Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[WendyCR72]

3 minutes ago, BellyLaughter said:

Speaking of Law and Order SVU - does anyone know why only 4 seasons are available on Netflix?? I would have thought L&O franchises would be ripe for the picking by Netflix??!! 

Actually, up until 2 or so years ago, all 3 L&O shows were able to be streamed. But for whatever reason, the Mothership and CI were removed and made DVD only. I know there was a lot of disappointment when they were removed as people left comments in the review sections. (Episodes/Seasons of both can be purchased at iTunes/Amazon, though...)

As for SVU, I believe Hulu has all seasons, unless that, too, has changed.

[femmefan1946]

Basically, for all the hype about streaming, it is still an expensive way to (maybe) get the stories you actually want.

Frankie and Grace and The Mindy Project are on Netflix, but iZombie and Orphan Black are on Crave. So I have to have two services to get those. And as mentioned, not all seasons are on the service if it is there at all.

And you can't find out quickly what they actually have available, either online or in a program of some sort. You have to scroll through or type in hoping.

And sometimes the story you want has been dropped.

Which is why I bought my copy of Two Guys and a Girl on eBay Australia. (Talk about stupid endings..... ) And Brsicoe County Jr. and am looking for Galavant.

[KaveDweller]

So evidently Richard Castle contributed a recipe to some Mystery Writer Cookbook. It looks like it's all real life writers, just with Castle stuck in, so I guess the publisher has some kind of connection to ABC.

Cute reference to Beckett, of course.

[madmaverick]

Hi, Kave.  Love the blurb and the choice of recipe in the cookbook.  Heh, was sexual tension the only thing that was raging that night, and were pancakes really the absolutely first thing Castle thought of the morning after? :P  Excuse my dipping the batter into the gutter.  Brings back memories of a great episode.  Jealous Beckett was cute.  Protective Castle was sweet.  Still remember the boys saying that pancakes meant thanking someone for last night heh.  I liked that the COTW tied in with Castle's books aka Nikki Heat.  Back before 2 parters were on the scale of super melodramatic world saving events. ;)  

I love that coffee = love got a mention as well and it's true that making pancakes is a way for Castle to comfort his loved ones.  He does smiley faced pancakes for Alexis too.  It was smart characterisation when they decided to make Castle the family cook to show his side as a family man.  Always enjoyed those cooking scenes and his creative culinary creations.  These small details add flavour to a character and a show and there was more attention to them in the early seasons.

Whomever writes as Castle seems to pay more attention to the small details of the show to me than the writers on the show often do, and I always appreciate when there are references to small details of the show in the books.  And vice versa, it's annoying when the get the details wrong on the show.  Especially as Castle, the author, is all about the details of a story.

And whomever thought to exploit the synergy between Castle the TV show and real life books was smart!  Can't think of other TV shows who have done this as well off the top of my head.

[oberon55]

42 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

And whomever thought to exploit the synergy between Castle the TV show and real life books was smart!  Can't think of other TV shows who have done this as well off the top of my head.

What about Star Trek. There have been over 1000 novels published in the Star Trek universe. The first one published in 1967 by James Blish has had over 20 printings. Hell even Shatner had one on the bestsellers list in 1997.

Edited May 28, 2016 by oberon55

[CheshireCat]

With all the photos Rob Kyker is posting of the sets being taken apart, I started to ask myself a question: does anyone know what happens to the set pieces? Do things like doors and stuff that could get repainted/touched-up get stored and re-used or does everything go into the trash?

[Julia]

39 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

With all the photos Rob Kyker is posting of the sets being taken apart, I started to ask myself a question: does anyone know what happens to the set pieces? Do things like doors and stuff that could get repainted/touched-up get stored and re-used or does everything go into the trash?

A lot of shows sell them off. My husband has an awesome summer-weight italian overcoat I got for insanely cheap at an online auction of Roger Rees' costumes from Warehouse 13.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Julia

[metaphor]

Rob mentioned that someone (he didn't say who) had decided not to hold an auction for Castle. And another person associated with Castle  (it may have been Biermann) said a few days ago that the sets go into the trash heap after being taken down. 

[CheshireCat]

27 minutes ago, Julia said:

A lot of shows sell them off. My husband has an awesome summer-weight italian overcoat I got for insanely cheap at an online auction of Roger Rees' costumes from Warehouse 13.

