Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[verdana]

Every night in my dreams, I see you, I feeeeeel you......

Okay I'll stop now poor Wendy. 

[BellyLaughter]

26 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

Maybe they should call S9 Castle: Titanic.

The life rafts are all gone. So are the jackets.

With Nathan standing out the front - arms spread wide - declaring he's the King of the World ;)

[verdana]

4 minutes ago, BellyLaughter said:

With Nathan standing out the front - arms spread wide - declaring he's the King of the World ;)

But in true Castle pratfall fashion a seagull then shits in his eye and he loses his balance and goes overboard. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by verdana

[BellyLaughter]

4 minutes ago, verdana said:

But in true Castle pratfall fashion a seagull then shits in his eye and he loses his balance and goes overboard. 

LMAO!!!!!

 

I still have hope for my Benny Hill theme music wish!!! Yes??

[verdana]

I can hear it playing now...along with Celine in my head.

What a combination lol.

[westwingfan]

2 hours ago, verdana said:

Christine Roum hasn't gone yet, pity or Bowman if they were seriously cost cutting I would have thought he'd be given his marching orders. 

But don't forget he is very economical when he is filming, must save them bundles on electricity for lighting.

[westwingfan]

2 hours ago, Nadine said:

Like Kidnapped! S9 it could still happen.  On a side note, not only have they lost writers/actors, they've also lost producers in the process. From the ones announced.

• Hanning (Executive Producer)
• Adler (Supervising Producer)
• Creasey (Supervising Producer)
• Katic (Producer)

It seems the "clean slate" the showrunners were talking about has extended to the writers' room. Christine Roum doesn't have a twitter account so her fate is unknown but all the other writers with pre S8 experience, apart from the two showrunners are now leaving. Writers have come and  gone in the past but I don't recall a virual clean sweep of those who had previous season experience leaving en bloc like this before. Is there such a thing as coincidence, all of them were brought on board during Marlowe's reign of course.

[westwingfan]

Is this the face of Loksat? His character is listed as "Mr Flynn"

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0715915/?ref_=nv_sr_1

This is the guy who features in the promo and says that "Kate Beckett will be dead by the end of the night and there is nothing you can do about it"

[oberon55]

This may be completely wrong but if they are really only doing 13 episodes wouldn't they be able to get by with fewer writers. How many episodes does each writer do in a typical 22 episode season?

[westwingfan]

Good point, missed the obvious LOL

That leaves Hawley, Winter, O'Brien, Bella, Hicks, Kiu, Zebede and possibly Roum, who wrote 15 out of the 22 episodes this season, so just another opportunity to save on the budget, especially as Hanning was an Executive Producer.

[oberon55]

This is sort of like the off season in television. The quicker they let them go the more chance they have to sign with someone else. It would not surprise me that the more well known writers wanted to leave.

[TWP]

1 minute ago, oberon55 said:

This is sort of like the off season in television. The quicker they let them go the more chance they have to sign with someone else. It would not surprise me that the more well known writers wanted to leave.

It seems pretty common for good writers to find better opportunities when the future of a show is uncertain. I'm not surprised about how many are leaving. And Castle has time to pick up some new ones if needed for next short? season.

[verdana]

2 hours ago, westwingfan said:

Is this the face of Loksat? His character is listed as "Mr Flynn"

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0715915/?ref_=nv_sr_1

This is the guy who features in the promo and says that "Kate Beckett will be dead by the end of the night and there is nothing you can do about it"

At this point it doesn't matter who they drag in as Locksat I won't care, they have miserably failed on every conceivable level to develop this story properly. 

God that line is so clunky, I hope they paid these actors extra for saying this turgid crap.

[TWP]

41 minutes ago, verdana said:

At this point it doesn't matter who they drag in as Locksat I won't care, they have miserably failed on every conceivable level to develop this story properly. 

God that line is so clunky, I hope they paid these actors extra for saying this turgid crap.

As an FU to the super loyal fans, I think it was brilliantly written. I've been amazed at ABC'S (won't say showrunner, thx  Eric) insistence on punching the fans, but with that line, it got downright slapstixical.

Honestly, I fell off my chair laughing. I'm definitely watching next season to see how many blows they can throw at the remaining viewers. ABC really doesn't care about the fans' feelings.

Edited May 10, 2016 by TWP

[TWP]

I'm starting to think one of the big players Eric was referring to wasn't Castle, but Mike and Molly.  It's cancelled, even though the ratings are fantastic by current standards and the cast including McCarthy, said they were willing to come back.  Makes loads of sense.  McCarthy has an amazing movie career, which probably makes it super difficult to schedule her for her TV show.  CBS is making an example of her or something? They don't want all their popular cast to make their lives hell.

[Kromm]

13 minutes ago, TWP said:

I'm starting to think one of the big players Eric was referring to wasn't Castle, but Mike and Molly.  It's cancelled, even though the ratings are fantastic by current standards and the cast including McCarthy, said they were willing to come back.  Makes loads of sense.  McCarthy has an amazing movie career, which probably makes it super difficult to schedule her for her TV show.  CBS is making an example of her or something? They don't want all their popular cast to make their lives hell.

What happened to the rumor that CBS didn't want her back because she isn't fat anymore?

That said, the ratings for it dipped just as much as everything else on CBS, so who knows what might have happened anyway?  

