KaveDweller July 2, 2016 Share July 2, 2016 2 hours ago, chraume said: Thank you! I took particular issue with the wording and structure of this part: 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? Yeah, that that article seemed a bit slanted. It's an opinion piece, but it tries to pretend it's not. Entertainment sites like that have different standards than traditional journalism that always tries to be neutral. I think that's okay though, I like reading different opinions. I do agree in general with the assessment of the relationship though. It's been the one TV ship I was most invested in for the past couple of years, so they were clearly doing something right to gain my attention. The WT/WT was done well, there were some annoying things, but it worked well overall. I also think seasons 5-7 did a pretty decent job with the relationship. It certainly could have been a lot better, but I still enjoyed it. It's really not that Marlowe did anything bad (except for the season 5 and 6 finales) it's just that he skipped over a lot of things that could have improved it. Maybe there's just no way he could have lived up to people's hope/expectation. Or maybe he's lazy. Link to comment
chraume July 2, 2016 Share July 2, 2016 40 minutes ago, KaveDweller said: Yeah, that that article seemed a bit slanted. It's an opinion piece, but it tries to pretend it's not. Entertainment sites like that have different standards than traditional journalism that always tries to be neutral. I think that's okay though, I like reading different opinions. I do agree in general with the assessment of the relationship though. It's been the one TV ship I was most invested in for the past couple of years, so they were clearly doing something right to gain my attention. The WT/WT was done well, there were some annoying things, but it worked well overall. I also think seasons 5-7 did a pretty decent job with the relationship. It certainly could have been a lot better, but I still enjoyed it. It's really not that Marlowe did anything bad (except for the season 5 and 6 finales) it's just that he skipped over a lot of things that could have improved it. Maybe there's just no way he could have lived up to people's hope/expectation. Or maybe he's lazy. That's fair. I don't mind opinion pieces as a general rule, but I don't love it when articles speak for real life things unless prefaced with, "Here's what I think happened." Kind of gross to just imply that Marlowe jumped ship because he didn't like the direction and that he did the S6 finale because of Fillion's supposed fit imo, only because there's really only circumstantial evidence to prove or disprove any of that, and real people are in the mix. But you're right, it is largely just a fan-run entertainment site that's a little more "fan" that "entertainment journalism." I could probably write a novel of the things I would've changed in the writing of their relationship tbh, but I'm not a show writer and I honestly don't know how the constraints would work. I totally agree that Marlowe didn't exactly do anything bad, and I do suspect that it was largely laziness at the end there. The individual stories could use a little finetuning, I think, but I'm pleased with the season-long arcs. And, honestly, the only indiscretion that I was really disappointed by was the 7x03-7x06 thing, where there was no "finding solid ground" happening to bridge the gap between Castle's disappearance and the wedding (and then of course 7x06 presents a new problem, that Castle isn't sure if Beckett would be better off without him, rather than the old problem, which is that they as a couple are on shaky ground.) But yeah, I agree. There definitely could've been improvements, but for sure he couldn't have matched everyone's expectations. And I think they did, if not a great job, at least a respectable one. Link to comment
Julia July 2, 2016 Share July 2, 2016 On 7/1/2016 at 0:50 AM, SweetTooth said: As for the Bones analysis, totally agree with so many points, the good and the bad. But I love how they said the show realized when it made missteps, like how they got Bones and Brennan together and the Hannah debacle. But they didn't double down on these bad ideas like Castle did and nixed it when they realized they were losing viewers. These quotes make me understand so much more. Bolding and italics are mine. Actually, they did double down on all of it until Hanson was let go. He was wildly enthusiastic about shoving their missteps in the viewers' faces. Marlowe said that his plan for Castle was to get to where Bones was without the long run-up, and he wasn't wrong. Link to comment
verdana July 3, 2016 Share July 3, 2016 (edited) I have no clue why Marlowe left but he must have been laughing his arse off watching the fall out and seeing fans begging him to return, many of those same fans ones who were slagging him off like crazy for his past failings, it's amazing how quickly fans can forget awful shit - helped considerably by Hawley and Winter's missteps. I wonder if in a year or so, many fans will be doing glowing retrospectives of the end of Castle and the triumph of that last season....nah. I always thought Hart Hanson was an arrogant bugger, much like Marlowe in many ways (like two peas in a pod lol) but whoever was pulling the strings towards the end they seemed to have learnt something which Castle never seemed to do, they kept going in rapidly decreasing circles. I preferred the Caskett pairing (I started watching Bones first) but felt the Bones/Booth relationship was better portrayed once they got over the stupid hot mess of getting them together, they also seemed far more comfortable with each other off screen and that showed on it in their interactions - at least for me. I read Joy's article, long and detailed as usual, is she biased? Yes but since I know a bit of how she's flip flopped over the years it helps, it'a a fan article and I treat it that way, nice trip down memory lane. I completely agree with her about the wedding, Marlowe having that build up all season and then pulling the rug out and not giving fans the final pay off was a massive "fuck you!" to the fanbase and highlighted his sheer arrogance and disconnect from the fans, for me that was the turning point, he screwed me over for shits and giggles, I'll never forget - or forgive - that and I swore I'd never watch another show he was involved with again. On 02/07/2016 at 0:18 AM, chraume said: 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? Marlowe was good at the start and then he appeared to run out of ideas, I also disliked his behaviour when dealing with long running fan complaints, he needed a way better PR machine, he gave horrid interviews. He seemed to deliberately misunderstand the issues fan's had with some of the more contentious things that he did or maybe even more scarily he genuinely didn't get it. That said, I get it's not an easy job, there are lots of competing factors that fans either don't understand or never know about which can effect what you see on screen and it's not always up to the showrunner they kind of have to go with the flow. I do wonder if things BTS with Katic and Fillion were affecting certain aspects quite a bit during the latter years of Marlowe's tenure? May be may be not, it's how you choose to resolve the various challenges be they actor and/or network led which make it interesting and prove your mettle - not when everything is sunshine and roses. I can't get over these showrunners who struggle to portray a relationship between a romantic couple in any realistic and interesting way when they presumably have experienced one if not many of them. it makes me shake my head every time. It should be completely possible! On 01/07/2016 at 3:41 PM, madmaverick said: 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. Completely with you on the WT/WT, you can't tick off and sigh as they go through every predictable single step that's been gone through before on just about every other TV show. I've read a few fan fics over the years which have them hooking up from the start, their chemistry certainly would have supported it but yeah how long would have that have lasted and stayed good? Marlowe didn't seem to have a clue how to write them as a couple living together, how soon would we get the inevitable make up break up rows, jealousy over old lovers and surprise husband's appearing? Ugh. Edited July 3, 2016 by verdana Link to comment
Julia July 3, 2016 Share July 3, 2016 (edited) Oh, Sleepy Hollow didn't learn anything from anyone, JMO, including the writer's room götterdämmerung of season 2. My UO on Marlowe is that his skill is selling high-concept ideas to studios and not writing or characters or plot. I think it's not a coincidence that everything started going to hell in season 3 after René Echevarria left. Echevarria was responsible for ST:DS9, a show which had a ton of completed ships between competent, powerful adults who respected each other. Marlowe's output is Die Hard on a plane and two movies where a woman being threatened with rape was just part of some guy's power struggle. Echevarria went on to produce Teen Wolf, Marlowe gave weekly interviews (sometimes with his wife) about what a soul-destroying erection killer being in a relationship with a woman is. I also don't think it's a coincidence that the pilot Marlowe wrote had to be rewritten, recast and reshot to get the show we eventually got. Edited July 3, 2016 by Julia 2 Link to comment
chraume July 3, 2016 Share July 3, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, verdana said: I read Joy's article, long and detailed as usual, is she biased? Yes but since I know a bit of how she's flip flopped over the years it helps, it'a a fan article and I treat it that way, nice trip down memory lane. I completely agree with her about the wedding, Marlowe having that build up all season and then pulling the rug out and not giving fans the final pay off was a massive "fuck you!" to the fanbase and highlighted his sheer arrogance and disconnect from the fans, for me that was the turning point, he screwed me over for shits and giggles, I'll never forget - or forgive - that and I swore I'd never watch another show he was involved with again. I totally agree that she does detailed articles, and I do like the analysis of the contents of the show. While I actually like 6x23 as an episode (I know, I know, I might be the only person) and I didn't mind the cliffhanger at all, I do think it was the beginning of the end for the show. They obviously couldn't pick themselves up and dust themselves off after that, and I think that was because of both network involvement and Marlowe & Amann kind of screwing themselves over early on -- I suspect that the wedding was pushed to sweeps because of the network, and that, as everyone kind of realized that the show maybe wouldn't be coming back for S8, everyone scrambled to finish off the remaining storylines (3XK, disappearance), but AWM had already very publicly announced that none of the expected players were involved in Castle's disappearance. I'm just curious -- what do you mean by "how she's flip flopped?" (That said, I honestly don't take issue with having problems with Fillion and having suspicions about how things went down with Marlowe -- I for sure have my own theories, and I'm certainly not a fan of Fillion, but the part that I think is unfair is taking those theories, presenting the facts in a certain way to support them without having any ideas of what actually happened (or, in the case of Marlowe, stating something outright that probably is true but also maybe isn't, there's no way to know), and publishing them.) 7 hours ago, Julia said: My UO on Marlowe is that his skill is selling high-concept ideas to studios and not writing or characters or plot. I think it's not a coincidence that everything started going to hell in season 3 after René Echevarria left. I do agree with that. Given the opportunity to change anything in the show, I'd actually jump all the way back to S5 and make Castle learning about his father a real, human moment instead of a big CIA conspiracy plot, but that was Marlowe's MO -- high-stakes, conspiracy episodes. It showed a lot of his action background. I think he was a good writer, but I think he tended to do his best when collaborating. TEM in particular balanced him quite nicely in their eps -- he wrote the high-stakes, edge-of-your-seat stuff, and she brought the more human moments (I suspect, anyway. I wasn't in the writer's room.) I don't know about him not being able to write plot, though. He clearly loves the procedural format (that's what AWM/TEM have pitched as their last two shows, right?), which is plot-intensive in a very specific way every episode, but not plot-intensive over the season. Which suits me as a viewer well, because plot-intensive seasons of shows like Grey's Anatomy wear me out, but does occasionally struggle with things like character development because you have such little time left to implement it. And I think Castle was rather hit and miss with the longer arcs -- Castle's disappearance vs. that first string of eleven eps at the beginning of S4, for example (imo). Edited July 3, 2016 by chraume Link to comment
