Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[MrWhyt]

10 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

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.

Hundreds of viewers wanting "good and compelling" stories aren't being fair to the writers/producers who's main job is to produce "good enough" stories for the thousands of viewers who will be satisfied with those (numbers are for illustration purposes only).

[oberon55]

24 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

Hundreds of viewers wanting "good and compelling" stories aren't being fair to the writers/producers who's main job is to produce "good enough" stories for the thousands of viewers who will be satisfied with those (numbers are for illustration purposes only).

The writing on Castle for the last two seasons has not been close to "good enough". In fact I think it has been dreadful. Speaking for myself the only things that kept me watching was goodwill from the early seasons & an inability to look away from the car wreck no matter how bloody it got. I'll even risk being called entitled & say I'm damn glad it got cancelled before it inevitably got worse.

[MrWhyt]

15 minutes ago, oberon55 said:

The writing on Castle for the last two seasons has not been close to "good enough". In fact I think it has been dreadful. 

But individuals don't matter, total numbers do. In S7 the "good enough" viewers were high enough to warrant S7, and in S8 they weren't high enough to arrant S9. The writers' job is to satisfy the masses, not the individuals.

[oberon55]

53 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

But individuals don't matter, total numbers do. In S7 the "good enough" viewers were high enough to warrant S7, and in S8 they weren't high enough to arrant S9. The writers' job is to satisfy the masses, not the individuals.

Castle premiered at 1.2\ 6.8M & the finale ratings were 1.3\7.8M. So it started low & stayed low all season. I think they clearly renewed it for s8 expecting better numbers than what they got. I blame s8's poor performance at the start of the season to the viewers reacting to s7's terrible writing & s8's bad writing just solidified the low ratings. I think a real case can be made for cause & effect.

[KaveDweller]

3 hours ago, MrWhyt said:

Hundreds of viewers wanting "good and compelling" stories aren't being fair to the writers/producers who's main job is to produce "good enough" stories for the thousands of viewers who will be satisfied with those (numbers are for illustration purposes only).

Viewers wanting good stories aren't unfair to writers. Viewers badgering the writers on social media about it are being unfair, but just wanting certain storylines (and not watching a show because if it) is perfectly fair.  Fans don't have to watch a show if they don't like it, even if the majority of the population dors like it.  And if they do watch it, the have a right to (respectfully) say so. The minority opinion has a voice.

2 hours ago, MrWhyt said:

But individuals don't matter, total numbers do. In S7 the "good enough" viewers were high enough to warrant S7, and in S8 they weren't high enough to arrant S9. The writers' job is to satisfy the masses, not the individuals.

Exactly. The total ratings weren't high enough. So point is, the writers didn't do a good job at satisfying the masses. Otherwise it would have been renewed over the protests of the few individuals who complained. 

[ByaNose]

I think the show jumped the shark when Alexis joined the business. I liked it when Alexis & Martha were sitting around Castle's apartment waiting to hear the details of such and such case. Granted, it's not realistic that they just sat there all day or even an acting challenge but I'm simple that way. LOL!!!

[CheshireCat]

5 hours ago, MrWhyt said:

sure but "good enough" is not the same as "good and compelling".

In this case, it was meant to be. I assumed that your post meant that L&O didn't produce "good and compelling" stories and still went on for 20 seasons. My "good enough" was meant as "good and compelling" enough to keep people hooked for 20 seasons. Do I find the L&O stories "good and compelling"? No. At least not to the point that I would tune in week after week. However, there were enough people who did find the stories "good and compelling" up until the end so that the networks considered the ratings "good enough" to keep the show on the air.

5 hours ago, MrWhyt said:

You're reinforcing my point that seasons are earned by making the network money, not by making art.

I'm sorry to have to go all cliché here but art is certainly relative. I agree that the networks don't care about art. They only care about the ratings. But the producers would certainly start caring about art if that is what the audience wants because if they then don't deliver art then the audience won't watch and the shows will get cancelled.

5 hours ago, MrWhyt said:

You might want "good and compelling" stories, the networks want "good enough".  

I think the networks want what people will watch and they don't care what it is. If people start going crazy over plush pig puppets running up and down a street then I assure you, that is what the networks will produce. Would I consider that a "good and compelling"? No. But those who would watch it in droves obviously would consider it "good and compelling".  

[Julia]

5 hours ago, MrWhyt said:

But individuals don't matter, total numbers do. In S7 the "good enough" viewers were high enough to warrant S7, and in S8 they weren't high enough to arrant S9. The writers' job is to satisfy the masses, not the individuals.

The problem is that the good enough writers may have been good enough writers to get a show with a syndication deal and a social media behemoth as a star renewed on a network with a weak bench, but that's not the level of quality that keeps people viewing.

[verdana]

On 31/05/2016 at 7:16 AM, 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 stopped feeling any sympathy for this guy the minute he and Winter crawled away and left the trainwreck that was S8 without having the decency (and balls) to give any post finale interview to the fans which might have helped shed some light on their reasoning behind Locksat and and the separation of Castle and Beckett. It was unprofessional and cowardly, at least Marlowe understood his responsibilities. Hawley seems the type that wants the adulation but none of the brickbats - tough shit mate you're in charge it comes with the territory. 

Trying to hide behind the darker and more crazy nature of the fandom which is out there as many us have witnessed and lump them in with everyone else is diverting attention away from the problem which was partly at least down to Hawley's inability to be a showrunner which is a very different ball game to being a writer - as he's finding out to his cost. 

In the end despite the BTS rumors it came down fundamentally to a succession of bad writing choices, just when you thought they couldn't make it worse this season - they did. The situation was compounded by his interviews which came over as clueless, misleading and arrogant.

I'm fed up with showrunners and general hangers on moaning about the "entitled fans" costing them their jobs and making their poor lives a misery on twitter etc day in day out with their constant demands and complaints - I feel like yelling get a grip! You don't like it then find another job!  Or hell go off twitter if you're that offended or get a handler to deal with your account. But you know what? They won't because what they get out of it in terms of monetary reward, perks and ego stroking is worth far more to them but using the fans as an excuse whenever they need it to cover their own inadequacies is a very useful tool - they may not be saying it out loud but it's YOUR fault this happened nothing to do with me! 

I was told "the customer is always right" they're the ones consuming your product and if they don't like it (or feel you're not listening to them) they'll eventually move on and find something else that suits them better.  You need to listen to all your consumer base and learn how to filter out the obvious idiots and pay attention to those ringing the alarm bells. The trick is even if you can't please all the people all the time you can at least act like you're trying to and Hawley didn't even bother. He came across as someone who didn't give a shit about his consumer base and was just doing what he wanted and expecting everyone to lap it up.  Shock horror they didn't. 

