Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[TWP]

8 minutes ago, S55 said:

Not sure who's having trouble accessing the ABC Studios Advisory Panel boards, but FWIW I can view them just fine. Can't speak for the feedback page on ABC's website. 

Twitter people have mentioned getting removed from the advisory panel. I wonder if they're blocking IP addresses of known nay-sayers?

Edited May 6, 2016 by TWP

[Lee4U]

Given how lousy the writing is - maybe they will go for something as equally stupid (but more benign) than they have in the past (the Castle "crash", his disappearance, bla bla bla) and have something revealed that absolutely convinces Beckett she must leave and disappear (for reals) to protect Castle and his family - tearful good-bye and off she goes and he then needs to rebuild his life.

Not saying that is interesting but at least she wouldn't be dead/killed and it is no less stupid than much of the other crap they have done on this show.

[sidekickgirl]

I haven't enjoyed Castle much for the last two seasons, so I'll be quite happy to see what season 9 brings without Beckett. I enjoyed them during the first 1/2 of the series run, but after they got together - and particularly this season with their fake separation - it became cheesy and stale.  I came to this show for Nathan, so I'm happy that he has re-signed for now.

Edited May 6, 2016 by sidekickgirl

[Sonik Tooth]

4 hours ago, TWP said:

Yep, lalala. They don't care. They have factored this outrage into their equation. The more buzz, the more looky loos will be generated to come see the train wreck. And when no train wreck happens, then they may just have some new viewers. I think we're all subjects in an experiment, rats in their little maze. As usual.

The equation would be a combination of Shipper Appeal, Character USP and Idolizing Factor that will determine the outrage-intensity and level of fanaticism/ mass hysteria expected. Add time on air factor and distribution rate, and you get the quantity you are probably dealing with.

As you said, the “fandom” is only a small part of the overall viewership but due to the significant role of the character Beckett over the past 8 seasons, ABC would be advised to promote the new direction of season 9 properly. For newly interested ex-viewers and unsuspecting new viewers :-)

[S55]

35 minutes ago, TWP said:

Twitter people have mentioned getting removed from the advisory panel. I wonder if they're blocking IP addresses of known nay-sayers?

The negative feedback has been pretty consistent this season, but I haven't noticed any (what I consider to be) regular users not posting their opinions lately (and I check in there regularly). In fact, there has been an influx of new folks (with more negative feedback) the past few months, so if anything, they're allowing wider fan access. 

[verdana]

 

Quote

 

victoria‏@xTorix33

this was castle's final scene and nothing afterwards really happened

https://twitter.com/xTorix33/status/728487763079729152

 

Yeah pretty much this. 

Castle's Fate May Be Decided Today at TV Guide 

[TWP]

22 minutes ago, S55 said:

The negative feedback has been pretty consistent this season, but I haven't noticed any (what I consider to be) regular users not posting their opinions lately (and I check in there regularly). In fact, there has been an influx of new folks (with more negative feedback) the past few months, so if anything, they're allowing wider fan access. 

Maybe they're purging some and allowing others. 

[verdana]

1 hour ago, Lee4U said:

Given how lousy the writing is - maybe they will go for something as equally stupid (but more benign) than they have in the past (the Castle "crash", his disappearance, bla bla bla) and have something revealed that absolutely convinces Beckett she must leave and disappear (for reals) to protect Castle and his family - tearful good-bye and off she goes and he then needs to rebuild his life.

Not saying that is interesting but at least she wouldn't be dead/killed and it is no less stupid than much of the other crap they have done on this show.

Why not go the other extreme and an alien abduction? A shaft of light appears from above and poof! Castle is on the scene but alas not quite in time.

Hawley gets the requisite drama and shock ending he so desperately craves.

Beckett's not dead, just on her travels wowing those aliens with her amazing hair, eye makeup and overwhelming badassary.

The aliens wouldn't agree to give her back because lets face it she's so extraordinary but there may be a sliver of hope she may find her way home one day.  

