Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[break21]

I think it's way too simplistic to say NF wanted SK fired and the network immediately canned her.  It's ridiculous.  I suspect there were a number of factors that went into their decision.  I've felt like ABC didn't like the way she handled and dragged out her last contract negotiation.  I think there were hard feelings there.  Rumors have been going around for a few years now that she's difficult to work with.  Fillion and her didn't get along.  She wanted a lot of time off this season.  To me, it was just a variety of problems that ended up getting her let go.  It's just too easy to try and make NF the villain and her the saint.  In real life, there are rarely villains and saints.

[TWP]

3 hours ago, verdana said:

I don't understand why Stana and Nathan should be made to feel responsible for other people's livelihoods and I don't believe it makes them jerks if their sole focus is ultimately on what is best for them and their families, isn't that what most of us do when it comes down to it?  

I'm saying this as someone who is looking at the writing on the wall in my particular job, my department might be disbanded completely in two or three months time due to a reorganisation that I didn't see coming which was announced last month with various bigwigs at the top leaving but I've accepted it. I'm busy cutting back on my spending and stockpiling my cash and making preparations just in case the worst happens thinking about what I want to do next.  I'm someone at the bottom of the pile in this place I'm not a manager.  But what I'm not doing is looking at my soon to be ex Managing Director who is due to make a lot of money selling out thinking "you bastard I hope you feel bad I might have to look for another job!" because that's life, he's doing what's best for him and his family. People get fired/leave/retire and firms go bust/restructure all the time and most sensible people shrug, accept nothing stays the same, make plans and move on with their lives as best they can. 

Also as others have stated if Castle ends something else will take its place, every one in Hollywood circulates on jobs constantly you see the same faces popping up on any number of shows either on screen or BTS after a while.  Hanning and Creasey have already found new jobs I'm fairly confident Rob the prop guy and the rest of the crew (God even Luke) will find something else. 

My mother gave me some good advice when I started my first job she said don't rely on other people for your own happiness and especially your financial security - be prepared. Over the last twenty years I've tried to heed her words with a few stumbles along the way. I've never signed a contract where an employer promises to keep me in a job guaranteed for life I know what I signed up for I could be out of a job in a month. I'm sure everyone involved in Castle knows their job security lasts a season at best although a network could in extreme circumstances pull the plug immediately but that's rare. Eight years is a long time for a show to last.  Everyone had a good run and they know it, all things have to come to an end sometime. 

I didn't say that they should be made to feel responsible. I'm saying they probably DO feel responsible if they aren't jerks. Good people would know that their behavior here could mean a great deal for others. If Nathan said forget it, he knew that 400 people would be heading over to the union...to easily find jobs, I'm told, something which I don't believe at all.

I personally think it would have saved him a lot of headache to just walk and they'd cancel. Of course if ABC wants you and you say no, they may not ask you again. And he has a long relationship with the network.

I'm not a Nathan fan. In fact I think he has a Peter Pan complex and is a womanizer. He would never be my friend. But I don't fault him for the decision he made. It was far more complex than just an act that says, "I'm just going to shit on Stana and laugh all the way to the bank."

[verdana]

What seems reasonably safe to assume especially in this business there are often many factors involved in why a particular decision gets made. We shall probably never know what trigger events lead to Katic's eventual departure and the fans are just going to have to deal with this as best they can and move on find something else to watch or stick with whatever new incarnation of the show we (may) get next season. 

[TWP]

Hawley/Winters haven't said anything because they're probably responsible for proposing the storyline of a season 9 without Stana. Anything they said would come across as insincere. And after the response to Nathan's half-hearted statement, what's the point? If they don't produce any words, those words can't be tweeted all over the place and used against them. Damned if they don't, Damned even more if they do.

And the casual viewing public doesn't even know their names so why potentially attach their names to anything that might be viewed as negative.

[Lee4U]

Just because it wasn't said in public, doesn't mean that much hasn't been said privately amongst themselves, etc - not everything has to be posted on public forums or in press releases, etc.  Just seeing some reactions about this, I doubt there is much any of them could have said that would have been taken at face value with so many people criticizing their few comments, reading between the lines, accusing them of all sorts of underlying feelings regardless of their actual words - feelings we know absolutely nothing about.

Maybe they pretty much decided to keep quiet about it at this point beyond the bits that have been said.  I sure would instead of inviting a verbal social media onslaught by a bunch of anonymous strangers online.

This is a business that - for the most part - is entirely about money and big money, at that.  I doubt the public will ever know what went down here - unless one of the principles wants to say which would be incredibly foolish; people in this business pay a price for speaking up about certain decisions/choices.  

[Thirteen]

Jose Molina should practice what he preaches

Quote

Jose Molina Verified account ‏@JoseMolinaTV

Where do we sign up for the Yelp boycott?

Retweets 10

Likes 10

10:42 PM - 21 Feb 2016

 

 

https://twitter.com/JoseMolinaTV/status/701658203713449984

[TWP]

1 minute ago, Thirteen said:

Jose Molina should practice what he preaches

 

https://twitter.com/JoseMolinaTV/status/701658203713449984

A boycott and a demand and petition that the show be cancelled are not the same thing. His tweet said that he understood not watching which implies boycotting.  