oberon55 July 3, 2016 Share July 3, 2016 (edited) I suspect with all the different angles involved (actors ego, network interference etc.) it's a miracle that any show manages to maintain its quality over the years. The WT\WT aspect is one thing with its own built in problems but there is no other explanation for Castle's disappearance arc or the infamous LokSat story but bad writing (or not giving a damn). It is unbelievable that professional writers could leave so many aspects of the story (that they came up with) unexplained or ignored. I hate to say it but the fact that they did it twice & were all set to do it again for s9 shows an attitude of "Don't worry. We can have our characters do or say anything. No matter how nonsensical or ridiculous it gets this audience will swallow it & keep coming back for more". Edited July 3, 2016 by oberon55 3 Link to comment
KaveDweller July 4, 2016 Share July 4, 2016 7 hours ago, oberon55 said: I suspect with all the different angles involved (actors ego, network interference etc.) it's a miracle that any show manages to maintain its quality over the years. The WT\WT aspect is one thing with its own built in problems but there is no other explanation for Castle's disappearance arc or the infamous LokSat story but bad writing (or not giving a damn). It is unbelievable that professional writers could leave so many aspects of the story (that they came up with) unexplained or ignored. I hate to say it but the fact that they did it twice & were all set to do it again for s9 shows an attitude of "Don't worry. We can have our characters do or say anything. No matter how nonsensical or ridiculous it gets this audience will swallow it & keep coming back for more". That's what I never really understood about this show, they never really pretended to care about continuity. Maybe not never, but rarely. If they decided to do something over a few episodes they would make a point of mentioning it, but it was usually forced like the Loksat mentions. More often they just wrote the plot that they wanted and gave no regard to logic or characterization. This usually wasn't a huge problem, but sometimes it was really bizarre. Like when they revealed that Jenny was in that dead guy's sex journal. It's like someone in the writers' room decided that would be funny, and no one bothered to point out that Jenny had been presented as super wholesome and serious with Ryan before then. Or having Jim Beckett drinking champagne at their wedding. The writers are limited by lots of factors out of their control, but things like that are just dumb. They were clearly just not putting in the effort to do more than that. I don't think it was just the writers either. The only reason the show lasted despite this this problem is because of the likability/chemistry between Castle and Beckett. 3 Link to comment
madmaverick July 5, 2016 Share July 5, 2016 (edited) On 7/2/2016 at 4:12 AM, Sonik Tooth said: 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. 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). Sonik, I think we're in the same brigades. :) Funny, it was the relentless, unfair, irrational hating from the Fillion's Fault Brigade that drove me into the (not overly fannish) Fillion Fangirl Brigade as an instinctive reaction to unfairness and a need to defend the harassed "underdog" so to speak. ;) Caskett has always been my overriding reason for my interest in the show, and while I like both actors, I've never felt the compulsive need to perceive either as unicorns either. That kind of worshipping actually give me the shudders. And bring on the snark, some days that's the only response against stupidity and irrationality. ;) I've shaken my head in desperation and in exasperation at the illogical leaps embraced by some as a way to get to their pre desired destination. The lack of rigorous scientific analysis does make one smh, but perhaps it's too much to ask for over a TV show. ;) The demagoguery that's formed part of the discourse at times has been distasteful to say the least. On 7/2/2016 at 10:25 AM, KaveDweller said: I do agree in general with the assessment of the relationship though. It's been the one TV ship I was most invested in for the past couple of years, so they were clearly doing something right to gain my attention. The WT/WT was done well, there were some annoying things, but it worked well overall. I also think seasons 5-7 did a pretty decent job with the relationship. It certainly could have been a lot better, but I still enjoyed it. It's really not that Marlowe did anything bad (except for the season 5 and 6 finales) it's just that he skipped over a lot of things that could have improved it. Maybe there's just no way he could have lived up to people's hope/expectation. Or maybe he's lazy. I think what Nathan and Stana brought to the screen together (and my residual goodwill from S1-3 when the show was better written) had more to do with my continued investment in Caskett rather than the writing on the show, especially in later seasons. If Caskett had been portrayed by other actors with less chemistry, I might have jumped ship long ago. There were Caskett moments I enjoyed in S5-8, but in the final analysis, I think it definitely felt short of what I'd hoped their characterization would be in this next stage of their love story. Maybe it depends on whether you look at it in a glass half full or half empty kind of way, but I feel that a lot of potential was wasted. Resolving the WT/WT didn't re-energize the writing as I'd hoped, the overall decline continued. I think the writers definitely got lazy; also, they weren't quite sure how to write Caskett as a couple despite all of Marlowe's proclamations about having plenty of story left to tell. ;) Caskett writing aside, they definitely got lazy with the COTW stories that Marlowe insisted on constituting 90-95% of the episode as the seasons went on! On 7/2/2016 at 7:18 AM, chraume said: Thank you! I took particular issue with the wording and structure of this part: 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? Gross misrepresentation, selectivism, removal of context to distort what was actually said, seems to be par for the course for certain brigades in the fandom. It's why I can hardly take any of the so-called journalism about Castle on fannish entertainment sites seriously. Let's not pretend they are the result of objective analysis, rigorous fact checking. They are little more than rants/raves from fangirl perspectives. No more credible, no more valid than what any of us post here. I think if people want to make accusations, then have the balls to make them outright and back them up with actual, verifiable facts and sources who will put their name to it. Otherwise, best to shut up about it or risk coming off as ridiculous with the incessant shading and innuendo and conspiracy theories from outta nowhere. The idea that Marlowe leaving was also Fillion's fault strikes me as absurd, just as the idea that 623 was somehow also Fillion's idea. I think that only works out logically for you if you believe everything in the universe to be Fillion's fault. No one is responsible for anything but Fillion! ;) I can't say I agree that Marlowe was a great showrunner or writer. To me, his best work was in S1, and that's rather unfortunate when you're on a show for 7 seasons. I think he didn't have the creative stamina for such a long running show or any ideas beyond WT/WT, and it showed. He also didn't write so-called season long dramatic arcs well imo, relationship conflict well, so called high stakes action drama well, and definitely not multiple season (or even episodic) conspiracies well either. I still cringe at the linchpin or whatever that was about. I'll probably check out his next show if/when it comes out just out of curiosity, but it sounds a lot like his old show, and that's not really a mark of a great showrunner/creative to me. Who knows, maybe it's his wife who is the more talented one? On 7/3/2016 at 5:03 PM, verdana said: I have no clue why Marlowe left but he must have been laughing his arse off watching the fall out and seeing fans begging him to return, many of those same fans ones who were slagging him off like crazy for his past failings, it's amazing how quickly fans can forget awful shit - helped considerably by Hawley and Winter's missteps. Yep. Especially when in my opinion, Marlowe was guilty of some of the same missteps Hawley & Winter were guilty of. I think Marlowe's creative tank re Castle was completely empty anyway, and I would not have wished his return, which would just have been a return to mediocrity and more of the same at best. On 7/3/2016 at 5:40 PM, SweetTooth said: These two obviously like each other offscreen, which helps with what we see onscreen. See, I just think that's one of the fallacies fans have. In most cases, I don't think the relationship between actors offscreen has any bearing on what we see onscreen. Actors with supposedly bad relationships offscreen have generated some great stuff onscreen. Married actors have often failed to generate any sizzle onscreen even if they obviously love each other offscreen. Off the top of my head, I would name the Devers and that lead on Suits and his wife who played his love interest for a while. Certainly, I think the writing/directing/editing has more of a bearing on what we see onscreen than the private relationships between actors. On 7/4/2016 at 9:46 AM, KaveDweller said: That's what I never really understood about this show, they never really pretended to care about continuity. Maybe not never, but rarely. If they decided to do something over a few episodes they would make a point of mentioning it, but it was usually forced like the Loksat mentions. More often they just wrote the plot that they wanted and gave no regard to logic or characterization. This usually wasn't a huge problem, but sometimes it was really bizarre. Like when they revealed that Jenny was in that dead guy's sex journal. It's like someone in the writers' room decided that would be funny, and no one bothered to point out that Jenny had been presented as super wholesome and serious with Ryan before then. Or having Jim Beckett drinking champagne at their wedding. The writers are limited by lots of factors out of their control, but things like that are just dumb. They were clearly just not putting in the effort to do more than that. I don't think it was just the writers either. The only reason the show lasted despite this this problem is because of the likability/chemistry between Castle and Beckett. Definitely agree that the likability/chemistry between Caskett helped sustain the show for this long, despite its other shortcomings. Unfortunately, it seems like fans often end up paying more attention to continuity and plot holes than writers do on many shows, especially ones that last longer. Castle wasn't even a show like Lost or BSG where it was arguably harder to keep track of continuity and plot holes, but even with a handful of characters they couldn't keep on top of it. My guess is they did that Jenny thing just for laughs (I didn't find it funny though. ;)), just as they did various cheap shots for laughs, which failed more than succeeded. Castle and Gates kissing was another WTF moment. Jim Beckett drinking champagne really was unforgivable. Just incredible that a room with a dozen writers plus other staff all failed to catch that, or they just thought that tiny detail didn't matter! Edited July 5, 2016 by madmaverick 4 Link to comment
BlakesMomma July 6, 2016 Share July 6, 2016 Joy D'Angelo has been far from objective journalism for a while now. I have no problem with opinion pieces until they start twisting, omitting and distorting facts to fit their opinion, while still presenting the article as truth. 2 Link to comment