If this is his reaction, going all passive aggressive, then he's not cut out for this industry and may be he needs to move on or toughen up and examine his own failings first before attacking the fans and blaming them for something that he had more control to correct than they ever did. If he can't learn when to accept some portion of the blame for what happened and face up to things (which includes giving interviews when your decisions have gone wrong) he's going to be dealing with this exact same set of circumstances on his next gig.  

I feel sorry for the fans of the next show he ruins, they're getting an arrogant cry baby as showrunner. 

Edited June 4, 2016 by verdana

[verdana]

On 31/05/2016 at 6:22 PM, madmaverick said:

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 agree the fans are at the mercy of the writer's imagination and whims and that's the risk everyone runs when getting involved in watching something that the show you loved could at any moment implode and suddenly there's a painful parting of the ways. Should we get deeply invested each time only to run the risk of heartache and disappointment? I must admit I'm going to be wary about getting super involved in a TV show again like this one, was the good times worth the rest of it? I'm not too sure about that...may be with time and distance I can rationalise it better.

Recently I read a post on tumblr where it was clear the person was deeply upset with the number of women characters being killed off, the show she's been hooked on five weeks ago killed off the female love interest very quickly after only just bringing her back to the show after a big gap (although I thought the character was dull as dishwater and clearly on the way out in any case given the role she was playing).  I've been following the tag for weeks now and the upset has been steadily building mostly I note from young women, they were hoping for some bizarre reason she wasn't really dead and was going to pop up suddenly at the last minute lol, the finale has aired and reality has sunk in she's dead!  Cue fan outrage. She's calling the writer a misogynist (neither the writer or actress has made any public comments about her departure) and demanding that writers in general have a moratorium on killing off women characters for 6 months and telling them to "get creative" and think of other ways to tell their story.  

I disagree with her,  writers should be allowed to create whatever they like without those kind of restrictions placed on them - they'll either find an audience for their work or they won't and if their product isn't successful or well received and they're smart they'll take lessons from that and develop and grow as writers. She has every right to be upset about her favourite character meeting her demise as a fan and explain why she's upset on her blog and she says the show is dead to her and she won't watch any more. That's also up to her but she appears to have forgotten that these are the risks you run getting emotionally attached to a show where you can't control the trajectory of the characters, there can be great highs but then on the flip side there can be disappointment, disillusionment, rejection, disgust and anger. 

Although I do sense that the younger the fan the more extreme the reactions tend to be, at least based on what I've seen trawling tumblr and twitter. 

Edited June 4, 2016 by verdana

[pennben]

Why did so many female characters die on tv last week?

TV killed off a lot of female characters last week.

Anyone can die? TV's recent death toll says otherwise.

TV kills another lesbian character What's going on?

Should I go on?  I can.  It's not just kids wondering what the hell is going on.

I'm just thinking that maybe there is something more than allowing writers freedom to tell their stories going on here if their stories always end the same preposterous way with women and minorities dying.  That's what is creative these days?  As you noted, maybe they shouldn't get to tell anymore stories. Kudos for the kid on tumblr deciding that enough is enough. Maybe we'd all be better making that decision.

PS: I love Person of Interest, they killed a character that is a woman and a lesbian last week and I have no issues.  It was the perfect end for that character. That was just phenomenal storytelling over the years, that sadly is lessened by hacks on other shows randomly killing off women/minorities to make some point somewhere. Where I think people lose hope is when the storytellers just decide to kill someone for no reason to further a story for whatever reason (onscreen or offscreen), or try to manipulate fans to engage in something they know is going to blow up. Good faith works both ways.

PPS: I'm over 50, let's leave age off the table for disappointment in various shows.

PPSS (I have no idea what would be correct here::!) Castle, the show, would have been walking into a world of indefensible if it had gotten another season the way it all worked out.  It wouldn't have been about artistic vision, it wouldn't have been about a story that needed to be told, it plain and simple would have been about money.  Period.

Edited June 4, 2016 by pennben

[Julia]

Well, in fairness, POI fridged Joss Carter to make room for Root, so they're part of the problem too. 

I blame Joss Whedon, who made offending the audience and stomping on their head canons fashionable. I don't remember in the days before celebrity auteur showrunners that driving viewers away on purpose was a thing. 

[pennben]

Ha! You are absolutely right! I guess I fell into the trap (although I still believe in what I said) of 'it made sense in this story', not that one.  Thanks for checking me. I mean that.

I guess I just go back to this 'artistic vision' rationale/excuse that we are supposed to accept which more often than not leads to a woman/minority dying to prop up a hero and I'm really, really tired of it. 

I think this show and the mess at the end just made me leap out of my seat with the arrogance of those in charge thinking they could just lose (I assume kill)  the woman co-lead and we'd all be cool with it because....of this great story they wanted to tell??? or for the art!!!????. My ass. Please.

Edited June 4, 2016 by pennben

[CheshireCat]

7 hours ago, verdana said:

I agree the fans are at the mercy of the writer's imagination and whims and that's the risk everyone runs when getting involved in watching something that the show you loved could at any moment implode and suddenly there's a painful parting of the ways. Should we get deeply invested each time only to run the risk of heartache and disappointment? I must admit I'm going to be wary about getting super involved in a TV show again like this one, was the good times worth the rest of it? I'm not too sure about that...may be with time and distance I can rationalise it better.

I already am wary. There are a couple of shows which I really like, and which I've actually enjoyed more last season than S8 of Castle. However, two shows I let pile up and watched only after the finale had aired and I knew where they had gone with the characters because after the whole Castle mess I didn't want to watch anything else that would disappoint, one I have already decided I'll probably let pile up and watch only after I know where they're going next season, another show just published spoilers I'm not thrilled about, so I might wait and see with that one, too. The third one I'm still undecided.

I came to Castle late and I don't know how I would have reacted to the end of S2 and S3 had I already watched by then. But binge watching, I didn't mind either because there was a purpose to the love interests that Castle and Beckett had. It wasn't just the usual "let's give them love interests so we can drag out them getting together". Marlowe was telling a story with that and the love interests moved the story forward.

I'm sure there were fans who were less than pleased and were crying foul and whatnot back then. Probably the same fans I've seen commenting around the internet and who come across as "know-it-all" and are willing to accept only what they want and don't even give anything a chance that isn't that even if it's good, well written and makes sense. Those, I feel, are the "entitled fans". But I feel they're the minority and I also feel there's a difference between Marlowe going along with his vision and not giving fans what they wanted at that point and Hawley splitting up the couple and creating S8 against fans wishes. As I said, Marlowe's vision had a purpose. I don't know what Hawley's vision was or did but it did not have a purpose. He wanted to do it, so he did and he disregarded everything other than his own desires.