Does that include set pieces or is that only for props though?

[Julia]

7 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

Does that include set pieces or is that only for props though?

It can include set pieces. The people who produced the Stargate franchise auctioned their sets off.

Edited May 28, 2016 by Julia

[femmefan1946]

I would think it would depend on what the item is. A kitchen counter? Unlikely, ditto backsplash.

The kitchen paraphenalia? Why not? Or it could be reused on another show. The Alliance soldiers on Firefly wore armour from Starship Troopers, for example.

And a fellow eBay seller has costumes from Bones and Xena Warrior Princess in her stock. She can even tell you which episode.

[KaveDweller]

I think the props themselves get stored and eventually reused. When I was in LA a few years ago I did a studio tour at Paramount and Warner Brothers. One of them had this huge room of props from all sorts of shows/movies. They have some kind of database and other studios can rent out the various stuff when they need it for their projects.  

[MrWhyt]

On 5/25/2016 at 9:13 PM, WendyCR72 said:

I don't necessarily disagree, but this lead-in to news thing isn't new. Actually, it's as old as TV. And, right or not, it's still considered a major factor with affiliates. So the key is keeping said affiliate happy so they either don't take the hour back from national and air local content or flip to another network.

And the ratings for Castle, while they stabilized, were indeed horrible, so I can see where affiliates and lack of revenue equaled "buh bye!"

yes one the factors in the Conan/Leno tonight show mess was the terrible ratings of Leno's 10:00 show. Allegedly many NBC affiliates threatened to preempt Leno because he was dragging down their 11:00 news ratings.

[madmaverick]

Damn, there goes my loft. :P

Oops, my bad.  Completely forgot about Star Trek novels.  And they have comic book spinoffs for shows like Firefly and Con Man and Buffy etc.

I get the sense there's probably a fair bit of waste that goes into TV/movie production even if they try to be green.  I'm thinking of craft services :P not to mention sets that are built and then dismantled week to week.  

If Rob Kyker was the one responsible for buying and choosing all the jewellery that Castle bought for Beckett, well, perhaps it's not a surprise then that I found all of them less than inspiring.  I wish the writers had explored more creative avenues in terms of gift giving from someone characterised as a gift ninja, but it probably would have involved too much effort for them to come up with truly romantic and creative stuff. ;) 

[Castle75]

Seems like Kyker has mentioned all the sets being destroyed, except for the PI Set. I wonder when or if that one gets done.

[CheshireCat]

He said yesterday that there's still a week of dismantling left, so plenty of time to take the PI set apart.

[KaveDweller]

5 hours ago, madmaverick said:

Damn, there goes my loft. :P

Oops, my bad.  Completely forgot about Star Trek novels.  And they have comic book spinoffs for shows like Firefly and Con Man and Buffy etc.

I get the sense there's probably a fair bit of waste that goes into TV/movie production even if they try to be green.  I'm thinking of craft services :P not to mention sets that are built and then dismantled week to week.  

If Rob Kyker was the one responsible for buying and choosing all the jewellery that Castle bought for Beckett, well, perhaps it's not a surprise then that I found all of them less than inspiring.  I wish the writers had explored more creative avenues in terms of gift giving from someone characterised as a gift ninja, but it probably would have involved too much effort for them to come up with truly romantic and creative stuff. ;) 

I thought Castle fixing the motorcycle was a pretty good gift, and saying they should go on a trip together was more romantic than some of the jewelry. I know they just did it because they wanted a way to finally show Stana on the bike, but it still worked for me. I wish we had more things like that over generic jewelry.

[CheshireCat]

2 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

I thought Castle fixing the motorcycle was a pretty good gift, and saying they should go on a trip together was more romantic than some of the jewelry. I know they just did it because they wanted a way to finally show Stana on the bike, but it still worked for me. I wish we had more things like that over generic jewelry.

On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, it seemed that Beckett liked more traditional gifts. While I would not have liked light sabers as a Valentine's Day gift either, it kind of sounded to me like she didn't want any crazy gifts and all and seemed to aboslutely love the earrings and the idea of earrings that Castle had bought for her. And I thought the "Always" braclet, even though it was jewelry, was pretty special. It may be insane but that she didn't get it back at all during S8 is one of the things that bother me the most.

[Cyranetta]

Quote

Completely forgot about Star Trek novels.  And they have comic book spinoffs for shows like Firefly and Con Man and Buffy etc.

