Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[HalcyonDays]

Quote

I'm just constantly taken aback by the way that so many fans full of self righteousness can believe they know events and people with a real certainty when they can actually have no actual knowledge of those events and people.  I would argue that's quite egotistical behaviour as well as close mindedness and prejudice at play.  These people rush to play judge, jury, executioner- and nothing less will do because the mob wants their pound of flesh from their designated villain and they will rake you over coals for it- even though their judgments are based on a whole lot of assumptions and often bias, and few facts interpreted in an objective way.  Even the few facts at hand are absent context to enable anyone to see the complete picture.  The absence of actual knowledge doesn't seem to bother a lot of people when they go ahead and engage in some truly malicious slander and personal attacks, and make serious and damaging accusations without evidence, which may be what I find most disturbing.  Do people just throw out words like 'sexist', 'bully', so easily without thinking what it means to accuse someone of that?  Just because they write something on the internet, they don't believe they need to take responsibility?  

The way some people easily believe what's said from questionable sources like tabloids and anon insiders just because it's on the internet is also disturbing.  It's like no critical thought is necessary.  I find it disconcerting when people say 'there's no smoke without fire' or think it must be true because something's been recycled in more than one tabloid.  Well, no, sometimes bullshit is just bullshit, even if it's reprinted over and over on the internet.  Bullshit rumours can take on lives of their own especially when helped along by gullible fans or fans with their own fan agenda.  People can be very disingenuous in how they mix a little bit of truth with a whole lot of lies to make you believe their story.  Trump is a case in point.  It's especially disconcerting when people choose to believe tabloids with anon 'sources' which smear people's reputations but casually dismiss the words of people who actually know those involved and have only ever spoken well of them, plenty of female and male colleagues included.  Not only is there a lack of critical thought and scrutiny about assumptions and allegations being thrown about, there's also widespread bias and selectivism when it comes to people's interpretation of people and events.  All too often the self-righteous fans only interpret things in ways that suit their own fan narrative; any pesky facts that get in the way of that are conveniently ignored.  Those fans aren't really interested in a reasoned, logical discussion; it's not rational, it's emotional.  They just want to rage against their villain of choice.

madmaverick, this is one of the most beautiful, yet absolutely brilliant posts I have read here or anywhere, concerning today's "fandom". Honestly, this should be published on ALL TV-focused media sites.

Seriously - it is a fantastic and spot-on analysis.

[WendyCR72]

12 minutes ago, HalcyonDays said:

madmaverick, this is one of the most beautiful, yet absolutely brilliant posts I have read here or anywhere, concerning today's "fandom". Honestly, this should be published on ALL TV-focused media sites.

Seriously - it is a fantastic and spot-on analysis.

I'd marry and have babies with madmaverick's post if it ever became possible. So eloquent and so spot on.

[HalcyonDays]

4 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

I'd marry and have babies with madmaverick's post if it ever became possible. So eloquent and so spot on.

Hee! I have to say, this thread has lots of excellent analysis and comments in it, but madmavericks' is just perfection!

[pepper]

On 5/6/2016 at 5:40 PM, Kromm said:

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).   

Actually I was completely understanding your point. Your point is that Fillion has all those passionate sci-fi fans that will support his every project. My response was that they have not done anything for Castle. The demographic for the show, the most loyal viewers, are older, female and not attending Cons, so there is little correlation between his strength and what is keeping the show relatively popular. Your point, that losing the core of what those fans watch for and delivering Fillion will be enough, is something I find doubtful. Just as losing that core and delivering Katic would be a losing proposition. The difference was, I didn't say that Fillion was interchangeable... but that's not necessarily a positive. Most lead actors his age are in better shape and the TV industry is notoriously shallow. So blowing up the initial premise of the show, especially given the current quality of the writing, makes no sense to me. And I disagree with you that the "power" of Fillion can fix that decision. I personally will not be sticking around to watch the show they've proposed, but I'm sure I'll find out the result on the Internet.

