I've read that review, it doesn't mention anything compared to how it was displayed in theaters or if the other releases look how it's supposed to. I'm not arguing, I've been able to figure this out for awhile regarding the color timing.underthefan wrote:If you've seen the film recently on 35mm, you'll be able to tell the difference clearly. The blu ray is overexposed and washed out, and does not represent how the film actually looks. Here is from bluray.com review (the best resource for blu rays online):SpookyDollhouse wrote:What's wrong with the color timing? It came from a new scan and looks beautiful compared to the international releases.Ross wrote: I'll buy it if it fixes some of the color grading issues.
Fire Walk with Me delivers a decidedly decent 1080p/AVC-encoded presentation as well, albeit one that isn't as attractive or proficiently remastered as the series' image. Contrast and clarity are generally pleasing, even though skintones are a tad washed out and primaries are as brilliant as they could be. Black levels are strong nonetheless, shadows are absorbing and detail is exacting. (Much more so than it is in the French MK2 Blu-ray release.) Edge definition is, for the most part, precise, textures follow suit, and grain is mostly intact. There are several scenes in which the film takes on a mildly over-processed appearance -- note the shots at the beginning of Chapter 4 for starters, when Agents Desmond and Stanley arrive at the Deer Meadow Sheriff station -- but insofar as noise reduction is concerned, it hasn't been utilized in too egregious a manner; at least not one that produces any serious smearing or negative side effects. There also aren't any encoding issues, save a hint of artifacting and noise that sneaks into some darker shots. It definitely isn't as much of a revelation as the series' remaster and resurrection -- or a product of the tender loving care afforded the show -- but it still delivers and bests everything release that's come before it, domestic or intentional.
NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread
Moderators: Brad D, Annie, Jonah, BookhouseBoyBob, Ross, Jerry Horne
- SpookyDollhouse
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 312
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 5:22 pm
- Contact:
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
-
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 233
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:31 am
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
The Red Room shot feels a bit too open. I've always kinda enjoyed the thought of the rooms being smaller in size. But I'm definitely interested in seeing what has been reserved for the biggest spaced room in that place.
However, I love the fact that they opened this teaser with a Red Room shot. Makes you think the Red Room has to be very significant in the series then.
And that Palmer house shot is chilling. When looking at the full screen image of it I'm pretty terrified to look at those DARK windows on top. I would be more terrified to see something odd behind those windows than behind the windows with lights in the room.
However, I love the fact that they opened this teaser with a Red Room shot. Makes you think the Red Room has to be very significant in the series then.
And that Palmer house shot is chilling. When looking at the full screen image of it I'm pretty terrified to look at those DARK windows on top. I would be more terrified to see something odd behind those windows than behind the windows with lights in the room.
Oh yeah! I'd love him to have a space for a Chalfont just to see if there would be third Chalfonts coming to live there. And maybe it eventually happens.Mordeen wrote:So we can finally acknowledge the existence of the New Fat Trout. Hope they saved an honorary Chalfont lot. That would definitely weird Carl out.
- underthefan
- Great Northern Member
- Posts: 626
- Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 12:21 pm
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
No, the review doesn't mention the color timing and they may not know how it looked in theaters. But it's really fresh in my mind cause I just saw the movie on 35mm two times this year. What bothers me more than color though is how overexposed/washed out it is. I always have to tone down the brightness when watching it.SpookyDollhouse wrote:I've read that review, it doesn't mention anything compared to how it was displayed in theaters or if the other releases look how it's supposed to. I'm not arguing, I've been able to figure this out for awhile regarding the color timing.underthefan wrote:If you've seen the film recently on 35mm, you'll be able to tell the difference clearly. The blu ray is overexposed and washed out, and does not represent how the film actually looks. Here is from bluray.com review (the best resource for blu rays online):SpookyDollhouse wrote:
What's wrong with the color timing? It came from a new scan and looks beautiful compared to the international releases.
Fire Walk with Me delivers a decidedly decent 1080p/AVC-encoded presentation as well, albeit one that isn't as attractive or proficiently remastered as the series' image. Contrast and clarity are generally pleasing, even though skintones are a tad washed out and primaries are as brilliant as they could be. Black levels are strong nonetheless, shadows are absorbing and detail is exacting. (Much more so than it is in the French MK2 Blu-ray release.) Edge definition is, for the most part, precise, textures follow suit, and grain is mostly intact. There are several scenes in which the film takes on a mildly over-processed appearance -- note the shots at the beginning of Chapter 4 for starters, when Agents Desmond and Stanley arrive at the Deer Meadow Sheriff station -- but insofar as noise reduction is concerned, it hasn't been utilized in too egregious a manner; at least not one that produces any serious smearing or negative side effects. There also aren't any encoding issues, save a hint of artifacting and noise that sneaks into some darker shots. It definitely isn't as much of a revelation as the series' remaster and resurrection -- or a product of the tender loving care afforded the show -- but it still delivers and bests everything release that's come before it, domestic or intentional.