verdana July 9, 2016 Share July 9, 2016 (edited) On 03/07/2016 at 2:35 PM, chraume said: I totally agree that she does detailed articles, and I do like the analysis of the contents of the show. She does and this season I've done a lot of nodding my head to the points she's made about what was not working writing wise. I found S8 crude, tasteless, dumbed down and insulting at times as for my "flip flop" comment may be that's the wrong word to use but I seem to recall reading an article or two of hers back during S5 and she seemed a stalwart Marlowe devotee, then the scales seemed to fall from her eyes as she finally realised what to me was obvious weaknesses in his stewardship but I see her Marlowe love lives on in that article but then I guess after this season I can't blame her for harking back to those days. On 03/07/2016 at 2:35 PM, chraume said: I suspect that the wedding was pushed to sweeps because of the network, and that, as everyone kind of realized that the show maybe wouldn't be coming back for S8, everyone scrambled to finish off the remaining storylines (3XK, disappearance), but AWM had already very publicly announced that none of the expected players were involved in Castle's disappearance. The trouble with much of the storytelling on Castle was that it was painfully obvious that everything was geared towards sweeps, it was dragged out way too long and that let fan discontent rumble on. The excuses given as to why they couldn't get married for another 6 episodes made no sense (no surprise there), there was nothing in those episodes that appeared vital to the development of their relationship. Castle's not the only show to do this obviously, it's almost ingrained for many TV shows but I wish writers would start to move away from this tired and predictable pattern of storytelling. It can be very limiting and frustrating especially on Castle where you could guarantee absolutely nothing was going to happen for X number of episodes on a story because we had to wait until the next sweeps window. On 03/07/2016 at 2:35 PM, chraume said: (I honestly don't take issue with having problems with Fillion and having suspicions about how things went down with Marlowe -- I for sure have my own theories, and I'm certainly not a fan of Fillion, but the part that I think is unfair is taking those theories, presenting the facts in a certain way to support them without having any ideas of what actually happened (or, in the case of Marlowe, stating something outright that probably is true but also maybe isn't, there's no way to know), and publishing them.) I have a pretty cynical view of most actors, they've all got egos of some description and like the attention (I don't believe they'd be in the business otherwise) and most are using the fans in some way either by social media or other methods to help promote themselves in a certain way, yes even the "nice" ones. Whenever I hear an actor say they're only doing to for the "art" or they never really wanted to be famous or get noticed I can't help eye rolling - but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy their work, read their outpourings and support their latest TV show or movie but I don't believe some of the shit they shovel and I try not to find out too much about their personal lives, I want to live in blissful ignorance, I prefer the non sharers lol. That said, I don't believe Fillion and Marlowe are best buds, Stana seems to have had a much more warmer/chummy relationship with Marlowe but then I get that. NF was already an established star she was almost unknown she owes Marlowe and she knows it, she always came across as very grateful and supportive, frequently attending presentations etc. On 03/07/2016 at 2:35 PM, chraume said: I do agree with that. Given the opportunity to change anything in the show, I'd actually jump all the way back to S5 and make Castle learning about his father a real, human moment instead of a big CIA conspiracy plot, but that was Marlowe's MO -- high-stakes, conspiracy episodes. It showed a lot of his action background. I think he was a good writer, but I think he tended to do his best when collaborating. TEM in particular balanced him quite nicely in their eps -- he wrote the high-stakes, edge-of-your-seat stuff, and she brought the more human moments (I suspect, anyway. I wasn't in the writer's room.) I don't know about him not being able to write plot, though. He clearly loves the procedural format (that's what AWM/TEM have pitched as their last two shows, right?), which is plot-intensive in a very specific way every episode, but not plot-intensive over the season. Which suits me as a viewer well, because plot-intensive seasons of shows like Grey's Anatomy wear me out, but does occasionally struggle with things like character development because you have such little time left to implement it. And I think Castle was rather hit and miss with the longer arcs -- Castle's disappearance vs. that first string of eleven eps at the beginning of S4, for example (imo). The appearance of Castle's father was a major disappointment story wise for the reason you gave, as with so many things on this show if done right it could have developed the characters and added depth and interest to the ongoing story. Marlowe couldn't help himself though as usual, I agree Terri probably did the more "human" stuff, he seemed completely hapless at doing that. I found Castle didn't really do story arcs very well, they only had one long overreaching arc on the show that paid off and that was the Johanna Beckett murder. Everything was usually strictly episodic with no follow through at all. When you did get an arc (like the DC one) they often ended it so abruptly it was ridiculous, she gets fired (although in S8 they said she'd "left) and no one discusses it and there are zero emotional and work related repercussions to what should have been a big deal given her actions..sigh that was typical. S4 had far too many episodes where the secret and lies aspect was just dropped completely and they acted as if nothing was going on, dragging it out past the point of credibility for me that any guy would hang around that long without addressing the issue properly with the woman he claims to love. But I know that's a contentious argument because many felt it was handled well and it was right that he waited until she gave the signal she wanted to talk about it, fair enough fans can agree to disagree on the merits of that story arc. Castle's disappearance was simply horrible writing from start to finish, it was an absolute dud with no logical thought given to it's development. This story was proof that if you create something based on rocky foundations nothing good will come of it. The writers gave the impression it was something they'd love to bury and forget about, from their interviews the following season reading between the lines they hadn't the faintest idea where to go with it, the story was created so they could stall on the wedding nothing more and boy did that show. Castle's disappearance was treated like some joke by the writers and critically by Castle himself - which was a mistake. Edited July 9, 2016 by verdana 3 Link to comment
verdana July 10, 2016 Share July 10, 2016 On 05/07/2016 at 6:31 PM, madmaverick said: Definitely agree that the likability/chemistry between Caskett helped sustain the show for this long, despite its other shortcomings. Unfortunately, it seems like fans often end up paying more attention to continuity and plot holes than writers do on many shows, especially ones that last longer. Castle wasn't even a show like Lost or BSG where it was arguably harder to keep track of continuity and plot holes, but even with a handful of characters they couldn't keep on top of it. My guess is they did that Jenny thing just for laughs (I didn't find it funny though. ;)), just as they did various cheap shots for laughs, which failed more than succeeded. Castle and Gates kissing was another WTF moment. Jim Beckett drinking champagne really was unforgivable. Just incredible that a room with a dozen writers plus other staff all failed to catch that, or they just thought that tiny detail didn't matter! Oh yeah, I definitely only hung on in there because of their chemistry on screen but even that in the end started to fade, there is only so much you can do as an actor with bad writing. There was no excuse for such continuity/plot lapses of the kind you mention, not when it's the work of a moment to go on line and find this stuff out if you genuinely can't remember, or make up a bible that I understand quite a few shows have done which help both new and old writers if they're not sure of something. However, on Castle I got the impression they just didn't give a shit and thought the fans should feel the same and hand wave it, that made it even worse because they're being paid a lot of money to do this job and that to me is a basic requirement of storytelling. If I had their attitude at my place of work I'd get reprimanded and eventually fired but they got away with it for years. However, I find you can hand wave stuff far more easily if the story is engaging enough, I know this as I've done it tons of time, especially watching movies, you get so caught up in the story it's only afterwards may be someone points out some glaring plot hole and it doesn't bother me because the storytelling was exciting and interesting. However, if the story is poor or badly executed then your mind starts to flit about looking at other things and that's when I'm more likely to start harping on about continuity lapses and plot holes. Sadly the storytelling on Castle has been consistently poor and predictable (with the odd bright moment) for quite some time now so those lapses were a constant irritation. 2 Link to comment
verdana July 10, 2016 Share July 10, 2016 On 03/07/2016 at 6:30 PM, oberon55 said: It is unbelievable that professional writers could leave so many aspects of the story (that they came up with) unexplained or ignored. I hate to say it but the fact that they did it twice & were all set to do it again for s9 shows an attitude of "Don't worry. We can have our characters do or say anything. No matter how nonsensical or ridiculous it gets this audience will swallow it & keep coming back for more". That's why I stopped watching mid S8 precisely because I felt the writers were doing just that, some fans would try and make sense of it all making themselves look rather foolish in the process but I'm not one of them. I won't have my intelligence insulted on a regular basis, there has to come a time to accept the writers have sold out and don't care despite their protestations to the contrary, you should move on and stop watching. I've still not watched those missed episodes and I'm not going to, because I've missed nothing. That's why when the writers and some of the crew get passive aggressive about fan criticism sorry I mean "entitlement" I get annoyed because they've got the nerve to be pissed off when they've tried to pretend it's good storytelling and they're working their arses off but instead bring me this? No, sorry not buying any of that bullshit. They were barely coasting and arrogantly assumed they would continue to get away with doing the bare minimum yet still take home a nice pay cheque but eventually the chickens came home to roost and they know it. 1 Link to comment
verdana July 10, 2016 Share July 10, 2016 On 05/07/2016 at 6:31 PM, madmaverick said: See, I just think that's one of the fallacies fans have. In most cases, I don't think the relationship between actors offscreen has any bearing on what we see onscreen. Actors with supposedly bad relationships offscreen have generated some great stuff onscreen. Married actors have often failed to generate any sizzle onscreen even if they obviously love each other offscreen. Off the top of my head, I would name the Devers and that lead on Suits and his wife who played his love interest for a while. Certainly, I think the writing/directing/editing has more of a bearing on what we see onscreen than the private relationships between actors. A poor personal relationship between actors can bleed through on to the screen and you can tell something is "off" even if you're not fully aware of what is going on at the time, in certain cases it's obvious like the feud between Julianna Margulies and Archie Panjabi. It's much easier to spot on TV shows where actors are stuck together for often long periods so things can fester for years and then blow up. Sadly on Castle it became clear - at least to me - that during the final few seasons something was wrong because of how the storytelling was being structured to keep them separate whenever possible and the odd body language between them which at its worst points took me completely out of a scene. I believe their off screen relationship did eventually bring about a problem and affected what we saw on screen to a degree. 1 Link to comment
WendyCR72 July 12, 2016 Share July 12, 2016 Found this. Very tabloid-y but maybe something to discuss. As much as this is supposed to be about things fans didn't know, I think everybody does/did...with maybe the exception being #1. Oh, well. Click bait is click bait is click bait, right? 1 Link to comment