[Kromm]

23 minutes ago, pepper said:

Actually I was completely understanding your point. Your point is that Fillion has all those passionate sci-fi fans that will support his every project. My response was that they have not done anything for Castle. The demographic for the show, the most loyal viewers, are older, female and not attending Cons, so there is little correlation between his strength and what is keeping the show relatively popular. Your point, that losing the core of what those fans watch for and delivering Fillion will be enough, is something I find doubtful. Just as losing that core and delivering Katic would be a losing proposition. The difference was, I didn't say that Fillion was interchangeable... but that's not necessarily a positive. Most lead actors his age are in better shape and the TV industry is notoriously shallow. So blowing up the initial premise of the show, especially given the current quality of the writing, makes no sense to me. And I disagree with you that the "power" of Fillion can fix that decision. I personally will not be sticking around to watch the show they've proposed, but I'm sure I'll find out the result on the Internet.

Yes, but my larger point was I think very few people, of ANY type, have any deep passion for the show. The passion being generated arguing about this one issue is at best a surface passion that will be forgotten about in a few weeks. As I've said innumerable places, I believe the show is doomed, but just in terms of why they might cater to Fillion over Katic, that makes sense because if you are taking a near hopeless shot in the dark to keep this dinosaur going, then you go with the person with long-standing passionate fans for the Sci-Fi star vs. a larger but shallower pool of fans who perhaps appreciate Katic, but on some level probably will forget about her soon enough if she never appears on TV again. From a human perspective Katic getting screwed over sucks, and I've spent a lot of space arguing other paths they could have taken that didn't involve ditching her, but I do understand why in their minds Fillion was considered an asset worth trying to protect, as thin as that reed was. 

Edited May 9, 2016 by Kromm

[Betweenthisandthat]

@HIGHZurrer the Twitter handle for a writer Eric Heisserer has some interesting things to say on his feed. I don't know if any of it is connected to Castle but it does remind us that no one really knows what goes on bts.  And sometimes we believe what we want to believe while going after the wrong people if we have to go after anyone at all. I don't see Caslte succeeding next season but I could be wrong about that.  That's the part that's interesting to me. Do any of us really know what we're talking about?  

[TWP]

2 hours ago, Thak said:

I get what you're saying about stereotypes and I agree.  This still doesn't change what they did to the Beckett/co-lead character over the last couple of seasons, and to be fair there has been outcry in regard to this.  Over the last couple of seasons I've read words like, "demeaning", "sexist", "misogyny", "dumbing down" etc...when discussing the treatment of the Beckett character.  So what I see here is not just a love of Stana, but a love of a popular female lead character on a tv show being mistreated.  Doesn't mean the other characters weren't mistreated as well, but to say it's only the love of Stana and people should just admit that's what they're really about is not at all accurate in my estimation.

But my point was that the outcry for other female actors has been little or none.  It's always about Stana - only.  The others come in to the discussion when they are needed to "prove a point" that nobody cared about proving until Stana was involved.  Thus, my takeaway (my own, jmo) is that the outcry is about Stana, not really about treatment of female actors in general.  And honestly, I think using "sexism" in this case is similar to using "haters" to stifle honest criticism, especially in terms of why an actor may have been cut from a show. 

And now, I defer to @HIGHZurrer over at Twitter, to maybe get some hints about what maybe actually happened.  Oh no, he isn't talking about a particular show, but the parallels of what we've actually seen are remarkable.

[WendyCR72]

15 minutes ago, Betweenthisandthat said:

@HIGHZurrer the Twitter handle for a writer Eric Heisserer has some interesting things to say on his feed. I don't know if any of it is connected to Castle but it does remind us that no one really knows what goes on bts.  And sometimes we believe what we want to believe while going after the wrong people if we have to go after anyone at all. I don't see Caslte succeeding next season but I could be wrong about that.  That's the part that's interesting to me. Do any of us really know what we're talking about?  

Wow. Just read that timeline. If it isn't about Castle, then many shows have the same fuckery BTS. But it does put a whole new light on things either way.

[Annec]

17 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Wow. Just read that timeline. If it isn't about Castle, then many shows have the same fuckery BTS. But it does put a whole new light on things either way.

In complaining that there wasn't an outcry when Penny was fired expects that fans would 1) recognize a pattern with the first firing of a female actor rather than the third or fourth firing or 2) that "feminists" would complain about the firing of EVERY woman.  That isn't the definition of feminism.  Fans aren't upset because they don't think a minority or woman should ever be fired but that the character shouldn't be multi-dimensional because they are portrayed by a minority or woman.  Rather, there is a sense that the contributions of the women on Castle are being undervalued.  It seems that tptb have decided that women can be replaced (i.e. Stana and/or Beckett brought nothing unique to the show) but that Fillion and the other men are irreplaceable (a perception confirmed for many with Molly's "Nathan IS Castle" tweet).  Not that they want Seamus or Jon to be fired but rather that the team would be kept intact because it was the team that made Castle a success. 

