How will the new Twin Peaks be received?

[james]

You're talking about this season(s) - after this, we can't predict the future.

Lynch wants to take on all the episodes now, that doesn't mean Twin Peaks cannot continue without him directing every episode. If its a big success, you know what Showtime will want.

Shooting it as a movie just means they're not clear which scene will go in which episode, how it will all fall together. It doesn't mean this is sign-posted as 'the ending.' I don't really think many would want that even.

[LostInTheMovies]

Lynch wants to take on all the episodes now, that doesn't mean Twin Peaks cannot continue without him directing every episode. If its a big success, you know what Showtime will want.

But I think there's a reason he wants to take on all the episodes now, and that the same reason would apply to future seasons as well. I really don't see why that would change. Whatever that reason may be (I have my ideas). If the point is "Twin Peaks got out of my hands once, and I don't want that to happen again" why would the success of this season make him think "Ok, it's fine if it gets out of my hands again?" If anything, wouldn't it convince him even more that he is right to do it all himself?

Just to get a clearer idea of where you're coming from here - because I admit I'm having a really hard time conceptualizing a universe in which Lynch wants to hand off Twin Peaks to other filmmakers! - what reasons do you think he would have for wanting to continue the story without him directing it? And why would these reasons not apply to this huge -9-18-hour undertaking he's doing right now?

[james]

Reasons for Lynch deciding to let the series continue after this next volume, but without him directing every episode? OK, here's a few possible reasons -

- This next part is successful for Lynch/ Frost and Showtime and they decide to continue, but Lynch wants to oversee it all as a writer and producer more and direct select episodes. This would be less intense work for him. It would also be similar to the original show but in their own hands, Showtime is a great company to work with and not like ABC.

- Maybe Lynch is benevolent enough to let Frost and other people he really liked on the series (Tim Hunter, Gylenhaal, Lesli Linka Glatter, Uli Edel etc) a chance to come in and direct with the new freedoms and good partnership that Showtime offers. Lynch has always been faithful and respectful to the people he works with (including actors and actresses of course) so it seems likely.

- Since Lynch is being heralded as the Godfather of this new volume, maybe he'll decide to give Mark Frost his moment in the spotlight as chief of a further run of episodes - with Lynch directing one or two to keep things creatively exciting and afloat?

- All of Lynch's own children are involved in some way with film production. Twin Peaks is clearly the most reliable and long-term source of finance for him and his family, apart from Lynch's work in advertising I presume. Peaks could realistically also be a further source of income for his family. Who will take charge of the whole thing once Lynch has passed away? Of course Mark Frost will own the name itself but the Lynch family will take on the other half of that. Realistically, I can see it going on in some way or another. Maybe one-offs. I can appreciate of course that just dragging something on for the sake of money or the fans can be considered foolish.

- Mark Frost is largely the one who spurred on the return to Twin Peaks. About ten years' ago he had the idea of Agent Cooper tv movies with Kyle - but of course that didn't happen, no doubt because Lynch wanted to be fully involved if such a thing was going to happen. Now, things have changed and the 'Twin Peaks' brand as a whole is in both Frost and Lynch's hands. As well as Twin Peaks Productions and Showtime. If it becomes very successful, there are many parties beyond just Lynch who would be interested in seeing it continue.

- Lynch is of course not immune to fans worshipping him or simply appreciating his great work, as most do here. He no doubt sees things as part of a bigger picture - with his involvement in TM over the last decade and more he would only see the success of new Twin Peaks as something great for his whole spiritual practice - something which is more important to him now than ever, it seems. The more people know of him and his work, the more look into his other interests and beliefs. A beautiful result for all concerned, I'm sure Lynch would feel.

[MasterMastermind]

I just keep going back to what he said in A Slice of Lynch Uncut (I think) where he basically talks about how Twin Peaks just wasn't the same other under filmmakers. Granted he could change his mind, but personally I don't see Lynch doing that. An exception for Mark would be fair, but Mark seems to feel David directing is "how it should be" (per his press tour when the new series was announced) and he's getting the spotlight with a Twin Peaks novel all to himself.