[CheshireCat]

5 hours ago, verdana said:

It's disappointing that neither of them have had the good grace to say anything even a bland "I wish Stana well in future endeavours" one liner, I don't believe for one minute they are forbidden from saying something like this even if other restrictions have been place upon their statements by ABC. 

I don't either. It's a neutral statement that says nothing about anything, really. And that's kind of my point, I don't get why there wasn't anything like that anywhere.

 

1 hour ago, TWP said:

Hawley/Winters haven't said anything because they're probably responsible for proposing the storyline of a season 9 without Stana. Anything they said would come across as insincere.

Since we don't know what went down, the suggestion above would probably have come across as the standard line. Many suspect Fillion's statement wasn't even his own. Probably not. I don't really care. He acknowledged the departure and, in my opinion, that's what you do when you spent eight years working together. It's good manners.

Personally, I find that Hawley's/Winter's silence comes across as suspicious. I had hoped that maybe we, who want the happy ending, have an ally in the showrunners, that maybe they will push for the happy ending and then come up with a story in S9 to accomodate the exit anyway. Now, after there was all this silence and the tweet about the finale, I'm wondering if they're responsible for the whole mess. Up until now, I've given them the benefit of the doubt. SK said last year that she spoke to them and that she felt her character was safe and she said that that was one of the reasons she decided to come back. I've wondered if ABC started to meddle with something they had no business meddling in and that the showrunners did the best they could under the circumstance. Now, after the silence and the tweet I'm wondering if those who've said it's the showrunners who are responsible and that they've basically lied whenever they tried to assure the fans that they knew that the relationship was the heart of the show were right.

What am I supposed to believe when an integral character to the show is dismissed, a character they previously stated they know the importance of and have declared to be half of what is the heart of the show and they don't say anything and then say something as if all of it has never happened?

[Thirteen]

Semantics, signing a petition to boycott Yelp is like wishing people out of a job and the lose of family incomes.

Quote

Jose Molina Verified account ‏@JoseMolinaTV

@AliasMonkey Still no reason to wish 200 people out of a job, or to deprive millions of fans of something they enjoy.

 

https://twitter.com/JoseMolinaTV/status/728760750471151616

[BlakesMomma]

10 minutes ago, TWP said:

A boycott and a demand and petition that the show be cancelled are not the same thing. His tweet said that he understood not watching which implies boycotting.  

Yes, not watching and actively campaigning for cancellation are two completely different things.  Some people don't seem to understand that.  "Freedom of Speech", to some, now seems to mean shut down or shout down those whose opinions they disagree with, instead of allowing and respecting differing opinions.

[pennben]

I'm not sure constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech from governmental interference, are really at play here at all. Folks are just disagreeing. 

[Annec]

10 hours ago, statsgirl said:

But setting that aside, I've been watching this season and for me, without the Castle/Beckett spark the show falls sadly flat.  I don't care about the goofy antics of the Castle/Esposito/Ryan frat boys (I hated it a couple of episode ago when Ryan and Espo were tricking Lanie) and I've come to hate it when Alexis or Hayley appears on the screen.  That fictional couple is what raised the show above mediocrity and it's quite literally shooting itself in the foot getting rid of Beckett.

I always thought that Hawley and Winter never gave a damn about Beckett. Their ideal show is Castle swanning around town and dating the beautiful ladies.

Strongly, agree.  Castle could have gone on for at least a few more years if they had returned to the core premise of the show.  I think .amman was trying to do that last season.  But, it appears that the bts issues took over.  I think that it was bothers me the most about this situation, the unprofessional behavior that would necessitate the firing of one of the co-leads.  

The Castle/Beckett chemistry elevates every episode.  It is no wonder that episodes with no or diminished Caskett time suffers for it.  Now, I probably would have watched a Ryan/Espo spin off because I really enjoy the actors but it wouldn't be the appointment tv that Castle is for me.  And, don't get me started on Hayley and Alexis.  I've taken to fast forwarding every scene they are in.  I remember Hawley tweeting about Alexis and Hayley "magic" a few times.  I've come to the conclusion that Hawley sees most things about this show very differently than most of the fans.

One quick question.  What are the chances that the someone is leaking the news about Nathan and Seamus' contracts in the hope of creating some positive momentum for a season 9, pushing ABC to renew.  I initially thought renewal was a done deal but now I'm thinking that ABC may be scrambling to find a replacement.  Why would any network want to put up with this drama for a few episodes of a dying show?  I get that someone, somewhere thinks they can make Castle PI take off but it can't mp e many or they the network would have just signed off on the renewal and wait for the furor to die down by September.

[BlakesMomma]

The Deadline article said the delay was because not all contracts had been ironed out yet.

"ABC was supposed to make a renewal decision by end of day Friday (May 6), but that was postponed as actors deals are still being hammered out."

[Kromm]

8 hours ago, verdana said:

I assumed if they got rid of Katic they would be far more invested in securing especially Jon, Seamus to try maintain some kind of continuity for the viewers. 

