Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[westwingfan]

11 minutes ago, verdana said:

If they want to keep a lid on things they can (and do) but equally I believe they will deliberately let fans hang around a bit too close and take photos and gossip when they want things to come out to increase the buzz even if they pretend they don't want them there and say "don't take photos". 

This time given what's to come I can understand why they may want to keep a firm lid on things.  I remember during filming of 6.01 they allowed fans to hang about but they never made much effort to shoe them away by all accounts and of course someone captured the moment she accepted his proposal, fans on social media went into meltdown after endless speculation for months as to whether she would accept or reject him but no one ever got a sniff of the moment they enacted out the most miserable proposal in TV history and that was in the same park.   

I believe they allowed the outcome of the proposal to be "observed" to deflect from the potentially unpopular DC arc, which was the first attempt to move away from the core premise of a writer and his muse solving crimes together with the help of the precinct.

[verdana]

Castle 8x21 Promo "Hell to Pay" (HD)

[BellyLaughter]

I keep coming back to how the majority of the fans on the internet obviously don't represent in the slightest the rest of the audience....given reactions of fans online it should be a no brainer to end it now and be done with it.  But no, lets renew and carry on carrying on shall we...

 

I didn't ever consider that what I enjoyed about the show - that really made the story for me was something the casual fan could give or take!!?? Perhaps that is why I am so blindsided by the decision to get rid of Beckett and why when I read Showrunner statements comments that I feel so completely dismissed and irrelevant.   Like I said before I don't believe ABC made that call on Katic without doing its homework.  So I guess if more people wanna watch Castle and Alexis PI their way around NYC what the hell have I been doing for the last 8 seasons that could lead me to get it so wrong??  

 

I'm gutted. 

[westwingfan]

12 minutes ago, BellyLaughter said:

I keep coming back to how the majority of the fans on the internet obviously don't represent in the slightest the rest of the audience....given reactions of fans online it should be a no brainer to end it now and be done with it.  But no, lets renew and carry on carrying on shall we...

 

I didn't ever consider that what I enjoyed about the show - that really made the story for me was something the casual fan could give or take!!?? Perhaps that is why I am so blindsided by the decision to get rid of Beckett and why when I read Showrunner statements comments that I feel so completely dismissed and irrelevant.   Like I said before I don't believe ABC made that call on Katic without doing its homework.  So I guess if more people wanna watch Castle and Alexis PI their way around NYC what the hell have I been doing for the last 8 seasons that could lead me to get it so wrong??  

 

I'm gutted. 

The online fans might be a miniscule part of the total audience, but I find it hard to believe that they are the only ones who watch the show for what the creator intended. I think they are just the visible tip of the iceberg, whether the iceberg is big enough to sink the Titanic we'll have to wait and see.

The petition to cancel the show is still accumulating support at a trickle and is approaching 5K, probably not the best question, however the Hollywood Reporter poll asking if you'd still watch without Stana has had over 20K responses, of which 83% are "No". I know THR poll isn't as scientific as Nielsen, but if the ratings are calculated from the viewing habits of just 20K households, isn't THR iceberg likely to be a little more dangerous?

[TWP]

You weren't wrong. But the Caskett show is ending this season. It's been cancelled. The internet won! A new show with a new audience will start in the fall.

I think the PTB knew they couldn't "afford" to pay two huge salaries and keep this show going. They chose the star who THEY felt was more bankable and who -- face it -- tends to like to market himself in the Marvel universe, the audience ABC wants to nurture. ABC already has Shondaland, so maybe mid-20s to older women is not a growth area for them. Maybe if Stana had nurtured the Marvel fans, had spent a ton of time at cons, etc. they'd have chosen her instead.  

I think continuing without Beckett instead of canceling is simply a sign that Castle PI is a lesser evil of the pilots they have in the queue.  And they're showing a significant willingness to abandon the audience the romance attracted for the sake of something that is a little more tested than they other junk they have in their bag of tricks.

[WendyCR72]

I recall reading on various trade sites that ABC - while it does have Shondaland - doesn't have something that CBS and NBC do/did: Procedural franchises. NBC has made good bank with the Law & Order and now the Chicago Fire/PD/Med/(and the possibly upcoming)Justice franchises thanks to 26-years-and-counting with Dick Wolf.

CBS, meanwhile, had/has both the CSI and NCIS franchises under its belt.

Now, say what you will about how paint-by-numbers they may be, but these shows attract eyeballs. And eyeballs mean ratings which means money. The bottom line. And they make a killing in syndication.

Anyway, I read that one of ABC's goals is to strive for more procedural-type shows. And that it was one of many reasons Paul Lee was shown the door, not going for any such programs. So, assuming Castle continues in a new format, perhaps this is ABC trying to dip its toe in.

It sucks for the existing fans. Still, as I said, it's all about the money, honey.

[TWP]

6 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

 I know THR poll isn't as scientific as Nielsen, but if the ratings are calculated from the viewing habits of just 20K households, isn't THR iceberg likely to be a little more dangerous?

