Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[madmaverick]

Sounds like more damage control to me. ;)

 

I feel like a 'mythology' drinking game is unavoidable at this point. ;)

 

because we know where we’re going

 

For once? When have I heard that one before? ;)  Shouldn't this be the case every season, every episode, and yet... ;)

 

And it’ll also take that relationship to a much more interesting place, we feel.

 

As opposed to the boring place that you left them in?  Yeah, let's have some honesty.  Did they not know what to do with Caskett once they resolved the WT/WT as an engine of drama?  Did they struggle with writing a happy, committed couple in an interesting way?  Did they bore themselves with a whole season of superficial wedding planning? ;)

 

Don't feel reassured by anything they say, especially as I see no evidence that they are aware of problematic areas in the writing and seeking to improve.  These concerns are never raised or addressed in such interviews.  Anyway, the proof is always in the eating of the pudding.

Edited August 1, 2014 by madmaverick

[McManda]

If there are two sides - one being Beckett and one being Alexis - Castle won't choose. And I don't think Beckett would make him choose, either, because as she sees things, there aren't sides. So it would be all on Alexis to create these sides and force her dad to make a choice, which would only destroy her character more, especially if she doesn't have a great, logical, well thought out, substantiated reason.

 

The problem the writers have with Alexis is that they don't ever give her a clear motivation. She jumps back and forth between skeptical ("does she make you happy?") and disapproval ("this is your fault") and excitement (helping Beckett plan her dad's surprise birthday) and solidarity (hahaha Beckett beat dad at Scrabble again) or worse, not being mentioned at all (we didn't see her reaction to them getting together or her dad deciding to move to DC or their engagement). It's inconsistent at best. That's what bothers me the most.

 

As far as this arc goes - they should all be on the same side, and that's concerned about how and why and who kidnapped Castle on the way to his wedding. The end.

[McManda]

This twitter exchange makes me laugh.

Edited August 1, 2014 by McManda

[madmaverick]

The problem the writers have with Alexis is that they don't ever give her a clear motivation. She jumps back and forth between skeptical ("does she make you happy?") and disapproval ("this is your fault") and excitement (helping Beckett plan her dad's surprise birthday) and solidarity (hahaha Beckett beat dad at Scrabble again) or worse, not being mentioned at all (we didn't see her reaction to them getting together or her dad deciding to move to DC or their engagement). It's inconsistent at best. That's what bothers me the most.

 

Word.  That's consistently (ha) been a problem for a lot of characters, not just Alexis.  It's frustrating for the audience because you don't know where the characters stand on any given day, and something you thought was fundamental, a 'given' in a previous episode can be turned on its head in the next.  How can any character growth be built meaningfully when you have characters' motivations all over the place, to suit whatever plot purposes or to manufacture unconvincing angst and drama as they deem necessary?  As an example, I never understood Castle and Beckett being as strong as they were in Still, to Beckett doubting Castle and wondering where they were going (without seriously asking him), and behave as she did with Vaughn.  It wasn't consistent and it wasn't believable, and it was damaging to all characters involved.

[cappuccino]

http://www.givememyremote.com/remote/2014/08/01/castle-andrew-marlowe-and-david-amann-on-opening-up-a-new-mythology-dream-guest-stars-and-more/

 

Marlowe and Amann interview.

 

Opps this one is in the media thread already. Ignore then :D

Edited August 1, 2014 by cappuccino

[McManda]

As an example, I never understood Castle and Beckett being as strong as they were in Still, to Beckett doubting Castle and wondering where they were going (without seriously asking him), and behave as she did with Vaughn.  It wasn't consistent and it wasn't believable, and it was damaging to all characters involved.

 

I think that's a bad example because I kinda get what they were going for in that arc. They go from a near death experience where they're solid to Beckett thinking she's uninteresting to him because he's more interested in video games, so what happened there? She's confused because previously they were in a good place and had this future in front of them. But for me, Still was much more about Beckett - she tells him she loves him (maybe/maybe not for the first time, that's sort of irrelevant) and that she thinks that they're just getting started and then, boom - he's caught up in video games and can't seriously answer where he thinks they're going. So she's thinking that maybe this is it - that he's a man-child that really doesn't want to even consider marriage again and she's wondering if that's enough to fulfill her, which is why when the DC job comes up she feels like it's at least something she has to explore. I think that's a logical progression - though I think they executed it poorly, mostly because they tend to spend way too much time now on the COTW.

 

With Alexis, she  just pops up when it suits the writers, often in whatever capacity they need. They need her to advance the plot of a surprise party? Done. Need some Castle/Beckett relationship angst? Done. Pressed for time for the COTW? It's okay, skip over the secondary characters.

 

It's not the storyline of Alexis that I mind. I don't mind the idea that Alexis maybe is afraid for her dad's safety because he's working with Beckett. I don't mind the idea that she might feel like he's replacing her, or that she's almost sad that her dad has another women in his life, or even that she might be a bit angry at him or Beckett because of any or all of those things. I mind that we never know for sure, because they never show us a consistent character or storyline.

[Samantha84]

Mythology is the new organic. Kudos to whoever first said it here. I'm already tired of it and not a single episode has aired yet. B/c we all know how it will go -- this mythology will only happen in sweeps episodes, instead of being a season long arc. 

[verdana]

That interview sounds like all the rest and yet more damage control what with the constant reassurances that Castle and Beckett are going to be stronger than ever no matter what happens so as not to frighten off the shippers. 

 

Marlowe loves taking "bites" out of things so I can see this mythology getting little chunks broken off it a few times during the course of the season but that's your lot. 

 

What I also took from that interview was that they obviously know only too well that some fans feel screwed over by the turn of events in 6.23 hence the pleading to hang on in there for the pay off of seeing what interesting things are coming up. May be they shouldn't jerk fans around in the first place then they wouldn't have to worry about doing repeated interviews telling them to keep the faith. 