I think that when someone creates a show, it's okay to follow their vision because the fans who start watching the show most likely know what they're watching. Marlowe never made a secret out of it being a love story, he also told fans that Beckett and Castle would get together. So, everyone who watched knew what they were in for. They knew there would most certainly be pay-off for the going along with the ups and downs. It may not have happened as quickly as some wanted, but it happened.

Hawley, on the other hand, took over a show that was created by someone else and I feel it was his responsibility to continue the story and not to create his own. So, I feel that his creation had limits and the limits were that he needed to operate within the boundaries set by the creator. Those who were watching Castle were watching it for a reason and that reason was the story Marlowe had created. If we had wanted to watch something else, then we would have watched something else, but we watched Marlowe's Castle and we didn't want to watch a re-invented Hawley version.

So, yes, it's about creativity and a writer/creator/showrunners should not let fans be the sole dictator of where the story goes. But the characters and the established should dictate where the story goes and I think when it does, then even the entitled fans are willing to go along for the ride and to stick around for the ride. In my opinion, that is where Hawley went wrong. He didn't respect characters and established story. If he had, I think S8 would have been a lot better and even the split could have worked. TPTB may not always take a story where we want it to go or where we imagine it would go. But as long as it makes sense, has a purpose and isn't just done to create drama, and it respects characters and established story, then I think fans are ultimately going to be fine and are willing to find out where the story goes. I think fans want TPTB to protect the integrity of character and story more than anything else. Hawley didn't.

 

 

8 hours ago, verdana said:

II'm fed up with showrunners and general hangers on moaning about the "entitled fans" costing them their jobs and making their poor lives a misery on twitter etc day in day out with their constant demands and complaints - I feel like yelling get a grip! You don't like it then find another job!  

Are there entitled fans, yes. Are they responsible for the loss of jobs, I don't think so. I think showrunners like Hawley are responsible themselves. As I said above, if you create a show from scratch then you create it after your own vision and fans watch it because it's what they want to watch. If you take over a show, you have to respect the creation. If you don't, fans get upset and that has nothing to do with entitlement but everything to do with not getting the show fans originally got and had signed up for. I feel that as a showrunner Hawley feels entitled to do whatever he wants, whether he takes over a creation or does a creation on his own. I think he's wrong. I think he's only allowed to do whatever he wants when it's his own creation.

[MrWhyt]

On 5/31/2016 at 11:40 AM, CheshireCat said:

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. se of the fans.

He was entitled to do whatever he pleased with the show, that was his job.

Quote

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.

if that someone else wanted their vision to remain pure and unaltered then they shouldn't worked in a collaborative medium like TV.

[Julia]

39 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

He was entitled to do whatever he pleased with the show, that was his job.

if that someone else wanted their vision to remain pure and unaltered then they shouldn't worked in a collaborative medium like TV.

But that's also true of Hawley, neh?

[CheshireCat]

3 hours ago, MrWhyt said:

He was entitled to do whatever he pleased with the show, that was his job.

I disagree. I'd say his job was to run a show and please the viewers (so that the ratings say up). He was, of course, free to do whatever he liked and ignore the "pleasing the viewers" part, however, he also has to live with the consequences of that attitude.

 

Quote

if that someone else wanted their vision to remain pure and unaltered then they shouldn't worked in a collaborative medium like TV.

Maybe. Though I'd say it's not so much about the medium but about respecting others/respecting colleagues. If I take over from someone, I'd consider it a given that I will act in their interest and respect their creation. Maybe Hawley thought he was respecting the creation. The interviews he gave sure made it sound like he was. But if he thought he was respecting it, then he didn't understand the creation.

Edited June 4, 2016 by CheshireCat

[MrWhyt]

3 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

I disagree. I'd say his job was to run a show and please the viewers (so that the ratings say up).

yes i left out the caveat that he is entitled to do what he pleases to the extent that viewers keep watching. But if he wants to change a show from a rom-com to a neo-noir PI show and the numbers remain good, then he can and should feel entitled to do so.

Quote

 But if he thought he was respecting it, then he didn't understand the creation.

or perhaps his understanding was different from yours.

[KaveDweller]

3 hours ago, MrWhyt said:

He was entitled to do whatever he pleased with the show, that was his job.

Well sure, but then he can't complain if whatever he pleases makes fans stop watching.

Running a TV show is a very hard job and a showrunner can't be sure if what they think is good will be what fans think is good. But I think anyone working in TV needs to go into it knowing that some people aren't going to like what they do. That doesn't mean pissed off fans can harass them, but it annoys me when writers act like fans that don't like something just aren't smart enough to understand their vision. Liking a TV show is subjective all opinions are valid. 

[McManda]

Quote

I disagree. I'd say his job was to run a show and please the viewers (so that the ratings say up). He was, of course, free to do whatever he liked and ignore the "pleasing the viewers" part, however, he also has to live with the consequences of that attitude.

I think he also has to remember that he only has a job so long as the viewers accept what he's feeding them. He might see that as entitled fans, but again, he's selling a product and if no one wants the version he's selling then ... that's still on him.

Would I have watched his version of season 9? Maybe. Probably, because my self control lacks and I'm a pushover. At least until something else caught my attention. Would it have been much watch TV that I sprinted home from work for? From what I heard of what he was planning, no. Would I have criticized the departure of season 9 from the show I fell in love with? Probably, but definitely without death threats. If that's entitlement ... then I guess I'm entitled.

I think the thing that bothers me the most is that he's lumping all the fans in the same group. Yes, some were probably entitled. They might have been among the most vocal. Most fans didn't fall into either of those groups. And for the record, he still didn't try to do anything about the fans he felt were entitled. There was no explanation for the decisions he made or why he felt like fans were playing the entitlement card. It comes off as catty, which is what I have the most problem with. Not to mention a little pot calling the kettle black, considering the show wasn't even his idea to begin with.

[CheshireCat]

2 hours ago, MrWhyt said:

yes i left out the caveat that he is entitled to do what he pleases to the extent that viewers keep watching. But if he wants to change a show from a rom-com to a neo-noir PI show and the numbers remain good, then he can and should feel entitled to do so.

Should he still feel entitled to do so though when he can be more or less sure that it's not going to please viewers?

Isn't he not only working in the interest of selling a product but also in the interest of raking in the numbers so that everyone on the show keeps their job? So, if he does something that he does because he wants to even though he's aware that it might lead to outrage and dropping in ratings which then may lead to cancellation, is he still entitled to do that? Doesn't that make him egoistic and self-centered?

2 hours ago, MrWhyt said:

or perhaps his understanding was different from yours.