Nope. Nielsen is a scientifically selected and monitored sample of 40,000 households that represents a cross-section of America. These online polls are a measure of how many times a small clique of people can revote. Literally 20 people with a lot of time on their hands could each vote a thousand times and there's your 20,000 votes. Please stop thinking that these online polls represent anything other than a fun exercise. Nobody in decision making takes them the least bit seriously. Nor do these petitions matter. People have tried them over and over again to no avail. Sorry. 

[westwingfan]

22 minutes ago, TWP said:

Nope. Nielsen is a scientifically selected and monitored sample of 40,000 households that represents a cross-section of America. These online polls are a measure of how many times a small clique of people can revote. Literally 20 people with a lot of time on their hands could each vote a thousand times and there's your 20,000 votes. Please stop thinking that these online polls represent anything other than a fun exercise. Nobody in decision making takes them the least bit seriously. Nor do these petitions matter. People have tried them over and over again to no avail. Sorry. 

I thought THR poll wasn't one of those but have just discovered it is possible to vote more than once, although it's not as straight forward as the PCAs LOL

So if say 1M had stopped watching these last few episodes but none of them were Nielsen households, would Nielsen be able to reflect that?

[WendyCR72]

2 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

So if say 1M had stopped watching these last few episodes but none of them were Nielsen households, would Nielsen be able to reflect that?

Probably not; for better or worse, it's Nielsen or bust. Maybe someday, more true tracking will emerge, but not enough to really make a difference now.

[metaphor]

1 minute ago, westwingfan said:

I thought THR poll wasn't one of those but have just discovered it is possible to vote more than once, although it's not as straight forward as the PCAs LOL

So if say 1M had stopped watching these last few episodes but none of them were Nielsen households, would Nielsen be able to reflect that?

As I understand it, no. You need to be one of those households with a Nielsen box to affect those published ratings.

[BellyLaughter]

So if Internet fans can suck it why are we encouraged to # all our tweets about shows as we watch?? Wasn't that meant to be playing some role in viewership this year?? The whole thing is horse sh*t and I hope it blows up in their face. 

Edited May 3, 2016 by BellyLaughter

[westwingfan]

51 minutes ago, TWP said:

. Literally 20 people with a lot of time on their hands could each vote a thousand times and there's your 20,000 votes.

OK Will be missing for a few hours while I binge vote LOL

It seems a non Beckett fan has discovered that you can vote more than once, must be reading this thread, as the "Yes" (I will watch) numbers have just jumped up by over 100 in the last couple of minutes. LOL

Edited May 3, 2016 by westwingfan

[femmefan1946]

How many 'producers' are there on this show? I was counting in the credits and lost count around nine.

Tonight's show (actor killed on Broadway stage) actually showed some of a real marriage dynamic, in my opinion. Some loving teasing about Castle's ability to get thrilled about life in general (the YOLO card), Beckett finding that 1PP is unhappy with the Castle situation (a premonition?), a settled routine or at least an attempt at one in the 'date nights', and cuddling at home over take out food. That writer has a healthy home life. I truly worry about the others who can't figure marriage out.

Just another thought. NF seemed to actually be eating the food at the end, SK was just stirring it around.

[TWP]

40 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

OK Will be missing for a few hours while I binge vote LOL

It seems a non Beckett fan has discovered that you can vote more than once, must be reading this thread, as the "Yes" (I will watch) numbers have just jumped up by over 100 in the last couple of minutes. LOL

That was me.  I was playing ;-).  I figured the Yes side needed some love, felt neglected ;-).    The poll is for entertainment purposes only.  I was very entertained.  I've never voted that many times before. Polldaddy will make you take a 4-hour break after you vote, say, 300 times?  I think that's how many I got in before they blocked me. If I happened to write some code to vote, I may have been able to get more votes in before being blocked. But as you can see, these polls can be easily stacked, and thus aren't used to make any real decisions.  I am certain without a doubt that ABC ignores these online polls completely.  Have fun if you want, but your time spent won't matter.

And no, if you aren't a Nielsen household, you can watch any time of the day or night, next week or next month and it doesn't affect the Nielsen rating in the least.  People who say, "I deliberately avoid watching live" don't have to do that.  They are being ignored.

Edited May 3, 2016 by TWP

[Lee4U]

Those polls are to fill space and are clickbait for the media outlet as they earn a bit of $ with each click.  They are totally meaningless but offer a way, I guess, for some folks to vent their frustration - or, if it to express how much they like something -  in how a show is turning out.  That's it.  It's not representative of anything.  

Still can't believe people are rooting for all those people to lose their jobs because they don't like the decisions that have been made.  Can't quite wrap my mind around that but, takes all sorts, as they say.

[madmaverick]

Can't deny that seeing this gave me all kinds of feels... Not thinking about what may come, but the moment captured here looks pretty perfect to me.  Might become my favourite Caskett image of all time.  The chemistry is brimming even from a still.  And somehow they both look younger here, as if time has been turned back.  To good memories of Caskett, even of the actors.