Castle could get all excited because whilst on the downside he's lost his wife she's not dead and wow holy crap she was taken by aliens! 

I'm tempted to suggest they take Alexis too but I know they'd give her back pretty sharpish. She's too smart for them and they couldn't cope with the smugness overload. 

Edited May 6, 2016 by verdana

[TWP]

My spouse's theory is she'll have to go to prison for committing vigilante justice against Loksat, so she'll divorce Castle so that he can move on.

Or she gets recruited for black ops, fakes her death even to Castle and moves on to a spinoff series. Then, for the fans she doesn't die, but for Castle she's dead.

I think they'll end on a high note and the cliffhanger will be the question of how will they explain her absence next season?

[WendyCR72]

Even if the show's fate is decided today, I wonder if the decision will be made public or if we have to wait 'til upfronts on the 17th?

In all frankness, I stopped watching regularly when C/B got together. (Just never "felt" them, to each his/her own), but still catch an episode if nothing else strikes my fancy. But I do sympathize with those who did love the pairing and realize I'm in the minority.

In any case, I hope the decision leaks today, so people can make their peace with it, one way or the other.

[WendyCR72]

2 hours ago, TWP said:

My spouse's theory is she'll have to go to prison for committing vigilante justice against Loksat, so she'll divorce Castle so that he can move on.

This one's not actually farfetched, but - even if she isn't dead - that's a bad ending for Beckett. I can only imagine how cops in prison are treated! (I know. I thought way to much about this one. LOL!)

[CheshireCat]

8 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Even if the show's fate is decided today, I wonder if the decision will be made public or if we have to wait 'til upfronts on the 17th?

In all frankness, I stopped watching regularly when C/B got together. (Just never "felt" them, to each his/her own), but still catch an episode if nothing else strikes my fancy. But I do sympathize with those who did love the pairing and realize I'm in the minority.

In any case, I hope the decision leaks today, so people can make their peace with it, one way or the other.

Even if ABC doesn't release the information, I'm not sure they can keep it under wraps for almost two weeks.

[TWP]

33 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

This one's not actually farfetched, but - even if she isn't dead - that's a bad ending for Beckett. I can only imagine how cops in prison are treated! (I know. I thought way to much about this one. LOL!)

I don't know?  Orange is the New Black 2.0?

[madmaverick]

4 hours ago, TWP said:

Twitter people have mentioned getting removed from the advisory panel. I wonder if they're blocking IP addresses of known nay-sayers?

If twitter crazies have been making the same kind of intensely vicious, vitriolic, personal attacks on cast in the advisory panel as they have been on twitter, then it's no wonder they've been blocked there.  They should be banned on twitter too in my opinion because they are violating the twitter terms and conditions with their endless abuse and harassment.  Their behaviour should suffer consequences because they are clearly incapable of communicating like a respectful adult.  It would be just like them to cry foul as "victims", take no responsibility for their abhorrent behaviour and then wonder why they've been blocked, or even take pride in it. ;)  

Call me when the raging hysteria's over.  ABC's decision sucked, but the way some parts of the Castle fandom have behaved has been incredibly ugly and shameful.

[metaphor]

Going by this tweet from the President of the Disney-ABC Television Group, I think we'll find out today. 

@bensherwood: “If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story.” ― Orson Welles #May6th

https://twitter.com/bensherwood/status/728593545267916801

[WendyCR72]

4 minutes ago, metaphor said:

Going by this tweet from the President of the Disney-ABC Television Group, I think we'll find out today. 

@bensherwood: “If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story.” ― Orson Welles #May6th

https://twitter.com/bensherwood/status/728593545267916801

Duck from the incoming flying shit, Benny!

[TWP]

9 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Duck from the incoming flying shit, Benny!

I hope Benny laughs and retweets the way Seamus does.  Seamus handles Twitter very well.  And it's nice that he shares the tweets so we can all chuckle.

