Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[CheshireCat]

1 hour ago, McManda said:

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.

I feel that Hawley has been a lot more present than Winter anyway. Usually, it was Hawley who was doing the interviews, rarely the two of them together. I don't even know if there was one only Winter did.

 

1 hour 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.

 

KaveDweller already said it but I didn't mean he was supposed to badmouth anyone. Just say something. I understand that he can't say it was ABC's fault or anything among those lines. But there has been absolutely nothing at all except for a tweet about that link and that comes across as he's sulking and blaming the fans. Whether he is or not, we have no way of knowing. But there have been others before him who weren't able to speak but were able to say things which could be seen as harmless but you could also read between the lines. He's not new to the business, I'm sure he knows what he could or couldn't say.

[WendyCR72]

I hate defending TIIC in any way, so curses to all of you!  :-P

But let's face it, no one would likely believe anything Winter and/or Hawley would say. It would only be grist for the Twitter mill and/or FB. Not saying they haven't earned some anger. They have. In spades. But I also get the mindset of "if you can't say something nice" and pulling a Thumper lest one be accused of insincerity at best and being an arrogant asshole at worst.

So I sort of get the radio silence here, even if perhaps someone should have said something perfunctory.

[Julia]

17 hours ago, lordonia said:

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.

But, as I understand it, the cast were resigned by the studio, not the network. I think they just assumed that Fillion was the breakout star and what was essentially a new show with him in it is something the network would want to buy in place of Castle. They were just wrong.

9 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

So I sort of get the radio silence here, even if perhaps someone should have said something perfunctory.

I would have gotten the radio silence. The passive-aggressive shots not so much.

[CheshireCat]

16 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

 

But let's face it, no one would likely believe anything Winter and/or Hawley would say.

I would ... Most likely, at least. I mean, if it sounds totally ridiculous and contradicts everything else, then I probably would have my doubts. But I doubt that that would happen.

 

19 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

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.

Well, that's probably not "we can't do better" but we don't care. There were one or two interviews in which they said that S9 would be more procedural, and it seems like they would have liked that for S8, too. Why they didn't do it, I don't know but you definitely don't need to pay such close attention to details in a procedural. They only matter when it's serialized because you then carry things over. I guess, it's not everyone's cup of tea and I'd say, TPTB didn't want to make the effort.

 

19 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

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.

ABC could have simply asked Marlowe to separate the couple as to create drama because the ABC execs thought they needed that drama to get the ratings back up and Marlowe didn't want to. I know that MilMar have other projects that they work on but I still find it odd that they left Castle so completely. And did they ever say they left because they wanted to concentrate on their other projects? Somehow, S7 felt disconnected from the rest and not entirely part of the story. They told stories differently before then. Could be because they had run out of ideas. Could be because they couldn't do what they wanted to do because the network said no. It just feels like Marlowe had more story to tell but didn't.

[femmefan1946]

On 2016-06-05 at 5:58 PM, 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 ... test the waters for a Beckett-less S9. And the PI storyline was obviously part of that is well. ... 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.  (greatly edited FF46)

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.

What really annoys me-- and I am very much a Nathan Fillion fan-- heck, I just got a DVD of Water's Edge through eBay in the mail today-- is the nasty innuendo about 'bullying' that seems to have started with one anonymous post, then repeated and repeated and repeated. Even though NF has a reputation as being a very nice person, even keeping ex-girlfriends in his social circle, and even though Stana Katic's people have denied the story.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were frictions, just having one person trained in  soap opera and another with a more academic background would lead to frictions, but most of the Season 7 gossip about contracts seemed to be a question of whether SK was even interested in returning.  And whether that was personal (marriage plans) or professional ( movie contracts) or if the stress from  longer enjoying working with NF became too much may have to wait for an autobiography.

[WendyCR72]

This isn't about Castle, specifically, but it relates. It's sort of ironic, all the talk about Bones and Castle over time as they were similar shows. Now it looks like the upcoming DVD covers for their respective ending seasons are following suit! (Minus the hands on the chins for the Castle cover.)

Here's the artwork for Castle Season 8.

And here is the just-released artwork for Bones Season 11.

I guess extremely up-close head shots are the "in" thing!

[Jaded]

It's probably cheaper and easier to put giant up-close head shots on the front instead of trying to think of something more intricate.

[KaveDweller]

I think those pictures of Stana and Nathan are from season 3. With rings (that don't look like what they actually wore) photoshoped on.

They really just stopped trying.

[WendyCR72]

3 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

I think those pictures of Stana and Nathan are from season 3. With rings (that don't look like what they actually wore) photoshoped on.

They really just stopped trying.

Was SK's hair that long by S3, though?

[KaveDweller]

2 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Was SK's hair that long by S3, though?

Not at the beginning of S3, but by the midpoint it had gotten really long.

I would have guessed S4, but I think that is when it started getting lighter.  It was still pretty dark in S3. But maybe they adjusted the color in the photo.

[S55]

7 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

Not at the beginning of S3, but by the midpoint it had gotten really long.

I would have guessed S4, but I think that is when it started getting lighter.  It was still pretty dark in S3. But maybe they adjusted the color in the photo.

Yeah that DVD cover is from the season 3 TV Guide photoshoot with some photoshop (Nathan's arm and the rings). 

[BlakesMomma]

On June 9, 2016 at 6:51 PM, WendyCR72 said:

This isn't about Castle, specifically, but it relates. It's sort of ironic, all the talk about Bones and Castle over time as they were similar shows. Now it looks like the upcoming DVD covers for their respective ending seasons are following suit! (Minus the hands on the chins for the Castle cover.)

Here's the artwork for Castle Season 8.

And here is the just-released artwork for Bones Season 11.

I guess extremely up-close head shots are the "in" thing!

For some reason, the Bones cover has a creepy look to me. LOL  For some reason vampires came to mind.  Not sure if it's the weird coloring or what.

[WendyCR72]

8 minutes ago, BlakesMomma said:

For some reason, the Bones cover has a creepy look to me. LOL  For some reason vampires came to mind.  Not sure if it's the weird coloring or what.

Well, David Boreanaz did play a vampire on his previous series, Angel...

[verdana]

David does look kind of creepy looking I grant you but I find the Castle cover laughable, it should be pulled for misrepresenting the product they're selling, the two of them were hardly ever together to its amusing to see them cosying up on the cover.

[westwingfan]

3 hours ago, verdana said:

David does look kind of creepy looking I grant you but I find the Castle cover laughable, it should be pulled for misrepresenting the product they're selling, the two of them were hardly ever together to its amusing to see them cosying up on the cover.