[madmaverick]

Love this one too. 

[westwingfan]

1 hour ago, Lee4U said:

Those polls are to fill space and are clickbait for the media outlet as they earn a bit of $ with each click.  They are totally meaningless but offer a way, I guess, for some folks to vent their frustration - or, if it to express how much they like something -  in how a show is turning out.  That's it.  It's not representative of anything.  

Still can't believe people are rooting for all those people to lose their jobs because they don't like the decisions that have been made.  Can't quite wrap my mind around that but, takes all sorts, as they say.

I don't see it as my job to keep people in the entertainment industry in theirs. I used to watch the show because it entertained me, it hasn't been doing that for some time so I stopped watching. The entertainment business' product is entertainment is it not. If I suddenly have an aversion to apples I don't see why I should keep buying apples just so the apple grower keeps going, and if enough people decide they don't like apples it's up to the apple grower to change his crop. In the case of Castle it seems they have changed their crop when their customers still wanted apples. As I see it, it is the showrunner who has the responsibilty of keeping people in their jobs by creating an entertaining show that people want to watch, as Marlowe did originally, if he's not very creative or tells a story that people aren't interested in I don't feel like I should behave like a lemming and watch just for the sake of it, life is too short. I sat through 150+ episodes before I called it a day. The new showrunners may have had to deal with BTS issues, but it seems the previous ones did too, unfortunately the solutions the new showrunners came up with didn't entertain me. I've not been rooting for people to lose their jobs, but if that is an unfortunate outcome of me giving up this show then I don't feel guilty. It's not as if others will stop making pilots 

[TWP]

10 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

I don't see it as my job to keep people in the entertainment industry in theirs.

I think Lee was talking about folks who were writing and signing petitions.  It's one thing not to watch and let a show fall on its own sword.  It's another to try and create an active movement to end people's job. However, it doesn't matter. The petition won't be successful.  They aren't taken seriously.

[BlakesMomma]

22 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

I don't see it as my job to keep people in the entertainment industry in theirs. I used to watch the show because it entertained me, it hasn't been doing that for some time so I stopped watching. The entertainment business' product is entertainment is it not. If I suddenly have an aversion to apples I don't see why I should keep buying apples just so the apple grower keeps going, and if enough people decide they don't like apples it's up to the apple grower to change his crop. In the case of Castle it seems they have changed their crop when their customers still wanted apples. As I see it, it is the showrunner who has the responsibilty of keeping people in their jobs by creating an entertaining show that people want to watch, as Marlowe did originally, if he's not very creative or tells a story that people aren't interested in I don't feel like I should behave like a lemming and watch just for the sake of it, life is too short. I sat through 150+ episodes before I called it a day. The new showrunners may have had to deal with BTS issues, but it seems the previous ones did too, unfortunately the solutions the new showrunners came up with didn't entertain me. I've not been rooting for people to lose their jobs, but if that is an unfortunate outcome of me giving up this show then I don't feel guilty. It's not as if others will stop making pilots 

Here's the difference - if you suddenly develop an aversion to apples, do you actively try to put the apple growers out of business so those who still like apples can't have them? You just quit buying them and let the others buy them or not.  You don't try to force your likes and dislikes on everyone else by making something you don't like unavailable to others who do like it.

[westwingfan]

4 minutes ago, TWP said:

I think Lee was talking about folks who were writing and signing petitions.  It's one thing not to watch and let a show fall on its own sword.  It's another to try and create an active movement to end people's job. However, it doesn't matter. The petition won't be successful.  They aren't taken seriously.

I sort of figured that, I meant to delete the first part of Lee's post so it wouldn't look like I was replying to that.

I did vote in one of the Yes/No polls about watching without Beckett because I was annoyed that ABC would consider extending the show without Stana, but I did vote only once, until you caused me to undertake a little experiment.  LOL

I stopped watching reruns for awhile after FBOW because that tested my enjoyment, but the thought of Beckett dying is something you can't unwatch so I gave up on the current season so I will be still be able to enjoy the first seven seasons eventually, haven't watched any episodes, new or old since 8x17 so far.

[KaveDweller]

2 hours ago, madmaverick said:

Can't deny that seeing this gave me all kinds of feels... Not thinking about what may come, but the moment captured here looks pretty perfect to me.  Might become my favourite Caskett image of all time.  The chemistry is brimming even from a still.  And somehow they both look younger here, as if time has been turned back.  To good memories of Caskett, even of the actors.

 Yeah, I really love that picture of them as well. I can see chemistry from the still too, it must be a good scene with them. 

[westwingfan]

9 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

 Yeah, I really love that picture of them as well. I can see chemistry from the still too, it must be a good scene with them. 

It would have been really awesome if he'd had his eyes open and they actually had eye contact, maybe he does at some point in the actual scene.

[madmaverick]

I actually like it more that he has his eyes closed while she's touching him.  It's even more tender and touching somehow.

