What is the audience?

[Eater of Iguanas]

Good points from Rudagger about the expense of shows being a factor. I hadn't really thought about that. If I recall correctly now, the original TP was pretty expensive and I'm sure that was another factor in its axing. (And to veer off topic for a moment, I think the cancellation of Deadwood was more complicated than simply "too expensive to justify its ratings," though its budget was a factor - there were complicated matters involving ownership of syndication rights and how much money HBO got to pocket from overseas distribution - I forget the details. It was their highest-rated current series at the time, and I have the vague impression that the cancellation is still regarded with hindsight as a shortsighted business decision. Sorry to derail - it's a fair candidate for my favorite series ever. Quite excited it looks likely to come back for a finale.)

As far as the business decision to finance the film goes, you have to keep in mind that the partially state-financed world of European art cinema is rather different from the Hollywood studio world. Ciby-2000 financed largely art films and independent films, including some considerably less commercial than Lynch's (such as those of the notoriously divisive Serbian director Emir Kusturica). They measure things on a different scale. And in any case, given his and the show's cult following, especially in Europe, a TP movie that was well-received by critics and fans would have most likely turned a profit. After all, his previous work had mostly been profitable, with much less media hype (Dune being the only real exception). They didn't know they'd get one of Lynch's most aggressively audience-alienating works.

To that point, I doubt S3 will fall under that heading, what with Frost aboard and most of the iconic characters back. So yeah, the audience is there for the new show, assuming it meets a certain standard of quality.

[LostInTheMovies]

Good point about Ciby-2000. I suppose it's a mark of just how far his star had fallen by the mid-nineties that he couldn't get anything else off the ground even with them and was able to successfully sue them for (I think) breach of contract.

[David Locke]

After all, his previous work had mostly been profitable, with much less media hype (Dune being the only real exception).

Not to go off topic here, but isn't it true that The Elephant Man is the only Lynch feature that's ever broken even at the box office? Looking at Wiki, that seems to be the case (although they don't mention Eraserhead's budget, though it did earn 7 mil which seems like it'd be decent). The Elephant Man made back at least 3 or 4 times its budget, whereas Lynch's next-most successful features -- Wild at Heart and Mulholland Drive -- only netted about a third of their budget.

Anyway, it's pretty remarkable that Lynch has managed to get consistent funding for his projects considering that only one of them was a real success and most of the rest were actually not just unprofitable but certifiable "bombs" -- In particular, Lost Highway, FWWM, Dune, TSS... even Blue Velvet didn't do so hot. I was surprised to read all this a little while ago. It says a lot about how far critical and fan support can take an artist.

[Rudagger]

After all, his previous work had mostly been profitable, with much less media hype (Dune being the only real exception).

Not to go off topic here, but isn't it true that The Elephant Man is the only Lynch feature that's ever broken even at the box office? Looking at Wiki, that seems to be the case (although they don't mention Eraserhead's budget, though it did earn 7 mil which seems like it'd be decent). The Elephant Man made back at least 3 or 4 times its budget, whereas Lynch's next-most successful features -- Wild at Heart and Mulholland Drive -- only netted about a third of their budget.

Anyway, it's pretty remarkable that Lynch has managed to get consistent funding for his projects considering that only one of them was a real success and most of the rest were actually not just unprofitable but certifiable "bombs" -- In particular, Lost Highway, FWWM, Dune, TSS... even Blue Velvet didn't do so hot. I was surprised to read all this a little while ago. It says a lot about how far critical and fan support can take an artist.

Sometimes stuff gets funded as prestige pictures, y'know, a studio can put it's name on it and show that they've got good taste, gather awards, etc. I agree though, Lynch must be a really shrewd business man (as we saw with how he got what he wanted with this new series), because a lot of his movies probably took years to return on investment, keeping in mind that most of his movies were before the huge boom in home video (which often can save box office failures). I feel like Eraserhead probably has an underreported gross though, I imagine it made a good chunk of money from midnight screenings and such over the 80's. I think in general too, studios were less risk adverse at the time (though, in the middle of typing that, I remember the end of New Hollywood)

[DeerMeadowRadio]

Don't you have to consider long-term implications as well? I am not talking about backers not wanting to lose money in the short-term... that has clearly been an issue for Lynch on and off for years. However, you take Blue Velvet and compare it to a more profitable movie at the time...say Ruthless People or Summer Rental. Over the long haul how many VHS/DVD/Blu/etc. sales have Lynch movies had over the years compared to more forgettable fare?

