Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[cappuccino]

https://twitter.com/JulianaAbud_/status/491661744125640704/photo/1

https://twitter.com/JulianaAbud_/status/491662688989097985/photo/1

 

Looks as if Beckett's hair will be different this season. At least I hope so.

[axj73]

Ryan and Espo look like they're still wearing their tux shirts and trousers. Maybe this is a scene not long after the car inferno. Kate's changed out of the second ruined dress and they get a lead on Castles whereabouts but turns out he's not in that trailer. Then I reckon we'll get the two month time jump. Just a guess mind you!!

[Samantha84]

Her hair looks to be a shade darker. Still has the extensions but has her hair pulled half back in these photos/scenes. 

[Elysium1973]

I'm generally a huge fan of Stana and her looks, but she looks exhausted already. Fillion hit the wall in 2012 so no surprise there. It's going to be a long season.

[KaveDweller]

I don't think TGW's doing everything right, but there's surely quite a few things Castle writers could learn from them.  They sure give their excellent actors a lot more meaty stuff to do.  And their married showrunners sure aren't prudish about sex. ;)

 

I think they could learn even more than "quite a few."  There were episodes from TGW last season where I just had so much fun watching because of how great it was.  All the characters seemed to care so much about what they were doing in even the smallest court cases, and I think it makes the viewer care too. It's also a show where there are two sides of an argument/case in every episode, and I thought both were usually valid.  

[KaveDweller]

I guess I think the opposite because since they've chosen to go into soap opera territory with the burning car cliffhanger, I'm prepared for them to go all out and milk the 'death' in all its soap opera glory. ;)  Castle's a famous author and I'd like to see his 'passing' noted in the public arena.  Maybe a short, morbid TV news report (that someone turns off of course) where they mention his books sales are skyrocketing as fans rush to buy his last Nikki Heat book.  Beckett can lovingly trace his final dedication to her in her personal copy of the book. Sob.  They should be doing their usual in show book promotion anyway.  I don't object to seeing Castle's loved ones really grieve because I think that would actually ground the storyline a bit more and also make the emotions of the reunion all the more intense.

 

Well all those things sound like really beautiful scenes if done right. Maybe it's just that I don't trust them to do it right.

 

Also, one thing I usually hate on TV shows is when they have couples break up and get back together over and over again.  I know dying (or "dying") isn't a break up, but I always appreciated that once Marlowe put Caskett together he let them stay together and committed.  It seems like it taints things somehow.  I don't know if that makes sense, it's just how I feel.

[Nadine]

Not to parade piss but I don't know how much grieving you will get since from what I remember they know he is missing not dead. Don't quote me but I think it's a "there isn't a body in the car" situation.

Agreed.

I think if we get any type of grieving scenes it'll probably be with Martha, Alexis and Beckett talking in the loft just discussing (not grieving) how they wish he was home already. But this type of scene is more wishful thinking of my part.

Edited July 22, 2014 by Nadine

[Samantha84]

Via TVGuide.com, Mega Buzz

Question:  Can you tell me who ran Castle off the road in last year's Castle finale?

 

Answer:  Nope, but I can certainly tell you who didn't. For fans convinced that last year's fiery cliff-hanger was brought on by either existing nemeses Bracken and 3XK or even Castle's own father, allow new showrunner David Amann to burst your bubble. "The mythology we're getting into is going to go past all that into some new territory," he says. "Those are all fair game, but it's not going to be what the opening of the season is about." What the new season is about is unearthing new secrets about Castle. But how will that impact the Castle-Beckett relationship? "Things that are going to come to light that are going to be unsettling for Beckett," Amann teases. "But we're committed to that relationship. I don't think what happened to Castle is going to disrupt the trajectory of that relationship, at least not in the long term."

 

 

YAY! A new mythology and villain and past we know shit about! Trying to withhold judgement but this kinds of spoiler make it hard going. PS: We all know Marlowe & Co. know shit about continuity .. whoops my bad .. they know what to remember from sweeps month to sweep month but drop a storyline until. Bullshit. Ugh! 

[Nadine]

No real surprises in that TV Guide tidbit though I see Amann is using Marlowe's dictionary these days in his word choice. Eek!