Obviously it was different. However, since the majority of fans seems to agree that what he did was not what Marlowe started, I think it's safe to say he, at least, didn't understand what it was that made fans watch.

 

2 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

Well sure, but then he can't complain if whatever he pleases makes fans stop watching.

Running a TV show is a very hard job and a showrunner can't be sure if what they think is good will be what fans think is good. But I think anyone working in TV needs to go into it knowing that some people aren't going to like what they do. That doesn't mean pissed off fans can harass them, but it annoys me when writers act like fans that don't like something just aren't smart enough to understand their vision. Liking a TV show is subjective all opinions are valid. 

I agree with everything you said. I just think that someone like Hawley had the advantage of knowing what viewers liked and what they didn't. The show had run for 7 years before he took, one look at the ratings made it pretty obvious that the S6 finale wasn't that well-received and that the PI arc wasn't either. So, circling back to what I said above - did he have a right to still do it, considering all that failure might entail?

[MrWhyt]

1 minute ago, CheshireCat said:

Should he still feel entitled to do so though when he can be more or less sure that it's not going to please viewers?

sure, it's his job to make those decisions. I'm not arguing that he made the right decisions, just that they were his to make.

Quote

So, if he does something that he does because he wants to even though he's aware that it might lead to outrage and dropping in ratings which then may lead to cancellation, is he still entitled to do that?

Of course he is, he's the showrunner. Who knows, his changes might have increased the numbers. It's his job to make those decisions.

Quote

Doesn't that make him egoistic and self-centered?

it makes him someone doing his job. His job is to make the network money, he did that for 2 years. Then the network looked at the numbers and decided that they were going to try to make money another way. It happens, it's a business. People complaining about him not respecting the show or the creator's vision are ignoring the reality of the business that is show.

[Julia]

8 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

it makes him someone doing his job. His job is to make the network money, he did that for 2 years. Then the network looked at the numbers and decided that they were going to try to make money another way. It happens, it's a business. People complaining about him not respecting the show or the creator's vision are ignoring the reality of the business that is show.

No, they really aren't. His job was to make a show which delivered viewers to advertisers, and which didn't damage the popularity of the show enough to affect the marketability of the seasons already in syndication. It seems apparent that his performance in season 8 was enough of a failure on those counts that the network didn't feel that he could be successful at them in a season 9. He lost the viewers and he lost the network. He did his job poorly.

Edited June 4, 2016 by Julia

[McManda]

Quote

His job is to make the network money, he did that for 2 years.

No ... he was cancelled after 1 season as showrunner, so I'd say the network thought he lost them money for somewhere around 10 months. That means if his sole job was to make ABC money (which I'd debate) then he definitely failed.

[KaveDweller]

5 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

His job is to make the network money, he did that for 2 years. Then the network looked at the numbers and decided that they were going to try to make money another way. It happens, it's a business. People complaining about him not respecting the show or the creator's vision are ignoring the reality of the business that is show.

Hawley was only showrunner on Castle for one year.

I've never said that he wasn't respecting the show or Marlowe. He needs to write a show that they need to produce with a certain budget and other constraints, and will still make money. But the way to make money is to make viewers want to watch, and he clearly failed in that regard. I'm sure he was trying to make viewers happy though. 

My only issue is when writers (and I don't specifically mean Hawley) complain about fans not liking what they wrote, or lump all fans into one category. 

[CheshireCat]

26 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

sure, it's his job to make those decisions. I'm not arguing that he made the right decisions, just that they were his to make.

Of course he is, he's the showrunner. Who knows, his changes might have increased the numbers. It's his job to make those decisions.

Okay, yes, he had a right to make those decisions but did he have a right to make the decisions he made with the information he was privy to? In other words, the information he was privy was telling him that more likely than not, viewers would not like what he was doing and numbers would drop which experience should have told him might result in cancellation. Knowing that, wasn't he actually truly putting everyone's job on the line when he made the decisions he made? It's not like it was a new show and it's not like there was no reference. They had a PI arc in S7, that was what had the worst numbers all season long. He had the information, he had reference numbers. He was playing with fire. He got burned. And it feels as if he's now blaming the fans because he chose to do something he had proof wouldn't be well-liked.

[chraume]

5 hours ago, CheshireCat said:

Okay, yes, he had a right to make those decisions but did he have a right to make the decisions he made with the information he was privy to? In other words, the information he was privy was telling him that more likely than not, viewers would not like what he was doing and numbers would drop which experience should have told him might result in cancellation. Knowing that, wasn't he actually truly putting everyone's job on the line when he made the decisions he made? It's not like it was a new show and it's not like there was no reference. They had a PI arc in S7, that was what had the worst numbers all season long. He had the information, he had reference numbers. He was playing with fire. He got burned. And it feels as if he's now blaming the fans because he chose to do something he had proof wouldn't be well-liked.

Castle, PI didn't have the lowest ratings all season, actually. The show fell for 7x11 to a series-low (1.3) at the time, but it always fell after returning from the winter finale. The rest of the arc stuck at what became the series normal -- 1.5 for 7x12 and 1.4 for 7x13, which is, incidentally, above or at what everything 7x17-7x23 had, too. The only real lesson I can learn from S7 ratings is that people were into the 6x23 cliffhanger but really, really didn't like the answer to it, and everything else is just normal ratings. 

I'm not saying that Hawley & Winter were successful, by any means. But they took a risk on something that maybe could've ended up being a ratings boost, and failed. They certainly didn't have proof that the concept (such as Castle, PI) wouldn't be well-liked based on ratings; if I wanted to point at them knowing the separation wouldn't be well-liked, I'd point to the comments Hawley made when TVLine released the blind item last July instead, where he explicitly states it. That said, I genuinely believe that if the separation and LokSat had been well-written, people overall would have been fine with it once the entire story had been told... but it wasn't. 

[break21]

The show lasted 8 years - basically a modern miracle.  I think it was almost inevitable it fell apart at the end.  When a show goes that long, too many writer's changes, producers changed, leads spent too much time together.  I think it's incredible if a show gets 3 years, Castle got 8.

[break21]

I'll also add - the trend in terms of drama, is a short series with a beginning and an end.  These Shonda shows, Once Upon a Time, Empire are going to be rare.  It's going to be short shows with an end date.

[zxy556575]

From Hawley's perspective (skewed and one-sided, as many of us are about ourselves), it may be that he felt he had a tentative go-ahead from ABC for the abbreviated season 9. They re-signed some cast members and shot a promo. Then the fan uproar happened and ABC figured it wasn't worth the hassle. Hawley drew a straight causal line between those two events and "blamed" fans for the show not going forward. Of course, ABC could have changed its mind anyway, but I can understand -- though I don't agree with -- his conclusion that it was selfish, entitled fans who cost everyone their jobs.