If they decide to do more he could certainly say a whole season is too much work, and he'd rather oversee other people's work (which he pretty much did do in mid-season 2 but doesn't seem to have good memories) and Jennifer et. al. could certainly do some decent work off in that scenario, but going by recent history (all the way back to that proposed comic series) it seems like David would rather there be no Twin Peaks, than Twin Peaks that isn't his.

[LostInTheMovies]

Ok - I see the reasoning for all of that and I certainly wouldn't say it's outside the realm of possibility. I just think it's extremely unlikely. Based on the evidence of his career so far and the statements he made, Lynch seems like the somebody who doesn't mix art and practical concerns. Much as he wants to keep his kids working and his foundation funded, the Art Life demands absolute purity in his work. Everything has always been about total control for him and the only times he let that slip out of his grasp - Dune and Twin Peaks - it was due to necessities at the time and he vehemently regretted it later.

I also have a hunch this will be the last of Twin Peaks by design. I understand Frost has left the door open in interviews, and Lynch probably would too if asked, but something about this feels valedictory. I think that for 25 years Lynch has regretted the abrupt way Twin Peaks ended (and the way much of it was executed) and now this is his chance to set it right.

You mention who Twin Peaks would be left too when Lynch has retired or passed away and I think of his answer to the question of what he would do if somebody remade Eraserhead and he said if he had a gun near him, he might shoot them. I think he will do his best to make sure his heirs keep his work protected from getting "corrupted" (which is probably how he would see it if someone else made official continuations) and that we won't be seeing any Twin Peaks: The Forest Awakens!

[MasterMastermind]

A+ pun.

[squealy]

The mistake they made with Twin Peaks in the first place was trying to turn it into an ongoing series*, instead of doing a mini-series with a complete story and one director and writing team at the helm. I think they want to rectify that mistake this time, and have no intention of reviving the show as an ongoing concern.

*At the time, I wanted Twin Peaks to run forever but in hindsight I've realized it should only ever have been a short term thing.

[james]

Ok - I see the reasoning for all of that and I certainly wouldn't say it's outside the realm of possibility. I just think it's extremely unlikely. Based on the evidence of his career so far and the statements he made, Lynch seems like the somebody who doesn't mix art and practical concerns. Much as he wants to keep his kids working and his foundation funded, the Art Life demands absolute purity in his work. Everything has always been about total control for him and the only times he let that slip out of his grasp - Dune and Twin Peaks - it was due to necessities at the time and he vehemently regretted it later.

You kind of passed over all my points without addressing them and sort of sounded a bit patronising in your response. I don't buy this whole 'art life' purity you're suggesting - partly because you're not backing it up with any examples. His art world IS his practical concern day-to-day - Lynch very much lives a simple life around creating paintings or music, his working areas built into his house so they are right there.

Are you making specific reference to the book by Robert Henri or just flinging in things because I can't see what point you're making.

What have I suggested that points to a muddying of 'absolute purity' with Lynch's work? I'm not at any point declaring he should sell out or bow to the forces of commercialism, far from it.

[LostInTheMovies]

Ok - I see the reasoning for all of that and I certainly wouldn't say it's outside the realm of possibility. I just think it's extremely unlikely. Based on the evidence of his career so far and the statements he made, Lynch seems like the somebody who doesn't mix art and practical concerns. Much as he wants to keep his kids working and his foundation funded, the Art Life demands absolute purity in his work. Everything has always been about total control for him and the only times he let that slip out of his grasp - Dune and Twin Peaks - it was due to necessities at the time and he vehemently regretted it later.

You kind of passed over all my points without addressing them and sort of sounded a bit patronising in your response. I don't buy this whole 'art life' purity you're suggesting - partly because you're not backing it up with any examples. His art world IS his practical concern day-to-day - Lynch very much lives a simple life around creating paintings or music, his working areas built into his house so they are right there.