In the comments to the various articles reporting first Stana's departure, and then the show's cancellation I've seen some people making the irritating comment that "Well the show is called Castle" to justify their claim that nothing much else mattered, even Molly tweeted "Nathan IS Castle", and yet ALL of the DVD covers have featured Beckett with as much prominence, thus giving a reasonable idea to anyone wondering what the show was about to expect the pair of them to feature as equals, as described by the creator.

[Julia]

Marlowe was always a bit smug about knocking off Bones. I would think it would be hard to resist taking just a little poke at him. Granted, when Bones got rid of the showrunners who liked jossing the fans, the show turned around...

[McManda]

Quote

and yet ALL of the DVD covers have featured Beckett with as much prominence, thus giving a reasonable idea to anyone wondering what the show was about to expect the pair of them to feature as equals, as described by the creator.

Castle (the show) was always about Castle and Beckett together. Or, maybe in a stretch, it was about Castle's fascination with Beckett. I hated the argument that it was called Castle and as such, Castle was the only one that mattered.

Ironically, take a look at the spines of the DVD covers. They say "Castle" but the photo is of Beckett and not say, Castle or something more generic.

[madmaverick]

   Catching up on the thread.  Nice to see that the board has a little bit of life in it still.

For me personally, I'm quite tired of fans having an ego-fest over which character/actor was more important/the star.  I find it quite ironic because I genuinely did not see either actor as having those kinds of issues with the other (whatever issues they had, I do not think it had anything to do who was more important on the show/set).  Both Castle and Beckett were important, but it's also a fact that the show was called Castle and that Nathan was number one on the call sheet.  That doesn't take anything away from Beckett/Stana's importance.  She was obviously centrally important to the show, but sometimes centrally important characters leave shows too, for whatever reason.  See Grey's Anatomy etc.  Anyway, it doesn't really matter anymore and I'm sure both actors will be fine.

Maybe there's a disconnect, and I don't particularly care for Hawley, but I don't really see how his re-tweeting an article about the ugly, entitled side of fandom that will resort to threats and abuse to express their opinions and get what they want, means that he is blaming fans for the end of Castle or failing to take responsibility as a showrunner.  All I take from his retweet is that he agrees there is that ugly, entitled side of fandom, and that it's a problem for creatives, not that ALL fans are like that.  I think fans are absolutely entitled to express constructive criticism about a show, a book etc., but when it devolves into online harassment and abuse and trolling, then that's crossed a line.  Fans absolutely can express opinions about creative choices on a show, but I personally do not think it's for fans to dictate what those creative choices should be, or for creators to be held hostage by "fans" demands.  I just don't think that would be a good thing for free artistic expression.  Smart creators should take fans' opinions under consideration, absolutely, because they obviously care passionately, but creative decisions should ultimately rest with the creators.  The internet can become an echo chamber of one strand of opinion, the loudest one, that isn't necessarily reflective of what is best artistically or even of the mainstream (and who is to say mainstream is best?).  If an audience doesn't like what they're getting, they can obviously vote with their feet (remotes).  That said, ratings to me only reflect popularity not quality.  There's something to be said for shows that are produced in its entirety before being broadcast, free from pressures of fan opinions and reliant only on the creators' artistic vision, for better or for worse.

Anyway, I don't think there's much Hawley can say at this point that will satisfy a certain audience who have already judged him, fairly or not.  So the smart thing's probably to say nothing more.  It's onto the next job for everyone.

I do find it somewhat ironic that many of the writing flaws people castigate Hawley over are also the same flaws that Marlowe was guilty of.  To me, at least. Neither have impressed me.

Re-watching S2 recently.  It's been a while since I've re-watched S2 and wow, it really was a different show back then.  So. Much. Better.  Both Castle and Beckett seem like different people.  Evolution is inevitable in a show's life time but it's a shame they seem to have left behind so much of what made the show and the characters good.

[verdana]

Susan Sullivan Talks End of Castle, Steel Magnolias & More  at TV Fanatic

Love the fact Susan mentions the clearly "tacked on" ending, yeah it certainly was, sloppy, lazy and beneath the writers if they had any pride in their work.

Quote

 

You might be psychic because you called it. You said that Castle would last 8 seasons and you were right. 

I know. I know. I actually thought, Gee, I’m going to be wrong, it’s going to go nine. You know, it’s interesting because Falcon Crest ended up going nine seasons and the last season was just a disaster. You know, they swept my character out and it was really kind of the same dynamic as Stana. They wanted the money. They wanted to take what they were paying me and put it into another character, maybe create a new feel for the show which just ended up not working. I think, perhaps, this is a blessing in disguise, in terms of I certainly think they thought the show could go on. I think it could. I think he’s (Nathan Fillion) so good he certainly could do a show alone, but I think it would have been such a disappointment to the fans, who already called the show Caskett, as you know. 

 

Edited June 13, 2016 by verdana

[KaveDweller]

Pretty classy statement from Susan, which is basically what I would expect from her.

[vanarnd1]

4 hours ago, madmaverick said:

Maybe there's a disconnect, and I don't particularly care for Hawley, but I don't really see how his re-tweeting an article about the ugly, entitled side of fandom that will resort to threats and abuse to express their opinions and get what they want, means that he is blaming fans for the end of Castle or failing to take responsibility as a showrunner.  All I take from his retweet is that he agrees there is that ugly, entitled side of fandom, and that it's a problem for creatives, not that ALL fans are like that.  I think fans are absolutely entitled to express constructive criticism about a show, a book etc., but when it devolves into online harassment and abuse and trolling, then that's crossed a line.  Fans absolutely can express opinions about creative choices on a show, but I personally do not think it's for fans to dictate what those creative choices should be, or for creators to be held hostage by "fans" demands.  I just don't think that would be a good thing for free artistic expression.  Smart creators should take fans' opinions under consideration, absolutely, because they obviously care passionately, but creative decisions should ultimately rest with the creators.  The internet can become an echo chamber of one strand of opinion, the loudest one, that isn't necessarily reflective of what is best artistically or even of the mainstream (and who is to say mainstream is best?).  If an audience doesn't like what they're getting, they can obviously vote with their feet (remotes).  That said, ratings to me only reflect popularity not quality.  There's something to be said for shows that are produced in its entirety before being broadcast, free from pressures of fan opinions and reliant only on the creators' artistic vision, for better or for worse.

Anyway, I don't think there's much Hawley can say at this point that will satisfy a certain audience who have already judged him, fairly or not.  So the smart thing's probably to say nothing more.  It's onto the next job for everyone.