[CheshireCat]

8 hours ago, break21 said:

The show lasted 8 years - basically a modern miracle.  I think it was almost inevitable it fell apart at the end.  When a show goes that long, too many writer's changes, producers changed, leads spent too much time together.  I think it's incredible if a show gets 3 years, Castle got 8.

The TV shows currently on the air would beg to differ.

 

15 hours ago, chraume said:

Castle, PI didn't have the lowest ratings all season, actually. The show fell for 7x11 to a series-low (1.3) at the time, but it always fell after returning from the winter finale. The rest of the arc stuck at what became the series normal -- 1.5 for 7x12 and 1.4 for 7x13, which is, incidentally, above or at what everything 7x17-7x23 had, too. The only real lesson I can learn from S7 ratings is that people were into the 6x23 cliffhanger but really, really didn't like the answer to it, and everything else is just normal ratings. 

I always use overall viewers as a reference. I know networks put an emphasis on demo numbers but I think that especially when it comes to trying to figure out how a story arc is received you have to look at the overall numbers because I think they reflect the general reception more accurately than the demo numbers.

[WendyCR72]

10 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

I always use overall viewers as a reference. I know networks put an emphasis on demo numbers but I think that especially when it comes to trying to figure out how a story arc is received you have to look at the overall numbers because I think they reflect the general reception more accurately than the demo numbers.

Alas, though, if you want to think like a network suit, overall means jack. It's ALL about the coveted 18-49. And that was horrible for this show at the end.

[break21]

The trend for dramas is a beginning and an end - 3 years at the most.   Again, it amazes me , given all the problems which will come up if you have a long-running show, Castle got 8 years.  I'm amazed it lasted that long.

[break21]

I'll add - you throw 2 people into a pressure-cooker working 12-16 hour days and some people are amazed it imploded?  I'm amazed it lasted that long.

[chraume]

43 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

I always use overall viewers as a reference. I know networks put an emphasis on demo numbers but I think that especially when it comes to trying to figure out how a story arc is received you have to look at the overall numbers because I think they reflect the general reception more accurately than the demo numbers.

Fair enough. I do think they'd be looking at the demo, though, and I still maintain that it's unfair to rate those episodes even based on live viewers because a) 7x11 had by far the lowest audience, and I wouldn't assume that it would because of the P.I. arc because, by and large, general audience won't know that arc is coming, and b) the range of that arc (the first three eps after the winter break) always has some of, if not the, smallest audiences of the season, and has since season 5. Presumably because of the break and because of The Bachelor as a lead-in, which was traditionally weaker for the audience. I'm not saying that they didn't know the P.I. stuff would be poorly received, just that there's no way the network or the showrunners knew it would be based on those numbers. By that reasoning, the D.C. arc was beloved and people didn't check out Veritas because they didn't like the promo for that storyline.

Again, 100% not saying that the showrunners need to be let off the hook, or that they weren't entitled in some ways. Just that you can't blame them for knowing something would be poorly received based on raw numbers from the season before. I didn't love the idea of a separation or of a repeat of the P.I. arc, and the execution absolutely didn't sell it for me. But with better writers, who knows? Maybe they could have. 

Edited June 5, 2016 by chraume

[CheshireCat]

33 minutes ago, chraume said:

Fair enough. I still maintain that it's unfair to rate those episodes based on live viewers because a) 7x11 had by far the lowest audience, and you can't assume that it would because of the P.I. arc because, by and large, general audience won't know that arc is coming, and b) the range of that arc (the first three eps after the winter break) always has some of, if not the, smallest audiences of the season, and has since season 5. ...

Again, 100% not saying that the showrunners need to be let off the hook, or that they weren't entitled in some ways. Just that you can't blame them for knowing something would be poorly received based on raw numbers from the season before.

Cut some stuff for length...

Fair enough about returning from the winter break. However, they did leave it at a sort of cliffhanger with Castle not being able to return to the precinct at the end of 7x10. Also, 7x12 had a raise in viewers (could be due to appealing promotions?) and then viewers dropped again for 7x13, weren't brilliant for 7x14 (often times the episode after a not-well-received one it low, too), spiked for 7x15, dropped again for 7x16 then steadied after that. So, I think that that paired with comments did give an indication of how a storyline is received.

I don't think it would have been too hard to figure out that a Castle-Beckett separation of any kind wouldn't be liked. As a matter of fact, it was suggested that TPTB were prepared for the fallout the separation would cause and were willing to risk it. So, either Hawley didn't include himself in TPTB or they were just saying it but didn't think it was going to happen or they were saying it but weren't prepared for that bad a fallout. Either way, they went there, the fallout happened, the show got cancelled. As I said before, they played with fire, they got burned. And I'd say a lot of signs point to them knowing the risks of playing with that fire before they started playing.

 

52 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Alas, though, if you want to think like a network suit, overall means jack. It's ALL about the coveted 18-49. And that was horrible for this show at the end.

I was thinking more in terms of when I, as a writer, want to know how something is received... ;-) I think the demo number is a different story - yes, it's important to the networks and yes, as a writer I need to look at that if I want to speculate about how the show is doing overall. But if a general audience doesn't like a story arc I think I can expect the demo to drop in the long-run, too.

 

51 minutes ago, break21 said:

The trend for dramas is a beginning and an end - 3 years at the most.  

I have to admit, I'm a bit confused about where you get your reference from. I don't know of one single show which currently has a three-year-arc and out of the +/-14 shows I watch, 3 were renewed for a second season, one will likely get cancelled after S2, one will likely continue on to S3, one could go either way. That leaves 11 shows and only one out of those was just renewed for S3. The show in question is NCIS New Orleans and I would assume it would go into S4 but, of course you never know. Either way, that means 10 shows are on either S4 or beyond, and the only Shonda show included is The Catch. So, if I include Grey's Anatomny and Scandal, and three more on CBS that I know of but don't watch you can add five more to the having run for 4+ seasons already. And I'm sure there are more out there.

As I said, I'm just a bit confused where you get that 3-season-arc idea from since it seems the majority of shows currently out there are in S4 and beyond.

Edited June 5, 2016 by CheshireCat

[WendyCR72]

I think networks like long-running shows for the money - even if some should end. I mean, original-recipe CSI ran for 15 seasons, original-recipe Law & Order for 20, and the L&O offshoots, two of the successful ones, anyway, one of those two is still running going into S18 for SVU and CI had 10 seasons.

Ditto shows like ER, which also lasted 15 seasons, Cheers had 11, Friends had 10, and Frasier (spun off with a Cheers character), I think, also had 11 years.

