NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

[Skip Bittman]

Don't really understand where "pretension" comes into it, it's just showbiz lingo. Might as well get annoyed at the word "gaffer."

[SpookyDollhouse]

"Prestige TV" as a showbiz term isn't pretentious, what's pretentious are individuals' attitudes who use it as a framing device to flaunt their subjectivities as objectivities re:discussions of ~quality AAA money-making~ television

Whether it sounds pretentious to you or not isn't relevant.

I'm praying you're being sardonic but my gut tells me no.

[The Marquis]

Does Showtime play any advertising for anything other than it's own product during the actual broadcast of Twin Peaks?

If not, the actual live ratings mean very little at all. The reason these numbers are collected is to generate interest from advertisers by having a tangible measurement to base the value of advertising on a particular show (there are other notable metrics this is measured on as well). I have a close friend who worked over 20 years for a weekly television producing company in various roles including producer, director, writer etc... He said that there were four times a year when ratings actually mattered and all had to do with being the time of year when advertisers would roll out new advertising contracts. The most important one was in May, the others in November, February and July. May Sweeps are why most television for AGES had their big finale's during that period... because they got their best ratings for their premiers and finale's and could sell to advertisers based on those superior numbers.

If there are no advertisers to sell to, there is no merit in 2017 to said ratings short of being a measurement of live viewership if there are other times AND other platforms on which to view said program... especially considering that their model is a subscription based one.

When I shared this with my friend in TV, he said in a subscription based model, new subscriptions due to the debut of a new show would be the single most valuable measurement of the value of a particular show, followed by media coverage and measurable "buzz" such as Twitter and Facebook impressions. By those measurements, if the word put out by Showtime is true, it would make Twin Peaks Season 3 a very valuable commodity at this point, and continuing as long as it continues to succeed based on the total viewership on all platforms (not just live viewership), subscription and coverage metrics. They make their money through subscriptions which are the result of media coverage, marketing and "buzz".

[Gabriel]

Nobody cares about the ratings. They care about the prestige and buzz. The show has plenty. Plus it's not in a ratings war or fighting for a renewal - it's a closed series designed to end. I think if Lynch/Showtime decide to do more the numbers will not be a huge factor. What I've heard for years and the talk Showtime is still pushing is that this is about prestige and perception for them, and the online streaming/subscription numbers certainly help as well.

And no - I don't think its numbers would be much higher on Netflix/wherever, only that we wouldn't know them.

I can imagine the ratings will end up being dismal by the end. It's a nice 'critical darling' item for Showtime and this obviously isn't expected to be a show that will bring in a mainstream audience. However, given the peculiar creative decisions made thus far, it'll drive away intitially-interested casual viewers, it'll alienate Twin Peaks fans who aren't David Lynch fans (a sizeable group) and it's likely no one but a hard core of fans will see it through the whole 18 weeks. I'm as easygoing about obscure material as can be – I was even part of the crowdfunding for the restoration of Walerian Borowczyk's films – but if my patience is being severely tested at times – and it is – a lot of people's will be. If the show continues as it has been beyond episode six, this show will have 'one man and a dog' viewership levels by part 17. A few extra might drop by to find out how it ends in part 18.

More than anything, if the critics turn on it (always possible) Nevins will likely have to consider his position for splurging a great deal of money on what many people would have expected to be a continuation of the (in)famous drama series from the 1990s and not some weird, 'videotaped' experimental drama. One of the reasons the best performance in the show thus far has been that of David Lynch himself is that he seems to be the only actor who knows what's going on!! And I'm writing this as someone who is appreciating a lot of the show.

[heLL paso]

I'm kinda getting sick of this "prestige" TV bullshit I've been hearing constantly around here, as if Twin Peaks is on a pedestal over everything else, and is going to push Showtime past HBO, which is a completely laughable concept.

As others have already indicated, it's not the 90s anymore. It's barely even the 2010s. The landscape and metrics of success have shifted dramatically. Buzz and prestige are huge levers, and Twin Peaks actually has more ongoing buzz than I expected week to week. Further, critics today champion low-rated prestige shows constantly. It's practically de riguer.

Pretending Peaks has to prove itself with live numbers like it's on CBS is the height of current naïveté- especially since the show is again designed to be a closed series which as of now is not publicly seeking renewal or continuation. Thinking otherwise is an outmoded mindset.