That's true if she was fired for some personality reasons (either hers or Fillions). But if she was let go, as they seem to be claiming, for money reasons it makes a bit less sense. I mean she'd have to be making 3 or 4 times as much as them for it to really be a numbers game to keep the whole supporting cast vs. her salary--especially if "securing" them equals raises for them. Unless it was less a case of what she was actually making and more of what she perhaps was demanding. I think it's obvious to everyone that because Fillion was the only "name" at the beginning of the show, he was probably making four or five times the salary of anyone else. If she demanded complete equity, then that might have been the end of things (although really, again, that probably should have just ended the show rather than what they DID wind up trying to do). 

[BlakesMomma]

I have seen it stated by several who claim to have "inside" knowledge that Fillion and Katic had equal pay last season. That contracts were the same except for requested time off. So treat that as you would any anonymous "insider" info I guess. 

 

I think one of those saying that was the halwideman poster who disappeared from this forum. 

Edited May 8, 2016 by BlakesMomma

[Kromm]

24 minutes ago, pennben said:

I'm not sure constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech from governmental interference, are really at play here at all. Folks are just disagreeing. 

Yeah. Squashing/shutting down other people's opinions on the Internet through force of personality isn't a matter of violating someone's right to free speech. It's a matter of rudeness and bad manners. Still a problem, I suppose, just a different one. Or if we're talking specifically about petitions and boycotts, and people on both sides perhaps banging some "freedom of speech" drum (a right to propose a boycott vs. a right to let a media production like Castle continue without people trying to forcefully shut it down), that's closer to "freedom of assembly", in a new high tech kind of way--which IS actually what the First Amendment is about as much as Speech--but clearly it's a petty application when applied to virtual assembly to keep or kill a piece of popular entertainment via pressure on it's makers.

I suppose "freedom of speech" is the only phrase from the First Amendment people remember, so they toss it around to describe every case where the First Amendment (may) apply.

[CheshireCat]

18 minutes ago, Kromm said:

. Unless it was less a case of what she was actually making and more of what she perhaps was demanding.

Since she was allegedly never approached, she could hardly have demanded anything, could she?

 

8 minutes ago, BlakesMomma said:

I have seen it stated by several who claim to have "inside" knowledge that Fillion and Katic had equal pay last season. That contracts were the same except for requested time off. So treat that as you would any anonymous "insider" info I guess. 

I guess I shouldn't even ask but did it really take them eight seasons to pay her the same amount they were paying him? She was pulling equal weight ever since the beginning, so she should have been paid the same since then. Maybe since S2 if you want to take into a account that she was lesser known but honestly, I don't care. She did the same work and same work should get the same compensation.

[Kromm]

26 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

I guess I shouldn't even ask but did it really take them eight seasons to pay her the same amount they were paying him? She was pulling equal weight ever since the beginning, so she should have been paid the same since then. Maybe since S2 if you want to take into a account that she was lesser known but honestly, I don't care. She did the same work and same work should get the same compensation.

That's horribly naive about how showbiz salaries work though. Marlon Brando, for example, appeared in only a few minutes of Superman The Motion Picture and was paid many times what the entire rest of the cast was getting combined. It was about supply and demand--they needed the big name and had to pay for it and it wasn't based on time spent working.

That said, while I think it's still fair to say Fillion is more marketable/a bigger name, certainly Stana Katic should have had a lot more leverage/salary consideration by her third or fourth season to get at least MOST of his pay rate. Perhaps she did--I don't know if those numbers are public. Demanding more when the network actually needed contract renewals did seem the way to go, albeit perhaps nobody was in any position to demand anything in a season where ALL network TV viewing figures have gone through the floor.

So sexism?  Sure. But nothing in this situation is 100% anything. For me the scent of sexism is more that they might think (and brand her) "difficult" for her demands rather than for the fact that even still it's questionable if her market value is the same as Fillion's. If the show was really so tight on money (and based on the industry wide ratings dips, everyone might be) then again, there were SO many other solutions, like I've said, ranging from just purposefully calling it a day on the whole show, to ditching the supporting cast and doing a more focused reboot on just the two stars, to going to a TV movie/special schedule. Rather than simply firing her.

[CheshireCat]

33 minutes ago, Kromm said:

That's horribly naive about how showbiz salaries work though. Marlon Brando, for example, appeared in only a few minutes of Superman The Motion Picture and was paid many times what the entire rest of the cast was getting combined. It was about supply and demand--they needed the big name and had to pay for it and it wasn't based on time spent working.

Not naive, just how I think it should be. I know it's not but that doesn't mean that it's right.

 

33 minutes ago, Kromm said:

So sexism?  Sure. But nothing in this situation is 100% anything. For me the scent of sexism is more that they might think (and brand her) "difficult" for her demands rather than for the fact that even still it's questionable if her market value is the same as Fillion's.

I've certainly come across a lot of comments which said that the fan who made the comment started watching because they knew Fillion but stayed for Katic. So, maybe her name is not as widely recognized in general but she sure has the same, if not more market value for Castle and I think her contribution to the show should be the only thing that matters when it comes to negotiations for said show. I know it's not the case, I still think that is how it should be.