I don't think there are any other shows where the character is listed as the author of the novels, though. I always thought that was a very clever use of "branding".

[oberon55]

There is at least one more I know about. There are over 40 novels from "Murder, She Wrote" written by Donald Bain. The author credit for the novels is shared with the fictitious "Jessica Fletcher" ie. written by Jessica Fletcher & Donald Bain. They are actually still being written today with the next one being released in October of this year.

[KaveDweller]

There was a soap opera called Passions in the early 2000s, and they had a character write a book that was released in real life. It was really a book prequel to the show, but they just worked the idea of it into the show. This one character was a witch and so she knew all the deep dark secrets everyone in town was keeping about their past. The book was set twenty years before the show and explained to the viewers what happened before the show started. To explain how she could release this book, but not have any other character know what was in it (since the whole show was about people with secrets), she wrote a spell on the last page of the book that was supposed to make people forget what they just read. It was actually published on the last page of the book.

It was a really weird show.

8 hours ago, CheshireCat said:

On the one hand, I agree. On the other hand, it seemed that Beckett liked more traditional gifts. While I would not have liked light sabers as a Valentine's Day gift either, it kind of sounded to me like she didn't want any crazy gifts and all and seemed to aboslutely love the earrings and the idea of earrings that Castle had bought for her. And I thought the "Always" braclet, even though it was jewelry, was pretty special. It may be insane but that she didn't get it back at all during S8 is one of the things that bother me the most.

Yeah, Beckett seemed to like the traditional gifts, but if the writers had written Castle giving more unique gifts, they could have also written her liking them.

I hated that she never got the bracelet back too. How hard would it have been to work that in?

[ByaNose]

I finally watched the last 5 episodes on my DVR. The series finale episode was pretty well done. I thought NF did an awesome job when he pouring the tears during the truth serum part. Now, that was acting. It's too bad that the show is ending and that NF & SK went all Bruce Willis & Cybil Shepard on us. What is it with actors who can't get along playing couples like Fillion, Katic, Brosnon, Zimbilist, Willis & Shepard? At least, Robert Wagner & Stephanie Powers got along. LOL!!!

[FlickerToAFlame]

Alexi liked and retweeted this link, because he obviously still thinks he's not the problem:

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/05/30/fandom-is-broken

[BellyLaughter]

I rolled my eyes so hard at that retweet!  The article makes a couple of good arguments but entitled fans weren't really Alexi Hawley's problem.... No matter what the circumstances or how "entitled" he may think Castle fans are/were he did an absolutely shit job as Showrunner in S8.   Difficulties aside he made a lot of wrong choices for this show and he should be grateful it got canned - saves him more embarrassment! 

[BlakesMomma]

I don't know how you can say entitled fans weren't Hawley's problem when they were calling for the cancellation of Castle because they didn't like the direction he was taking the show.  Regardless of the job he did with S8, that sounds like fan entitlement to me.  And the shit that was tweeted at him, and cast members, was absolutely what this article is talking about.

[FlickerToAFlame]

Entitled fans were exactly the thorn in Alexi's side, but it was his poor job of showrunning/writing that truly made season 8 a debacle. He seems to take no responsibility for the terrible quality of the show under his watch. 

That article makes a lot of valid points, but other shows are still on the air despite fan entitlement and fury. Because despite the ships on the show, there are other quality things to offer. Castle was (IMO) nothing without Caskett. Every other plot point was one dimensional and boring af. 

[Julia]

And yet there are successful shows on television. It's funny how the broken fans seem to hone in on shows where the showrunners are doing nothing wrong.

[westwingfan]

49 minutes ago, FlickerToAFlame said:

Entitled fans were exactly the thorn in Alexi's side, but it was his poor job of showrunning/writing that truly made season 8 a debacle. He seems to take no responsibility for the terrible quality of the show under his watch. 

That article makes a lot of valid points, but other shows are still on the air despite fan entitlement and fury. Because despite the ships on the show, there are other quality things to offer. Castle was (IMO) nothing without Caskett. Every other plot point was one dimensional and boring af. 