But really, to bring this back to a comparison to Castle.. one might argue that since Molly's name is in the titles, you couldn't simply replace her. That said, ending the show if she wasn't going to be in it, for whatever reason, seems like unlike ABC the folks at CBS are interested in protecting the show rep. overall. Or wait. Things aren't syndicated the way they used to be years ago, or even have organized home video releases now, so actually... maybe it's more about CBS not wanting to look desperate and foolish trying to extend a show (something ABC apparently doesn't care about on their side). Then again, there's Two and a Half Men, where they did the very opposite...

Edited May 10, 2016 by Kromm

[westwingfan]

Mitovich reckons the renewal announcement will come before the finale airs, because the finale will reveal the decision, and TPW earlier said this, “Basically we have to deliver an episode on the Friday before we air, and it’s up to ABC to tell us which one that is.” So we could be hearing the news on Friday 13th.  

[CheshireCat]

17 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

Mitovich reckons the renewal announcement will come before the finale airs, because the finale will reveal the decision, and TPW earlier said this, “Basically we have to deliver an episode on the Friday before we air, and it’s up to ABC to tell us which one that is.” So we could be hearing the news on Friday 13th.  

How poetic :-P (all the websites are milking this thing, aren't they? No one has news but they're writing about it)

[TWP]

23 minutes ago, Kromm said:

But really, to bring this back to a comparison to Castle.. one might argue that since Molly's name is in the titles, you couldn't simply replace her.

She claimed she wanted to do it.  They wouldn't have had to replace her.

[madmaverick]

Have to admit I found that promo a little depressing... but I'm resigned to accepting come what may.  Where there's life, there's hope.  We'll see if that holds true. ;)

How quick did TV Line jump in with yet another clickbait article with that promo? ;)  Castle fans must be making them rich.  I'm going to try  and avoid all articles which will provide exactly zero content on whether Beckett lives or dies.

I did, however, peruse the Alias retrospective at TV Line, and one funny, if not surprising, tidbit from it was that all the actors basically said they had no clue about the Rambaldi mythology (their Locksat equivalent except it went on for 5 seasons) and had no idea what they were saying when they were saying those lines.  I imagine it's much the same for the Castle actors when it comes to Locksat, or even the more convoluted COTWs.  I still think Marlowe's Linchpin was a load of crap.  Just glad it was only for one episode and not one season.

Watched The Good Wife finale and while it's a different show to Castle, there was food for thought.  It's probably quite impossible to craft a universally well received finale.  There was definitely a contingent of TGW fans who wanted the 'happy ending' for the protagonist (and her man) and felt 'betrayed' by the perceived lack of closure and the kind of person the protagonist had become in the end.  They wanted a happy ending, an uplifting story for their female protagonist as someone they could root for, not someone with murkier characterisation who had alienated most of her friends.  Others were fine with an ambiguous, more unsettling kind of ending which they saw as more true to the character and more true to the messiness of real life where actions do have real costs.  The writers chose to stick to their always envisaged ending of the show rather than to engage in any 'fan service' that might have invited less backlash from fans.

I don't know whether most Castle viewers come to the show looking for 'real' or for fantasy, or a mixture of both.  Most seem to feel that a happy ending for Caskett was always part of the deal from Day 1 and that is why there are feelings of betrayal if we don't get that.  But to play devil's advocate, if we look at Beckett's characterisation, her need for justice has always been a strong motivating force for her character, as strong as, if not more so, than her personal needs for love.  She certainly seemed to prioritise justice over her marriage this season.  Not saying I thought that was a choice that made sense or was right for the character at the time, but it was one chosen by the writers.  She may have changed her mind about keeping Castle out of it for his own good but she doesn't appear to have regretted her choice to pursue Locksat, whatever the cost.  Following that choice, with all its dangers that she was well aware of and yet still chose to pursue, if we do unfortunately get a 'tragic ending' to an 'epic love story', is it so impossible to make sense of it?  This is looking at it from a purely fictional level within the confines of the show, outside of any real life contract issues.

[Annec]

15 hours ago, madmaverick said:

 

13 hours ago, asp said:

Reading this thread is far more entertaining than the last 4 sesons of Castle.

I'd never heard of either Fillion or Katic before this show, but like many of you I fell in love with Caskett, so I am devastated by the news.  

I'm not going into the BTS debacle since I have no reliable sources on which to base my opinions, but I do blame writers for some of their choices,

After all "Cops and Robbers", one of the top episodes of all seasons had very few moments  with the two leads together. Couldn't subsequent writers come up with equally creative ideas? 

Yes, "Cops and Robbers" and "Heartbreak Hotel" both had minimal Caskett time but you didn't notice because it made sense for the stories.  BTS issues could have been written around if that is what they wanted.  To me it appears that they wanted to reduce the importance of Beckett to the show and season 9 was one long effort to make that happen.

But, these show runners, and many of the new writers, just aren't capable of that level of story development.

[TWP]

I think what the network and showrunners want is an ending that people talk about.  They could care less if it's happy.  We need to always keep that in mind when we go into a new show.  PTB don't feel they owe viewers anything.

[CheshireCat]

Just now, TWP said:

I think what the network and showrunners want is an ending that people talk about.  They could care less if it's happy.  We need to always keep that in mind when we go into a new show.  PTB don't feel they owe viewers anything.