The sexism charge didn't just start with Katic's firing either.  Many have complained all season about the trash talking about women that has been happening all season.  Phrases like "psycho bitch" "Hootchie mama" "sleazy blonde" and "buy some crotchless panties or get out" along with the orchestration of a woman on woman kiss by a man to make the man look better and played to satisfy prurient male interests.  Hawley and company have shown time and time again that they see women as little more than supporting cast to the men in their world. 

17 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Wow. Just read that timeline. If it isn't about Castle, then many shows have the same fuckery BTS. But it does put a whole new light on things either way.

I saw that timeline and think it is just ridiculous, completely made up, and apropos of nothing.

[verdana]

Eric Heisserer is married to Christine Boylan - who used to work on Castle.

[Annec]

24 minutes ago, TWP said:

And now, I defer to @HIGHZurrer over at Twitter, to maybe get some hints about what maybe actually happened.  Oh no, he isn't talking about a particular show, but the parallels of what we've actually seen are remarkable.

What parallels to Castle exactly? 

[WendyCR72]

4 minutes ago, Annec said:

I saw that timeline and think it is just ridiculous, completely made up, and apropos of nothing.

I don't. He's a writer. And I have zero doubt - on ANY show - that the egos get out of control. I think those tweets are truer than we'll EVER know.

Again, for ANY show, so I am not singling anyone out here.

[WendyCR72]

2 minutes ago, verdana said:

Eric Heisserer is married to Christine Boylan - who used to work on Castle.

Okay, that is...quite interesting.

[Emma]

3 minutes ago, verdana said:

Eric Heisserer is married to Christine Boylan - who used to work on Castle.

Wow. That rant just became even more interesting. 

[WendyCR72]

2 minutes ago, Annec said:

What parallels to Castle exactly? 

Like fans raging because how dare Beckett not be written in an episode and fuck the writers and NF and such... IS he talking about this show? Can't say. But he isn't wrong about some of the things he wrote.

[femmefan1946]

Over the last couple of seasons I've read words like, "demeaning", "sexist", "misogyny", "dumbing down" etc...when discussing the treatment of the Beckett character.  So what I see here is not just a love of Stana, but a love of a popular female lead character on a tv show being mistreated.

By much the same reasoning, the dumbing down of Castle, from an imaginative guy with a wide knowledge of popular culture, who enjoyed using that knowledge to solve cases (and to 'drive Beckett crazy') is also a mistreatment of a smart character.

Somewhere along the line, Beckett turned from a smart, driven woman to a Hollywood Hair cliche in designer jackets with no relationship to the reality of policing or even of crime.

Firing Penny to give Beckett an undeserved and badly used promotion to Captain was another reflection of this total misunderstanding of what was an interesting character. For that matter, if they wanted to keep Beckett as a real person, and not just a replacement for some teenybopper's favourite My Little Pony, they would have used Jim Beckett a lot more (recasting if necessary).

Was sexism involved? Probably. The writers couldn't figure out how to write a professional woman who did her job and did it well, so they resorted to cliches and high heels. They couldn't figure out how to write an adult sexual relationship, so they resorted to 'kissus interuptus' and booty calls. To my mind, that is as much part of sexism as is the choice to remove women from the cast willy nilly.

[WendyCR72]

1 minute ago, SweetTooth said:

Here's what my take has always been:

The two leads didn't get along. They each made demands. The writers had to go along with those demands.

I have no problem with that, and it wasn't the separation arc so much as the execution of the separation arc.

They could have made it a compelling story, but instead they chose to do it in the most illogical way possible and contradict themselves at every turn. 

"I must protect Castle by leaving him and separating."

Work together

Be seen in public together

Every small-town crook knows they're married and live together

I don't disagree in theory, but IF those tweets had anything to do with this show, I can't blame the writers for the mess if the network is so inept and they (the writers) have to deal with some new "problem" throwing everything into the shitter every other hour.

[Thak]

7 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Okay, that is...quite interesting.

Yes, just like Lynette Wich. 

[WendyCR72]

2 minutes ago, Thak said:

Yes, just like Lynette Wich. 