Are you making specific reference to the book by Robert Henri or just flinging in things because I can't see what point you're making.

What have I suggested that points to a muddying of 'absolute purity' with Lynch's work? I'm not at any point declaring he should sell out or bow to the forces of commercialism, far from it.

James, I don't think I was rude in any way and I certainly didn't intend to be but maybe it's time to let this question rest. Neither of us have answers, only speculation, and eventually we'll know based on his actions. For now I think we're both happy we're getting at least 1 new season.

To explain one thing, the Art Life thing is something that Lynch has spoken about where he felt that his whole life would be centered around his work with all else falling by the wayside. Obviously it didn't quite work that way for him, he married and had a child very young for starters, but it always remained a guiding principle for him (and it is a practical day-to-day concern precisely because he made it that way - it feels a bit perverse that you would say the above since it's essentially confirming my original point: he structured his life around creating his art). He talks about a bit in Catching the Big Fish I think, and it definitely features a lot in the biography Beautiful Dark by Greg Olson.

(And yes, it originated with the Henri book which had a big impact on Lynch when he was young.)

[FauxOwl]

From the perspective of the general public, I'm wondering how many brand new viewers there will be, and will they be able to follow the series? I imagine that had to be a consideration picking up 25 years later. Not that the history of the show and unresolved cliffhangers would not carry over, but how much of it can they make accessible to people who haven't seen the original series? I know Frost said in an early interview that viewers would be best advised to be caught up, but in all honesty, part of the formula for success of this new season is going to HAVE to be drawing brand new Twin Peaks viewers. It's all nice and hunky dory to think that all this expense and commitment to reviving the show is just being done because there are so many existing fans who would watch, but I don't know how practical it would be to discount curious new viewers from the equation after all this time.

That could be part of the function of the new characters... not dissimilar to the way new companions or new regenerations effectively "reboot" Dr. Who by reintroducing the premise... the new characters could serve as a proxy for the new audience to get up to speed on the unresolved plot lines such as Cooper/Bob.

[MasterMastermind]

From the perspective of the general public, I'm wondering how many brand new viewers there will be, and will they be able to follow the series? I imagine that had to be a consideration picking up 25 years later. Not that the history of the show and unresolved cliffhangers would not carry over, but how much of it can they make accessible to people who haven't seen the original series? I know Frost said in an early interview that viewers would be best advised to be caught up, but in all honesty, part of the formula for success of this new season is going to HAVE to be drawing brand new Twin Peaks viewers. It's all nice and hunky dory to think that all this expense and commitment to reviving the show is just being done because there are so many existing fans who would watch, but I don't know how practical it would be to discount curious new viewers from the equation after all this time.

That could be part of the function of the new characters... not dissimilar to the way new companions or new regenerations effectively "reboot" Dr. Who by reintroducing the premise... the new characters could serve as a proxy for the new audience to get up to speed on the unresolved plot lines such as Cooper/Bob.

I bet the Gold Box, Entire Mystery, and streaming numbers were good enough to make people interested. Plus the pop cultural buzz about the new season will hopefully drive interested newbies toward Netflix and Hulu.

[FauxOwl]

I bet the Gold Box, Entire Mystery, and streaming numbers were good enough to make people interested. Plus the pop cultural buzz about the new season will hopefully drive interested newbies toward Netflix and Hulu.

That's going to be part of it obviously, but there will be a certain number of brand new viewers no matter what. I don't know that the new season won't be something you absolutely need to have seen the previous installments to grasp, but that may affect how it is received. The majority of critics will be familiar with the prior installments but it's hard to say what the general viewership will be like. I don't personally feel they should be obligated to make it accessible to new viewers but I'd be surprised if Showtime would make the commitment without at least some assurance that brand new viewers won't be totally scratching their heads (and I am aware Showtime plans to air the existing episodes in full prior).