33 minutes ago, Kromm said:

If the show was really so tight on money (and based on the industry wide ratings dips, everyone might be) then again, there were SO many other solutions, like I've said, ranging from just purposefully calling it a day on the whole show, to ditching the supporting cast and doing a more focused reboot on just the two stars, to going to a TV movie/special schedule. Rather than simply firing her.

Absolutely agree!

[KaveDweller]

5 hours ago, break21 said:

I think it's way too simplistic to say NF wanted SK fired and the network immediately canned her.  It's ridiculous.  I suspect there were a number of factors that went into their decision.  I've felt like ABC didn't like the way she handled and dragged out her last contract negotiation.  I think there were hard feelings there.  Rumors have been going around for a few years now that she's difficult to work with.  Fillion and her didn't get along.  She wanted a lot of time off this season.  To me, it was just a variety of problems that ended up getting her let go.  It's just too easy to try and make NF the villain and her the saint.  In real life, there are rarely villains and saints.

Have there been stories she was difficult to work with? I'd never heard any (except a blind item that was later said to be false) until this mess came out. And even now I'm not hearing any actually stories, just people saying there are stories. I'm not saying it can't be true, I'm just wondering what I missed. 

I agree that it's probably more complicated than we are hearing. And regarding the villain and Saint idea, the rest of the cast seems to sincerely like both Stana and Nathan, which I think says a lot. There's clearly some kind of conflict, but that doesn't mean they can't both be good or both be awful.v

1 hour ago, BlakesMomma said:

I have seen it stated by several who claim to have "inside" knowledge that Fillion and Katic had equal pay last season. That contracts were the same except for requested time off. So treat that as you would any anonymous "insider" info I guess. 

 

I think one of those saying that was the halwideman poster who disappeared from this forum. 

I read that she asked for equal pay, but didn't get it, and that's why she got the extra time off.

i want to know how so many people know about these contracts. Aren't they confidential?

[pennben]

7 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

I read that she asked for equal pay, but didn't get it, and that's why she got the extra time off.

Ha! That would be fantastically awful if true, given that there seems to be lots of criticism for her taking extra time off this season!  So she lost when she lost, and lost when she won (a concession). 

[westwingfan]

I only wanted a S9 if ALL the cast continued. With a little bit of hindsight I feel that if ABC are really devoid of a replacement, at least for the first half of next season I think they would have done better to have ended Castle on a happy note but then lauched a spin off featuring the humour of Ryan and Espo, who can forget Espo's bonnet slide in That 70s Show. The choice they seem to have made doesn't seem to be giving what follows the best of chances, because if Beckett is killed off it makes a mockery of what came before and seriously risks damaging the brand and losing a significant part of the exisiting audience. A S9 of Castle would seem to have a lot of baggage even if the showrunners talk about starting with a clean slate, the ghost of Beckett could haunt them for a long time. It is a big risk, and would seem to be a bigger risk than if they had cancelled the show in favour of one of the pilots they have. By letting Caskett ride off into the sunset but continuing with Ryan and Espo surely there would have been a greater chance of hanging onto a lot more of the current audience, and getting rid of both leads would have made even more economic sense if it was the budget they were worried about. They would have had a show with much cheaper overheads but with a possible ready made audience, and avoided all this aggravation.

I might have watched that, but fillione as the sole lead is a big turn off for me.

Edited May 8, 2016 by westwingfan

[westwingfan]

43 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

Have there been stories she was difficult to work with? I'd never heard any (except a blind item that was later said to be false) until this mess came out. And even now I'm not hearing any actually stories, just people saying there are stories. I'm not saying it can't be true, I'm just wondering what I missed. 

I agree that it's probably more complicated than we are hearing. And regarding the villain and Saint idea, the rest of the cast seems to sincerely like both Stana and Nathan, which I think says a lot. There's clearly some kind of conflict, but that doesn't mean they can't both be good or both be awful.v

I read that she asked for equal pay, but didn't get it, and that's why she got the extra time off.

i want to know how so many people know about these contracts. Aren't they confidential?

I've never seen anything specific about how she is "difficult", just vague comments that she is "difficult", but she does seem to have a different approach to fillione, who claims he just turns up to say his lines and prefers one take if he can get away with it. I read that, certainly in the beginning, Stana may have appeared a little aloof because she used to withdraw to her caravan between scenes to work on her lines. As she probably saw this as her big break, and as she was the inexperienced one compared to him it would not be too surprising that she wanted to do well and this was her way of going about it. There was a story that she asked Bowman to make her look "iller" in Rise, and that she did all the waterboarding herself ITBOTB, up until FBOW she seemed to take a lot of interest in her character and this could easily be perceived by others as being "difficult" if they approached the work differently.

Hard to know how much weight to give to all the praise that they have both gotten from guests, fans at the locations and comicons, as those are not necessarily unbiased sources, but it does appear that some of the crew, such as Rob Kyker and Jay Galbo did have real affection for her with their unsolicitated tweets etc. as did the creator and the senior director.