[tljgator]

Quote

So if say 1M had stopped watching these last few episodes but none of them were Nielsen households, would Nielsen be able to reflect that?

If their sampling is accurate (which it seems to be, based on what I've read), then, yes, because the demographics and behaviors of those 1M people will be reflected in the similar portion of the sample who they measure. Statistics should be applied to that sample, and the margin of error would reflect the difference between the sample (Nielsen viewers) and the population (actual viewers of the show). While, of course, "it only matters if you have a box" (or do the paper diaries during sweeps), each person with a box represents hundreds of thousands of people like them.  All that said, Nielsen ratings are bunk in today's modern viewing world, but that's a different argument entirely, lol.

BTW, on an interesting side note, since the Stana-news came down, I haven't watched and as a member of the ABC Studios super-special Castle panel I've been marking my weekly survey to indicate such and they seem to have noticed based on emails they've sent trying to keep me participating.

[TWP]

59 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

I stopped watching reruns for awhile after FBOW because that tested my enjoyment, but the thought of Beckett dying is something you can't unwatch so I gave up on the current season so I will be still be able to enjoy the first seven seasons eventually, haven't watched any episodes, new or old since 8x17 so far.

Someone had the idea that even if she dies on broadcast TV that they should ship a version of the DVDs where they end the show with 8x22 and she lives.  I think that's an excellent idea.

[TWP]

3 minutes ago, tljgator said:

If their sampling is accurate (which it seems to be, based on what I've read), then, yes, because the demographics and behaviors of those 1M people will be reflected in the similar portion of the sample who they measure. Statistics should be applied to that sample, and the margin of error would reflect the difference between the sample (Nielsen viewers) and the population (actual viewers of the show). While, of course, "it only matters if you have a box" (or do the paper diaries during sweeps), each person with a box represents hundreds of thousands of people like them.  All that said, Nielsen ratings are bunk in today's modern viewing world, but that's a different argument entirely, lol.

BTW, on an interesting side note, since the Stana-news came down, I haven't watched and as a member of the ABC Studios super-special Castle panel I've been marking my weekly survey to indicate such and they seem to have noticed based on emails they've sent trying to keep me participating.

All you said was, yep, yep, yep until you talked about Nielsen ratings being bunk ;-).  Nielsen measures how many people watch the commercials and that's the only metric advertisers care about.  The C+3 metric is the actual one used, but the Live+Same Day tracks the C+3 metric so well that it is predictive. 

The rest,  live+7 day and all that is not sellable data.  It may be great for bragging rights, but it doesn't matter to show renewal.

[westwingfan]

8 minutes ago, tljgator said:

If their sampling is accurate (which it seems to be, based on what I've read), then, yes, because the demographics and behaviors of those 1M people will be reflected in the similar portion of the sample who they measure. Statistics should be applied to that sample, and the margin of error would reflect the difference between the sample (Nielsen viewers) and the population (actual viewers of the show). While, of course, "it only matters if you have a box" (or do the paper diaries during sweeps), each person with a box represents hundreds of thousands of people like them.  All that said, Nielsen ratings are bunk in today's modern viewing world, but that's a different argument entirely, lol.

BTW, on an interesting side note, since the Stana-news came down, I haven't watched and as a member of the ABC Studios super-special Castle panel I've been marking my weekly survey to indicate such and they seem to have noticed based on emails they've sent trying to keep me participating.

Your comments about the panel are very interesting, I'd love to know what market research ABC conducted to conclude that a S9 without Stana was a viable option. I can't believe they took the steadyish ratings, they have dropped a little since the news broke by about 0.1/and 300K-500K, at face value for such a drastic action, or is their locker of possible replacements that bare that they plan to go ahead with a S9 because they have little choice.

[tljgator]

Quote

Nielsen measures how many people watch the commercials

Well, yes and no ... most On Demand platforms won't let you FF through the ads and these numbers aren't reported by several cable companies or included in the TiVo numbers that get added to for the +3 and +7 numbers. That's always bugged me as someone who quite often views this way.  Anyhoo, agreed that Nielsen still maters to the advertisers ... I mostly meant "bunk" as the numbers cited for "viewership." :-)

(Also, since my semester has wrapped up and I won't have to teach statistics for another four months, I figured I'd toss that quick explanation out there, lol.)

[westwingfan]

16 minutes ago, TWP said:

Someone had the idea that even if she dies on broadcast TV that they should ship a version of the DVDs where they end the show with 8x22 and she lives.  I think that's an excellent idea.

They might deny it exists, like Milmar denied that extended Always scene did, and we'll be told to respect the process. LOL

Actually, I might be one of the few who didn't think the extended scene would have benefitted the episode, the end scene that was cut from Veritas where we see Beckett put away her Mother's ring I did think should have been used for its symbolic impact, but as it turned out she would have had to have taken it out again after "XX"

25 minutes ago, tljgator said:

I All that said, Nielsen ratings are bunk in today's modern viewing world, but that's a different argument entirely, lol.