madmaverick July 12, 2016 Share July 12, 2016 Click bait is the gift that keeps on giving... ;). But I see that the article was from a few months ago. Just recycled stuff with some stuff from dubious 'sources' that got churned in, and questionable spelling and geography (British and English? ;)). I don't buy the couples counselling thing, but who knows. If these supposed 'sources' proclaim that happened, why don't they just come out and say what the original issue was that caused the falling out? Was it personal? If so, what? Because they didn't start out not getting along, quite the opposite. Give us a blow by blow of everything already if the tabloids with these 'sources' claim to know so much. ;) I can't believe some fans are still playing the blame game and spreading the same tabloid crap after all this time. Let it go already! It's unhealthy. ;) #1 was actually one of the first things I knew about the show bts because Nathan prompted Stana to share that story in one of their earliest interviews on the tube where they interviewed each other (and clearly liked each other as people then). Here it is. I also remember reading at some point about the other actress who was in contention for the role in the final two, but I'm not sure it was confirmed. I think it was a Hispanic or an African American actress. Verdana, I don't actually disagree that sometimes the offscreen personal can bleed into the onscreen. You do see it sometimes especially when two actors used to be in a relationship and broke up and the subsequent onscreen interaction isn't quite the same afterwards. But I am still of the opinion that where the writing was strong, the actors delivered. There may have been a time when there was awkwardness on screen (but this is so subjective and was it the acting, the writing, the editing and/or the directing to blame or a mix of everything?), but as a viewer, my subjective viewing experience is they got over that hump. Link to comment
KaveDweller July 12, 2016 Share July 12, 2016 12 hours ago, madmaverick said: Click bait is the gift that keeps on giving... ;). But I see that the article was from a few months ago. Just recycled stuff with some stuff from dubious 'sources' that got churned in, and questionable spelling and geography (British and English? ;)). I don't buy the couples counselling thing, but who knows. The couple's counseling was reported back in April/May. The only reason I considered believing it was because they had that storyline on the show where Espo and Ryan went to counseling, and it amuses me to think the writers got the idea based on Nathan/Stana. But it could just as easily be that the "source" of that detail got the idea from the show. If these supposed 'sources' proclaim that happened, why don't they just come out and say what the original issue was that caused the falling out? Was it personal? If so, what? Because they didn't start out not getting along, quite the opposite. Give us a blow by blow of everything already if the tabloids with these 'sources' claim to know so much. ;) I can't believe some fans are still playing the blame game and spreading the same tabloid crap after all this time. Let it go already! It's unhealthy. ;) Likely the only people close enough to know the truth about what happened aren't the types willing to sell out to the tabloids. I've always believed it was a romance gone wrong, but I don't think I've seen any tabloid run with an article like that. It was all "Nathan is a jealous bully" or "Stana is a diva," which were both probably leaked by someone with an agenda. The thing that actually made the most sense to me was a comment on a tabloid article I can no longer find, that somehow Stana caused one of Nathan's girlfriend's to end things. But they of course gave absolutely no details on what they meant by that, so I don't really give it much credence. #1 was actually one of the first things I knew about the show bts because Nathan prompted Stana to share that story in one of their earliest interviews on the tube where they interviewed each other (and clearly liked each other as people then). Here it is. Man, I love old interviews between Stana and Nathan. It's kind of sad for them that it all deteriorated, but I at least Caskett got a happy ending. I think they still had chemistry until the end, but with the writing so weak in S8 and the lack of screentime it made it hard to find. I think the rumors about BTS crap may have influenced how some people saw chemistry. I'm not saying no one would have picked up on any tension without the tabloids, but I do think it made a difference for some. Before the internet people never knew when stars hated each other. Link to comment
WendyCR72 July 12, 2016 Share July 12, 2016 14 minutes ago, KaveDweller said: Before the internet people never knew when stars hated each other. Not necessarily. :-) How do you think the Bruce Willis/Cybill Shepard wars were so well known? The rags! National Enquirer, etc. That stuff was always out there; the 'net has just made it more prevalent. 2 Link to comment
femmefan1946 July 13, 2016 Share July 13, 2016 Interesting that this is one of very few articles where the commentors specifically say they would have preferred Castle without Beckett (as long as the rest of the cast remained). Have the rabid Fillion haters found something new to turn their heads? Link to comment
TWP July 13, 2016 Share July 13, 2016 (edited) It's getting about time where I start wishing the warm, long days of summer away in exchange for dreary gray rain but with a new season of Castle.....where after one episode I'll wonder why in the world I waited with such anticipation, LOL. It almost makes me sad that I can stop and smell the fresh air now, enjoy the summer, and dread the dark fall instead. But then I come here where the talk, ranging from "love-" to "love-to-hate," is still going on. Makes me feel warm and cozy inside ;-). Thanks for the constancy ;-). Edited July 13, 2016 by TWP Link to comment
KaveDweller July 13, 2016 Share July 13, 2016 14 hours ago, femmefan1946 said: Interesting that this is one of very few articles where the commentors specifically say they would have preferred Castle without Beckett (as long as the rest of the cast remained). Have the rabid Fillion haters found something new to turn their heads? They have probably found something new to hate, yes. But the rabid Fillion haters were hardly the only people who didn't want a Beckett-less Castle. In that article, I think it is a less mainstream article, so probably was missed by the the more die hard fans. If you look at the date on those comments they were posted back in May. The commenters I saw weren't saying they'd prefer a Beckett-less Castle to a Castle with Beckett though, they were saying they'd have rather have a Beckett-less Castle than no Castle. They seemed to be more casual viewers who weren't invested in the romance, so that viewpoint makes sense. They also seem unaware that the show was cancelled because of ratings and not cast drama. Link to comment
TWP July 13, 2016 Share July 13, 2016 Yes, Beckett-less Castle is better than no Castle at all. I also saw that many of the commenters lamented the lack of quality TV. That is also my point of view. Good or bad, Castle was better than most of the other stuff on the air. Now Monday, 10, on ABC we can watch Channing Dungey's sister and Agent Carter hopefully without the strangely phony-sounding British accent (even though Hayley Atwell is actually British). Please let them surprise me. Whoo-hoo. Maybe I'll get some projects done. I fondly remember a time when I didn't understand why those "kill your television" bumper stickers were so popular. I was naive then. I'm a whole lot wiser now. 1 Link to comment
KaveDweller July 14, 2016 Share July 14, 2016 1 hour ago, TWP said: Yes, Beckett-less Castle is better than no Castle at all. I also saw that many of the commenters lamented the lack of quality TV. That is also my point of view. Good or bad, Castle was better than most of the other stuff on the air. Well, I don't agree with that, I was just summarizing the commenters on that particular article. There are obviously a whole range of opinions about that though. I would also disagree that it was better than most shows on the air. I got more entertainment from it from a lot of what is on the air (mostly from this board), but in terms of production/writing quality it was nowhere near the top of the list of shows. Entertainment and quality are different things. Hopefully the next show I get into will have both. 5 Link to comment
WendyCR72 July 14, 2016 Share July 14, 2016 Huh. So I have Law & Order on WE on now, a S2 episode, so 1991, And lo and behold, one of the writers who did the teleplay for the episode "Aria" (about a stage mom who pushed her own daughter into porn; the daughter committed suicide, but the law charged the mom) was Christine Roum. And according to IMDB, she also wrote the episode, "Helpless" in S3, 1992, the episode where the recurring police psychiatrist, Liz Olivet, was raped by her own gynecologist (and which was redone for L&O: UK - retitled "Alesha"). So it looks like she has been in the biz for a while! Link to comment
madmaverick July 14, 2016 Share July 14, 2016 On 7/13/2016 at 7:04 AM, KaveDweller said: Likely the only people close enough to know the truth about what happened aren't the types willing to sell out to the tabloids. I've always believed it was a romance gone wrong, but I don't think I've seen any tabloid run with an article like that. It was all "Nathan is a jealous bully" or "Stana is a diva," which were both probably leaked by someone with an agenda. Thankfully there are still people who aren't willing to sell out to tabloids; I'd hate to be surrounded in my workplace or my social circle by people who would be willing. ;) Honestly, I'm sad that they both ended up in tabloids over this. I wouldn't have foreseen it. Considering some of the craziness and the absurd degree of hate I witnessed in fandom, I wouldn't be surprised if it actually were some crazy fan 'leaking' to the tabloids. I wish people would stop reading tabloids, period. The way gossip and unsubstantiated rumours from tabloids and 'fans' and anons leak into too many people's brains is insidious, and become 'fandom fact' absent any fact checking and named factual sources. Sure, it's just a TV show, but it's also people's reputations and character people are talking about, and if people can gorge on and believe tabloids on something like this, I'd hate to think of what else they believe in more important matters and where they get their information. Tabloids and clickbait are the gifts that keep on giving, but they only persist because fans insist on feeding into them. Until they get smart about it, they won't stop. Maybe not even then. On 7/13/2016 at 7:04 AM, KaveDweller said: Man, I love old interviews between Stana and Nathan. It's kind of sad for them that it all deteriorated, but I at least Caskett got a happy ending. I think they still had chemistry until the end, but with the writing so weak in S8 and the lack of screentime it made it hard to find. I think the rumors about BTS crap may have influenced how some people saw chemistry. I'm not saying no one would have picked up on any tension without the tabloids, but I do think it made a difference for some. Before the internet people never knew when stars hated each other. Same. They really were so cute back then. I agree it's sad for them that it deteriorated, but it's their lives and their choices, none of which we're privy to, so what can we say? But yes, they gave us Caskett and a happy ending. I do agree that BTS opinions and fandom biases that fed into that influenced how some people saw chemistry and the show. Not saying it influenced everyone, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone who binge watches the show in a vacuum away from fandom feels differently about it than those who were intensely invested in the actors and BTS rumors. 19 hours ago, femmefan1946 said: Have the rabid Fillion haters found something new to turn their heads? I have no idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are still hating on him. They seem to have OCD about him. :P ;) It's just puzzling to me that some people would spend so much time hating on someone and being negative on the internet. I don't know if it's just that the haters are the loudest or they are actually the majority in internet opinion across all platforms. There certainly seem to be trolls everywhere. Is it some outlet for misery in their everyday lives? 2 hours ago, KaveDweller said: I would also disagree that it was better than most shows on the air. I got more entertainment from it from a lot of what is on the air (mostly from this board), but in terms of production/writing quality it was nowhere near the top of the list of shows. Entertainment and quality are different things. Hopefully the next show I get into will have both. Absolutely. Entertainment and quality are different things to me too though not mutually exclusive of course (preferably!). There's many shows in terms of production and writing that I would rank above Castle. Castle, at its best, kept me entertained, with likable actors and good chemistry, witty banter, and as a light-hearted fluffy piece of escapist dessert. If anyone here gets into a new Castle-esque show, do recommend. I've got that kind of hole in my TV viewing. Link to comment
