringing up an entirely different show, and if they haven't seen *that*, even though they're bringing up Game of Thrones, you swear at them and say they're missing the point (even though all they're doing is recommending a currently running television series?)

As I said, I can not watch GoT because of its setting.

If Twin Peaks were set in a castle or medieval times, I wouldn't be here on this forum now.
The small town, high school setting is probably my favorite in media (I love "Dazed and Confused") because it speaks to my inner goth kid, especially along with the Peaks OST.

Oh and great Chrysta interview! Thanks Jerry!