 

I'd love to get into a discussion about Nielsen ratings methodology but I've got some paint that needs watching  while it dries. LOL

[tljgator]

Quote

I'd love to know what market research ABC conducted to conclude that a S9 without Stana was a viable option

First and foremost, ABC Studios is the production company and they are separate from ABC the network.  As someone who does research for a living, I will say a lot of what the Studio does with the surveys and panels is crap, but at least they try to engage fans and find out what is/isn't working and so on from their perspectives. The two shows I saw actual on-screen changes for that appeared (at least superficially) to be related to panels back in the day were Nashville and OUAT. On Castle, the panel surveys absolutely reflected the bad fan reaction to the non-wedding, Castle's disappearance, etc. There were questions that were clearly trying to assess the fallout from all that (I recall a question response option along the lines of "I'd be fine if they pretended this whole thing never happened.")

As for ABC the network, I have seen a bit of what they do focus group-wise from a friend who works for the company, and it's horribly done from my perspective as a researcher.  So, them making poor choices based on that wouldn't surprise me, but it's also my understanding that most decisions aren't influenced by that type of thing anyway.

[TWP]

34 minutes ago, tljgator said:

Well, yes and no ... most On Demand platforms won't let you FF through the ads and these numbers aren't reported by several cable companies or included in the TiVo numbers that get added to for the +3 and +7 numbers. That's always bugged me as someone who quite often views this way.  Anyhoo, agreed that Nielsen still maters to the advertisers ... I mostly meant "bunk" as the numbers cited for "viewership." :-)

(Also, since my semester has wrapped up and I won't have to teach statistics for another four months, I figured I'd toss that quick explanation out there, lol.)

Yes and YES!

Like I said above, the advertisers care about C+3(days) for Nielsen families, which presumes On Demand and possibly even Online viewing, since those are the only ways viewers can watch during the 3 days after live airing without being able to FF commercials  For whatever reason, advertisers don't even care about C+7 .  I've been told that ads have a "shelf life" and that's why they only want to know about the 3 days following live date,  but I see the same ads for months, sooo. 

And to be even more repetitive, C+3 trends closely track L+Same Day so the latter metric is predictive of show renewal.  That's why people pay so much attention to L+Same Day

Advertisers also wouldn't care about cable company data and Tivos outside of Nielsen.  Cable boxes can only pick up what channel is on, not who is watching.  Nielsen asks their families to register what they are actively watching.  And of course, if people DVR via cable box or Tivo they can fast forward and then advertisers don't care about those folks either, even if Nielsen (They would be the L+3 and L+7 metrics ).  But Nielsen does record all that data in the hopes they can sell it to someone as bragging rights.  And the showrunners eat it up, hopefully while knowing that it doesn't matter.

Advertisers are the only thing that matters. We are the product, not the customer.  Total viewers on all platforms gives us validation, I guess.  And it really fuels p'ed off viewers when the viewing numbers are large, but the C+3 is small and the show gets canceled.

Edited May 3, 2016 by TWP

[KaveDweller]

1 hour ago, TWP said:

Someone had the idea that even if she dies on broadcast TV that they should ship a version of the DVDs where they end the show with 8x22 and she lives.  I think that's an excellent idea.

Choose your own adventure TV. I like it. I doubt they'll do it though, because it would discourage people from watching S9.

[CheshireCat]

14 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

 

But if people are angry at them, but still watch, the network is happy. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's reality.

If people are angry and still watch then I feel like they shouldn't complain. There's little they can do, of course, but if they're unhappy then they need to stop watching. That's probably the only message a network understands - a ratings drop. Sure, that might lead to cancellation but in hindsight, wouldn't the majority of us have been happier had Castle been cancelled after S7? And if it happens often enough - a significant drop in the ratings when fans get displeased with the direction a show is going - then that might lead to a change and networks might start to encourage their showrunners to actually listen to what fans want. It won't happen overnight but I think it can happen. But it requires that people actually act and not just say it.

[westwingfan]

4 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

Choose your own adventure TV. I like it. I doubt they'll do it though, because it would discourage people from watching S9.

Haven't they done that already by ditching Beckett. LOL

A lot of people might not be aware of that though until 9x01 airs because for some bizarre reason they don't bother with the show other than to just tune in on a Monday, and I expect those people still have the nerve to consider themselves "True" fans. LOL

[Lee4U]

Westwingfan: I was referring to (and should have been clear about it) to people signing an actual petition for the show to end. 

If I don't like a show anymore, I just stop watching; I don't (personally) participate in something that is intended (even if utterly benign and meaningless) to kill off a show which results in the loss of hundreds of jobs.

Apples and oranges - There's expressing disappointment/dislike but simply tuning out and then there's a petition or whatever else some people do with specific intent.  

"Listen" to which fans?  People who are not at all invested in a show but watch for just basic enjoyment?  Or fans who get very attached to characters, etc?  Not all "fans" are the same.  Which ones should they be listening to?  