I felt that Hawley failed to generate any sense of dread about Loksat after the opening two-parter, we kept being told about the danger of Beckett's maverick investigation but we never saw how much danger she was in, unlike the original Bracken storyline, and the characters introduced in S8 were a pale shadow of the threatening henchman we met leading up to Veritas, Coonan, Lockwood, Maddox and Vulcan Simmons oozed evil in comparison, and Mason Wood was almost laughable as the master mind who scared the s**t out of Bracken. Bracken's scenes with Beckett in ATS, Recoil and Veritas left you in no doubt as to what he was capable of. And Hawley's attempt to defend the break up by saying it re-invigorated the writers' room doesn't say much for the creativity in that writers' room.

[westwingfan]

On 29/05/2016 at 2:23 PM, Castle75 said:

Seems like Kyker has mentioned all the sets being destroyed, except for the PI Set. I wonder when or if that one gets done.

The P.I. Office is no more

[madmaverick]

11 hours ago, FlickerToAFlame said:

Alexi liked and retweeted this link, because he obviously still thinks he's not the problem:

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/05/30/fandom-is-broken

I went to read that piece and thought it was a very well written one that made many salient points about the nature of modern fandom and its ugly side, as amplified by the internet.  My knowledge of fandom is not that vast but I recognise the problematic behaviours the author alluded to in the Castle fandom.

Hawley agreeing that fan entitlement is a problem for writers and creators does not necessarily mean he and the rest of the writers' fail to take responsibility for the writing on the show.  Not a big fan of the man's work, but separately from that, I don't think anybody should be subjected to threats, abuse, harassment that Castle writers and cast have been subjected to from entitled and badly behaved fans when they were not happy with something about the show.  There's just no excuse to behave that way.  Even a cursory look at the replies to that RT and Hawley's mentions now show more of the same verbal abuse.  I don't think the ugly side of this fandom has learned any lessons unfortunately.  Ultimately, when we watch a film or a TV show or read a book, we are at the mercy of the creator's vision and that's part of the deal imo.  

I see that the author of that article is responding to Castle fans who tweeted him in outrage with a brand of sarcasm.  

I see that Matt has also chimed in.

Quote

 

Matt Mitovich ‏@MattMitovich  3h3 hours ago

Matt Mitovich Retweeted devin faraci

Oh god, yes. A great, scary read.

@Kimma_S Entitlement has gotten OFF. THE. CHARTS.

 

He would know about entitlement given the comment sections on his site. ;)  But he also solicits it with clickbait that his site thrives on. ;)

Edited May 31, 2016 by madmaverick

[CheshireCat]

2 hours ago, BlakesMomma said:

I don't know how you can say entitled fans weren't Hawley's problem when they were calling for the cancellation of Castle because they didn't like the direction he was taking the show.  Regardless of the job he did with S8, that sounds like fan entitlement to me.  And the shit that was tweeted at him, and cast members, was absolutely what this article is talking about.

Are you referring to the fans who wanted Castle cancelled after Katic was fired or the fans you were commenting that S8 was crap and they should just put it out of its misery? Because if you mean the former then they didn't call for cancellation because of the direction the show was heading. And the latter ones didn't necessarily call for cancellations. They just felt that the show had lost the magic it used to be and rather than limb along until it fizzled out, should be ended with some dignity and they're not really wrong.

The thing is, someone is responsible for the fan reaction and it's not the fans. It may not be Hawley either because he may have just done what he could with the cards he was dealt, however, what he and Winter did is what caused the reaction. Did fans act like they were entitled? Absolutely. But, I think, if we're honest, and if Hawley is honest, we have to admit that they did not do so without any valid reason.

However, suggesting that these entitled fans were the problem (who are far less than the fans who hoped the show would be cancelled after Katic's dismissal) were the problem then that would mean that those few fans did play a part in the cancellation of the show when so many have said that the calling for the cancellation didn't make a difference. So, what is it going to be? Either the fans were the problem and played a part in the eventual cancellation or they didn't play a part and then they're not a problem (other than being a nuisance).

I also think that Hawley is not one who should talk about entitlement. He took over a show from someone who had a vision and turned it into something else; he disrespected the original vision because he felt entitled to the right to do with it whatever he pleases. Some may agree that he has the right to, I don't, because it was someone else's vision and I feel that he should have acted in the creator's spirit. Out of respect for a colleague, fellow artist and what they created.

While I agree that entitled fans can be a nuisance and are a nuisance and I don't like them either because I just want to tell each and every one of them to just stop watching because the showrunners are not going to do what they want, I also think that many PTB tend to forget that they have a job because of the fans.

