Thak

Not saying it's impossible, don't know, but this isn't the only explanation people have talked about over the years. Other explanations seem more obvious in my opinion, in fact as the years went by those other observations only got stronger.

Never claimed it was all one persons fault. Of course it's all hearsay, opinions aren't facts. Sharing an observation about something isn't fact.

Again, just my opinion, not claiming to be an insider, plenty of those out there. I never said only one has a clean record, just appears to me that one was more professional when dealing with the fall out.

Agree. The limited interaction was reported as being Nathan's demand, not Stana's. We even have her stating she had no issues with Nathan. She also stated in an interview recently that she wasn't friends with Nathan outside the show, he was just a very good colleague. She always appeared to be keeping things professional. CheshireCat - just giving my opinion on BTS like others have, people are giving opinions based on all kinds of observations and so called inside info. Also don't think there was any romance.

A little bias there, like everyone, but putting this so called insiders info together with other insiders such as Castor Pollock, Lynette Wich, and others on twitter such as Avi Quijada, who works in the business and appears to know some cast and crew behind Castle, the picture that possibly comes into focus is the one I've suspected for awhile. The two actors have had disagreements, personality clashes that each are guilty of, but the difference is one was able to remain professional and the other one got petty, held a grudge and caused the tension to escalate on set to the point of it becoming unbearable for his co-star, and possibly the studio. Avi Quijada has a stream of tweets, and this tweet is one in the stream. She was speaking to the importance of having the whole story and not just the aftermath. Avi Quijada ‏@AviQuijada May 9 The whole story. Not what the aftermath was after one party reacted to the other's childish attitude. 0 retweets 0 likes

I brought William Keck's tweet over here because other tweets have been brought here and discussed at length, most recently Eric Heisserer's many, many tweets. William Keck is a writer from TvGuide who has interviewed the cast over the years, in fact William Keck was the moderator for the Castle Paley 2012. Thought it odd he would leave Nathan, as lead, out of his tweet and continues to do so with people continuing to ask why. Sorry, just trying to be clear about what can or cannot be shared in here. If any tweets/articles/etc.. come out and have bias toward N or S, we are asked not to bring them here for discussion? If that's the case I'll abide and apologize for bringing this tweet over.

William Keck ‏@WilliamAKeck May 10 "Was always a pleasure interviewing @Stana_Katic @MollyQuinn93 @tamalajones @seamusdever @Jon_Huertas @realssullivan for @TVGuideMagazine", he added a wink at the end. He left someone out.

There was one more official release from Stana's camp: 3. Stana didn't have any issues with Mr. Fillion.

For the record, although Lynette Wich had some pretty nasty things to say about Nathan, when asked about the bullying behaviour she said she didn't peg him as a bully, other things yes, but not a bully. As far as Stana not being a weakling, I agree, don't think she is, never have, in fact I think she is a very strong woman, one that might make some men insecure/threatened. I don't think this Eric Heisserer or Lynette Wich are lying. One was talking specifically about Castle and Nathan, the other one was talking about many different things on 4 different shows, nothing specific.

Just speaking to a perceived double standard when it comes to legitimate former employees of Castle speaking out on twitter.

Yes, just like Lynette Wich.

I get what you're saying about stereotypes and I agree. This still doesn't change what they did to the Beckett/co-lead character over the last couple of seasons, and to be fair there has been outcry in regard to this. Over the last couple of seasons I've read words like, "demeaning", "sexist", "misogyny", "dumbing down" etc...when discussing the treatment of the Beckett character. So what I see here is not just a love of Stana, but a love of a popular female lead character on a tv show being mistreated. Doesn't mean the other characters weren't mistreated as well, but to say it's only the love of Stana and people should just admit that's what they're really about is not at all accurate in my estimation.

I think most people would agree he's more popular outside of Castle, I'm not debating that, I'm speaking to the decision ABC made in regards to keeping the Castle brand going. Perhaps as much as some people don't want to admit it, ABC is trying to use the Castle brand to fill some shortcomings in their schedule, and that is why they went with the titular character in regards to extending, spinning off this particular show. Now of course if the show comes back and the Castle family is gone, and "Castle" is no longer in the title of the show, well, then it might not have been about keeping the brand alive.

In my opinion the crowd funding for Alan Tudyk's Conman series could have made far, far less money and ABC would have still made the decision they did. In fact if Conman didn't exist at all ABC would have made the same decision.