And all of these shows had peaks and valleys but were great successes. And with success comes revenue. And, I think, that is the main goal, for good or bad, not stopping early to maintain "artistic integrity" or whatever.

[chraume]

29 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

Cut some stuff for length...

Fair enough about returning from the winter break. However, they did leave it at a sort of cliffhanger with Castle not being able to return to the precinct at the end of 7x10. Also, 7x12 had a raise in viewers (could be due to appealing promotions?) and then viewers dropped again for 7x13, weren't brilliant for 7x14 (often times the episode after a not-well-received one it low, too), spiked for 7x15, dropped again for 7x16 then steadied after that. So, I think that that paired with comments did give an indication of how a storyline is received.

I don't think it would have been too hard to figure out that a Castle-Beckett separation of any kind wouldn't be liked. As a matter of fact, it was suggested that TPTB were prepared for the fallout the separation would cause and were willing to risk it. So, either Hawley didn't include himself in TPTB or they were just saying it but didn't think it was going to happen or they were saying it but weren't prepared for that bad a fallout. Either way, they went there, the fallout happened, the show got cancelled. As I said before, they played with fire, they got burned. And I'd say a lot of signs point to them knowing the risks of playing with that fire before they started playing.

Haha, I feel like we might just have to agree to disagree on the numbers. Ratings rose both in demo and audience between 7x13 and 7x14, 7x15 was the resolution to a two-parter, and everything after 7x16 had DWTS as a lead-in. Online comments I would overwhelmingly agree were reasonably negative, but I'm still not buying it for raw numbers. 

I also genuinely agree that any Caskett separation wouldn't be liked, least of all by a very vocal online community. I'm not sure that they had a ton of options, given the two-days-a-week thing, but I do wish that the focus had remained on the precinct instead of the P.I. stuff. In fact, I would've killed for the S8 P.I. arc to be in any way similar to its S7 counterpart, which at least was still really focused on both characters and their relationship. That said, I do totally agree -- they knew they were taking a risk. I'm not sure that that risk guaranteed a ratings drop given the evidence they had at hand, but it for sure could've gone either way and, unfortunately for them, it went to cancellation.

I dunno, I'm always stuck on the Grey's thing; killing Derek off was a HUGE risk, but good writing meant that the ratings went up instead of, as everyone predicted, down. A well-written separation could've honestly brought back viewers looking to see how it invigorated or renewed or in any way improved the relationship and the storyline, but instead it was terrible. And they for sure got burned. 

Edited June 5, 2016 by chraume

[westwingfan]

7 minutes ago, chraume said:

 

I also genuinely agree that any Caskett separation wouldn't be liked, least of all by a very vocal online community. I'm not sure that they had a ton of options, given the two-days-a-week thing, but I do wish that the focus had remained on the precinct instead of the P.I. stuff. In fact, I would've killed for the S8 P.I. arc to be in any way similar to its S7 counterpart, which at least was still really focused on both characters. That said, I do totally agree -- they knew they were taking a risk. I'm not sure that that risk guaranteed a ratings drop given the evidence they had at hand, but it for sure could've gone either way and, unfortunately for them, it went to cancellation. I dunno, I'm always stuck on the Grey's thing; killing Derek off was a HUGE risk, but good writing meant that the ratings went up instead of, as everyone predicted, down. A well-written separation could've honestly brought back viewers looking to see how it invigorated or renewed or in any way improved the relationship and the storyline, but instead it was terrible. And they for sure got burned. 

Hawley claimed that the separation storyline re-invigorated the writers room as it returned them to the WTWT days. I didn't see it that way as so much was off about the way the story was told. Making Beckett walk out on her marriage to keep Castle safe after all their talk leading up to Veritas about how they were stronger together just seemed too much of a regression of her character for something that didn't measure up as much as her mother's case, and then having Castle think it was something he done so he told everyone that he would "win her back" and not being able to connect the dots that the events of the two-parter was the catalyst for her behaviour just made him look stupid. If the showrunners felt that the only way they could deal with the limited shared filming time of their two leads was to break them up it might have made more sense if it had been Castle who had told Beckett they should take a time out after the conversation they had in his office at the end of "XX" when she admitted she had been keeping secrets again and he told her she liked being broken. Then it would have been Beckett having to decide what she wanted and convincing Castle that she wasn't falling back into her old ways, and they should have made the Loksat story far more prominent so that we could see the threat that they faced building up through the season, instead of a few lines of dialogue every few episodes. We saw how evil Bracken was and how potent his minions were long before Veritas, Caleb Brown and Mason Wood were never revealed as being that threatening until the very end, presumably to keep the suspense going, but I just think it was a big let down when we found out they were at the heart of Loksat, and the pay off was a damp squid that didn't make up for what had gone before.

[CheshireCat]

41 minutes ago, chraume said:

 

I also genuinely agree that any Caskett separation wouldn't be liked, least of all by a very vocal online community. I'm not sure that they had a ton of options, given the two-days-a-week thing, but I do wish that the focus had remained on the precinct instead of the P.I. stuff. In fact, I would've killed for the S8 P.I. arc to be in any way similar to its S7 counterpart, which at least was still really focused on both characters and their relationship. That said, I do totally agree -- they knew they were taking a risk. I'm not sure that that risk guaranteed a ratings drop given the evidence they had at hand, but it for sure could've gone either way and, unfortunately for them, it went to cancellation.

Guarantee - no. There's probably only one guarantee in life and I almost want to say even fewer in show business ;-) Very likely - I'm inclinded to say yes to that. At the very least expected.

41 minutes ago, chraume said:

I dunno, I'm always stuck on the Grey's thing; killing Derek off was a HUGE risk, but good writing meant that the ratings went up instead of, as everyone predicted, down. A well-written separation could've honestly brought back viewers looking to see how it invigorated or renewed or in any way improved the relationship and the storyline, but instead it was terrible. And they for sure got burned. 

I agree that the writing played a huge part and that it could have been great with good writing. Instead of Hayley, they could have had nice Castle-Alexis scenes, with Martha thrown in like they had in the first few seasons, they could have built up Alexis and Beckett's relationship, they could have built on Alexis' and Laney's, Beckett's and Laney's, Beckett's and Martha's, Jim's and Castle's. It's not like they didn't have people to pair Castle and Beckett with if the two-days-a-week-thing is true. Even with the split conversations between all the characters could have worked and could have given us great insight into the character's minds. It's what they've used it for before, so that they could focus on the case but still not neglect the side story. And later episodes were decent, even with little Beckett and Castle togetherness, so it was possible. If they had done that, thrown in a few family scenes, then they probably could have done a decent job of covering up the lack of Castle/Beckett scenes because we'd have had family and we would have gotten advancement of family stories still related to their marriage.

