Talk:Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me

Archives (Index)

1 2

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Namelessposter (talk · contribs) 04:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: LastJabberwocky (talk · contribs) 15:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I was watching Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me page for a while (not in a creepy way), and it looks GREAT! But I still managed to find some minimal suggestions for clarity. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on a terrifyingly captivating and impossibly funny film! Closing review. LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

@LastJabberwocky, thank you so much for agreeing to take on this GA review - Fire Walk with Me is still one of Lynch's less well-known works, so I was worried that there wouldn't be enough people on Wikipedia who'd both seen the film and liked it enough to do a GA review. I appreciate your edits and questions! I'm very glad to work with you on this article. Let me know if you have any further comments. Namelessposter (talk) 19:07, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

General list

CIBY and Spelling fought over the film rights, with Spelling eventually obtaining the distribution rights outside France and North America. This one is accurate, but I think it would better use the source phrasing that Spelling "retained ownership of international distribution rights" instead of obtaining. And maybe clarifying that "outside France and North America" means "while CIBY obtained the rights of distribution in France and North America". LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Another question, does international distribution rights mean everything outside of North America? Not everything outside of USA? LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done As I understand it, today, "international distribution rights" generally refers to everything outside the U.S. and Canada, not including Latin America. I don't know whether that practice applied in 1992. As such, I've stuck to the LA Times' "North American" jargon, even though I'm not actually sure whether, say, Mexico was included in that. Namelessposter (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Frost left the production; he had already grown tense with Lynch during the troubled production of the second season of the TV series. Maybe it would better this way: Already growing tense with Lynch during the troubled production of the second season of the TV series, Frost left the production, and Lynch hired Robert Engels to co-write the script or Frost, already growing tense with Lynch during the troubled production of the second season of the TV series, left the production, and Lynch hired Robert Engels to co-write the script. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done I went with "Frost had already grown tense with Lynch during the troubled production of the second season of the TV series. He left the production team, and Lynch hired Robert Engels, who had previously written several episodes of the TV series, to co-write the script." Let me know if that works.

I like you version, less dense and easier to read! LastJabberwocky (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

MacLachlan implied that he had requested rewrites to those scenes before he would consider appearing in them, "and David was unwilling to do that". MacLachlan implied that he had requested rewrites, but he didn't said it in the source, saying "I wanted to have a meaningful discussion about some of those scenes, and David was unwilling to do that, so I was not in those scenes - Chris Isaac was in them, instead of me." It would be simpler to get closer to the source. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done I'm okay with removing the implication. For specific phrasing, I went with "MacLachlan later explained that he reduced his involvement because Lynch did not agree to "have a meaningful discussion [with him] about some of those scenes", without providing specifics." Let me know if that addresses your concerns.

I changed some of the quotation marks placements according to this WP:MOSLQ. LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Copyvios is green Y LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Sophisticatedevening talk 13:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that 33 years after The New York Times called David Lynch's film Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me "brain-dead" and seemingly "the worst movie ever made", it conceded that the film was now "revered"?

• Source: New York Times critics Janet Maslin and Vincent Canby severely panned the film, with Maslin writing that "Mr. Lynch's taste for brain-dead grotesque has lost its novelty". Canby quote box: "It's not the worst movie ever made; it just seems to be." Following Lynch's death in 2025, Esther Zuckerman (The New York Times) called the film "revered."

• • ALT1: ... that while directing Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me, David Lynch gave himself a hernia by laughing too hard? Source: In addition, Lynch himself was dealing with a hernia "during the entire shoot"; he had injured himself while laughing too hard at something funny that Angelo Badalamenti did. (Lynch, David; Rodley, Chris (1997). Lynch on Lynch. Faber and Faber. p. 184-85. ISBN 0571178332.)
  • ALT2: ... that David Lynch's film Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me was such a box-office bomb that its sequel was cancelled and its deleted scenes were not released for another 22 years? Source: Lynch teased a sequel film that would follow up on Annie's message. However, the film's disappointing box-office performance meant that no such film was ever made. (Hughes, David (2001). The Complete Lynch. London: Virgin. p. 180. ISBN 9780753505984.) The deleted scenes were not released until 2014, when Lynch, MK2, and CBS Home Entertainment compiled them into a feature film called Twin Peaks: The Missing Pieces to accompany the 2014 Blu-Ray version of Fire Walk with Me.
  • Reviewed:

Improved to Good Article status by Namelessposter (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

Namelessposter (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC).

• This film premiered on May 16, so that seems like an appropriate day to run the hook.