Yeah, they'd be out of a job without viewers but who cares about the little details in life, right? ;-)

[madmaverick]

1 minute ago, TWP said:

I think what the network and showrunners want is an ending that people talk about.  They could care less if it's happy.  We need to always keep that in mind when we go into a new show.  PTB don't feel they owe viewers anything.

At the end of the day, it's their creation so it's their right to craft the ending they choose.  Just sometimes, or often heh ;), the way they perceive the story and the characters as it was envisaged or as it has evolved is different to that of the fans.  Then also fans don't always want the same things so you can get lost trying to please everybody instead of yourself. 

[TWP]

5 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

Yeah, they'd be out of a job without viewers but who cares about the little details in life, right? ;-)

They'll throw a few bones to get viewers hooked, but once we're on board anything goes.  People have put up with a whole lot of bogus nonsense from the TV shows they watch.  It's because the networks know they can get away with it. 

Once they've got us, we cease to matter.

Edited May 10, 2016 by TWP

[TWP]

3 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

At the end of the day, it's their creation so it's their right to craft the ending they choose.  Just sometimes, or often heh ;), the way they perceive the story and the characters as it was envisaged or as it has evolved is different to that of the fans.  Then also fans don't always want the same things so you can get lost trying to please everybody instead of yourself. 

I will still hold, though, that there exists a realm of possibilities that would at least somewhat satisfy most fans while not requiring the exec writers to deviate too much from their desired plots...that is, if they felt any responsibility at all to the audience. 

[Kromm]

1 minute ago, TWP said:

I think what the network and showrunners want is an ending that people talk about.  They could care less if it's happy.  We need to always keep that in mind when we go into a new show.  PTB don't feel they owe viewers anything.

I think there's been a shift perhaps.

Think about it. Even as recently as 3-4 years ago, you'd have an expectation that a TV series would perhaps have to protect it's legacy, because at the very least you'd have to sell home video release. 

As recently as a 6-7 years ago, you might also have some concern about future broadcasts of a show. You'd have to go back another whole generation to really think in terms of something like syndication. but even as late as 2010 or so, you might have to engage in a battle to sell it somewhere.

Now, with the combination of on demand and permanent streaming services that's all gone. Forever. Either the distributor (like the network) keeps the rights to the show for it's own long term streaming catalog, or there's some deal in place from the get-go where the producing studio bundles it with it's own other properties. So it becomes a big part of someone's catalog either way, and there's really no need to protect a show legacy with the same fervor.

IMO the shift this likely already is causing is indeed less concern about ending something with dignity or consistency, but instead milking it.   They don't run the risk of ruining the future marketability of something, because as I said, for most shows they're simply going to be tucked under an umbrella anyway for their post-broadcast fate.
 

Ironically, the products now least likely to be subject to this are the NEW products made by the streaming services themselves, which make deals on a season by season approval process. Netflix and Amazon are more concerned about the integrity of their own products, because they have an overall rep. for "only quality original content" they now want to protect.

So yeah. The network wanting to lamely extend Castle should be no surprise to anyone paying attention to trends. Although as I've said elsewhere, even there we seem to see lots of differences between individual networks/exec and circumstances. I mean nobody at CBS even bothered to try and extend Mike & Molly when they realized that they weren't going to be getting the same show with a somewhat disengaged (more invested in her movie career), not as fat female lead.

[madmaverick]

3 minutes ago, TWP said:

I will still hold, though, that there exists a realm of possibilities that would at least somewhat satisfy most fans while not requiring the exec writers to deviate too much from their desired plots...that is, if they felt any responsibility at all to the audience. 

I would agree with that.  And ideally, the story you're trying to tell should be the one the audience is receiving.  If there's a disconnect in understanding or expectations, writers need to reevaluate.  The worse thing is when showrunners are condescending and think they know better than the audience what the audience wants.  Um, no, the audience may see things differently from the writers but they are perfectly capable of knowing what they like/don't like about a show.

TGW creators wrote a letter to fans after the finale.  I wonder if we'll hear from Hawley & TPW at all though I think any letter from them would just get tomatoes thrown at them at this point, and they've never been very articulate at getting their message across. ;)  Nor was Marlowe much better.  Funny how many of these writers aren't very good communicators.  Actors seem better at that. 

[Mom x 3]

This is what I am picturing:

The guy says, "Kate Beckett is going to die....blah, blah...."
Then he cracks up, says "Whoops, sorry Rick.  Try that again."
"Nikki Heat is going to die, and there is nothing you can do about it."

I would laugh my ass off if they turned the Kate Beckett/Nikki Heat story into one of those sappy Lifetime movies.  

[CheshireCat]

24 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

I would agree with that.  And ideally, the story you're trying to tell should be the one the audience is receiving.  If there's a disconnect in understanding or expectations, writers need to reevaluate.  The worse thing is when showrunners are condescending and think they know better than the audience what the audience wants.  Um, no, the audience may see things differently from the writers but they are perfectly capable of knowing what they like/don't like about a show.

And, frankly, who cares if the writers think they know better what the audience wants? Technically, the audience is the customer and they are selling the Merchandise, so you do what the customer wants. That's, at least, how it used to work. Customer is king. I can try to steer the customer away from their conviction, however, as a seller, I should never tell the customer outright that I know better. And if I realize that the customer sticks to their convictions, then I'll sell them what they want.