If you have a problem with how I interpret Showtime's priorities I suggest you take it up with Showtime. It's what I was told by colleagues working there as early as the winter of 2015 and it's the same public stance David Nevins is taking in print today. I personally do not believe Peaks alone can get them to HBO's level, but it is their mentality and the show is a huge trophy for them, especially in a year where HBO is facing continued difficulties.

You can call it arrogant if you like. Twin Peaks IS the pedestal. It's got nothing left to prove and if it does decide to continue it will not do so through live numbers like it's a CSI spinoff.

Why was Hannibal canceled after 3 seasons of a 7 season plan when it was NBC's best reviewed show? This was in 2015, not in 1984. Why was a Vinyl canceled after one year? It had the "auteurs" and "prestige" lined up, but the live TV ratings, mixed-to-positive reviews, and insane cost of production did it in.

I understand what you are saying, there's a lot of truth to it, but saying live numbers mean nothing at all, and nobody cares about them, is laughable. Many TV sites bring up ratings every day. But if course, nobody cares. But I suppose, these sites are worthless media garbage.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[N. Needleman]

If you guys want to sit here and handwring like it's 1991 be my guest. I don't have a dog in that race. The fact is the show is baked, it is what it is. The critics are loving it and the buzz is way bigger than I expected after that deliberately challenging premiere. That to me indicates it will continue to be a reasonable critical and social media darling going forward, and these days that counts for quite a lot. If you find that presumptuous I could care less. It is an active reality that has nothing to do personally with any of us.

Either way: the show is done and Lynch seems content with either stopping there or possibly going on. Getting amped up over what the show should be 'allowed' to be or how it should perform in terms of old network paradigms in order to secure some hypothetical renewal its creators may not even choose to pursue isn't a factor for me. If you want to make it a major issue for you, go ahead. But don't assume it's part of the ongoing narrative for the rest of us, or for Showtime or for Lynch.

The show is made, people are loving it, hell, even critics are loving it. And it's not going to be cancelled with no ending this time. Relax and enjoy it.

P.S. - It's not "videotaped."

[dkenny78]

Whether the ratings ultimately matter or not might be moot if the intention was always to offer this as a closed-ended, one-and-done limited series. I know there have been whispers from Lynch, Frost and MacLachlan that "The Return" might not in fact be "the end", but I've always been a bit skeptical of another season given the logistics and time it required to pull together this one.

[eyeboogers]

Why was Hannibal canceled after 3 seasons of a 7 season plan when it was NBC's best reviewed show? This was in 2015, not in 1984. Why was a Vinyl canceled after one year? It had the "auteurs" and "prestige" lined up, but the live TV ratings, mixed-to-positive reviews, and insane cost of production did it in.

I understand what you are saying, there's a lot of truth to it, but saying live numbers mean nothing at all, and nobody cares about them, is laughable. Many TV sites bring up ratings every day. But if course, nobody cares. But I suppose, these sites are worthless media garbage.

You can't compare a network show with a prestige cable show. They need to perform in different ways. "Hannibal" and NBC are still selling Colgate and cars, Showtime need to hook subscribers by offering them superior content.

"Vinyl" did not have mixed-positive reviews, the reviews were horrendous and social media buzz was beyond negative - and although Scorsese directed the pilot calling it an auteur show is a bit much. It was also way more expensive than "Twin Peaks" to produce.

A better show to compare it to would be something like "The Affair".

[LateReg]

I'm kinda getting sick of this "prestige" TV bullshit I've been hearing constantly around here, as if Twin Peaks is on a pedestal over everything else, and is going to push Showtime past HBO, which is a completely laughable concept.

As others have already indicated, it's not the 90s anymore. It's barely even the 2010s. The landscape and metrics of success have shifted dramatically. Buzz and prestige are huge levers, and Twin Peaks actually has more ongoing buzz than I expected week to week. Further, critics today champion low-rated prestige shows constantly. It's practically de riguer.

Pretending Peaks has to prove itself with live numbers like it's on CBS is the height of current naïveté- especially since the show is again designed to be a closed series which as of now is not publicly seeking renewal or continuation. Thinking otherwise is an outmoded mindset.