 

Is there any type of genre or pop culture phenomenon you’re really hoping to tackle this season?
DA: We have been talking for the last couple of seasons about wanting to do something that has a Western theme to it. That’s been on our radar for quite some time. It’s a delightful idea for a CASTLE episode, but we haven’t quite figured out what it is yet. It’s one of the things we’d like to land in a good way.

 

Western theme. *sigh* Why do they need to scrabble around trying to find "themes" for episodes now to keep fans entertained? Are they really that much out of ideas they can't write something that doesn't revolve around one. How about a good old fashioned murder, they still happen don't they?  All I need now is for Marlowe to tease they're hoping to do a musical episode, I'd need copious amounts of alcohol on hand if they ever went there. 

Edited August 1, 2014 by verdana

[verdana]

If Castle playing a video game one night was enough to have her questioning things she needed her head examined. Using that as the trigger event by the writers was clunky as hell and made her look silly.  He refuses to stop instantly what he's doing and she takes the decision they're in trouble and starts having serious doubts about his future commitment? Given how strong they'd been all season up to that point it was just plain crazy that her mind took such an illogical leap.  You can't tell me she hadn't seen Castle playing video games before during their free time together, hell he's got enough toys around the loft so him enjoying the odd game can't have been a shock. I'd understand if he was obviously addicted to them but he's not. 

Edited August 1, 2014 by verdana

[FlickerToAFlame]

Not to mention, Verdana, how Squab was originally supposed to air immediately after Still, where the guy literally stood on a bomb with her.

Consistency is one of AWM's worst skills. And he sucks at a lot of things.

[cappuccino]

Urg that episode is on here right now. The only good and funny thing is Castle on a coffee high. Watching the dubbed version is even worse. What a stupid plot. It's so weird how Beckett immediately opens up to the guy and tells her entire life story starting with her wanting to become a lawyer and her mother's murder.

 

Lets see what the new "mythology" has in stock for us. So far I'm not really digging it.

 

Mmmm I don't know if that discussion was on this thread or the media thread - that the end of Bracken felt rushed. Maybe Marlowe wrapped up the Bracken story so quickly because Jack Coleman is not available next season at all. Wasn't there some news about Heroes getting a reboot or something ?

[cappuccino]

The thing with Still is that it was supposed to air much sooner than it did. So it messed up the timeline of the story.

Doesn't change the fact that the way Beckett reacted towards Vaughn and questioned Castle's intentions were stupid and ridiculous. Even if Still hadn't happened how can she question Castle's intentions or how much she meant to him ? After all they have been through and what he did for her. Just one stupid video game incedent and she doubts him ? Gimme a break. And like she said to Vaughn: WE haven't talked about it yet (where the relationship is leading). So if she is not sure why the hell didn't she do the first step ? In all their interactions since they became a couple MilMar made clear Beckett was the leading lady but now it was up to Castle to do the first step ? If they are so much into emancipation and portraying a strong woman why was it not Beckett popping the question ? Oh no of course we have to do THAT the traditonal way.

Edited August 1, 2014 by cappuccino

[cappuccino]

Jon Huertas @Jon_Huertas  ·  2m

@WilliamShatner I'm good...I have this weird feeling someone's watching me tho... And you? http://www.whosay.com/l/FQw8W6L

[break21]

Based on the JH pic - Heavens - Luke lost his mind and actually put NF in something other than blue! (red shirt!).

[KaveDweller]

I have no desire to see them on yet another outing together however short with Beckett languishing in the background especially given recent events with his disappearance. That would be frustrating and odd.

 

Especially not if they give them another theorizing scene, when they refuse to let Caskett do that anymore.  I hate when they build theory with other people.  That said, we're making a pretty big leap from one little spoiler about Castle and Alexis being in Quebec.  It seems really weird he'd be there without Beckett, but there could be a reason.

 

Doesn't change the fact that the way Beckett reacted towards Vaughn and questioned Castle's intentions were stupid and ridiculous. Even if Still hadn't happened how can she question Castle's intentions or how much she meant to him ?

 

I don't think she was questioning how much she meant to him, I think she was questioning what he wanted in the future.  Because loving her and risking his life for her isn't the same as committing to her or wanting to get married.  The bomb thing was very much in the heat of the moment and isn't the same as making plans for the future.  So in Sqauab she was feeling insecure because of the video game thing, then Vaughn starting questioning her (and tried to make Castle look bad), and it made her feel worse. Then Beckett did try to ask him about it (albeit at a not so great time) and he avoided the question.  She could have asked again, but it seemed like she had decided she was okay not having that conversation yet.  But then the job offer changed things.

 

I don't think the arc was well executed, but I do kind of get what they were trying to do.

[oberon55]

 

To each their own...but at some point when we can we go back to being viewers and be excited and discuss theories of what will happen next without all acting like we are in a network notes meeting? Doesn't the over criticism ruin the viewing experience?

 

I would say ignoring continuity and assassinating their characters for a momentary blast of angst is what makes me critical. I'm perfectly willing to suspend my disbelief and follow the rules of the world they create. The problem is they have no rules. Anything is fair game. At this point Castle is just an insensitive and oblivious clown & Beckett is more or less a self absorbed idiot. These are not the same characters that captivated me for the first 3 seasons. I couldn't care less about any mythology new or old. I want to see sparks fly as brassy & sexy (but still sort of straight-laced & vulnerable) Beckett collides with reckless & irreverent Castle (like we used to see). I want to see some kind of meaningful interaction between father & daughter or mother & son. Finding out where Castle is or who set his damn car on fire is pretty far down my wish list.

Edited August 1, 2014 by oberon55

[madmaverick]

break, I wouldn't get my hopes up.  I think they're still in the makeup trailer and NF's in his own clothes.  And I think JH has been a Luke victim of late as well, after NF.

 

Nathan Fillion @NathanFillion  ·  
Training @Jon_Huertas to more effectively use his eyes while acting. 20 reps, go! http://www.whosay.com/l/Dvr8W6U

 

 

Are they on location again?  JH's eyes look normal but NF's eye looks a bit puffy again from those BTS pics.