 

Quote

TGW creators wrote a letter to fans after the finale.  I wonder if we'll hear from Hawley & TPW at all

We haven't heard from them after Katic's exit, so if we hear from them, the only thing we'll probably hear is how they've wanted to end the finale in a fun way or something along the lines.

 

27 minutes ago, Kromm said:

 

Now, with the combination of on demand and permanent streaming services that's all gone. Forever. Either the distributor (like the network) keeps the rights to the show for it's own long term streaming catalog, or there's some deal in place from the get-go where the producing studio bundles it with it's own other properties. So it becomes a big part of someone's catalog either way, and there's really no need to protect a show legacy with the same fervor.

IMO the shift this likely already is causing is indeed less concern about ending something with dignity or consistency, but instead milking it.   They don't run the risk of ruining the future marketability of something, because as I said, for most shows they're simply going to be tucked under an umbrella anyway for their post-broadcast fate.

While I agree with you, I do wonder if they may have miscalculated with Castle. There are several comments out there which state that an unhappy ending (split, death etc) will have ruined the show and that they a) won't buy S8 DVDs, b) won't buy another Nikki Heat book if there was another, c) will throw out their DVDs/delete the episodes from their computer and d) won't watch reruns because every "Always" and everything which refers to the love story would be a joke and leave a bitter taste in case of an unhappy ending.

I won't be throwing out anything just yet and if there was another Nikki Heat book I'd probably buy it if the relationship of Rook and Heat was still going strong because then I could pretend that's what Castle's and Beckett's relationship currently looks like. However, I also know that it'll be a long, long time before I could watch any old episodes and not think about the "if only"/the tragic way in which the relationship ended if it does end tragic.

I don't know how many of those who will do any of the above are out there, but ABC could possibly lose a lot more than just viewers for a potential S9 if the love story ends unhappily.

Edited May 10, 2016 by CheshireCat

[FlickerToAFlame]

I got $50 on eBay for my seasons 1-7 Castle DVDs and, barring a crazy turnaround, have no plans to watch it ever again beyond next week. 

[Kromm]

1 minute ago, FlickerToAFlame said:

I got $50 on eBay for my seasons 1-7 Castle DVDs and, barring a crazy turnaround, have no plans to watch it ever again beyond next week. 

 

4 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

While I agree with you, I do wonder if they may have miscalculated with Castle. There are several comments out there which state that an unhappy ending (split, death etc) will have ruined the dhow and that they a) won't buy S8 DVDs, b) won't buy another Nikki Heat book if there was another, c) will throw out their DVDs/delete their downloads and d) won't watch reruns because every "Always" and everything which refers to the "love story" would have been a joke in case of an unhappy ending.

I won't be throwing out anything just yet and if there was another Nikki Heat book I'd probably buy it if the relationship of Rook and Heat was still going strong because then I could pretend that's what Castle's and Beckett's relationship currently looks like. However, I also know that it'll be a long, long time before I could watch any old episodes and not think about the "if only"/the tragic way in which the relationship ended if it does end tragic.

I don't know how many of those who will do any of the above are out there, but ABC could possibly lose a lot more than just viewers for a potential S9 if the love story ends unhappily.

My point is that people were unlikely to buy TV show DVDs now ANYWAY. The whole idea is somewhat dead now that streaming exists, and the big players in streaming all sell their programming in a package format rather than show by show (the big exception is iTunes, and the TV-episode end of iTunes is their one big failure in terms of people using it). And that's also how the Netflix, Amazon, Hulu etc. get their content too--as part of a package. People souring on a specific show no longer has the same impact, because most of the cash-generating future of shows is being part of an overall catalog of shows licensed to a streaming service. Nobody's counting on selling TV show DVDs or box sets anymore.

I don't know if enough books are being sold for the loss of sales to those to create enough fan pressure to be important, but admittedly it's a unique factor here to be considered.  That kind of cross-over merchandise doesn't exist for most TV shows.

[Betweenthisandthat]

Quote

And, frankly, who cares if the writers think they know better what the audience wants? Technically, the audience is the customer and they are selling the Merchandise, so you do what the customer wants. That's, at least, how it used to work. Customer is king. I can try to steer the customer away from their conviction, however, as a seller, I should never tell the customer outright that I know better. And if I realize that the customer sticks to their convictions, then I'll sell them what they want.

The idea of the viewer as king, like the customer being king, is interesting.  This is show business, and it seems that like any business, the customer is always right.  But then that's to strip all and any artistic creativity and vision from show business entirely.  The viewer gets to choose the ending she wants, so what's the use of the writer if the viewer gets to write the story?  Especially if it's a combination of the writer, producers, cast, crew and network that introduces the story for the viewers in the first place?  I don't know the answers to these questions, but giving complete control to the viewer is as equally troubling as leaving it in the hands of writers or networks that disregard the viewer.  Also, which viewers get to dictate what a show should do if its fandom has diverse wants and needs?  With Castle, the viewers' desires seem simpler: Caskett is what sells.  Although as a former viewer, what hooked me was the writing element of the story.  That we saw crimes from a literary point of view, and that's gone, and with it and the rise of Caskett, I become less interested.  My desires were ignored for those who seemed to want something else.  There are shows I've recently given up on because its writers decided to choose one set of vocal online fans over the desires of others, and the show began to feel like fanservice.  