[David Locke]

Certainly a lot of producers and studios would be happy to have a film like Mulholland Dr. or Lost Highway or FWWM under their belt, even if only for the artistic significance of it, though I imagine it's mostly in hindsight that these films seem so appealing; no producer really wants to take a major loss at the time in the name of Art unless maybe they're a super-wealthy Megan Ellison type.

We're living in a different world today re: film than 1986, so taking into consideration a film's long-term success on home video/streaming is definitely sensible, but I'd still bet most producers aren't interested in anything that won't at least break even in the immediate short-term. But yeah, I don't know what the numbers might be but I have to imagine a film like Blue Velvet has made a lot of money by now with all its VHS, DVD, blu-ray, streaming, etc iterations. In this respect Lynch is a lot like Michael Mann -- another great director very highly praised but whose films are more successful in the long run, in gaining a cult following over time and making huge home-video profits, than in making a killing at the box office. In fact, I believe only three Mann pictures were box office successes, those being Heat, Last of the Mohicans and Collateral, and even then Heat wasn't much of a success considering its big budget and prestige. Other than that, you have Public Enemies which barely broke even, at best, and the rest of his six features range from mediocre to absolute bombs, financially -- even a critically-adored flick like The Insider, not unlike its contemporaneous Straight Story, failed to break even despite all the positive reviews in the world.

Anyway, I'm getting off-topic now. To bring it back -- what's interesting about the new Peaks is it's Lynch's first big project in 16 years working for the "system," i.e. not a tiny-budget passion project filmed on grainy DV piece-by-piece. And so it's also kind of interesting to consider that that last project Lynch made for a major studio/network, inside the confines of Hollywood, was Mulholland Dr. It may have ended up a film, but it started as a TV series, and now he's back to TV... but the circumstances couldn't possibly be any different, and better.

[bob_wooler]

Maybe I don't understand this, but according to Wikipedia, the Blue Velvet budget was $6 million, and box office in North America alone was $8.6. What it made in Europe and Asia/Japan it doesn't say, but seems to me it did well and was more than profitable all in all. Didn't check on the other DL-films.

[David Locke]

Maybe I don't understand this, but according to Wikipedia, the Blue Velvet budget was $6 million, and box office in North America alone was $8.6. What it made in Europe and Asia/Japan it doesn't say, but seems to me it did well and was more than profitable. Didn't check on the other DL-films.

Oh, I didn't notice that 8.6 mil was solely for North America -- it's definitely possible it made enough in the rest of the world to break even. But what I meant was just that, the rule of thumb is if it's made double the budget it's broken even. Now this may not always be the case but it's a fairly reliable way to judge it. Marketing can cost a lot (though probably not much in Lynch's case) and so you often have to grade on a higher curve, so to speak, when assessing a film's box office success.

[bob_wooler]

Maybe I don't understand this, but according to Wikipedia, the Blue Velvet budget was $6 million, and box office in North America alone was $8.6. What it made in Europe and Asia/Japan it doesn't say, but seems to me it did well and was more than profitable. Didn't check on the other DL-films.

Oh, I didn't notice that 8.6 mil was solely for North America -- it's definitely possible it made enough in the rest of the world to break even. But what I meant was just that, the rule of thumb is if it's made double the budget it's broken even. Now this may not always be the case but it's a fairly reliable way to judge it. Marketing can cost a lot (though probably not much in Lynch's case) and so you often have to grade on a higher curve, so to speak, when assessing a film's box office success.

I see, I wasn't aware of the "double the budget rule of thumb", which probably makes sense (it says it grossed $900,000 in Australia alone though, so it's not unreasonable to believe it broke even on a world basis).

[Eater of Iguanas]

Eraserhead was hugely profitable - the budget was a shoestring, so $7 million at the time was a blockbuster by such standards. I read somewhere very recently (probably Dennis Lim's book, which I just read) that it made 70 times its budget over the few years after release, during which (as I'm sure everyone here knows) it was a midnight staple in a few major cities. (Can you imagine if Titanic made 70 times its budget? That would be a $15 billion gross!)

I've also always heard that Blue Velvet ended up pretty profitable, though I don't recall ever seeing specific numbers discussed until this thread. I think the "double the budget to break even" rule is for contemporary studio blockbusters that do a ton of advertising and promotion, and distribute in thousands of theaters all over the world almost simultaneously. I doubt it applies to a low-medium-budget picture in the mid-'80s.