 

Gosh, are they going to try to get Shatner to guest star as the sheriff in a Western themed episode?  Just kidding.

 

You can't expect writers to be aware of the problems you decided they have.
That goes for any show. Not just Castle.  I get not enjoying certain stories and not liking some characters.
To each their own...but at some point when we can we go back to being viewers and be excited and discuss theories of what will happen next without all acting like we are in a network notes meeting? Doesn't the over criticism ruin the viewing experience?

 

I don't expect writers to be aware of problems I might have with their writing in that my opinion is my own, but talented employees should have the ability to reflect, analyse and critically examine the strengths and weaknesses in their work.  To be self aware and able to make astute judgments as professionals in their own field as to what worked and what didn't work.  That's how you improve and learn from your mistakes.  The best employees might accurately anticipate how their work might be received by their boss and by their clients so they know how to do good work that is satisfying for its intended audience.  In my opinion, the quality of writing on Castle has long been on a decline, and has been plagued consistently by the same problems episode after episode.  To my mind, that either shows no awareness of those problems, or no desire to improve.  It's not simply about not liking certain stories and character arcs; good writers have the ability to make audiences embrace just about anything but they haven't accomplished that on Castle for me with their work.

 

I would love to enjoy the show wholeheartedly (and there are obviously elements I still enjoy otherwise I wouldn't be here), but I can only shower praise where I feel it's deserved and I will criticise where I see fit.  YMMV obviously. 

 

Stana's hair does look great.  I do praise when it's deserved! :P  And I mean it sincerely.

Edited August 1, 2014 by madmaverick

[cappuccino]

break, I wouldn't get my hopes up.  I think they're still in the makeup trailer and NF's in his own clothes.  And I think JH has been a Luke victim of late as well, after NF.

 

Are they on location again?  JH's eyes look normal but NF's eye looks a bit puffy again from those BTS pics.

 

Gosh, are they going to try to get Shatner to guest star as the sheriff in a Western themed episode?  Just kidding.

Yes.  Castle is filming off of Signal St in San Pedro. (http://www.onlocationvacations.com/2014/08/01/friday-aug-1-filming-locations-for-fantastic-four-ted-2-the-walking-dead-revenge-girls-more/)

 

I think he has an eye infection or something. He had those poofy eyes or rather his right eye at ComicCon already.

[madmaverick]

I don't think the arc was well executed, but I do kind of get what they were trying to do.

 

That's just not good enough for me.  All the best intentions in the world don't matter to me if it doesn't come off coherently and impactful on screen.  

 

That arc wasn't the sort where the audience would be mesmerised by trying to puzzle out the mystery that was the characters' motivations, at least not for me. ;)  It should have been honest, emotional storytelling that dug into the hearts, the hopes and fears of the characters instead of having them interact in that unsatisfying way that they did.  

 

So maybe it's not what you wanted to see, but it made sense for the story they were telling.

 

Again, YMMV obviously, but that arc executed in the way that it was was not what I wanted to see, nor did it make sense for their story to date, imo.

 

The issues of insecurity and commitment were very valid ones to explore in the relationship at that stage, but the way they went about it was utterly clumsy, ham fisted, and ultimately OOC for the characters.  A proposal coming at a moment when one party thought a break up was imminent doesn't make much sense to me in just about any universe.  What's done is done and I can't really be bothered to rehash it anymore.  If you enjoyed the arc, good for you.  But this, um, insecurity arc (feel free to come up with a better name for it ;)) and the earlier douchebag arc will always be black marks for me in the Castle universe, and I'd like to have amnesia about them. ;)

Edited August 1, 2014 by madmaverick

[WendyCR72]

I do get what you mean, @madmaverick, and I actually agree with a lot of your concerns.

 

But that said, these writers work on a schedule, and I'm sure it is strictly adhered to. So add in deadlines, changes in staff, and the matter of the success of the writing actually sort of being validated - or not - by the almighty ratings, and I can see why it is status quo.

 

I think a network figures if the numbers are decent and eyeballs are looking at the screen, it's fine. Quality is further down the list. So not a lot of thought is given to an episode, because it's already on to the next one.

[madmaverick]

Castle writers are fundraising for a good cause and offering up a photo of all the writers (huh?) if their goal is met, and looks like they've accomplished that already.

http://www.firstgiving.com/fundraiser/cwfr/castlewritersphotofundraisingpage

 

Just imagine how much the fandom would give for a you know what!  Heh, I think you can guess what I mean.  Actually, there are quite a few things we haven't seen in a long time, or wait, never seen, on the show.. and off.  But of course we should all give to good causes regardless.

 

Wendy, I get the time crunch factor for TV production and that there must be writer fatigue after all these years.  It must get more challenging to keep stories and characters fresh and tight the further they are into a show's run.  But that's where the real test of quality in the creatives comes in.  Can they avoid mediocrity and fight complacency? Can they know when to take risks with the characters to keep things interesting and have it pay off?  Can they still find the interesting, relevant stories with familiar, beloved characters?  TGW is an ageing network show which has managed to do all of that fairly well, and deserved earned kudos from critics if not higher ratings.  Ratings obviously provide validation for AM and the network, and without them a show wouldn't even be on the air.  But for me, ratings have never been an indication of quality.  And professionals in the business should be keenly aware of that.  Frankly, I had hoped that the writing on Castle would be reenergised after Caskett got together, and that the show would enter an exciting new chapter with a new but equally exciting and sexy dynamic between the characters.  But that souffle's fallen flat for me more than it's risen, to use one of my least favourite references from the show.

 

Castle is filming off of Signal St in San Pedro.

 

Not an ideal location for any romantic rendez-vous, I see!

Edited August 1, 2014 by madmaverick

[WendyCR72]

But for me, ratings have never been an indication of quality.