General eligibility:

• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Namelessposter: Recently promoted to GA, no grammar or spelling problems, and all of the hooks are interesting. I suggest that ALT1 be used. No QPQ is required as you have had less than five nominations. Jon698 (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Many thanks for the review, @Jon698:. I'll defer to the DYK team on which hook to use, but I like the original better since it alludes to a grander story. I do want to learn the tricks of the trade, so I'd love to hear your take on why ALT1 is better - is there a shortage of funny hooks for the anchor position? Or is the original hook too wordy? Namelessposter (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • @Jon698: - ClueBot archived this topic on the FWWM talk page for some reason. Just wanted to let you know in case it changes the formatting elsewhere or breaks the page at WP:DYK. Namelessposter (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts on the article

As requested, some high-level thoughts. (Also planning on going through line edits, and will come back with more nitty-gritty thoughts.)

• My main critique reading through the article is an accessibility one; it presumes a lot of knowledge of the series and privileges information that apparently only has importance to the wider mythos versus being comprehensible without it. To that end, I would really rethink the plot section wholesale. A lot of the details don't seem to connect to other parts outside of the footnotes that say it relates to an episode of the TV series, and that makes the plot hard to follow as its own thing.
• I would look to focus on streamlining and summarizing more than relying on quotes, especially partial ones that disrupt the flow of the prose. I'm not sure the pull quotes in the reception and legacy sections add a ton either (why does Vincent Canby get the most important word on the film?) See WP:RECEPTION
• The reception section itself mostly reads as a list of critics and filmmakers giving opinions. While I generally see film articles have an introductory paragraph that discusses the range of general opinions about the film, it seems like with a film that has this much coverage it is better organized by talking about the aspects of the film (acting, writing, directing?) than just positive, neutral, negative groupings.
  • Also, why are the filmmaker opinions put in the legacy section? Some of them are contemporaneous with the theatrical release.
• Soundtrack being the final section seems a little odd to me.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks for the review, David. I'm happy to address your concerns. To begin, would you mind taking a look at a draft revision to the plot summary, available at my sandbox here? I'm unsure how exactly to go about it because like the current summary in article space, the film as a whole presumes a lot of knowledge of the series, which was a big reason why critics hated it. My draft revision includes some of that background information from the TV series, but only for main characters and not the supernatural phenomena - holistically, I don't think we need to explain the spirits for the film to make sense, and the revision is already too long (~850 words) as it is. Please let me know if I'm on the right track. Namelessposter (talk) 01:47, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure the footnotes are really helping, since they all relate to the television series, and also imply a level of connection that we'd really need secondary sourcing for beyond WP:PLOTCITE. Some sticking points for me still:

• She breaks up with James, and Bobby realizes she only dated him for cocaine. — these feel a little odd to join together considering it's two different people and relationships. Does Bobby break up with her too? You're using the past tense.
• while the man from the street tosses Laura Teresa's ring. I think you need something better than "the man from the street" to describe this character just because at this point it's not really clear it's the same guy from three paragraphs earlier.
• (who is unaware of his surroundings[h]) doesn't seem all that relevant
• Does the movie/critics split the plot into the named prologue and "Last Seven days" segment? If not, Wikipedia really shouldn't be doing that ourselves.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - I will give serious thought to how to implement them. Some quick responses:

• "She breaks up with James, and Bobby" - I take your point. I omitted to mention that earlier in the movie, Bobby tries to break up with Laura out of jealousy, but Laura talks him back in. However, when Bobby has his realization that Laura is dating him for cocaine, he is surprisingly gentle about it, and comforts her while giving her the drugs. Had Laura lived the future of their relationship would have been left ambiguous.
• I'll try to figure out better ways to refer to MIKE and The Man From Another Place. The primary difficulty is that the film never mentions them by name (and the franchise as a whole never mentions The Man From Another Place by name).
• Leland's lack of awareness is relevant to the "themes#sexual abuse" section, which discusses competing theories about whether Leland is personally aware of and responsible for his crimes, but I definitely agree that we can move it down from the synopsis to the analysis.
• I think generally critics recognize a distinction between the Deer Meadow and Twin Peaks sections, but there are no title cards saying "prologue" and "last seven days", just an interstitial card saying "One year later." "Last seven days" comes from the Japanese title of the film, Twin Peaks: The Last Seven Days of Laura Palmer. So the wording is from the film but its specific use comes from me. I do think some kind of split between the two sections needs to be recognized, since the film is tonally and visually different after the time jump, but I am very open to new ideas about how to do so.

More broadly, how strictly should we stick to the 700-word presumptive limit here?

