Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[TWP]

41 minutes ago, verdana said:

There are times when Molly has got on my nerves a bit with some of the things she's said. although I used to give her a free pass due to her age but not so much now. Most sensible fans don't treat her badly but sometimes she puts her foot in her mouth and reaps the whirlwind like many actors do on social media with the more hysterical/crazy/nasty elements of the fanbase.  Also, some fans appear to confuse their dislike of the character with the actor which is unfortunate but it can happen quite a lot. 

As for that ABC tweet, it was so dumb although in hindsight I guess they were getting their marketing S9 prep in early lol. It was like waving a giant red flag at an already angry bull, I was not surprised at the tone of the responses, it wouldn't have made any difference if it had been father and son fighting crime.  That's not  what fans signed up for and were used to watching. Alexis was a secondary character who added substance to Castle through his family life but she was never front and centre. S8 changed her role and so Molly copped some extra flak in places no shock there. Her recent cheer leading of a Stanaless Castle again isn't going to win her any popularity awards or earn her many additional supporters but she obviously wants to stay in a job. 

Emotions are pretty frayed at the minute amongst many fans so increased discourtesy with people lashing out at each other and also cast and crew is an unfortunate side effect of that. 

She wasn't actually cheering a Stana-less Castle, in fact she said she was bummed about losing her.  In a knee-jerk response to the tirades, she then alluded to the fact that Castle could go on without Stana and that she felt Richard Castle was the star of the show.  That's an opinion, just like all the other opinions out there.   And saying Castle would go on means that Molly has continued employment, something that she clearly would root for, and who could blame her?  How could a person not take it personally and lash out, when a whole bunch of Twitter followers are hoping that you lose your job?  And how would any of the commenters feel if they were reading those comments about themselves? I'm glad she's started a sweep of blocking people with this latest outrage. 

People are really pretty callous toward Molly, but it's something I find common in the feminist world.  People pick and choose who they consider their hero women and then can be unbelievably vicious to those women whom they arbitrarily deem villains.  And I believe that in this case they've chosen Molly as a villain.  Until certain people start treating the other women on the show better, I can't take their cries of "sexism!" very seriously.  The issue for these people as far as I can see is that they are huge Stana megafans and want to keep her on TV, and want the romance back (unrealistic with the relationship between the actors). If Stana were on or off the show, the show wouldn't get better for them.  And I think that's part of why ABC cut her. 

But yes, I think the plan all along was to go on without Stana. I suspect Stana knew that, hence her lessened engagement in her character this season.  For some reason they signed her in Season 8, but I don't think it was ever a plan to keep her for Season 9.  Just my impression.

[CheshireCat]

18 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

 

As for people getting upset at Alexis having anything to do with feminism, etc., I just see it as a boneheaded move. As someone said, READ THE ROOM. The term "too soon" definitely applies here. While people's nerves are raw, you don't say something that will just piss them off even more. Regardless of promoting the show, etc., she could have considered the impact of what she said. People aren't thinking rationally when emotions are high. They're not thinking, "Oh, poor girl needs a job." What they're seeing, again, are female co-leads being killed off, so for her to say the show IS Nathan, I don't think she could have said anything to piss the people off more. I don't care if Jon or Seamus or one of the dudes behind the scenes said it. They would have received the same Response.

Does she need one? I'm sure she didn't make as much as many of her co-stars, probably all of them, but I would think that, if she was smart about it, she should have a comfortable cushion tucked in a bank somewhere. She was on the show for 8 seasons after all and she is still young. There should be a lot of opportunities for her out there.

[break21]

Alexis is my least favorite character on the show, but I really can't hate on Molly.  She's still young and Castle is the only show she's worked.  I think the hysteria of the Castle fandom is a lot for any actor/actress to deal with (it seemed to get to Toks at some point this year), but to handle it at her young age is a challenge. . I'm also ok with the show moving forward without Beckett but I doubt I can watch her get killed off.  I might skip the end of that episode and see where they pick up next year.

[break21]

I respect your opinion but I think you're being pretty hard on Molly.  It was an upsetting situation for everyone on that show, the cast was getting buried in  hate-tweets and I think she just reacted the wrong way.  People aren't perfect - it happens.  It doesn't mean she hates Stana or wants her off the show.

[femmefan1946]

She's still young and Castle is the only show she's worked. 

She was in We're The Millers-- although I'm not sure she had any lines, and I've seen some short films she's done online, probably as much for the experience as anything.

I hope she has learned one thing from NF, make friends on every project you work and keep them. If he has one thing going for him it's that he has a network. He even shows up in the DVD extras for Deadpool and he hasn't worked with Ryan Reynolds since 2001.

Edited May 1, 2016 by femmefan1946

[break21]

True that - look at all the work NF has gotten over the years from Joss Whedon.  Make friends and be nice to people - it'll pay off down the road.

[femmefan1946]

One of the things MQ has going for her is a face.

She doesn't really look like any of the actor/clones that infest Hollywood. (Many of them quite talented, to be fair. )

I wish she would go back to her original hair colour instead of that fakey deeper red. Yeah, I'm that shallow.

[S55]

I guess this explains why we're seeing Jenny again on the show.