Ratings and viewers drop - for whatever the reasons - that will most always be the reason they end a show but I don't see how listening to a certain group of fans would be all that influential.  

Again - there seems to be some assumptions that all or most fans are feeling the same about all this.  

[Annec]

20 hours ago, TWP said:

To be fair, it’s possible that neither AH nor TPW knew that Katic was going to be cut when they said that. And yes, EW interviewed the showrunners AHEAD of the news about Katic.  Even the perpetually clueless showrunners wouldn't be that insensitive...or would they?

I don't have any doubt that they have known all season that they were writing toward a season with no Katic.  The only problem was that the news was leaked before Castle was renewed for season 9.  I can't imagine that that network hasn't been spooked by the reaction and tptb have come to some realization that they undervalued Katic.  Not saying that ABC won't renew Castle but I think the fan response to the news took many involved in a possible season 9 by surprise.

[Annec]

18 hours ago, CheshireCat said:

Maybe they think their private lives are boring? ;-) I'm not sure if it's their creative abilities or simply the choice to go the easiest way. (Although, I think we do have to allow for some leniency since we don't know the conditions they had to work under (as in actor availability, ABC requests etc)). But generally, I agree. More creativity would be nice!

I think tv writers have long bought the "Moonlighting Curse" and just write it off as getting characters together kills a show rather than looking at all the contributing factors like POOR WRITING.  It kills me to think that writers will now look at the "Castle Curse" as confirmation of the trope rather than acknowledging what killed the ratings was incredibly poor, boring, inconsistent, and nonsensical writing in season 8 rather than the marriage of Caskett.  I'm sure Hawley will be one of the first post-mortem interviews that blames the end of the wtwt for the decline rather than the poor writing of 6x23 and beyond.

[Lee4U]

How do you know "fan response" about a season 9 took people by surprise?  I've not seen anything from people involved in the show expressing surprise - is that who you are talking about?

I think this entire season has been laying the groundwork for her exit - just from my perspective.  She wasn't around much earlier on, the episodes were Castle heavy, more so than in the past, if I recall and more without her in scenes.  I wondered if she was off filming somewhere and that was why she was not much around - it was noticeable to me but I don't know (obviously) if it meant anything or not as to how this turned out.

If they botch this ending this season I wouldn't be surprised because the writing has been crap - even if she was coming back - the writing is still lousy and not sure I would return next year to watch more silly juvenile stories with Castle acting like a 12 year old on a sugar high.  

But, it sounds like this season's writers are gone or pretty much all gone?  If so, that might bode okay for them next season if they get renewed, to get new creative juices involved but it's been crummy for years so I have my doubts but I would check it out for one episode at least.

[Annec]

23 minutes ago, Lee4U said:

How do you know "fan response" about a season 9 took people by surprise?  I've not seen anything from people involved in the show expressing surprise - is that who you are talking about?

I think you're referring to my post above.  You must have overlooked the "I think" earlier in that sentence.  And, I wasn't referring to the fan response about a season 9 but the fan response to Katic's dismissal. 

[BlakesMomma]

39 minutes ago, Annec said:

I don't have any doubt that they have known all season that they were writing toward a season with no Katic.  The only problem was that the news was leaked before Castle was renewed for season 9.  I can't imagine that that network hasn't been spooked by the reaction and tptb have come to some realization that they undervalued Katic.  Not saying that ABC won't renew Castle but I think the fan response to the news took many involved in a possible season 9 by surprise.

I'm not sure why it would take them by surprise when they had some fan outrage last season when ABC announced a S8 before Katic's contract was signed, and stated that they were willing to proceed without her.  So it should have been no surprise to them.  Every character who leaves a show creates a fan outcry.  I think ABC was well aware of the reaction they would get, took stock of their situation, and made or will make their decision.  I doubt very much that fan outcry, from what is actually a small and very vocal group in terms of overall audience, will play into that decision.  ABC's been through this many times before with main characters leaving a show.  It is and will always be about the bottom line, regardless of discontent from a segment of the fans.

I do agree that they've been writing toward a season without Katic because if you believe some rumors, she's been indicating to them for some time that she wanted out.  So I think they always knew that was a possibility, they stated as much end of last season.  But I think they knew the reaction they would get from some fans and are willing to deal with it if they renew for a S9.

[westwingfan]

13 minutes ago, Lee4U said:

How do you know "fan response" about a season 9 took people by surprise?  I've not seen anything from people involved in the show expressing surprise - is that who you are talking about?

I think this entire season has been laying the groundwork for her exit - just from my perspective.  She wasn't around much earlier on, the episodes were Castle heavy, more so than in the past, if I recall and more without her in scenes.  I wondered if she was off filming somewhere and that was why she was not much around - it was noticeable to me but I don't know (obviously) if it meant anything or not as to how this turned out.

If they botch this ending this season I wouldn't be surprised because the writing has been crap - even if she was coming back - the writing is still lousy and not sure I would return next year to watch more silly juvenile stories with Castle acting like a 12 year old on a sugar high.  

