Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[statsgirl]

In terms of show endings, after three seasons of circling the drain, House managed to have a satisfactory ending by going back to its original roots.  I thought the ER ending was pretty good too.

The episode is played on Sunday in Canada. I watched it and I think Robert Bianco nailed it with this comment:

Quote

But this week's looming issue is the way the writers have allowed the more childlike aspects of Castle’s personality — which are part of the character’s charm and an ample source of the show’s humor — to get away from them, to the point where he seems less boyish than insane.

That's exactly what the show has become and watching Hayley and Alexis help Castle, Ryan and Esposito solve the case is for me less interesting than although very similar to watching old Scooby-do episodes.

On 5/8/2016 at 11:27 AM, BlakesMomma said:

I have seen it stated by several who claim to have "inside" knowledge that Fillion and Katic had equal pay last season

I'd be very surprised if this were true.  Gillian Anderson was very public about being offered only half of what David Duchovny for the X-Files mini-series and she is the bigger star at this point.  She negotiated up to equal pay but I doubt Stana Katic has that kind of power.  In fact, given that she was not asked back for a potential season 9, it's doubtful she has any power at all at this point.

8 hours ago, madmaverick said:

 There's a lot of assumptions about the amount of power Nathan allegedly has.  It would be logical to assume that he (and Stana) had a certain amount of power as no. 1 and 2 on the show.  But did that power extend to getting someone fired or getting someone hired back after the boss fired her?  I am doubtful.  Believe him or not, but Nathan's said more than once that many mistakenly think actors have more power than they actually do.

Let's put aside social media and assumptions and look at the facts:

Apparently Fillion's power extends to getting Deaver and Huertas another year on the show because reputable sources (TVLine?) said that he would re-sign only if they stayed.  Stana Katic has no power because she wasn't asked to negotiate for next season, they announced she wouldn't be coming back.

There might have been a point to getting rid of Penny JJ in order to give Beckett the captaincy.  But as far as I can see, ABCs reasoning of budget factors is a big fat lie and that makes me question all the official statements about the show.  There is no reason for getting rid of Lainie because the show is just going to have to hird revolving MEs and I'm pretty sure Arye Gross costs more than Tamala Jones.  That's especially true when they've hired Toks to be a full cast member because her salary but guest MEs have to cost more that Jones' salary.

But the big thing is dumping Stana Katic without even negotiating with her to come back.  That speaks volumes about how much more they value Fillion than Katic.  It also makes the entire "Castle helps the police solve crimes" pointless because without Beckett, there's no reason for him to be hanging around the police station.

They're going to have to twist themselves into knots trying to find a way to write Castle, with his sidekicks Hayley and Alexis, have a reason to be hanging around the precinct.  Even having Beckett run for political office and drop by occasionally (at a very reduced money if that's the problem) would make more sense than having her off the show entirely.  It's not like ABC didn't know people wanted Castle and Beckett together; the ABC advisory panel discussion board is full of comments to that effect.  Or as someone posted on the board, if they didn't want to listen to our opinions, why did they ask?.

That, more than anything else, tells me that either ABC or someone with power on the Castle set didn't want Stana Katic back.

[WendyCR72]

2 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

Apparently Fillion's power extends to getting Deaver and Huertas another year on the show because reputable sources (TVLine?)

But therein lies an issue right here what with what Eric What's His Name stating that even these "reputable" sites are going more for clickbait than facts which, as he says, could have been done with just a few phone calls.

So while the info as a whole may be wrapped in truth, it is also apparently twisted to give maximum punch, so even that should be taken with salt, too.

Sad it has come to that for sites that are supposedly about facts, but clickbait apparently rules the day (and pays for the site).

[statsgirl]

I agree they're going for clickbait, that's what pays the bills.

But the question is whether it is true or not, not how sensationally the statement is wrapped up.  IIRC, that came from TV Line and they have direct access to most of the big showrunners.  If they're the ones that said it, I tend to believe it's true no matter how much they wrap it up in clickbait sensationalism.

And if it is true, then it's one of the few facts we have to give us insight into what is going on.

Edited May 9, 2016 by statsgirl

[pennben]

In a year when several women characters were being offed on tv shows even before the news about Castle leaked and people are wondering if perhaps there's some sexism involved in Hollywood, somebody at ABC decided that the best explanation for why the woman co-lead of this show was not coming back was to say "budgetary issues".  I mean, think about that!  Somebody decided that was the best way to play the story of whatever happened.  That's crazy to me! They didn't even try to sell a "we think the story of Beckett and Castle has run it's course; but we feel like there are lots of new stories to tell about Castle and his turn from author on the page to PI in real life and we want to explore those stories". Maybe if they hadn't been blindsided, they had a strategy for releasing the news, but honestly, I imagine them all in a crisis room trying to figure out how to address the leak of Katic not being invited back and "Budget"! became the best answer, as though budget would explain cutting the female co-lead while keeping everyone else.  They thought that was an acceptable answer.  So when I talk about saying "hmmmm" about how sexism can be involved, even if there may be perfectly explainable reasons for each female leaving a show this year, I'm not condemning this show, I'm casting a side-eye to thinking in LaLa land, if you will.

Hell, ABC should be happy we didn't buy their story outright, because boy howdy, if that were the real reason, I'd say burn the set down.

Edited May 9, 2016 by pennben

[CheshireCat]

17 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

  IIRC, that came from TV Line and they have direct access to most of the big showrunners. 

Nope, that Fillion would sign only if Dever and Huertas signed came from The Hollywood Reporter. (And even if it had come from TV Line - how would showrunners be privy to information about confidential contract negotiations that go on between the studio and the representitive/actor? I don't see any reason why the showrunners should be involved. They only need to know who they'll be working with once the negotiations are done)

Edited May 9, 2016 by CheshireCat

[KaveDweller]

10 minutes ago, statsgirl said:

I agree they're going for clickbait, that's what pays the bills.