 

We agree here, too!  :-)  Unfortunately, shows still live and die by the ratings, and not just ratings, but the subset of 18 to 49. The push to grab one demo seems short sighted, to me, but it is what it is. I never watched an episode, but I know, a few years back, NBC had a show called Harry's Law with Kathy Bates which was, overall, averaging 11 million viewers. 11 million.

 

Unfortunately, it meant jack because the demo was awful, so bam! Gone. Fair? No. But there you go.

 

Ratings are king (even if antiquated; at least it is breaking into Social Media) to this day, whether the viewer agrees or not. THEY don't reflect quality. But they do mean cha-ching for the networks, and that is what it ALWAYS boils down to. Hence show BUSINESS.

 

Money talks, BS walks, and the viewers can like it or leave it. Ain't it grand?

[KaveDweller]

To be self aware and able to make astute judgments as professionals in their own field as to what worked and what didn't work.  That's how you improve and learn from your mistakes.  The best employees might accurately anticipate how their work might be received by their boss and by their clients so they know how to do good work that is satisfying for its intended audience.

 

I also think that as writers/producers they are telling a story for the audience. If you think their product is the show, then viewers our their customer. (I know the network actually makes money from advertising, and that's the real customer, but ultimately advertising rates comes from number of viewers.)  TPTB should try and be aware of viewers' reactions and keep them somewhat happy.  That's not to say they should pander to fans, but in any most businesses listening customer feedback can lead to better product.  Or at least more successful.

[KaveDweller]

That arc wasn't the sort where the audience would be mesmerised by trying to puzzle out the mystery that was the characters' motivations, at least not for me. ;)  It should have been honest, emotional storytelling that dug into the hearts, the hopes and fears of the characters instead of having them interact in that unsatisfying way that they did.

 

Yes, it should have been.  But so many things should have been better as well.

[WendyCR72]

I also think that as writers/producers they are telling a story for the audience. If you think their product is the show, then viewers our their customer. (I know the network actually makes money from advertising, and that's the real customer, but ultimately advertising rates comes from number of viewers.)  TPTB should try and be aware of viewers' reactions and keep them somewhat happy.  That's not to say they should pander to fans, but in any most businesses listening customer feedback can lead to better product.  Or at least more successful.

 

The trouble there, however, is where would one draw the line in pleasing viewers? I can see if everyone has one train of thought. But, just as an example, for every one person online who now hates Alexis, there MAY BE an offline person or two who love her and want to see her get something.

 

As the saying goes, you can't please everyone. And in trying to please everyone, you run the risk of actually pleasing no one in the end.

[WendyCR72]

I bet I could find viewers out there who never wanted Caskett together

 

You must be new (not being sarcastic!), because, and people here will back me up, I have said that here and over at TWoP for years, so...  I watched the show for the humor, Castle, and I like his family stuff. Oh, and I like Ryan, Espo, etc. I don't mind Beckett, but neither am I as passionate about the character as others are.

 

The rest? Whatever.

 

I'll let the L&O franchise handle the real gritty police stuff, but that's just me.

[WendyCR72]

YMMV: Your mileage may vary, i.e. opinions differ.

[KaveDweller]

The trouble there, however, is where would one draw the line in pleasing viewers? I can see if everyone has one train of thought. But, just as an example, for every one person online who now hates Alexis, there MAY BE an offline person or two who love her and want to see her get something.

As the saying goes, you can't please everyone. And in trying to please everyone, you run the risk of actually pleasing no one in the end.

 

Well, that's true, and like I said you shouldn't pander to fans. And you will never please everyone. But it's still not a bad idea to try and at least keep tabs on what your viewers think.  They don't have to listen to what viewers say, but they could get an idea on how to improve the show from it.

 

Shonda Rhimes doesn't listen to anyone. Not even the network or the studio.

 

So one could argue that just writing what you want to write and keeping the noise out can lead to a better product.

Perhaps she should listen.  Her shows are hardly perfect.

[Betweenthisandthat]

I have almost zero problems with Castle. I think I came up with one the other day and now I can't even remember what it was.

 

 

I have problems with Castle and I stopped watching it regularly around last season but the problems I have aren't the problems that I necessarily see here because I didn't really ship Castle and Beckett either.  I liked the first two seasons and while i have no problems with the idea of them together I'm not sure it made the show improve.  I don't feel heat between the two characters or this undeniable chemistry between the two actors.  I like Nathan Fillion but prefered him in Firefly.  I like Stana Katic but I liked Kate better in the earlier seasons.  I watched the show because I liked the idea of a writer working with a cop to solve crimes in a literary way sometimes.  I liked the mix of the two worlds and I don't think that exists anymore.  I liked seeing Castle's family life, too and that isn't written as well. 

 

I saw the season finale and honestly didn't think it was that bad.  It was not as sloppy as some episodes and I think having Kate married and not knowing it was the dumbest part of the episode but it didn't ruin anything for me because I'm not that interested in Castkett and their swings or their wedding.  I liked the cases when they were good and the banter between Castle and Beckett, whether or not they got together in the fourth season or the series finale.  After being in different fandoms where I disagreed with people who represented the voice of the viewers, I have to agree that the voice of the viewership is much more diverse than fans ever give credit for.  The response to the finale was harsh though, but if a lot of people tune in to the premiere, I wouldn't call it a failure. Even I kind of want to know what happened to Castle.  If it's interesting enough in the follow through, I'll watch.  If it's not, I won't.

 

Perhaps she should listen.  Her shows are hardly perfect.

 

I used to watch Grey's and Scandal and have been turned off by both of them, but she has a third show coming on this fall and she gets good ratings so just because she doesn't please me doesn't mean she's not pleasing everyone.  Something she does works even if I believe she's a very flawed storyteller.  As a TV viewer, it's hard to generalize what people like when shows I don't care for are successful anyway.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Betweenthisandthat

[cappuccino]

But clearly that's my opinion and this board is proof of the opposition to that. So where do you draw the line?

Which viewer gets what they want?