That's not to say that the network is doing it right with Castle now, but no show does well when it totally disregards its viewers and its writers' creative vision, right?  The problem with Castle seems to be it's not satisfying its customer and lacks creative vision, some would argue.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Betweenthisandthat

[westwingfan]

2 hours ago, TWP said:

I think what the network and showrunners want is an ending that people talk about.  They could care less if it's happy.  We need to always keep that in mind when we go into a new show.  PTB don't feel they owe viewers anything.

The ending to "The Killing" trilogy was pretty mind blowing, but that was a much a darker show. This is what I have a job understanding with the ending it appears we should expect for S8, with Beckett left dying, when the show has predominently been a light hearted romp up to now, and he who's name I can't spell right classed the show as a comedy, and presumably will be joking and pranking his way through S9 as if he's never lost the love of his life, and that scene after he got her back in Reckoning was a total sham. Killing Beckett surely turns their love story into a tragedy almost on a par with Romeo and Juliet, what, I'm not allowed to quote the Bard, and that is why I'll take Sherwood's advice and consider Hollander's Woods as my series finale, because if you sit through those first seven seasons to get to the point 7x23 leaves them and then in the next season Beckett dies and then after that Castle resurrects his playful personna, it would just seem to much of a jolt. It was almost as if Hawley was given the remit to forget about the original premise and try and set up a replacement show focussed on Castle P.I., his supersleuth daughter and irritating new sidekick that could carve out a new audience for a bit longer.

Edited May 10, 2016 by westwingfan

[madmaverick]

To be fair, we don't yet have confirmation of a next season yet and until we see it on the screen (except for those who would rather not ;)), we don't know what the writers have in store for Castle.  A bit premature to judge but that's never stopped fans before. ;)

Quote

The idea of the viewer as king, like the customer being king, is interesting.  This is show business, and it seems that like any business, the customer is always right.  But then that's to strip all and any artistic creativity and vision from show business entirely.  The viewer gets to choose the ending she wants, so what's the use of the writer if the viewer gets to write the story?  Especially if it's a combination of the writer, producers, cast, crew and network that introduces the story for the viewers in the first place?  I don't know the answers to these questions, but giving complete control to the viewer is as equally troubling as leaving it in the hands of writers or networks that disregard the viewer.  Also, which viewers get to dictate what a show should do if its fandom has diverse wants and needs? 

Agreed.  Imagine if J.K. Rowling wrote all the Harry Potter books dictated by the desires of her passionate fans and feedback with the release of each book instead of sticking with her own personal vision.  I'd go crazy if I were her.

Endings have rarely been the strongest part of a show for me.  Usually the strongest part of a show is closer to the beginning when the writers are still fresh.  I'm reconciled to shows finishing weakly and try to take pleasure more from the journey than the destination.  Which is why, no matter what happens to Caskett in the finale, I'll still appreciate their story.  I understand it's different for everyone.

Edited May 10, 2016 by madmaverick

[westwingfan]

4 minutes ago, Betweenthisandthat said:

The idea of the viewer as king, like the customer being king, is interesting.  This is show business, and it seems that like any business, the customer is always right.  But then that's to strip all and any artistic creativity and vision from show business entirely.  The viewer gets to choose the ending she wants, so what's the use of the writer if the viewer gets to write the story?  Especially if it's a combination of the writer, producers, cast, crew and network that introduces the story for the viewers in the first place?  I don't know the answers to these questions, but giving complete control to the viewer is as equally troubling as leaving it in the hands of writers or networks that disregard the viewer.  Also, which viewers get to dictate what a show should do if its fandom has diverse wants and needs?  With Castle, the viewers' desires seem simpler: Caskett is what sells.  Although as a former viewer, what hooked me was the writing element of the story.  That we saw crimes from a literary point of view, and that's gone, and with it and the rise of Caskett, I become less interested.  My desires were ignored for those who seemed to want something else.  There are shows I've recently given up on because its writers decided to choose one set of vocal online fans over the desires of others, and the show began to feel like fanservice.  

That's not to say that the network is doing it right with Castle now, but no show does well when it totally disregards its viewers and its writers' creative vision, right?

Didn't the fans of the Fringe rise up after the series finale and eventually the network relented and aired a further six episodes to give proper closure to the storylines?

In any demanding market doesn't it make sense to try and satisfy most of the customers most of the time, for some TV shows I agree there may be several diverse elements that conflict so it is more difficult to satisfy one group at the expense of another, but from the word go Castle AND Beckett were the focal point of the show, and although some people liked other aspects, that almost certainly is what kept the majority watching either from the way they worked together, supported by the boyz, or their blossoming romance. So ABC are attempting to proceed with S9 by probably alienating the largest group of the current show's audience, so good luck with that.

[TWP]

Quote

The worse thing is when showrunners are condescending and think they know better than the audience what the audience wants.

If this sentence were a one-word term, its dictionary entry would have the mug shots of all Castle showrunners plus those of a few other shows I've seen in the past ;-).

Why do we torture ourselves?  Twitter Eric asked, "who would want to be a writer?"  What I want to know is who in their right minds would want to watch this crap....I guess it's why I only have 3 shows, LOL.