[GeorgieNY]

Someone standing right in the middle of the production chairs like that would have to be invited. (Re: the Instagram video)

Edited July 22, 2014 by GeorgieNY

[Samantha84]

I don't want to hear the word "organic" from Marlowe and/or Co. ever again. There ain't shit organic about them blatantly delaying this wedding/marriage w. pulled out of air bullshit that's not even in line w. parts of the shows fabric we've already bared witness to, thus far!  Why does he feel like Castle/Beckett must get to a perfect place for marriage? Married people aren't perfect and they have problems.   Truth is, in my opinion, Marlowe doesn't know how to write a happy, in love, intimate adult relationship. Compared to other showrunners and other shows, he is seriously lacking.

[Elysium1973]

I truly think the problem with Hacklowe et al is that he simply doesn't trust the Caskett relationship. I'm not sure if he doesn't think he or the writers can craft interesting enough stories with them married or if there's something else holding them back. I'm not sure what the situation is. But all kidding aside, it's the opposite of organic, it's the very antithesis of organic. I mean I get that it's a TV show and so there are extraordinary circumstances involved. But using every excuse under the sun to keep them from getting married after using every excuse under the sun to keep them from getting together just seems disingenuous to me.

The fact is that Castle isn't a soap opera. It doesn't even do drama well most of the time. Personally speaking, I'm not really interested in some new "mythology" that begins with Castle hiding something from Beckett and cause Beckett to be "unsettled". This show isn't an alphabet show (NCIS, CSI, SVU) that does a COTW well. Most of the time their cases are completely unwatchable, so let's not pretend that people are tuning in for the terrific mysteries that Hack and co are dishing out each week.

[KaveDweller]

What the new season is about is unearthing new secrets about Castle. But how will that impact the Castle-Beckett relationship? "Things that are going to come to light that are going to be unsettling for Beckett,"

 

I'm not sure I like the sound of that.

 

"Some things come to light that are unsettling for Beckett" i.e. seeing evidence that Castle had himself run off the road.

 

Okay, that's a good point.  Marlowe said similar things about Beckett in Probable Cause.  I guess Amman is taking lessons from Marlowe in how to give a horrible interview that gets fans less excited than before.  Because the idea of Castle having secrets that haven't come out in the last 6 seasons is really just.....not fun.

 

Also, I think we should start a tally of how often Marlowe/Amman use their favorite buzz words.  This latest piece had a "mythology" but no "organic" or "fun."  Am I missing any?

[Elysium1973]

Yeah. I would think one of the reasons why ABC got rid of Hacklowe is his uncanny ability to give the world's shittiest interviews. But now Amann seems to have picked up AM's buzz words, so it's all for naught. I'm sure the ABC execs must be banging their heads against the wall.

KD don't forget "bites". He loves to take "bites" of things too.

Edited July 23, 2014 by Elysium1973

[KaveDweller]

KD don't forget "bites". He loves to take "bites" of things too.

 

Maybe he's a vampire? That's why they have such bad lighting on the show, it's too much like the sun.

[Nadine]

Plus they don't give these sound bites in person. Many times the writer's assistant types them up an emails them to TV Guide or whoever is asking the question. Or the publicist for the show does it themselves.

Pretty sure the soundbite came from the TCA Press Tour last week which is where AWM/DA were hence the TV Line and GMMR interviews sound the same (damn media scrums). Edited July 23, 2014 by Nadine

[verdana]

Except the didn't get rid of Marlowe at all. He's still there. Almost all the time. Now he just has time to go away if he wants and write his new show. 

 

Then I wished he'd go away now and get busy writing not that it's going to make a shit load of difference by the sound of that interview. Amann looks like Marlowe and he sounds like Marlowe too.

 

I don't like the sound of any of this because it sets off all the triggers that usually mean shitty storytelling to come Marlowe style.

 

- "New secrets" to be discovered about Castle, if they're anything along the lines of what I've recently discovered about Beckett, I don't want to know. 

 

- No continuity which is no shock, in that there's a new villain hanging around that comes out of nowhere we know nothing about and they have to now spend time trying to join the dots to make it credible. Then again, they probably won't.

 

- Needless relationship drama being created that will probably cause Beckett to have doubts about Castle's motivations which is what's been done to death already in various guises but with the comfort blanket for those fans panicking about a split that it won't affect their relationship at least not long term (although I note it's "I don't think" not "it won't"). However, I've no doubt that as this new season is all about Castle and his "secrets" you can bet your bottom dollar that what was kick started here will suddenly rear it's ugly little head to cause more tiresome relationship angst later in the season. 