I do find it somewhat ironic that many of the writing flaws people castigate Hawley over are also the same flaws that Marlowe was guilty of.  To me, at least. Neither have impressed me.

I do agree there is a really ugly side to fandoms (even more so for this show), but I think TPTB have more culpability than just having a different creative vision than fans. Truthfully, this show exploited the emotions of fans for year after year. They had something they knew the viewers were clamoring for (Caskett) and kept teasing it and building it up before pulling it away at the last second. The show was written in a way to maximize angst without much of a payoff. Both Marlowe (and Hawley) took the fans for granted. They assumed they could keep throwing contrived Caskett tension at us and we would always come back no matter what. It was not in good faith and purely used to try and milk as much time and money out of the show as possible. Even though online fans are a small percentage of the overall audience, their reaction(though at times way too extreme) to the declining product was a warning sign that predicted the quiet exit of the casual fans who just gave up on the show without giving any feedback.

And overall, if there is one thing I would point to to explain the show's decline is there was never a pivot once Caskett got together. They never had them consistently communicate as a couple or have in depth meaningful discussions. It was mostly superficial and any progress that was made could be thrown out a a moment's notice for a end of season cliffhanger. It was always about the next story line or potential crisis, or finding something to cause tension between them, rather than slowing thing down and really showing them working through issues and having a better understanding for each other. This worked for the first four seasons, but they kept going back to the same well and at some point the show lost all of its substance. There was never a long term plan and things kept going in circles, culminating with the disaster of episode 8.02 and the whole Season 8. You can't write Seasons 5 through 8 the same way as 1 through 4, and that is where Castle ultimately failed IMO.

And as a last aside, I agree Season 2 was really good. It was the perfect mix of comedy and drama and used all of the characters effectively. They could never quite replicate that afterward IMO.

[madmaverick]

5 hours ago, vanarnd1 said:

I do agree there is a really ugly side to fandoms (even more so for this show), but I think TPTB have more culpability than just having a different creative vision than fans. Truthfully, this show exploited the emotions of fans for year after year. They had something they knew the viewers were clamoring for (Caskett) and kept teasing it and building it up before pulling it away at the last second. The show was written in a way to maximize angst without much of a payoff. Both Marlowe (and Hawley) took the fans for granted. They assumed they could keep throwing contrived Caskett tension at us and we would always come back no matter what. It was not in good faith and purely used to try and milk as much time and money out of the show as possible. Even though online fans are a small percentage of the overall audience, their reaction(though at times way too extreme) to the declining product was a warning sign that predicted the quiet exit of the casual fans who just gave up on the show without giving any feedback.

Unfortunately, that's kind of the playbook for TPTB who do WT/WT tropes.  There's a line of thought that they can't give fans what they want (not even a well lit, uninterrupted kiss ;)) to keep them coming back for more.  And I think there was also a fear by TPTB of running out of story once they got the couple together, despite what Marlowe said about having years of storytelling to tell ;).  The manufactured angst and roadblocks just got even more inorganic after the couple got together because it just didn't make sense for them, but TPTB didn't know how to otherwise generate dramatic conflict and tension that they perceived as necessary for the story.  The aborted wedding in 623 after a protracted season of storytelling that revolved around superficial wedding planning, as well as the strange 'season of secrets' in S4 where Caskett were inorganically not allowed to communicate with each other all season, stand out in my mind as obvious attempts to stretch out the show.  It's no surprise that there was a drop in viewers after what they pulled in 623.

Thanks, Chraume, by the way, for your posts on the ratings of the P.I. arc.  Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that I liked it, particularly in S7 when I found it to be a refreshing arc and well executed, but I think it's unfairly and inaccurately painted by some fans, many of whom perhaps did not like it to begin with for various reasons, as the storyline responsible for the show's failure.  If the P.I. element, as well as the Captain element with Beckett, as well as the Locksat fiasco , had all been better written, it's not inconceivable that we'd have had the ingredients for a much better show. 

5 hours ago, vanarnd1 said:

And overall, if there is one thing I would point to to explain the show's decline is there was never a pivot once Caskett got together. They never had them consistently communicate as a couple or have in depth meaningful discussions. It was mostly superficial and any progress that was made could be thrown out a a moment's notice for a end of season cliffhanger. It was always about the next story line or potential crisis, or finding something to cause tension between them, rather than slowing thing down and really showing them working through issues and having a better understanding for each other. This worked for the first four seasons, but they kept going back to the same well and at some point the show lost all of its substance. There was never a long term plan and things kept going in circles, culminating with the disaster of episode 8.02 and the whole Season 8. You can't write Seasons 5 through 8 the same way as 1 through 4, and that is where Castle ultimately failed IMO.

Absolutely agree on the superficiality of Caskett once they got together, except I would differ and say their interactions had much more depth in S1-4 (1-3, really ;)) than they ever did in S5-8.  I'd once hoped that the writing would be rejuvenated once Caskett got together as the show entered a new stage, but alas, the decline in the writing that had already begun at that stage never stopped. Marlowe never delivered on the joy and romance and growing pains of early couplehood to me.  There was a lack of intimate, meaningful scenes where characters could really talk to each other, or just 'be'.  Manufactured angst became ever more distasteful as it didn't fit in with where Caskett were now at with each other, but we had to be continually subjected to it because the writers didn't know how to write the relationship otherwise, especially at season ending time. ;)

4 hours ago, SweetTooth said:

There will always be extremes in every fandom. But blaming them for your own inadequacies is not the way to go. It's cowardly.

There are fans like this everywhere, and in the business, you learn to suck it up and try to make the more rational fans happy while staying true to your vision for the show. Other shows are able to do it and not go down in flames like this one did.

Taking responsibility for making the final decisions is what it's about. It shows you have integrity. Blaming the fans? Childish.

It's debatable to me whether Hawley was in fact blaming fans for his own inadequacies from his re-tweet of that article.  What he was, it seemed to me, was taking issue with the online abuse and harassment he's been subjected to all season.  I read about TPTB having to 'suck it up', but I don't see fans taking any responsibility for their own bad behaviour.  Is that a display of entitlement?  One can ponder.

[Julia]

I very much doubt that anyone here is flinging death threats at showrunners. That sort of thing generally happens among the fans at less civilized meeting places (which is to say, the fans the show's promotional strategy cultivated).

The showrunners not only did their jobs poorly, they marketed themselves extremely unwisely. Blaming the fans they chose to encourage is even more childish than those fans are, JMO.