[CheshireCat]

37 minutes ago, Betweenthisandthat said:

The idea of the viewer as king, like the customer being king, is interesting.  This is show business, and it seems that like any business, the customer is always right.  But then that's to strip all and any artistic creativity and vision from show business entirely.  The viewer gets to choose the ending she wants, so what's the use of the writer if the viewer gets to write the story?  Especially if it's a combination of the writer, producers, cast, crew and network that introduces the story for the viewers in the first place?  I don't know the answers to these questions, but giving complete control to the viewer is as equally troubling as leaving it in the hands of writers or networks that disregard the viewer.  Also, which viewers get to dictate what a show should do if its fandom has diverse wants and needs?  With Castle, the viewers' desires seem simpler: Caskett is what sells.  Although as a former viewer, what hooked me was the writing element of the story.  That we saw crimes from a literary point of view, and that's gone, and with it and the rise of Caskett, I become less interested.  My desires were ignored for those who seemed to want something else.  There are shows I've recently given up on because its writers decided to choose one set of vocal online fans over the desires of others, and the show began to feel like fanservice.  

That's not to say that the network is doing it right with Castle now, but no show does well when it totally disregards its viewers and its writers' creative vision, right?  The problem with Castle seems to be it's not satisfying its customer and lacks creative vision, some would argue.

I don't think the viewer should entirely dictate where the show is going (although about your "which viewer would get to to dictate" I'd say it should be handled like so many things in life -  the majority). But I don't think PTB should be so condescending as to tell the viewer that they don't know what they want. They're individuals, they have a brain, the majority most likely does know what they want. And if a show is set out to be one thing (in Castle's case a love story) then that is what viewers sign up for which means that is what the customer wants and then I think that should be respected.

I think showrunners need to listen more closely. I don't watch the show but I read that The Blacklist was dragging out the big reveal about the connection between the male and female lead (Elizabeth and Red?) and also, on Forever, they were dragging out Jo discovering Henry's secret, they're en route to doing the same on Lucifer with Chloe discovering that he really is the devil. Viewers are tired of that. They want the secrets revealed and they want the characters to then deal with it. That are situations when I think the customer/seller relationship applies. The customer doesn't care if the seller thinks that this is the old formula which may or may not have proven itself. They don't want it and they don't want to be told that they do because the old formula frustrates them and eventually, turns them away and on to other products.

I felt that Castle didn't do the "dragging" thing. Yes, it took them four seasons to get together and while there may have been people out there who wanted them together already, I felt they needed those four seasons. And I felt that everything that was done which prevented them from being together had a purpose because their relationship needed to grow. Beckett needed to realize that she wanted Castle with her even though he poked into her mother's case, Beckett needed to have a boyfriend so she would allow Castle to lower her walls further, Beckett needed to come to terms with the shooting, her feelings etc and that needed to realize that Castle meant more to her than vengeance and her life. Only then could they be together.

Marlowe may have told the fans that they don't know what they want or something along the lines, but I feel that Marlowe did the nudging. Gently show the customer that what they want may not work as well as they think and that they need something else before they're ready for what they want as that might just work better even if they don't think so right now.

BTS issues aside, I'd put Hawley's and Winter's showrunning into the "we know better than the customer" category - maybe their working conditions were less than ideal but the majority didn't want the PI thing (the S7 trial run made the clear), the majority didn't want them to ignore how far Beckett had come in S1-6 regarding her mother's murder and her drive for vengeance, the majority didn't want slapstick humor and Castle to become a clown. In my opinion, that has nothing to do with creative vision but doing what you want while ignoring your customer (and, in this case, also the development of the show.)

So, in my opinion there is doing something for the sake of drama like dragging out something which frustrates viewer to no end simply because "it's always been done like that" which has nothing to do with creative vision but is just lazy writing and ignoring fans, and then there's doing something for the sake of story-telling which may also not always please but it's all about creative vision and if there's a purpose to what is done, viewers are most likely to accept it.

Edited May 10, 2016 by CheshireCat

[westwingfan]

8 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

To be fair, we don't yet have confirmation of a next season yet and until we see it on the screen (except for those who would rather not ;)), we don't know what the writers have in store for Castle.  A bit premature to judge but that's never stopped fans before. ;)

Agreed.  Imagine if J.K. Rowling wrote all the Harry Potter books dictated by the desires of her passionate fans and feedback with the release of each book instead of sticking with her own personal vision.  I'd go crazy if I were her.

Endings have rarely been the strongest part of a show for me.  Usually the strongest part of a show is closer to the beginning when the writers are still fresh.  I'm reconciled to shows finishing weakly and try to take pleasure more from the journey than the destination.  Which is why, no matter what happens to Caskett in the finale, I'll still appreciate their story.  I understand it's different for everyone.

Isn't part of the problem for many TV shows is that they have a core premise that the network likes but the creator doesn't necessarily have an end game in mind when the pilot is launched. Simple procedurals, like NCIS and CSI, can keep rolling along because their premise is much looser and just depends on the creativity of the writers. Castle's appeal was it was a bit different to most other shows but in a way it contained the seeds for its own downfall because the creator never saw it as a true ensemble so that the load fell heavily on the two leads, which gradually became unsustainable, we're probably lucky to have got as many seasons as we have. In hindsight, Marlowe should probably have written the series ending for S6 but I guess ABC didn't want the money train to end then and kept the thing going past its shelf life.

[madmaverick]

Quote

I don't think the viewer should entirely dictate where the show is going (although about your "which viewer would get to to dictate" I'd say it should be handled like so many things in life -  the majority).

