NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

[LateReg]

According to Tim Goodman (TV critic for Hollywood Reporter), there'll be a media screening in LA on May 19 (presumably for the first 2 hours), but reviews will be embargoed until after it airs on Sunday.

https://twitter.com/BastardMachine/stat ... 0749658112

So is he being sarcastic when he says "Um, all good signs!"?

Yes, definitely sarcasm. It's depressing to read, I think, since I sense he really believes that one of the reasons Showtime would be embargoing reviews is because they're afraid of the response. Clearly not the case, and all Goodman would have to do is pay the least bit of attention to how secretive the entire production and promotion has been to see that the embargo is in place and there are no screeners in order to continue the project's secretive nature. And the article he wrote was really ill informed, not because he has problems with Twin Peaks, but because Legion is a totally different beast that is only surface weird compared to Twin Peaks' emotional depths. And I say that as a big fan of Legion. I also don't like in that Goodman article that he didn't even acknowledge how the final episode returned the series to form, but rather pushed a narrative that the entire back half of the second season was a total waste. I think he's simply not a fan, which is ok, except that I find the article to be lame, as I think it mostly argues that Twin Peaks will fail because it can't possibly be as weird as Legion...as though being weird was Twin Peaks primary reason to exist. It's just a pointless article all around.

[Mordeen]

Excuse me while I take a moment to not give a shit if I hurt anyone's feelings or simply disagree with them, but;

Critics can kiss my hairy white ass. If you make a living off of criticizing another's work, whether you like it or hate it, find a goddamned job that contributes something to the world. It's such an empty platform for insecurity and attention grabbing. A good number of those reporting on "the reboot" have already gone out of their way to shit on elements of the series or film and clearly because they either want to hate it, or they want people to react to them hating it.

I've never let a critic shape my opinion of a work of art, and I never will. They can go ahead and do their thing and make money but I'll be standing over here giving them the finger while they do it.

Yeah, rant. Whatever. I'm done with people passing judgment on something that hasn't even come out yet.

5/21 literally cannot come soon enough.

-Mordeen

[Dalai Cooper]

Yeah that's dumb. The function of criticism isn't to provide you with opinions you agree with - good criticism (positive or negative) can really open up a work of art, while being artful in its own right. To me, saying that art shouldn't be written about is akin to saying it shouldn't be made, and the idea that professional critics are parasites who contribute nothing of their own is resentful whining from fanboys and artists who never got over being panned. Many great artists, from Henry James to most of the Nouvelle Vague, were also critics.

[baxter]

The thing is that the traditional role of the critic is dying. It used to be that you had limited funds, there was some cool stuff coming out, but you needed someone to tell you what might be worth spending money on, since there was no other way to get it.

Over time, you would find critics that generally agreed with you most of the time, so you knew that their taste was similar to yours. Then you could trust their judgement. For added fun, these critics for me were generally not those I would a priori expect (e.g. Roger Ebert and I agree on most films based on his reviews, and I found them engaging and open minded for the most part), or they were working for newspapers that I despised.

Nowadays, for TV you just watch it online and see if you like it (legally if available, "magic" if not), and for music you just check out Spotify and see if its shit or not. What is the point of a critic in that case? I still read reviews out of habit (it was always a nice way to waste some time), but increasingly I find that there is no real value in reading them because I've already seen the thing in question!

[madeleineferguson]

Yeah that's dumb. The function of criticism isn't to provide you with opinions you agree with - good criticism (positive or negative) can really open up a work of art, while being artful in its own right. To me, saying that art shouldn't be written about is akin to saying it shouldn't be made, and the idea that professional critics are parasites who contribute nothing of their own is resentful whining from fanboys and artists who never got over being panned. Many great artists, from Henry James to most of the Nouvelle Vague, were also critics.

But this guy Tim Goodman from the Hollywood Reporter isn't offering criticism, he's just negatively speculating. He hasn't seen anything to criticize, but he's bitching already and that doesn't seem right.

What's more, Mr. Goodman has now undermined his own future criticisms of Twin Peaks. Good critics are unbiased, at least publicly.

[SatisfactionJackson]

it would seem pretty anti-climactic to have no surprises at all cast-wise.

Sorry if this has been posted before. Did anyone read this? Or Is the interviewed person on this board? If not:

http://www.reddirtreport.com/red-dirt-g ... aks-reboot

"...It would be a "great surprise," Dukes said, adding, that anything is possible when David Lynch (and Bowie, for that matter) are involved...."

I did that interview over ten months ago. Regardless... anything is possible. Personally, my hopes are not up for anyone appearing that is not on the cast list.

Ak, ok. Thanks!!!!

[SatisfactionJackson]

it would seem pretty anti-climactic to have no surprises at all cast-wise.

Sorry if this has been posted before. Did anyone read this? Or Is the interviewed person on this board? If not:

http://www.reddirtreport.com/red-dirt-g ... aks-reboot

"...It would be a "great surprise," Dukes said, adding, that anything is possible when David Lynch (and Bowie, for that matter) are involved...."

I did that interview over ten months ago. Regardless... anything is possible. Personally, my hopes are not up for anyone appearing that is not on the cast list.

Ak, ok. Thanks!!!!

[Driftwood]

I think nerds generally have a problem with being unable to handle people criticizing their nerd things without taking it as a personal assault

[DonnieB]

Definitely. A lot of TV critics like Goodman and Sepinwall have lately been saying that if there's no screeners available to the press it must that the show is terrible and Showtime is hiding it. I assume Lynch doesn't want critics to spoil anything/let the work speak for itself and allow the audience to digest it without the perceptions of critics in mind.