Isn't Sarah Grace only like 2? Did they age her fast like they do to kids on soaps? lol

Speaking of kids, there's been some chatter about a young actress cast as "Lily" in the finale and folks are speculating who she could be. The actress' name is Rainey Spurlock. 

ETA: Sorry the picture is so huge. Had no idea it would be or how to make it smaller. Eek. 

Edited May 1, 2016 by S55

[WendyCR72]

1 minute ago, S55 said:

Isn't Sarah Grace only like 2? Did they age her fast like they do to kids on soaps? lol

 

Actually, yeah. LOL! When I was a kid/teen growing up in the '80s, I recall when two similar shows added young kids to try to keep the show fresh. The Keatons on Family Ties had Andrew and the Seavers on Growing Pains had Chrissy. Both were babies one season, yet when they came back the following season, those babies were suddenly kids of about 5 or so!

I think even Bones (as a recent example) aged Christine by a year or two. Which is just as well there since Booth and Brennan had a second baby (Hank, named after Booth's late grandfather - I miss Ralph Waite! Great actor.).

So Sarah Grace is in good company!

[MaryM47]

IIRC the showrunners said they filmed two finales, one of which wrapped up the show. Perhaps a series finale would have a fast-forward, and that was future little Lily Beckett-Castle we are looking at. 

[BellyLaughter]

Sigh.  We should be so lucky! 

[WendyCR72]

The big photo with the second girl does look like she has SK's coloring. Could be for a series finale or - if ABC renews - Rick fantasizing about what could have been?

Won't be long until we know for sure. Assuming this "Lily" is even connected to C/B.

[MaryM47]

Quote

Rick fantasizing about what could have been?

As long as we're speculating...perhaps Season 9 is set several years in the future, and while I hate this part of it, Kate has died and left behind Lily, giving Rick another cute little daughter to fawn over.  Many of us enjoy O.G. Alexis from back in the day, before she got her superpowers, so if the new version of the show moves her to the PI office, having Lily around would give the show the Castle family life scenes that we used to love.

[verdana]

Before all this happened I really wanted Castle and Beckett to sign off final episode with a baby as I felt that was a fitting end to their happily ever after story.

But now I can't think of anything more depressing than Rick either dreaming about what could have been or seeing an actual child being left motherless for him to bring up alone.

It's like they'd be throwing a bone to the fans after this fiasco and irritates me more than anything else.  Oh well Kate's dead but look here's a cute brown haired kid for mourning fans to make photo manips out of with Stana as "mom".

[westwingfan]

Here's an article I came across from Hart Hanson

"In the first installment of our series "The Changing Face Of TV Fandom," we hear from veteran writer/producer and showrunner Hart Hanson. As the creator of a couple of great, under-appreciated shows (The Finder, Backstrom) and one that has been a huge success (Bones), he's seen all sides of TV fandom. He's very active on Twitter and is a good example of a thoughtful TV veteran who is very accessible to viewers.
But that accessibility can also lead fans to feel that they understand more about the television business and their favorite shows than is actually the case. It's easy to think that what you see on social media is an accurate reflection of what goes on behind-the-scenes. Social media provides a false transparency that can lead to a lot of frustration when fans feel their "voice" isn't being heard.

That pushback can be extremely strong when it comes to fan interactions with showrunners. Their accessibility on social media combined with an increased visibility in the trades ("Showrunner of X Talks About This Week's Big Surprise"), leads many fans to believe that the showrunner is the ultimate arbiter of what they see on-screen. But as Hanson discusses in this wide-ranging piece, TV is a collaborative medium, whether you want it to be or not:
 Hanson:
Yes, I think you are entirely correct about the apparent (and very false!) "transparency" that social media seems to provide about the behind the scenes workings of a TV series. It's a conundrum -- that's what social media is for. It's why we are all encouraged to tweet, etc. The audience feels like they are part of it all -- they get a voice! They understand how things work because we keep giving them glimpses.
But we don't, do we?  Not really. We open the veil a certain amount it's true but never into the actual dim, back rooms where decisions are made. Because, as you say, the way decisions are actually made are extremely complex and so, necessarily, murky. The showrunner is in charge until he or she isn't. Showrunners get canned all the time. And I would guess that it's seldom for incompetence -- it's because he or she took a tough stand on something and lost.
That's why when twitics, critics, and fans make guesses as to what is actually happening behind the scenes they are absolutely never right -- because even if the most experienced and savvy critic in the world talks to his or her best friend the veteran showrunner to get the "real story", well, that's not what happens. A TV production is a constantly shifting dance of creativity, sway, power, insanity, passion, exhaustion ... there's seldom a discernible line to cross. It's incredibly complicated.
I'll tell you one thing, being a showrunner has made me much more skeptical of what I read in history books.
As for what happened at "The 100", well, I have a definite opinion. The fans don't get to steer the ship. And ESPECIALLY not social media fans because they do NOT represent the vast majority of the viewing audience. They are, by definition, the most invested. They are the manic-depressive facet of the audience. They love too much and hate too hard!
You give them what they want -- but don't assume that what they are clamoring for is what they really want. What they really want is to be entertained and to feel things and to go through a catharsis or two along the way. They want to be angry and invested and sad and happy and contented and irritated.  They want to invest.
In fact, an audience wants all sorts of things but at the top is resolution and a happy ending. Why do they want that? Because we do everything we can to make it tantalizing. We work very hard to create that feeling in an audience. And when the social media world erupts in fury, or sadness, or happiness, or frustration -- we did that. We made them feel that way. I truly believe that the showrunners job is not to apologize for whipsawing an audience through a range of emotions. The showrunners job is to adjust the show so that the apocalyptic outpouring of emotion is worth it -- as the show progresses.
Noise is good. Clamor is good. You might be surprised by how noisy it is -- and you might get vilified.
I do know that the periods of time when we were getting hollered at by the Bones fans the loudest was also when we had the best ratings. The show was most popular when social media wanted me dead.
If we'd given the audience what they thought they wanted, on Bones, Booth and Brennan would have been a couple by Christmas. And off the air in a single season.
As showrunners we DO have the final say on what happens in the show -- but it's a situation where we are holding a gun to our own head and threatening to shoot the hostage if we don't get our way.
I think it's a good thing that the audience isn't in on every decision. There should be some mystery to the whole process.  Just because you love a hearty stew doesn't mean you want to know everything that goes into it."