Well, you know what? It takes two to tango and one more for the truth. Fillion? No angel, I'm sure. But...neither is Katic. Everyone would be best served remembering neither actor may be like their character.

[KaveDweller]

30 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Wow. Just read that timeline. If it isn't about Castle, then many shows have the same fuckery BTS. But it does put a whole new light on things either way.

Sounds a lot like Sleepy Hollow too. 

The only thing that didn't sound like Castle is that he said leads never get 1 year contracts. Stana and Nathan both had one year extensions, and I guess the rest of the cast did too (hence the negotiations).

[WendyCR72]

4 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

Sounds a lot like Sleepy Hollow too. 

The only thing that didn't sound like Castle is that he said leads never get 1 year contracts. Stana and Nathan both had one year extensions, and I guess the rest of the cast did too (hence the negotiations).

Either way, as a writer, I'd end up in AA dealing with this bullshit as the norm.

[Castle75]

@HIGHzurrer has a connection to Castle. He is married to Christine Boylan. She actually wrote one of my faves - Dial M for Mayor.

[Thirteen]

If this is about Castle, isn't Fillion the lead and Katic the co-lead?

[WendyCR72]

1 minute ago, Thirteen said:

If this is about Castle, isn't Fillion the lead and Katic the co-lead?

Well, "co"-lead to me means "also", so Lead and Co-Lead can be interchangeable as both are on those DVD boxes. So hard to say. If it is even this show.

[Thak]

3 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Well, you know what? It takes two to tango and one more for the truth. Fillion? No angel, I'm sure. But...neither is Katic. Everyone would be best served remembering neither actor may be like their character.

Just speaking to a perceived double standard when it comes to legitimate former employees of Castle speaking out on twitter. 

[Thirteen]

I don't know how to quote someone, but per definition, if Fillion is number one on the call sheet, he's the lead, and number two on the call sheet, Katic, is the co-lead. It's very confusing.

[CheshireCat]

6 minutes ago, Thirteen said:

If this is about Castle, isn't Fillion the lead and Katic the co-lead?

Yeah, that's how I'd see them, too, and there are little things here and there which make me believe it's not specifically about Castle. (Kill lead, make it so lead can come back? Lead wants out to do movies? (even if we take under consideration that lead and co-lead are interchangeable, SK didn't have fewer hours until S8)) But maybe it's not about a specific show and he just threw together a hypothetical based on what he knows from a number of shows.

Edited May 9, 2016 by CheshireCat

[WendyCR72]

6 minutes ago, Thak said:

Just speaking to a perceived double standard when it comes to legitimate former employees of Castle speaking out on twitter. 

OK, but then where do we draw the line? Because the costume guy on FB also said Fillion as a bully was BS and Katic was no weakling. Ask ten people how a car wreck happened, you'll get 10 answers.

THAT SAID...writers do have to deal with egos, networks, and everything in between. So why lie about what he wrote?

[Thirteen]

He also said

 

Quote

Note that I am not talking about any one show, just the trend. This has now happened on FOUR shows that I know of recently.

[WendyCR72]

2 minutes ago, Thirteen said:

He also said [insert diatribe about 4 shows]

 

If this is the norm in the TV biz, cleaning toilets looks mighty appealing. And more peaceful.

[KaveDweller]

I think he probably was talking about more than one show, or combining issues from multiple shows. So Castle is likely one of them, but the story's been modified somewhat.

[CheshireCat]

1 minute ago, WendyCR72 said:

If this is the norm in the TV biz, cleaning toilets looks mighty appealing. And more peaceful.

As frightening as it is, I do believe the networks can be held accountable. Like most big cooperations, I would be surprised if it wasn't all about money with them. Since I believe that it is, they're willing to give actors what they want instead of telling the actor no, risk losing them and tying up a show that might still be doing okay. The thing is, if all networks started operating like that, actors would realize over time that once they committed it's either in or out. Maybe it would make some think twice about committing and maybe the networks wouldn't get the actors that they want. But I believe that with the right advertisement, networks can make people watch a show with unkown actors. I had never heard of Fillion or Katic before Castle. I had never heard of so many actors before I watched their respective TV shows and often times at least one of them is an unknown player anyway. And why not? As I said, I believe with the right advertisement, people will watch if the show is good.