But, it sounds like this season's writers are gone or pretty much all gone?  If so, that might bode okay for them next season if they get renewed, to get new creative juices involved but it's been crummy for years so I have my doubts but I would check it out for one episode at least.

Stana was finishing filming Sister Cities when they started filming and wasn't available until the last day of shooting for the premier, she then apparently took a belated honeymoon in Europe when they were shooting Cool Boys, and took another break over Christmas when they were shooting The G.D.S. I think some people got suspicious when the very first promo for S8 emphasised Castle's new job and Beckett didn't feature, and then there was a poster that was captioned the Family Business and just had a pic of Castle with Alexis, and ABC apparently instigated the expenditure on revamping Castle's P.I. office into a more futuristic, gadgety set from the original Blue Butterfly vibes . The official Twitter and FB pages have frequently during the season posted promo pics and captions that seemed to be pushing Hayley and Alexis to the fore, despite the majority of comments being consistently negative and reminded TPTB that the show was supposed to be about Castle AND Beckett solving crimes TOGETHER, although they have used Beckett more for the later episodes, so someone realised that Beckett still had a role in enticing people to watch. Captain Beckett has been given little to do and quite boring in comparison to Montgomery and Gates and has been a peripheral figure for most of the season, and even when Marlowe was still in charge little was done to seriously integrate Beckett into the Castle family, a trend that gained pace in S8 when Hayley was welcomed into the fold and we kept being told how great she was and how she became a mentor for Alexis, with Step Mom nowwhere to be seen.

Rob Hanning, an executive producer, has left for Hawaii 5 0, and Chad Creasey has left for NCIS NO, so apart from the two showrunners the only writers left with pre S8 experience are Christine Roum, joined S5, and Jim Adler and Adam Frost, joined S6.

[CheshireCat]

4 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

Stana was finishing filming Sister Cities when they started filming and wasn't available until the last day of shooting for the premier, she then apparently took a belated honeymoon in Europe when they were shooting Cool Boys, and took another break over Christmas when they were shooting The G.D.S. I think some people got suspicious when the very first promo for S8 emphasised Castle's new job and Beckett didn't feature, and then there was a poster that was captioned the Family Business and just had a pic of Castle with Alexis, and ABC apparently instigated the expenditure on revamping Castle's P.I. office into a more futuristic, gadgety set from the original Blue Butterfly vibes .

Which gives me an idea - how about they actually make a Blue Butterfly sort of spin-off instead of a Beckett-less Castle? They can have Castle narrate the stories of Joe, the PI for which they wouldn't need Katic, they can let have Castle/Joe have romances and they can conclude S8 with a happy ending. And with Martha as his secretary we could get more of her and I'm sure they'd find a way to squeeze in Haley and Alexis. Ryan and Espo could be cops Castle/Joe either annoys or works with. Everyone's happy. (Well, maybe not everyone but I would be ;-))

[Mom x 3]

On April 29, 2016 at 0:25 AM, BlakesMomma said:

 

These online polls such as THR and some others are worthless, as you said, because they allow for infinite number of votes by the same person.  I've no doubt there are a small group of angry Castle and Katic fans out there sitting and continuously voting, along with their other #CancelCastle and #SaveCaskett campaigns, to try and make a point to ABC who will take absolutely no notice of it.  Angry fans are always the vocal fans so results from these types of polls are never a real indication of the entire viewing audience.

As for Fillion's fanbase, many I know quit watching Castle a few seasons ago when they felt the focus was too heavily shifted onto the Beckett character, sidelining Castle somewhat.  Many of those may very well come back and watch a revamped Castle.  And some never watched Castle.  I think it depends on how they shift the focus of a possible S9 that will decide whether it attracts Fillion fans that weren't watching before.  

I think a large portion of the casual Castle audience just want to watch an hour of light, entertaining TV.  They have no idea of any changes to the show, and as long as they tune in and enjoy the hour, they will continue to tune in. 

(Not sure why when I "quote post" I get a different quoted post than the one intended.)

Ding!Ding!Ding!

I am one of those that left.  I didn't mind the focus being more on Beckett, per se, but it was so poorly done and so angsty.  It wasn't fun anymore.  I think by making Beckett superwoman with mommy issues (Batman, anyone?) it sucked the life out of the show.  Additionally Castle, the character the show was named after, became a buffoon in bad clothing.  I am excited about a season 9.  

[Thak]

On May 3, 2016 at 0:07 AM, TWP said:

You weren't wrong. But the Caskett show is ending this season. It's been cancelled. The internet won! A new show with a new audience will start in the fall.

I think the PTB knew they couldn't "afford" to pay two huge salaries and keep this show going. They chose the star who THEY felt was more bankable and who -- face it -- tends to like to market himself in the Marvel universe, the audience ABC wants to nurture. ABC already has Shondaland, so maybe mid-20s to older women is not a growth area for them. Maybe if Stana had nurtured the Marvel fans, had spent a ton of time at cons, etc. they'd have chosen her instead.  