But the question is whether it is true or not, not how sensationally the statement is wrapped up.  IIRC, that came from TV Line and they have direct access to most of the big showrunners.  If they're the ones that said it, I tend to believe it's true no matter how much they wrap it up in clickbait sensationalism.

I think it was actually the Hollywood Reporter, which is supposed to be a little more reputable than other entertainment sites. 

31 minutes ago, chraume said:

Sorry, didn't mean to sideline the conversation. I mean, huge parts of Heisserer's rant don't apply to Castle at all (especially given that there was no letting anyone out of their contract, which seems to be what the hypothetical was contingent upon), but the "leads getting episodes off" bit did stick with me, only because, in my admittedly-limited television watching, I don't know another show where that's happened without some explanation (which is usually pregnancy). But honestly? There are so many conflicting stories out there, and people seem to be interpreting each of them as either/or, that any explanation seems plausible. 

Well the leads both getting episodes off doesn't even apply to Castle, because Nathan never got any off. And it was previously reported that some of Stana's off episodes were planned way back when she signed her contract in the summer.  And she didn't have as much as every third episode off. 

The only other show I can think of is Sleepy Hollow, because they gave their female lead an episode off when she was trapped in purgatory. Which kind of fits the idea of killing off a lead and then doing it in a way they can come back.

My other thought....if this stuff is confidential, whoever runs the shows in question already broke it by telling him.

[CheshireCat]

2 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

I think it was actually the Hollywood Reporter, which is supposed to be a little more reputable than other entertainment sites. 

Not sure about that. Last year they printed that Katic had re-signed before she had officially done so and then had to correct that in the article and this year, they say that Fillion would only sign if Dever and Huertas signed and that there was the two-day clause. (Again, details which are supposed to be confidential). Sounds to me as if they are operating as much on hear-say as everyone else.

[chraume]

12 minutes ago, pennben said:

In a year when several women characters were being offed on tv shows even before the news about Castle leaked and people are wondering if perhaps there's some sexism involved in Hollywood, somebody at ABC decided that the best explanation for why the woman co-lead of this show was not coming back was to say "budgetary issues".  I mean, think about that!  Somebody decided that was the best way to play the story of whatever happened.  That's crazy to me! They didn't even try to sell a "we think the story of Beckett and Castle has run it's course; but we feel like there are lots of new stories to tell about Castle and his turn from author on the page to PI in real life and we want to explore stories". Maybe if they hadn't been blindsided, they had a strategy for releasing the news, but honestly, I imagine them all in a crisis room trying to figure out how to address the leak of Katic not being invited back and "Budget"! became the best answer, as though budget would explain cutting the female co-lead while keeping everyone else.  They thought that was an acceptable answer.  So when I talk about saying "hmmmm" about how sexism can be involved, even if there may be perfectly explainable reasons for each female leaving a show this year, I'm not condemning this show, I'm casting a side-eye to thinking in LaLa land, if you will.

Hell, ABC should be happy we didn't buy their story outright, because boy howdy, if that were the real reason, I'd say burn the set down.

Agreed, 100%. I'm not totally sold on the idea that it was ABC who decided to announce that she was released because of the budget, given that their statement said nothing of the sort, but honestly, the optics of this whole thing are terrible. And the fact that the network has decided to just let this explanation persist? Either says that the real reason is significantly worse, or that they don't care that makes them look sexist. 

Again, not saying that they are sexist, or that this situation is, or anything. But it does definitely seem sexist (cutting out a female co-lead for budgetary reasons, while their male co-lead is exempt from the same treatment), and it's concerning that ABC just lets that run. Not sure what they could do to fix it, other than cancel the show outright and claim the whole thing was a big misunderstanding, but that's definitely my biggest side-eye here.

Edited May 9, 2016 by chraume

[pennben]

You know what, I'll take my lumps here.  I could have sworn that ABC said "budgetary reasons", but all are right, it was not in their statement.  I went back, it was in an article I read on TVLine that stated it was "reportedly for budgetary reasons". Now, I'm not convinced that they didn't try to sell that behind the scenes, leading to that report, but  I guess I can understand how ABC would decide to not correct that with a "no, it was because she was horrible":)

[madmaverick]

Thanks, HalyconDays & Co.  :)

Statsgirl, I am sorry, but I can't take TV Line as a serious journalistic source.  They may get info from showrunners, but there's a mutually beneficial relationship at work there, and it's not always agenda free reporting.  Even previously industry oriented websites like Deadline and THR are not above being clickbait these days, and I find some of their reporting questionable when they are clearly reporting hearsay and taking anonymous tips .  Perhaps it's no wonder when they see crowds of fans take over their comment sections and giving them hundreds of clicks.  Even if there are anon or unnamed sources feeding information to these sites, it's useful remembering that sources usually have their own agenda too and only represent one point of view.  Worth noting that even Deadline reporters appear to have established personal relationships with the actors they report on.  Until we have named sources going on the record from different camps, it's hard to assess the whole picture.  For example, we still know next to nothing about any alleged stipulations in Stana's contract as to working hours or screen time, or what contentious issues, if any, existed between her and the network.

I thought what that Eric guy said about journalists often failing to do legwork but choosing to fan fan assumptions for clicks was interesting.  

Quote

 

That fandom is out of control because people aren't giving Donald Trump a fair shake?