I've highlighted a couple of passages that I think are relevant to the current situation, especially these parts

In fact, an audience wants all sorts of things but at the top is resolution and a happy ending

The showrunners job is to adjust the show so that the apocalyptic outpouring of emotion is worth it -- as the show progresses.

I think this is where Hawley and TPW have failed this season, it doesn't look like the majority of fans are going to get their happy ending ( I do believe that the majority were rooting for Caskett), and despite their early interviews about hanging in there after they split Caskett up early in the season and telling people that it would be worth it, I doubt that the majority would agree after the finale airs.

[Kromm]

25 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

Here's an article I came across from Hart Hanson

"In the first installment of our series "The Changing Face Of TV Fandom," we hear from veteran writer/producer and showrunner Hart Hanson. As the creator of a couple of great, under-appreciated shows (The Finder, Backstrom) and one that has been a huge success (Bones), he's seen all sides of TV fandom. He's very active on Twitter and is a good example of a thoughtful TV veteran who is very accessible to viewers.

I have pretty mixed feelings about Hart Hanson and anything he says. I mean Bones literally had about 2 seasons where it was a pretty damn good show and IMO went swiftly downhill after that. And yet has hung around seemingly FOREVER after that (I watched regularly for a few seasons more, and when I realized it still sucked changed to diving in for a few individual episodes per season at most). There's a ton of pandering on the show, a ton of fluff and a fairly epic amount of WTF.  Even accepting that sometimes things after the first bloom wears off isn't usually as good, and so maybe you crank out a few more years anyway, I think along with Castle, it's probably a good example of how most shows should just be wrapped up and ended by Year 5.  And aren't.

[oberon55]

2 hours ago, verdana said:

Before all this happened I really wanted Castle and Beckett to sign off final episode with a baby as I felt that was a fitting end to their happily ever after story.

But now I can't think of anything more depressing than Rick either dreaming about what could have been or seeing an actual child being left motherless for him to bring up alone.

It's like they'd be throwing a bone to the fans after this fiasco and irritates me more than anything else.  Oh well Kate's dead but look here's a cute brown haired kid for mourning fans to make photo manips out of with Stana as "mom".

I honestly could not think of a worse ending than history repeating itself by having Beckett's daughter lose her mother (especially if she is murdered). Having a new puppy works as the bittersweet ending of dog movies (Turner & Hooch or Old Yeller) but not so much with humans.

[verdana]

Marlowe said that same thing as Hart I'm sure at one point with that "fans think they know what they want but don't really" comment.

Whilst I get where these showrunners are coming from in part on the other hand they can take things too far with this attitude, deliberately appearing to ensure fans never get a decent pay off until it's too late and fans like me drift away or the delay is resolved but in a horrible way (I'm looking at you HH and the Bones eventual coupling).  

I know what I want and I don't like being told "oh you don't really we know better", it feels as condescending as hell, I get the need to take fans on an emotional journey but at the end you need to make it feel earned by the characters and obviously it has to satisfying.  Don't push your luck. 

With Castle I don't feel anything this season the characters have been through has been remotely earned and I doubt very much I'm going to find anything satisfying in the chosen resolution to their story. The showrunners have failed miserably and I haven't watched half the season and I have no intention of going back revisiting it. 

I agree that most shows seem to have an expiration date of about 5 years before they go off the boil, in the vast majority of cases that's happened to every show I've got invested in, by about S4 you can see the cracks showing, by S5 it's obvious and by S6 I'm willing the show to end and be put out of its misery. I got out of Bones S5 when Brennan rejected Booth in what should have been a great milestone moment which left me feeling as if I'd just been kicked in the teeth and I remember it for all the wrong reasons. Then in S6 Hannah turned up and it was crystal clear HH was intent on dragging things out until the next ice age if he had his way - thank God Emily got pregnant lol! 