Funny how they listen to what fans have to say when it suits them - see the whole Pi debacle last season and how all of a sudden he was gone. I may even bet the wedding dress was ruined because the vocal majority on twitter/forums/site comments was not amused by it. So yeah if you pick certain aspects here and there and claim to listen to what your fans have to say, you can bet your shiny behind that people get vocal about stuff that bugs them and what they think could be better or what sucks royally.

[oberon55]

I think the show runners have some sort of vision & that they try to produce a quality show dealing with all the constraints they have. What I like is the snappy dialog & relationship between characters. The dialog & banter (including building theory together) comes straight from the writers and in my opinion it has gone steadily downhill since they have been a couple. The scenes between Castle & Beckett where you can feel the almost gravitational pull they exert on each other are the reason I watch. They have been few & far between the last 2 seasons. Which is a real shame.

[TWP]

As far as the "douche bag arc"

Why does that have to be something we want to forget?

Characters do what they do based on their head space. Rick was being a d-bag. Martha called him out on it even.

Sometimes when a story is being told you aren't always going to the like the choices characters make.

It's supposed to be part of the fun...

I personally liked the "douchebag arc".  We had two cases of continuity in those episodes!  (1) The "douchebag arc" itself; (2) Alexis' college dilemma.  TNT showed the whole arc one afternoon and I had an awesome time watching.  Castle exhibited more emotion about Beckett than he does now.  He was totally p'ed off.  I'd much rather see him like that than watch him choose Scrabble over her....of course, this is in hind-sight.  During the first-time airing it was heartbreaking.  Of course, that was back when I cared about the characters...which is why I watch TNT all the time, and could care less about Season 7.

 

BTW I came over here to post this as it came across my Tumblr dashboard....from SpoilerTV and relatively spoilery!!!!!!!! an unofficial photoset from July 31.... Didn't see it posted.  Please correct me if it was.

Edited August 1, 2014 by TVWithPity

[KaveDweller]

I think Scandal is pretty close to perfection.

But you have to be willing to go along with her vision and that goes back to what I've been saying.

People  want the characters to do what THEY want.

 

Scandal is a very entertaining show, but it could certainly be improved.  I can't think of a show that couldn't.

 

I agree with your general point.  We don't get to decide what the characters do, and what we want may not be what the writers want to do.  And yeah, we could enjoy what we get instead of complaining that what we see isn't what we want.  But I also get enjoyment out of talking about what the show could be doing differently.  It may sound like complaining, but it's really a sign of love.

 

 

 

But people believe what they want...you didn't like the dress so the writer's choosing for it to be destroyed MUST be because the fans cried for it.

 

Marlowe said they did it because of the fans.  I'm not saying that's true, but he did say that.  Someone from the show said that about the Pi thing too.

Edited August 1, 2014 by KaveDweller

[Samantha84]

I think Scandal is pretty close to perfection.

But you have to be willing to go along with her vision and that goes back to what I've been saying.

 

I could not agree more. The characters are gray and have layers and no one is good or bad. Their all complex and crazy and ruthless and loving. The writing is wonderful and the acting is phenomenal! 

 

People want the characters to do what THEY want.

 

Never thought of it this way but, yes, I totally agree. 

Edited August 2, 2014 by Samantha84

[oberon55]

 

Or in case of Castle…they do something  funny and light by writing Castle's ego hurt over losing Scrabble to his fiancé and that gets assigned the meaning of "Castle never wants to have sex with his fiancé ever ever ever ever and the writers go out of their way to show that"

 

Why wouldn't we believe this? Going by past experience when Castle did not immediately throw down his video game controller and jump Beckett it sent her spiraling out of control worrying about their future & almost into Vaughn's arms. Why was it so traumatizing the first time but this time it's light & funny?

[WendyCR72]

You can like and dislike what you want but don't get to just decide something is something it's not.

 

People are allowed their own opinions of an episode. This is starting to feel like hand slapping. So before it gets out of hand, let's respect that every person will interpret a scene through their own eyes and form their own opinions, whether we agree with them or not.

 

So let's stop telling people what is or isn't, because unless we have the script or are Andrew Marlowe?

 

NONE of us know.

 

Thank you.

[WendyCR72]

The thing is, it's obvious people interpret the CHARACTERS individually, so there will be individual opinions, which is natural. That's all. So everyone is allowed to see what they see, and what's right or not is open to interpretation.

 

And promotes discussion. Which is what it's all about!

[Snoopy]

New here, but chiming in because I mostly agree with what halwideman is saying, but look at it a bit differently.

 

We're all going to have different opinions of the show and different preferences.  Castle is still my favourite show on TV right now.  There are certainly writing choices that I have not agreed with and things I wish they would have done, but at the end of the day, it's still the only show I consider "appointment television", re-watch frequently, and follow in the media, on forums, Twitter, etc.  Not sure what it is, but something about it grabbed me and has kept hold of me.  Sure, my love has faded a bit over the years, but I think that happens with any show over time (at least to me....Gilmore Girls and Friends are two shows I loved similarly and with later seasons my interest faded to the point where I stopped watching for a time).  I can't think of any show that I've watched 5+ seasons of and loved every one of them and kept the same interest I did when I first started watching.  Shows evolve and viewers evolve too.  Sometimes they just don't evolve in ways that fit each other.

 

I digress.  I don't agree with many of the opinions/complaints expressed by certain posters on this forum.  Or at least, I don't feel as strongly as they do.  I'm able to look past the problems I have and still enjoy the story.  I read/watch interviews with people who are involved with the show to gather insight into their story choices and get hints about what might come...not to find fault in their logic and doubt every word they say is the truth.  I like reading/participating in discussion about the show, and yes, even expressing my criticisms as they pop up.  However, it seems that for certain people, all they have are criticisms.  I'm not sure why they watch the show because they haven't seemed to have anything positive to say in a couple seasons.  This takes discussions away from being discussions and moves them more toward being bit**fests.  I'm not gonna lie....sometimes, yes, it does kill my enjoyment of the show a bit.  I've actually at times been pulled out of an episode, not by my detest of a story event, but because I know "Oh, some people are going to have a field day with this."