Anyway, getting off-track here. My point is that if more established actors feel like they don't want to commit because they can't expect special treatment then others get the chance and might jump at the chance. And if networks tie up a show when one of the leads wants out after a while (I think there's a point up until the story can still be modified so that they can be written out anyway and a new character can be brought in without repercussions) then the fans are happy, all the fan products will be bought etc, etc.

But if you secretly give a sibling extra candy and the others find out, the others will want extra candy, too. So you can either comply or not and both puts you in a situation you don't want to be in. Simplest solution, no extra candy for anyone. Might be the way of the most resistance but there'll come a time when no one will be asking for extra candy anymore because they know it's not worth it.

[BlakesMomma]

I think lead and co-lead titles can be interchangeable despite their number on the call sheet. At least those wanting vengeance for Katic keep insisting she's one of two "leads" therefor either can be referred to as a lead.

Those tweets by Eric only seem to make sense for Castle if Katic is the one asking for more time off and being left out of episodes. 

[Annec]

45 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Like fans raging because how dare Beckett not be written in an episode and fuck the writers and NF and such... IS he talking about this show? Can't say. But he isn't wrong about some of the things he wrote.

I agree, this can happen on any show but folks posting it here are trying to make it about Castle.  So,  I'm just asking that they be clear rather than implying and running.

For instance, the fact that Stana was seen so little this season is easily explained by NF's stipulation that he not work with SK more than 2 days in the 8 day filming schedule.  As for Stana not appearing in "Cool Boys" and "GDS".  Seems clear that those episodes were meant to be NF's fun time with his FF cast mates and GDS was the teaser for Castle 2.0.  Much easier explanation than creating "hypotheticals" from nothing.  I'm not saying I know anything for sure but I am smart enough to look at what I've read and seen on screen to come to some logical conclusions about what is going on bts.

[Julia]

3 hours ago, HalcyonDays said:

madmaverick, this is one of the most beautiful, yet absolutely brilliant posts I have read here or anywhere, concerning today's "fandom". Honestly, this should be published on ALL TV-focused media sites.

Seriously - it is a fantastic and spot-on analysis.

That fandom is out of control because people aren't giving Donald Trump a fair shake?

[Sonik Tooth]

23 minutes ago, Annec said:

I agree, this can happen on any show but folks posting it here are trying to make it about Castle.  So,  I'm just asking that they be clear rather than implying and running.

For instance, the fact that Stana was seen so little this season is easily explained by NF's stipulation that he not work with SK more than 2 days in the 8 day filming schedule.  As for Stana not appearing in "Cool Boys" and "GDS".  Seems clear that those episodes were meant to be NF's fun time with his FF cast mates and GDS was the teaser for Castle 2.0.  Much easier explanation than creating "hypotheticals" from nothing.  I'm not saying I know anything for sure but I am smart enough to look at what I've read and seen on screen to come to some logical conclusions about what is going on bts.

I can’t say anything about Nathan’s stipulations for this season as I’m not familiar with them, but even a 2 days filming together combo doesn’t explain less screen time for Stana. There have been plenty of scenes neither Nathan nor Stana had been in.

Can’t argue with FF fun times, but he had FF fun times before and after with Stana in the episode. GDS, YMMV, but if that was another pitch for Castle P.I., they didn’t do a good job (and I like Castle P.I.). I saw it more as getting involved in the mandatory COTW without the 12th precinct.

[Cyranetta]

No matter what the cause(s) of the debacle, one thing that concerns me is that it makes another show with the blend of romance/intrigue/comedy possibly less likely. Why would a network want to commit to a new series when they can slot "Castle" into "Moonlighting Curse" file and conclude that procedurals need to stay procedurals, comedies pratfall and "frat-fall" style, and romance to be avoided.

[chraume]

1 minute ago, Sonik Tooth said:

I can’t say anything about Nathan’s stipulations for this season as I’m not familiar with them, but even a 2 days filming together combo doesn’t explain less screen time for Stana. There have been plenty of scenes neither Nathan nor Stana had been in.

Can’t argue with FF fun times, but he had FF fun times before and after with Stana in the episode. GDS, YMMV, but if that was another pitch for Castle P.I., they didn’t do a good job (and I like Castle P.I.). I saw it more as getting involved in the mandatory COTW without the 12th precinct.

