NON SPOILERS: Twin Peaks: Season 3 on Showtime Thread

[marchug]

We are technically not getting a 4 hour premiere. At least not anywhere but the United States. And even then you only get episode 3 & 4 if you are subscribed to Showtime's digital streaming service.

This is not true. They will also be available On Demand if you're signed up through your cable provider. Basically, if you're paying money for Showtime, you will be able to watch 3 and 4 on the 21st.

Tell me where any place other than the United States is getting all 4 hours? I mean, Crave TV in Canada airs Showtime shows along with various other things. They are similar to Netflix but they are not Showtime. So how are WE getting a 4 hour premiere?

[Snailhead]

Private VPN is your answer. You can legally access Showtime this way. Don't steal this from the creators. They and us deserve better.

Don't get me wrong - I plan to throw lots of money their way, I just wanna see this thing right. I'll look into the VPN thing, thanks!

[mtwentz]

We are technically not getting a 4 hour premiere. At least not anywhere but the United States. And even then you only get episode 3 & 4 if you are subscribed to Showtime's digital streaming service.

This is not true. They will also be available On Demand if you're signed up through your cable provider. Basically, if you're paying money for Showtime, you will be able to watch 3 and 4 on the 21st.

Tell me where any place other than the United States is getting all 4 hours? I mean, Crave TV in Canada airs Showtime shows along with various other things. They are similar to Netflix but they are not Showtime. So how are WE getting a 4 hour premiere?

I think the point is that U.S. residents, if they subscribe to Showtime through cable, do not need to have an additional digital subscription in order to watch hours 3 and 4.

[mtwentz]

Private VPN is your answer. You can legally access Showtime this way. Don't steal this from the creators. They and us deserve better.

Don't get me wrong - I plan to throw lots of money their way, I just wanna see this thing right. I'll look into the VPN thing, thanks!

VPN might not be illegal, but it may be against Showtime's Terms of Service. You would have to check with Showtime's web site fpr that information.

EDIT: From the Showtime Terms of Use:
"The Services are intended solely and exclusively for residents of the United States, its territories and possessions ("U.S.") while they are located in the U.S. Use of and registration for the Services are void where prohibited. We may use technology to limit access to the Services from outside the U.S. Your location may not be identified accurately by the technology we use, so you may be unable to access the Services or parts thereof even if you are located in an area in which we intend to provide access."

[mtsi]

I certainly don't want to suggest illegal activity, but I will say that when I go to Japan, I use a VPN so I can access the sites I already pay for. I get that sites are location specific, but that's only to market and price appropriately. If a company doesn't make their services available to the location I'm currently in, but I pay for the service, I feel no sadness for 'tricking' their servers. They took my money and I get the service.

A gray area, perhaps, but one I feel confident in utilizing. There isn't an attorney in the world that could win the argument against the use if you're paying for the service. Well, maybe there is....

I think I'm digging myself into a hole.

The bottom line from me and everyone else is: DON'T STEAL THE SHOW. There will be a way to watch it. I'm positive.

[krishnanspace]

I certainly don't want to suggest illegal activity, but I will say that when I go to Japan, I use a VPN so I can access the sites I already pay for. I get that sites are location specific, but that's only to market and price appropriately. If a company doesn't make their services available to the location I'm currently in, but I pay for the service, I feel no sadness for 'tricking' their servers. They took my money and I get the service.

A gray area, perhaps, but one I feel confident in utilizing. There isn't an attorney in the world that could win the argument against the use if you're paying for the service. Well, maybe there is....

I think I'm digging myself into a hole.

The bottom line from me and everyone else is: DON'T STEAL THE SHOW. There will be a way to watch it. I'm positive.

You could hire "Jerry Horne" as your attorney.The one from the show

[mtsi]

I certainly don't want to suggest illegal activity, but I will say that when I go to Japan, I use a VPN so I can access the sites I already pay for. I get that sites are location specific, but that's only to market and price appropriately. If a company doesn't make their services available to the location I'm currently in, but I pay for the service, I feel no sadness for 'tricking' their servers. They took my money and I get the service.