TWP July 14, 2016 Share July 14, 2016 12 hours ago, KaveDweller said: Well, I don't agree with that, I was just summarizing the commenters on that particular article. There are obviously a whole range of opinions about that though. I would also disagree that it was better than most shows on the air. I got more entertainment from it from a lot of what is on the air (mostly from this board), but in terms of production/writing quality it was nowhere near the top of the list of shows. Entertainment and quality are different things. Hopefully the next show I get into will have both. Sorry. I was agreeing with them, not necessarily you ;-). I stated my context poorly. And I think writing-wise it wasn't bad either. I've seen shows that are supposed to be toward the top in writing quality and they're loaded beyond belief with plot holes. I do remember saying many times, OMG, this is no better than Castle! Yep, and I don't have Netflix. We watch mostly broadcast TV, and I think Castle was one of the better shows there. YMMV ;-). Link to comment
madmaverick July 14, 2016 Share July 14, 2016 7 hours ago, SweetTooth said: I'm sure there are very few "rabid Fillion haters." I think there are some rabid Stana fans who think he pushed her out of a job and hate him for it, but I think a lot of people just looked at one person being fired and saying it wasn't their choice, while the other is left standing, and make assumptions from there, right or wrong. I'd say there were more than a few, otherwise it wouldn't have been impossible not to come across their vitriol in fandom. Or perhaps it was a small group that was obnoxiously loud, even pretending to be other people, I wouldn't put anything beyond those crazies so obsessed with hating. And the rabid hating began years ago, long before any exiting drama. And by rabid hating, I mean blaming him for everything and anything, and no conspiracy was too wild as long as he was to blame. ;) They got their name right when they called themselves Stanatics. Fanatical about Stana, and fanatical about hating her costar as well unfortunately. It's all done in her name, but seems to me no one bothered to think about what Stana would make of their behaviour. ;) If it turns out they did date at one time, it'd upend their world view! How could the unicorn find someone so beneath her attractive! ;) It's strange, I've seen fans of actors who make up an onscreen couple end up in fandom wars against each other rather than united in their love for the 'ship on more than one show. Not sure why it ends up like that and why some people turn everything into a competition and a battle. 'Tis a shame. I think most viewers tends to be fans of both actors if they are invested in an onscreen couple and aren't interested in them being pitched against each other. Quote At its best, Castle was a great show to switch off your brain and watch. I'd agree with that, which is why I was okay with handwaving a lot of plot holes and letting it coast along with its charm, until, well, the plot holes, and OTT characterization which was more troubling to me, were impossible to ignore, and the writing wasn't good enough for it to be ignored. If the pitch is for a show that you can switch off your brain and watch, I'm not sure networks are so interested in making them anymore. Link to comment
KaveDweller July 14, 2016 Share July 14, 2016 4 hours ago, TWP said: Sorry. I was agreeing with them, not necessarily you ;-). I stated my context poorly. And I think writing-wise it wasn't bad either. I've seen shows that are supposed to be toward the top in writing quality and they're loaded beyond belief with plot holes. I do remember saying many times, OMG, this is no better than Castle! Well, I agree that there's also a lot of shows worse than Castle......lots of crap is on TV these days. Link to comment
WendyCR72 July 14, 2016 Share July 14, 2016 On another topic, the Emmy nominations are out today. And it just reinforced how no actor from the likes of this show or Bones or any such dramedy would ever make the cut as 95% of the nominations seemed to be from cable shows and now streaming shows! I think broadcast made up the other 5%, if that. I'm being generous. (From broadcast [ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox], I saw some noms for actor/actress in comedy and maybe one or two noms in dramas.) To think cable used to be so disconnected that it used to have its own awards show, the now defunct (I think) Cable ACE Awards. Now that and streaming are the new kings. Link to comment
chraume July 14, 2016 Share July 14, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, SweetTooth said: I do agree that it's a few rabid, angry people who scream the loudest. I was going to say that. I just can't see a huge group of people who are THAT big of a Stana fan. I think Nathan has more clout regarding the PR machine. I think you're right, it's for sure a small group. I know that some in particular have a rotation of screen names for commenting on articles (the "only Trump would do S9 without Stana!!" comments, as though the two things are related, give one tweet-er away every time), which I suspect are typically the articles that are more circulated around the fandom -- TVLine, Deadline, EW, etc. Which is too bad, because it's fans like that who muddle the waters so much so that creators and writers can dismiss actual criticism offhand as online fans just being crazy. 8 hours ago, madmaverick said: I'd say there were more than a few, otherwise it wouldn't have been impossible not to come across their vitriol in fandom. Or perhaps it was a small group that was obnoxiously loud, even pretending to be other people, I wouldn't put anything beyond those crazies so obsessed with hating. And the rabid hating began years ago, long before any exiting drama. And by rabid hating, I mean blaming him for everything and anything, and no conspiracy was too wild as long as he was to blame. ;) They got their name right when they called themselves Stanatics. Fanatical about Stana, and fanatical about hating her costar as well unfortunately. It's all done in her name, but seems to me no one bothered to think about what Stana would make of their behaviour. ;) If it turns out they did date at one time, it'd upend their world view! How could the unicorn find someone so beneath her attractive! ;) It's strange, I've seen fans of actors who make up an onscreen couple end up in fandom wars against each other rather than united in their love for the 'ship on more than one show. Not sure why it ends up like that and why some people turn everything into a competition and a battle. 'Tis a shame. I think most viewers tends to be fans of both actors if they are invested in an onscreen couple and aren't interested in them being pitched against each other. Honestly, the fandom was a pretty content place until the last couple of years, even though there was clearly an unspoken rule that everyone had to have a favourite between the two actors (which is ridiculous). That level of fanaticism, though, which extends to every fandom, is not something I'll ever understand; loving their work? Sure, I get that. Liking their PR personality, how they conduct themselves, what causes they get behind, etc. etc., I can also understand. But feeling personally offended at, and outright rejecting, the idea that your fave may have done something that you'd prefer they not, as though they're not human people who sometimes make mistakes or do something that not everyone agrees with? So weird to me. And it's on both sides of the fandom, although a little (a lot) more potent with Stanatics this season. It's not like any of us have any idea what celebrities are really like, or who they would prefer we send hate to on their behalf. 3 hours ago, WendyCR72 said: On another topic, the Emmy nominations are out today. And it just reinforced how no actor from the likes of this show or Bones or any such dramedy would ever make the cut as 95% of the nominations seemed to be from cable shows and now streaming shows! I think broadcast made up the other 5%, if that. I'm being generous. (From broadcast [ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox], I saw some noms for actor/actress in comedy and maybe one or two noms in dramas.) To think cable used to be so disconnected that it used to have its own awards show, the now defunct (I think) Cable ACE Awards. Now that and streaming are the new kings. I completely understand why, but tbh that makes me a little sad. I watch a couple of cable shows, and I love some of what Netflix has done, but I also still really love network TV? Sometimes I love mindless TV, and while the writing isn't often great, I do sometimes think that the powerhouse acting that goes into making a show like that watchable deserves a nod. Edited July 15, 2016 by chraume 1 Link to comment
GoGiants July 15, 2016 Share July 15, 2016 (edited) 21 hours ago, madmaverick said: I do agree that BTS opinions and fandom biases that fed into that influenced how some people saw chemistry and the show. Not saying it influenced everyone, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone who binge watches the show in a vacuum away from fandom feels differently about it than those who were intensely invested in the actors and BTS rumors. You’ve described my viewing experience almost perfectly @madmaverick. I binge watched and caught up to the show right after the S7 finale, just ahead of the S8 renewal. Besides a few online articles and google searches about the cast and show, I watched all 7 seasons without showrunner comments, social media, forums BTS gossip etc. I am also a viewer who barely knew who NF was let alone the rest of the cast. I didn’t even know of TV Line’s existence until last summer and the famous blind item. After going through S8 with all of those things, I am grateful that I missed the first 7 season’s worth of them! I found this place around the time of the break up rumors and blind item. Before landing here, I stumbled through a few articles/forums etc that were full of gossip and nastiness or they were dripping with blind adoration and near worship of the characters and actors. Both extremes are a bit much for my taste and make me rather uncomfortable. It was a fun to come across a forum full of real and interesting discussion. Binge watching combined with knowing next to nothing about the show and its issues absolutely affected my enjoyment of the show for the better. Not reading showrunner interviews or waiting out the hiatus after a lame cliffhanger or watching continuity and characterization issues form in real time did wonders for my opinions and feelings for Castle. If I had been a real time viewer, I don’t think I would have come back after the wedding/disappearance mess. I have dropped more than a few shows over the years after bizarre and frustrating moments. But thanks to binge watching and my good feelings for the show, I set aside my annoyances and kept going. Binge watching smoothed out the rough edges (continuity, poor characterization, bad secondary cast development, wedding/Castle’s disappearance and many other things) and let me enjoy the charm, sweetness and chemistry that drew me into the show to begin with. A lot of my frustrations are similar to those I’ve read from people who watched in real time. Binge watching made it so easy for to me take the good and toss the bad until S8 hit me like a ton of bricks. ;) As for the BTS issues affecting my viewing experience, I was unaware of even a whisper of drama until I started reading here and elsewhere. I didn’t pick up on anything during my binge watch that I would have attributed to BTS issues. In hindsight, I do see what some here have pointed out, but I don’t know that I would have thought it without a nudge. I have admitted here to perhaps not being the most observant about that kind of thing. I’ll further admit to being someone who absolutely thinks something happened (I believe there were numerous factors that lead to Castle's drama and demise, not all tied to the leads) but I don’t have a particular “team” that I champion. Getting involved in Castle at the beginning of the end wasn’t such a fun thing. But hanging out here has been nice. :) On an unrelated note, not really a Castle like show, but I have been watching my way through The Closer and now Major Crimes. Obviously those two shows have far more standard procedural in them than Castle. But it has been refreshing to watch relatively consistent character development occur through both shows and the main and secondary casts. I feel like I know more about many of the secondary characters than I ever knew about Ryan, Esposito and Lainie (and that show has a bigger ensemble than Castle!). Another reminder that it isn’t hard to be consistent and develop characters while primarily being a crime procedural. Also refreshing to not have a cop show deteriorate into convoluted conspiracies and super spy goofiness. As @verdana and others said up thread, it really does seem like the Castle writers and showrunners just didn’t care and it snowballed from there over the seasons. Edited July 15, 2016 by GoGiants 1 Link to comment
