Gant

What ABC has to do with that? Isn't Modern Family produced by Fox? What is the evidence of this ABC 'courting'?

Isn't Dungey's sister in the new season of Con man as well? I seem to remember a mention of that somewhere. I have no clue why I brought this up or what this is supposed to mean if anything. I may be a cynic, but of a directionless, bumbling variety apparently.

Apparently NF is taking part in something called Santa Clarita Diet. I just read on Twitter that he talked about it on some podcast thing with his Thrilling adventure costars. It's a Netflix comedy series with Timothy Olyphant and Drew Barrymore. I checked it out and learned the creator is the guy who did Better off Ted, a series I just started and like a lot so far. So I guess, I'll try it as well.

This is the only thing that annoys me in this whole money issue story. I am very understanding and all, about pay discrepancies and creative professionals needing to balance financial and actually creative issues, but up to a point. The point being pretentiousness and grandstanding of any caliber, which was what I felt coming off in waves from Stana in general, and her 'art over finance' statement in particular. I always liked her image overall, but these rather frequently expressed pretentious statements and gestures made my hackles rise.

Well, but that's not an issue with any individual actor or athlete, it's an issue with their professional field and its standards. Do I think movie people and sports people are overpaid as a whole? By god, I do! I mean the kind of money paid to soccer players? Boggles the mind. But I have no issue with any one soccer player in particular for working to increase their transfer money worth or whatever. It's their professional field's standard measure of their professional worthiness, and if they work better than the other guy but are paid less millions than him, I totally understand how they'd see it as unfair and would work to change that. Doesn't make them greedy in my mind. And they (same as actors) still have the right to occasionally complain, express discontent or whatever with their jobs as long as they don't lose self awareness IMO. We all have issues and problems at work, which are not canceled out by the amount of money we make compared to the next Joe. I mean, a janitor in my office building probably can make a case about working harder than me, and she probably does when we have a lazy day in the editors office. And she definitely gets less money for her hard work, than I get for my easier one. But that's our professional standards. Would it do any good if she replaced me in my office chair? Doubtful. I wouldn't be any good with brooms and supply boxes too. I wouldn't be any good on a soccer field or in front of the camera. So I tend to let it go, lol. Just sad facts of life. I agree though that painting some celebrity as a perpetual victim of other celebrities, just because you "feel close" to that celebrity and love dramatic narratives, is stupid and immature. But that's not an issue of the kind of money the celebrity gets, it's an issue of the kind of brains her/his followers have.

I remember that 'Beckette' debacle well, because it was the only live tweet by a cast member I ever managed to catch in real time, lol. Not that I ever made much of an effort as I don't really see the point. But because of its uniqueness for me, I remember it quite clearly. It was actually peppered with misspelled words, NF not only misspelled Beckett's name twice (which OK, I immediately thought was fraught with danger, lol), he also misspelled his own character's name and some other words too. In fact my impression was that he was a bit drunk or well on his way to it, lol. No one made any conspiracy out of him misspelling Castle's name though. Maybe if there wasn't a juicier choice with the Beckett misspelling given, there would've been some noise made about him deliberately (one of the most used fandom words) disrespecting his own character or something like that, I heard that as well more than once. Actually the current discourse I believe is, that he both, hated and disrespected his character at every opportunity, making him an irrelevant buffoon and being generally disinterested and indifferent to the role and show; and that he was jealously coveting the badassness and drama of the Beckett part, trying to heap it all on himself but failing due to own ineptitude. So both misspellings could feed the fandom lore equally well.