Edited May 1, 2016 by verdana

[Julia]

Eh. Hanson and Nathan (who made two seasons of one good, underappreciated show, a very, very bad soft pilot and a series starring a misanthropic self-insert nobody watched) talks a good game. From here it looks a lot like the network had enough money coming in from overseas and syndication that they could enjoy themselves playing poke the shippers with Ausiello and EW instead of writing a coherent show.

If anything, Hanson has taught a generation of showrunners that the casting office is the only part of your operation which has to function effectively. 

[thewhiteowl]

I have mixed feelings on Beckett leaving. I started watching for NF but became a fan of SK and the rest. For me it depends so much on how it's done. If it makes sense to me, I will continue to watch. If I find it preposterous, I won't. I will give it a chance though, for NF.

[KaveDweller]

7 hours ago, oberon55 said:

I honestly could not think of a worse ending than history repeating itself by having Beckett's daughter lose her mother (especially if she is murdered). Having a new puppy works as the bittersweet ending of dog movies (Turner & Hooch or Old Yeller) but not so much with humans.

 

All week I've been thinking that there couldn't be a worse ending than Beckett getting killed by LokSat and have her last moments be flashing back to people telling her she could be happy if she just left it alone, like Caleb said last week. But yeah, having a kid she left behind would be a thousands times worse.

 

Maybe they're going with. Really crazy twist and Lily is actually LokSat. Or Loksat's kid and that makes Beckett have second thoughts about taking him down.

[madmaverick]

Hm... Lily Castle?  Somehow I never pictured Caskett naming their kid 'Lily'.  Not sure it's happened in fanfic either.  I miss Cosmo Castle heh.  But Caskett have barely touched on any kid talk of late, just motorcycles and Paris ;), and you know how the writers love their anvils, so I'm not sure I see a kid in the picture and how I feel about it. 

I both agree and disagree with what Hanson said.  

Quote

But that accessibility can also lead fans to feel that they understand more about the television business and their favorite shows than is actually the case. It's easy to think that what you see on social media is an accurate reflection of what goes on behind-the-scenes. Social media provides a false transparency that can lead to a lot of frustration when fans feel their "voice" isn't being heard.

That accessibility also leads fans to feel they understand more about actors, their relationships, both private and professionally, than is actually the case. ;)  Everything is seen and judged through the lens of social media, by some, solely through that lens. ;)  That accessibility amplifies loud, summary judgment and is also taken by some as a licence to be rude and disrespectful in delivering their 'feedback'.  A mob mentality can develop and unjustified harassment ensues.  Having easy targets to direct their frustration on social media facilitates the simplistic villain narrative favoured by some fans while ignoring the real complexities of any decision making process in a television show by various stakeholders with business as well as creative considerations.  

 

That accessibility also doesn't mean there's any meaningful and constructive discourse between writers and fans about the show.  I see venting, I see PR, but not much real communication.

 

I agree that fans don't get to steer the ship because at the end of the day, the television program or the book or whatever product is the artistic vision of the creator.  I also agree that social media fans may not be representative of the general audience, but that isn't to say there isn't some overlap in their views.   I agree that an audience wants to be entertained and invested in a story.  I also think that an audience knows what they want, knows when a good story is being told and when it isn't, and the frustration felt from poor storytelling isn't something a feeling showrunners should mistake as par for the course.  The journey is just as important, if not more so, than the destination of a happy ending or otherwise.  If the journey isn't satisfying, however good a resolution can feel hollow and too little, too late.  I watch shows without happy endings as well and those can be very powerful too; the important thing is that the story being told has to make sense to me for the characters.

 

ff we're talking about a television show with 20+ eps per season, they are rarely good beyond S3 or even S2 in my experience.  TV shows with about 10 eps per season can be good for about 5-7 seasons depending.  It helps if it's based on source material in books like GoT.  It would be good if networks would look into doing TV movies for shows like Castle.  I'd find that a much better creative fit down the road than cranking out 20+ uneven, and often tired, eps a year.  But it probably makes less financial sense for networks to do it, which is why they haven't done it.

 

Nothing Molly or any other actor has said on social media has justified the amount and the kind of vitriol directed at them.  I would go on a blocking spree too if I were them.  No one needs that kind of crap ruining their day.  People talk about actors needing thick skins, but I find that often it's fans who take offence at just about anything when they are frustrated or when they can only see things from one narrow pov (usually related to their fave actor/character).  They take offence, they lash out, they feel entitled to a mea culpa from their target  ;)   I personally find none of that behaviour attractive.

 

I also lose respect for people who decry sexism but then treat other women they don't happen to like like crap or demonise them even.  Hillary is an example.  Molly, Toks, and now even Susan have been on the receiving end of that in the fandom unfortunately.  Also lose people who cry out about misogyny but then act like misandrists.  Undoubtedly sexism and misogyny do exist, but I find that it's often hijacked by fangirls with an agenda about actors/characters, which leaves me cold and cheapens the real cause.

 

I hope Nathan and Stana land on some shows with actual buzz in the future.  Castle has been a financial boon for both no doubt, but I don't know how much it's done towards getting their doors open to quality roles.  Sometimes I wonder what would have happened to their careers if they hadn't done Castle.  Who knows, with some lucky breaks and coinciding with the rise of superhero movies and of previous collaborators like Whedon and Gunn, perhaps Nathan could have landed in one of them when he was still in his 30s.

