Season 4? Or is it over after this? Wisteria/Unrecorded Night? Something else? (Speculation thread.)

[sneakydave]

I wish I could feel more excited than I actually do. Not trying to kill anyone else's buzz, just not really feeling it. Maybe because there's been so many false starts. I'm not even cautiously optimistic, but as ever with Twin Peaks I am hopeful - just not getting said hopes up if that makes sense.

Same Jonah. It's nice to feel that wee buzz of excitement but I'm a long way past believing any of these tweets.

[Jonah]

All the same, it's good to see you back posting on here sneakydave! And to see everyone posting. Always fun to see this thread hopping! It's just we have a precedent here alas of lots of buzz leading to nothing. It would be nice if the buzz actually led to some sort of announcement this time around.

[Histeria]

.

[sneakydave]

All the same, it's good to see you back posting on here sneakydave! And to see everyone posting. Always fun to see this thread hopping! It's just we have a precedent here alas of lots of buzz leading to nothing. It would be nice if the buzz actually led to some sort of announcement this time around.

Good to be chiming back in. I always enjoy reading anything in this thread from you guys. Be interesting to see if anything else comes out today as per Dougie Jones.

Dougie, where did you hear this info btw? Am I allowed to ask?

[Jonah]

I was excited by the tweet but after "PW could be wrong and NYT has been wrong therefore PW is wrong" I honestly would take convincing people Lynch once had an agreement with Netflix to produce something over there actually being a new season of Twin Peaks

I have no trouble believing Lynch might have had an agreement with Netflix - he was spotted there, he sold them a short film. Without going into the weeds re the rumours, I do believe some project called UN/Wisteria was in some stage of pre-production (but how early and how solid that was I don't know) and I'd have no trouble believing the pandemic stalled or ended that. As for whether it was related to TP or not, and how Netflix would have launched it if so given Showtime's stake in it .... that's where it gets a lot murkier for me. I'm leaning towards it was a separate project that was cancelled or is on hiatus. It may also not have been officially greenlit. It might have been a sort-of agreement in place with treatments drawn up (not actual scripts) and something of a plan to proceed in place - which was ultimately either scrapped or stalled.

Right now I'm more interested in what Lynch and Frost will do with TP, how involved Frost still is with TP and the production companies, and if this new Paramount/CBS/Showtime thing will produce anything at all, even a glimmer.

In an ideal world we'd see more UN/Wisteria AND Twin Peaks but I think we'd all happily take one or the other, with most probably leaning towards TP (though not necessarily). But I think it's a lot to get our hopes up for and, without opening recently closed discussions, it's one of the reasons I floated the idea of a TP movie by Lynch and perhaps a Paramount TP series overseen by Lynch and Frost but not every episode written/directed by them, but that didn't seem to go down too well. It was just an idea how they could still move things along but keep the pressures off themselves. They're just two men after all and, especially where directing is concerned, I think it's a lot to expect from Lynch again - though I still would like to see him involved to some extent (like a movie or several episodes). And, hey, if he's up to direct an entire season again, so be it.

I keep returning to the movie idea though. I wonder could he have been planning a short Netflix series - UN/Wisteria - and a TP movie. The Carrie Page idea calling to him might have fit a movie better than a TV series. I'm even willing to scrap the idea of TP written/directed in collaboration with others though it would be sad to think the days of TP as a TV series are over. The movie idea continues to fascinate me though. But I'm just repeating stuff I've already said on here before.

In any event, let's hope something - anything! - good emerges from this latest tidbit and that tweet really means something.

[Histeria]

.

[DougieJones]

All the same, it's good to see you back posting on here sneakydave! And to see everyone posting. Always fun to see this thread hopping! It's just we have a precedent here alas of lots of buzz leading to nothing. It would be nice if the buzz actually led to some sort of announcement this time around.

Good to be chiming back in. I always enjoy reading anything in this thread from you guys. Be interesting to see if anything else comes out today as per Dougie Jones.

Dougie, where did you hear this info btw? Am I allowed to ask?

I probably should clarify that there’s no official announcement that I’m aware of that would be released today. However all I heard was that something was getting leaked/put out on social media. I think there might be other reporters getting in on it but I can’t be certain about that.

[sneakydave]

No, I didn't take your comment as meaning there would be an official announcement but thanks for clarifying. We'll see if anyone else pipes up throughout the course of the day.