I tried to minimize my exposure to tabloid trash during the heyday of the drama, but this was the one thing that jumped out at me: why no one made any allegations about romantic history gone sour? I'd have thought it would have been the easiest (and most juicy) way to attract readers. True or not doesn't matter, when did tabloids ever worry about assigning romantic angle to scandalous stuff? It suggested to me that this sudden avalanche of 'leaks' didn't originate so much from any random person(s) or the dam break due to the show's imminent cancellation, but was in fact controlled and carefully angled to serve a particular agenda. I don't really see any other reason for rags to avoid the bestselling sex stuff so completely in favor of supposed bullying. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I see it as logical :) Watched the bloopers (haven't seen anything Castle for ages now, still have last episodes to catch on... maybe) and felt somewhat nostalgic, it used to be a fun show with likable characters/actors. I could have never foreseen it ending in such murky tabloid waters and ill will all around. While I realize that nothing untoward could ever be put in bloopers, I still didn't get from them the feel of Castle season 8 as an unhappy set where everyone supposedly had to watch their step, observe power balances and keep different loyalties. Several Nathan/Stana interactions/reactions to each other sounded perfectly friendly to me, same with other actors (who were supposed to be all divided between 'mommy and daddy' according to fan narratives). If anything, were I a complete novice in Castle fandom matters, I might have thought that Molly was the one having issues with Nathan, lol. All that mouthing off and pretend pouting. Now, that's the kind of inside jokes that usually get misinterpreted by the fandom and spun into drrrama. Imagine if it was Stana or anyone else who reacted to Nathan this way, he'd have been raked over the coals for 'upsetting' her, being 'unprofessional' and an annoying jerk in general, lol. But since people who usually get their panties in a twist over actors joking around are roughly the same people who love calling Molly unflattering names, it went completely overlooked. So I wanna be the first to spin a new theory! Molly hates Nathan, she can hardly stand him, but has to make nice because she's afraid of sexist bullying and doesn't want to ruin her career. In fact she's been non-stop crying in her trailer and sending secret notes of support to Stana's trailer, 8 years worth of notes!

It wouldn't be unusual at all to study Russian in Kiev in the 90s. Everyone in Ukraine speaks Russian, in fact a good chunk of Ukrainian citizens don't (or won't) speak Ukrainian. More so in the 90s. It would be very unusual and not exactly practical for a foreign student in Kiev in the 90s to learn Ukrainian while bypassing Russian which would have given means to communicate with way more people than Ukrainian would've given. But not having an accent after a measly summer in Kiev some 10-15 years ago? I presume she wasn't practicing everyday. If her incredible skill with languages was made a special plot point through the series I could've believed it, but on its own it does look like another mary-sueism. Thanks for the laugh, I forgot this scene in all its messy glory.

Well, they certainly aren't overworking their muse. Same reluctant cop/show offy celebrity type solving crimes, only with genders reversed, the name is chosen honestly :). I'd be interested to see if they get lucky with the chemistry between actors as much as they did on Castle. And in case it goes further than the pilot... if they learned their lesson about fleshing out ALL characters from the start and continuously, at least to make their own showrunner life easier.

I'm not a betting kind at all, but have to agree that I see shades of last season. Negotiation time! Just waiting for Seamus and Jon to take the CastleTV person out for lunch again ;) Sorry, I'm mean today.

I feel like it's been the attitude in the writers' room for a long time. The "season of secrets" anyone? IMO it was set up to be equally "damaging yet understandable" for both characters, for no reason than to create an artificial drama. I know that most people, at least here, seemed to empathize with Castle's "secret" more, but from the treatment it got from Beckett I think writers saw it from the start as an equal opportunity "stupid mistake", first exploding right into Beckett's face, then Castle's. This keeping score in the things that need no score, just an adult conversation, "taking down a peg" and multiple removals of moral high grounds, is what's been passing for character development slash couple therapy for a long time now.

