Television C‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why is The Roadhouse referred to in the article as "Bang Bang Bar"? Yes, I know about the neon sign but that bar has always been referred to as "The Roadhouse" by everyone (literally, everyone in the series). JanBielawski (talk) 21:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Easy answer. The Bang Bang Bar happens to be a roadhouse (see Roadhouse (facility). As it's the only roadhouse in town, there's no real need for locals to call it by its proper name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.217.239 (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, can we get Hudmo to be credited as "Himself," as per the Episode 9 credits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:403B:7300:A81B:23B8:B6D5:6257 (talk) 08:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the new article? It's like the new season of The X-Files. This is not a separate series, it's just a new season. --Batman tas (talk) 22:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's all very confusing. Imdb is also treating it as a separate show-http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4093826/. This article, which comes from a site called digitalspy.com says it's going to be a new season-http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/twin-peaks/feature/a601713/twin-peaks-returns-the-cast-the-plot-the-characters-and-everything-you-need-to-know-about-season-3/, though I'm not sure if this info is in any way reliable. It could end up being a miniseries. It's possible.Radiohist (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We really have no idea whether it's going to be a season or a separate series. David Lynch is being intentionally very quiet about the entire thing, even down to who's playing whom (aside from returning actors). Considering how Lynch has filmed this project (basically as one massive movie), it's looking like it'll be a standalone miniseries or a conclusion to the cliffhangers the second season left behind. Either way, we are 100% certain that we're not sure what direction Lynch and Frost will take, and won't have many clues until the Secret History book release in mid-October. Joethetimelord (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can have articles for specific seasons of television if there's enough information to fill them and editors who care enough to write them. I think the issue here is that this article's called Twin Peaks (2017 TV series) rather than Twin Peaks (season 3). —Flax5 13:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Page should be Twin Peaks (season 3). It's not a spinoff, reboot, etc. It has same characters with same actors, themes, and even reminds us of the "25 years" tie-in. — Wyliepedia 14:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's warranted because it's not just a next season, it's a new season after 25 years. This is not very common, to say the least. JanBielawski (talk) 21:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

now that we've seen more than half the season, it is clearly Season 3. It is clearly a continuation. The fact that it happened 25 years later is remarkable and noteworthy--note that in the intro, but new article? I had trouble finding this site. Makes no sense. Also, anybody looking at the old page will think Season 3 was never made.24.215.166.115 (talk) 01:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that based on the independent coverage of this season, it deserves its own article. How many TV shows have separate articles for individual seasons anyway? Many. Here is the category for 2017 TV seasons for American shows. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it confirmed which characters the returning actors will play? Sheryl Lee played also Maddy Ferguson in original series, although the character died in the series. Anyway she is not only returning actor who's character died in original series. --188.67.86.85 (talk) 21:13, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, some of the actors on this "returning" list are dead. Don S. Davis, for example. I think someone has simply dumped the entire extended cast of the original show into this article. Sir Rhosis (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, any actor listed in this article is sourced per the official cast list that was released or an actor that is credited in the end of credits of these new episodes. Davis is listed because he appeared via archive footage and is credited for it. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the title of this is Twin Peaks: The Return per the Showtime website. Should we move the article under that name instead? Thoughts? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The phrasing here isn't really clear, but I think this page might just be saying that "The Return" is the name of the two-part premiere. Either way, we should find out pretty soon. —Flax5 15:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's true it's not completely clear. However, (to put my detective cap on) The Return is the title on the tab for this "season" on the website under "Episode Guide", like season 1 and 2. "Parts 1 & 2" is in the spot where the episode titles go while "Twin Peaks The Return" is in the spot where season/episode numbers go; just compare it to another episode page on the website here. Anyway, we should know soon enough. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one thing for certain - there will be some damn fine coffee. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Frost said it's simply Twin Peaks: https://twitter.com/mfrost11/status/850055977609056257 - MrBelpitsLegs (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The source for Naomi Watts being in the cast is this article from Deadline. How reliable is this publication or the author of the story? The article starts with "I have learned that Naomi Watts is the latest big name..." To me it just feels unreliable. Now the added problem is that this dates from more than a year ago, so there's no shortage of other online sources stating that Watts is part of the cast, but I suspect they've all used the same base information to proliferate this story. I appreciate this will be cleared up one way or another in a month or so when the series starts, but I'm seeking people's opinions about this. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline.com is pretty much the most reliable online source for TV/entertainment news. They seem to break news or have exclusives more than any other outlet, especially when it comes to casting. As for "I have learned...", that's simply the writing style of the journalist; because that's her job, to acquire insider information. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks DTG. I've seen the site used as a source before (I've probably used it myself from time to time), but just wanted to check. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone attempts to kidnap a girl t the Roadhouse. Looks like this part is missing in the description of an episode. Is that right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.108.116 (talk) 02:01, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Horne grabs and threatens her but it's not a kidnapping attempt. If it winds up being important to the plot, it can go in, but it seems to just be showing what a nasty piece of work he is. --Canley (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hypothetically speaking, if individual episodes were to be created for this series, what would their titles be? I'd like to have a crack at starting one for Ep.8, as there's a ton of reviews and resources online for it. But we already have Episode 8 (Twin Peaks) for the old series. Would this be Episode 8 (Twin Peaks (2017 TV series))? It seems a bit clunky to me. Or would it be Episode 38 (Twin Peaks), based on this? Also ping @Grapple X: too. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Provisionally, the former is probably correct if clunky, though it might be worth seeing how they're titled on the inevitable home release. To cut down on nested brackets, maybe Episode 8 (2017 Twin Peaks episode) would work, but it's a different kind of awkward. GRAPPLE ^X 18:17, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about Part 8 (Twin Peaks)? That seems to be what the official site is calling it. —Flax5 18:39, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, this could be more confusing than the episode itself! I'll go with the more clunkly name for now, and it can always be moved if/when another name is given. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:07, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Part 8 (Twin Peaks) is probably the best way to go since that seems to be the official title, and it ducks the issue nicely. I came to this talk page specifically to see if anyone was considering creating a page about this specific episode given the volume of critical discussion around it, so I'm glad to see that's what was happening! 147.9.65.120 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lynch has said that these are not "episodes", but "parts", because he views this season as one 18-hour long movie. Therefore, Part 8 (Twin Peaks) would be the appropriate choice, though I don't think a separate article is needed. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In case you missed it, an editor has gone on and created Part 8 (Twin Peaks). Since it was such a monumental episode of TV, I feel it can be expanded and improved much further; more critical analysis, especially regarding about how the atomic bomb is connected to the TP mythology. Pinging interested editors: Lugnuts and Grapple X. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping - a great start. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:37, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The taglines of each episode, in their current form, have to go, as there's nothing notable about them. So what if an episode had the tagline "Don't die."? Why is that of interest to the readers, and why is it in the plot section of each episode? Should we also include the runtime of each episode, for example, because it's another trivia piece of info we know?

