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.

The choice of which lead was a no brainer if they're trying to continue with Castle in some form, which is what they appear to be doing. They have said they are trying to keep the brand alive. Now if they come back and Alexis and Martha are gone from the show, and the new shows title doesn't have the name "Castle" in it, then I would say they could have gone with Stana, assuming she would have been interested, remember it's not just the networks decision, the actress would have to be interested as well. On a side note, I read a recent interview with the actress that was on "The Good Wife", can't think of her name, but when asked if she would do another network show she replied (paraphrasing) "absolutely not", she said the only TV show she would do in future is a cable show. A network shows schedule doesn't allow for anything else in your life, quality time with family, other projects, etc.

I agree. I'm glad I'm not on twitter, instagram etc... Some forums out there can be really hateful as well. I also don't understand wishing for the cancellation of the show, not nice. Just don't watch, that's what I will choose to do, simple.

Not at all. I'm speculating in the speculation thread, and I'm giving my opinion on a media story by Deadline, in a thread with "media" in the title. I've made it clear these are my opinions, I don't claim to know facts.

My speculation given the info from "Deadline" about Nathan demanding he and Stana only work 2 days/per week, it would seem Nathan had the issues and not Stana. In fact I do believe Stana's rep's actually let it be known that she has no issues with Mr. Fillion. It would appear one of them wasn't able to remain professional. This reminds me of Stana's birthday tweet last year to Nathan (paraphrasing) "I'm not bossy, I have skills, leadership skills, understand" accompanied by a picture of a little girl and boy with the little girl getting the attention of a not so happy little boy. I'm guessing ABC has probably had enough of the disagreements between them and the pettiness of Mr. Fillion and would rather split them up, so with an aging show they will give the "brand/titular" character a spinoff. (I do believe Fillion has or had a development deal with ABC prior to Castle). This way they can push Fillion in one direction and Stana in another direction by saying they are interested in keeping the door open for other projects with her. She was a co-lead not the title lead so who is needed to keep this boat afloat is pretty academic. ABC is struggling with programming and pilot season is done, they may not have anything to offer Stana right now, or perhaps they tried to get a deal and she has irons in other fires, who knows. I will say that with the Deadline article and the "rumors" over the years, not to mention the opinion of former Castle BTS people like Lynette Wich, where there's smoke, there's fire.

The importance of the Castle "brand" was spoken about last year, so it makes it a reasonable argument. Also, if someone else can speak about what's "logical" to them, then others can do the same, because neither side of the debate knows if what they say is fact. And just to add, I deliberately made sure I said in my last post, "IF you're so inclined", when responding to the other poster's "logic".

When you know you're the "brand" and the show won't carry on without you, then you're sitting pretty and you know it, then you use that to get what you want if you're so inclined. The "brand" was all the talk last year when Nathan signed first and people got upset that they hadn't signed Stana yet. They talked about securing the "brand" first (Nathan), then dealing with the other contracts. I remember that John Lopes (@The_JML) guy speaking to that with upset fans last year.

She also acknowledged him through twitter over the years, only to be ignored. She seemed to back off after season 6 it seemed to me, although she did send him that cute tweet for his birthday last year.

I'm wondering if Lynette Wich left Castle around the same time Andrew and Terri left. Interesting, Andrew Marlowe has the words "Castle creator (in exile)" in his Twitter header.

lynette wich (@mxooley) twitter account. She appears to have worked in the Art Department at Castle for 3 years, left 2013/2014?. Her Linkin page has a blog that links back to her twitter postings. The tweet I saw is on April 18 in response to L_Peckham. https://twitter.com/mxooley/with_replies After reading a few of Rob Hanning's tweets, I'm wondering if he is going to leave Castle as well.

Who's being convicted, it's speculation, when someone writes "if true" they are not convicting anyone, they are speculating. Speaking of being blinded by bias. I agree.