Exactly what I was going to say. I don't have any illusions of knowing what's going on BTS, but all of those Espo/Ryan scenes could've easily been rearranged to include Beckett. And the entire precinct subplot in GDS would have been more or less the same with the inclusion of her character. Maybe the writers are looking to intentionally write her out -- who knows? Maybe it's because Fillion's so hell-bent on being the star that he pressured them to write her out of entire eps. But I think it's hard to point at what you've seen onscreen and say that the conclusion you come to is the most logical one, 'cause honestly, there's probably a dozen equally-logical conclusions that can come from it. 

I don't, personally, think it's out of the realm of possibility that Katic asked for reduced screentime this year, and got it. Seems more likely to me personally than saying the writers couldn't figure out a way to include Beckett in a couple of eps, which still included Ryan, Espo, and Lanie, independently of Castle. But that's the thing -- we can't bank on hypotheticals, either. I think the reality is that everyone will come to their own conclusions, but no one will ever really know the truth.

[KaveDweller]

9 minutes ago, Sonik Tooth said:

I can’t say anything about Nathan’s stipulations for this season as I’m not familiar with them, but even a 2 days filming together combo doesn’t explain less screen time for Stana. There have been plenty of scenes neither Nathan nor Stana had been in.

It kind of does though (assuming that stipulation actually exists, which may or may not be the case). There's a five day week. They shoot together two days. That means only one of them can be present  for each of the other three days. So one of them can be there on one and the other on two, and that gives the later more screen time in a particular week. Of course this is assuming that days counts as actual days on set versus the equivalent number of hours.

45 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

Anyway, getting off-track here. My point is that if more established actors feel like they don't want to commit because they can't expect special treatment then others get the chance and might jump at the chance. And if networks tie up a show when one of the leads wants out after a while (I think there's a point up until the story can still be modified so that they can be written out anyway and a new character can be brought in without repercussions) then the fans are happy, all the fan products will be bought etc, etc.

Actors do have a lot of power though. How To Get Away With Murder has an abbreviated season because Viola Davis would only sign for that much. I'm sure ABC would love to have a full 22 episodes of one of their hits, but I guess they want Viola more. Neither Nathan nor Stana are at her level.

I think it should be noted that the different scenarios being tossed around can both be true. Nathan only wanting to film two days with her doesn't mean Stana didn't also ask for reduced screen time, and vice versa. We probably won't know anything for sure until years after the show ends. I hope this board is still around when/if someone ever writes a tell all book.

[Betweenthisandthat]

I don't know if Eric Heisserer was talking specifically about Castle or the two leads involved.  The point I take away is that there are a number of things that can happen behind the scenes that fans don't know about and critics don't write about because bias takes over.  There is sexism on television, along with racism, and various forms of discrimination. I'll never argue about that because I've seen a few instances of that blatantly this season, and I've given up on shows because of it.

Castle is different.  I pass by this thread when I'm bored and what to indulge in a little drama that I'm not part of, but it doesn't seem like many or anyone has any facts to support whether Katic or Fillion is the villain of this scenario.  Katic and Fillion are pretty silent.  The show runners are too for now.  The network hasn't said anything much. There are shows that treat their female leads badly; this season has had too many shows dispose of their female characters.  Sometimes that removal comes with support of a fandom that claims to be feminist and supportive of women.  Other times there has been uproar, which was deserved.  This Castle case feels harder to have an opinion about, but an interesting opportunity to see bias at work when there's an absence of facts.  

Quote

I think it's hard to point at what you've seen onscreen and say that the conclusion you come to is the most logical one, 'cause honestly, there's probably a dozen equally-logical conclusions that can come from it. 

I agree.  All there seems to be are appearances, and when that's all you have, even using your eyes and your brain can lead to the wrong conclusion.  It might lead to the right one, too, but who knows at this point?

[Thirteen]

As I said before, per definition, lead and co-lead aren't interchangeable titles.

I agree that this guy has a lot of shows mixed up in his rant otherwise it isn't about Castle. If Katic had wanted to leave the show as Eric implies, the network wouldn't have used budgetary reasons to let her go and Katic's rep wouldn't have rushed to claim that it wasn't her decision to leave. They would have released a joint statement instead.

[CheshireCat]

2 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

 

Actors do have a lot of power though.

They only have the power because they are given the power though. The network decides who gets how much power and if you give away power it always leads to complications whether it's with a network or with candy. 

