Betweenthisandthat

I'm going to have to join in as a voice of dissent as I like Quinn and Torres. She's not insecure but she's not a know it all either. She's not really reminding me of any of the agents who have come before her. She has her issues like everyone on this show, but she is the relatable to me, maybe more than Ziva or Kate or Bishop have been. She kind of does remind me of Borin without the alpha mentality I thought she had. I also enjoyed Torres with the other characters. I think he fits in well with everyone. He obviously has his issues but is given humor as well, which I love. I was afraid he'd be a more brooding character so I hope this is a sign that he won't be as one note as that. I agree. Honestly it feels like after 13 or more seasons that the regular cast's stories have been told. I can't get excited by the same old Gibbs drama or sam old relationships anymore. That's not to say that can't grow but they can only do that by interacting with new people and new dynamics. Ncis has changed, but it has been on forever so I like the focus on new characters and new storylines. The other older characters still get things to do as well but it needed new storyline if it's to continue for two more seasons at least. I miss Tony because he was my favorite character but I'm enjoying this season more than I thought I would. My only concern is how they're going to fit in this third new cast member.

I've been enjoying these episodes. I like the last two a lot because they focus more on other characters, specifically Benny. I'd like to see the rest of the characters get fleshed out more as well. I have no problems with the whole mock jury and the other technology. Or the premise of the show itself. I like that they try to analyze of what makes people biased about things and how that can affect the judicial system. That's part of the reason why there's all this talk about reforming the system and systemic bias. Everyone is biased, and I assume lawyers, the media, everything we consume, is meant to capitalize on these biases. I see Bull and his team as trying in their own way to address what are real problems in how we judge and are taught to judge people. I'm also okay with them winning. I assume things might get more complicated later on, but NCIS and other procedurals solve their cases every week. They usual get the bad guy if not in one episode than at some point. In this show, they might always exonerate the innocent, with an exception or two. I like to see a team work well and competently, so I don't need to see them taken down a peg or two. What I would like to see is more personal stories, because I assume that's when Jason gets to be a much messier character. I can see him being exceptional in his job, but I wouldn't be surprised if his personal life is much more complicated. He's divorced. There's some kind of dark childhood that has been referenced at least twice, and the pilot basically said that his obsession with understanding people is based on some kind of deep need or trauma. That's what I'd like to slowly learn more about. Who is this guy? Why is he doing what he's doing? Why has he decided to surround himself with these people on his team?

I'm sorry for the people out of work on Castle, but that's show business. I wouldn't have faulted it for continuing, but then I never understood the logic of it. Yep. Time for something new. Congratulations to fans who wanted the show to remain intact.

Now that's a different way to look at this, and you're right. If we're taking all the artistic value out of TV and talking about just business, then TV is a medium for advertisers to sell their commercials in exchange for the promise that people will see these commercials and buy their products. They sell their commercials in exchange for viewers. They get that if the network puts on shows that people will watch while they wait for those ads. Who you really have to please are the advertisers, who want to appeal to certain customers, so the shows are just ways to attract people to these ads. Who does ABC's advertisers want to attract if they keep Castle on for season 9? Still doesn't sound like a good business decision. Surely there's a show or pilot out there that can bring more eyeballs to the commercials than Castle next season without Beckett, but given the shaky state of the network's ratings, maybe that isn't the case. I'm not sure why they'd proceed without Katic unless she gave signals bts that she didn't want to be on the show and the network decided to not try to negotiate with her and cut its losses instead. If she were willing to be on for one more season, I don't understand why they wouldn't choose that option instead. Castle with Beckett has to get better ratings than without her, I'd think. I'd think making money would trump sexism, but I could be wrong, and maybe Castle without Beckett is easier to write and gets the network those ad dollars anyway.

The idea of the viewer as king, like the customer being king, is interesting. This is show business, and it seems that like any business, the customer is always right. But then that's to strip all and any artistic creativity and vision from show business entirely. The viewer gets to choose the ending she wants, so what's the use of the writer if the viewer gets to write the story? Especially if it's a combination of the writer, producers, cast, crew and network that introduces the story for the viewers in the first place? I don't know the answers to these questions, but giving complete control to the viewer is as equally troubling as leaving it in the hands of writers or networks that disregard the viewer. Also, which viewers get to dictate what a show should do if its fandom has diverse wants and needs? With Castle, the viewers' desires seem simpler: Caskett is what sells. Although as a former viewer, what hooked me was the writing element of the story. That we saw crimes from a literary point of view, and that's gone, and with it and the rise of Caskett, I become less interested. My desires were ignored for those who seemed to want something else. There are shows I've recently given up on because its writers decided to choose one set of vocal online fans over the desires of others, and the show began to feel like fanservice. That's not to say that the network is doing it right with Castle now, but no show does well when it totally disregards its viewers and its writers' creative vision, right? The problem with Castle seems to be it's not satisfying its customer and lacks creative vision, some would argue.