 

OT: Ooh, Elizabeth Moss in The Handmaid's Tale.  Definitely will check that out!  Not sure about John Krasinski as Jack Ryan though.  And for anyone who hasn't watched American Crime Story: O.J., it's brilliant.  Never particularly got into Ryan Murphy shows before or Sarah Paulson, but she was amazing.  Flawless acting all round and I even stopped seeing David Schwimmer as Ross! ;)

[Cyranetta]

Quote

I very much agree with this. Killing her off is lazy and cheap and undermines the story of the leads that they spent 8ish years building. Having them get divorced will also be similarly off putting for me. Not sure how they can end it in a way that doesn't make me either hate Castle, the writers, the show, or all of the above at this point. 

Easy-peasy. Just have Castle find a super-duper artifact while in the company of anyone continuing into the next incarnation of the show and whammo, they pop into an alternate universe where Beckett never existed. Then he could either try for a season-long effort to "get back home" or adapt to the new universe.

There's another possibility for "Lily" — it could simply be a placeholder name, and the kid is actually supposed to be KB at that age, and Castle or perhaps even Jim Beckett are thinking about pre-Mombatross innocence.

[madmaverick]

I guess one person's "calling people out" could well qualify as another person's "vitriol".   People clearly have different standards as to what qualifies as respectful communication towards others on the internet and what's beyond the pale.  The hair on the back of my neck goes up when I see actual vitriol, and I've seen plenty of that, the actual stomach churning variety, in the fandom.  I've probably just seen a fraction of the vitriol Molly has been subjected to over the years, as I have no actual desire to be exposed to vitriol if I can avoid it, but she, along with Toks and Susan, have been "called out" for not supporting Stana/being against sexism as a fellow actress.  She's been subjected to tweets which insinuate that there's some sort of incestuous relationship between both Alexis/Castle and inappropriate relationship between her and Nathan, coming from some of the most "vocal" feminists in the fandom.  Those people did bring gender into it, and worse.  

 

People accusing Nathan of being a sexist, misogynist, what have you, just because he's a man, since obviously anything goes and these people think he's the worst person in the world regardless of what he says/does or not, based on no evidence at all to show his culpability in this matter, are also stupid.

Edited May 1, 2016 by madmaverick

[TWP]

12 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

I've probably just seen a fraction of the vitriol Molly has been subjected to over the years, as I have no actual desire to be exposed to vitriol if I can avoid it, but she, along with Toks and Susan, have been "called out" for not supporting Stana/being against sexism as a fellow actress.  She's been subjected to tweets which insinuate that there's some sort of incestuous relationship between both Alexis/Castle and inappropriate relationship between her and Nathan, coming from some of the most "vocal" feminists in the fandom.  Those people did bring gender into it, and worse.  

 

Yep, and as I've said before, the Stana-fandom is essentially asking these women to sacrifice their jobs in support of Stana.  Not many people have the resources to do that.  And would Stana do the same for them?  We have no idea, but I doubt it.  She certainly didn't take a principled stand for Penny JJ.  Where was the outcry then?  Heck, they could have cut one of the boys instead, right, but they cut Penny? 

And when these actors don't advocate cancelling their own show, they're subject to some pretty insulting commentary.  When that commentary pisses them off and they react, they get a litany of criticism for that.  Really they can't win (except by using their block feature).  The actors can either quit this show and make the Stana fandom happy or they subject themselves to the hatred (which is still a minority opinion, see ratings).

And in answer to another post, no, we shouldn't support women just because they're women.  But when the only crime someone has committed is trying to keep their own job, then they haven't done anything to lose support.

[Annec]

21 hours ago, break21 said:

Alexis is my least favorite character on the show, but I really can't hate on Molly.  She's still young and Castle is the only show she's worked.  I think the hysteria of the Castle fandom is a lot for any actor/actress to deal with (it seemed to get to Toks at some point this year), but to handle it at her young age is a challenge. . I'm also ok with the show moving forward without Beckett but I doubt I can watch her get killed off.  I might skip the end of that episode and see where they pick up next year.

I think a lot of the issue with Molly is that she has never been supportive of Caskett.  Go back and look at her at the Paleyfest panels and interviews from very early on-she didn't want Castle and Beckett to get together. So, for her to immediately start talking about what a great show Nathan would put on for the fans without Stana was incredibly tone deaf and lacking empathy for the fans. She clearly has an agenda and was going to push that agenda at all costs. Molly and Toks would be very well served by taking a break from Twitter. 

[Annec]

On April 30, 2016 at 7:00 PM, TWP said:

This is the sneak that I'm pretty sure uses body doubles and split screens.  Stana and Nathan likely don't appear together.

Yeah, the writer leading the investigation with police help isn't going to fly with me either. Of course, the idea of a writer following cops around for 8 years isn't a likely scenario either.

If we get a bunch of these I hope it leads ABC to release what really happened.  I don't think it was sexism.  I think it was two actors who didn't get along, and ABC figured Nathan was the money man. So if they cancel because of this cancel movement, what about the other women who will lose their jobs? Is it fine for the sake of principle? If so, does principle make their mortgage and feed their kids too?