If you have a problem with how I interpret Showtime's priorities I suggest you take it up with Showtime. It's what I was told by colleagues working there as early as the winter of 2015 and it's the same public stance David Nevins is taking in print today. I personally do not believe Peaks alone can get them to HBO's level, but it is their mentality and the show is a huge trophy for them, especially in a year where HBO is facing continued difficulties.

You can call it arrogant if you like. Twin Peaks IS the pedestal. It's got nothing left to prove and if it does decide to continue it will not do so through live numbers like it's a CSI spinoff.

Why was Hannibal canceled after 3 seasons of a 7 season plan when it was NBC's best reviewed show? This was in 2015, not in 1984. Why was a Vinyl canceled after one year? It had the "auteurs" and "prestige" lined up, but the live TV ratings, mixed-to-positive reviews, and insane cost of production did it in.

I understand what you are saying, there's a lot of truth to it, but saying live numbers mean nothing at all, and nobody cares about them, is laughable. Many TV sites bring up ratings every day. But if course, nobody cares. But I suppose, these sites are worthless media garbage.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If we focus this live ratings debate back to this Twin Peaks, which I think we must do, Needleman is correct. The live ratings don't matter at all. The show was made - and Showtime knew what they were getting themselves into by giving Lynch complete freedom - in order to gain buzz and lure talent to the network. In this sense, live ratings don't matter. The buzz is out there, people have seen how unique the show is, and now it can be a calling card for others to come to the network to fulfill their visions. That's how I've understood it all along.

Now, if we're talking about whether live ratings would matter if Twin Peaks was up for renewal, that's a different story. They wouldn't matter as much as they used to, but, sure, they'd matter a little bit, I assume. But even so, I think the new subscribers and the streaming numbers are already enough to get Showtime back on board for another season, if that's what's in the works. There's no telling how that attitude would change if these ratings continued to drop, but I think the media buzz will continue thru to the end, and I do think that would give a premium channel like Showtime enough impetus for at least one more season, despite falling numbers.

[Dalai Cooper]

It's panic stations over at showtime as they attempt to weather the humiliation of having the first episode of their new tv series receive a 5-minute standing ovation at the Cannes film festival

[Ashok]

Why was Hannibal canceled after 3 seasons of a 7 season plan when it was NBC's best reviewed show? This was in 2015, not in 1984. Why was a Vinyl canceled after one year? It had the "auteurs" and "prestige" lined up, but the live TV ratings, mixed-to-positive reviews, and insane cost of production did it in.

I understand what you are saying, there's a lot of truth to it, but saying live numbers mean nothing at all, and nobody cares about them, is laughable. Many TV sites bring up ratings every day. But if course, nobody cares. But I suppose, these sites are worthless media garbage.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hannibal was a fantastic show with beyond terrible live ratings. In 1990, Hannibal would have been lucky to have survived a single season with its numbers. The fact it was renewed twice by a major network in the 2010s is an absolute miracle and a testament to how much the TV landscape has evolved. I was heartbroken when Hannibal was axed but NBC really did give it a fair shake.

Also, DESPITE Hannibal's poor live numbers, the show attracted lots of outside interest from other networks who saw value in the show creatively and wanted to buy it. Bryan Fuller confirmed fairly recently that there is still a chance the show could move to Starz and the Hannibal cast is trying to keep their schedules open in the event Hannibal gets picked back up. I don't think anyone is saying live ratings are totally irrelevant, any sane person would want to see their favorite show become a cultural zeitgeist with 20M viewers. But TV is changing and there are lots of factors outside of ratings that can sustain a show today which would not have been possible in the 1990s.

[Gabriel]

There are indeed lots of other factors these days, but getting an ovation from Gauloise-smoking twits in berets (most people's perception of Cannes!) is no guarantee normal people will keep watching and it'll have lasting worth.

Look, the show's done and it ain't going to be cancelled. But it's basically guaranteed that there'll be no more Twin Peaks after this. Hannibal is a gorgeously photograped psychological drama with a great literary bloodline including Thomas Harris's two classic novels, plus two others, Michael Mann's Mahunter and Jonathan Demme's The Silence of the Lambs (actually I liked all the films except Red Dragon.) Hannibal will come back if it does, because it's a beautifully shot, brilliantly acted, compelling psychological drama.

New Twin Peaks practically defines postmodernism: let's remove all the craft; the meticulous framing, colour grading, coherent editing, competent performances and coherent pacing and see if it's still art... It's a fun show, but it looks like it was made by fanboys who had 50 quid, a stolen Arri and a bunch of compromising photographs of cast members to force them to appear in it!