I don't know if Eric Heisserer was talking specifically about Castle or the two leads involved. The point I take away is that there are a number of things that can happen behind the scenes that fans don't know about and critics don't write about because bias takes over. There is sexism on television, along with racism, and various forms of discrimination. I'll never argue about that because I've seen a few instances of that blatantly this season, and I've given up on shows because of it. Castle is different. I pass by this thread when I'm bored and what to indulge in a little drama that I'm not part of, but it doesn't seem like many or anyone has any facts to support whether Katic or Fillion is the villain of this scenario. Katic and Fillion are pretty silent. The show runners are too for now. The network hasn't said anything much. There are shows that treat their female leads badly; this season has had too many shows dispose of their female characters. Sometimes that removal comes with support of a fandom that claims to be feminist and supportive of women. Other times there has been uproar, which was deserved. This Castle case feels harder to have an opinion about, but an interesting opportunity to see bias at work when there's an absence of facts. I agree. All there seems to be are appearances, and when that's all you have, even using your eyes and your brain can lead to the wrong conclusion. It might lead to the right one, too, but who knows at this point?

@HIGHZurrer the Twitter handle for a writer Eric Heisserer has some interesting things to say on his feed. I don't know if any of it is connected to Castle but it does remind us that no one really knows what goes on bts. And sometimes we believe what we want to believe while going after the wrong people if we have to go after anyone at all. I don't see Caslte succeeding next season but I could be wrong about that. That's the part that's interesting to me. Do any of us really know what we're talking about?

I hope that whatever anger fans feel, they can direct it to the network rather than the cast. At least that would make sense. I've stopped watching this show, but I don't wish any ill on the actors or the crew. I don't know how many people will continue to support the show without a couple that seems to be the reason so many people watched - it wasn't why I watched but this is what I assume. This just doesn't seem like a profitable decision for the network to make if they are concerned about budget issues. What profit will a season 9 make now? How desperate is ABC to try to keep this show on?

Just read about Stana and Tamala. I'm shocked. If they chose to leave that would be one thing, but if it's true they were dismissed, then the show deserves whatever backlash it gets. That's a horrible and dumb move by ABC if the Deadline reporting is accurate. I assume there's more going on that we may or may not find out later, but I feel badly for fans. And Tamala, I hope she was paid well because they never did much with her and then she's let go? This isn't good buzz going into a ninth season, if that happens.

I stopped watching Arrow after it's mid season finale, which I actually enjoyed, because I figured the person in that grave was Laurel, though I still read spoilers and have kept up with some of what has happened since. I liked Laurel a lot, especially in her first season, and never stopped rooting for her. Part of that might have been a reaction to the negativity and general anger thrown at that character, which I never understood. She felt like someone I had to defend, and I kept hoping the show would treat her with care, and they never did. And I realized before the end of last year that they never would. I read Katie Cassidy's interview at TV Line, hoping to learn that maybe this was her choice, that she wanted to leave the show or something. Just to make sense of killing Laurel off, and it looks like she learned about it last minute. She was hired to be Black Canary. The show delays that for seasons, seeming to give that role to someone else, she finally gets to be this role in the most graceless way possible, and then she's killed off. Maybe that's how things are in Hollywood, but I can't get over how shitty that is. [Edited by mod: Fans.] The only thing that impresses me is how classy Cassidy has handled herself despite this. I expected to be angry that Laurel was killed off, but at the end of the day, it makes sense. I can't even be mad or bitter. Arrow began to decrease in quality after Shado's death, and I loved Shado. Her murder was a sign of what was to come. So many great female characters have ended up being dispensable since then. Shado, Moira, Isabella, Amanda Waller (how did that happen??? ), and Laurel. Hell, even Thea and Sara "died." Others have just disappeared off the canvas. So, there's really nothing shocking about this latest death. Another woman slain by a man. [Edited by mod.] The only woman to consistently get decent writing might be Felicity, and I'm not even sure if they're doing her justice either. It's sad. I can decide if I regret ever watching Arrow or not, but I am relieved to finally be able to move on from it and the frustration and toxicity that came with it. Goodbye, good riddance, [Edited by mod.]. I would hope that's true, or else it's just another crappy, sad storyline from this show, and another character who deserved better.