A gray area, perhaps, but one I feel confident in utilizing. There isn't an attorney in the world that could win the argument against the use if you're paying for the service. Well, maybe there is....

I think I'm digging myself into a hole.

The bottom line from me and everyone else is: DON'T STEAL THE SHOW. There will be a way to watch it. I'm positive.

You could hire "Jerry Horne" as your attorney.The one from the show

PERFECT!

[mtwentz]

I certainly don't want to suggest illegal activity, but I will say that when I go to Japan, I use a VPN so I can access the sites I already pay for. I get that sites are location specific, but that's only to market and price appropriately. If a company doesn't make their services available to the location I'm currently in, but I pay for the service, I feel no sadness for 'tricking' their servers. They took my money and I get the service.

A gray area, perhaps, but one I feel confident in utilizing. There isn't an attorney in the world that could win the argument against the use if you're paying for the service. Well, maybe there is....

I think I'm digging myself into a hole.

The bottom line from me and everyone else is: DON'T STEAL THE SHOW. There will be a way to watch it. I'm positive.

I know you would not condone illegal streaming MTSI- and I agree this is probably a gray area: At worst, signing on and paying for a Showtime account from a non-U.S. territory would be a violation of the Terms of Use and the account would be suspended without refund.

[SpookyDollhouse]

I certainly don't want to suggest illegal activity, but I will say that when I go to Japan, I use a VPN so I can access the sites I already pay for. I get that sites are location specific, but that's only to market and price appropriately. If a company doesn't make their services available to the location I'm currently in, but I pay for the service, I feel no sadness for 'tricking' their servers. They took my money and I get the service.

A gray area, perhaps, but one I feel confident in utilizing. There isn't an attorney in the world that could win the argument against the use if you're paying for the service. Well, maybe there is....

I think I'm digging myself into a hole.

The bottom line from me and everyone else is: DON'T STEAL THE SHOW. There will be a way to watch it. I'm positive.

It's honestly in the same place as game console region locking, at least to me anyway. You're paying for the service/product, you get to use it.

[mtsi]

I certainly don't want to suggest illegal activity, but I will say that when I go to Japan, I use a VPN so I can access the sites I already pay for. I get that sites are location specific, but that's only to market and price appropriately. If a company doesn't make their services available to the location I'm currently in, but I pay for the service, I feel no sadness for 'tricking' their servers. They took my money and I get the service.

A gray area, perhaps, but one I feel confident in utilizing. There isn't an attorney in the world that could win the argument against the use if you're paying for the service. Well, maybe there is....

I think I'm digging myself into a hole.

The bottom line from me and everyone else is: DON'T STEAL THE SHOW. There will be a way to watch it. I'm positive.

It's honestly in the same place as game console region locking, at least to me anyway. You're paying for the service/product, you get to use it.

That's how I feel too. I don't 'endorse' it, but I do feel this way.

[baxter]

Australia is getting a 4 hour premiere via Stan as I understand it.

I've always assumed that streaming providers welcome as many customers as they can get, so overseas cheating is not a problem a priori. The issue is that they have had complicated rights negotiations for each territory, and the original owners of the content are hugely unhappy if these agreements get bypassed (e.g. Australian netflix has a lot less on it than the US version because other companies hold the rights in Australia). These rights holders then bully the streaming services, whose content is threatened, so they have to crack down. In the case of HBO, they actually make more money selling the content overseas than they do having a small number of subscribers on their service, so they've had a massive crackdown on VPN use recently.

Having said all that, I fully intend to use my Australian VPN to watch the premiere, because the one week I'll be out of the country in the next 6 months is the week of the premiere!

[nonemoreblack]

There would have been a problem of redundancy with Audrey, instead of Annie, being kidnapped by Earle- Coop had already rescued Audrey from being kidnapped in the first half of Season 1. Which is one problem I always had with the Windom Earle storyline initially- it threatened to parrot the Jean Renault storyline. I think that's ultimately why the writers had Leo Johnson as the kidnap victim and slave- it was different enough that most of the audience would not not notice that they had just been through a 'bad guy holds Twin Peaks resident hostage' storyline.