In either case, I don't see why what unnamed others at unspecified other places may or may not be doing is something for anyone here to apologize for.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Julia

[madmaverick]

Again, maybe there's a disonnect, but I don't see where exactly Hawley lumped all fans into the same pot.  Is that yet another assumption that fans are making based on precious little but their own preconceptions?   All he did was retweet an article which delved into the dark side of fandom, which most would agree is a side of fandom that exists.  

I'm somewhat doubtful that Hawley could address people who tweet criticism to him in a way that both parties would find fruitful.  If Terri Miller's 'respect the process' rightly or wrongly got the enraged reaction that it did, well...  ;)  One person's expression of "fair criticism" could well be another's idea of being a hateful troll.  From my experience of fandom, I think a lot of fans aren't always the best judge of what passes for polite comment especially in the heat of the moment and when you're limited to 140 characters. 

I don't agree with the notion that anyone, public figure or not, has to adopt a 'suck it up' attitude towards abusive and horrible online behaviour.  That permissive response is one that would embolden those who are abusive and horrible on the internet, almost excuses them and fails to hold them accountable.  If random strangers are abusive to your face, and behaving outside the boundaries of polite and appropriate behaviour, I don't think anyone would be advised to 'suck it up'.  I'd never stand for that in any case.

Hawley's public statements (or lack thereof) during the season may have been far from satisfactory.  That's on him.   At the same time, the abusive and horrible online behaviour of some fans is on them.  

[andromeda331]

On ‎6‎/‎13‎/‎2016 at 3:55 PM, verdana said:

Susan Sullivan Talks End of Castle, Steel Magnolias & More  at TV Fanatic

Love the fact Susan mentions the clearly "tacked on" ending, yeah it certainly was, sloppy, lazy and beneath the writers if they had any pride in their work.

What a very nice and classy statement.

[Sonik Tooth]

Quote

Thanks, Chraume, by the way, for your posts on the ratings of the P.I. arc.  Maybe I'm influenced by the fact that I liked it, particularly in S7 when I found it to be a refreshing arc and well executed, but I think it's unfairly and inaccurately painted by some fans, many of whom perhaps did not like it to begin with for various reasons, as the storyline responsible for the show's failure.  If the P.I. element, as well as the Captain element with Beckett, as well as the Locksat fiasco , had all been better written, it's not inconceivable that we'd have had the ingredients for a much better show. 

I don’t unterstand why it needs to be explained again and again. Why do you stop watching a TV show? „Because I’m psychic and I gradually stop watching the show x episodes from now“ might not be the common answer. If you are dissatisfied with the content, the not watching always starts afterwards. Cause and effect. It isn’t really that complicated.

Entitled fans and bullies. I make the distinction as follows: There are entitled fans that are also bullies. Some fans like to bend the circumstances of their perceived decline of the show to their liking or world view, social status or sensitivities. In a lot of those cases assumptions are made about people involved in the show which IMlegalO tend to be on the defamation of character side on the law. Spreading lies or half truths that could hurt someones character is textbook bullying. 

Furthermore, If I expect a TV show to cater to my liking, I’m entitled as fuck IMO. I said before it is the show’s prerogative what kind of story it wants to tell and how it wants to evolve. And one can very well see the difference between criticism of plotholes, characterization etc.and entitlement. And even unsolicited criticism or ridicule from someone like me without ever knowing the big picture is kinda sketchy.
 

[CheshireCat]

On ‎14‎.‎06‎.‎2016 at 4:51 AM, madmaverick said:

 as well as the strange 'season of secrets' in S4 where Caskett were inorganically not allowed to communicate with each other all season,

 

On ‎13‎.‎06‎.‎2016 at 10:53 PM, vanarnd1 said:

 They assumed they could keep throwing contrived Caskett tension at us and we would always come back no matter what. It was not in good faith and purely used to try and milk as much time and money out of the show as possible.

I never felt that the lack of communication on S4 was inorganic or that the tension was contrived. By the end of S2 Castle had decided that, since Beckett had a boyfriend, he would move on, too. There also was no reason for Beckett to not hook up with her boyfriend in S3 and there was a reason for the boyfriend, too. Yes, he was there as an obstacle, but he was also there to push Castle and Beckett closer. I've said it before, but I don't think that without him Beckett would have allowed to let herself get so close to Castle. I think she needed the reassurance that she was taken in order to open up to Castle. And I think their lack of communication in S4 was very much in character. Do I wish that Castle had actually confronted Beckett after he found out she lied to him? Yes. But I can easily live with the way it was done because it didn't last forever and the Castle and Beckett moments in the episode with Slauter are one of my favorites.

In my opinion, it didn't start to get contrived until the end of S5 when, out of the blue, Castle was suddenly taking Beckett for granted and Beckett was having second thoughts. I still wonder where that came from. And I think that the S6 finale and S8 were contrived go without saying ;-)

I do agree that Beckett and Castle weren't allowed to have in-depth problem solving though I think it started in S6 rather than S5. They had some nice moments in S5 - the stick-man in Beckett's desk, the hand shake, the Hamptons, the moment with Castle in holding in Probable Cause, the moments they stole during Swan Song, the Christmas episode, Beckett's open display of affection when Alexis went missing and Still. It started to get superficial when they never really talked about things in Squab and Quail but then, they weren't supposed to because it was supposed to lead up to the finale. Do I wish that Beckett had pushed Castle to talk about where they were going? Yes. However, a part of Beckett might not have wanted to talk about it and I think that she did the DC job interview without telling Castle was a result of that.

What they didn't do is bring up things which should be discussed in a relationship like moving in together, the interior decoration of the loft that never changed once it became their home or Alexis and I think they should have. I also think that they should have taken advantage of family situations like Thanksgiving and actually shown more family moments and they should have tackled more serious issues. The issues they did deal with seemed unimportant. They were cute but they were meant to last for only one episode and it was a given that they would run out of problems to create sooner or later. They should have done a mix, do some small issues and some bigger ones and create smaller relationship arcs, so that it wasn't one issue per episode but deal with stuff for more than one episode. Yet when they had the opportunity in S7, after Castle's disappearance, they didn't. Beckett said they needed to find common ground but I never felt they did. They just moved on with their lives and then got married.

It almost seemed like once they got together, Marlowe's real-life inspiration had run out which, if you think about it, is odd because I doubt there's ever a marriage without conflict. It's almost as if he thought the real-life problems of a married couple aren't interesting enough to be dealt with on TV, so he stuck to the superficial, non-relationship-influencing, cute ones.

 

On ‎14‎.‎06‎.‎2016 at 0:42 PM, madmaverick said:

Again, maybe there's a disonnect, but I don't see where exactly Hawley lumped all fans into the same pot.  Is that yet another assumption that fans are making based on precious little but their own preconceptions?   All he did was retweet an article which delved into the dark side of fandom, which most would agree is a side of fandom that exists.  