Laurel in the grave is when I finally give up on this show without looking back. I was going to watch the winter premiere, but opted out of it, and I honestly haven't regretted it. I do check up once and awhile to see spoilers, just in case there's anything enticing that would tempt me, but I can't say I trust the show when it comes to Laurel storylines, and that plus the hate for the character, which I will never really understand and hope never to encounter something like it again, has tainted the show for me. So I'm going to assume she's in the grave, because I don't expect anything more from this show than that kind of crap. And it's not like the storylines for any other character look all the good to me either. I don't really care for Olicity, and I have tried, and if I did, that secret child nonsense would turn me off. I'm not an Oliver fan anymore, although I adored him in the first season, so that makes watching even more difficult. The first season had a vision of what Arrow was about and who he was fighting and that's gone. He had a purpose, albeit a misguided one, and I don't really get what the show is about now. But at the very least, if Laurel's gone, I can give up reading spoilers and use that time for something better!

I read Matt's TV Line post and he does ask a productive question: Why watch? I liked this show when it was about Castle the writer and his world was more charming and interesting and compared nicely to the one we saw Beckett in, before she become this jack of all trades supermodel cop. So the reasons I enjoyed the show a lot are long gone. I occasionally check up on Castle news and see parts of an episode here and there, but I can't say I'm a regular viewer so my investment in what happens comes more from curiosity than anything emotional. One show I had to stop watching recently for my health was Arrow, a show I mostly loved in its first season and parts of its second, and then I started to dislike how it treated some of its characters, how the fandom talked about some of its characters, and at some point this season , season 4, I decided to give it up. I had to ask why I was watching and getting out of it, and I faced the fact that what I wanted to see wouldn't happen on the show, not based on how it was written and the audience it was being written for. It's been a great decision. So if you can't distance yourself emotionally from a show, I highly recommend not watching it at all if it isn't giving what you want rather than hate watching or watching and being constantly disappointed. I like that Matt was truthful that if people are watching Castle to see them together for most of the episode, then maybe the show isn't' for you anymore. If you read the episode synopses and don't like what's coming ahead, then maybe that's just one more sign. Maybe the ratings will drop enough that the show will have to end, hopefully on a good note with Castle and Beckett together. If the ratings don't drop despite the changes, maybe that's a sign that your wishes aren't the be all and end all of what the show is and why people watch. Either way, your stress levels will be much lower. Not trying to tell people what to do, but I like how Matt laid it all out there so that people can make an intelligent decision based on the fact that this show is in a strange place. I do think Matt's also hinting that people who watch should enjoy the show right now for what it is because things may change. It must be a difficult time to be a person who still likes this show because I highly doubt there are places were there isn't an overabundance of criticism and dread about the future, all of which might be completely warranted, but still, it must feel like there's no where to have a fun chat about the show. Assuming that's possible given all the changes and possible ones to come. I wonder how the media and Castle fans will remember this show. It had that will they won't they thing going on. Then tried to mitigate the failings of the Moonlighting curse. Will there be a Castle curse now? Or will it be remembered more fondly?

That was my favorite part of the episode. I was hoping it would happen but didn't think it would, and then it did. My other favorite parts were McGee and DiNozzo. I'm sure TPTB know that they need to do some brilliant casting for these two new characters who may supposedly fill the DiNozzo-shaped whole that will exist next season. My worry is that more often than not, McNozzo has been my favorite friendship on NCIS, the humor that comes from their good-natured teasing, the way it's developed over the last twelve and thirteen seasons, I'll miss that. It's going to be hard to replace that history they have.

I only see this as a game changer because I associate NCIS with Tony's humor at lot of the time. McGee has his humorous moments, and Jimmy is mostly there for laughs and awkward moments and Abby is Abby. Mostly though the characters, Vance, McGee, Bishop, and especially Gibbs are on the whole more self-serious than Tony has been. That's just how I see it. That's not a slam against the rest of the characters. Tony's disparagingly called the comic relief, and while I see him as more than that, the comedy is the biggest draw of the show for me. Might be wrong, but Tony's absence makes the tone of the show change, especially since he was there from the beginning. How big of a change it ends up being all depends on who else is brought on in the next season if they go ahead with a season 14.

I don't watch this show much anymore, but I admit i still keep track of spoilers so I watched tonight and surprisingly enjoyed most of it. Oliver didn't grate, I actually thought some of the Olicity scenes were pretty good, which is weird because I usually don't care about them at all. I loved Laurel helping to save the day and she even smiled several times,which is something I wished happened more often, and her and Quentin's scenes were pretty good too. As an aside, I have no idea what is with this obsession about Laurel crossing her arms. Like, come on. I didn't even mind Malcolm that much and I pretty much despise him. I usually mute the tv when the flashbacks appear, but I figure I didn't miss much. I was actually pretty engaged with everything except the whole gas chamber/Nazi stuff. No one should be put in a gas chamber obviously, but it seemed doubly insensitive to put Felicity in it given that she's Jewish and tv shows are way too casual about invoking Nazism, oh, but this is probably another topic. No way do I think Felicity is dead. I might not be into Arrow as much as I was in its first season, but I'll come back to check out the winter premiere at least, even though I remain very, very cautious about being too invested in anything that happens here.