 

What?  No.  I think you misunderstood my point completely.  My point was that (frustratingly) a lot of people can get away with completely false accusations and outrageous claims even, like Trump does, at least to a certain audience, and those people for some reason even believe he's 'telling it just like it is' :o even when it's blatantly untrue.  That can happen when people have their own sets of prejudice and bias, when they hear things that fit in with their own preferred narrative, when they don't care to think critically about what's being said.  Someone like Trump is also 'clever' in how he mixes a little truth with lies, omits inconvenient facts, omits context, to sell his story.  You can see similar techniques in the fandom.      
 

Quote

 

I think back specifically to S6, when Fillion allegedly threw a fit and demanded a day off every week

 

To use this claim as an example.  Yes, it was reported that Nathan went on strike for one day in an earlier season over a dispute with ABC about his working hours/schedule.  If I remember correctly, that "throwing a fit" bit was only claimed in some tabloid or by a certain part of fandom.  And yet it's the kind of unsubstantiated shading of events that gets repeated over and over again years on end in the fandom and turned into 'fact', especially by certain parts of the fandom.  To this day, no one knows the events between Nathan and the network that led up to this one day strike.  Whether the hours he was doing were in excess of his contract or what the network promised, no one knows.  Just as we don't know the context of what went on between Stana and the network this season.

Quote

For instance, the fact that Stana was seen so little this season is easily explained by NF's stipulation that he not work with SK more than 2 days in the 8 day filming schedule.  As for Stana not appearing in "Cool Boys" and "GDS".  Seems clear that those episodes were meant to be NF's fun time with his FF cast mates and GDS was the teaser for Castle 2.0.  Much easier explanation than creating "hypotheticals" from nothing.  I'm not saying I know anything for sure but I am smart enough to look at what I've read and seen on screen to come to some logical conclusions about what is going on bts.

The problem is, one person's "logical conclusion" isn't always another's.  Like another poster said, there are any number of arguably equally logical conclusions that one come to, and that's because we have a very limited set of facts at hand.  Like I said before, even the facts we think we know are absent context.  There's this claim about Nathan's contract (which should be confidential ;), and anyone who knows anything about contracts knows that clauses are rarely simple and you can't read one just on its own); at the same time, we don't know anything about Stana's contract.  Her contract could have stipulated time off at certain times and necessitated Beckett free episodes.  It's as valid a possibility as the claim about those episodes being the result of Nathan wanting 'fun time with FF cast'. ;)  More so, I would argue.  We also don't know what the network may have wanted about the direction of the show.  In the absence of that data, I personally cannot make an illogical leap to premature conclusions.

I, for one, would not be surprised if it ever came out that we were all completely offbase in the assumptions and speculations we made.  Self included.  Simply because it's all to easy to leap to faulty ones given what we don't know about all parties involved and all the business considerations.

Quote

 

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.

 

As other posters have said, Castle has also been "dumbed down" and I would say, de-balled, for many seasons already.  Almost never allowed to 'win' against the women in his life.  So what do you call it when a male character is being mistreated?  If we're all about equality, where were the outcries then?  Or, maybe, it's more to do with poor writing of various characters rather than any gender driven attempt to diminish them.  While Beckett has had a storyline that most do not like this season, she consistently is still characterised as the Alpha on the show, the heroine,  the 'badass', the one with the power over all the men at work and at home, and I think that has to be considered against claims of sexist treatment of her character.

I am not saying it's right if Stana had to exit because of budgetary issues or that that necessarily is the whole story, but I don't find it so inconceivable that budgetary issues were a primary factor because money is always a factor when it comes to networks.  If she were making as much as Nathan or close to, then she would have a big impact on the cost of the show.

Edited May 10, 2016 by madmaverick

[KaveDweller]

23 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

Yeah. At the very least, ABC should have been aware of the current climate and tried to finesse it better. We'll just take the hard facts, and only the facts based on the official people releasing it

1. Stana was not asked back

2. Stana made it clear it wasn't her choice.

These are official statements.

So whether Nathan fought for Jon and Seamus or not, the point is, the entire cast is returning without Stana, which definitely smells like something to me. Again, I'm just going by the facts and what I see, but it's all just too weird, and I absolutely do not buy budgetary reasons. Going to 13 episodes should certainly help that, right?  I mean, whether they do or don't, if they wanted to keep Stana, that could have been on the table.

The number of episodes wouldn't matter, because the stars get paid per episode and the show makes money by episode. So with fewer episodes they have lower costs, but also bring in less income. What would help is something like they did with Parenthood a couple years ago...cycle in the cast so only 2/3 of the cast was in each episode and only got paid for those episodes.

5 minutes ago, pennben said:

You know what, I'll take my lumps here.  I could have sworn that ABC said "budgetary reasons", but all are right, it was not in their statement.  I went back, it was in an article I read on TVLine that stated it was "reportedly for budgetary reasons". Now, I'm not convinced that they didn't try to sell that behind the scenes, leading to that report, but  I guess I can understand how ABC would decide to not correct that with a "no, it was because she was horrible":)

It could also be that they told Stana it was for budget reasons when they actually had other motivations, and her camp passed that info on to the press. Probably knowing how false it would sound when released.

I would love if Stana would give an interview.  If she's smart she'd give a very classy one encouraging fans to calm down with the #cancelcastle stuff and say how she wishes the rest of the cast the best (even if that's not really how she feels). Then she could plug whatever she's doing next and maybe people could start to move on from this mess.

[BellyLaughter]

Does anyone here seriously believe that next season is all about wrapping up the show in 13 episodes??? Really?

 

I'm pretty sure that if the ratings don't experience a doomsday collapse there will be more episodes made.  I mean if this were really about wrapping up the show in a 13 episode run would they have really ditched Stana/let her walk away? (which ever way you prefer to see this)

 

The only reason Castle is still even in the conversation is because ABC are that desperate to fill a schedule....even with 4 new, well received drama pilots -- says a lot about ABCs programming position right now!