Lastly - as you could probably tell from the sandbox, I've been heavily revising the critical reception section, but I wanted to take some time off and look at it with fresh eyes before circulating to you. Namelessposter (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

If there's secondary sourcing talking about the prologue and the rest of the film and their stylistic differences, I think that's better to mention upfront rather than subheads, personally, since that somewhat implies an "official" division for lack of a better term. As for the plot length, 700 words is a guideline rather than a hard-and-fast rule, but generally shorter summaries tend to be more comprehensible to casual readers; when looking to expand them I generally look to see what elements of the plot are talked about with production or critical reception/scholarly themes and if it needs more introduction in the plot rather than in those sections. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 00:15, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

RFC on whether the film was booed at Cannes

When reliable sources disagree about a fact, but the evidence generally leans towards one side, how should we represent the fact in the lead? Namelessposter (talk) 13:41, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Introduction

This content dispute has been going on for a year now (although it has involved different people), so I'm going to put this here for the record and invite a discussion. I realize this is a contentious subject and I want to welcome different views. I think we can all agree that Fire Walk With Me is an important movie that a lot of people dearly love. With that in mind, I think the evidence overwhelmingly points to the film being booed at Cannes: it's really Robert Engels' word against Lynch and everyone else.

History of edits and reverts

• I (that is, Namelessposter) started editing this article on 16 February 2025... I think. At the time, the lead read "It has long been reported that the film was booed and jeered by the audience at Cannes, though co-writer Robert Engels denies this happened." The body contained three cites:
  • For the "no boo" story, the lead and body both cited Den of Geek, quoting Engels in The Blue Rose Magazine: "I was there (at Cannes); it didn't happen. I was sitting with Mary Sweeney (the film's editor) and David Lynch. The audience didn't boo."
  • For the "yes boo" story, the body cited two articles for the point that "There is a persistent story that the film was met with boos and hisses from the Cannes audience": Robbie Collin from The Telegraph ("On a bright May morning in 1992, David Lynch walked into the press conference room at the Cannes Film Festival to the sound of booing and hissing. Unpopular films are often met with catcalls at European festivals, but directors being jeered in person is somewhat rarer.") and Meaghan Katz from the Columbia University undergraduate film journal ("When David Lynch’s film Wild at Heart was awarded the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival in 1990, it was applauded by many, but booed by most. Two years later, his film Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me was booed by nearly everyone at its Cannes premier.").
• 18 February 2025: As part of a broader rework, Namelessposter changes the lead to say that "Lynch said that the film was booed at Cannes." (diff)
  • Accidentally, I did not cite the quote at first. I am sorry.
  • I was thinking of the Golden Globes article on the film, which I had found and added to the article, and which contained the following quote from Lynch: "'I have shown The Straight Story there and Mulholland Drive. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me was booed,' Lynch told us in 2017, laughing out loud. 'It was a horrible thing.'"
  • For balance, I preserved Robert Engels' contrary assertion from the Den of Geek article (see above), but in the body, not the lead.
• 4 April 2025: I belatedly cite the Golden Globes website for this point. (diff)
• 20 April 2025: Following the broader rework, the article is promoted to GA by @LastJabberwocky.
• 26 May 2025: 109.78.234.166 reverts, saying "FWWM was NOT booed at Cannes, that was Wild at Heart", citing Adrian Horton in The Guardian. (link to source) Note that the assertion is unsupported by the link in the current version. I also checked Wayback Machine and the original version doesn't support it either.
• 26 May 2025: Namelessposter reverts, saying "Lynch himself said FWWM was booed, per the source cited in the article (https://goldenglobes.com/articles/david-lynchs-twin-peaks-fire-walk-me-30-years-scary-dream-universe/). Contemporary and modern news reports cited in the article also mention some booing." (diff)
• 3 November 2025: BatataKarambas reverts, saying "The original said that Lynch mentioned the film was booed at Cannes, this is false and is a myth." No source provided. (diff)
• 3 November 2025: Namelessposter reverts, saying that "Myth though it may be, it's sourced in the body and the source contains a direct quote from DKL. ("Fire Walk With Me was booed," Lynch told us in 2017, laughing out loud. "It was a horrible thing.”)". (link to source, the Golden Globes website) (diff)
• 29 December 2025: Apeholder reverts, saying that "It was not booed at Cannes," citing the Twin Peaks Blog (link to source) (diff)
• 29 December 2025: Namelessposter reverts, explaining that "the Golden Globes website quotes Lynch himself saying the film was booed, regardless of what the Twin Peaks Blog says" (diff)
• 27 February 2026: Apeholder reverts without explanation, citing the Twin Peaks Blog and saying that "contrary to popular opinion, the film was not booed" (diff)

Poster’s statement

@Apeholder, BatataKarambas, and 109.78.234.166: Let's discuss the sources. The article cites contemporary reports from the LA Times and the AP saying FWWM was booed. Ray Wise agreed that it was booed. And all else being equal, Lynch admitting the film he directed and co-wrote was booed seems more reliable than Engels saying the film he co-wrote was cheered. (See declaration against interest.)