But that, again, would go back to being Hawley's mistake, wouldn't it? I think if it had been a true arc and there had been a Castle-Beckett journey like there was in S1-6 (starting point with episode one of the season and ending point with the final episode) and a purpose to all that they did (with a few fun/light episodes in between), then it could have been great. So, I guess, an argument could be made that this, too, shows that Hawley didn't exactly understand what made Castle great as a show. And now he seems to be blaming the fans for his negligence.

[westwingfan]

7 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

Guarantee - no. There's probably only one guarantee in life and I almost want to say even fewer in show business ;-) Very likely - I'm inclinded to say yes to that. At the very least expected.

I agree that the writing played a huge part and that it could have been great with good writing. Instead of Hayley, they could have had nice Castle-Alexis scenes, with Martha thrown in like they had in the first few seasons, they could have built up Alexis and Beckett's relationship, they could have built on Alexis' and Laney's, Beckett's and Laney's, Beckett's and Martha's, Jim's and Castle's. It's not like they didn't have people to pair Castle and Beckett with if the two-days-a-week-thing is true. Even with the split conversations between all the characters could have worked and could have given us great insight into the character's minds. It's what they've used it for before, so that they could focus on the case but still not neglect the side story. And later episodes were decent, even with little Beckett and Castle togetherness, so it was possible. If they had done that, thrown in a few family scenes, then they probably could have done a decent job of covering up the lack of Castle/Beckett scenes because we'd have had family and we would have gotten advancement of family stories still related to their marriage.

But that, again, would go back to being Hawley's mistake, wouldn't it? I think if it had been a true arc and there had been a Castle-Beckett journey like there was in S1-6 (starting point with episode one of the season and ending point with the final episode) and a purpose to all that they did (with a few fun/light episodes in between), then it could have been great. So, I guess, an argument could be made that this, too, shows that Hawley didn't exactly understand what made Castle great as a show. And now he seems to be blaming the fans for his negligence.

I think you'll find it was two days per episode, not two days per week, as someone posted a table on twitter showing their shared screen time, and it averaged out at less than 10 mins per episode, and as most episodes took eight days to shoot that works out at about 5 mins per day for a 42 min episode.

And the potential to utilise the existing cast to make up for the lack of Caskett shared screen time was always there, even if it would have been a bit belated to draw on that in S8, but people might have been far more invested in seeing Alexis and Beckett build on their tentative relationship we'd seen in earlier seasons instead of Alexis running around as this super sleuth with her new found BFF, who the showrunners kept telling us was so fantastic and a voice that the show needed.

[chraume]

5 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

But that, again, would go back to being Hawley's mistake, wouldn't it? I think if it had been a true arc and there had been a Castle-Beckett journey like there was in S1-6 (starting point with episode one of the season and ending point with the final episode) and a purpose to all that they did (with a few fun/light episodes in between), then it could have been great. So, I guess, an argument could be made that this, too, shows that Hawley didn't exactly understand what made Castle great as a show. And now he seems to be blaming the fans for his negligence.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they're not at fault. My comment was only directed at the fact that Hawley did have the right to make the decisions with the information he was privy to, because he didn't have proof (in the ratings) that it would be poorly received and cancellation would ensue. I absolutely think that Hayley was ill-conceived, that the show focused on weird things (why is Castle running off with the helper-of-the-week and/or getting kidnapped?) The separation could have been excellent and highlighted actual problems in their relationship, instead of creating new ones. LokSat could have had a real story with good build-up, actual stakes, and a proper conclusion. 

I mean, I think the actual argument in the entitlement article (well, in the second one he retweeted, which is infinitely better imo but, as I think the writer of the original has a fundamental misunderstanding of fandom, I'm biased) is that fans shouldn't dictate storylines. The problem is that real criticism gets lost in the shuffle when everyone's lumped together, so I absolutely disagree, but I can see where, as a showrunner, it would be frustrating to have everyone dictate the storyline (don't kill off Derek, for example) without seeing how the storyline plays out (but wait! If we do kill him off, the show will be 75% better!). But yeah, as much as I'm sure that Hawley and Winter are verrrrry aware that their execution was terrible, retweeting the articles in context of them cancelling interviews for after the finale does give off very blame-the-fans vibes. 

4 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

I think you'll find it was two days per episode, not two days per week, as someone posted a table on twitter showing their shared screen time, and it averaged out at less than 10 mins per episode, and as most episodes took eight days to shoot that works out at about 5 mins per day for a 42 min episode.

You're probably right. I'm only going off the Deadline article that confirms it, but I think two days/week would still work out to about two per episode, right? Unless you got lucky and the ep started filming on a Monday. But. I do think that, whatever the stipulation was, that's what killed the show more than even the writers. Good writers could've dealt with it well, but we still would have noticed and it still created just the worst challenge possible for a show that really relied on the dynamic of those two characters. Ah, well. It doesn't matter now. 

[CheshireCat]

53 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

I think you'll find it was two days per episode, not two days per week, as someone posted a table on twitter showing their shared screen time, and it averaged out at less than 10 mins per episode, and as most episodes took eight days to shoot that works out at about 5 mins per day for a 42 min episode.

Actually, until someone from the show who had access to contract contents confirms it, I'll take it as speculation because contract negotiations are still private and several things could lead to the assumption that it was part of a contract :-)

 

Quote

And the potential to utilise the existing cast to make up for the lack of Caskett shared screen time was always there,

Sure it was always there and it should already have been explored in S7. But if S8 really had restrictions, then S8 would have really needed it as a way out/around those restrictions.

 

44 minutes ago, chraume said:

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they're not at fault.

I didn't think you were. I was just saying that this could be seen as another sign that it wasn't the fans' fault, whether they're entitled or not.

I think it would go a long way if Hawley actually came out of the hole he's hiding in and posting links about "entitled fans" from and said something on the matter. Because he might not actually blame the fans and there might be a totally different story behind it all but until he says so, there are some things which suggest that he does.

 

Quote

My comment was only directed at the fact that Hawley did have the right to make the decisions with the information he was privy to, because he didn't have proof (in the ratings) that it would be poorly received and cancellation would ensue.

Proof, no. But with the numbers he was seeing, the comments someone could tell him about, the general mood of fans, the years he worked on Castle before, and the experience he has in the business, shouldn't he have been able to conclude that his plan was more likely to add up to failure rather than success? Maybe not failure as in cancellation but failure as in taking a big hit?!

 

Quote

 

I mean, I think the actual argument in the entitlement article (well, in the second one he retweeted, which is infinitely better imo but, as I think the writer of the original has a fundamental misunderstanding of fandom, I'm biased) is that fans shouldn't dictate storylines. The problem is that real criticism gets lost in the shuffle when everyone's lumped together, so I absolutely disagree, but I can see where, as a showrunner, it would be frustrating to have everyone dictate the storyline (don't kill off Derek, for example) without seeing how the storyline plays out (but wait! If we do kill him off, the show will be 75% better!).