[WendyCR72]

2 minutes ago, Thirteen said:

I agree that this guy has a lot of shows mixed up in his rant otherwise it isn't about Castle.

To be fair, we don't know. He said he was talking about four shows. Which is depressing in itself. But it doesn't exclude any show as far as I can tell.

Let E! resurrect "True Hollywood Story" and dish the dirt on this show in the years to come, I say.

[Sonik Tooth]

3 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

It kind of does though (assuming that stipulation actually exists, which may or may not be the case). There's a five day week. They shoot together two days. That means only one of them can be present  for each of the other three days. So one of them can be there on one and the other on two, and that gives the later more screen time in a particular week. Of course this is assuming that days counts as actual days on set versus the equivalent number of hours.

I agree. But that would mean even screen time for both of them. But annec was refering to Stana's diminished screen time which was caused by the 2 day stipulation. But as you pointed out, and what I was trying (and failing to transport in my first post), they could have had even screen time over the course of the season. 

[chraume]

16 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

It kind of does though (assuming that stipulation actually exists, which may or may not be the case). There's a five day week. They shoot together two days. That means only one of them can be present  for each of the other three days. So one of them can be there on one and the other on two, and that gives the later more screen time in a particular week. Of course this is assuming that days counts as actual days on set versus the equivalent number of hours.

 

Oh, I'm not arguing that Katic had less screentime than Fillion this season -- she for sure did. Just that the amount of her screentime can't be explained exclusively by that alleged two-day clause. Lots of scenes this season with neither lead in them, and Katic could have easily been incorporated there as needed. Same with the eps without Beckett entirely. Either the writers don't want to write for Beckett, or she asked for reduced screentime, or there's a third (or fourth or fifth or seventeenth) option that nobody's thought of yet, or any combination of those.

Quote

I think it should be noted that the different scenarios being tossed around can both be true. Nathan only wanting to film two days with her doesn't mean Stana didn't also ask for reduced screen time, and vice versa. We probably won't know anything for sure until years after the show ends. I hope this board is still around when/if someone ever writes a tell all book.

I do think it's some combination of the two. Out of everyone in this situation, Katic is the one who's come out looking the best -- the writers are being accused of writing her out, Fillion/network's been accused of pushing her out, rest of the cast are crucified for not dropping the show. And good on her; I think she'll do some really excellent indie movies, and will have the benefit of the Castle fandom backing her or, at the very least, not blaming her for the show's downfall. But I do think that the situation's so complex that, as cut-and-dry as the BTS situation looks now, we've only seen a tiny little fraction of what actually went down. And I can't wait for the tell-all book. 

[Thak]

1 hour ago, WendyCR72 said:

OK, but then where do we draw the line? Because the costume guy on FB also said Fillion as a bully was BS and Katic was no weakling. Ask ten people how a car wreck happened, you'll get 10 answers.

THAT SAID...writers do have to deal with egos, networks, and everything in between. So why lie about what he wrote?

 

For the record, although Lynette Wich had some pretty nasty things to say about Nathan, when asked about the bullying behaviour she said she didn't peg him as a bully, other things yes, but not a bully.

As far as Stana not being a weakling, I agree, don't think she is, never have, in fact I think she is a very strong woman, one that might make some men insecure/threatened.

I don't think this Eric Heisserer or Lynette Wich are lying.  One was talking specifically about Castle and Nathan, the other one was talking about many different things on 4 different shows, nothing specific.

[KaveDweller]

2 minutes ago, Sonik Tooth said:

I agree. But that would mean even screen time for both of them. But annec was refering to Stana's diminished screen time which was caused by the 2 day stipulation. But as you pointed out, and what I was trying (and failing to transport in my first post), they could have had even screen time over the course of the season. 

 

7 minutes ago, chraume said:

Oh, I'm not arguing that Katic had less screentime than Fillion this season -- she for sure did. Just that the amount of her screentime can't be explained exclusively by that alleged two-day clause. Lots of scenes this season with neither lead in them, and Katic could have easily been incorporated there as needed. Same with the eps without Beckett entirely. Either the writers don't want to write for Beckett, or she asked for reduced screentime, or there's a third (or fourth or fifth or seventeenth) option that nobody's thought of yet, or any combination of those.

Well without knowing the shooting schedule, it's hard to know how easy it would have been to write Stana in to more scenes. I'm sure it was a combination of factors, but if that stipulation really existed, it would definitely have a big impact on her screentime.