- Major Briggs
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 239
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2016 5:08 pm
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
No, it's like thisbob_wooler wrote:I see, so that makes 18 hours/18 parts/15 "episodes"?Major Briggs wrote:Two hours, two parts, 21, 28 and September 3.bob_wooler wrote:Two hours/one part on the 21st, two hours/TWO parts on the 28th, and two hours/one part on Sep 3rd. Right?
May 21 - Part 1 / Part 2
May 28 - Part 3 / Part 4
Then part 5, 6, 7, 8, 9... all independently
September 3 - Part 17 / Part 18
These will be shown together on those dates. But they are separate entities. So let's say that Showtime reruns the series sometime next year, they can air them independently. So that leaves us with 18 parts/episodes/whatever you wanna call it.
They did that with Homeland, for an example. Season 4 started with two episodes airing on the same day, but they are separate things.
Don't know if you get what I'm saying but there you go
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
It's 18 parts. According to Lynch himself in the NYT article. An 18 hour feature broken up into 18 parts.bob_wooler wrote:Guys, I know we're getting 18 hours, I only wanted to point out that we're not getting 18 "episodes"/parts. That's all.Mr. Reindeer wrote:They've said we're getting two hours on 5/21, two hours on 5/28, and two hours on 9/03. That leaves 12 remaining hours and 13 remaining weeks.bob_wooler wrote: Exactly, and because of that everyone automatically presumes it's also 18 parts (episodes).
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
I totally agree with this.NightTimeMyTime wrote:I believe we are going to see a dead Donna in the new Twin Peaks.
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
Or just a Donna who isn't in the show. Annie I think could be straight up dead. Donna I feel would've just left that place and could easily be written out as never having returned (seriously, why would she stay; her parents lied to her about who her father was, her dad then almost killed Ben Horne in front of her, her best friend was murdered and raped by her father, her friend's cousin was also murdered, James left town, she inadvertently caused Harold to kill himself, etc.) I mean, I suppose one could look at that Leland/Donna scene as Bob now having his sights set on her, but, eh, I'm not sure it does anything for me (Bob immediately killing Annie at first possible opportunity feels 'right' for lack of a better word).Aerozhul wrote:I totally agree with this.NightTimeMyTime wrote:I believe we are going to see a dead Donna in the new Twin Peaks.
I think it's telling too that Warren Frost is in the series, but Mary Jo Deschanel isn't. Likely she died, or the family got torn apart by that Ben Horne drama, and either way it seems pretty sad for Doc Hayward.
- kitty666cats
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 131
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:38 pm
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
At least we got good ol' Gersten! Gawd, Alicia Witt <3 <3 <3Rudagger wrote:Or just a Donna who isn't in the show. Annie I think could be straight up dead. Donna I feel would've just left that place and could easily be written out as never having returned (seriously, why would she stay; her parents lied to her about who her father was, her dad then almost killed Ben Horne in front of her, her best friend was murdered and raped by her father, her friend's cousin was also murdered, James left town, she inadvertently caused Harold to kill himself, etc.) I mean, I suppose one could look at that Leland/Donna scene as Bob now having his sights set on her, but, eh, I'm not sure it does anything for me (Bob immediately killing Annie at first possible opportunity feels 'right' for lack of a better word).Aerozhul wrote:I totally agree with this.NightTimeMyTime wrote:I believe we are going to see a dead Donna in the new Twin Peaks.
I think it's telling too that Warren Frost is in the series, but Mary Jo Deschanel isn't. Likely she died, or the family got torn apart by that Ben Horne drama, and either way it seems pretty sad for Doc Hayward.
- MysteryMan
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 187
- Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 3:29 am
- Location: Glasgow, Scotland (UK)
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
Does that mean there will be a week without any episode/part then?Major Briggs wrote:No, it's like thisbob_wooler wrote:I see, so that makes 18 hours/18 parts/15 "episodes"?Major Briggs wrote:
Two hours, two parts, 21, 28 and September 3.
May 21 - Part 1 / Part 2
May 28 - Part 3 / Part 4
Then part 5, 6, 7, 8, 9... all independently
September 3 - Part 17 / Part 18
These will be shown together on those dates. But they are separate entities. So let's say that Showtime reruns the series sometime next year, they can air them independently. So that leaves us with 18 parts/episodes/whatever you wanna call it.