That's not so much mansplaining as it is an actor who is so uninvested in his character and show that he can't even fake an answer to a question from a fan who clearly still is invested. His Castle fatigue has been apparent for years now (Stana's is newer) but if they keep throwing massive cheques his way.... Judging by the video of the panel the question was pretty awkward. Not so much "how do you like working with Stana?" as "all that chemistry, it can't be just acting, what gives?". Before or after this question someone asked if Nathan "had a thing" with Gina Torres on the set of Firefly... All in all I think he answered diplomatically and predictably shifted the question's topic to other things, to avoid awkwardness. I see no "mansplaining" here, no condescension, no arrogance, no disrespect to either actors or characters. Btw, he asked the girl with the question not to call Stana "Stania", maybe that can be seen as patronizing? Anyway, it's not the first time he is asked similar awkward questions about working with Stana, and he always answers in the same manner - shifting the topic (which is his right, everyone decides for themselves how to answer icky questions in public). But every year it seems the reaction to these answers gets progressively more enraged and scandalized.

By now this term makes me mentally barf as much as "organic", "mythology" and "fun". Like any mention of "Samantha" in TXF. My reaction is immediate and uncontrollable. The curse of being in a fandom for any long-running show I guess.

Agreed, I don't see what so terrible happens to Beckett that hasn't previously happened to every other character on Castle, several times over. Not that it's not terrible, mind you, but I kind of got used to it some seasons ago. This much lamented "character assassination" is far from the first one on the show, let's be honest Beckett just had it better than the others for the most part, when it came to character continuity and moral high grounds (lol). It's sad, but was to be expected IMO as the show was running out of characters to "assassinate" in its continuous search for higher stakes and more shocking cliffhangers. LokSat and the separation shtick makes everyone look and act dumber, not just Beckett.

You can if that's what TPTB wants, and there's nothing to suggest that it wasn't the case here. I guess Tamala Jones is much lower on the food chain, and yet she constantly misses shows :) She might even take a vacation or two during her no-lividity periods (sounds like something zombie related but bear with me). In other words, my conclusions about TV shows always proceed from the assumption that everything begins and ends with the showrunners, unless there's a valid information that it doesn't.

I doubt it was Stana Katic's call to make, to appear in the episode or not. I mean it could be, but from years of watching TV I gathered that it's not a simple matter — many people doing many jobs, many schedules being coordinated and adjusted. If she went off it means she got the all clear from TPTB, not vice versa. As for ratings, it's one thing to not have Beckett in an episode, it's quite another to not have Beckett in the show at all. While I long have stopped shipping Caskett (around season 3 when I also stopped empathizing with the character of Beckett), I realize that for many people it's the main draw. Even outside of shipping, the impact of removing one of two main characters is too huge for any show — chemistry is a subtle thing, not only romantic chemistry but overall dynamic between characters. Especially with Castle which is decidedly NOT an ensemble show.

Have to agree with madmaverick here. I feel that the talk about Castle getting increasingly more buffoonish has been going since at least season 5. And as for his missing background, contacts and writing experience, it's been a staple of complaints here and back at TwoP since even earlier than that. It's been dead and buried since season 3 IMO. So it's definitely not something introduced this season. And yep, I also feel like this year Castle's background actually was used more and with better variety. There's a lot I don't like this season, IMO it inherited most of the problems from the Marlowe era adding a set of its own. In fact I still barely hold on, watching the episodes in sets of 2-3 and only occasionally looking up fandom news and discussions. But when I do I see surprising amounts of revisionism about previous seasons, as if many people forgot the same discussions and complaints been going for years. Maybe due to my infrequent exposure to Castle lately instead of continuous "fandoming", all that is fresher in my mind, I don't know. I still would say that I enjoy this season more than the last two, at least the percent of the bits I do enjoy is higher, the negative difference is the disjointed feeling I get from this season, that wasn't the case previously. LockSat or whatever it's called is for me on a par with the monstrous Beckett's mother arc, at the state it developed in the later seasons.