I agree that that side of the fandom exists, I don't agree that it's "all he did". He was very visible all season long, there was one interview after the other especially in the first half of the season and he was always gushing about how "fun" it all was. He even was generous enough to let us know that Beckett would not die in the fall finale.

Then Katic (and Jones) are not asked to come back, and he can't even be bothered to put out a generic statement, then the show gets cancelled and he can't even be bothered to put out a generic statement and then he cancels all interviews scheduled for the day after the finale and the only thing that he does do, is post that link. Considering all that he did and didn't do before and that so many actors had been re-signed before the cancellation and that all signs seemed to point towards renewal and the fan outrage after Katic was let go, that link becomes a lot more than "just a link".

I'm still willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and consider him only responsible for the story but not the circumstances (as in ABC Studios worked out contracts he had to work around and/or the network interferred). But I also think that the link was ill-timed and, in context, can easily be seen as an accusation.

[verdana]

On 15/06/2016 at 10:53 AM, SweetTooth said:

Getting your panties all in a twist because someone told you your show sucked is cowardly and lets me know you have no business being in show business. Not being able to deal with disgruntled fans in this day and age, means you need to stay the heck off Twitter. There. Problem solved.

But they won't get off because later when they need to promote their next endeavour and drum up some publicity/hype they'll be reaching out to those same disgruntled fans with open arms as if nothing ever happened.  

I'm incredibly cynical about people unfortunately but especially those involved in show business in any capacity. I'm even more cynical about those types using twitter as a very obvious tool for the promotion of their work (and in certain cases their intimate lives) who then fail to understand they can't control the fans like a tap turning them on an off at whim when they screw up and do something which invites censure or comment that they don't enjoy reading. 

Hawley badly showed himself up as Cheshire Cat noted and it does not reflect well on him or his maturity levels that he can't deal with the repercussions of something failing that he was major contributor towards and suddenly took a vow of silence. That's when you get the true measure of a person and their character when things are going badly how do they behave? He's not covered himself in any glory that's for sure.  That's why my sympathy levels for these people getting upset at the horrible nasty so called "entitled" fans and the likes of Hawley and his passive aggressive bullshit is limited and in his particular case non existent - because it's often the case these individuals they are reacting against (either directly or indirectly like Hawley) one week they'll be blatently using and encouraging with open arms the next. Meh

Edited June 19, 2016 by verdana

[verdana]

10 hours ago, CheshireCat said:

 

I never felt that the lack of communication on S4 was inorganic or that the tension was contrived.

S4 felt contrived from Cops & Robbers onwards when it seemed clear they were only dragging things out to stall on getting them together, they could have compressed the last four episodes into one after Castle found out about her lie, choosing to have him not confront her and the unfolding angst was so painfully drawn out and felt completely forced. The "season of the secrets" was the start of the unravelling of the show but in comparison to what followed it's bearable because you can argue at a push there were valid reasons behind what the characters were doing, hell enough people spent time arguing backwards and forwards about it.  What followed in later seasons was almost impossible to make sense of and rationalise. 

 

10 hours ago, CheshireCat said:

It started to get superficial when they never really talked about things in Squab and Quail but then, they weren't supposed to because it was supposed to lead up to the finale. Do I wish that Beckett had pushed Castle to talk about where they were going? Yes. However, a part of Beckett might not have wanted to talk about it and I think that she did the DC job interview without telling Castle was a result of that.

Squab and Quail was the start of when the rot truly set in, I get they wanted to stall things for the finale but there were better ways than what they gave us. I hated the fallout and the DC arc and the way they had Beckett and Castle acting to the point I was willing him to dump her and move on - that is not the reaction I wanted to have in those circumstances - but the writing was poor and that's precisely what happened.  I'm meant to be willing these two people to stay together not throwing my arms up in their air constantly at their combined selfishness, immaturity and stupidity. 

10 hours ago, CheshireCat said:

It almost seemed like once they got together, Marlowe's real-life inspiration had run out which, if you think about it, is odd because I doubt there's ever a marriage without conflict. It's almost as if he thought the real-life problems of a married couple aren't interesting enough to be dealt with on TV, so he stuck to the superficial, non-relationship-influencing, cute ones.

Which is baffling, you make a great point and one that perplexed me too, that Marlowe was married and actually based this couple on his relationship with his own wife, I understand he even had step children. Yet he couldn't manage to write from his own life experiences and bring that to bear on the show he created especially when it came to blending a family together? WTF. 

That superficiality eventually drained my enthusiasm for the show along with the bad writing, I grew to eventually dislike the obviously staged sugary "cute" moments that felt tacked on to the COTW, they lacked any depth and felt obviously manipulative to appease those fans who get all excited by a fist bump and their day is made. It only got worse when Marlowe left which is some achievement, as I said ages ago if that separation arc and how Caskett behaved afterwards is based on their own personal experiences these writers are even more fucked up than I thought. 

I do wonder if one of the reasons why they shied away from genuine conflict over time is because they were so terrified of the fans reactions whenever there was any trouble they deliberately tried to keep everything as superficial as possible and avoid having them deal with any real repercussions even when there should have been something happening. It was like a vicious circle, the quality of the writing was steadily declining, they were wanting to inject tension and drama into the show which is natural and Caskett were an obvious vehicle for that, which promptly set off the fans who then reacted (almost hysterically in some cases) to the point that any time there was even a hint of trouble in paradise fans would be up in arms freaking out constantly - but often with good reason because they knew it was going to be poorly executed and resolved.  The writers would then drop it, they'd be a slight breather and then they'd start up again with the exact same reactions. 

But then again may be the reason is simple - they just weren't very good writers or showrunners when it came to the crunch. 

Edited June 19, 2016 by verdana

[Julia]

On 6/19/2016 at 5:01 AM, SweetTooth said:

YEP! That's my point. They will be kissing the same butts they're smearing when they have something new to promote. 

Oh, you are so not wrong. The showrunner who took part in spiking Stargate: Atlantis because it wasn't hip and edgy like Stargate: Universe and the fans were too old and female? Started running Atlantis flashback posts on his blog right about the time he started shopping his new show.

[KaveDweller]

On 6/19/2016 at 4:22 AM, verdana said:

S4 felt contrived from Cops & Robbers onwards when it seemed clear they were only dragging things out to stall on getting them together, they could have compressed the last four episodes into one after Castle found out about her lie, choosing to have him not confront her and the unfolding angst was so painfully drawn out and felt completely forced. The "season of the secrets" was the start of the unravelling of the show but in comparison to what followed it's bearable because you can argue at a push there were valid reasons behind what the characters were doing, hell enough people spent time arguing backwards and forwards about it.  What followed in later seasons was almost impossible to make sense of and rationalise. 