However, if we establish with reliable sources, that for example (and I haven't bothered to check if this is true), because of the lack of proper episode titles, the taglines have been widely used by the media as alternate episode titles, then that's a good reason to keep them.

Note that the info about whose quote is it, and when they said it in the episode, will still have to go, as even if taglines are notable enough to include, that information continues to be non-notable. Freemanukem (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are they non-notable and "have to go"? The original series had the same setup, with the list of episodes showing them, and it's a Featured List too. The taglines are used here in the UK, and I'm guessing in the US too. Is that widley used? Yes, I think it is. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those from the original series are not taglines, but regardless, as I said, if something is notable you have to establish that. That article does establish it, look here: List of Twin Peaks episodes#Episode titles , it provides an explanation which uses reliable sources. The same thing has to happen for this article; establish why they are notable, establish that they are widely used. Then, it would be ok to use them. Freemanukem (talk) 14:20, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I'm struggling to see why they're useful myself. They're not episode titles. Popcornduff (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been re-added, so I'd like some consensus (or sources put forward). I see no reason why Cooper's doppelganger should be referred to as "Mr. C". Many commenters seem to have latched on to this moniker, but fact is the doppelganger is referred to in this style once and otherwise a natural variety of "Dale", "Mr Cooper", "Cooper" - because he has replaced the "original" Dale, after all. He is not named or referred to any differently to the original Dale within the narrative. So let's leave this bizarre "Mr. C" stuff to fansites, OK? If there are any sources for the Mr. C moniker being used by the production or promotion of the series that I haven't seen, then they need to be cited for it to be included. U-Mos (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - remove it. It's in the same vein as Gordon Cole calling him "Coop". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Popcornduff (talk) 08:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did I miss the part where there's an explanation what this show is about??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.50.3 (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To quote the article's introduction, this show is "a continuation of the 1990–91 ABC series of the same name." This continuation picked up right where the old series left off, and more information can be found in the main Twin Peaks page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.217.239 (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone interested, please see the discussion on the original Twin Peaks talk page here regarding adding links to the official Showtime website for Twin Peaks in the various episode articles for the series. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]