[westwingfan]

Latest from EW

Any actual good news about the Castle finale? — Mariana
Let’s see, does everyone working together to find LokSat count as good news? “Castle and Beckett are keeping things quiet,” EP Terence Paul Winter says. “When Espo, Ryan and Hayley find out that they are in urgent need, they’re more than willing to jump in and assist, which puts everybody in danger as well. It really gets dangerous.” Oh yeah, no, nevermind. Danger bad.

[WendyCR72]

In reading that Welles quote, though, the one Sherwood used...we obviously don't know yet, but...I'm going with renewed since it implies where the story stops, i.e. maybe this finale does end "okay", so folks can be happy. But S9 comes back with her gone/dead and those that stopped watching would be none the wiser?

[TWP]

4 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

In reading that Welles quote, though, the one Sherwood used...we obviously don't know yet, but...I'm going with renewed since it implies where the story stops, i.e. maybe this finale does end "okay", so folks can be happy. But S9 comes back with her gone/dead and those that stopped watching would be none the wiser?

And yes, if that comes to pass, I hope that some people realize that it's really okay to pretend that Season 9 doesn't exist, and that Beckett is fine.  I believe in shouting loud to try and get change, but when the change clearly isn't going to happen (Stana isn't coming back, no matter what people do), they may as well pretend that their show was cancelled.

That is what Sherwood is asking them to do, in not so many words.

[verdana]

Castle 8x21 Sneak Peek #2 - Castle Season 8 Episode 21 Sneak Peek “Hell to Pay”

[verdana]

19 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

Latest from EW

Any actual good news about the Castle finale? — Mariana
Let’s see, does everyone working together to find LokSat count as good news? “Castle and Beckett are keeping things quiet,” EP Terence Paul Winter says. “When Espo, Ryan and Hayley find out that they are in urgent need, they’re more than willing to jump in and assist, which puts everybody in danger as well. It really gets dangerous.” Oh yeah, no, nevermind. Danger bad.

That's what's so annoying about this whole Locksat business, this mysterious entity has been pushed on the back burner for months and months and then along comes the finale and suddenly everyone is in BIG DANGER.

Meh.  Too late. I don't give a shit. 

[CheshireCat]

21 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

In reading that Welles quote, though, the one Sherwood used...we obviously don't know yet, but...I'm going with renewed since it implies where the story stops, i.e. maybe this finale does end "okay", so folks can be happy. But S9 comes back with her gone/dead and those that stopped watching would be none the wiser?

I'd be okay with happy end. And I think that anyone who then watches S9 knowing Beckett won't be there shouldn't complain about how she was written out. However, the trouble I have is that if they end the show on a cliffhanger then it doesn't take a genius to figure out what they will do in S9 to explain her absence. I'm okay with an open end like S7 was, cliffhanger with lives in danger not so much.

[TWP]

7 minutes ago, verdana said:

Castle 8x21 Sneak Peek #2 - Castle Season 8 Episode 21 Sneak Peek “Hell to Pay”

Looks like Stana and Nathan had to shoot together for a whole half hour that day.  About 1/4 or less of the scene included both of them.

[madmaverick]

Maybe Beckett can do a Jon Snow!  You never know.  

[madmaverick]

16 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

So I just saw this Tweet from Rob Hanning with an early draft of the script for Recoil.  He has notes from Marlowe about starting with a Caskett moment that gets interrupted. I should find that sad, but it's just hilarious to me that that's a note to intentionally do that.

https://twitter.com/RobHanning/status/728371972279656448

That was interesting, and yes, sad and hilarious to see.  With notes like these from the showrunner, who needs notes from the network to ruin things? ;)  His version of the Honeymoon period (his words) = kisses and coitus interruptus galore.  How sad is that?  Can you make out anything else?  I didn't find Recoil to be a particularly more interesting title than Redemption fwiw.  The room notes were also interesting to see.  Ah, to be a fly in that room... when showrunners threw out their ideas of non wedding, Beckett's secret marriage, Castle and Al-qaeda, Locksat, to name a few of their brilliant ideas... ;)  What does a staff writer say to showrunner boss when the real reaction is 'wtf'?