I agree with Chesirecat about season 4, it didn't seem at all contrived to me. Yes, they could have easily gotten Castle and Beckett together after Cops & Robbers, but there is more than one way for a story to happen naturally. Beckett was still dealing with her PTSD at that point, and I think it makes sense that she wasn't ready to take that final step, even after what happens in Cops & Robbers. I was actually really glad they didn't get together at that point, because I wanted the secrets to both come out first. 

The only time I thought it was contrived for them not to get together was the end of season 2. But that I didn't mind too much because it was so early.

Quote

That superficiality eventually drained my enthusiasm for the show along with the bad writing, I grew to eventually dislike the obviously staged sugary "cute" moments that felt tacked on to the COTW, they lacked any depth and felt obviously manipulative to appease those fans who get all excited by a fist bump and their day is made. It only got worse when Marlowe left which is some achievement, as I said ages ago if that separation arc and how Caskett behaved afterwards is based on their own personal experiences these writers are even more fucked up than I thought. 

I do wonder if one of the reasons why they shied away from genuine conflict over time is because they were so terrified of the fans reactions whenever there was any trouble they deliberately tried to keep everything as superficial as possible and avoid having them deal with any real repercussions even when there should have been something happening.

They didn't just shy away from genuine conflict when it came to Caskett though, they did with everything. The show got more and more superficial as time went on.  I don't think it was an intentional choice about the relationship, I think it was either general incompetence or lack of effort.

But I do think they managed to get in some nice moments between the two, and between other characters throughout the series, even in season 8. And not just nice to super fans that would get excited about anything. Even though they were superficial, I never thought their coupley scenes seemed fake or staged, even in season 8. Poorly written sometimes, yes. But still enjoyable. Mileage varies, obviously.

Edited June 21, 2016 by KaveDweller

[oberon55]

Calling fans entitled is just a way to try & spin things their way. That way they can ignore the points about plotting, character or whatever. It is a tactic politicians have been using forever. In debating circles it is called "Argumentum ad hominem". Ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person", short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. In other words it's a lot easier to say "I'm not saying anything because you are all a bunch of assholes" rather than try to explain why they were going to kill Beckett off for example.

[pepper]

I'm entitled, all right. I'm entitled to get a good quality product if I've invested my time in it.

I work in a service industry. The feeling is that if customers are unhappy only about 20% will complain and you need to treasure that 20% because the other 80% will just leave. Among the 20% a sub-set will not be diplomatic, but that doesn't lessen their value in letting you know you have a problem. Television is at once a product/service and a creative endeavor. So they have to deal with critics as well as consumers. And with the advent of social media, everyone has the platform to be a critic - including that sub-set of the 20%. The criticism might not always be constructive (critics aren't always right and social media critics are not often experts in your field so may not understand the reasons for your choices e.g.), so that's probably embarrassing when they don't like what you deliver. But if you don't accept that as simply the nature of your business, use the constructive and shrug off the negative, there's an argument that you're too immature to be the face of the project.

[TWP]

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 9:20 AM, pepper said:

I'm entitled, all right. I'm entitled to get a good quality product if I've invested my time in it.

I work in a service industry. The feeling is that if customers are unhappy only about 20% will complain and you need to treasure that 20% because the other 80% will just leave. Among the 20% a sub-set will not be diplomatic, but that doesn't lessen their value in letting you know you have a problem. Television is at once a product/service and a creative endeavor. So they have to deal with critics as well as consumers. And with the advent of social media, everyone has the platform to be a critic - including that sub-set of the 20%. The criticism might not always be constructive (critics aren't always right and social media critics are not often experts in your field so may not understand the reasons for your choices e.g.), so that's probably embarrassing when they don't like what you deliver. But if you don't accept that as simply the nature of your business, use the constructive and shrug off the negative, there's an argument that you're too immature to be the face of the project.

The problem is we aren't the customer. We are the product. TV shows are honed to deliver the product the advertisers want. That's why there literally is nothing on TV anymore for people like me. I am not the product they want to present to advertisers.

PTB don't actually care what we think.  That's why they consider people like us "entitled". It is not on their radar screen to do anything for us, so anything we ask is too much. 

Am I bitter. Yep.

[break21]

The exception is services such as Netflix which don't rely on advertisers but instead subscribers so the demo means next to nothing.  I've been watching Bloodline - great show without the limitations of traditional tv. 

[Julia]

On June 25, 2016 at 2:35 AM, TWP said:

The problem is we aren't the customer. We are the product. TV shows are honed to deliver the product the advertisers want. That's why there literally is nothing on TV anymore for people like me. I am not the product they want to present to advertisers.

PTB don't actually care what we think.  That's why they consider people like us "entitled". It is not on their radar screen to do anything for us, so anything we ask is too much. 

Am I bitter. Yep.

Except we aren't a product they can deliver without our cooperation. So, too bad to be them if they drive us off. 

[femmefan1946]

Ah but the viewers they drive off are (usually/often/ believed to be ) the ones they don't want.

If the advertiser wants to sell Ensure and Depends, he will not be buying space on Supergirl.

If the advertiser wants to sell cheap beer, he will not be buying space on The View.

If the advertisers who were considering buying space on Castle wanted a footloose private eye who attracts the ladies with his ruggedly handsome looks and roguish charm, goodbye angsty female lead and romantic story arc, hello one off plot driven case of the week.

[break21]

My opinion, Network TV is doomed to subscriber TV.  They can't compete in dramas because of content limitations.  It';s commercial-free.  Comedies work, but you can't really build a network on comedies when people want to watch Walking Dead, Bloodline, Game of Thrones.    It's pretty much doomed except for football, game shows, comedies, talk and some reality, JMO.  I think all the networks will eventually go subscriber.

[oberon55]

I disagree. Without the networks volume of shows produced there is just not enough material made to fill up the hours people watch TV. I live in Houston Texas & we probably have 15 or 20 independent free over the air stations that basically show reruns 24 hours a day. You would think that if the market were truly dying they would be the first to go but it seems like we have more channels every year instead of less. Netflix's lifeblood is streaming the thousands of shows made the traditional way. Netflix may put out a dozen series a year. How long would they last if that was all they had to offer. Without the hundreds of shows produced every year by the networks (including cable) all the streaming companies would collapse. The advertiser model still produces probably 85% to 90% of streamable content and is the backbone of the industry. That's not even addressing the fact that we are not even close to having the infrastructure in place to handle it if 100 million households were all trying to stream TV at the same time.