 

Elysuim is right the guy just isn't doesn't trust the Caskett relationship and this is the result - more "organic" storytelling and a "new mythology" - which I'm not interested in and these spoilers haven't fired my enthusiasm up to want to care.

 

All this seems to be is a way of simply stalling on the wedding for a little longer that's all. I don't believe that we're going to find out anything genuinely new or interesting about Castle as a man not from what I've heard so far and it does look very much like they are going with selective amnesia story as outlined by halwideman earlier.

Edited July 23, 2014 by verdana

[verdana]

Okay, that's a good point.  Marlowe said similar things about Beckett in Probable Cause.  I guess Amman is taking lessons from Marlowe in how to give a horrible interview that gets fans less excited than before.  Because the idea of Castle having secrets that haven't come out in the last 6 seasons is really just.....not fun.

 

Also, I think we should start a tally of how often Marlowe/Amman use their favorite buzz words.  This latest piece had a "mythology" but no "organic" or "fun."  Am I missing any?

Yeah funny that Castle's got these secrets hidden away for Beckett to discover, serves her right for not doing a security check on the guy before she wanted to get married. I can't think of any secrets that are going to be interesting ones not with Marlowe still firmly steering the ship. 

 

And yes you are "complicated" things are always complicated......

 

Oh and another which okay has fallen out of favour a bit "lay (or put) all our cards on the table" 

Edited July 23, 2014 by verdana

[cappuccino]

So Castle has a secret past that no one knows about, never got hinted at and never was curious about to explore before ? So for how long did Castle have this secret past ? The entire show ? His entire writer life ? Just developed it over the last 2 seasons ? Color me more than skeptical with those spoilers we got so far.

 

So just bouncing around some stuff.

 

Apparently there is a mob involved right (confirmed or not I'll just speculate with it now) ? If it's Vinnie or not - don't really care for that right now. So what - and that's wishful thinking here - the entire Beckett has been married crap from the finale was really a set by some mob to get the whole thing with Castle set in motion ? We know Castle followed some Mobsters back in the day for one of his books. Maybe he owes those guys something and that's the "new secret past" ?

 

I really don't want a SpyKid Castle to our already existing SpyDaddy Castle !

[Nadine]

So Castle has a secret past that no one knows about, never got hinted at and never was curious about to explore before ? So for how long did Castle have this secret past ? The entire show ? His entire writer life ? Just developed it over the last 2 seasons ? Color me more than skeptical with those spoilers we got so far.

 

Well Beckett did ask in TGTBATB were there were other things she should know about him. Guessing this would be one of them!

Edited July 23, 2014 by Nadine

[verdana]

Nathan Fillion greets fans at After Party for Guardians Of The Galaxy Premiere in Hollywood, short video.

[verdana]

Beckett has never been that interested in Castle's past, he's been the one doing all the pushing at least at the start when the premise was that he wanted to know all about her for his books. But as they got closer and then hooked up I did wonder why Beckett seemed still blissfully uninterested in trying to find out more about the man she was about to marry. Usually when people fall in love they like to find out things about each other and questions get asked but not in this relationship it's all been sort of one way traffic in that department. Beckett doesn't seem bothered about Castle's back story unless he provides it to her on a plate so I guess now it's time for her inaction to come back to haunt her. 

 

So Castle has a secret past that no one knows about, never got hinted at and never was curious about to explore before ? So for how long did Castle have this secret past ? The entire show ? His entire writer life ? Just developed it over the last 2 seasons ? Color me more than skeptical with those spoilers we got so far.

 

Heh.

 

Secrets I could see them bringing up to shock Beckett and the fans:

 

- Castle has a love child he never knew about until very recently and he's been keeping this from Beckett but the child turns up at the door. 

- Martha was in fact a spy too so it's SpyDaddy and SpyMommy.

- Alexis is not his daughter, she was fathered by one of Meredith's many lovers when she realised her marriage to Rick was like a soufflé or...something. This would work on two levels - angst for Castle and Beckett but also give Molly something to do. They could then tie this one in with Castle finding a secret love child in the S7 finale so he "loses" one child but gains another. 