Hawley & TPW may have made a mess of things with Locksat, but I definitely haven't forgotten the messes Marlowe made either.  None of the Castle showrunners have actually impressed me with their vision and storytelling.  I'm not convinced that there's ground breaking and original work coming out of them in their future series.

[westwingfan]

This person has just created a twitter account and posted one tweet, a rather cryptic tweet from a new "insider".

lemarproductions

@Lemarproducts

Writer

Hollywood, Los Angeles

lemarproductions ‏@Lemarproducts 4m4 minutes ago

Listen #Castle fans. You don't know what you don't know. Not everything is as it seems...

[CheshireCat]

1 minute ago, westwingfan said:

This person has just created a twitter account and posted one tweet, a rather cryptic tweet from a new "insider".

lemarproductions

@Lemarproducts

Writer

Hollywood, Los Angeles

lemarproductions ‏@Lemarproducts 4m4 minutes ago

Listen #Castle fans. You don't know what you don't know. Not everything is as it seems...

Very cryptic. I have absolutely no idea what to make of it.

[TWP]

3 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

This person has just created a twitter account and posted one tweet, a rather cryptic tweet from a new "insider".

lemarproductions

@Lemarproducts

Writer

Hollywood, Los Angeles

lemarproductions ‏@Lemarproducts 4m4 minutes ago

Listen #Castle fans. You don't know what you don't know. Not everything is as it seems...

I said awhile aback, now wouldn't it be something if they were punking us, Rear Window style?

[pepper]

One thing that doesn't seem to be considered by those who think Fillion alone can make the show a success, is that all those loyal Firefly fans didn't make the film a blockbuster and the RL Castle fans I know, had no idea who he was before he became Richard Castle. They are mainly middle-aged, female and not on the Internet except to play those annoying Facebook games.  And there is a huge difference between selling photos to nostalgic fans at a Con and carrying a film or a series by yourself. Sexism in Hollywood may be alive and well, but men in Hollywood are increasingly under pressure to be fit. I'm an opera fan and even opera leads are increasingly being asked to take their shirts off - popularity and talent notwithstanding. Fillion has not kept himself in great shape and there are guys older than him who can do shirtless scenes without a sheet pulled up to their nipples. At this point he'll be a middle-aged character actor. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the scope is more limited than if he was still in Firefly shape. I honestly think that many assume his appeal to be greater than it is. 

Edited because... grammar.

Edited May 6, 2016 by pepper

[madmaverick]

Who knows?  But I'm sure the Castle fans who are so sure they "know" everything already won't be listening. ;)

[TWP]

11 minutes ago, pepper said:

One thing that doesn't seem to be considered by those who think Fillion alone can make the show a success, is that all those loyal Firefly fans didn't make the film a blockbuster and the RL Castle fans I know, had no idea who he was before he became Richard Castle. They are mainly middle-aged, female and not on the Internet except to play those annoying Facebook games.  And there is a huge difference between selling photos to nostalgic fans at a Con and carrying a film or a series by yourself. Sexism in Hollywood may be alive and well, but men in Hollywood are increasingly under pressure to be fit. I'm an opera fan and even opera leads are increasingly being asked to take their shirts off - popularity and talent notwithstanding. Fillion has not kept himself in great shape and their are guys older than him who can do shirtless scenes without a sheet pulled up to their nipples. At this point he'll be a middle-aged character actor. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the scope is more limited than if he was still in Firefly shape. I honestly think that many assume his appeal to be greater than it is. 

I think the show would do better with the co-leads...only if it wasn't so apparent from the acting that they don't like each other....however, if you were ABC and had to choose between one co-lead and the other, who would you choose? (and all you cared about is bank). I'd personally choose the one whose had more than one success.  Yes, Nathan is  an old fat guy by TV standards.  However, he's affiliated with a show that has become legendary, and Joss Whedon is his good friend.  He's also had 20 years with ABC.  Of the two co-leads, he's a better bet. 