[WendyCR72]

I think it's a little from column A, a little from column B. Streaming services do count on "traditional" streaming shows and there are channels like ION that get by on cop/medical show reruns all the live long day. But I do also think the landscape is shifting. I mean, who would have thought in the early '90s that streaming would exist or - even putting that aside - that cable would be the place to go for creative freedom? (There were some cable shows even back then, but none had prestige like cable shows do now.)

I do think, however (and I'm not saying it has to be T&A and four-letter words every show or every scene), that the broadcast model has to change or wither and die. Sure, shows can be made without the above, but the sad fact is, streaming and cable are so alluring because of the freedom show creators have there versus broadcast restraints. It makes me remember the shock - the SHOCK, I tell you! - when NYPD Blue began on ABC and showed bare butts with threats of boycotts. Ditto thirtysomething in the mid '80s (when I was a teen so am old enough to remember!) when the show actually had a same-sex pairing in bed with threats of boycotts then! Broadcast has evolved since then, but it is clearly still lagging behind.

I know some wish to put the genie back in the bottle with better Standards & Practices, but the truth is, the days of a married couple sleeping in twin beds is loooooong gone, as are things like not even saying "pregnant" on TV. I think broadcast being beholden to FCC laws has hurt it in this day and age, especially with the sheer enormity of alternative programming available now that wasn't 20 to 30 years ago. As the motto goes, change or die. Ratings tell me the latter is happening.

[break21]

My opinion - once you go no-commercial -it's hard to go back.  I don't watch shows I like the day they air on network so I can watch them the next day on hulu without commercials. 

[madmaverick]

Write up of the Castle panel at Comic Con Germany which was attended by Nathan, Jon and Seamus.  Lots more pics floating out there.  Looks like a good time was had by all at probably the last Castle panel ever.

My two cents re the future of TV.  I think streaming is definitely the future, if not the present, for millennials and younger.  It's like people readings newspapers online (if they read them at all, ha ;)) rather than buying the hard copy, getting their news from sources other than the nightly broadcast, etc.   I don't see this trend being reversed.  There's too much quality online content for people to access whenever they want to.  Having just watched the finale of this season's Game of Thrones, which was magnificent, I have my doubts as to whether traditional networks (or even many movie studios!) can produce something of this calibre.  The production values are just outstanding.  Whether it be network or cable or some other medium, I think people are looking more and more for ambitious, original, quality storytelling.  I do think there's always going to be room for comfort food TV like Castle, but I'm not sure the audience is growing for shows like that.

[break21]

19 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

Write up of the Castle panel at Comic Con Germany which was attended by Nathan, Jon and Seamus.  Lots more pics floating out there.  Looks like a good time was had by all at probably the last Castle panel ever.

My two cents re the future of TV.  I think streaming is definitely the future, if not the present, for millennials and younger.  It's like people readings newspapers online (if they read them at all, ha ;)) rather than buying the hard copy, getting their news from sources other than the nightly broadcast, etc.   I don't see this trend being reversed.  There's too much quality online content for people to access whenever they want to.  Having just watched the finale of this season's Game of Thrones, which was magnificent, I have my doubts as to whether traditional networks (or even many movie studios!) can produce something of this calibre.  The production values are just outstanding.  Whether it be network or cable or some other medium, I think people are looking more and more for ambitious, original, quality storytelling.  I do think there's always going to be room for comfort food TV like Castle, but I'm not sure the audience is growing for shows like that.

I agree - streaming - Netflix, HBO, etc. have such a good product networks just can't compete given their constraints and commercials.  Nothing compares to Game of Thrones on network T.V.  Nothing compares to Bloodline.  Once you start watching those shows it's hard to go back to dramas on commercial T.V.  They seems so tame.  I do think comedies and some reality still work.  Dramas, to me anyway, are over on network.

[Cyranetta]

Interesting comparison of "Will They Or Won't They Shows" with some fairly astute analysis of Castle.

[WendyCR72]

1 hour ago, Cyranetta said:

Interesting comparison of "Will They Or Won't They Shows" with some fairly astute analysis of Castle.

I know these lists are meaningless and arbitrary and mean not a thing, but I love the pick for #1.  :-)  And, additionally, regarding another on this list, I agree with the Bones analysis!

[oberon55]

5 hours ago, break21 said:

My opinion - once you go no-commercial -it's hard to go back.  I don't watch shows I like the day they air on network so I can watch them the next day on hulu without commercials.

Yeah I hate commercials. The only thing I watch completely live anymore is sporting events. Even if I'm going to watch a show when it airs I record it & wait 20 minutes for a hour long show & 10 minutes for a 30 minute show. That way I can fast forward through all the commercials.

 

2 hours ago, madmaverick said:

My two cents re the future of TV.  I think streaming is definitely the future, if not the present, for millennials and younger.  It's like people readings newspapers online (if they read them at all, ha ;)) rather than buying the hard copy, getting their news from sources other than the nightly broadcast, etc.   I don't see this trend being reversed.  There's too much quality online content for people to access whenever they want to.  Having just watched the finale of this season's Game of Thrones, which was magnificent, I have my doubts as to whether traditional networks (or even many movie studios!) can produce something of this calibre.  The production values are just outstanding.  Whether it be network or cable or some other medium, I think people are looking more and more for ambitious, original, quality storytelling.  I do think there's always going to be room for comfort food TV like Castle, but I'm not sure the audience is growing for shows like that.

I agree about the quality but the problem is the quantity. HBO, Netflix, Amazon & Hulu combined probably put out the amount of shows one of the big three do a season. If HBO spent upwards of 100 million dollars to produce 50 to 75 original shows a season like ABC for example instead of the 8 or 10 that they do they would have to charge somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 dollars or more a month to make a profit. Or turn to advertising dollars. It all comes down to how much people are willing to pay. Right now advertising dollars probably of over a billion dollars a season finance most of the original content produced. If that money goes away then it will have to come out of subscribers pockets. Are they willing to pay?

[femmefan1946]

I mean, who would have thought in the early '90s that streaming would exist

I was watching TV in the early 50s ( one of my favourite shows was Life with Elizabeth* starring Betty White)  and a lot of programming was a sort of streaming.

To begin with movies. Not only were old movies played over and over again , pretty well anything that qualified as a talkie, but we kids were treated to infinite replays of Looney Tunes theatrical cartoons, Little Rascals, Bowery Boys, and Western serials.