[chraume]

21 minutes ago, pennben said:

You know what, I'll take my lumps here.  I could have sworn that ABC said "budgetary reasons", but all are right, it was not in their statement.  I went back, it was in an article I read on TVLine that stated it was "reportedly for budgetary reasons". Now, I'm not convinced that they didn't try to sell that behind the scenes, leading to that report, but  I guess I can understand how ABC would decide to not correct that with a "no, it was because she was horrible":)

Oh, no worries! Unless you've been weirdly analyzing the network's statement (as I have haha), it's pretty easy to miss a detail like that among all the drama. And it's totally possible that's what they tried to sell BTS, or even what went down BTS. And the alternative, for them, would be to actually say what went down ("No, it was because she was horrible," "No, it's because the leads absolutely hate each other," "No, it's because we listened to Fillion and decided to off the character," etc. etc. etc. based on every explanation the fandom has been confronted with), which would be tricky. But you'd think they'd come up with something, because, you're right, it does look terrible.

Quote

To use this claim as an example.  Yes, it was reported that Nathan went on strike for one day in an earlier season over a dispute with ABC about his working hours/schedule.  If I remember correctly, that "throwing a fit" bit was only claimed in some tabloid or by a certain part of fandom.  And yet it's the kind of unsubstantiated shading of events that gets repeated over and over again years on end in the fandom and turned into 'fact', especially by certain parts of the fandom.  To this day, no one knows the events between Nathan and the network that led up to this one day strike.  Whether the hours he was doing were in excess of his contract or what the network promised, no one knows.  Just as we don't know the context of what went on between Stana and the network this season.

Whoops, sorry, should've been clearer in my post. That wasn't intended to be an attack on Fillion -- the exact opposite, in fact. What I intended to say was, the rumour went out there, and suddenly it was evident that he did have reduced hours, in a very specific way (Castle quietly disappeared from interrogation scenes/explanations were created as to why he'd go home early). Effectively unnoticeable, unless you're paying attention, but the rumour itself wasn't my focus, just that it was an inciting incident into the audience being able to point to his reduced hours. And he's had that time off ever since, as far as I can tell, so that day off would likely have been an opportune time, assuming that the two days/week thing is true and that the writers, and Katic, wanted it, to give Beckett some additional screentime. My point was mostly that the argument that she had little to no screentime this season because of that two-day stipulation has holes, because obviously Fillion is getting time off and has for a while -- sorry that wasn't clear. And I wrote that in the midst of a very long tangent about how we'll likely never truly know the full story and that most explanations can be considered the most logical, so truly not my best moment. ;)

Edited May 10, 2016 by chraume

[KaveDweller]

2 minutes ago, BellyLaughter said:

Does anyone here seriously believe that next season is all about wrapping up the show in 13 episodes??? Really?

 

I'm pretty sure that if the ratings don't experience a doomsday collapse there will be more episodes made.  I mean if this were really about wrapping up the show in a 13 episode run would they have really ditched Stana/let her walk away? (which ever way you prefer to see this)

 

The only reason Castle is still even in the conversation is because ABC are that desperate to fill a schedule....even with 4 new, well received drama pilots -- says a lot about ABCs programming position right now!

ABC's dumb, but I don't think they are that dumb. They clearly are hoping to get more than 13 episodes. Maybe they want a trial before ordering all 22 or maybe they want to do multiple shorter seasons because Nathan wants to do other stuff. But if it was just to get 13 episodes I can't imagine them going to all the trouble of setting up Castle as a PI, turn Alexis into Super Sleuth, bring in Haley, etc.

I was thinking, even though I'd prefer the show to end on a happy note, I also really don't want the people petitioning for the show to be cancelled to think they "won."  

[madmaverick]

Chraume, it's all good.  I wasn't disputing that he did have reduced hours after his strike at all, but just wanted to use that incident as an example of how the reporting of an incident can get shaded and embellished with untruths in the fandomt/tabloids and become fandom 'fact'.

[chraume]

15 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

ABC's dumb, but I don't think they are that dumb. They clearly are hoping to get more than 13 episodes. Maybe they want a trial before ordering all 22 or maybe they want to do multiple shorter seasons because Nathan wants to do other stuff. But if it was just to get 13 episodes I can't imagine them going to all the trouble of setting up Castle as a PI, turn Alexis into Super Sleuth, bring in Haley, etc.

I was thinking, even though I'd prefer the show to end on a happy note, I also really don't want the people petitioning for the show to be cancelled to think they "won."  

You know, last week I was 100% convinced that ABC was going to all of this trouble because they wanted Castle long-term and are hoping that this trial will lead to more. And I still think it's entirely possible, but looking at their schedule? I honestly think this whole mess is mostly because they need performing shows to fill the holes in it. Their most successful new drama is getting worse ratings than Castle, they've cancelled a handful of shows, their two newest ones are also underperforming Castle, they maybe don't have a great slate of shows coming in. I think they're mostly just desperate and need something to make it through next year. I believe (and could be totally wrong) that Castle is among the most stable shows for the network this season, if not the most stable (after Grey's Anatomy), which is ridiculous for a show that started the season off with low ratings. 

Which is sadder, to me, tbh. Because a better-performing ABC would've cancelled this thing before anything had been announced, and the show could have ended quietly. 

Quote

Chraume, it's all good.  I wasn't disputing that he did have reduced hours after his strike at all, but just wanted to use that incident as an example of how the reporting of an incident can get shaded and embellished with untruths in the fandomt/tabloids and become fandom 'fact'.