[westwingfan]

Update from Deadline

UPDATE May 6: ABC is prolonging the renewal decision on Castle. I hear the network is pushing the deadline, which was end of day today, May 6.

[madmaverick]

I think Nathan and Stana are both talented actors who can carry a series, alone or together.  But the best actors in the world can't do much if the writing is crap.  It really boils down to the writing for me, and it's a question mark as to whether Castle writers can deliver on that score especially after a dramatic upheaval.  I once hoped for a creative rejuvenation from Marlowe after he finally resolved the WT/WT, but turns out, he continued to deliver mostly mediocrity.  You need talented writers to rejuvenate Castle and take it forward to new territory if that's what the network wants.

[CheshireCat]

Well, did they prolong the deadline or are they saying they did and didn't? Either way, I find that all rather curious and odd. What's the hold-up?

I started watching the show late and didn't think that it was apparent that they didn't like each other. I also watched the first six seasons without being aware of any rumors. So, maybe it's more about knowing and perception than actual reflection in the acting?

[madmaverick]

1 minute ago, CheshireCat said:

Well, did they prolong the deadline or are they saying they did and didn't? Either way, I find that all rather curious and odd. What's the hold-up?

I started watching the show late and didn't think that it was apparent that they didn't like each other. I also watched the first six seasons without being aware of any rumors. So, maybe it's more about knowing and perception than actual reflection in the acting?

I think a lot of subjectivity goes into it, as evidence by the varying opinions on this board.  I thought the chemistry got a bit uneven in S5-6, but regained consistency in S7-8.  Others think the chemistry has disappeared altogether.  I also think where the writing was good, the actors delivered.  Problem is, the writing of their relationship scene was often not so good after they got together.

Deadline seems to be publishing a lot of articles without actual news.  Are they also in the clickbait business together with their affliate TV Line? ;)

[Julia]

23 minutes ago, TWP said:

I think the show would do better with the co-leads...only if it wasn't so apparent from the acting that they don't like each other....however, if you were ABC and had to choose between one co-lead and the other, who would you choose? (and all you cared about is bank). I'd personally choose the one whose had more than one success.  Yes, Nathan is  an old fat guy by TV standards.  However, he's affiliated with a show that has become legendary, and Joss Whedon is his good friend.  He's also had 20 years with ABC.  Of the two co-leads, he's a better bet. 

Well, Firefly was more or a success d'estime than a success, and Joss Whedon hasn't been able to save most of his own shows for the last decade or so, but I guess if the network people want to be invited to the most exclusive dinner parties Fillion is the right choice. Of course, by that reasoning, so are Adam Baldwin and Jewel Staite (and how'd that Stargate thing end up again?).

Edited May 6, 2016 by Julia

[CheshireCat]

2 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

I think a lot of subjectivity goes into it, as evidence by the varying opinions on this board.  I thought the chemistry got a bit uneven in S5-6, but regained consistency in S7-8.  Others think the chemistry has disappeared altogether.  I also think where the writing was good, the actors delivered.  Problem is, the writing of their relationship scene was often not so good after they got together.

 

I agree that there were things I missed once they got together (like these nice moments they had in S5 when they stole a moment, why could they not have that out in the open every now and then or the cheek kissing in S7. Seriously?) But a lot depends on writing and directing. And was it here on another board where someone said that Marlowe had stated at one point that one of the problems was that they had new directors? Since I think the chemistry was still there (you can't really act chemistry, you either have it or you don't, I think) I think that it's very plausible that what people were missing was due to the directing, not the actual acting.