Regarding how much influence fillione has over what happens I would think it's not necessarily that much as he said on a couple of occasions that he hoped Castle would go out with a bullet in his head, but the showrunners have chosen to hit a different target. LOL

Edited May 8, 2016 by westwingfan

[KaveDweller]

29 minutes ago, pennben said:

Ha! That would be fantastically awful if true, given that there seems to be lots of criticism for her taking extra time off this season!  So she lost when she lost, and lost when she won (a concession). 

I know, it must suck to be a celebrity and have everything you do analyzed and criticized. If she walked away last year because she didn't get equal pay she would have been called a diva. So to prevent criticism she'd have had to work harder for less money? Probably not worth it.

But I have no idea how reliable that information is.

[CheshireCat]

11 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

I've never seen anything specific, just vague comments that she is "difficult", but she does seem to have a different approach to fillione, who claims he just turns up to say his lines and prefers one take if he can get away with it. I read that, certainly in the beginning, Stana may have appeared a little aloof because she used to withdraw to her caravan between scenes to work on her lines. As she probably saw this as her big break, and as she was the inexperienced one compared to him it would not be too surprising that she wanted to do well and this was her way of going about it. There was a story that she asked Bowman to make her look "iller" in Rise, and that she did all the waterboarding herself ITBOTB, up until FBOW she seemed to take a lot of interest in her character and this could easily be perceived by others as being "difficult" if they approached the work differently.

 

 

Well, there's difficult and then there's difficult and oddly enough, it's always women who get labelled as difficult or diva. And I think there are many viable examples out there that show us that when men do something it's one thing and when women do the exact same thing then strangely enough it's something else entirely. So, the question is, would a man have been perceived as difficult had he done what Katic apparently did or would he have been called "dedicated"?

 

31 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

I only wanted a S9 if ALL the cast continued. With a little bit of hindsight I feel that if ABC are really devoid of a replacement, at least for the first half of next season I think they would have done better to have ended Castle on a happy note but then lauched a spin off featuring the humour of Ryan and Espo, who can forget Espo's bonnet slide in That 70s Show.

I certainly would have watched that spin-off! They could have given Beckett a different job (politician after all? One PP?), even could have had Castle pop in every now and then and have him fill them in on how Beckett was doing. Even Alexis and Haley could have been kept on in an assisting capacity.

 

34 minutes ago, pennben said:

Ha! That would be fantastically awful if true, given that there seems to be lots of criticism for her taking extra time off this season!  So she lost when she lost, and lost when she won (a concession). 

As far as I know it's not unheard of to give actors a "raise" by cutting back on their hours. Since I don't doubt that that could have happened, I did wonder if that was part of the challenges the showrunners encountered and had to work around and made the best of the situation. However, as I said before, now that they have acted to weirdly, I do wonder if maybe I've been wrong giving them the benefit of the doubt.

[TWP]

Definitely not always women who are labeled as Diva. A case in point here: http://zap2it.com/2013/11/castle-did-nathan-fillion-throw-a-diva-fit-on-set/

[KaveDweller]

19 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

I've never seen anything specific, just vague comments that she is "difficult", but she does seem to have a different approach to fillione, who claims he just turns up to say his lines and prefers one take if he can get away with it. I read that, certainly in the beginning, Stana may have appeared a little aloof because she used to withdraw to her caravan between scenes to work on her lines. As she probably saw this as her big break, and as she was the inexperienced one compared to him it would not be too surprising that she wanted to do well and this was her way of going about it. There was a story that she asked Bowman to make her look "iller" in Rise, and that she did all the waterboarding herself ITBOTB, up until FBOW she seemed to take a lot of interest in her character and this could easily be perceived by others as being "difficult" if they approached the work differently.

Hard to know how much weight to give to all the praise that they have both gotten from guests, fans at the locations and comicons, as those are not necessarily unbiased sources, but it does appear that some of the crew, such as Rob Kyker and Jay Galbo did have real affection for her with their unsolicitated tweets etc. as did the creator and the senior director.

Regarding how much influence fillione has over what happens I would think it's not necessarily that much as he said on a couple of occasions that he hoped Castle would go out with a bullet in his head, but the showrunners have chosen to hit a different target. LOL

Yeah, I could see her working style annoying some people who just want to get the scene done. And I'm sure when you are working long hours you start getting frustrated quicker and may snap at people. It just drives me crazy that the gossip articles label people without giving specifics. It's the same with calling Nathan a bully. I want them to tell me what they both did so I can judge for myself.

[TWP]

22 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

Yeah, I could see her working style annoying some people who just want to get the scene done. And I'm sure when you are working long hours you start getting frustrated quicker and may snap at people. It just drives me crazy that the gossip articles label people without giving specifics. It's the same with calling Nathan a bully. I want them to tell me what they both did so I can judge for myself.

And it could be that perfectionists cost the whole show more than ABC wants to spend in crew hours, overtime, etc.

Yes, I'd like to hear more about the bullying charge. I won't reject it entirely, but nor will I fully accept it based on whisper campaigns. Whisper campaigns in politics at least, are all about the ditty tricks. They destroy before anyone knows they were based on nothing.