CheshireCat July 15, 2016 Share July 15, 2016 (edited) I caught the re-run of "Once Upon a Crime" yesterday and one of Beckett's lines struck me. She said "That's why we need fairy tales in the face of too much reality, to remind us that happy endings are still possible." I think that sentence alone tells us what Marlowe wanted to do with the show and where he wanted it to go and what he wanted it to be. And I think it's also representitive of what many fans/the majority had signed up for. Why the fairy tale ended with the S6 finale disaster, I don't know but what's more curious is that Hawley was still on the team at the time, he also had a production credit. And yet, in my opinion, he completely ignored that when he took over. (And in my opinion, unless ABC was telling him where to take the show, he could have created something that respected that, and not respecting that, again in my opinion, is disrespectful to the entire creation.) Edited July 15, 2016 by CheshireCat 2 Link to comment
verdana July 15, 2016 Share July 15, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, CheshireCat said: Why the fairy tale ended with the S6 finale disaster, I don't know but what's more curious is that Hawley was still on the team at the time, he also had a production credit. And yet, in my opinion, he completely ignored that when he took over. (And in my opinion, unless ABC was telling him where to take the show, he could have created something that respected that, and not respecting that, again in my opinion, is disrespectful to the entire creation.) Are you sure Hawley was part of the set up at that point? Because I always thought he left end of S4 which perfectly explained why we got we did in S8. He acted like he'd never been away and was intent on re-doing everything the way he wanted, hence Beckett's horrible regression with her leaving Castle and getting obsessed again. Hawley was hired to be the future of Castle but amusingly spent his time digging up the past to an almost obsessional degree, it was a big mistake because you can't relive the past as if nothing has changed and still make things fresh and interesting because everyone has moved on emotionally - and that should include the characters. What we got was a pale reflection on what Marlowe did and considering what Marlowe did often wasn't that stellar he was in trouble from the start. As for the wedding disaster I blame Marlowe and his arrogance completely for that, reading one interview it appears the debacle was a combination of time pressure and the story not working and he knew it but still put it out there, assuming they could get away with pissing the fans off dragging things out and after a while everyone would calm down and get over it - but he (and his wife) badly misjudged the situation. I agree that MilMar wanted the couple to have a fairy tale happy ending because Castle and Beckett is their relationship pretty much so the emotional investment was there which it couldn't be with any other set of writers but you pull the rug out like that with the fans and there should no place to hide. Hawley lacked respect, respect for the fans, respect for the actors, respect for Marlowe and his creation and respect for the characters critically - he just didn't seem to give a shit what he put them through and assumed fans would lap it up. S8 I barely recognized the characters that I used to know it was like watching a completely different show. Edited July 15, 2016 by verdana 3 Link to comment
verdana July 15, 2016 Share July 15, 2016 (edited) On 12/07/2016 at 7:20 AM, WendyCR72 said: Found this. Very tabloid-y but maybe something to discuss. As much as this is supposed to be about things fans didn't know, I think everybody does/did...with maybe the exception being #1. Oh, well. Click bait is click bait is click bait, right? Has to laugh at No 10 and the "couples therapy" idea, I doubt very much they had therapy, they just continued to ignore each other off set and got separated on it whenever possible, that was the solution. Was Ryan always carrying one of Castle's books in every episode? Must have missed that. I knew Nathan came from Edmonton a place I'm never ever going at least in the winter (-20C is not unusual) no thanks! As for No 1 I knew he cut her blouse but in other articles the producers didn't watch it happen. I love that daisy dress she wore that you can see the top of it in one of those pics. Edited July 16, 2016 by verdana Link to comment
verdana July 15, 2016 Share July 15, 2016 On 12/07/2016 at 11:05 AM, madmaverick said: #1 was actually one of the first things I knew about the show bts because Nathan prompted Stana to share that story in one of their earliest interviews on the tube where they interviewed each other (and clearly liked each other as people then). Here it is. Holy crap! Watching clips like this is painful. I still can't decide failed romance gone wrong or personality clash (or both), they were so adorable and relaxed together back then. Stana has this great dorkish vibe about her and you can tell she was her first real break out role. It was sad that towards the end there was more chance of an alien invasion happening than getting an interview with them together. And boy did Stana get that Hollywood makeover good and proper when you see her here. It wasn't needed sadly. Sigh Link to comment
CheshireCat July 15, 2016 Share July 15, 2016 12 hours ago, verdana said: Are you sure Hawley was part of the set up at that point? Because I always thought he left end of S4 which perfectly explained why we got we did in S8. That was my phrasing - Hawley left at the end of S4. I was referring to Hawley still being on board by the time of "Once Upon a Crime" so eve if he didn't Keep up with the show after he left, he must have been well aware of all the magic and fairy tale references and Marlowe's intentions. 12 hours ago, verdana said: As for the wedding disaster I blame Marlowe and his arrogance completely for that, reading one interview it appears the debacle was a combination of time pressure and the story not working and he knew it but still put it out there, assuming they could get away with pissing the fans off dragging things out and after a while everyone would calm down and get over it - but he (and his wife) badly misjudged the situation. Personally, I don't get the dragging out part. I didn't feel they had done that before, so why start then? Why, when all the signs pointed to a wedding by the end of the season (in the episode in which Beckett tries on that horrible wedding gown, she even tells Castle she doesn't need more time, she thinks they can find a venue in spring) during the season, didn't they do it? They concluded each arc by the end of the season before so why did they not want to conclude the S6 arc by the end of the season? Was that Marlowe's choice or was that someone else's? And if it was Marlowe's, why the sudden change in MO? 12 hours ago, verdana said: Hawley lacked respect, respect for the fans, respect for the actors, respect for Marlowe and his creation and respect for the characters critically - he just didn't seem to give a shit what he put them through and assumed fans would lap it up. S8 I barely recognized the characters that I used to know it was like watching a completely different show. I agree. At least, if it was Hawley. There's still a chance that ABC was the one lacking the respect. One has to wonder how much Paul Lee wanted that spin-off he was talking about... 2 Link to comment
madmaverick July 15, 2016 Share July 15, 2016 20 hours ago, chraume said: Honestly, the fandom was a pretty content place until the last couple of years, even though there was clearly an unspoken rule that everyone had to have a favourite between the two actors (which is ridiculous). That level of fanaticism, though, which extends to every fandom, is not something I'll ever understand; loving their work? Sure, I get that. Liking their PR personality, how they conduct themselves, what causes they get behind, etc. etc., I can also understand. But feeling personally offended at, and outright rejecting, the idea that your fave may have done something that you'd prefer they not, as though they're not human people who sometimes make mistakes or do something that not everyone agrees with? So weird to me. And it's on both sides of the fandom, although a little (a lot) more potent with Stanatics this season. It's not like any of us have any idea what celebrities are really like, or who they would prefer we send hate to on their behalf. People can have their favourites, sure, but when did it become an unspoken rule that everyone has to take 'sides'? I completely reject that. I also reject the vocal, angry part of fandom whose fanaticism around their favourite actor to the point of hijacking every discussion, constantly disturbing the peace, and turning everything into an attack, an argument, unnecessarily. They are called drama lovers for a reason. A lot of people get into fandom to have fun, not to fight and argue. Frankly, I find the degree of personal investment some people have in their favourite celebrities to be disturbing. That they can get so self-righteously angry and hateful on their behalf, without knowing anything, really, about that person in real life or his/her own thoughts and feelings on the matter. It's like in all the fan wars the actors themselves become irrelevant, not to mention, often the facts themselves. ;) I just think if you're spending more time being negative and hating on someone/something than liking and enjoying, then it's time to get out and do something that brings you more pleasure. 20 hours ago, chraume said: Sometimes I love mindless TV, and while the writing isn't often great, I do sometimes think that the powerhouse acting that goes into making a show like that watchable deserves a nod. When terrible things are happening in the world, I think we could all do with some mindless TV. Sigh. Stay safe, everyone. It's a cruel world out there. I think we shouldn't underestimate the powerhouse acting that goes into saying 'lividity' a hundred different ways over time. Keeping it fresh. :P When you only basically get one thing to do, you've got to make it count. ;) 17 hours ago, GoGiants said: Before landing here, I stumbled through a few articles/forums etc that were full of gossip and nastiness or they were dripping with blind adoration and near worship of the characters and actors. Both extremes are a bit much for my taste and make me rather uncomfortable. It was a fun to come across a forum full of real and interesting discussion, Thanks for sharing your binge watching experience, GoGiants. I can't stand the extremes either. Give me moderation every time. And I appreciate the grown up tone and moderating here, thanks Wendy. 17 hours ago, GoGiants said: On an unrelated note, not really a Castle like show, but I have been watching my way through The Closer and now Major Crimes. Obviously those two shows have far more standard procedural in them than Castle. But it has been refreshing to watch relatively consistent character development occur through both shows and the main and secondary casts. I feel like I know more about many of the secondary characters than I ever knew about Ryan, Esposito and Lainie (and that show has a bigger ensemble than Castle!). Another reminder that it isn’t hard to be consistent and develop characters while primarily being a crime procedural. Also refreshing to not have a cop show deteriorate into convoluted conspiracies and super spy goofiness. As @verdana and others said up thread, it really does seem like the Castle writers and showrunners just didn’t care and it snowballed from there over the seasons. Those procedurals, and many other shows, definitely have a better handle on servicing an ensemble cast than Castle ever did. One thing those 2 shows you named seem to be good at is adding little bits of flavour to ensemble interactions that make everyone just a little bit more fun and interesting. Castle used to be good at doing that in the early seasons, but somewhere in the middle Marlowe dropped the ball on that entirely, and ensemble scenes were almost all dull COTW exposition. Or otherwise heavy handed character anvils. Castle's supporting characters were more interesting to me at the start, but grew less and less interesting to me over time, as they became more one note, pure exposition vessels, or took on less likable and OOC characteristics (Alexis?). 