[Kromm]

46 minutes ago, pepper said:

One thing that doesn't seem to be considered by those who think Fillion alone can make the show a success, is that all those loyal Firefly fans didn't make the film a blockbuster and the RL Castle fans I know, had no idea who he was before he became Richard Castle. They are mainly middle-aged, female and not on the Internet except to play those annoying Facebook games.  And there is a huge difference between selling photos to nostalgic fans at a Con and carrying a film or a series by yourself. Sexism in Hollywood may be alive and well, but men in Hollywood are increasingly under pressure to be fit. I'm an opera fan and even opera leads are increasingly being asked to take their shirts off - popularity and talent notwithstanding. Fillion has not kept himself in great shape and their are guys older than him who can do shirtless scenes without a sheet pulled up to their nipples. At this point he'll be a middle-aged character actor. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but the scope is more limited than if he was still in Firefly shape. I honestly think that many assume his appeal to be greater than it is. 

 

30 minutes ago, TWP said:

I think the show would do better with the co-leads...only if it wasn't so apparent from the acting that they don't like each other....however, if you were ABC and had to choose between one co-lead and the other, who would you choose? (and all you cared about is bank). I'd personally choose the one whose had more than one success.  Yes, Nathan is  an old fat guy by TV standards.  However, he's affiliated with a show that has become legendary, and Joss Whedon is his good friend.  He's also had 20 years with ABC.  Of the two co-leads, he's a better bet. 

Also, stuff like this often is based on media buzz/perception. The passionate Internet fandom certain properties, things and people have is part of a complex chain of content creation that a good part of the Entertainment News cycle is now based/dependent on. And networks, while they're increasing losing any real grip on what makes certain shows succeed and other fail hold on to one idea: the more something is covered in the Entertainment press the better chance it has of grabbing people's attention.

So that's why Nathan Fillion's celebrity is more effective than Stana Katic's is ever likely to be (unless in the future she appears in some key geek-friendly project). Appearing in a once very popular show like Castle gets a lot of eyes on you. But they're fickle eyes that forget about you soon enough. Being on a Star Trek show, or in a Star Wars movie, or a Joss Whedon production, or in fact ANY property that gets you a future of Comic-Con and SXSW appearances, nets you status as a permanent media attention magnet. The people who know you are passionate about those shows, even if they are a smaller number, so they're always creating buzz that Entertainment reporters pick up on (because those guys are always scouring the net for buzzworthy things to report on--otherwise they've got nothing to write).

Edited May 6, 2016 by Kromm

[pepper]

2 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Also, stuff like this often is based on media buzz/perception. The passionate Internet fandom certain properties, things and people have is part of a complex chain of content creation that a good part of the Entertainment News cycle is now based/dependent on. And networks, while they're increasing losing any real grip on what makes certain shows succeed and other fail hold on to one idea: the more something is covered in the Entertainment press the better chance it has of grabbing people's attention.

Not for nothing, but how much has the "passionate Internet fandom" done for Castle?  It gets the show awards at award shows that don't matter and makes people vote multiple times in polls that don't count for anything. People get angry about choices made by the creators of the shows and those creators ignore them.

If they cared about entertainment press, they'd be leaking/promoting the fact that two people who don't like each other have to make out on screen, ramping up the prurient interest. But the fact is that most of the people who watch this show are not "passionate Internet" fans. They're watching the TV version of a rom-com that's a hybrid police procedural. If the rumors are true, it's about to become pure police procedural featuring a single lead character whose trademark characteristics used to be wit and optimism, but who now has a tragic past. And a group of mediocre writers will turn this into comedic gold? I'm highly skeptical that Fillion's star power is going to overcome all the problems inherent in that premise.  

Maybe I should have posted this in "unpopular opinions", because I'm just not a member of that bubble.

[Julia]

10 minutes ago, Kromm said:

 Being on a Star Trek show, or in a Star Wars movie, or a Joss Whedon production, or in fact ANY property that gets you a future of Comic-Con and SXSW appearances, nets you status as a permanent media attention magnet. The people who know you are passionate about those shows, even if they are a smaller number, so they're always creating buzz that Entertainment reporters pick up on (because those guys are always scouring the net for buzzworthy things to report on--otherwise they've got nothing to write).

I tend to agree that decisions are made that way. But then you get Person of Interest or Stargate: Universe, with loud buzz from not enough people to keep the show on the air.