Edited July 23, 2014 by verdana

[madmaverick]

Ugh.  Why do their interviews always leave me the opposite of excited for the episode they're trying to promote?  I think my already very low expectations have gotten even lower at this point.  So let's hope I can only be pleasantly surprised by the final product. ;)  Best advice in the thread: to disregard. ;)

 

The basically hit all my dislike buttons: "new secrets"  "unsettling for Beckett" etc.  NONE of that sounds fun or like the show I used to love.  In the aftermath of a near death separation, I want reaffirmation of their bond, not new doubts and new secrets. 

 

I am not confident in their ability to write this sort of storyline well because it's been so unsatisfactorily done before when they chose to write Beckett in unsettled mode, when either of them had to deal with tiresome secrets/new revelations.  Castle's "walls" were terribly done.  Why did he have to have walls?  To match Beckett's?  Because they ran out of ideas for his character? Sounds like it's the case again here.  

 

Castle's positive outlook and belief in the goodness of people (vs Beckett's more jaded and realist outlook), his lightheartedness, his childlike enthusiasm and his joie de vivre (before they killed his mojo in recent years) have always been key to his character for me.  I hope they don't ruin any of that with whatever they have planned here.  I'm worried that the season where they supposedly choose to explore his character and unearth these new secrets (ugh) is the season where they ruin his character even more.

 

I didn't find it very believable when it turned out that Castle had hid his CIA muse in S4 from Beckett all this time, not when he'd bragged about his CIA connections all the way back in S2, and it was done in a fun way.  But this "new secret" was Marlowe's idea for the 2 parter no doubt.  I still kind of wish Beckett had been Castle's one and only real muse, and Castle was Beckett's 'one and done'.  But Marlowe had to ruin all that because he needed to bring in 'obstacles', without which he wouldn't know how to write their story. 

 

I just don't really buy that Castle would hide anything hugely significant from Beckett before their marriage, or from Martha or Alexis for that matter.

 

If the writers don't deliver some seriously emotionally satisfying Caskett payoff shortly after they are reunited, then they should be prepared for how little people will care about any precious 'new mythology'.  

 

"there isn't a body in the car" situation.

 

A bit anticlimatic if you ask me. It does look like the boys are still in their wedding catering outfits in the newest location pics.  So the trio just goes straight off into COTW investigative mode right after the burning car?  Momentum, I'll grant them that, but limits the time for much emoting.

Edited July 23, 2014 by madmaverick

[madmaverick]

Cool to see some fellow TGW fans here.  Verdana, you should definitely check out that show, especially if you like Julianna Margulies.  She really does a phenomenal job.

 

If the writing is of consistent good quality even if the fans don't like a particular story I think they can forgive a hell of lot more because they can see the care and attention that's going into everything.

 

Agreed.  Case in point: Tory.  I don't know what they've been trying to accomplish with that character but she's had zero impact for me.  Not going to even get started on the shoddy way they've dealt with Esplanie etc.  TGW has written in dozens of minor characters over the years.  Some of them stayed minor but it was clear writers put in effort to make their characterisation interesting.  Some minor characters grew into much bigger ones as plot developed.  On TGW, they've brought in a new Tory like role (Robin, for those watching) but the way they've developed her and weaved her into the show is so much superior to what they've done with Tory on Castle that any comparison is laughable.  I don't understand why they bring in characters on Castle just to be exposition robots.  The cast does enough of that already and I don't see them doing any less.  ;)  TGW also seriously explored the theme of grief this season, but I doubt we'll get anything of that quality on Castle in the aftermath of Castle's presumed death/kidnapping.  I can only conclude that the writers and showrunners on that show are of a higher calibre.  It's not easy to keep a show strong over 20+ episodes into a 6th or 7th season and it's a real test of where real quality lies.  

Edited July 23, 2014 by madmaverick

[Finis Terre]

I wonder about the exact nature of those "secrets" and whether they might be helpful in developing the male protagonist. Throughout season 6 Castle seemed pretty reticent as opposed to the uncharacteristically effusive Beckett. Was it deliberate or simply a matter of lazy direction? Maybe he will "pull a Mulder" and all of a sudden we will learn he has a mysterious brain disease? 

[verdana]

Linchpin and Pandora and discovering about Sophia was not a two parter I enjoyed. I wish I could forget her.  That was an Amann/Marlowe partnership in so much as what one started the other finished and I disliked both episodes equally for what they gave Castle in back story and how they portrayed Beckett reacting to that. Sometimes her jealousy can be really funny (Nikki Heat springs to mind) if written well but that time it came over as her being petulant and even irrational but at the same my heart did hurt for her. I didn't care to see the wind knocked out of her sails by the revelation that he'd had Sophia as his muse and she wasn't the first. I find with Marlowe what he gives you in back story on the characters actually takes away not adds to their development in any positive way.