[CheshireCat]

5 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

 

Well without knowing the shooting schedule, it's hard to know how easy it would have been to write Stana in to more scenes. I'm sure it was a combination of factors, but if that stipulation really existed, it would definitely have a big impact on her screentime.

But so would the fact that she may have asked for a raise and instead of giving her a raise/equal pay, the studio/network decided to reduce her hours. In which case neither NF nor SK would be responsible.

We saw that she had less screen time. Why is a whole other matter though and we have heard about three potential reasons which could all be the cause (NF's demand, her asking for more time off, reduced hours instead of equal pay). Either of those could actually be the cause or there's another reason we haven't heard about.

Edited May 9, 2016 by CheshireCat

[BlakesMomma]

1 hour ago, Annec said:

I agree, this can happen on any show but folks posting it here are trying to make it about Castle.  So,  I'm just asking that they be clear rather than implying and running.

For instance, the fact that Stana was seen so little this season is easily explained by NF's stipulation that he not work with SK more than 2 days in the 8 day filming schedule.  As for Stana not appearing in "Cool Boys" and "GDS".  Seems clear that those episodes were meant to be NF's fun time with his FF cast mates and GDS was the teaser for Castle 2.0.  Much easier explanation than creating "hypotheticals" from nothing.  I'm not saying I know anything for sure but I am smart enough to look at what I've read and seen on screen to come to some logical conclusions about what is going on bts.

But it seems to me you're looking at this new information and trying to make it fit your already decided good guy/bad guy scenario which really is based on what you've assumed from not much fact, just your interpretation of what you've seen on screen.

Another way of looking at it ---- So many fans commented on and were convinced that Katic seemed less invested and wanting to leave and do other things during S7, so maybe she's the one who asked for reduced time during that season to try movies and then got "cranky, making things tough for everyone else".  Which THEN lead to Fillion asking for only 2 days working with her in S8 contracts (never really confirmed as fact).  But then Katic comes into S8 negotiations with doctors note for reduced time leading to her actual reduced S8 screen time and the episodes without her.  So that explains why they didn't write her in more Ryan/Esposito scenes, and the Cool Boys/GDS episodes were written BECAUSE of her request also.  If the writers had to exclude her from a couple episodes, then THEY decide to do another Slaughter episode and the GDS episode to try and compensate for Katic's absence.

The thing is --- I don't think every detail has to fit Castle in this case since he says it's about at least 4 shows, but someone can try and make anything fit their preferred version if they've already decided their own good guy/bad guy labels in this mess.

[chraume]

21 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

 

Well without knowing the shooting schedule, it's hard to know how easy it would have been to write Stana in to more scenes. I'm sure it was a combination of factors, but if that stipulation really existed, it would definitely have a big impact on her screentime.

That's fair. I think back specifically to S6, when Fillion allegedly threw a fit and demanded a day off every week, and all of a sudden Beckett was doing all of her interrogation scenes solo. He still had a reasonable amount of time off per ep this season (he definitely has more, but I think it's typically been in the 25 mins/ep range?) so I think Beckett could've been incorporated better, but, for sure, the shooting schedule is a big question mark. Regardless, I definitely wouldn't want to be whomever had to do the scheduling this season haha. 

Sorry, didn't mean to sideline the conversation. I mean, huge parts of Heisserer's rant don't apply to Castle at all (especially given that there was no letting anyone out of their contract, which seems to be what the hypothetical was contingent upon), but the "leads getting episodes off" bit did stick with me, only because, in my admittedly-limited television watching, I don't know another show where that's happened without some explanation (which is usually pregnancy). But honestly? There are so many conflicting stories out there, and people seem to be interpreting each of them as either/or, that any explanation seems plausible. 

Oh, I'll also add, re: Heisserer's credibility: take it with a grain of salt, but he was the first person (I think?), way back in October, to mention the two day/ep thing. Still posed as a hypothetical, but this was long before it was patently clear that we weren't getting more than a handful of minutes of Caskett screentime per ep, and he mentioned something about the writers manufacturing the storyline around the constraints. But, again, he seems well-connected and has gotten responses from a lot of different writers today (including a nice chunk of his tweets liked by Chad Gomez Creasey), so honestly he could be talking about any and every show.

Edited May 9, 2016 by chraume