They did that with Homeland, for an example. Season 4 started with two episodes airing on the same day, but they are separate things.
Don't know if you get what I'm saying but there you go
May 21: parts 1/2
May 28: parts 3/4
June 4: part 5
June 11: part 6
June 18: part 7
June 25: part 8
July 2: part 9
July 9: part 10
July 16: part 11
July 23: part 12
July 30: part 13
August 6: part 14
August 13: part 15
August 20: part 16
August 27: ??
and then...
September 3: parts 17/18
The next time you see me it won't be me...
- Chester Desmond
- Roadhouse Member
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 4:09 pm
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
I thought we were getting 4 hours of Twin Peaks on the the 21st, right?
Two hours aired (1 & 2) and 2 more hours (3 & 4) on Showtime Anytime? So we get 4 hours the first night, right?
Two hours aired (1 & 2) and 2 more hours (3 & 4) on Showtime Anytime? So we get 4 hours the first night, right?
Hang loose, Houlies
- Robot Butler
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 107
- Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2016 7:48 pm
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
right.Chester Desmond wrote:I thought we were getting 4 hours of Twin Peaks on the the 21st, right?
Two hours aired (1 & 2) and 2 more hours (3 & 4) on Showtime Anytime? So we get 4 hours the first night, right?
- N. Needleman
- Lodge Member
- Posts: 2113
- Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2014 2:39 pm
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
I remember whispers about Mary Jo Deschanel. I'm still not sure her name not being on the list isn't another kooky PR oversight.
AnotherBlueRoseCase wrote:The Return is clearly guaranteed a future audience among stoners and other drug users.
- StrangerDanger
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 160
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2016 9:46 am
- Location: Another Place
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
Series 3 wish list:
- I want to learn more about Garmonbozia, is it a new world? Is it where the aliens come from?
- And yeah, l want to learn more about the Chalfonts! Especially that Lynch doppelganger boy, although l expect he's all grown up now.
- I want the Ed - Nadine - Norma love triangle to have been resolved, preferably with a bigamous setup, because it's not good that Nadine was cheated on, but l really understand how the White Knight in us rushes into a situation so as not to hurt a person's feelings e.g. Ed agreeing to marry Nadine.
Expecting to read the books at some point too, hopefully they won't be spoiled by watching Season 3 first.
- I want to learn more about Garmonbozia, is it a new world? Is it where the aliens come from?
- And yeah, l want to learn more about the Chalfonts! Especially that Lynch doppelganger boy, although l expect he's all grown up now.
- I want the Ed - Nadine - Norma love triangle to have been resolved, preferably with a bigamous setup, because it's not good that Nadine was cheated on, but l really understand how the White Knight in us rushes into a situation so as not to hurt a person's feelings e.g. Ed agreeing to marry Nadine.
Expecting to read the books at some point too, hopefully they won't be spoiled by watching Season 3 first.
leeeET's ROCK!
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the ]
[ I've permanently left the forum ... Dugpa is a dodgy name, plus l'm too busy. Keep the ]
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
The color on the US DVD is closer to original. The blu Ray is much different. As I said the warmer reds of the blu more closely match the look of the series, and are sometimes more pleasing. But sometimes the changes are determintal.SpookyDollhouse wrote:It was green in theaters? I've never seen a 35mm print but that doesn't sound right at all considering the DP who worked on it. I think one of the international releases is green and that to me is the one that looks off.Ross wrote:Well, it's much different than it was in theaters, so if you're a purist or stickler for that, then it's pretty off. Obviously they chose to change it for the blu set and skew away from green to a much warmer red look to more closely match the coral look of the series. Honestly, for a lot of it I actually like it more, even though it's inaccurate. But sometimes it's for the worse. The worst being, as I mentioned above, the shot of possessed Laura at Harolds. The loss of the yellow teeth robs that shot of some of its power. Also the final sequences in the Lodge become too pink, and are very dull without contrast.SpookyDollhouse wrote:What's wrong with the color timing? It came from a new scan and looks beautiful compared to the international releases.
"I can see half my life's history in your face... And I'm not sure that I want to."
http://twinpeakssoundtrackdesign.blogspot.com/
http://twinpeakssoundtrackdesign.blogspot.com/
- The Jumping Man
- RR Diner Member
- Posts: 179
- Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 6:27 pm
Re: NO SPOILERS: Twin Peaks Season 3 on Showtime May 21st 2017
Do people read this thread before they post?Does that mean there will be a week without any episode/part then?
Anyway, I dunno how many of you are from small towns, but people do move away. It would be weird if all the teen characters from 25 years ago still lived there.