No worries! This whole mess is mostly just the entire fandom trying to piece small portions of details together, and different sides deciding which ones to believe and which ones to ignore (which is frustrating in and of itself -- why). Some of it is truth, some of it is made up or unrelated, most of it probably has a kernel of truth, and all of it is only a fraction of what actually happened. And, unfortunately, fandom fact seems to come out of those portions of information and choosing sides, so I'm dreading seeing what the fandom states as indisputable BTS fact in the coming years. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by chraume

[CheshireCat]

22 minutes ago, BellyLaughter said:

Does anyone here seriously believe that next season is all about wrapping up the show in 13 episodes??? Really?

 

To be honest, I have no idea what to believe. I definitely don't believe that they're doing 13 episodes to give the show "proper closure" because they, apparently, have a finale which would give the show proper closure and you can't give a show proper closure when one half of the relationship/a key player is missing. Beyond that, I really don't know what to believe. Do they want to keep the show going? To they want to test the waters for an Alexis-Haley spin-off? Do they have something else in mind entirely? Absolutely no clue.

[Thak]

1 hour ago, SweetTooth said:

Yeah. At the very least, ABC should have been aware of the current climate and tried to finesse it better. We'll just take the hard facts, and only the facts based on the official people releasing it

1. Stana was not asked back

2. Stana made it clear it wasn't her choice.

These are official statements.

So whether Nathan fought for Jon and Seamus or not, the point is, the entire cast is returning without Stana, which definitely smells like something to me. Again, I'm just going by the facts and what I see, but it's all just too weird, and I absolutely do not buy budgetary reasons. Going to 13 episodes should certainly help that, right?  I mean, whether they do or don't, if they wanted to keep Stana, that could have been on the table.

There was one more official release from Stana's camp:

3.  Stana didn't have any issues with Mr. Fillion.

[TWP]

For me, (sniff-sniff) Season 9 smells like a pilot. This is why they cut Stana, instead of finishing out the series with her. And yep, it’s because the paltry 1.1 average rating looks great compared to some of their loser shows and could even grow under the right plot lines. Castle could easily finish off by December and then a true spinoff could arise. And who knows? Maybe they'll cut Nathan for their spring spinoff and leave some of the stronger characters they will have introduced in the fall.

[FlickerToAFlame]

The sad thing is that, had Beckett never existed, what they're going for could work (and might with people unattached to Beckett/Stana). I like Toks and have always liked Nathan. It's just the disregard of a crucial character that taints it for me. 

[oberon55]

I suspect not changing the lineup significantly next season is somewhat of a stalling action to give ABC's new president time to start moving them in a new direction. They will try Castle without Beckett & if it fails it will simply join the thousands of shows that are no longer on the air. I'm sure they assume all the current outrage will more than likely disappear without any lasting effects. I expect a lot of changes to their programming in the next two years & would be fairly shocked if there is a shred of Castle left on the air after next season. They followed more or less the same pattern when Comcast bought NBC back in 2011.

[TWP]

TVLINE and Deadline are illustrative of what's wrong with media. They don't seek the truth.  Instead, they seek to write stories that walk the tight rope of getting the most clicks while still maintaining access within TV network PR. This means that they're a combination gossip site and network PR feed.

Right now, writing Stana-centric articles along with mentioning anonymous sources and writing ambiguous statements to invite controversy gets them the most clicks. This is because people who don't care about Stana's career don't care that much about their articles and won't generate clicks.

This quote from Deadline is a case in point of the deliberate controversial ambiguity.

Quote

"I hear that star Nathan Fillion has closed a new deal for Season 9. In part to secure that, ABC and ABC Studios opted not to bring back Katic."

If Nathan had stipulated Stana's departure as as a term of his contract, they could have clearly said so. Instead, who knows what the facts are, but this inuendo-laden quote did nothing but muddy the controversy and generate tweets from Stana fans that generated clicks for Deadline.

This is not journalism.

Deadline and TVLINE are about a half step above The National Enquirer.  I'm banned there because I actually all but said so in the comments. They won't allow any criticism of their less than stellar journalism or their sources.

Edited May 10, 2016 by TWP

[metaphor]

It sure felt like ABC was trolling the fans with the 8.22 promo. 

"Kate Beckett is gonna be dead by the end of the night and there's nothing you can do about it..."

Here.

Whatever way they choose to write Beckett out, this marks one last episode before I say goodbye to Castle. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by metaphor

[asp]

Reading this thread is far more entertaining than the last 4 sesons of Castle.

I'd never heard of either Fillion or Katic before this show, but like many of you I fell in love with Caskett, so I am devastated by the news.  

I'm not going into the BTS debacle since I have no reliable sources on which to base my opinions, but I do blame writers for some of their choices,

After all "Cops and Robbers", one of the top episodes of all seasons had very few moments  with the two leads together. Couldn't subsequent writers come up with equally creative ideas? 

Edited May 10, 2016 by asp

[chraume]

52 minutes ago, TWP said:

TVLINE and Deadline are illustrative of what's wrong with media. They don't seek the truth.  Instead, they seek to write stories that walk the tight rope of getting the most clicks while still maintaining access within TV network PR. This means that they're a combination gossip site and network PR feed.

Right now, writing Stana-centric articles along with mentioning anonymous sources and writing ambiguous statements to invite controversy gets them the most clicks. This is because people who don't care about Stana's career don't care that much about their articles and won't generate clicks.

This quote from Deadline is a case in point of the deliberate controversial ambiguity.

If Nathan had stipulated Stana's departure as as a term of his contract, they could have clearly said so. Instead, who knows what the facts are, but this inuendo-laden quote did nothing but muddy the controversy and generate tweets from Stana fans that generated clicks for Deadline.

This is not journalism.