[eyeboogers]

[

All I'm saying is one of the following is 100% true:

1. Lynch and his inner circle were actively preparing a project for Netflix or with Netflix at one point in history
2. Lynch's inner circle purposefully submitted false documents to industry services at the expense of their reputation within the industry (remember those sources are not for public consumption. They are for *peer* consumption). For no apparent reason whatsoever. And then both they and Netflix refused to correct the record while responding to peers within the industry as if it was accurate when it actually wasn't. Including with potential staff, suppliers, and logistical partners.

Those are the only two credible options. One is a lot more credible than the other.

As for the actual immediate topic, I guess we'll soon either find out or not find out if the tweet was based on anything substantial.

The thing is, there are more options than those. F.ex. the "Wisteria" title came from the same dubious source that stated that it (whatever it is) was a Netflix production. We now know for sure that there was/is a Lynch project called "Unrecorded Night", but no confirmation on the "Wisteria" title outside of that trade publication. A third option could be that there was something in the works, for some company, and that the producers did not want to deny any specific rumours, because it could look like they were then confirming something else to be true.

Is the following not also likely?

4) CBS/Paramount cancelled all international distributions rights to "Twin Peaks" so that they themselves could hold global rights (at least they did this in all territories where they themselves have an active digital platform). They then paid off Mark Frost so that Lynch remained the sole owner of the IP. All fan organised events/festivals were cancelled under legal treats and instead a large scale official festival was due to take place at "Graceland" - also celebrating the shows 30th anniversary, with cast and producers in attendance. Was it possible that an announcement was to be made there? Maybe this sequel could have had the "Rancho Rosa"ish working title "Unrecorded Night". This scenario doesn't have Netflix anywhere near it. This is the theory that i subscribe to.

[Histeria]

.

[eyeboogers]

Also it's factually incorrect. The person that submitted them on behalf of Lynch used the working title Wisteria for both of them.

I am not trying to debunk any of what you are saying, but since I am also damn curious as to what the actual facts are in all of this, did I understand you right that there is a place where someone we know for sure is working on behalf of David Lynch has used the title "WIsteria", because that I have never seen?

[JackwithOneEye]

Unrecorded Night does indeed appear on the copyrights, rather than Wisteria.

According to the Prod weekly submission form, one is requited to have a phone number, presumably they call all submissions to confirm (?)

according to their own verbiage on their own submission page - "Films that have inaccurate information listed, or show no movement or updates within 90 days will be removed from the charts."

That seems to be their policy in print and does admit up front that they are fallible.

see here -

https://www.productionweekly.com/submit/


I get the occam's razor argument, generally.

And I get it, as industry subscription service, they are just publishing cold hard data that comes straight from production companies and it should all be factual, and there should be less room for mis-interpretation or falsehoods than a publication sending out and relying upon journalists to do digging and research, which could come to conclusions either inaccurate or fabricated.

[Histeria]

according to their own verbiage on their own submission page - "Films that have inaccurate information listed, or show no movement or updates within 90 days will be removed from the charts."

That seems to be their policy in print and does admit up front that they are fallible.

see here -

https://www.productionweekly.com/submit/


I get the occam's razor argument, generally.

Doesn't that verbiage support the 'accurate' hypothesis more than the 'false' hypothesis? Correct me if I'm wrong but it feels like you'd have trusted them more if they deemed themselves infallible. Also, I must say that's a very selective quote that reads completely differently in its full context. Edit: I also forgot to add that the link you quoted from specifically states they do not accept submissions in development and only publish projects with a firm start date and are in pre-production.

I didn't want to suggest there's never inaccurate information on them. The important thing is they're trusted for accuracy by the people who actually use them. Also, this is all academical anyway because when reading the actual filings and reviewing the actual information it's very easy to tell they're not false (which itself is distinct from 'inaccurate' despite being conflated often in this thread).

Again the issue is you're looking on the surface for reasons to dismiss the evidence without actually having access to what's beneath the surface. If I'm not mistaken it was you who used ghe fact they have a 'submit' form to poke holes at their credibility and insinuate they just let anyone post stuff.

Besides, they're not the only service in town and others offer even more specifics.

[JackwithOneEye]

They are largely reliable. I just get skeptical and curious and I looked at the submission form and the guidelines surrounding it. I guess I'm not allowed to do that ? Maybe it's too negative. I dunno.

[Histeria]

They are largely reliable. I just get skeptical and curious and I looked at the submission form and the guidelines surrounding it. I guess I'm not allowed to do that ? Maybe it's too negative. I dunno.

Of course you're allowed to. Did it sound like I didn't think you were?