 

However, the way I look at it, just like viewers have to accept that the writers don't have to address their concerns, I think I have to accept that other poster's don't have to address my concerns.  It's a risk I take when I visit an online forum about a show.  People may say things or overanalyze to the point that my enjoyment of the show is affected.  My choice is to: deal with that, not read posts by certain posters, or stop visiting the forum altogether.  At the end of the day, the opinions of other people are no more/less valid than my own - even though I might feel they are.  I think the problem tends to lie when some people try to pass their opinions off as fact - i.e., "Marlowe is just doing damage control."  "Fans hated the finale", "The writers are lazy or incompetent", "The character was assassinated."  Sometimes these things are expressed solely as opinions - and other times they are presented as if it's just the way things are and if anyone doesn't agree, they must not be watching right.

 

------------------------------

 

Someone mentioned  Marlowe saying that the dress was destroyed because of fan reaction to it.  I believe (I don't have the interview, so I can't be sure) that he actually said that fan reaction was part of it.  However, they also liked the moment Beckett had in Dressed to Kill, but also wanted that emotional connection to Beckett's mother in the finale as well.  I have my doubts that regardless of fan reaction to the first dress we would have seen it at the wedding, but who knows?  Similarly, the Pi storyline.  I doubt that story was really supposed to have much more longevity than it did.  Again, I think in the interview, Marlowe alluded to the fact that, no, viewers didn't like Pi, and yes, that may have hastened up the development of the storyline, but that it was only one of the reasons that the story developed like it did.

 

In my opinion, it would be foolish for writers to completely ignore viewer feedback.  Afterall, ABC does run those surveys every so often and we know that social media is monitored by certain members of the staff.  However, just because they are aware of the various complaints that are out there, it doesn't mean that they have to respond to every single one of them.  And to think that because they respond to one means they must respond to all.  They are storytellers and their job is to tell a story.  And it is their story, not the viewers'.  Of course, their goal is viewer enjoyment, so they do have to keep fan reaction in mind, but they don't need to do so to the point of letting the viewers dictate every major story choice.  As a viewer, it is your choice - to watch the story being told or to stop watching.  It's not a "Choose Your Own Adventure."

[Snoopy]

Because the first time around that WAS the story. Although traumatizing is a strong word. Beckett was supposed to feel upset. Castle was supposed to realize that.

 

They aren't even the same thing in the lowest common denominator. They were playing Scrabble TOGETHER.  He wasn't ignoring to play xbox online with a ten year old.

 

. 

 

They were also at different points in their relationship.  At that point, Beckett was not just upset because Castle ignored her, but also because she didn't know where their relationship was headed.

 

By the time the scrabble storyline came around, they were engaged and clearly committed to each other.

 

Probably wasn't my favourite scene, but it wasn't because I found it odd that Castle was more interested in Scrabble than sex with Beckett at that moment.  I'm married...sometimes you just wanna finish what you're doing....lol.

[Cyranetta]

 

TPTB should try and be aware of viewers' reactions and keep them somewhat happy.  That's not to say they should pander to fans, but in any most businesses listening customer feedback can lead to better product.  Or at least more successful.

 

I can't help but compare the experience of live theater, where it is much clearer when character interaction or a story beat is "working", because one gets immediate response (or lack of it), and it then remains to be sorted out whether what wasn't working was the writing of a scene, the directing, the acting, or technical aspects (like a lighting plot leaving a crucial area in semi-darkness).

 

I get the impression that halwideman would prefer that we just accept the series as given, and it that case, what's the point of having a discussion forum to begin with? Series, particularly at the point in their life-cycle that Castle is, surely aren't just to be accepted as perfect, so how do the varoius PTB determine what is or is not working, since they don't have the benefit of the immediate feedback of live theater? Ratings and demos are somewhat removed and potentially misleading, and online reaction is likely to run the gamut between critically analytical and uncritically adoring.

[Snoopy]

But am I pompous enough to sit here and think that perhaps that hasn't been put on the table in the writer's room before and maybe not done for whatever reason?

 

I was thinking about this the other day as I watching, actually.  I can't remember which episode I was watching but there was a pretty obvious continuity or realism error...obvious, at least, when you've watched and discussed the episode a bit.  Something like the FBI or police force not flagging Beckett's previous marriage, for example.  I find it hard to believe that the whole room of writers sat down in their concept meeting or whatever and it never occurred to anyone that, realistically, someone would have realized Beckett was married in her career.  And I don't think the idea came up and they just said "Oh well, the viewers are too stupid to realize that."  I think the more likely thing is that, as storytellers, they allow themselves to take some liberties in terms of realism/continuative for what they feel is a fun/important storyline.  That they say, "You know, some viewers will notice and some will be bothered, but we think this is an important/enjoyable for most" story to tell so we're going to look past it."

 

On the other hand, some things (especially some of the continuity "errors") we "super-fans" notice, the casual viewer would never even flinch at.  It's because we watch, re-watch, discuss, and analyze that we notice these things.  I'm sure some things are accidental, but I'm guessing some of them, again, are just deliberate choices - that the writers' end goal by making that choice is worth some fans noticing that the continuity/logic doesn't 100% fit.

 

Some of the most popular and critically-acclaimed shows take a ton of liberties in terms of logic, realism, and believably.  Breaking Bad, House of Cards, Dexter, Sons of Anarchy, Homeland - all of these shows stretch the realm of believability pretty far.  Do I believe for one minute that Jax Teller wouldn't be in prison or dead by now?  Or that Carrie Mathison would be allowed anywhere near a CIA building?  Or that Francis Underwood would be able to so easily manipulate group after group of politicians but rivaled by a 20-something low-level journalist?  No, of course not.  And I don't think the writers expect me to either.  I think they just hope that they tell a good enough story that I can overlook those things.