[pennben]

25 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

If we're going back to the restaurant analogy, I think the reason people are calling for cancellation is more like their favorite restaurant fired half of its staff, and they all happened to be women, while keeping all of the male waiters.

 

That actually is one of the best analogies put forth.  And while we all really know nothing, all of us are trying to figure out BTS here and we all could be incredibly off-base in our thinking.  But in this year, with so many female leads leaving, it all feels very wrong. 

Of course we can go through and say:  Well, this happened on Show A, leading her to be gone; and then here's what happened on Show B, so you can see why she'd be gone; and then Show C had these circumstances which meant that she had to go, and so on, and so forth.

And while maybe each particular instance can be explained, they all lead to a "she's gone," and then I pause and say 'hmmm'.

Maybe nothing, maybe something in some cases, maybe something more. I don't know, but this season things keep popping up all over that make me say 'hmmm'.

That's my long way of saying, I agree with you and do wonder about the bigger picture here.

Edited May 8, 2016 by pennben

[CheshireCat]

1 hour ago, TWP said:

Definitely not always women who are labeled as Diva. A case in point here: http://zap2it.com/2013/11/castle-did-nathan-fillion-throw-a-diva-fit-on-set/

If that is true then I'd certainly classify that as diva-ish behavior. But I wasn't actually talking about diva-ish behavior but about the fact that women often get labelled as a diva for doing or asking for something that men do or ask for, too, and when they do it, it's called something else entirely.

[WendyCR72]

Per TV Line, Jon Huertas, Molly Quinn, Toks Olagundoye, and Susan Sullivan all look to be returning with the decision about the show being "imminent".

Considering all are expected to return, I'm pretty sure this show is coming back.

[FlickerToAFlame]

I agree, but it would be kind of funny if after all this cluster they cancelled it anyway. 

[pennben]

34 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Considering all are expected to return, I'm pretty sure this show is coming back.

Yeah, I'd be stunned if it didn't come back at this point. 

I think it was you that mentioned sometimes the behind the scenes stuff is better than the show, and I agree.  If I had a wish list of tell-alls, I'd vote as follows:

1. Christine Baranski:  I'm Talking; Two Chapter book:  Chapter 1:  My Time on Cybil; Chapter 2:  My Time on The Good Wife (this will be a best seller);
2. Unknown Author:  Grey's Anatomy:  Autopsy: Why Derek Died;
3. Unknown Author:  Castle: The Case of the Missing Leading Lady;

Anyway, its frustrating, angering, but ultimately a little fun to try to piece together nuggets we get here and there from behind the curtain to figure out what's really going on.

 

[rspad]

39 minutes ago, FlickerToAFlame said:

I agree, but it would be kind of funny if after all this cluster they cancelled it anyway. 

Ha, could you imagine?  But yeah, I suspect a renewal is coming.  At the least, I think it'll be a 13 ep mid-season order so it can be brought in if a new show of theirs fails in the fall. 

And even as I am near-sure it's coming, I can't help but still be bummed about it.  I won't be watching any S9 (simply because the Castle/Alexis/Hayley eps this year made clear to me that I just don't care for that dynamic), but really hope those that do enjoy it.  I guess for me it boils down to having zero faith this season's ending will be a happy one for Beckett and that they'll do a complete reboot of sorts for the new season.  I just don't see it happening.  I hope I'm pleasantly surprised.  It would make letting go a lot less bitter.

Edited May 8, 2016 by rspad

[Annec]

19 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

No. Because it is still ultimately ABC's call.

Sorry, saying that he's demanding that Seamus and Jon be included in season 9 but that he doesn't have the power to demand that Stana not be asked is inconsistent. If Nathan is calling casting decisions as part of his contract then he's making casti

 

1 hour ago, WendyCR72 said:

Per TV Line, Jon Huertas, Molly Quinn, Toks Olagundoye, and Susan Sullivan all look to be returning with the decision about the show being "imminent".

Considering all are expected to return, I'm pretty sure this show is coming back.

Just thinking of how bad the Alexis, Hayley, castle interactions have been this season I know I won't be watching a season 9. 

I find it very sad that there doesn't seem to be anyone who will be honest with Nathan about just how bad Castle is without the moderating influence of Beckett  I get it, they are all counting on him for a job (I include Hawley and TPW) but it's sad that they are so motivated for their next pay check .  Maybe they are all like Molly and think that anything NF does will be a great show but this season has shown that to not be the case  

[WendyCR72]

I'll just say this and evade the rotten tomatoes: It perplexes me - not just here but around the 'net - how Katic/Beckett has been assigned the role of sainted martyred angel and Fillion/Castle the mustache-twirling villain when no one has seen what went on BTS first hand. So, no, I won't pound my chest and cry about the injustice of no more Beckett and I won't give in and say Fillion steps on puppies for kicks.

And, no, if the situations were reversed and Fillion was gone, with the same lack of viable information - I wouldn't cry for victim Castle or call for Beckett's head.

The whole war exhausts me. And, frankly, it's pointless since we won't ever know the true details unless someone writes a book. And what's done is done.

Whew! I feel better now.

[rspad]

Quote

The whole war exhausts me.