The sexism charge comes not from a single incident but the practice and pattern of Hollywood valuing their male leads if the female lead as seen in Castle, Arrow, The Blacklist, The 100, and other shows that have killed off their female co-lead this year. It points to the networks sexist assumption that their male leads can carry a show but their female wads count. Btw, there is now a pattern on Castle with the during last of Penny, Stana, and Tamala and no male actors (you could even add Tory from tech to that list).

[WendyCR72]

9 minutes ago, Annec said:

I think a lot of the issue with Molly is that she has never been supportive of Caskett.  Go back and look at her at the Paleyfest panels and interviews from very early on-she didn't want Castle and Beckett to get together. So, for her to immediately start talking about what a great show Nathan would put on for the fans without Stana was incredibly tone deaf and lacking empathy for the fans. She clearly has an agenda and was going to push that agenda at all costs. Molly and Toks would be very well served by taking a break from Twitter. 

I strongly disagree that Molly warrants a break because uber-fans cannot be bothered to act like adults rather than rabid psycho fans. Which is, sadly, what SOME are. No boundaries. And I say "so what?" if Molly did not care about C/B. She doesn't write the show. She had a dissenting opinion. To me, that's not a crime.

I mean, that opinion didn't preclude C/B hooking up. Hell, Fillion was anti-couple, and it still happened.

In hindsight, perhaps Castle should have gone Elementary and kept C/B platonic. Maybe it could have eased any alleged tension. I think maybe the show still could have worked.

In the end, it's all supposition, anyway.

[WendyCR72]

4 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

It's never a crime or bad or wrong to make a dissenting opinion. But as part of the cast of a show, to have lack of support for other cast members

But here is the crux. She did express regret about SK. But thought the show could go on. I fail to see how she didn't "support" SK. As we say here, acting is a biz. Actors come, actors go. I don't see how Molly should be expected to quit or have a cry-fest because a co-star is gone.

Maybe she's sad. Maybe she is secretly thrilled. But Molly's responsibility to fans, as far as I'm concerned, is to show up, say her lines, pick up her check, and go the hell home.

Anything else is not her responsibility. And for the subset that cannot accept it, I think that's their issue, not hers.

[WendyCR72]

1 minute ago, SweetTooth said:

To say Castle IS Nathan is to disregard Stana as a co-lead. 

 

We just won't agree. Because I didn't take this as you did: Because, yeah, the show is named Castle, which is Rick Castle. I take it literally. (And, I guess, so did ABC, right or wrong.)

Yes, it became more C/B, but the show ostensibly began about a writer looking for inspiration. Which became Beckett.

Time will tell if it is a mistake, but in terms of Molly? I don't think her saying that was meant as some diss.

At least we have Bobby Goren in common, @SweetTooth.  :-)

[BlakesMomma]

It's a bit difficult to believe Katic's firing is because ABC is rampant with sexism when they've just promoted a female to the top position, the network is basically Shondaland, and they've just inked a very large new development and production deal with Viola Davis's new production company.  So believe or disbelieve all the ridiculous rumors of who's responsible - your choice.  But the bottom line seems to be, for whatever reason (pick one, there are many rumors out there to choose from - Katic was a diva, was difficult to deal with in negotiations, the BTS issues, she'd made it clear for 2 seasons now that she wanted out, she wasn't promoting the show enough, etc, etc), ABC no longer felt Katic was worth what they were paying her or they no longer were willing to deal with her.  ABC is a business and they back and support whatever shows and actors they think will make them money.  Period.  They may or may not be mistaken in this instance, but obviously they felt she was no longer worth it, or worth fighting for, for whatever reason. End of story.

Tamala, my guess, was cut strictly for budget reasons.  

[newyawk]

Spoiler: Monday night's episode, s8e20, is already available online ahead of airtime.  Watching it now, because, well, YOLO.

[WendyCR72]

Here's a nifty suggestion for both sides: Stop with reigniting a war because we do not like what is speculated about an actor. They, no doubt, are rolling in their dough and aren't giving the audience a second thought. Stana, Nathan, Tamala, and all the rest are no doubt fine. And aren't the first nor will they be the last actors to be talked about online.

As long as we remember that we aren't privy to BTS and that everyone has opinions, we can keep this thread civil and continue to discuss and speculate freely.

And it's a hell of a lot nicer to do that when the fan base shit isn't derailing it.

Just saying.

[metaphor]

Ugh. This TVGuide article is like a splinter to the heart: 10 Reasons We'll Miss Kate Beckett. There's a teeny tiny part of me still hoping ABC will eventually make the right decision about this show and let Castle and Beckett walk off into the sunset together. I guess we'll see. But watching the last couple of episodes (especially the one that aired in Canada last night), I think I'm coming to accept that the show I loved is actually already gone. 

Edited May 2, 2016 by metaphor

[Thak]

My speculation given the info from "Deadline" about Nathan demanding he and Stana only work 2 days/per week, it would seem Nathan had the issues and not Stana.  In fact I do believe Stana's rep's actually let it be known that she has no issues with Mr. Fillion.  It would appear one of them wasn't able to remain professional.  This reminds me of Stana's birthday tweet last year to Nathan (paraphrasing) "I'm not bossy, I have skills, leadership skills, understand" accompanied by a picture of a little girl and boy with the little girl getting the attention of a not so happy little boy.