He knows as well as we do why the embargo is there. There's nothing little baby critics hate worse than not being sent screeners and having to watch something the same time as the unwashed masses. So they will try to shame Showtime or any network that does otherwise.

BTW, are we sure May 19, if it happens, will be for critics? Could just be cast/crew/family.

[Rainwater]

I think nerds generally have a problem with being unable to handle people criticizing their nerd things without taking it as a personal assault

I don't see what it has to do with "nerds". That's typically how people feel when someone else professes dislike for things they enjoy. It's how this works. You have a degree of emotional connection to the art you like.
But, regarding the specific article.. where's the criticism? This is what I'm seeing: Twin Peaks is solely concerned with being weird, which is measured in freak-tastic visuals, therefore, since Legion has so many weird nightmare-bait characters, it has already surpassed the new Peaks in every way that matters, so.. the whole thing might be moot already! That's just plain stupid.

If you're into that thing, there's also a cute dog that doesn't exist. What appears to be an evil father. A haunted house. A best female friend who is named Lenny but could actually be a male named Benny, but who is probably just a manifestation of The Devil With the Yellow Eyes. There's a creepy dude named The Eye (who is evil, so he's really The Evil Eye). On top of this, you get tons of Marvel superhero-type stuff like people who can make doors fly off and into space, people who can talk to each other telepathically, the movement of objects (sometimes into, say, your face) via telekinesis and one character who is named after the founder of Pink Floyd.
So tell me again how Twin Peaks is going to be weirder than that?
And even if Twin Peaks has (or had) creepiness whistling among the pines and something like the Log Lady or a dancing dwarf or an earnest FBI agent who likes coffee and pie, can it still compete?

Even opinions aside, that article is something I'd have been embarrassed to write for a school assignment when I was 15. I don't really read "entertainment media" much, so this could be the standard for all I know, but really?

[AXX°N N.]

I don't really read "entertainment media" much, so this could be the standard for all I know, but really?

It most assuredly is; with the advent of the mouse-click and its super-efficient conversion into instant revenue, entertainment media is concerned more with putting out as many articles as possible, with the only real criteria is it attracts mouse-clicks. Sustained thoughtfulness, which often manifests in brevity, and provokes a productive isolation and the absence of want, is their enemy.

[Dalai Cooper]

Yeah that's dumb. The function of criticism isn't to provide you with opinions you agree with - good criticism (positive or negative) can really open up a work of art, while being artful in its own right. To me, saying that art shouldn't be written about is akin to saying it shouldn't be made, and the idea that professional critics are parasites who contribute nothing of their own is resentful whining from fanboys and artists who never got over being panned. Many great artists, from Henry James to most of the Nouvelle Vague, were also critics.

But this guy Tim Goodman from the Hollywood Reporter isn't offering criticism, he's just negatively speculating. He hasn't seen anything to criticize, but he's bitching already and that doesn't seem right.

What's more, Mr. Goodman has now undermined his own future criticisms of Twin Peaks. Good critics are unbiased, at least publicly.

I think it's a bad article, I was responding more to the assertion that all critics are terrible.

[LateReg]

The thing is that the traditional role of the critic is dying. It used to be that you had limited funds, there was some cool stuff coming out, but you needed someone to tell you what might be worth spending money on, since there was no other way to get it.

Over time, you would find critics that generally agreed with you most of the time, so you knew that their taste was similar to yours. Then you could trust their judgement. For added fun, these critics for me were generally not those I would a priori expect (e.g. Roger Ebert and I agree on most films based on his reviews, and I found them engaging and open minded for the most part), or they were working for newspapers that I despised.

Nowadays, for TV you just watch it online and see if you like it (legally if available, "magic" if not), and for music you just check out Spotify and see if its shit or not. What is the point of a critic in that case? I still read reviews out of habit (it was always a nice way to waste some time), but increasingly I find that there is no real value in reading them because I've already seen the thing in question!

All veey good points. But the reason I read criticism after I've seen something is because, as the above poster pointed out, it can open up a work of art, point out some things I've missed, and help me engage further with the material. Not all criticism, of course, but some serves that purpose.

[Venus]

The thing is that the traditional role of the critic is dying. It used to be that you had limited funds, there was some cool stuff coming out, but you needed someone to tell you what might be worth spending money on, since there was no other way to get it.

Over time, you would find critics that generally agreed with you most of the time, so you knew that their taste was similar to yours. Then you could trust their judgement. For added fun, these critics for me were generally not those I would a priori expect (e.g. Roger Ebert and I agree on most films based on his reviews, and I found them engaging and open minded for the most part), or they were working for newspapers that I despised.

Nowadays, for TV you just watch it online and see if you like it (legally if available, "magic" if not), and for music you just check out Spotify and see if its shit or not. What is the point of a critic in that case? I still read reviews out of habit (it was always a nice way to waste some time), but increasingly I find that there is no real value in reading them because I've already seen the thing in question!

All veey good points. But the reason I read criticism after I've seen something is because, as the above poster pointed out, it can open up a work of art, point out some things I've missed, and help me engage further with the material. Not all criticism, of course, but some serves that purpose.

Lol I still look at critic reviews for films because of what you said Baxter. Limited funds, I have to pick and choose carefully what to see at the now incredibly, in my world, expensive cinema. I usually just look at Empire Magazine's reviews and go by that. If I hear stuff about TV programmes that is good then I'll give it a try if I can access it though rather than spending money to go see it it's now a case of do I want to spend my time watching something that might be crap. Emmy winning shows are usually a good bet.

[krishnanspace]

Peter Deming posted a photo of his invitation today on Instagram. It's on 19th. People please check your emails to see if you have one, especially Jerry Horne