[Snoopy]

I can't help but compare the experience of live theater, where it is much clearer when character interaction or a story beat is "working", because one gets immediate response (or lack of it), and it then remains to be sorted out whether what wasn't working was the writing of a scene, the directing, the acting, or technical aspects (like a lighting plot leaving a crucial area in semi-darkness).

 

I get the impression that halwideman would prefer that we just accept the series as given, and it that case, what's the point of having a discussion forum to begin with? Series, particularly at the point in their life-cycle that Castle is, surely aren't just to be accepted as perfect, so how do the varoius PTB determine what is or is not working, since they don't have the benefit of the immediate feedback of live theater? Ratings and demos are somewhat removed and potentially misleading, and online reaction is likely to run the gamut between critically analytical and uncritically adoring.

 

I don't think he/she feels this way at all.  As I've said, I haven't liked every story choice the writers have made.  I didn't like Castle's reaction to finding out Beckett remembered her shooting and her refusal to confront him when he was acting like a tool.  I didn't particularly like that Castle and Beckett went with a traditional wedding and all the silly wedding stuff that was done last season.  I didn't hate the finale, but I would have preferred different choices.  I wish they would address Castle and Beckett's living arrangements already.  I could go on.  I would love to discuss these with people who like me, enjoy the show, but recognize that it is not perfect and have our own vision of how things could go.  However, at some point, the discussion turns into the same old thing and I just want to say "Yeah, we get it.  Marlowe's a hack.  The wedding dress was horrible.  Beckett and Castle don't have enough sex and kiss in the shadows.  Alexis is a brat.  The writing has went downhill.  Could we move beyond those things?  Is there anything about the show you like?  Could we talk about what you'd like to see versus what you didn't like seeing?"

 

As for feedback, do people really believe that continuously complaining about things on an online forum is really going to provide feedback to TPTB?  I think ratings are probably their best indicator of whether people are liking their show.  For most people, if they don't like it, they stop watching.  Feedback from critics and the network provides them with an idea of how their story choices are received.  And, yes, fan feedback, to an extent.  But if I were a showrunner and I was looking at a forum or social media outlet for feedback, I'd put a lot more weight in the opinion of someone who has both positive and negative things to say rather than someone who is consistently and repetitively negative in their feedback.  Chances are that person isn't really interested in the story I'm wanting to tell anyway.

 

halwideman, you mentioned how interesting it is that this is now how we watch TV and that it hasn't always been this way.  It's true.  Technology is a good thing and bad thing, I guess.  Love being able to discuss and learn about a show that no one I know in real-life watches, but sometimes you can know/discuss too much.  The shows I tend to enjoy/get into most are the shows that know very little about beforehand and that I either marathon watch or watch casually.  Ironically, the more I like a show, the more I'm tempted to seek out information/discussion online for, which, again, alters the viewing experience, not always in a positive way.  I think with the way we watch TV changing, we'll see this start to evolve again.  Watching a whole season of Castle (Netflix-style) and then going online for information and discussion (as opposed to watching one episode, discussing/analyzing for a week, and waiting 9 months to see whole story arcs play out) would result in a different type of experience, I think.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Snoopy

[KaveDweller]

And I don't think the idea came up and they just said "Oh well, the viewers are too stupid to realize that."  I think the more likely thing is that, as storytellers, they allow themselves to take some liberties in terms of realism/continuative for what they feel is a fun/important storyline.

 

Yeah, I don't think the writers are stupid, I think they just don't care as much as viewers about some things. Castle is a very plot driven show. I also think the writers I could write "better"  or be more character driven if they tried, but chose not to for whatever reason.

 

When I was in college I took a film criticism class, and our professor told us that how people interpret a show/book/movie is really more important than what the writer intended.   Now he was a really pompous guy, but I think he had a point.  And the fact that people interpret things differently makes criticism/discussion interesting. Sometimes reading boards like this can be hard, because you start to see flaws that other people point out, but you had originally missed.  Which can take away the enjoyment. But the discussion can also be a lot of fun.

[Snoopy]

As far as the "douche bag arc"

Why does that have to be something we want to forget?

Characters do what they do based on their head space. Rick was being a d-bag. Martha called him out on it even.

Sometimes when a story is being told you aren't always going to the like the choices characters make.

It's supposed to be part of the fun...

 

 

At the end of the day, people watch TV differently.  I'm more like you, I think.  I just take it as it comes and don't get too invested in particular characters/storylines.  I'm OK with it if the character doesn't make choices I like, as long as I can understand why they are making them.  If something happened in the story that I don't like, I move on.  You know what? At the time, it really bothered me that after years of waiting for Beckett, Castle likely slept with Jacinda.  I thought it was something that would hurt Beckett and I thought it was a bad writing choice.  But, when all was said and done, it didn't seem to bother Beckett all that much, so I got over it.  Was it my favourite arc?  No. (Actually, it was really just The Limey I didn't like).  But is it part of their history now?  Yes.  The characters made a choice to move on from that, so I as a viewer did as well.

 

Some people, however, get more emotionally invested in both characters and storylines.  They know how they would react in a certain situation and fell the characters should/would react in the same way.  When something doesn't fit with their moral compass or sense of logic, they have more difficulty moving on with the characters.  They like to forget storylines and events that they didn't like or that gave them a negative emotional reaction.  There's nothing wrong with that.  It's just a different way to watch.

 

I read a book recently and later read an interview with the author where they questioned the author on her ending.  Many people didn't like the ending because they didn't feel justice had been achieved and things were sufficiently tied up.  The author's response was that she wrote an ending that she felt was appropriate for the characters.  Just like others thought justice should have been served and disagreed with her ending, she disagreed with many of the endings suggested and explained why she felt they wouldn't have worked.  She understood that some people felt different and was OK with the fact that some people didn't like the conclusion.  She embraced the idea that readers were writing fan fiction alternate endings to be more in line with what they would have liked to see.  Some people like happy endings.  Some people don't.  One's not wrong or right.  It's just a different outlook.

