humean316

I do think everyone is entitled to their opinions of course, and while I think that's appropriate for things that are relative, I also believe that an important distinction needs to be made. You have the right to have an opinion but you don't have the right to be right about that opinion. I think that's something we do wrong all the time, simply because people have different opinions doesn't mean there isn't a right and wrong, it just means that a difference of opinion exists and one of you is wrong. In our want for all opinions to have weight and our egotistical need to be right, we somehow then believe that neither is right or wrong when that is logically impossible. See that's the thing, there is a truth about any and all situations, and so when it comes to Castle, someone is right. Will we ever know who is right? Maybe not but someone is correct when it comes to what happened on set because there is a general truth about what happened. Not that it matters I think, I don't care what happened on set nor do I ever want to know. The reason this is so interesting to some is because it is gossip, and gossip works because we don't know. We don't know what happened on set and we want to know, and that's why gossip works the way it does.

I do agree with this, but it is more interesting and relevant I think to think about why it happens. So of course, there is some sexism present here, but to me, the only way you are going to solve is to think about why it occurs. To me, when an executive looks at a show, its easy to see the middle aged white guy as safe and comfortable for an audience. So the guy on Sleepy Hollow or Castle, they are the safe choices because nobody is going to ascribe any preconceived notion to who or what they are on set or in the media. That's not, however what we think of women sometimes, and I think that's where this debate should go. Think about this, we have words for women who are difficult on set, and hell we even think that women are difficult on sets much easier than we do men. That word is diva, and when I say that word another word, bitch, comes to many people's minds. That's just the nature of the way things work these days, and unfortunately its all about our attitudes towards women in show business. It isn't right of course, none of it is, and in my opinion no woman should ever be thought of as a diva or a bitch, but I think that the way we think about women these days, especially powerful ones, is the reason Hollywood finds it easy to replace female leads versus male ones.

There is actually a theory that there are only so many stories that can be told, and after a while, every story is simply a variation of one of the original stories.

http://dishnation.com/castle-feud-behind-the-scenes-nathan-fillion-stana-katic/

See, I think this is something interesting. Why not ask Beckett to give up being a cop completely so that she would never put her life at risk being a cop? And I think that's something we should ask all cops and members of the armed forces. If you are married, should you ever really risk your life for others when you could risk your own marriage? Why not leave all of that to people who don't have families? Of course, that's me being a bit hyperbolic, but I think it's an interesting point to make. If you really believe that Beckett shouldn't put her life at risk and should focus on her marriage, then shouldn't you also be calling for Beckett to completely quit the police force? That's the part of the argument I don't understand, I think there are numerous times when we call out soldiers and police officers for being heroes and putting their lives on the line, and that is in my opinion absolutely correct to do. Those people are absolutely heroes. You know why they are heroes though? Because at some point along the way they came to a point where they COULD have left it to someone else, and yet, they chose to stay in the game so that they could make the world a better place. Even maybe at the cost of their own lives. That's what makes them heroes in the first place. See, if I saw a show where Beckett basically said "yeah it's cool if this group goes on killing people, doing horrible things, and being evil, I am cool with that because I have a husband at home and as long as they don't come after us I am cool", then I wouldn't watch it anymore. I simply wouldn't. Did Beckett try to fight that fight incorrectly? I do think she did, but I'll never think that shouldn't have fought the fight.

What if the show flashes back to episode 2, when Beckett is talking to Castle's mother-in-law, and we see her conversation with the woman. Castle's mom then leaves and Castle appears from behind a corner and walks up to Beckett. They have a conversation about why she ran out that morning and she tells Castle that his mother-in-law isn't wrong. This case could get him killed. He tells her that this case almost got her killed already. She says she isn't quite sure she wants to fight anymore and Castle tells her that she cannot quit, that what makes her extraordinary is that she never quits, and they hatch a plan there. It's all been a ruse and Castle was in on it from the beginning. They know that Vikram is simply trying to keep them apart and so anytime they are around each other they have to pretend that they are not together so that Vikram will think he is succeeding. They also know that Castle's disappearance is related to locksat because, wait for it, Castle's mother-in-law is the one who took him at the end of season 6. The reason Vikram was able to escape the deathsquad that killed McCord and her teammates was because he was in on it, and her and vikram are working together to both keep castle from uncovering the real reason of his disappearance and protect whomever locksat is on his order. They are both dirty.

To be honest, I hope he doesn't ever get angry. Of course, I also think she isn't taking advantage of him, but I also think my view shows how different relationships can be viewed. In my opinion, if you love someone you never meet them with anger, you meet them with understanding and maturity and hope. You stick out the tough times and you don't do that by yelling at your significant other or by acting like a child and taking your ball home when you don't get what you want. In my opinion, the fact that he is meeting this "time-out" (sorry, I know you all hate that term) in the way he has shows a level of maturity in relationships that he hasn't shown before. I do agree that this storyline is absurd but I do understand it too. It's not that she wants their relationship hidden it's that Kate knows for certain that if she is with Rick and tells him about Locksat, he will investigate and it could get him and his family hurt or even killed. At this point, the person behind locksat is in the dark, he has given the investigation a patsy in terms of the person he killed in the 2nd episode, and to his knowledge, the case is closed. As has been shown countless times on this show, when Castle has even the whiff of a good case, he will go down that rabbit hole and put himself in danger. With locksat, that attitude and inability of Castle to stay out of the case will get him killed, so Kate is trying to keep him as far from the investigation as she can. And in some sense, last nights episode proved that point. As one poster pointed out earlier, Kate knows her husband well, when he saw that text he now knows she is investigating something, and I can bet that the next step is that he tries to find out what.

Once Upon A Crime

Not all men would act that way, though. I wouldn't. If it were me, and I can say this from experience, I wouldn't be angry, I'd do my absolute best to win her back. In my case, I actually did win her back and we are married. So I don't think that the situation has to necesarily be handled properly by Castle being angry, and in fact, I think the character of Castle would try to win her back because he does love her.

Well, she can't really tell him can she? Rick Castle, the man who never would leave her side, the guy she is trying to protect from this, the guy who will never stop investigating, is the one guy she cannot tell. Unless she wants him to die. She is basically not breaking up with Castle, but asking him to wait, to not try to figure things out while she does something she feels as though her life and her beliefs force her to do. Quick question, if you know there is something wrong in the world, how wrong is it of YOU to simply give it up in order to be happy? Answer that and you will know why Beckett had to do this...

Alright, so just a bit of devil's advocate here: Beckett didn't have a choice IMO, and here is why. When you dedicate your life to justice, when your mom died trying to find justice, and when you think you have finally found justice in a place you never thought you would only to discover something bigger and worse, that has to change you in a couple of ways. First, it tends to make your obsession that you thought you had overcome even greater than before. Second and most important though, it makes you question all that your life and your center means in this world. For Beckett, she has dedicated her life to justice, the central element in a life she feels is well lived. The choice presented to her was this: give all of that up, let it go, and just be Castle's wife or you can go find that justice you made a vow you would never stop finding. Plus, I think it's what hero's do. What are you willing to sacrifice in order to find justice? Are you willing to give up your life-long pursuit of justice or do you sacrifice in order to do what others cannot? Beckett, unlike others, is willing to give up her happiness in order to find where that thread might lead. There you go. My take.