 

I'm already upset about how they've harmed Castle's character over the last few seasons so like mad maverick I'm concerned as to what they have planned to uncover over the course of the season. The writers can only seem to negotiate this couple's journey by making them overcome a series of increasingly contrived emotional obstacles. I don't like *worried Kate* much either, it's never good to watch because in the past when she's been unsure about Castle she just looks worried but does sod all about it and it's not that interesting precisely because she's so passive. 

Edited July 23, 2014 by verdana

[madmaverick]

Nathan Fillion as Captain Kirk for The Hollywood Reporter:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/comic-con-see-nathan-fillion-720411

 

Pic: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/photos-titans-comic-con-stars-720431#3-nathan-fillion-star-trek

 

Nice to see the BSG ladies here too.

 

Writercastle_ is back in action.  The banter there makes me laugh more than the show these days.

Edited July 23, 2014 by madmaverick

[verdana]

Jim Adler @jimadler  ·  3h

yesterday in the writers room @AndrewWMarlowe used the word "rebus"  - I pretended to know what he meant.

 

Well I plead ignorance and had to look the word up and discovered it means "a combination of pictures and letters that represent a word whose meaning has to be guessed" - I have to say for a man that's supposedly taken a back seat away from the the day to day grind of showunner duties Marlowe seems more omnipresent and hands on than ever.  Clearly no new projects looming that require his urgent attention at the moment. 

[verdana]

Nathan Fillion. The Hollywood Reporter. Pictures.

Not the interview but a few screen grabs from it by the looks of things. Ooooh he looks so good here, the nicest I've seen for quite a while. I love the top one! Why can't he look like that on the show? Okay I know shut up about that for crying out loud.

 

When he looks like this I think you lucky woman Kate Beckett! 

Edited July 23, 2014 by verdana

[Sonik Tooth]

Some very nice pictures, I'm partial to the one at the bottom:-)

I think TGW's setting, politics and law, lends itself better to varying storylines, character developement or easier and more interesting character studies as opposed to a police procedural investigating murders , where you have a stricter line of command and more rules how to behave arround a suspect and such things. E.g. slightly shady characters or slackers are easier likeable in the former than in the latter due to the power/ authority they possess... at least in my experience.

Nevertheless, Castle, IMO, must hold some kind of record in character and interpersonal relations blandness over the past two seasons. Maybe I'm not good at subtext but mostly I have is that they all get along quite well ...in love, in friendship and at work. I'm not even asking for their hopes, dreams or deepest fears, but they seem always the same (unless plot interferes but even then it's mostly without an explanation).

[Cyranetta]

 

verdana: Beckett doesn't seem bothered about Castle's back story unless he provides it to her on a plate so I guess now it's time for her inaction to come back to haunt her.

Considering how forgetful Beckett was of her own previous wedding, this does not surprise me any more, regrettably

[verdana]

Cool to see some fellow TGW fans here.  Verdana, you should definitely check out that show, especially if you like Julianna Margulies.  She really does a phenomenal job.

 

Agreed.  Case in point: Tory.  I don't know what they've been trying to accomplish with that character but she's had zero impact for me.  Not going to even get started on the shoddy way they've dealt with Esplanie etc.  

 

 

Yeah thanks I plan to check it out at some point because it seems like a show where quality is an important factor. I'm so pleased for Julianna winning awards with this show, thoroughly deserved. She seems a great person, classy lady and a good actress. 

 

Esplanie? Oh boy that's something that's of zero interest and I feel sorry for the actors involved, I can't be invested in something the writers clearly are not remotely interested in developing. I know some fans are really keen on their relationship which is fair enough but I dread to think how frustrated I would be if I was an Esplanie shipper! I don't even know where they are right now emotionally and I don't think the actors have a clue either by the sounds of it. 

 

As for Tory I don't see the point of her either, I'm baffled why they wasted valuable screen time on her last season when they could have been spending it on Caskett or any one of the secondary characters I do care about. I swear at one point I think she had more lines than Susan did which is criminal. I don't necessarily have to like a character or like the story either as long as I understand the point of them. But Tory was an utterly useless addition to the show.