It would depend how they went about it. It could be argued that the kidnapping at OEJ was forshadowing, but I am kind of glad Audrey wasn't a victim twice.

[nonemoreblack]

Do we really? I know nothing of the sort. It's true that there've been reports in the years since the series went off the air about the intended pairing of Audrey and Cooper, but had they proceeded with that, who knows where they'd end up. The thing is, from what I gather about the whole Twin Peaks-making process of '89-'91, the showrunners and writers didn't have some master plan prepared for seasons in advance or even for a whole season - it's been said numerous times that, after the initial board was set by the pilot, they improvised and made things up as they went along. It's not even entirely clear if LP's killer's identity was indeed known to Lynch & Frost from day one. Therefore, who's to tell how long they've known Annie would unwillingly help Cooper's nemesis to open the portal to the Black Lodge and Cooper would wind up with Bob? Maybe 2-3 episodes before the finale, maybe a little more, maybe a little less.

I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here. Frost has said the intention was for it to be Audrey. That was one thing they planned pretty far in advance. Even in Annie's dialogue when she says Coop will come for her, it's obvious it was meant to be Audrey because Annie hadn't known him well enough to say something like that.

That I can agree with. I was commenting on what went on in the original series, and going from that, Audrey just isn't as fateful a figure in Coop's life as Annie. Yes, the show toyed with her maybe becoming such, but in the end, it didn't happen.

Again I disagree. Audrey was perhaps the person Cooper became most attached to aside from Harry. She saved his job, and if I remember rightly was the only other person to know about Caroline. I don't consider Annie that important in the grand scheme of things, but hey, I'm happy to be proved wrong.

You're forgetting that Annie was quite a few years older than Audrey, enough so that she went as an adult, which is far more than we can say for Audrey. So, there is a certain logic in Cooper resisting one romance but embracing another, hearkening back to the speech he gives Audrey (about certain values he swore to uphold) when he finds her in his bed. Moreover, even though the derailment of Audrey-Coop romance supposedly stemmed from such preposterous real-life trivia as LFB getting MacLachlan to put the kibosh on it, I think the way it was handled on the show was quite professional and artistically integral, not only without threatening the believability of the characters but actually reinforcing it (especially the main character's).

It's not so much about her age (although Heather Graham looks like a child, and Cooper always came across as a fatherly figure to her imo). She wasn't in the right emotional state to be in a relationship, and it was wrong for Cooper to put her in danger like that. For me personally it ruined any potential drama the end of the season could've had because it was way too late to introduce a new character/love interest. I didn't care at all about what happened to Annie. She felt like a Mary Sue.

I agree the situation where Audrey's life would be threatened by Earle while her maintaining very warm friendship with Cooper who would struggle with his feelings towards her would be especially zesty and interesting to see - it would pose a double predicament for our hero. Well, it remains to be seen if any of this will be touched upon by the upcoming season.

I hope their relationship is acknowledged in some way. It doesn't have to be some silly nostalgic scene to appease fans, but it would be disappointing if they continue act as if Cooper and Audrey are strangers when it's no longer necessary. I get it that people on this forum don't care one way or another, but Audrey deserves better than the treatment she's gotten. She played an important part in Twin Peaks becoming popular in the first place.

[Adolphus]

Do we really? I know nothing of the sort. It's true that there've been reports in the years since the series went off the air about the intended pairing of Audrey and Cooper, but had they proceeded with that, who knows where they'd end up. The thing is, from what I gather about the whole Twin Peaks-making process of '89-'91, the showrunners and writers didn't have some master plan prepared for seasons in advance or even for a whole season - it's been said numerous times that, after the initial board was set by the pilot, they improvised and made things up as they went along. It's not even entirely clear if LP's killer's identity was indeed known to Lynch & Frost from day one.

In the gold box set documentary Mark Frost says that both he and Lynch knew who the killer was when the series started. So wrong again.

[mtwentz]

What Frost said on the Gold Box set is they knew the killer 'early on'. He was not specific as to when.