Deadline and TVLINE are about a half step above The National Enquirer.  I'm banned there because I actually all but said so in the comments. They won't allow any criticism of their less than stellar journalism or their sources.

I tend to agree. TVLine in particular has been rampant this season in trolling the fandom -- they've had some degree of exclusivity with interviews with the showrunners, and release an article about every inane thing that comes with the show (case in point: their most recent article, which basically just contains the promo that was released a half hour ago and that, presumably, anyone who wanted to see it has already seen). It has, however, been pretty careful about not mentioning the BTS controversy that, as far as I can tell, every other entertainment site has alluded to, which strikes me as strange, given that they were happily on the bandwagon of mentioning The Good Wife green screen last year, and they've released a blind item about BTS drama before. But whatever.

Re: the Deadline quote, though, that strikes me as a journalist basically releasing the info per the network's instructions. It's not strictly clickbait because it's easy to miss in the article and isn't necessarily the main point, or even emphasized, in the rest of it. It's just a pretty pointed one-liner that everyone more or less ignored until small groups of people started noticing and spread it quickly. Deadline's dropped a few of those -- it mentioned the off-screen tension and the two-days/week stipulation (notably, without even saying "sources allege" for the latter), so it strikes me as an entertainment site with close ties to ABC that only disseminates info that the network tells it to. 

Which is pretty much Heisserer's point today: if there is a "real reason" extends beyond budget cuts, and you know what that reason is, and you keep alluding to it (as with Deadline), or pushing a different reason because it makes the fandom angry enough to read your articles (TVLine, with the budget), or ignoring the real reason in favour of pushing a popular agenda (Variety, with its nice slew of "Look how sexist TV is!" articles -- which it probably is! But the sexism claim is, as of now, contingent on the budget line, which I think we all know is ridiculous), then how is that fair to the people getting blamed? Not saying that any, or all, of those are true, or that the showrunners shouldn't be blamed for anything that's happened, or that basically anything is the full story, just: it's become increasingly clear that entertainment sites are enjoying the fandom meltdown, and use that to their advantage, instead of investigating/exposing what the actual truth of the story is. And that's kind of crappy journalism. I get it -- how can you be an entertainment journalist if you don't have any connections to networks? -- but it does make what I'm sure are heartily nuanced stories seem like only one person's fault, and give the illusion to fans that they have any semblance of what's going on. Which we don't. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by chraume

[pennben]

Yeah, it's all a big game, and sometimes I fall for it, mea culpa.  An interesting note on his twitter feed, was that if you turned on replies, he got into it with Mo Ryan, a tv critic I enjoy. His thoughts were listen to me, her thoughts were I'm looking at what is on screen that's what I talk about, then they both  went further, he was saying maybe I have legal reasons I can't say anything about a show, but I'll talk to you off the record and that is the sole truth so print it, and she rebutted that there is likely five truths for any BTS story, and regardless, I'll tell readers what my takeaway of the show is.  Note, I am editorializing the back/forth here, but I feel like like I've presented it pretty somewhat fairly (I am not a journalist) but I'm sure others disagree. Also note, that neither was purporting to talk about Castle, just the industry

At the end of the day, we like our shows and we like our gossip.

Edited May 10, 2016 by pennben

[MaryM47]

I just need to rant and beat a dead horse with a group of people who will understand. Read an article recently in which the showrunners said something like LokSat is the biggest baddest bad we've ever had. Really?!? You keep telling me that, but you never SHOWED that to me. Only during the first 2 eps of this season with, IIRC, the shootout and the spiders and Beckett bleeding did I ever feel like Caskett was in real danger. The rest of this season was, Oh we can't be together, but you can come to the precinct and I can sneak back home, and no one will be the wiser. Certainly not their idiot friends, who rooted for their relationship since day 1, but barely batted an eye when both of them were "dating" other people. You want me to be scared of a bad guy, make him like 3XK, who set up a different guy to take the fall for him, snuck into the precinct, set Castle up for murder - I was legit scared of that psychopath. Even Bracken and his posse had their moments - Vulcan Simmons was terrifying and dangerous. I will try to put all the BS out of my mind so I can enjoy some of the well crafted episodes of days gone by, but just like I felt after Gilmore Girls seasons 6 and 7 - never have I been so disappointed in a show that had so much promise and so many great years, and then just pissed it all away.  I know I'm not saying anything that wiser folks here than I haven't said before, but with the last episode only a week away, the $h!T is about to hit the fan and I'm just so smad!!

[turnitwayup]

Castle gets kidnapped again within a short time according to that promo. It's more depressing since we know there's a Beckettless s9 on the way with the promo monkeys probably getting word to go for season finale.

[TWP]

1 hour ago, metaphor said:

It sure felt like ABC was trolling the fans with the 8.22 promo. 

"Kate Beckett is gonna be dead by the end of the night and there's nothing you can do about it..."

Here.

Whatever way they choose to write Beckett out, this marks one last episode before I say goodbye to Castle. 

I don't know when I've laughed harder while watching Castle than during that first line of the promo.  They are definitely trolling us.

Nothing to clearly show it, but it looks to me like Beckett is going to do a spy-mommy and disappear. Just my guess.

And yep the billboard said SEASON finale, so go ahead and announce it already, ABC. Because you just did.

Edited May 10, 2016 by TWP

[chraume]

40 minutes ago, pennben said:

Yeah, it's all a big game, and sometimes I fall for it, mea culpa.  An interesting note on his twitter feed, was that if you turned on replies, he got into it with Mo Ryan, a tv critic I enjoy. His thoughts were listen to me, her thoughts were I'm looking at what is on screen that's what I talk about, then they both  went further, he was saying I have legal reasons I can't say anything about a show, but I'll talk to you off the record and that is the sole truth so print it, and she rebutted that there is likely five "truths" for any story, and regardless, I'll tell readers what my takeaway is.  Note, I am editorializing the back/forth here, but I feel like like I've presented it pretty somewhat fairly (I am not a journalist) but I'm sure others disagree..