But I think if the majority were allowed to dictate the direction of a show, that would result in the loss of more original and risky storytelling, and shows would veer towards the safe and the mainstream.  That would be a shame to me.  And determining what the so called majority wants isn't so easy in this age of social media and instant reactions.  Is it the majority in numbers or is it just those who shout the loudest?

[statsgirl]

18 hours ago, SweetTooth said:

Yeah. At the very least, ABC should have been aware of the current climate and tried to finesse it better. We'll just take the hard facts, and only the facts based on the official people releasing it

1. Stana was not asked back

2. Stana made it clear it wasn't her choice.

These are official statements.

So whether Nathan fought for Jon and Seamus or not, the point is, the entire cast is returning without Stana, which definitely smells like something to me. Again, I'm just going by the facts and what I see, but it's all just too weird, and I absolutely do not buy budgetary reasons. Going to 13 episodes should certainly help that, right?  I mean, whether they do or don't, if they wanted to keep Stana, that could have been on the table.

Exactly.

whether it is really budgetary reasons, the whole thing smells like week-old fish which is why fans of the original show are trying to figure out what's going one.

17 hours ago, madmaverick said:

Statsgirl, I am sorry, but I can't take TV Line as a serious journalistic source.  They may get info from showrunners, but there's a mutually beneficial relationship at work there, and it's not always agenda free reporting.  Even previously industry oriented websites like Deadline and THR are not above being clickbait these days, and I find some of their reporting questionable when they are clearly reporting hearsay and taking anonymous tips

Gossip columnists have always had a "scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" relationship ever since movies started.  Just look at the sensational feuds of Hedda Hopper and Louella Parsons in the 40s.  And yes, it's clickbait because they need the clicks. In the old days, you had to buy the newpapers or listen over the radio (complete with commercials). Now that it's free on the internet, the price we pay for the gossip is those commercial on our screens.

But even so I'd put TV Line and Hollywood Reporter in a different category than TMZ, who doesn't seem to care how sensational or how accurate what they post it.  TV Line and THR need to maintain their relationships with the producers and actors in order to get access to inside stuff and so even if they speculate, I tend to think there's a grain of truth in it that they can't say.

Quote

As other posters have said, Castle has also been "dumbed down" and I would say, de-balled, for many seasons already.  Almost never allowed to 'win' against the women in his life.  So what do you call it when a male character is being mistreated?

In this case, I'd say it's exactly what Nathan Fillion wants.  He was always opposed to Castle and Beckett being together, and since his space cowboy first choice of a role is gone now, the slapstick Castle is what he seems to like best.  As in last night's episode, his mugging has really gone over the top and it's hard to think that every director is giving him that direction so I assume it's Fillion's choice.

Quote

I am not saying it's right if Stana had to exit because of budgetary issues or that that necessarily is the whole story, but I don't find it so inconceivable that budgetary issues were a primary factor because money is always a factor when it comes to networks.  If she were making as much as Nathan or close to, then she would have a big impact on the cost of the show.

As others have said, budgetary issues can always be worked around, bottle episodes or retrospectives being a prime example.  I don't know what SK is making but it's not $1 million per episode like the cast of Friends.  If they had wanted to keep her, a couple of bottle episodes and giving her reduced episodes would have kept the DNA of the show intact.

Castle was on the bubble all season. Then SK's exit was announced along with TJones and shortly after that the show had been picked up for another 13 episodes.

Someone wanted to change the direction of the show.

17 hours ago, chraume said:

You know, last week I was 100% convinced that ABC was going to all of this trouble because they wanted Castle long-term and are hoping that this trial will lead to more. And I still think it's entirely possible, but looking at their schedule? I honestly think this whole mess is mostly because they need performing shows to fill the holes in it. Their most successful new drama is getting worse ratings than Castle, they've cancelled a handful of shows, their two newest ones are also underperforming Castle, they maybe don't have a great slate of shows coming in. I think they're mostly just desperate and need something to make it through next year. I believe (and could be totally wrong) that Castle is among the most stable shows for the network this season, if not the most stable (after Grey's Anatomy), which is ridiculous for a show that started the season off with low ratings.

This is why I can't understand why they want to change the show into something else if they want it to continue stable and long-term.  And it is going to be something completely different than it was when Castle was a writer eager to work with Beckett and the other members of the 12th precinct to solve crimes.  The response to the first half of this season was generally bad so it's seems idiotic to double down on what you know people don't like if you want the show to go on.

2 hours ago, madmaverick said:

Watched The Good Wife finale and while it's a different show to Castle, there was food for thought.  It's probably quite impossible to craft a universally well received finale.  There was definitely a contingent of TGW fans who wanted the 'happy ending' for the protagonist (and her man) and felt 'betrayed' by the perceived lack of closure and the kind of person the protagonist had become in the end.  They wanted a happy ending, an uplifting story for their female protagonist as someone they could root for, not someone with murkier characterisation who had alienated most of her friends.  Others were fine with an ambiguous, more unsettling kind of ending which they saw as more true to the character and more true to the messiness of real life where actions do have real costs.  The writers chose to stick to their always envisaged ending of the show rather than to engage in any 'fan service' that might have invited less backlash from fans.