[Kromm]

12 minutes ago, pepper said:

Not for nothing, but how much has the "passionate Internet fandom" done for Castle?  It gets the show awards at award shows that don't matter and makes people vote multiple times in polls that don't count for anything. People get angry about choices made by the creators of the shows and those creators ignore them.

If they cared about entertainment press, they'd be leaking/promoting the fact that two people who don't like each other have to make out on screen, ramping up the prurient interest. But the fact is that most of the people who watch this show are not "passionate Internet" fans. They're watching the TV version of a rom-com that's a hybrid police procedural. If the rumors are true, it's about to become pure police procedural featuring a single lead character whose trademark characteristics used to be wit and optimism, but who now has a tragic past. And a group of mediocre writers will turn this into comedic gold? I'm highly skeptical that Fillion's star power is going to overcome all the problems inherent in that premise.  

Maybe I should have posted this in "unpopular opinions", because I'm just not a member of that bubble.

It HASN'T (done anything). You're misunderstanding what I talked about totally. Reversing it 100%.

I was saying that Castle fans AREN'T true blue deep fans, because it's a show done for mass consumption that in the end doesn't inspire any true long term loyalty. Whereas Sci-Fi and other "genre" fandoms hold on for DECADES and while their number is smaller continue to talk--generating content for Entertainment reporters--forever.

Ergo, that's the power of Fillion vs, Katic. I know some folks love her, but she's interchangeable in many ways with any number of similar actresses. No legion of superfans is going to be talking about her, decades from now, like they do anyone who appeared on Star Trek, or on Buffy The Vampire Slayer, etc. That's deeper passion, and Fillion's name and identity has that because of Firefly.

Nobody has that kind of passion for someone who's fame is only through a procedural show.  Even one some people credited with (at one point) having a good deal of charm. The viewership of shows like this is wide (thus large), but not deep (where people invest permanent loyalty to the stars that will follow them for the rest of their lives).   

Edited May 6, 2016 by Kromm

[verdana]

25 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

I agree that there were things I missed once they got together (like these nice moments they had in S5 when they stole a moment, why could they not have that out in the open every now and then or the cheek kissing in S7. Seriously?) But a lot depends on writing and directing. And was it here on another board where someone said that Marlowe had stated at one point that one of the problems was that they had new directors? Since I think the chemistry was still there (you can't really act chemistry, you either have it or you don't, I think) I think that it's very plausible that what people were missing was due to the directing, not the actual acting.

I couldn't believe it when Marlowe had the nerve to blame the new directors for some of the show's failings under his stewardship, that was pathetic. It was HIS show and if the more inexperienced directors were falling short of the mark or not doing what he wanted then why didn't he do something about it?

As for Caskett, I think it's a combination of a number of factors that have sucked the chemistry out of their performances, that's why I'm not that upset about Katic's departure because if she had stuck around I believe it would have got worse. The ship is dead for me, I no longer see the sparks or love.  

Edited May 6, 2016 by verdana

[westwingfan]

If the news about Stana and Tamala not being asked back had been announced after the season finale as Tamala expected it to be, then ABC would have made their decision to renew or not to renew before any of the current online discussion on the merits of the cast cuts happened. It all seemed to be a done deal, especially after the news that fillione had re-signed came out yesterday. If fillione is deemed the important one then does it matter if some of the contracts for the current secondary cast are still not resolved before they announce the renewal, the writers would just have to write S9 around those who do come back, and supposedly they have been able to present ABC with a broad outline for S9 after wiping the slate clean that interested TPTB enough that they didn't cancel the show out of hand.

Can anyone with any insight into the machinations that might be going on shed any light on what TTPTB might need to discuss further at this stage. If they were just reconsidering the airing night that shouldn't necessarily delay the actual renewal notice should it, and don't they need at least a week before an episode airs to be able to distribute the copies of the show for broadcasting in time, which makes next Monday the absolute latest they can keep dithering, or is this just a bit of disinformation, for what purpose I know not.