Robert Engels is the only on-point witness for the claim that the film was not booed. Dugpa's Twin Peaks Blog post that Apeholder cited cites the same Robert Engels interview in The Blue Rose Magazine as Den of Geek. But as Dugpa goes on to say, "almost all of the reviews published between May 17-31 seemed to reinforce that the film was 'booed' at the end of the screening." Dugpa tries to square the circle by noting that there were two screenings. At the press screening, the film may have been booed. At the second, publicity screening, the film received an ovation.

Obviously, Dugpa's research does not actually contradict the point that the film was booed at Cannes. (And we could go on and on about the culture of Cannes ovations... the fact of an ovation means very little, and people focus more on its length, for better or worse.) Rather, it contradicts Apeholder's point. Dugpa focuses on a more moderate contention, that some people at Cannes did like the film. And I don't disagree with that. (Relatedly, I happen to like Dugpa and the Twin Peaks Blog; Dugpa is no ordinary blogger. Even so, it's not especially clear that Dugpa's blog is fair game for Wikipedia. See the policy laid out at WP:BLOG.)

Under Wikipedia guidelines, this is an easy decision. Because the evidence strongly supports Lynch over Engels, we should not "give undue weight to a particular view" or "give a false impression of parity." (WP:NPOV.) To precisely represent the sourcing, I have usually written in the lead that "Lynch said" the film was booed at Cannes, not that it actually was booed; and I have concurrently noted Engels' disagreement in the body. I believe this complies with the principle in WP:SERIOUSLYCONTESTED that "If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements in wikivoice." But we cannot and should not say that the film was not booed, as Apeholder suggests. Both Lynch and the Twin Peaks Blog post Apeholder cites contradict this. Saying in the lead that "Lynch and Engels disagreed about whether the film was booed at Cannes" is a classic example of WP:FALSEBALANCE.

Discussion

I appreciate your thoughts about an important and contentious topic. Namelessposter (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

I like the way you phrased the booing situation in the body, stating each position but pointing out that more people share the "occurrence of booing" position. As it is a contentious situation, I would omit the mention of Cannes in the lead, praising it as something like this: Upon release, the film was met with polarizing reception: generally panned by American press, but at the same time received consideration for several film awards. Also, you can add Template:Rfc for more participation. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 08:22, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I will seek more participation, but I do not feel like there is justification to omit the matter from the lead when the facts are clear. Many contentious matters are contentious despite evidence favoring one side. This may happen for all sorts of good faith reasons. Namelessposter (talk) 13:18, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Namelessposter (talk) 13:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Namelessposter: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 8,000 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, I’m at work right now and can’t respond. I didn’t put the second rfc up. Namelessposter (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I have revised the rfc statement. Please let me know if it works. Namelessposter (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

No, it doesn't, because you didn't add a brief statement - you added even more text (more than 500 bytes) to the already-overlong statement, which took it even further over the limit. The RfC statement is everything from the end of the {{rfc}} tag (exclusive) to the first valid timestamp (inclusive). In this section, the first valid timestamp is at the end of the paragraph containing the sentence I appreciate your thoughts about an important and contentious topic. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:07, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok. What do you propose I do? I added a signature to the end of the first paragraph and trimmed the first paragraph to 242 bytes inclusive of the signature/141 bytes without. Is that going to work? As you can tell, this is my first rfc; I don’t normally do this, but I also don’t normally find myself needing to dispute something for this long. Namelessposter (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

(Summoned by bot) I still don't see a brief and/or neutral statement on the request, and it's unclear exactly what this rfc is asking. What precisely are the options being proposed?

It seems like we might benefit from omitting it from the lead to allow for clarity on the story as it currently exists in the body. There is a lot that's notable about this film, so mentioning this detail up front isn't necessary? It's very clear from your detailed description that elaboration is helpful—lets the reader understand that most people agree that it was booed, but Engels denies it. Given the need for neutrality and the clear presence of contention, I wouldn't want to include it in the lead without a qualifying statement (such as from that very first version). ~Malvoliox (talk | contribs) 03:18, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Stated by From the Front Row: https://www.fromthefrontrow.net/home/the-greatest-movies-of-all-time-according-to-trans-people Espngeek (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

There has been no comment here in nearly three months, but the contentious claim is still in the lead. Any chance we could come to a consensus on this? In the meantime, i've inserted a disputed tag. FM [ talk to me | show contributions ]  22:53, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed it, per the Manual of Style on lead sections, as the body makes it clear this is disputed. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:49, 4 June 2026 (UTC)