12 hours ago, verdana said: As for the wedding disaster I blame Marlowe and his arrogance completely for that, reading one interview it appears the debacle was a combination of time pressure and the story not working and he knew it but still put it out there, assuming they could get away with pissing the fans off dragging things out and after a while everyone would calm down and get over it - but he (and his wife) badly misjudged the situation. I blame Marlowe for the wedding disaster and for the decline of the show even preceding that completely. I don't know where people get the idea that he's not to blame for it. He explicitly talked about where he got the idea of Beckett forgetting a previous marriage from, and about his desire to set up a new arc with 623. He's loved ending seasons on a cliffhanger note every season so 623 wasn't anything new in that respect for him. The whole knee jerk proposal (terrible idea by Marlowe imo) and DC arc, and ugh really whole arc starting from TSATQ was already a lesson in how Marlowe had no clue how to keep Caskett interesting in his mind without manufactured angst and out there obstacles. It was clear that he was struggling for story by S6 with the way he was stretching out things thinly and any exploration of the characters and relationships was so shallow. In the end, he gambled with a wedding disaster but agreed he badly misjudged the situation. For the record, I don't object to a dramatic storyline. But I just felt the drama in 623, 523 (arguably even 423 in parts and preceding) were just not well done. 701 could have resuscitated things but alas, Marlowe didn't do that one well either. 12 hours ago, verdana said: Holy crap! Watching clips like this is painful. I still can't decide failed romance gone wrong or personality clash (or both), they were so adorable and relaxed together back then. Stana has this great dorkish vibe about her and you can tell she was her first real break out role. It was sad that towards the end there was more chance of an alien invasion happening than getting an interview with them together. And boy did Stana get that Hollywood makeover good and proper when you see her here. It wasn't needed sadly. Sigh They really were so great together. Sigh. Stana was adorably green and Nathan made her laugh so much. My money's still on failed romance gone wrong, or as someone speculated, one party did something that affected another's personal life. They both seem like nice, easy going people, and actually compliment each other for being easy going in early season interviews when they'd already been working long hours with each other, that I find it hard to believe that they could develop such a massive personality clash that they don't seem to have developed with anyone else over their careers. Something happened, imo. It's so weird. When I watch early seasons, Stana looks like a different person altogether. You can get the Hollywood makeover for sure, but I'd say you do lose something in the process and rarely do actresses seem to go back from it. 10 minutes ago, CheshireCat said: Personally, I don't get the dragging out part. I didn't feel they had done that before, so why start then? Why, when all the signs pointed to a wedding by the end of the season (in the episode in which Beckett tries on that horrible wedding gown, she even tells Castle she doesn't need more time, she thinks they can find a venue in spring) during the season, didn't they do it? They concluded each arc by the end of the season before so why did they not want to conclude the S6 arc by the end of the season? Was that Marlowe's choice or was that someone else's? And if it was Marlowe's, why the sudden change in MO? As I said above, I don't think 623 was any change in Marlowe's MO. And maybe he's not the only showrunner to subscribe to the school of thinking that believes you have to give an audience drama, a cliffhanger, and not everything they want to keep them coming back. ;) 1 Link to comment
McManda July 15, 2016 Share July 15, 2016 Quote As for No 1 I knew he cut her blouse but in other articles the producers didn't watch it happen. I'm pretty sure that when Stana tells the story herself (and she tends to use it as the go-to "tell me a story about Castle" story) she mentions that people watched it happen and that's what she credits with her getting the role in the end. Link to comment
KaveDweller July 15, 2016 Share July 15, 2016 2 hours ago, madmaverick said: People can have their favourites, sure, but when did it become an unspoken rule that everyone has to take 'sides'? With the invention of Twitter, I think. Or maybe even the invention of the Internet. Link to comment
oberon55 July 16, 2016 Share July 16, 2016 I believe one reason is that a lot of their relationship was portrayed as fairly adversarial. I think it started in s4 with the secrets & went from there. From that point on it was pretty much standard procedure that each season we would have a new lie or secret. Very few ended with them acting like adults. Either they got mad and yelled or they proposed. The writers never showed any long time growth from either of them. Even at the end they would both break the others trust at the drop of a hat. I think years of playing the characters against each other this way went a long way to fostering a divide in the fan base. Either side could make a pretty good case that their favorite character had been wronged by the other. 2 Link to comment
S55 July 16, 2016 Share July 16, 2016 3 hours ago, KaveDweller said: With the invention of Twitter, I think. Or maybe even the invention of the Internet. Pretty much. Choosing a preferred character/actor was definitely around in the late 90's/early 00's with the online XF fandom. Link to comment
KaveDweller July 16, 2016 Share July 16, 2016 2 hours ago, oberon55 said: I believe one reason is that a lot of their relationship was portrayed as fairly adversarial. I think it started in s4 with the secrets & went from there. From that point on it was pretty much standard procedure that each season we would have a new lie or secret. Very few ended with them acting like adults. Either they got mad and yelled or they proposed. The writers never showed any long time growth from either of them. Even at the end they would both break the others trust at the drop of a hat. I think years of playing the characters against each other this way went a long way to fostering a divide in the fan base. Either side could make a pretty good case that their favorite character had been wronged by the other. I think that's true about season 8, but I don't really think they were portrayed as adversarial the whole time. Season 4 was full of secrets, and I get why some viewers took sides then, even though I didn't really have a problem with either one's action. But between when they got together and the beginning of season 8 there was only one real secret/lie/fight and that was Beckett's job interview which spanned two episodes. They didn't do a great job showing growth, but it's not like they were constantly having problems/fights or wronging each other. They were pretty stable and healthy and on the same page (again, until season 8). I'm certainly not saying the writing was the best at showing their relationship, but I would never have described it as adversarial. Viewers just seemed to really hone in on the few things one or the other did wrong and couldn't let go. The characters were able to get over the secrets of season 4 pretty easily, which I thought was healthy of them all things considered, but some fans couldn't get over them no matter how happy the characters were supposed to be. So, I think it is just a phenomenon that people just like to criticize others, and it's really easy to do that with a fictional character because they can't talk back. But fans of those characters fight back by criticizing other fictional characters and it turns into a fandom war. Imagine what those people could do if they put all their energy into something in real life. Link to comment
chraume July 16, 2016 Share July 16, 2016 7 hours ago, SweetTooth said: I see Castle as a really watered-down, mild version of what goes on in some fandoms. The ones where there are a massive amount of crazy-rabid fans. Say, GOT or something like that. That's a great point. For all that the crazy does seem to be big in this show (and for all that TVLine worked hard to cater to that this past season), it really is a very mild form of fandom crazy. It's a small (but vocal) fandom, with only one relationship on the show. We don't have ship wars, there's honestly probably only really a pocket of 100 or so people, if that, who are active about the show online, there's not a big ensemble cast, etc. Arguing between Castle or Beckett as your fave isn't quite as bad as having 10-12 cast members and arguing about screentime, storylines, etc. And, equally importantly, there's not a very passionate subset of the fandom who have a very specific idea of IRL relationships that they harass the cast about (e.g. fake marriages or babies, or doing xyz to cover up a ~secret relationship), which unfortunately happens a lot in the larger fandoms. It's a little hard to remember given the last couple of months, so that's a good reminder for me! Thank goodness for the large viewership in reality but small, active (and creative!) fandom online -- that's a rare combo. Link to comment
Sonik Tooth July 16, 2016 Share July 16, 2016 On 14.7.2016 at 6:04 PM, madmaverick said: It's strange, I've seen fans of actors who make up an onscreen couple end up in fandom wars against each other rather than united in their love for the 'ship on more than one show. Not sure why it ends up like that and why some people turn everything into a competition and a battle. 'Tis a shame. I think most viewers tends to be fans of both actors if they are invested in an onscreen couple and aren't interested in them being pitched against each other. I would say it’s a case about social identity. Your group’s worth isn’t defined by your own group’s achievements but by comparison with another group. And social media makes it so easy, and maybe even addictive. You can be a whole different person, you can be important. You have more fave/likes when saying something derogatory about the other group than friends in real life. This may even persuade people to change sides if they think their chosen group is losing. 15 hours ago, SweetTooth said: The only way these people cause trouble, as @chraume said upthread , is when people with legitimate criticisms get lumped in with the crazies. Anyone who has something negative to say isn't automatically a rabid hater. You can tell these people apart, because they cite specific examples of what they don't like and why they don't like it. Rabid fans aside, I find it hard to define legitimate criticism. When I’m looking for spoilers for other shows on this board, I sometimes find the criticism (about characters or storylines) so absurd, I wouldn’t even know how to start an argument. It’s because I thoroughly enjoy the show how it is. I don’t want characters to change or to get less screen time or to be a couple asap. I couldn’t care less about a plothole because it’s insignificant to me or the benefit/outcome outshines said plothole for me. On this board and elsewhere I can’t grasp the notion why the portrayal of the couple “Caskett” must be linked to BTS issues between Fillion and Katic. That’s not because I categorically rule out any tensions between them but because I don’t see a reasonable connection. Because they don’t like each other they won’t do what exactly? What would differ if they liked eacher other? It also may originate from the question what is Castle about (for you)? What defines the series (for you)? If I have a quick look at the season 7 reviews on amazon (4 and a half stars), it’s about the friendly antagonistic relationship between Castle and Beckett and the more outlandish cases. They mostly find it charming and funny… Insert inner fictional dialogue with my pet peeves about season 7 and the amazon reviewer bunch: (Me): But don’t you see the continuity problem? Castle was missing for weeks! Weeeeeks!!! (Them from amazon): Bugger off! That’s not what the show is about. It’s not a damn serial, you nitwit! (Me): A Richard Castle character study? Wut? Everything was totally plot driven! (That person who thinks season 7 was a RC character study): Chill! Many cases had a special Richard Castle connection or had him perform special tasks. You need to get your unhealthy obsession looked at! Guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder. And the boards seem to be more on the negative side in general. 1 Link to comment