That's a good word for it - exhausting.  Frankly, I could care less.  Even reading the rumors over the years, it never affected my perception or changed my enjoyment of the show.  I care about the characters and storylines I've been watching for 8 years.  That's what bums me out, that a storyline I've so enjoyed is limping to an end like this.

[WendyCR72]

8 minutes ago, rspad said:

I care about the characters and storylines I've been watching for 8 years.  That's what bums me out, that a storyline I've so enjoyed is limping to an end like this.

This, I completely understand. As I've said, I haven't watched with any regularity in eons, but I do feel badly for those who aren't getting what they expected here. I truly do. And while I really don't mind if this ends or goes on, I do think if ABC really wanted procedurals on its schedule, it could have made some from scratch.

But it is what it is, so if a back-door "straighter" procedural is how ABC wants to revamp this show, well...what will be will be. Although I'm curious about how such a shift could work at such a late date.

[Kromm]

26 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

I'll just say this and evade the rotten tomatoes: It perplexes me - not just here but around the 'net - how Katic/Beckett has been assigned the role of sainted martyred angel and Fillion/Castle the mustache-twirling villain when no one has seen what went on BTS first hand. So, no, I won't pound my chest and cry about the injustice of no more Beckett and I won't give in and say Fillion steps on puppies for kicks.

And, no, if the situations were reversed and Fillion was gone, with the same lack of viable information - I wouldn't cry for victim Castle or call for Beckett's head.

The whole war exhausts me. And, frankly, it's pointless since we won't ever know the true details unless someone writes a book. And what's done is done.

Whew! I feel better now.

Of course we don't know for sure. But people do usually ask themselves "who seems to have the power in this situation" and most assumptions follow from that. For example, using the infamous The Good Wife example, it was usually implicit that Juliana Marguiles was far more likely to have the power than Archie Panjabi.  A certain group of people always did argue "but we don't know!" but I think it's clear why people think it's far more likely the person in control of a situation is the star (in both cases a pre-existing star) who the show is titled after.

But again, the question for me in this Castle situation is really less "which star caused the situation" and more one about the inherent ridiculousness of trying a reboot of a series without a main co-star who's been there 8 years, and who it's already clear isn't leaving under friendly circumstances. It just seems greedy and stupidly designed to piss people off and its puzzling why, even if they didn't quite know the time and place it would come out, how they wouldn't do more of a mea culpa once it did. So ultimately regardless of which co-star started the stupidity, it's ABC and the producers who are acting stupid now.

[femmefan1946]

1. Christine Baranski:  I'm Talking; Two Chapter book: 

I'll watch anything Christine Baranski is in. Didn't realize she was in The Good Wife however.

NF got most of his training in soap operas (although he did study drama at UoAlberta) in an ensemble cast. That's a read it /say it school of acting. I guess most of us have seen him do his 'soap opera take' schtick. And he has done a lot of improv.

SK seems to have done a  three year degree in Drama at DePaul University Goodman School of Drama after her BA at UoToronto and continued at the Beverly Hills Playhouse acting school. So a lot more academic work before a few years of one off small parts before The Librarians and Castle.

So different approaches would seem normal.

Or maybe SK is a slow reader and memorizing lines is hard .

BTW-- it's Fillion. There is a capital letter and no 'e'. Calling names is schoolyard level insults.

[WendyCR72]

1 minute ago, Kromm said:

Of course we don't know for sure. But people do usually ask themselves "who seems to have the power in this situation" and most assumptions follow from that.

But - as you said at the end, it could very well be more ABC than Fillion at all. Maybe ABC didn't like how the last set of negotiations with Katic went down and decided to be petty. Did Fillion have a say? Sure. But in the end, the buck stops with the network as it is the suits who allow such demands to be met in the first place, assuming "diva" demands on either side were/are in play here.

Actors and their egos have always been about #1, themselves. So if Fillion was ensuring his interests, not a shock. What is shocking is the completely incompetent way ABC has lost control of this entire situation and fostered the environment of "haves" versus "have nots".

[WendyCR72]

2 minutes ago, femmefan1946 said:

BTW-- it's Fillion. There is a capital letter and no 'e'. Calling names is schoolyard level insults.

Thank you. And yeah, the little "Fillione" thing is asinine. So, please use his proper name going forward here.

[verdana]

Quote

 

Sunkrish Bala ‏@sunkrishbala  2h2 hours ago

Sunkrish Bala Retweeted Katic Adicted

I'll be on the season finale next week! Big things happen with Loksat. #castle

 

More bad news. 

[CheshireCat]

8 minutes ago, verdana said:

More bad news. 

Did you really expect him not to be when he was only ever really tied to the LokSat arc? (the cynic in me wants to say, I'm surprised he hasn't been re-signed for S8...) But seriously - if they keep Haley/Toks then I have a hard time buying the budget thing because she's certainly a character who doesn't need to be there. Even if she's new and most certainly not as expensive as Katic, if you want to save money, you save it wherever you can, so you strip down the cast to the core and keep only the essentials. Which I'd say are Fillion and Katic, Huertas and Dever. The rest of the cast can be mentioned so that they stay alive and well and the ME position can be filled by rotating guest stars while Lanie's absence is explained with a new position. I'm sure if they had let four regulars go, they could have afforded to keep Katic on. Yes, they would have had to let four regulars go. But they would also honored the show and I think therein lies the real problem. Keeping Katic, Fillion, Huertas and Dever would have required a S1-7 format in which they all worked together and I don't think that was ever their intention. (Even if that would likely have kept the ratings steady, maybe even gotten them back up!)