[pepper]

So what about the fans that simply said they would - and those who actually did - stop watching because of the perceived decline in the quality of the writing? To me that's part and parcel of the same issue. Were they "entitled" as well? Or are you only "entitled" when you want the show to stop rather than just withdrawing support? I was certainly one who had no intention of watching without Katic, but I would have made exactly the same decision without Fillion. There was zero reason to believe that the writing talent I saw on display could pull off that kind of bait-and-switch from the original premise of the show.  

And the (sad?) fact is that when you put out a product for public consumption, the public will have an opinion. In my industry we always say that if your clients are unhappy, more than 90% of them will never tell you - they'll just leave. So it is imperative to pay attention to the 10%, even if some of them will be on the fringe of your demographic. I admit that social media can make that fringe a pretty high-volume group, but the way to deal with them is not to dismiss the message because it comes in a pissed-off package. After all, they're about as reliable as the ones who think you can do no wrong...

IMO there's nothing wrong with fan entitlement if what they think they're entitled to is a quality product.

[oberon55]

I agree completely about harassing anybody but I don't really understand the definition of entitled fans. Were the small but loud group of trekkies entitled when they lobbied for a Star Trek movie for years. What about the Save Chuck Subway campaign which is credited with giving Chuck a third season. Even Chuck (Zachary Levi) was seen leading hundreds of fans to a Subway restaurant in Birmingham, England. On the campaign, co-creator Josh Schwartz remarked that it "has been one of the most amazing experiences of [my] life to witness — and certainly the most creatively gratifying". He didn't say "I wish those entitled bastards would just let this go". From what I can tell someone trying to get their way by saving a show is just a passionate fan but if that same fan becomes critical of the show all of a sudden he's an entitled prick.

[FlickerToAFlame]

Someone wrote a response to the "fandom is broken" article and, rightfully, points out that you can't lump all media criticism into one group. 

 

http://www.dailydot.com/geek/fandom-harassment-captain-america-ghostbusters-devin-faraci/

[S55]

Wanted to share another perspective I read this morning in response to the original piece. 

From Hydra to Ghostbusters: The False Equivalences of Fan Culture 

[Julia]

I would also suggest that by buying into the Ausiello good fans vs. the uncouth hordes narrative, the showrunners are helping to bring this on themselves (leaving aside the utter lack of decency and perspective it takes for Hawley to compare himself to the victims of Gamergate).

Sure, they're getting themselves soldiers in the comment trenches for the short term. But they're also telling the fans they're firing up over the controversy of the moment that they're the trufans and the show is for them. And then the schisms start.

Live by the keyboard warriors, die by the keyboard warriors.

eta: in the interest of Hawley not spending his night under the couch with a can of Mace, I should probably specify that I mean his show, not its showrunner.

Edited May 31, 2016 by Julia
eekamouse.

[KaveDweller]

I think it really comes down to being respectful or not. If fans don't like a storyline, they have every right to say they don't like something. Before Twitter people talked about TV shows in person and would tell each other if they thought something was dumb. It's just now the whole world (including the showrunners) get to see that. The showrunners certainly like when people post nonstop about how great a show is.

So I don't think complaining about a show or even saying "I'd rather it just get cancelled" is the problem. The problem is the personal attacks/death threats that some people seem to think is appropriate. That's not being entitled, that's just being a douche.

Edited May 31, 2016 by KaveDweller

[McManda]

Cavet: I don't have at the moment to give those articles the time they deserve, but I'll go back when I'm home.

That said, I was one of the fans that voted (hoped sadly?) for #season8seriesfinale after news of Stana not being part of any potential season 9 broke and I don't take that back. I'd like to think that it didn't come from a place of entitlement. No one cares what I think.  My reasoning was, if they (whoever they are: Dungey, Hawley, Winter, Fillion, it doesn't matter) were willing to not even approach a lead (yes, Stana was a lead) for a fitting resolution to her appearances on the show, what else were they willing to sacrifice in the name of creativity? Especially when the company line came down to "budgetary reasons". I love the show, but even I was willing to admit the shortcomings and tiredness and entitlement or not, that's on TPTB, TPW and Hawley included. It's not like I can fix it myself. 

I also blame TPW and Hawley for the PR speak we got. I think that's what made a lot of people annoyed - they gave great interviews and buzzwords to make people hopeful ... and then failed to deliver. That's on them. And the sites like TVLine that they allowed to use bits and pieces to entice people. You can't give people expectations and then be angry when they're disappointed when they feel tricked and/or misled.