[N. Needleman]

There are indeed lots of other factors these days, but getting an ovation from Gauloise-smoking twits in berets (most people's perception of Cannes!) is no guarantee normal people will keep watching and it'll have lasting worth.

This is a scorching hot take but as we've said, it's not relevant to Showtime's interests re: this show. Either now or potentially in future.

New Twin Peaks practically defines postmodernism: let's remove all the craft; the meticulous framing, colour grading, coherent editing, competent performances and coherent pacing and see if it's still art... It's a fun show, but it looks like it was made by fanboys who had 50 quid, a stolen Arri and a bunch of compromising photographs of cast members to force them to appear in it!

Again, searing blog opening paragraph, but subjective opinion at best.

[Metamorphia]

Nobody cares about the ratings. They care about the prestige and buzz. The show has plenty. Plus it's not in a ratings war or fighting for a renewal - it's a closed series designed to end. I think if Lynch/Showtime decide to do more the numbers will not be a huge factor. What I've heard for years and the talk Showtime is still pushing is that this is about prestige and perception for them, and the online streaming/subscription numbers certainly help as well.

And no - I don't think its numbers would be much higher on Netflix/wherever, only that we wouldn't know them.

I can imagine the ratings will end up being dismal by the end. It's a nice 'critical darling' item for Showtime and this obviously isn't expected to be a show that will bring in a mainstream audience. However, given the peculiar creative decisions made thus far, it'll drive away intitially-interested casual viewers, it'll alienate Twin Peaks fans who aren't David Lynch fans (a sizeable group) and it's likely no one but a hard core of fans will see it through the whole 18 weeks. I'm as easygoing about obscure material as can be – I was even part of the crowdfunding for the restoration of Walerian Borowczyk's films – but if my patience is being severely tested at times – and it is – a lot of people's will be. If the show continues as it has been beyond episode six, this show will have 'one man and a dog' viewership levels by part 17. A few extra might drop by to find out how it ends in part 18.

More than anything, if the critics turn on it (always possible) Nevins will likely have to consider his position for splurging a great deal of money on what many people would have expected to be a continuation of the (in)famous drama series from the 1990s and not some weird, 'videotaped' experimental drama. One of the reasons the best performance in the show thus far has been that of David Lynch himself is that he seems to be the only actor who knows what's going on!! And I'm writing this as someone who is appreciating a lot of the show.

I'll be surprised if any unhappy Twin Peaks fans actually turn off, though. As we know from browsing this forum, they sure love to moan about it! And if anything, as the show progresses and more familiar faces return it should improve in their eyes.

I'd imagine there'll be a big drop-off this week with the new episode where the new audience/casuals turned off after the chaos of the pilot.

New Twin Peaks practically defines postmodernism: let's remove all the craft; the meticulous framing, colour grading, coherent editing, competent performances and coherent pacing and see if it's still art... It's a fun show, but it looks like it was made by fanboys who had 50 quid, a stolen Arri and a bunch of compromising photographs of cast members to force them to appear in it!

Oh come on. You don't help yourself with this nonsense, Gabriel.

[laughingpinecone]

So the tl;dr version would be that it's getting better critical reception than most of us were expecting and less viewers than most of us were expecting, speaking of raw data...?

And onto the interpretation of raw data, could it count as a smashing success for Showtime's strategy of prestige blah blah attract talent blah blah and... a middle ground of sorts when it comes to the possibility of additional materials? Probably wouldn't say no if L+F ask to do more, but probably won't go running after them begging to make a new season either? More or less? From what we can tell now, at least, barring big changes in the public's reception.

Speaking of the public's reception, I do wonder how it's gonna go down further down the line. I was thinking about the closest parallel I'm familiar with, Legion... Legion started out weird, with high critical praise and okay viewership, and the public (at least the public I saw on Tumblr) was happy to get lost in the weirdness and go "lol I don't understand what is going on". But by the season's end, Legion had very carefully reined it all in to deliver a very classic, very comforting resolution. The initial disorienting feeling had a payoff. And I wonder how weirdness that doesn't have a payoff, weirdness that locks in on discomfort and stays there, is going to be received. Some of us like postmodernism, thankyouverymuch, but how many?