 

I'm guessing ABC has probably had enough of the disagreements between them and the pettiness of Mr. Fillion and would rather split them up, so with an aging show they will give the "brand/titular" character a spinoff. (I do believe Fillion has or had a development deal with ABC prior to Castle).  This way they can push Fillion in one direction and Stana in another direction by saying they are interested in keeping the door open for other projects with her.  She was a co-lead not the title lead so who is needed to keep this boat afloat is pretty academic.  ABC is struggling with programming and pilot season is done, they may not have anything to offer Stana right now, or perhaps they tried to get a deal and she has irons in other fires, who knows.

I will say that with the Deadline article and the "rumors" over the years, not to mention the opinion of former Castle BTS people like Lynette Wich, where there's smoke, there's fire.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Thak

[S55]

EW: Castle: Will Stana Katic's Beckett die in the finale? 

[madmaverick]

Well, I can see that Wendy's advice fell on deaf ears.

All I can add is that there are 2 sides to every story, maybe 3 sides in this case.  And so far we've only heard one.  But it doesn't matter to those who are so sure they know the whole story now anyway.

[Chado]

1 minute ago, madmaverick said:

Well, I can see that Wendy's advice fell on deaf ears.

All I can add is that there are 2 sides to every story, maybe 3 sides in this case.  And so far we've only heard one.  But it doesn't matter to those who are so sure they know the whole story now anyway.

The irony is that I got told off for my post and yet the same people come back with the same crap over and over again ;)

[newyawk]

Well, Stana has four movies wrapped for 2016, according to IMDB, so I hope she does very well. She seems to have a full dance card.

[Thak]

40 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

Well, I can see that Wendy's advice fell on deaf ears.

All I can add is that there are 2 sides to every story, maybe 3 sides in this case.  And so far we've only heard one.  But it doesn't matter to those who are so sure they know the whole story now anyway.

Not at all.  I'm speculating in the speculation thread, and I'm giving my opinion on a media story by Deadline, in a thread with "media" in the title.  I've made it clear these are my opinions, I don't claim to know facts.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Thak

[TWP]

16 hours ago, Annec said:

 Molly and Toks would be very well served by taking a break from Twitter. 

Personally I think some rabid fans need to take a break from Twitter and really from the Stana Fandom. They are getting out of hand, really have lost perspective altogether, IMHO. 

Maybe if Nathan made the 2-day stipulation it was based on his inability to work with Stana because of her demands?  We have no idea. Someone is sharing Nathan's demands. Clearly Stana had some too, or else Hawley (?) wouldn't have had to travel to Europe to talk to her.  Somehow her demands haven't made the news....maybe because Nathan's side isn't as prone to leaks as Stana's side is?  Who knows.

Edited May 2, 2016 by TWP

[madmaverick]

Seamus had some choice replies to fans who'd tweeted him negative stuff in reply to his tweeting about tonight's episode.  I don't blame him.  I imagine he's not the only actor who's frustrated with fans right now.  What do people think they accomplish when they tweet cast hate and in essence punish them for a decision they had no control over and hope for them to lose their jobs?  These fans are all about expressing their feelings, but they don't stop for a minute to think about the recipients' when they tweet what they do to them.  If you don't want to, don't watch the show anymore.  Boycott ABC if you want to.  There's absolutely no need and no excuse to tweet hate at anyone.  

[westwingfan]

New category added to TV Line's May Sweeps Scorecard

Number of characters getting shot in the penis =1

http://tvline.com/2016/04/06/may-sweeps-scorecard-2016-spoilers-deaths/2/

[Lee4U]

So many people who tweet those nasty tweets are hiding behind anonymity - which seems to provide some people with the audacity to be as rude and insulting as they want (same on all social media when the person is anonymous, just as we are here on this forum) - The sheer amount of it in some cases is so disheartening; don't like someone's tweets/opinions?  Slam them, tell them off, etc.  The unfortunate side of all this amazing technology.

Every one of the cast had a right to say exactly what they wished to say.  To assume a handful of fans should then declare cast shouldn't speak their minds is rather -  sad, to be kind about it and incredibly presumptuous.  Reading comments in a few places about how they should just end the show since she is leaving is a truly punitive stance to take, in MY opinion, given the hundreds of jobs at risk.  How can those people's jobs (the other cast and all the crew) not even matter at all to some people (I am not speaking about anyone here specifically).

Not everyone is upset SK is leaving, not everyone engages with the cast, no one here or anywhere knows anything about what actually happened, nor will we ever.  

I am not sure why it matters to know the details; I would not want a bunch of strangers knowing the specific details about my employment situation even if I was an actor.  The only people I think anyone has a right to know about that sort of thing is public officials since the public pays their salary, their health care, etc - They are accountable to the public; actors aren't.  If SK wants to make the circumstances public, then fine but some of the assumptions I've read are really pretty startling.  (Again, to ME).

Just my two cents.  All I hope for, if they renew, is a well written story.  