That's my feeling as well. Castle is rarely able to deliver its own plot driven pathos with any sort of subtlety, so what's the point of attempting it with political anvils that are bound to fall even harder on even more heads? Doesn't matter if I agree with the particular message or not, I still cringe. IMO it's the same "my craft, my vision" stance as with Marlowe. For some reason all Castle showrunners seem to dislike the idea of making a simple witty, charming procedural, it has to be political conspiracies, messages and all kinds of higher stakes. My simpleton opinion on this is the same as with abstract art, lol. First learn and prove yourself capable of making representational art, then go to town expressing yourself ;). If showrunners ever really committed to making a simple (yet fairly subtle) charming little procedural, they might have found it wasn't that easy or that far beneath them. But seems like they always look beyond that to some higher "art". I guess Marlowe thought he paid his dues in the first 2-3 years of Castle, and deserved to go to his heart desire in the form of Killshot, Belly of the Beast and so on. Pity. Actually I think there was some kind of statistics about that several years ago, and you're right, Castle viewers were listed as pretty conservative politically. Internet fandoms never skew right of course.

If TV line comments discussed here are the same TV line comments I saw recently, they crossed the hateful territory straight into libel. Seriously. I understand that they don't usually remove comments, and hey! clicks are clicks, but I'd delete that circus were I in their place.

Agreed. I wish entertainment people in general weren't so literal with the word "strong" in "strong female character". Sometimes strength is in keeping silent, keeping your head down while thinking up a plan, or being resilient, being patient, or not abandoning your humorous side in the face of all the difficulties and sufferings, and so on. A housewife can be a paragon of strength as much as a female cop or FBI agent by the way. Just more variety along with more subtlety would be good. More reality.

Exactly. That moment in Flowers or the moment on the phone with Royce did way more for me than all the badassery we've been witnessing through the seasons. There's also the eternal question of writing, as KaveDweller pointed out. The desire to go bigger and louder often turns characters into cartoons deaf and blind to real emotion but trying to stand out by being over the top and all over the place.

Last week through a mysterious twist of links started by TV Tropes I found myself reading a bunch of old Fassbender's and Downey Jr.'s interviews (great read). In the GQ one Downey admits how he is so over actors having meltdowns and acting super emotional on screen, because usually people don't react like that when these situations happen to them in real life. What followed was... typical for Downey, I'd say: Guilty as charged, Beckett immediately popped in my mind as an example (with no connection to bestiality :-)). Not that I know how people usually react when being waterboarded or shot at (thank God), but I lived through some pretty stressful times myself and never reacted half as visibly distressed and emotional as I see some actors do on screen. Maybe I'm just repressed or shy, I don't know. But my empathy usually goes to the less visibly dramatic acting moments.

Oh, thanks for giving the context. I checked into some fandom places today and realized there was an outrage recently, but couldn't understand its cause. I thought NF was asked many times and said he doesn't watch Castle as a viewer, so this fresh outpour of fan indignation looked odd. Your comment clued me in and I checked The Soup. Funny that it wasn't even from an interview but from a scripted comedy show, along with the joke about being tired of "bringing back Firefly" (Fillion's exchange with Adam Scott), yet no one seems to be offended by that one :).

Agreed. Frankly I've always been critical of Tamala Jones, because more often than not she looked/sounded super fake and "actor-like" to me, especially in emotional scenes. But for a regular who's been on the show from the start her "character's journey" is a travesty, even for such a mindlessly character-twisting show as Castle. There was never any history, continuity or motivation behind Lanie (after the first couple of seasons), and her one-sided "friendship" with Beckett is a joke. I feel like she's always given the crappiest lines, let's not forget all the "lividity" exposition, the least justified, most contrived reactions (her always "helpful" advices to Beckett), and now she is just thrown under the bus and forgotten completely because there are newcomers on the show. No hope in sight. At least about other characters you can say that they're OOC, Lanie was never even given the chance to be a C. He also misspelled "Castle" a number of times, as recent as this Monday. Hateful self-sabotage? The thick plottens :)

The question was about the leads' shared time, that is assumed to be contractually limited by 1-2 days (I've seen it stated either way). Like I said, so far, going by what I personally saw/read/heard, it's fan lore.