At the end of the day, we like our shows and we like our gossip.

Oh, I fall for it literally every time haha. It always takes me some distance before I realize I'm being trolled -- and, often, not even then. 

I did read the replies, and I found it really interesting. I get it: obviously, none of the sources will risk their jobs, so it would be a bunch of anonymous sources, which is a hard sell. And then, if you want a full story, you'd have to go to everyone on set, and obviously 99% of them wouldn't say a word, so you'd only have a limited story -- which is, basically, what I think has been reported on so far (a very small fraction of the whole story). I don't envy entertainment reporters in the least, because it must be an ugly line to walk, trying to appease your sources while still getting the paycheck (aka getting clicks). And I get Heisserer's side, too; if you're going, "Okay, I know that this is the situation because everyone knows it, but I don't have any sources that I'm allowed to cite, so I'll just keep saying it's this situation instead because clicks," that's tricky, too. Especially because, in the process, people (right now, the showrunners) get blamed, possibly unfairly, possibly not. 

And yeah, you're right -- it works because we'll click to read it, because we want to know about the shows.

Quote

I just need to rant and beat a dead horse with a group of people who will understand. Read an article recently in which the showrunners said something like LokSat is the biggest baddest bad we've ever had. Really?!? You keep telling me that, but you never SHOWED that to me. Only during the first 2 eps of this season with, IIRC, the shootout and the spiders and Beckett bleeding did I ever feel like Caskett was in real danger. The rest of this season was, Oh we can't be together, but you can come to the precinct and I can sneak back home, and no one will be the wiser. Certainly not their idiot friends, who rooted for their relationship since day 1, but barely batted an eye when both of them were "dating" other people. You want me to be scared of a bad guy, make him like 3XK, who set up a different guy to take the fall for him, snuck into the precinct, set Castle up for murder - I was legit scared of that psychopath. Even Bracken and his posse had their moments - Vulcan Simmons was terrifying and dangerous. I will try to put all the BS out of my mind so I can enjoy some of the well crafted episodes of days gone by, but just like I felt after Gilmore Girls seasons 6 and 7 - never have I been so disappointed in a show that had so much promise and so many great years, and then just pissed it all away.  I know I'm not saying anything that wiser folks here than I haven't said before, but with the last episode only a week away, the $h!T is about to hit the fan and I'm just so smad!!

Couldn't agree more! For all that I don't think the showrunners should be blamed for certain situations this season, the writing has been a... special breed lately. Sure, take a shot at a separation arc, that's fine, but you're gonna have to sell me on why it's necessary and how the characters and their relationship will grow from it. And maybe mention it once or twice after it's over, or actually just address is properly at all. And give the other characters reasonable responses to the separation. And give me some stakes if you're going to sell me on a new big bad.

It is too bad -- you'd think a new creative team would rejuvenate the series, especially given how good XX/XY were imo. But it's honestly been painful to watch. Fans early on said that the separation made no sense, so the solution is... to never mention the reasons behind the separation again? Or the separation itself? In fact, retcon the separation and say that the characters were together at Halloween (lookin' at you, 8x20). I understand crafting this season as stand-alone, but it's been overwhelmingly weak and, in the wake of recent news, it looks like almost all the remaining people trying to stay positive this season (which I do, genuinely, really respect) have given up, too. It's been disheartening.

Edited May 10, 2016 by chraume

[CheshireCat]

15 minutes ago, TWP said:

And yep the billboard said SEASON finale, so go ahead and announce it already, ABC. Because you just did.

If ABC hasn't said anything official yet what were they supposed to do? They need to let people know it's a finale, so they have to say something. Not saying that a decision hasn't been made yet, just saying that I don't think it's a tell-tale sign that it has been made already.

[Nadine]

18 minutes ago, TWP said:

I don't know when I've laughed harder while watching Castle than during that first line of the promo.  They are definitely trolling us.

Nothing to clearly show it, but it looks to me like Beckett is going to do a spy-mommy and disappear. Just my guess.

And yep the billboard said SEASON finale, so go ahead and announce it already, ABC. Because you just did.

FWIW, networks do that all the time in terms of the promos. Most recent one for ABC was Resurrection last year was called Season Finale even though everyone knew it wouldn't be back for a third season. 

ETA: Replied at the same time as CheshireCat

Edited May 10, 2016 by Nadine

[pennben]

27 minutes ago, TWP said:

I don't know when I've laughed harder while watching Castle than during that first line of the promo. 

Oh my god! That's fantastic!

Another point I've been meaning to make for awhile.  I'm guessing that we online who dissect things frame by frame and read every article are maybe 10% of the audience; and those that read the entertainment media generally are another 10-15%? I'm just guessing here. Anyway, I too am not always up on all the ends and outs of shows that I don't follow closely.

One thing that always annoys me is that shows do huge cliffhangers where we are supposed to believe a lead is in dire straights.  Tune in next season to see if they survive.  I always laugh at those, because of course, the show wouldn't be the show if they don't survive. That never happens.

Now, imagine being one not acquainted with the BTS of this show and seeing what one thinks is just another preposterous cliffhanger next week and then tuning in next year!  Oopsidoodle!!

Edited May 10, 2016 by pennben

[TWP]

20 minutes ago, Nadine said:

FWIW, networks do that all the time in terms of the promos. Most recent one for ABC was Resurrection last year was called Season Finale even though everyone knew it wouldn't be back for a third season. 