 

Ryan was the tech guy in the past and then she came in and replaced him so you had her giving exposition when in prior seasons it would have been Ryan. Then Ryan came back later doing his job and Tory kind of disappeared again so if Ryan is there that job then what the hell purpose does she serve?  Then there was the rumor going around at one point she was going to be a possible love interest for Espo but that never happened either. So she's an utterly useless "character" that's wasting my time because she serves no viable purpose so why should I care about her?  It's decisions like that which make me wonder where the writers are coming from because I just don't get why they do what they do. 

[Sonik Tooth]

That's the thing though, in order to enjoy Castle you have to love and be satisfied with subtext. None of the meaningful things are said out right.

...only to be surprised when they actually drop the subtext?

[verdana]

That's the thing though, in order to enjoy Castle you have to love and be satisfied with subtext. None of the meaningful things are said out right.

I agree that often anything meaningful is clouded in subtext which can be frustrating. I find Marlowe's overuse of subtext to "tell" his story is a writing crutch he needs to get rid of. Firstly the subtext Marlowe employs is not proper subtext, there are a number of definitions of it but to me this is the best one "an idea in a book, film etc that is not clearly stated but can be understood" and that's the key - it can be understood - because good subtext when it actually works tells you what you need to know but Marlowe's version of "subtext" often leaves fans floundering wondering what the hell the character's might be thinking about, that's if they're thinking about anything and it's often impossible to tell one way or another - that is not good subtext just sloppy storytelling. 

 

The second reason I dislike it being used too much is that the relationship has moved on now to such an extent that using subtext as the mainstay of how they communicate no longer makes any logical sense. When they were tip toeing around what they were to each other I could accept them being cagey with their words but not any more. Couples of their age at that stage in a relationship don't wade through subtext to communicate day to day they actually talk to each other properly because by that time you should be past all that crap and be mature enough to use proper grown up words to deal with whatever issues you have. They're not a couple of hormonal teenagers or a young couple in the first stages of some new romance and I wish Marlowe would change his writing accordingly to reflect that. 

[verdana]

I can't agree with that. I don't think I have ever been confused as to what the characters were thinking. I get it not being everyone's cup of tea...but I think the writer's do just fine with it. 

 

As far as your second point goes now that I'm thinking about I have to amend what I said earlier above. Now that C&B are together  I don't think the do use much subtext anymore if any at all. It was prior to their relationship.

Really? Wow. Well you obviously get the hang of Marlowe's subtext which I don't, good for you, I wish I did. There's been any number of times when I haven't got a clue what exactly is meant to be conveyed during a scene. I guess I need a decent subtext detector. 

[verdana]

From someone who has been around on set a tweet:

 

Hayley_Wil❤ @Always_ILoveU  ·  20h
The only thing that I can tell you about the filming today, you won't even see it coming.They're geniuses.U gonna love it, I swear

[Sonik Tooth]

Drop it as in say things point blank or you mean drop the story?

Both. The dropping of the story (when things get interesting) comes shortly after, only to be replaced by sunshine in the next episode.

Lanie and Espositos handholding may have been subtext, but a little continuation from Diciple or even Under Fire would have been more meaningful for me. So I call that subtext an easy time saving and cost saving way out.

And I like to add everything Verdana said...

Edited July 23, 2014 by Sonik Tooth

[KaveDweller]

That's the thing though, in order to enjoy Castle you have to love and be satisfied with subtext. None of the meaningful things are said out right.

Well, sure they do have subtext, and that's one thing I like about Castle.  I will note that The Good Wife also does subtext better, but the show's on a completely different level.  (I will stop with the comparisons now though.  I mean, it's a better show, but which forum do I spend most of my time posting in)?

I think it's good when a show works for a casual viewer that only watches every once in awhile, but then works better for the viewer who watches every week.  Little moments of humor only some people get.

 

Well...when have you been confused?

 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am confused every time Lanie and Esposito interact.  Are the dating? Friends with benefits? Just friends? Do they hate each other? Did that moment of them holding hands at the wedding mean they have been dating again or an acknowledgement that they want to start again (but weren't)? I know one of the actors gave an interview about how after Disciple they had a hard time being around each other, but I never got that from the show. I have absolutely no clue what to think. 

 

Luckily I don't care about Esplanie, so it doesn't bother me that much that I am so confused about them.