As I've said before, I agree. Fans shouldn't dictate a story, the characters and later, the established story should and I think that if that happens, then the fans will still watch because characters and story are respected and I think that is what is important.

And I think S8 is an excellent case in point. So, so many people have said that they didn't mind the separation per se. They minded how it was done because it made no sense in regards to where the characters and the story were at that point. That is what killed it for most, not the actual separation.

Sure, I wouldn't have liked a separation one way or another and would have thought that it's the laziest way to create conflict (because a story needs conflict). But I also think that there would have been a way to really advance the story of Castle and Beckett and the relationship between them and the family (and not just talk about it) with the separation.

Edited June 6, 2016 by CheshireCat

[KaveDweller]

To give the writers some credit, one of the many tabloid articles about the whole mess did say that ABC was the one who told Hawley and Winter to do a break up storyline to test the waters for a Beckett-less S9. And the PI storyline was obviously part of that is well. So if all that's true than Hawley and Winter were just grunts being forced to do annoying things their bosses want like most people. In which case I blame ABC for thinking that was a good idea, and not just deciding to announce a S8 final season that could have been really great. I know it's about money over art, but crappy art doesn't make money. I wish at ABC considered that.

But that still doesn't explain the terrible continuity and characterization in season 8.  And if all that is true, Halwey should be pissed at ABC and not the fans.

[CheshireCat]

1 minute ago, KaveDweller said:

To give the writers some credit, one of the many tabloid articles about the whole mess did say that ABC was the one who told Hawley and Winter to do a break up storyline to test the waters for a Beckett-less S9. And the PI storyline was obviously part of that is well. So if all that's true than Hawley and Winter were just grunts being forced to do annoying things their bosses want like most people. In which case I blame ABC for thinking that was a good idea, and not just deciding to announce a S8 final season that could have been really great. I know it's about money over art, but crappy art doesn't make money. I wish at ABC considered that.

I wouldn't rule that out or find it unlikely that ABC was behind it all. After all, what Katic said in an interview before the season started and the reason she gave for re-signing for S8 sounded very different than what S8 then turned out to be. So, that the overall story was dictated by ABC could be a possibilit especially since Lee was the one who was going on about a possible spin-off. And maybe that is why Hawley is upset and in hiding because ABC made him do it and he knew it wouldn't work. But that is also why I think hiding is the wrong thing to do. Sure, he can't say that it's ABC's fault but I'm sure he can find words which say as much without actually saying so. All we have right now is someone who came across as totally enthusiastic at the beginning of the season about what they did, someone who was talking about it and not showing us, someone who couldn't be bothered to even put out an official statement after it was announced that one of the two leads was let go and who cancelled all interviews after the cancellation announcement and then put out a link about "entitled fans". ... So, what are we supposed to think?

1 minute ago, KaveDweller said:

But that still doesn't explain the terrible continuity and characterization in season 8.  And if all that is true, Halwey should be pissed at ABC and not the fans.

Well, S8 could be explained with "they weren't able to do better". The episodes Hawley and Winter wrote were great but they wrote them for someone, they were given directions and maybe they just didn't have that perception they needed to actually take over a story like that and do it justice. Who knows.

But if ABC was behind it then that makes me wonder if maybe Marlowe wasn't willing to go there and Hawley/Winter were.

Whatever it was, I think the longer Hawley stays silent, the worse the light he gets painted in.

[KaveDweller]

4 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

Well, S8 could be explained with "they weren't able to do better". The episodes Hawley and Winter wrote were great but they wrote them for someone, they were given directions and maybe they just didn't have that perception they needed to actually take over a story like that and do it justice. Who knows.

But if ABC was behind it then that makes me wonder if maybe Marlowe wasn't willing to go there and Hawley/Winter were.

I'm talking about the little things though. For example in the anniversary episode, Caskett has sex and then Beckett says she has to leave. While changing she gets a text and Castle sees it. But she was already on her way out. At the beginning of the next episode Castle tells Hayley that Beckett left the night before because someone texted her. It's like the person writing that second episode didn't even see or read the scene from the one before it. There was lots of little stuff like that.

ABC interference could explain Marlowe leaving, but he also seemed pretty shocked when they announced Stana wasn't returning. So, who knows. I just hope someone writes a tell all book someday.

[WendyCR72]

25 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

Whatever it was, I think the longer Hawley stays silent, the worse the light he gets painted in.

Except people want to work. So even if he could infer the cause, I doubt he would, if he ever hopes to be hired again. Those in charge won't likely hire someone that badmouths their former employers, etc.

Which is why I think staying silent is one of the few smart things Hawley has done. There's no point in talking about the whys anymore, anyway, since what's done is done and the show is over. Maybe someone will write a book someday.

But lying low and off the radar is better from an employment/job aspect, IMO, even if I get the fans wished otherwise for their own reasons.

[KaveDweller]

4 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Except people want to work. So even if he could infer the cause, I doubt he would, if he ever hopes to be hired again. Those in charge won't likely hire someone that badmouths their former employers, etc.

Which is why I think staying silent is one of the few smart things Hawley has done. There's no point in talking about the whys anymore, anyway, since what's done is done and the show is over. Maybe someone will write a book someday.

But lying low and off the radar is better from an employment/job aspect, IMO, even if I get the fans wished otherwise for their own reasons.

I agree that he can't badmouth his former employers, or even the actors. But he could have said something, even if it's generic. He and Winter cancelled interviews they were supposed to do after the finale. They still could have done that and just said they were sorry it was cancelled, they didn't want Stana to leave, but were trying to make the best of it, etc. Or even just sent out a tweet about being grateful for the experience or something. But maybe he thought that was opening a can of worms or something.

[McManda]

Quote

But lying low and off the radar is better from an employment/job aspect, IMO, even if I get the fans wished otherwise for their own reasons.

But the problem is he didn't go completely off grid, which I would understand. He reappeared to presumably point fingers at the entitled fans for costing him the show and everyone's jobs. Sorry, but that's petty. Notice how TPW's name isn't drawn into this ... he went silent after the finale and presumably stayed silent.

[oberon55]

Part of being in charge is doing the hard interviews. I have watched head coaches stand in front of reporters after horrendous losses & be torn to shreds on live TV. It's part of wearing the bosses hat. They should have manned up & gave the standard "I appreciate everybody that worked on the show & I'm thankful for the time I got" speech & went on down road instead of backhandedly blaming the fans for their own shortcomings.