Edited May 8, 2016 by CheshireCat

[Kromm]

51 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

But - as you said at the end, it could very well be more ABC than Fillion at all. Maybe ABC didn't like how the last set of negotiations with Katic went down and decided to be petty. Did Fillion have a say? Sure. But in the end, the buck stops with the network as it is the suits who allow such demands to be met in the first place, assuming "diva" demands on either side were/are in play here.

Actors and their egos have always been about #1, themselves. So if Fillion was ensuring his interests, not a shock. What is shocking is the completely incompetent way ABC has lost control of this entire situation and fostered the environment of "haves" versus "have nots".

Okay, but you sound borderline angry at people for making ANY assumptions. For me the dividing line isn't if they make assumptions, but if they act foolishly close-minded based upon them. It is undeniable a few things are true here--that ABC has bungled this more than anyone else involved, for example. But I don't think it's inherently an unhealthy exercise to wonder who started the chain of events.  If for no other reason than most people can't 100% distinguish a character from their real life conduct and might feel less inclined to watch an actor who got a co-star fired. So it's understandable to me that people wish we knew for sure, even if possibly we may never. Because they want to watch the character of Castle trusting that the actor behind it represents the same values. The way things lay, a lot of people don't feel like giving Fillion the benefit of the doubt, because, fairly or not, they see he's the one still standing and know intellectually that he's likely always had the upper-hand in influence with the network and producers. So that's the gist of it. If Fillion isn't the one to blame for the root of it, then ABC has screwed up even worse letting things unfold in such a way that people are even unsure. They needed ALL of their ducks in a row, including clear statements from all involved, and they didn't have them.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Kromm

[WendyCR72]

44 minutes ago, Kromm said:

Okay, but you sound borderline angry at people for making ANY assumptions.

No, but assumptions without any proof only makes this go in circles. Meaning, no real discussion but burning people at proverbial stakes when we have no idea what happened here. Sure, it's natural to be disappointed and upset.

But when it becomes a stomping ground of Evil Fillion versus Evil Katic or Saint Katic and/or Saint Fillion, it just turns to shit. I'm sorry if that makes me sound angry. Frustrated is more like it since it has become less spec for spec's sake in the thread - which was actually designed for spec on screen rather than behind the scenes [but given LOTS of leeway due to recent events] - than it is to be judge, jury, and executioner when we don't even know the scope of the crime.

And when it all goes back in circles, it makes the thread a hell of a lot less fun to keep track of.

As I said, express disappointment with the result. I get that. I just don't get taking sides when we are not privy to every burp that happened and we never will be. So there's no winner, anyway.

[CheshireCat]

Oh, and the fact that TV Line reported that everyone has returned makes me wonder if the renewal delay really is because of negotiations. If Dever's was the only contract still up in the air, maybe, but the Deadline article implied there were other contracts still negotiated over, so am I really supposed to believe that Dever and at least one other signed just in time for a renewal announcement, one day apart/on the same day when negotiations were still ongoing the day before?

[BellyLaughter]

With all the cast signing it's actually hard to imagine what they will be doing next season will be any different.....just no Beckett.  Where's the enticement for old fans to watch and potential new viewers to give it a go??

 

At the very least I thought the 12th would be history as well as the characters of Esposito and Ryan.  I mean if they have to kill off my fave character and carry the show on I would have preferred they really do something different.  Or at least try to?? 

 

I can't think how they are gonna honour the character of Beckett (I mean it's looking more and more like her death will be finalised off screen) and mix that with the frat boy humour that seems to be more favoured.  I will admit that if they kept Beckett alive (hiding in WitSec) I would probably keep one eye on how the show progresses but I understand the inherent difficulties in that and have accepted that the show I love is gone and with it so am I.

 

For me the hardest thing in all of this is making sense of it.  A part of me wishes this had been all because Stana wanted out and we had been told that.  The narrative that ABC has let fly in the wind is maddening.  I have a hard time swallowing that anyone at that network would think for one second that this story can go on without on of its most popular characters.  Just on a basic story level it's breaking my heart....don't even get me started on the BTS that could be in play...

 

What a bitter ending to my time as a fan of a show that gave me such joy.

[pennben]

1 hour ago, WendyCR72 said:

..... Fillion steps on puppies for kicks......

 

I KNEW it!!

P.S. I hope it's okay to try to joke around here a bit.  If not, I sincerely apologize.

[WendyCR72]

Just now, pennben said:

I KNEW it!!

P.S. I hope it's okay to try to joke around here a bit.  If not, I sincerely apologize.

PLEASE joke. PLEASE. It would really help!  :-) Besides, it's laugh or cry!