[VinceW]

I agree that often anything meaningful is clouded in subtext which can be frustrating. I find Marlowe's overuse of subtext to "tell" his story is a writing crutch he needs to get rid of. Firstly the subtext Marlowe employs is not proper subtext, there are a number of definitions of it but to me this is the best one "an idea in a book, film etc that is not clearly stated but can be understood" and that's the key - it can be understood - because good subtext when it actually works tells you what you need to know but Marlowe's version of "subtext" often leaves fans floundering wondering what the hell the character's might be thinking about, that's if they're thinking about anything and it's often impossible to tell one way or another - that is not good subtext just sloppy storytelling.

 

verdana. Agree. The best example of the Marlowe misuse of subtext was in Watershed. IMO. The episode was so overwritten. If Kate doesn't take the job, then what emerges is that the audience cannot believe anything she actually said in Watershed. None of the deliberate ambiguity she put forth in the interrogation room nor what was spoken by her in other scenes was really subtext, but rather something subject to multiple interpretations- so basically most of what you heard was either untrue or deliberately ambiguous (subtext is when you know what they're saying although characters are not saying it directly- multiple meanings is not subtext at worst or bad subtext at best). The Watershed episode was a real mess with so much ambiguity for the audience. Many viewers have not recovered from it.

Edited July 24, 2014 by VinceW

[TWP]

Really? Wow. Well you obviously get the hang of Marlowe's subtext which I don't, good for you, I wish I did. There's been any number of times when I haven't got a clue what exactly is meant to be conveyed during a scene. I guess I need a decent subtext detector. 

Really, me too.  Castle, the show, needs closed caption subtexting....And it's true, the subtext speak seems pretty juvenile once the couple is ... a couple.

[Elysium1973]

Thought better of it

Edited July 24, 2014 by Elysium1973

[KaveDweller]

The best example of the Marlowe misuse of subtext was in Watershed. IMO

 

Was Watershed supposed to have subtext? I thought it was supposed to be deliberately ambiguous.  Which was a horrible writing/directing/acting decision IMO, but it seems to have been a conscious choice.

[McManda]

Was Watershed supposed to have subtext? I thought it was supposed to be deliberately ambiguous.  Which was a horrible writing/directing/acting decision IMO, but it seems to have been a conscious choice.

 

Season finale = the desire to create drama, interest, and chatter among the fanbase to get them to come back for next season. Yeah, the end of Watershed was a deliberate choice.

 

Whether you agree with the choice or not, there was a reason the last scene of the season makes you stop and go "wait ... what?"

[Elysium1973]

What can I say? I just really really hope every single spoiler we've heard is wrong because everything I've heard is very disappointing. If what we've heard from hal and others is truly what we have to look forward to this season then I'm just sad. I think the best days of the show are behind it and it truly does break my heart.

[McManda]

I think we're forgetting what subtext actually is. Hint: it's not taking shots at the show, the fans, or other posters. At best it would be sarcasm, but seeing as it's hard to convey sarcasm online, it's my opinion (and take it for what it is, I'm not a mod) that we should steer clear of it, most especially in this post or towards other fans and/or posters. In short, don't be a dick?

 

But I have to agree with halweiderman. There's a difference between subtext and ambiguity and I think Rise and Watershed are two pretty good examples of each. There's reasons for both, but I'm not sure when the last time Marlowe used or had Castle and Beckett's relationship have anything to do with or get advanced by subtext. Since they've been a couple, they've been pretty frank about their feelings - she told him she didn't like him even pretending to be with other women, he called her out on her bad decisions regarding her job, she told him why their wedding momentarily freaked her out, just off the top of my head. Yeah, their relationship used to be based in subtext and Marlowe used that as a storytelling device, maybe more than he should have, but it's really fallen by the wayside.

 

Besides, I'd argue that Marlowe's subtext was never all that subtext-y at all - did anyone really not understand what she meant when Beckett told Castle that she couldn't have the relationship she wanted until she put her mom's case behind her?

 

Also, calling something subtext is not the same as not liking the way something plays out or is or isn't followed up on. I didn't care much for the idea that Beckett was already married, but none of that has anything to do with subtext.

[McManda]

I find with Marlowe what he gives you in back story on the characters actually takes away not adds to their development in any positive way.