[Thak]

1 hour ago, Lee4U said:

So many people who tweet those nasty tweets are hiding behind anonymity - which seems to provide some people with the audacity to be as rude and insulting as they want (same on all social media when the person is anonymous, just as we are here on this forum) - The sheer amount of it in some cases is so disheartening; don't like someone's tweets/opinions?  Slam them, tell them off, etc.  The unfortunate side of all this amazing technology.

 

I agree.   I'm glad I'm not on twitter, instagram etc...  Some forums out there can be really hateful as well.

I also don't understand wishing for the cancellation of the show, not nice.  Just don't watch, that's what I will choose to do, simple.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Thak

[TWP]

1 hour ago, Thak said:

I agree.   I'm glad I'm not on twitter, instagram etc...  Some forums out there can be really hateful as well.

I also don't understand wishing for the cancellation of the show, not nice. 

AGREED.  I'm all for loud -- but respectful -- criticism of media in general.  I think it makes media better and I think PTB should be respectful and receptive in turn.  But an open-minded perspective would be, "I hate it, I'm dumping it, but I understand if some people still like it." Boycotts are fine too.  Getting everyone you know to stop watching!  It is the American way!

But if a group is going to advocate cancelling a show, meaning that they are pretty flippant about people's livelihoods, then I think they should stand up as an example and quit their own jobs in support. Given the current sexism in the workplace, I'm sure they work for a sexist employer right, so they should quit on principle!  And after all, they can always find another job, right?

Edited May 2, 2016 by TWP

[S55]

2 hours ago, TWP said:

Personally I think some rabid fans need to take a break from Twitter and really from the Stana Fandom. They are getting out of hand, really have lost perspective altogether, IMHO. 

Seconded. 

[Not-A-Mused]

I think it’s sad that Stana was not asked back for S9 (if there is one), and have to say it appears this was the plan since day one of this season.  Will the show be the same without her?  Absolutely not.  I think they've made a bad decision.  I would love for them to give Caskett the happy ending they, and the fans deserve.  Then spin the show off into something new in the fall, with a new name (still including “Castle” in the title).  Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.  So I figure I have two choices.  Stop watching the show at the end of this season, or give it a try in September (assuming it comes back).  I’ve decided I will watch the S8 finale (probably looking through my fingers), and tune in for S9 in the fall to see how they move forward with their “clean slate.”  If I enjoy what I see, I’ll keep tuning in.  If not, I’ll stop watching.  It’s as simple as that.

While I can understand the hurt feelings of Stana’s ardent fans, at the same time, I have to say I’m really disappointed with those who are sending hateful tweets to many of the cast and crew, and posting very defamatory statements about NF on twitter and elsewhere.  And believe me, many of them are taking great joy in bashing him up one side and down the other, accusing him of all kinds of unsubstantiated nefarious deeds, most notably, being a bully.  Yet, when asked if they realize what they’re doing is the same thing they’re incensed about – bullying – they respond by saying it’s “justified.”  Alrighty then.  Do they not see the hypocrisy in their behavior?

[Kromm]

21 hours ago, madmaverick said:

I hope Nathan and Stana land on some shows with actual buzz in the future.  Castle has been a financial boon for both no doubt, but I don't know how much it's done towards getting their doors open to quality roles.  Sometimes I wonder what would have happened to their careers if they hadn't done Castle.  Who knows, with some lucky breaks and coinciding with the rise of superhero movies and of previous collaborators like Whedon and Gunn, perhaps Nathan could have landed in one of them when he was still in his 30s.

At WORST Nathan has a Bruce Campbell type career waiting for him, where he's used specifically because he's become the washed up version of the Lantern Jawed Hero (or even a parody of that). That older variant has it's own set of roles existing for it now, and Campbell can't do them all. After this show is over, Nathan will likely never lack for work, as long as he can accept that he likely won't be a show lead again, but rather a favorite guest star that shows will eagerly book for multi-episode runs. 

Stana has no such cushion. Aside from the very real issues of how differently the industry and viewing public treats aging actresses (vs. actors) she also doesn't have the Geek Love factor that Nathan soaked up from first being in Sci-Fi and other genre projects. Her support/fandom is mainstream, and while that may SEEM like a better situation than genre fandom (which is less people) the flip-side of mainstream fandom is that it's larger, but... weaker. There's less passion and more interchangeability in people's minds. I'm sure within a few years, short of some miracle, Stana Katic will be bunched up in the general public's group mind along with the similar kind of actresses I mentioned in another post... Angie Harmon, Jill Henessy, and other former tough girl brunette actresses. 

As for Nathan and Superherodom?  Well that's happening. He's in Guardians of the Galaxy 2. That said, while it's a character most people would call a Superhero, it's also just a cameo. I'm gonna use Spoiler marks now in case you don't want to know more...
 

Spoiler

He's Simon Williams, aka Wonder Man. Who's... get ready for this... a washed up former actor. Hmm. Sounds like what you'd expect out of Fillion, doesn't it?

Edited May 2, 2016 by Kromm

[WendyCR72]

6 hours ago, metaphor said:

But watching the last couple of episodes (especially the one that aired in Canada last night), I think I'm coming to accept that the show I loved is actually already gone. 

Now I have "Already Gone" by Kelly Clarkson in my head. Could be worse songs, I guess!