The actual season for a TV program might have been 25 weeks, but then the entire season played again from the beginning, not just occasional episodes. There simply were no Summer Replacements at first.

And 'local' stations, not those in big cities, but boondocks like Saskatoon and Calgary and Ottawa, would have only a few actual broadcast programs usually local news and perhaps a show for housewives, filling in with movies and more movies, until Desilu Studios started filming on reuseable stock and shows could be syndicated.

So in many ways, streaming is just a return to the origins of private TV broadcasting.

 

*

[madmaverick]

I've no idea if the writer of that article was from the In Marlowe We Trust brigade who couldn't fault him for anything prior to 623, but if she believed that Caskett was written with hardly any missteps before then, then I can only beg to differ.  YMMV but I think that writer is in need of an editor.  I find her too long winded every time I read her stuff linked from here, so I just skimmed this article, but I also watch few of the other shows on her list so it just wasn't that interesting to me, and also her particular bias is quite clear as she's usually selective in what she cites to support her particular argument.  I don't know where her insinuation that Marlowe left the show because he didn't like the direction it was going in (which he had written it into!) comes from, but I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories in that respect.  Showrunners leave frequently on every show and it's usually onto developing the next nest egg.  

I would just say that in my viewing experience, shows which deal in WT/WT rarely avoid missteps the longer they drag it out as there are only so many tired (true?) places writers can take the couple to with this trope.  Would Castle have been a better show if Caskett had slept together in the pilot and then decided to give it a shot?  Who knows.  But it would probably would have been a mess a few seasons down the line because the writers wouldn't have known what to do with them either. 

[Sonik Tooth]

5 hours ago, madmaverick said:

I've no idea if the writer of that article was from the In Marlowe We Trust brigade who couldn't fault him for anything prior to 623, but if she believed that Caskett was written with hardly any missteps before then, then I can only beg to differ.  

Nah, she’s actually one of the Caskett-Brigade who also joined the Fillion’s-Fault-Brigade. And there may be some subsidiaries she’s also part of. To avoid sounding too snarky I confess to belong to the Leave-me-alone-with-Caskett-Brigade and the Fillion-Fangirl-Brigade. But without being overly grumpy towards the Caskett-Brigade and without being overly fannish in the Fillion-Fangirl-Brigade.

Quote

Castle and Beckett were solidly together for the next two seasons.  Those seasons had them get engaged and planning a wedding. During this time the viewership and show ranking went up!   This trounces the idea that characters getting together romantically will kill a show’s ratings.  Instead, Castle has proven the opposite: after the wedding was stalled at the end of season six (blown up to start a new mythology….) the ratings and ranking quickly dropped.  By the end of the last the show had lost over 3 million live-broadcast viewers – after six seasons of a steady increase in viewers.

If someone has an overly interest in the WTWT part of a TV series or the love story between main characters – good for them. If they try to get pseudo-scientific about it, and declare it one of the main reasons people watch (or stop watching because they don’t like the way it is portrayed) by citing sources that on closer examination might also have a different explanation - or even worse - neglect to mention other important details, I can only shake my head in desperation. (Or be in exasperation).

This time round it’s the Nielsen Ratings listed on the Castle Wikipedia page. So, not very much to see there, but it seems Castle gained some overall traction the first four seasons. But then, whoops!, “the single best episode ever about a “will they or won’t they” couple getting together aired” and people don’t want to catch the next episode? Did they die of bliss? Or what’s wrong with those 2 Millions?

Thankfully your syndication friends TNT and Broadcast are there to help the series out (also in the wiki article). It’s also speculation, but I think syndication brought new live viewers to Castle from which season 5 and 6 profited. But unfortunately with time, every source dries up. So Castle ended up losing viewers again. Rather quickly this time.

If it happened because of illogical mythologies, raising a wrapped up storyline from the dead, Caskett wedding finally happening, people just getting more and more tired of police procedurals, the overall decline in viewership and ratings etc., that’s everybody’s guess.

Edited July 1, 2016 by Sonik Tooth
grammar

[chraume]

8 hours ago, madmaverick said:

I've no idea if the writer of that article was from the In Marlowe We Trust brigade who couldn't fault him for anything prior to 623, but if she believed that Caskett was written with hardly any missteps before then, then I can only beg to differ.  YMMV but I think that writer is in need of an editor.  I find her too long winded every time I read her stuff linked from here, so I just skimmed this article, but I also watch few of the other shows on her list so it just wasn't that interesting to me, and also her particular bias is quite clear as she's usually selective in what she cites to support her particular argument.  I don't know where her insinuation that Marlowe left the show because he didn't like the direction it was going in (which he had written it into!) comes from, but I don't subscribe to any conspiracy theories in that respect.  Showrunners leave frequently on every show and it's usually onto developing the next nest egg.  

Thank you! I took particular issue with the wording and structure of this part:

Quote

The Hollywood Reporter noted both financial and personal behind-the-scenes issues had been plaguing Castle for a while.  Most know that at the beginning of filming season six in 2013 Fillion was lobbying for a four-day work week.   In this GMMR interview with show creator Andrew Marlowe he says the decisions around the character of detective Kate Beckett (Stana Katic) for the season six finale started being looked at “a third to halfway” through season six.

Jumping straight from, "there were problems" to "Fillion asked for a four-day work week" to "Marlowe said SOMETHING made them decide to have that season finale" seems to grossly misrepresent the actual intent of the GMMR interview, in which Marlowe takes full responsibility for the finale and in fact explains in detail why they made the decisions they did, and in which he in no way implies that there was one decision that was nixed in favour of the actual finale plot.  But, yeah, as Sonik Tooth said, the author is very solidly on the Fillion's-Fault Brigade, and in this case structuring the paragraph this way very much implies that Fillion's four-day work week at the beginning of the season in some way related to Marlowe deciding that Beckett was married. Which, much like Marlowe deciding to leave because he didn't like the direction of the show, is a totally unsubstantiated claim regardless of whether or not any of that is true, and I'm not a big fan of cherry-picking journalism (even in entertainment reporting). 

That said, I do think Marlowe was a great showrunner, even after the WT/WT was done. Execution lacked sometimes in S5/6 a bit, but there was a clear journey for the relationship each season, and I saw definitive changes (on the writing side, at least) season to season to show the shifts in their relationship. That lack of journey or growth is what I found challenging about S8. And, frankly, their relationship was boring, but TV seems to be under the impression that the only tension in a relationship leads to a breakup so there are challenges from that side of things, too. But I have yet to see a show find the balance between showing a healthy relationship and showing the real struggles that come with those relationships, so who knows if it's even possible?