 

I don't think this is true at all. For example, I don't think something like Pandora/Linchpin takes away any development. Finding out Castle had another muse before Beckett isn't really all that shocking, and I thought it was an interesting exploration into how his partnership with Beckett was different than his past shadowings, even if his past muse was arguably more interesting and had cooler toys. By all accounts, working with the CIA should mean more to Castle - bigger cases, bigger implications, better resources. But just like when they worked with the FBI, he was (mostly) over that. He liked working with Beckett and he liked the work that they did. I think that's far more telling than "Castle's shallow ... Beckett's not special" because I think the point was more along the lines that despite what she saw as failings (they were complicated, she wasn't pretty enough, didn't have the cool cases or the best toys) she was the most special.

 

Sometimes the backstory addition is stupid (I really didn't need Castle's dad to be a spy, but I get the idea that it's a whole new avenue for drama if he is), but I don't think it necessarily takes anything away. If anything, it changes the focus to something I didn't expect and that might sting a little because that means things aren't like I envisoned, but that doesn't make it bad.

[Elysium1973]

McManda I apologize and have erased my comments above because I don't want to detract from the very good points verdana and others have made.

I think the way many of the posters above defined subtext were exactly the correct definition. I don't believe that Marlowe uses subtext very well on the occasions that he does use it, especially after Caskett got together. i think he did it more before they got together and sometimes they were able to do this with some sparkle and joy. The handholding was one example in season 4 and of course the whole coffee symbolism offered a lot of subtext as well. I think the problem (for me) has been the inconsistencies in performances with some of the actors. I often wonder if its a writing choice, a directing choice, an acting choice, or a combination? One could argue that there is potentially subtext in these moments (e.g. RC's disinterest towards the end of the fifth season. Was that leading up to Watershed or was it unintentional?) or one could alternately argue that it's just sloppy work all the way around. In some ways it's episode dependent.

There are other television shows that employ this tactic in a much better way. The Good Wife comes quickly to mind.

Subtext as an idea is fairly specific with a limited meaning. According to Webster : the implicit or metaphorical meaning (as of a literary text)

— sub·tex·tu·al adjective

— sub·tex·tu·al·ly adverb

You don't have to be a lit major to get that.

[FlickerToAFlame]

Hal - I appreciate your insights, whether they end up true or not. We don't have much else to talk about over the hiatus and I find what you post interesting (and I do believe you. Don't make me a fool ;) ).

[Elysium1973]

I agree with McManda in the sense that I prefer knowing that Castle had a CIA muse versus Castle having a kidnapped daughter and a spy father. But maybe that was partly the lack of continuity.

[McManda]

Subtext is literally anything spelled out in the text; sub(below) text. So it's really a broad spectrum.
 

I often wonder if its a writing choice, a directing choice, an acting choice, or a combination? One could argue that there is potentially subtext in these moments (e.g. RC's disinterest towards the end of the fifth season. Was that leading up to Watershed or was it unintentional?) or one could alternately argue that it's just sloppy work all the way around. In some ways it's episode dependent.

 

I think it's a combination of all of the above. Really, there are two (maybe three) entities that bear the weight of what is/should be/isn't subtext - the creator (who should have a vision for the show), the writer (who should have an understanding of his characters), and the actor (who, arguably, should know the character better than anyone else). Given that the writer and the director change, the brunt of that weight falls mostly to the actor.

 

In the case of Castle's disinterest in the one episode the end of S5, I don't think that was subtext because as we found out, it wasn't intentional. I don't think it was meant to lead to Watershed in the way that I think you mean - as in, I don't think it was supposed to add to the ambiguity of the final scene. I think it was only supposed to be a catalyst to Beckett considering taking the job. Not that she ever felt like her relationship was less important than her job, or that she questioned her relationship, but if that was all her relationship was going to be, then maybe the job would be good for her life and Castle wouldn't really mind, because he was mostly content with video games.

 

Anyway, it doesn't really matter because we find out later that Castle isn't disinterested at all. In fact, he's hurt that she's made decisions without even giving him a heads up and that makes him feel marginalized. None of that is really subtext (for me, at least) because it's all spelled out within that arc.

 

Subtext to me would be more along the lines of the coffee as their way of showing affection, or the handholding as physical affection, or the use of always as a substitute for words with a larger implication, and I thought that stuff was pretty well done.

 

(Anyway, subtext no longer sounds like a word to me ... so I'm going to have to sleep on it.)