[femmefan1946]

They used to be called 'watercooler' shows. Programs that everyone watched, partly because there were only five networks plus some independent stations, and most people were watching the shows.

But the discussions didn't get much farther than the watercooler. I can remember the first , I guess it was a blog, which detailed almost scene for scene, each episode of Coronation Street. With hilarious commentary. That was around 1990 or so. And later Mike Plowman added screenshots and made the terms 'invisible man' and 'mop moment' famous. Well, at least among Corrie fans.

Interestingly, Plowman was first sued, then coopted to bring his commentary over to the official ITV Coronation Street site, then he was dropped entirely as the writer.

 

For American posters , Coronation Street has been playing three to five times a week in Britain since 1960. One of the original cast still appears regularly. Often as a romantic lead.

[Snoopy]

Yeah, I don't think the writers are stupid, I think they just don't care as much as viewers about some things. Castle is a very plot driven show. I also think the writers I could write "better"  or be more character driven if they tried, but chose not to for whatever reason.

 

I agree.  I don't always like how "case of the week" driven the show is.  I see other shows that balance the procedural/personal aspects of the show differently, and in some cases, more in line with what I'd like to see.  But I don't think the writers don't achieve this balance because they are incapable of it or don't think it's possible, I think it is a deliberate choice they make.  I don't know why they make that choice (my guess has something to do with syndication and the casual nature of their audience), but I truly don't believe that couldn't do it if they wanted to or felt it was appropriate.

[verdana]

I presume that all posters are giving their opinions on the show nothing more or less unless it's stated as a "fact" or obvious by the subject matter, you shouldn't feel the need to put IMO at the end of every sentence.   

 

People watch shows for many different reasons they don't have to explain to any one why they watch, what they choose to like and dislike about it or why they keep watching or be told they should stop watching it or modify their attitude accordingly. No one should be made to feel responsible for how someone else feels about the show that's all on the individual.  People generally don't like being told how to think and feel about things by others be it implied or not, that's human nature. If certain posters opinions are spoiling another's enjoyment then may I suggest they take cranberry's excellent advice from a while back and hit "ignore" that's what I've done, you can always view the post if you think the conversation might be interesting - it works. 

[WendyCR72]

Okay, listen up: I have been getting messages from people not feeling comfortable with posting in this forum for fear of hand slapping, and it has to stop now.

 

No, it's GOING TO stop now.

 

Look, I admire everyone's passionate POVs, but when one POV is being slammed home and hindering discussion, that is uncalled for and won't fly here. Ever.

 

So, if someone's take really bothers you, scroll, take a deep breath, and move on. Or you have the ability to filter here if it comes to that.

 

Remember, all opinions are welcome provided you express them civilly and without disparaging opposing opinions of other posters.

 

If anyone has anymore questions, PM me.

 

Carry on.

[verdana]

If you enjoyed the arc, good for you.  But this, um, insecurity arc (feel free to come up with a better name for it ;)) and the earlier douchebag arc will always be black marks for me in the Castle universe, and I'd like to have amnesia about them. ;)

 

Yeah me too. I'll always consider those two story arcs as poorly executed and not that emotionally satisfying. 

 

I didn't find the douchebag "fun" it felt like the entire time the writers were dragging things out until they were ready to push the button on the couple finally getting together. Pity because it could have been a great way of exploring the characters and their feelings for each other in a truly meaningful way without the constant juvenile angst and silly miscommunication which seemed to go on forever during that period. I understand others enjoyed the story but I found it depressing to watch, made worse by the mini breaks I seem to remember they had at the time in between episodes.

 

Some people, however, get more emotionally invested in both characters and storylines.  They know how they would react in a certain situation and fell the characters should/would react in the same way.  When something doesn't fit with their moral compass or sense of logic, they have more difficulty moving on with the characters.  They like to forget storylines and events that they didn't like or that gave them a negative emotional reaction.  There's nothing wrong with that.  It's just a different way to watch.

 

Speaking for myself, I don't want the characters to act in a way that I deem morally acceptable because I'm not them. What I want is for the writers to give me characters that behave in a believable way given their previously established fundamental personality traits, and maintain that continuity throughout the life of the show. I wouldn't have thought it was too much to demand of them.

 

Castle used to be character driven show in my book and those characters for the most part felt well drawn and believable in their actions. It now feels almost entirely plot driven. The characters do whatever has to be done to move the story from point A to point B usually during sweeps then they wipe the slate clean and start again. There are times when I get the distinct impression the writers just pulled an idea out of their arse during a meeting and thought hey that'll do without caring whether it fits in with their greater "mythology" or not. 

 

I can accept a less than happy story even a downright miserable doom and gloom one if what I'm seeing makes sense for the characters involved and I can understand the motivations behind their decisions even if I don't like it. I disliked the douchebag and "insecurity" arc (heh thanks mad maverick) because it didn't make any sense for the characters at that stage even given the heightened emotions involved not because the writers refused to do exactly what I wanted. 

[verdana]

Thank you Wendy.

 

Moving on, I like this picture of Stana, the short black dress, the shades with her hair up in a cute ponytail and she has what looks like lovely knee length boots on which I want. 

 

Juliana Abud @JulianaAbud_  ·  6h
Stana Katic leg appreciation ❤

https://twitter.com/JulianaAbud_/status/495439389590179841

 

 

 

There are a few more pictures she's posted on her twitter if you care to look, she obviously had a great time hanging out and getting pictures with the cast, they all seem very accommodating to take time out for the fans. I hope they're not annoying the cast and crew though by following them around. Seems wherever they go now the Castle crew get fans watching them but I presume it's exactly the same (if not worse) for other shows with a higher profile than Castle. 

 

Here's one more:

 

Juliana Abud
‏@JulianaAbud_
I'll never, EVER, forget this! Thanks Stana, Seamus and Jon ❤ pic.twitter.com/gdXWXoAam5

 

Edited August 2, 2014 by verdana