But I also think while I was pretty adamant about not being on board for where it sounded like S9 was going, I was willing to give it a chance (a tiny chance, but a chance nonetheless) if it came to fruition and it looked like it was still a show that looked and felt like Castle. It was going to be a hard sell because what drew me in was Castle and Beckett's relationship and that foundation was talked about being torn apart and I didn't really have any interest in watching a bastardization of Castle, but my vocalizations were more of disappointment. I know better than to direct my disappointment into anger  and death threats hidden behind the anonymity of the internet.

Edited June 1, 2016 by McManda

[CheshireCat]

Thinking about it - in S7, the PI arc had the lowest rated episodes. And yet, Hawley (and Winter) decided to make Castle a PI full time and now Hawley's tweeting about entitled fans... Castle did not need to be a PI, whether the rumors of two-days-a-week filming are true or not, that issue could have easily been resolved otherwise. The signs that Castle as a full-time PI wouldn't work were there, he just would have had to look at them and not think he knows better. So, that he ignored the signs, even did one "better" and split up the couple and now seems to put blame on the fans, kind of makes him look arrogant.

[KaveDweller]

54 minutes ago, McManda said:

I also blame TPW and Hawley for the PR speak we got. I think that's what made a lot of people annoyed - they gave great interviews and buzzwords to make people hopeful ... and then failed to deliver. That's on them. And the sites like TVLine that they allowed to use bits and pieces to entice people. You can't give people expectations and then be angry when they're disappointed when they feel tricked and/or misled.

I agree. Now maybe their hands were tied in some ways, due to actor availability or network interference. But they still didn't deliver a great season.

And I think entitlement goes both ways.  TV shows aren't being made by serious artists just for fun. They are made to make money, and they make money when people watch them. If they don't make a show people want to watch, they don't get to keep making said show just because they want to. So on one hand, they shouldn't write things just because that's what the fans want. But an the other hand fans don't have to watch if they don't like it, and shows that no one watches deserve to be cancelled. 

I get showrunners complaining about being personally attacked. That kind of thing is wrong. But acting like fans complaining cost them their job isn't fair either, because they are the ones that wrote what fans didn't like.  At least in Castle's case. 

[McManda]

Quote

I agree. Now maybe their hands were tied in some ways, due to actor availability or network interference. But they still didn't deliver a great season.

They also did themselves no favors by going into hiding after this whole debacle went down, which makes it seems like they hold some accountability even if whatever happened was absolutely not their fault. I'd have a lot more respect for their claims of entitlement if they told their side of the story, but they didn't. I don't necessarily need that story, but if you want people to make informed decisions and be able to rationalize things you wanted them to be passionate about they deserve all the facts. You can't blame them for coming up with what they think happened, especially when tidbits are still being released for advertising clicks.

For what it's worth, I think a lot of the pieces of the story were true and there were a lot of factors that tipped the scales into cancellation. But in the end, even if the sole reason they were canceled was "budgetary reasons" to the point where they were willing to let a lead go - that boils down to the show not making money, which means the people in charge weren't delivering a product viewers wanted to watch. That is absolutely on them.

Viewers are entitled, yes: they're entitled to be entertained. They're also entitled to voice opinions that they're not in valid ways, either through not watching like they have for decades, or, in today's online presence, though constructive criticism via message boards and twitter. In fact, I think in today's age it would be easier than ever to gauge interest in your show. Ten or twenty years ago they would have said "hey, ratings are dropping ... wonder why ... get out the focus groups". Now they can hit up twitter and find out pretty much instantaneously. I suppose they don't have to let that response dictate their story, but just makes sense to me that they should trend toward what people want to see if they want to keep people watching. That's not entitlement; it's business and your show is your product. If the customer wants red shirts, you produce red shirts. Your customer wants fewer themed COTWs and wonders why you made Hayley a recurring character ... you look into creating less kitschy, more personal COTWs and try to figure out how to better utilize Hayley instead of trying to make her Beckett-lite.

Plus, it just kind of makes me angry that in a culture where clickbait articles are everywhere and are apparently the only kinds of links online journalists think get viewed, those same people get annoyed when fans get hotheaded about the content. It's like being surprised that the bear that was being poked by a stick over and over finally decides to fight back.