[the haystack]

That's going to be part of it obviously, but there will be a certain number of brand new viewers no matter what. I don't know that the new season won't be something you absolutely need to have seen the previous installments to grasp, but that may affect how it is received. The majority of critics will be familiar with the prior installments but it's hard to say what the general viewership will be like. I don't personally feel they should be obligated to make it accessible to new viewers but I'd be surprised if Showtime would make the commitment without at least some assurance that brand new viewers won't be totally scratching their heads (and I am aware Showtime plans to air the existing episodes in full prior).

It's all a balance sheet matter. You're hitting it on the head when you speculate the decision to design S3 as a capable stand-alone for the benefit of the un-enfranchised (er, newbies), or be dependent on prior education (ergo, newbies scratch heads), is a big decision. I suspect the former is their inclination, although that means Showtime's accountants will have implied themselves in the show's writing. Showtime already knows precisely the required revenue to meet their goal, also already established. Minus the script, it's up to marketing to make that goal happen. The pre-broadcast of S1 and S2 is a great thing, as advent to the anticipated new, better-known cast in S3. We could be welcoming a flood of newly-certified Peakers who don't even know they are, not now.

[N. Needleman]

You're hitting it on the head when you speculate the decision to design S3 as a capable stand-alone for the benefit of the un-enfranchised (er, newbies), or be dependent on prior education (ergo, newbies scratch heads), is a big decision. I suspect the former is their inclination, although that means Showtime's accountants will have implied themselves in the show's writing.

No, Lynch and Frost won't let Showtime touch their process. David Nevins has made that much clear. He's thrown up his hands and literally said, 'we don't know when it's coming out or how long it'll be, it's whatever they want to do.'

I think the new series will stand alone to a certain extent in that it will have a new central conflict and mystery in addition to perhaps the dangling Cooper cliffhanger, but the longtime characters and ongoing storyline will clearly still figure very heavily. They're not going to sweep anything under the rug, you only have to look at the return list for some of the most obscure players to see that.

[LostInTheMovies]

I think it's going to be its own thing that is also very much built on what preceded. But then I'm of the opinion that Fire Walk With Me works (for the most part) as a standalone film while also being a great fulfillment of the series! I think this will be a similar matter. A lot of Lynch projects have that kind of double function where they work as one thing, but also as something completely different depending where you stand - like anamorphosis. And I could see Mark Frost being excited by the idea of luring in a whole new audience too.

As I've said before, I like the idea of a new character being our protagonist and guide back into this world. I see them as being attached to Cooper, maybe as another agent or as someone involved in a new case he's dealing with - so that he is still in most of the scenes but we aren't quite seeing it through his eyes, which is also a great way to play with the is-he-or-isn't-he? aspect of the cliffhanger. I think if this ends up happening, the character will probably be played by Amanda Seyfried or another actress, which would fit in with Lynch's fondness for female protagonists since FWWM.

I'm glad Showtime will be airing the series and fervently hope they will air the film as well (I think they'd be foolish not to, given how much FWWM elements will play a part in the show). And I definitely think knowing all that material will enhance the experience for many first-time viewers. But I also expect them to market the show to all the viewers who have no plan to check out reruns or drop 32 hours into streaming, downloading, or renting the original Twin Peaks but are curious about this fresh new Showtime series. And haven't growing audiences always been a thing, even when it was almost impossible to catch up with previous seasons of a show? Obviously that's trickier with a serialized narrative but I think it's possible. In fact, I suspect one of the mistakes of the season 2 premiere was spending too much time on exposition and reiteration, necessary as that might have seemed.

If they can figure out a way to continue the story while also seeming to begin a new one, I think the result could be not just the resurgence of a cult series with a devoted following but a whole new pop culture phenomenon. The impact of a reboot without all the baggage that approach usually entails. More importantly, this avenue could be very creatively stimulating. We'll see.