ETA: Replied at the same time as CheshireCat

The billboard alone wouldn't be proof, but add signing Seamus, Jon, Nathan and I think we know what's going to happen.

[Nadine]

3 minutes ago, TWP said:

The billboard alone wouldn't be proof, but add signing Seamus, Jon, Nathan and I think we know what's going to happen.

I was only referring to the promo. Definitely not what is going on with ABC Studios, etc and subsequently later on with ABC Network (two different entities).

[verdana]

Castle 8x22 Promo "Crossfire" (HD) Season Finale

I should be excited, thrilled, tense.....instead I laughed out loud at Castle in that stupid contraption, winced at the awful dialogue (that opening clunky line, they get paid for this?)", "Castle this is a trap!" oh noooooo really? They even put in "epic love story" as if people really talk like this in general conversation how the fuck does he know? Yeah well I don't believe in their "epic" love any more sorry guys. And the biggest WTF - when have Castle and Beckett been "relentlessly" pursuing Locksat? Obviously must have happened off screen which kind of defeats the whole object of BUILDING SUSPENSE for your audience. Yet these writers missed that rather important key lesson, go back to writing school guys. 

For once Caskett together when they exchanged ILY's didn't seem forced may be they both decided to put a bit of extra effort in since they knew Katic was going. 

But my God that looked really bad if the finale is any indication from that clip it's going to be risible no matter what happens to Beckett. The quality of the writing has dipped to a new low if that's possible.  I'll say it again becuse it bares repeating, Hawley and Winter are making Marlowe look like some writing and showrunner genius this season which I thought would be impossible.

Edited May 10, 2016 by verdana

[metaphor]

I think a theory that's slowly gaining traction is that she'll go on the run, perhaps faking her death in the process. 

Sigh. Maybe the writers' hands were tied by BTS circumstances, but I'm just really bummed out. I know that theoretically, if she gets out alive, there is hope, but that scenario still does not constitute a happy ending for this viewer. Especially since Castle presumably moves on somehow in Season 9 (what with the writers' comments about their clean slate agenda).

Edited May 10, 2016 by metaphor

[TWP]

Remember when I said, now what if all this controversy about Stana was just part of an elaborate scheme to punk the fans?

At the end of tonight Beckett will die, means, at minimum, she isn't going to die.

Edited May 10, 2016 by TWP

[BlakesMomma]

Seems Jim Adler is also leaving the Castle writers room.  

Jim Adler ‏@jimadler  9m9 minutes ago

Thanks everyone! That was my last episode of #castle It was a great three year run and I'll miss everyone - especially the fans!

So that's 3 gone now, right? Creasey, Hanning and Adler. These are the writers who have been with the show the longest.  Are they bringing in all new writers, or just getting rid of the more expensive ones.  I'm actually looking forward to some new blood, hopefully good ones. Stephanie Hicks said "we'll miss you" so it seems she may be staying.

Edited May 10, 2016 by BlakesMomma

[metaphor]

Well, if you think about it, it makes sense. They plan to start with a clean slate anyway.

Whatever happens to Beckett, I don't just see how there can be continuity with a light, happy-go-lucky Castle in a standard procedural next year. So maybe it's best they continue on with new blood, if they're so bent on continuing anyway.

Edited May 10, 2016 by metaphor

[BlakesMomma]

Add Adam Frost to the list leaving. That makes 4.

Adam Frost: Thats a wrap for me at #Castle.It's been an incredible 5 yrs! A sincere & heartfelt thanks to all the fans for your dedication and support!

[verdana]

Christine Roum hasn't gone yet, pity or Bowman if they were seriously cost cutting I would have thought he'd be given his marching orders. 

[Nadine]

Just now, SweetTooth said:

Okay, are they trolling us some more? Are all of the writers going to tweet farewells at this point? Because then nobody will be back to write Castle, P.I. or Kidnapped! or Full Castle.

Don't lose hope. You still have AH/TPW.

Adler has a project lined up, guessing a pilot. Should be interesting to see where Frost goes, he's definitely developed as a writer since he first started.

[TWP]

2 minutes ago, Nadine said:

Don't lose hope. You still have AH/TPW.

Now, who's trolling  ;-)

[Emma]

34 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

Okay, seriously, she's totally not dying, right? They wouldn't make a joke of it if she was, right? Right?

I would have thought differently before this mess came about. Now? It sounds like something they'd do to the fans. Another little twist of the knife.

I wonder if these writers left on their own? Or if it was budget cuts too?

[Nadine]

5 minutes ago, verdana said:

Christine Roum hasn't gone yet, pity or Bowman if they were seriously cost cutting I would have thought he'd be given his marching orders. 

Like Kidnapped! S9 it could still happen.  On a side note, not only have they lost writers/actors, they've also lost producers in the process. From the ones announced.

• Hanning (Executive Producer)
• Adler (Supervising Producer)
• Creasey (Supervising Producer)
• Katic (Producer)

Edited May 10, 2016 by Nadine

[Nadine]

Just now, SweetTooth said:

Maybe they should call S9 Castle: Titanic.

The life rafts are all gone. So are the jackets.

Ah I can just hear Celine warming up now.

[TWP]

5 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

Maybe they should call S9 Castle: Titanic.

The life rafts are all gone. So are the jackets.

The episode shot on the Queen Mary was foreshadowing. Castle even practiced for the iconic scene on the bow.

[verdana]

4 minutes ago, Nadine said:

Ah I can just hear Celine warming up now.

No please for the love of God have pity! 

And my heart will go on and on......

[WendyCR72]

2 minutes ago, verdana said:

No please for the love of God have pity! 

And my heart will go on and on......

STOP! I cannot go to sleep with that in my head. Nooooooooooooo.