Even though I wanted it to end after how things went down it doesn't mean I'm happy about it. It's not what I wanted or hoped for in the end. Despite the happily ever after seven years later tag, I still haven't brought myself to rewatch or transcribe the last 4 episodes (they'll get done eventually ...) because I'm still basically mourning the sad death of my favorite show.

[Annec]

On May 31, 2016 at 7:16 PM, KaveDweller said:

I agree. Now maybe their hands were tied in some ways, due to actor availability or network interference. But they still didn't deliver a great season.

And I think entitlement goes both ways.  TV shows aren't being made by serious artists just for fun. They are made to make money, and they make money when people watch them. If they don't make a show people want to watch, they don't get to keep making said show just because they want to. So on one hand, they shouldn't write things just because that's what the fans want. But an the other hand fans don't have to watch if they don't like it, and shows that no one watches deserve to be cancelled. 

I get showrunners complaining about being personally attacked. That kind of thing is wrong. But acting like fans complaining cost them their job isn't fair either, because they are the ones that wrote what fans didn't like.  At least in Castle's case. 

Well said.  The biggest sense of entitlement I've seen was the idea that Hawley/TPW and others could make the show whatever they wanted and people would watch.  They act like they were entitled to a season 9 and beyond rather than earning it with good, compelling stories.

[MrWhyt]

2 hours ago, Annec said:

Well said.  The biggest sense of entitlement I've seen was the idea that Hawley/TPW and others could make the show whatever they wanted and people would watch.  They act like they were entitled to a season 9 and beyond rather than earning it with good, compelling stories.

you don't earn another season by making good compelling stories, you earn it by making the network money.

[McManda]

But don't you earn the network money by capturing viewers, which you get, presumably, by creating good, compelling stories? Or at least stories people want to watch? It sucks, but all other factors equal (the lead in, your time slot, network advertising, etc) you only have yourself to blame when you're eventually cancelled because people didn't respond well to the story you told. 

[MrWhyt]

9 hours ago, McManda said:

But don't you earn the network money by capturing viewers, which you get, presumably, by creating good, compelling stories?

L&O: Original flavor lasted 20 years, was every season full of good, compelling stories? CSI went 15. Writing good stories is one way to get viewers, writing something that appeals to the widest swath of the audience is another.

[CheshireCat]

53 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

L&O: Original flavor lasted 20 years, was every season full of good, compelling stories? CSI went 15. Writing good stories is one way to get viewers, writing something that appeals to the widest swath of the audience is another.

The stories were obviously good enough to keep the ratings to the network's satisfaction. And you only keep the ratings if the people want to watch and they want to watch if they like the stories.

[westwingfan]

54 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

L&O: Original flavor lasted 20 years, was every season full of good, compelling stories? CSI went 15. Writing good stories is one way to get viewers, writing something that appeals to the widest swath of the audience is another.

It seems the showrunners failed on both counts in S8 then. Both the shows you mentioned did experience personel changes but stuck pretty much to their original core premise, which is something Castle failed to do for the last three seasons.

[FlickerToAFlame]

I think that, had Castle stuck to its main premise of a writer and his muse (romantically together or not), the show could have lasted for years. People don't like change, and Castle was never groundbreaking. I think people just watched for some harmless entertainment. It's when each of the showrunners tried to be "creative" that things went off track. 

[MrWhyt]

1 hour ago, CheshireCat said:

The stories were obviously good enough to keep the ratings to the network's satisfaction. And you only keep the ratings if the people want to watch and they want to watch if they like the stories.

sure but "good enough" is not the same as "good and compelling". You're reinforcing my point that seasons are earned by making the network money, not by making art. You might want "good and compelling" stories, the networks want "good enough".  And yes there usually some exceptions, shows that the network keeps on the air because of critical acclaim rather than ratings, Parenthood on NC is the latest I can think of.

[KaveDweller]

15 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

sure but "good enough" is not the same as "good and compelling". You're reinforcing my point that seasons are earned by making the network money, not by making art. You might want "good and compelling" stories, the networks want "good enough".  And yes there usually some exceptions, shows that the network keeps on the air because of critical acclaim rather than ratings, Parenthood on NC is the latest I can think of.

Well, TPTB at Castle were clearly not making enough for the network. That's why it was cancelled, not because fans weren't being fair to the writers.

Edited June 2, 2016 by KaveDweller