verdana July 17, 2016 Share July 17, 2016 (edited) On 16/07/2016 at 1:00 AM, oberon55 said: I believe one reason is that a lot of their relationship was portrayed as fairly adversarial. I think it started in s4 with the secrets & went from there. From that point on it was pretty much standard procedure that each season we would have a new lie or secret. Very few ended with them acting like adults. Either they got mad and yelled or they proposed. The writers never showed any long time growth from either of them. Even at the end they would both break the others trust at the drop of a hat. I think years of playing the characters against each other this way went a long way to fostering a divide in the fan base. Either side could make a pretty good case that their favorite character had been wronged by the other. I found the writing lacked maturity in how it dealt with their relationship and any contentious issues that came up, I recently read an article about Terri and Andrew regarding some new show they're trying to get off the ground and one of the quotes from Marlowe was: Quote Having created a hugely successful show that ran on US network television for eight years. Marlowe says the secret is having great characters – but with the understanding that they will have to be reinvented as the show progresses. “You have to allow those characters to grow in ways that keep them in conflict and keep them moving towards each other and away from each other,” he says. “If you don’t have those ingredients, the show can peter out very quickly. It will just be a conceptual show. So the time and diligence really has to go into crafting a longer-term arc for all of your characters so that when people get to the end of a season, they can feel a satisfaction and a pay-off but also a desire to see the characters grow in new and interesting ways in the next season. The problem with Marlowe was this his appetite to see Castle and Beckett in "conflict" to create this apparent movement and growth was so moronic at times and childish, he had mature adults frequently acting like two overly hormonal teenagers or is that how he and Terri argued at home? This back and forth they chose wasn't interesting which it should have been (and critically added to their character development) it was annoying because of the way the conflict was structured plus the characters appeared to learn almost nothing from their experiences. This backwards and forwards did create anger within certain sectors of the fanbase as to which was more the "wronged" party and I can understand why that occurred given the writing. There were times when I sincerely wished Castle would dump Beckett and find someone with less baggage, she became tiresome with her self absorbed behaviour and "walls" and Castle's passivity and acceptance of everything (acting like a doormat does not equal a healthy "epic" loving relationship in my book) annoyed the hell out of me. I shouldn't have felt that way due to the writing but I did. Then they'd switch is around and have Castle looking stupid and inexplicably (given he used to be so attuned to her in the early days) ignorant of Kate's feelings, Castle became like one of those guys at a party where the wife introduces him around and I'm thinking you poor woman why the hell did you lumber yourself with that idiot? It got to the point where I wondered why Beckett was so in love with this version of Richard Castle as he was nothing like the guy she fell for at the start. But in the end I lost sympathy for both of them because of their silly antics and started to wish they'd both realise they're made a big mistake and were better off apart and I definitely shouldn't be thinking such things with such an "epic" incredible love story as it was often promoted as such. That's the real shame of it for me that I went from being a die hard shipper and believing this couple deserved their happy ever and were perfectly suited (their respective strengths and weaknesses balancing each other nicely) to wishing they'd split up amicably and hook up with other people, anything to stop the rot because the writing was damaging the characters beyond repair. I agree with one commentator who said that the development of the characters bizarrely waned as the show went on which obviously isn't the way it should be, I found all the characters were far better fleshed out in the first three or four seasons and then everything seemed to either stall or worse regress. May be the person who said that Marlowe only had in his head a story for the beginning during the WTWT planned out and then was completely lost after that as to what do with them as a couple was on the money, I certainly felt the show started to unravel in places in S4 as the tried to drag out them circling each other and that accelerated in S5 once they were finally together. Edited July 17, 2016 by verdana Link to comment
verdana July 17, 2016 Share July 17, 2016 (edited) On 16/07/2016 at 4:09 AM, KaveDweller said: Imagine what those people could do if they put all their energy into something in real life. Heh, it's frightening isn't it, with some fans it seems to literally consume them. Thanks McManda for the correction about that story. Edited July 17, 2016 by verdana Link to comment
verdana July 17, 2016 Share July 17, 2016 (edited) On 15/07/2016 at 9:26 PM, madmaverick said: It's so weird. When I watch early seasons, Stana looks like a different person altogether. You can get the Hollywood makeover for sure, but I'd say you do lose something in the process and rarely do actresses seem to go back from it. Yeah absolutely, it's not just about the physical transformation, it's sad any way. I wish actors (women especially) didn't feel the need to change their looks and attitude to conform in Hollywood to a supposed ideal and because they believe it will make them more popular and bankable. They end up losing much of what makes them unique and interesting to me in the first place, by the time the transformation is complete you could end up throwing a rock and hitting a thousand of them looking and acting exactly the same doing the Hollywood speak and that spark/magic has gone. Edited July 17, 2016 by verdana 1 Link to comment
verdana July 17, 2016 Share July 17, 2016 (edited) Going back to that article I linked to I thought this was amusing: Quote “But we also know the audience has seen so many procedurals that you have to deliver great stories with great twists and turns. You always have to try to be out in front of your audience, given everything they’ve seen, to try to figure out how you can play fair and be surprising at the same time. Those are all the things you look at and then you cross your fingers.” I wonder if Marlowe thought he was playing fair pulling the rug out after a whole season's wedding built up? Or was pulling a brilliant move staying "out in front" of the audience by giving Beckett a secret husband she never knew about - surprise Castle fans! I'd like to think that MilMar have learn't some valuable lessons from the 6.23 debacle with any future show they produce but suspect not. Edited July 17, 2016 by verdana Link to comment
Sonik Tooth July 17, 2016 Share July 17, 2016 8 hours ago, SweetTooth said: Just because someone can't fathom something or doesn't understand it or doesn't care if there's a plot hole you can drive a truck through, doesn't mean someone else can't have a legit criticism about it. They're opinions. There are many opinions people can't fathom. Sometimes people think what they believe is so right, so good, that anybody who has a differing opinion must be a hater. Like, they shout from the rooftops, "I'm able to watch the show without any of the stuff that's affecting you having any impact on me!" The part that's implied is that YOU are a nitpicking, horrible fan, while I can obviously rise above it. It's like the person who says, "I DON'T OWN A TELEVISION" in a way that says if you do and actually watch TV, you're an idiot who can't formulate a cohesive thought to save your life. To that person I say, "Good for you!" But as is pointed out many times, It's in the eye of the beholder. That beholder can love the show but see its flaws. It's like loving a person but seeing their flaws. So, let me try and state the difference between constructive criticism and what would be considered a crazy, rabid person who just likes to yell at people: Rabid fan: F*** them! F*** YOU! I hate all of you! I'm going on Twitter right now to tell Nathan he's a F****** ASSHOLE, and I'm going to threaten him and his girlfriend! You're all STUPID if you like this show! (or) "You're AN F****** MORON if you don't like this show! The writers are PERFECT and don't you say a word about it not being true!" (or) "The writers are a bunch of IMBECILES! I'm going to go on Twitter and THREATEN THEM and DEMAND they do what I want RIGHT NOW!" Legit criticism: I have a hard time watching a show that doesn't bother to even try and cover the plot holes. I feel they're not putting any effort into the show anymore. They're writing the characters OTT, and it's ruining my enjoyment of the show. I don't like what they've done to the characters I once loved. They seem to be doing storylines that don't make sense to me. In other words, one is an opinion, that everyone is entitled to. The other is just name calling and screeching down anyone having a dissenting opinion while also going to the actors and writers and threatening them. One is angry and abusive. The other comes from a place of being sad their show is going downhill and also gives concrete examples as to why they feel that way. @verdana is always one of my favorites for this, because she states what she feels is wrong with the show and gives concrete examples and also says she can see the other side of the coin, which is also another way to tell a rabid crazy fan from a person who's merely giving a critique. Case in point: It’s legitimate to have an opinion or to formulate criticism. With or without further explanations, although those are indeed very helpful when entering a debate. I wouldn’t categorize the habit of name calling and threats as opinion/ criticism either. They are just that, insults and threats. (My fault in my last post, I wanted to highlight the contrary opinions by exaggeration) So, it being called (my) opinion or (my) criticism, I go d’accord with. Always have. Everybody else can decide if they agree with me, if they have something to add, if they would alleviate the comment a bit, if they think I’m nitpicking, if they can’t fathom it or if they indeed think it’s crazy. But by calling my criticism legitimate, I either imply that opposing opinions on that matter are illegitimate or that there is an official and objective standard or benchmark everybody is privy to. Or that my standard is the one that is setting the bar, meaning everybody else with e.g. no criticism is just too dumb, too deluded or too unobservant to get it. As an example, I take Beckett’s metamorphosis. What would be legitimate criticism as opposed to an opinion I have (which people can agree with or can’t fathom why this would be even up to debate?) What are the standards for realism in the Castle-Universe? Do Beckett’s heels outweigh Castle’s writer vest? If the showrunners say, we try to make the show as realistic as possible showing daily police work, and by that setting a (more or less known) objective standard, outcries about, well, nearly every aspect of Castle would become legitimate criticism. For me, this has nothing to do with being a good fan, bad fan or any fan at all. It’s about the difficulties evaluating art/ entertainment. And that is, as you and I both said, in the eye of the beholder. Mostly, only the creators do know what they want to achieve, which poses another problem. (Although critics should have figured out Adam Sandler movies by now ;-) 1 Link to comment
break21 July 18, 2016 Share July 18, 2016 My recollection is Beckett's transformation happened in Season 3 when CBS started Hawaii 5-0. I suspect Marlowe and the network felt like they had to compete against the women running around in swim-suits on that show. My biggest problem with this is, when they sexed her up, they dumbed her down. That's when she started losing her gun, getting kidnapped, etc. Up until then, I really liked Beckett as a character. After that, I couldn't relate. As for Castle, as the writing got worse it felt like Nathan tried to do too much at times to make up for it. 2 Link to comment
Recommended Posts