Until the post-TP era, Lynch was a pretty commercially viable director, even home video aside. And I'm sure that everything he's made has long since made it into the black on video and streaming. The fact that from the late '90s on, he couldn't even break even theatrically with his most acclaimed and hyped movies is yet another barometer of the sad state of mainstream film culture in the 21st century. To say nothing of his rumored fruitless attempts to get anyone to finance film projects since Inland Empire - though even in that case, what I've heard is that he wanted to do more IE-type avant-garde work, and his backers told him they'd be willing to finance something a little more marketable.

[EDIT: Was just looking up BV budget and box office info on IMDB and was shocked to see it opened on almost 100 screens! Yes, it was indeed a very different era.]

[Eater of Iguanas]

Good point about Ciby-2000. I suppose it's a mark of just how far his star had fallen by the mid-nineties that he couldn't get anything else off the ground even with them and was able to successfully she them for (I think) breach of contract.

I'd never heard about this lawsuit before! Googled it after reading the above. It's an interesting (and yes, telling) footnote. It's kind of amazing that he had a deal to get paid millions for each film. You'd think he was Spielberg or someone.

[Eater of Iguanas]

I shudder at the mention of something called a "hipster bar"

Ha! It's a fun place, actually - Videology in the Williamsburg neighborhood, the hipster capital of America. It's a bar and a video shop - last I was there, it was still lined with bookcases full of DVDs and BDs and even some VHS, which you can actually rent. They have a screening room in the back with tables and benches and have lots of film and TV related events - I think last year they had something where a local theater/improv troupe got drunk and did their own improvised remake of Psycho - something like that. I tried to go but it was sold out! The place made national news two or three years ago when HBO sent them a cease-and-desist letter over their elaborate and widely publicized Game of Thrones viewing parties.

It didn't occur to me until this moment that they would likely do something similar for the new TP. I might end up watching a few episodes there!

[mtwentz]

After all, his previous work had mostly been profitable, with much less media hype (Dune being the only real exception).

Not to go off topic here, but isn't it true that The Elephant Man is the only Lynch feature that's ever broken even at the box office? Looking at Wiki, that seems to be the case (although they don't mention Eraserhead's budget, though it did earn 7 mil which seems like it'd be decent). The Elephant Man made back at least 3 or 4 times its budget, whereas Lynch's next-most successful features -- Wild at Heart and Mulholland Drive -- only netted about a third of their budget.

Anyway, it's pretty remarkable that Lynch has managed to get consistent funding for his projects considering that only one of them was a real success and most of the rest were actually not just unprofitable but certifiable "bombs" -- In particular, Lost Highway, FWWM, Dune, TSS... even Blue Velvet didn't do so hot. I was surprised to read all this a little while ago. It says a lot about how far critical and fan support can take an artist.

Sometimes stuff gets funded as prestige pictures, y'know, a studio can put it's name on it and show that they've got good taste, gather awards, etc. I agree though, Lynch must be a really shrewd business man (as we saw with how he got what he wanted with this new series), because a lot of his movies probably took years to return on investment, keeping in mind that most of his movies were before the huge boom in home video (which often can save box office failures). I feel like Eraserhead probably has an underreported gross though, I imagine it made a good chunk of money from midnight screenings and such over the 80's. I think in general too, studios were less risk adverse at the time (though, in the middle of typing that, I remember the end of New Hollywood)

I think he's a shrewd businessman but mostly a great artist. It often takes many years for audiences to catch up to great art to the point they can fully appreciate it.

[Dining With Diane]

What is the audience for this new iteration of tp? Are showtime- L/F creating this MORE for a new audience or the old fans? You may say both, but I suspect that is a taller order than can be handled.

I don't think it is too tall of an order. Lots of things have multi-generational fan bases - Game of thrones comes to mind, the Marvel universe shows on netflix, Star Wars.

I suspect the audience they are trying to reach for the new show breaks down into a few big categories:
- fans of the new wave of high quality horror tv. people who watched hannibal, true detective, and the like.
- david lynch fans. in the 25+ years since the original series, the Lynch movies have been slowly accruing a fan base. they'll tune in one way or the other.
- potential and existing showtime subscribers. interesting original content helps retain existing subscribers and attract new ones.