I think continuing without Beckett instead of canceling is simply a sign that Castle PI is a lesser evil of the pilots they have in the queue.  And they're showing a significant willingness to abandon the audience the romance attracted for the sake of something that is a little more tested than they other junk they have in their bag of tricks.

The choice of which lead was a no brainer if they're trying to continue with Castle in some form, which is what they appear to be doing.  They have said they are trying to keep the brand alive.  Now if they come back and Alexis and Martha are gone from the show, and the new shows title doesn't have the name "Castle" in it, then I would say they could have gone with Stana, assuming she would have been interested, remember it's not just the networks decision, the actress would have to be interested as well. 

On a side note, I read a recent interview with the actress that was on "The Good Wife", can't think of her name, but when asked if she would do another network show she replied (paraphrasing) "absolutely not", she said the only TV show she would do in future is a cable show.  A network shows schedule doesn't allow for anything else in your life, quality time with family, other projects, etc.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Thak

[BlakesMomma]

1 hour ago, Thak said:

The choice of which lead was a no brainer if they're trying to continue with Castle in some form, which is what they appear to be doing.  They have said they are trying to keep the brand alive.  Now if they come back and Alexis and Martha are gone from the show, and the new shows title doesn't have the name "Castle" in it, then I would say they could have gone with Stana, assuming she would have been interested, remember it's not just the networks decision, the actor would have to be interested as well. 

On a side note, I read a recent interview with the actress that was on "The Good Wife", can't think of her name, but when asked if she would do another network show she replied (paraphrasing) "absolutely not", she said the only TV show she would do in future is a cable show.  A network shows schedule doesn't allow for anything else in your life, quality time with family, other projects, etc.

Which is exactly why, after several seasons of starring on a network show, particularly one with so much focus on the two lead characters, the actors are exhausted and burnt out and ask for as much time off as the network is willing to give them.  I would be surprised if either Fillion or Katic chose to dive into a lead role on another network show anytime in the very near future.

[TWP]

On Tuesday, May 03, 2016 at 0:49 AM, WendyCR72 said:

7 hours ago, BlakesMomma said:

Which is exactly why, after several seasons of starring on a network show, particularly one with so much focus on the two lead characters, the actors are exhausted and burnt out and ask for as much time off as the network is willing to give them.  I would be surprised if either Fillion or Katic chose to dive into a lead role on another network show anytime in the very near future.

Especially since they're rolling in the cash. I don't know how much Stana is paid, but neither should have to work again if they don't wish to.

Wow, the Twitter storm continues. I admire the persistence. In ways I think they might want Castle to continue into S9, because whoa what a vacuum it will create for them when the show is really gone. I know where the energy will go if villain Nathan goes on with Castle PI, but I wonder where people's energy and time will go with cancellation.

Thinking more about Stana's career, this firing may have been better for her than riding off into the sunset with a cancellation, at least for continued fan loyalty. The comittment some fans have for her is clearly carved in stone.. It's almost Fireflyesque the way that she was cut too soon, leaving fans wanting more. If she could build on the angst like Nathan did with Firefly she could have quite a run.

Edited May 4, 2016 by TWP

[femmefan1946]

Of course, Firefly not only was a better show, but already had somewhere to build the fandom. Science Fiction will hold its 74th World Convention in August. Joss Whedon still had Buffy on air and cast NF as  villain for the first time. Comic Cons had been around since 1974 but were just being discovered by the TV and movie people at the turn of the century.

I have heard that NF can make over $75,000 from appearances, autographs and photo ops at a weekend Comic Con. And those fans don't give a damn about Castle.

Edited May 4, 2016 by femmefan1946

[madmaverick]

I think audiences at cons are a lot more mixed now and it's not just scifi fans who attend.  Definitely have seen a lot of Castle fans dressed up to meet Nathan at cons.  And even Jon and Seamus are attending cons now so there must be an audience interested in shows and actors from all sort of shows.

I'm curious about the syndication money actors get.  Even Tamala mentioned it in her exit interview.  How much would a lead like Nathan/Stana get and how much would a supporting regular like Tamala once a show is syndicated?  Tamala may be wise to have no complaints about her screentime on the show if she gets to reap a generous proportion of the syndication money for her amount of work.  Do the EPs get it as well or just Marlowe?  How much more is it if a show does make it to 200 episodes?

[TWP]

4 hours ago, femmefan1946 said:

Of course, Firefly not only was a better show, but already had somewhere to build the fandom. Science Fiction will hold its 74th World Convention in August. Joss Whedon still had Buffy on air and cast NF as  villain for the first time. Comic Cons had been around since 1974 but were just being discovered by the TV and movie people at the turn of the century.

I have heard that NF can make over $75,000 from appearances, autographs and photo ops at a weekend Comic Con. And those fans don't give a damn about Castle.

I attempted to figure out how the Firefly fans feel about all this Castle stuff, but I couldn't find any super active forums. Know any?