[Annec]

56 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

I think Nathan and Stana are both talented actors who can carry a series, alone or together.  But the best actors in the world can't do much if the writing is crap.  It really boils down to the writing for me, and it's a question mark as to whether Castle writers can deliver on that score especially after a dramatic upheaval.  I once hoped for a creative rejuvenation from Marlowe after he finally resolved the WT/WT, but turns out, he continued to deliver mostly mediocrity.  You need talented writers to rejuvenate Castle and take it forward to new territory if that's what the network wants.

I still see the chemistry (NF has been a little stiff) when we see Caskett onscreen together but those moments have been too few and far between in season 8.  It's clear now that the reduced time is directly a result of NF's contract and is being badly compounded by really poor writing.  Everything from the COTW to the humor and negative view of women this season is a result of very weak show runners who lack a vision.  Add to that a slew of new writers who don't know the history of the show and you have a lot of vocal viewers who have been very disappointed with the show since 6x23.  I don't think it's a coincidence that the decline of the show started with 6x23 and the decision to fight the organic development of Caskett 

[BlakesMomma]

4 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

If the news about Stana and Tamala not being asked back had been announced after the season finale as Tamala expected it to be, then ABC would have made their decision to renew or not to renew before any of the current online discussion on the merits of the cast cuts happened. It all seemed to be a done deal, especially after the news that fillione had re-signed came out yesterday. If fillione is deemed the important one then does it matter if some of the contracts for the current secondary cast are still not resolved before they announce the renewal, the writers would just have to write S9 around those who do come back, and supposedly they have been able to present ABC with a broad outline for S9 after wiping the slate clean that interested TPTB enough that they didn't cancel the show out of hand.

Can anyone with any insight into the machinations that might be going on shed any light on what TTPTB might need to discuss further at this stage. If they were just reconsidering the airing night that shouldn't necessarily delay the actual renewal notice should it, and don't they need at least a week before an episode airs to be able to distribute the copies of the show for broadcasting in time, which makes next Monday the absolute latest they can keep dithering, or is this just a bit of disinformation, for what purpose I know not.

Or maybe Deadline misled people yesterday that the announcement would be today and is just covering their ass now and generating more clicks. 

[WendyCR72]

1 minute ago, BlakesMomma said:

Or maybe Deadline misled people yesterday that the announcement would be today and is just covering their ass now and generating more clicks. 

Doubtful, since Ben Sherwood's tweet had a #May6 hashtag.

[KaveDweller]

1 hour ago, CheshireCat said:

Well, did they prolong the deadline or are they saying they did and didn't? Either way, I find that all rather curious and odd. What's the hold-up?

I started watching the show late and didn't think that it was apparent that they didn't like each other. I also watched the first six seasons without being aware of any rumors. So, maybe it's more about knowing and perception than actual reflection in the acting?

I don't get why they said they had a deadline if they were just going to prolong it. That seems unnecessary unless they are looking for press coverage (or Deadline is looking for clicks). 

But I also don't get why they haven't decided. Nathan signed, Hawley and Winter are onboard, Stana's definitely out, what else do they need? I don't think they'd hold up announcing because of an issue with Jon or Seamus's contracts, or even Molly Quinn's.  So what gives?

[BlakesMomma]

Just now, WendyCR72 said:

Doubtful, since Ben Sherwood's tweet had a #May6 hashtag.

But we don't even know if his tweet had anything to do with Castle. It's not like it was hashtagged #Castle. And if anyone would know the decision was either made or not, it would be Ben Sherwood. He would have known when he tweeted that. Maybe it was the Keifer Sutherland project announced today. 

[WendyCR72]

Just now, BlakesMomma said:

But we don't even know if his tweet had anything to do with Castle. It's not like it was hashtagged #Castle. And if anyone would know the decision was either made or not, it would be Ben Sherwood. He would have known when he tweeted that. Maybe it was the Keifer Sutherland project announced today. 

True, but what other show would that quote fit? I honestly can't think of any.