I don't know whether most Castle viewers come to the show looking for 'real' or for fantasy, or a mixture of both.  Most seem to feel that a happy ending for Caskett was always part of the deal from Day 1 and that is why there are feelings of betrayal if we don't get that. 

While you can't please everyone, it is possible to make a show ending that pleases most of the long time fans, and the ones that work best seem to hark back to the origins of the show.  ER brought back everyone they could and sent them all off in happy endings.  House minimized it's last 5 seasons and went back to season 1 and made everyone (except Lisa Edelstein) happy.

The Good Wife finale worked because it was always a morally ambiguous show, and Alicia a morally ambiguous character.  And the slap from Diane to Alicia echoed the slap Alicia gave Peter in the opening episode - as the Kings said, the victim had become the victimizer.

Andrew Marlowe said in his remarks about the pilot episode when Beckett walked away from Castle "that's when you know if you have a TV show".  The DNA of Castle has always been the Castle/Beckett relationship.

Getting rid of Beckett and keeping Castle with Ryan and Esposito solving crimes is changing the core of the show.  I can't imagine many who fell in love with what the show was about in the first 7 seasons are going to be happy with Katic getting bumped.

I too am going to go with Hollander's Wood being the last episode of the Castle show.  This is just a weak imitation bearing the same name..

Edited May 10, 2016 by statsgirl

[westwingfan]

1 minute ago, madmaverick said:

But I think if the majority were allowed to dictate the direction of a show, that would result in the loss of more original and risky storytelling, and shows would veer towards the safe and the mainstream.  That would be a shame to me.  And determining what the so called majority wants isn't so easy in this age of social media and instant reactions.  Is it the majority in numbers or is it just those who shout the loudest?

YES. I've seen comments aimed at NCIS that it is boring, and I guess that could be an example of what you mean because the show just keeps on churning out the same format and yet it has been at the top of the ratings for its type of show for a long time, so it is obviously satisfying the mass of its audience, even when it has had to make cast changes. I think Castle was like that for the earlier seasons, people tuned in because they knew they were going to get some good Caskett banter, plenty of humour, and a not too taxing COTW. Good actors like to be challenged I guess, and writers want to test their characters but it must be a fine balancing act when you need the audience for the ratings to keep the show on the air to allow you to ply your craft.

I joined the ABC discussion board (not the Advisory Panel) towards the end of S5 and the the number of critical posters at that time could be counted on a few fingers, but then Marlowe decide to shake things up with the DC arc and gradually the tone of the board changed completely as posters became more and more disenchanted with the direction that was being taken, so that just before ABC pulled the plug on all of their discussion boards (early budget cuts no doubt) the number of positive posters were very few and far between. 

[madmaverick]

Quote

In this case, I'd say it's exactly what Nathan Fillion wants.  He was always opposed to Castle and Beckett being together, and since his space cowboy first choice of a role is gone now, the slapstick Castle is what he seems to like best

I see the assumption that Nathan dictates what the show is and what his character is a lot.  So, if we're being fair, should we also assume that Stana dictates her character's choices as well?  If we're going by the words that were said by both actors at the beginning of this season, Nathan said he wondered if the writers were 'high' in going with the separation storyline. Stana said something about being excited for the direction her character was going in.  Does that mean she wanted Beckett to have the Locksat storyline since the mombatross was over?  Does that mean she thought it would be interesting as an actor to play Caskett conflict and separation?  Does that mean badass Beckett where she sews her own wound and manhandles criminals few times her size is what she likes best?  Does that mean Stana wants a Beckett who is dressed like a model and made up flawlessly instead of early season Beckett?  And again, if we're being fair, what Nathan believed was that Caskett shouldn't get together too soon because he believed the yearning from the WT/WT was what kept viewers coming back.  He also admitted more than once after Caskett got together that he was wrong about that.  He never said he never wanted them to ever get together.  He also said countless times in response to questions asked by fans about the Firefly references on the show that they were written by the writers and not his idea.  He's actually also said that he appreciates both comedy and drama in his work as what's satisfying to him is making the audience feel something emotionally. 

I don't really understand why people don't go with what is the most logical assumption to me, that it's the writers that write the show (with notes from the network who is the boss of everybody) and the actors act out what they are given.  The actors have mentioned having a sitdown with the showrunners at the start of a season to discuss what's coming up for their characters.  Maybe they pitch things.  But it doesn't mean they are always accepted by the writers.  I just find it strange that some people have this idea of Nathan being the all powerful writer (dictator? ;)) of the show, as if ignoring the fact that there's a director, editor, the actual writer who are on set and in the editing room to create the final product that we see on screen.  They may have tried a scene any number of ways and if a certain comedic take was the one they preferred the most, that's the choice of the director/editor/writer/showrunner in the editing room.  The actor isn't in that room.  Maybe comedic Castle isn't to everyone's tastes, but the writers seem to be fond of it from their tweets.  And don't forget that it's the network's vision that can overrule the writers' since they are the ones ultimate in charge and paying the bills.  I think the reality is that there are many moving parts that go into what we see on screen (and off ;)) and it's far too simplistic and illogical to assume that one actor is responsible for anything and everything.

[Annec]

33 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

I don't really understand why people don't go with what is the most logical assumption to me, that it's the writers that write the show (with notes from the network who is the boss of everybody) and the actors act out what they are given.  

It seems pretty clear that what is the most logical assumption to you isn't the most logical assumption for others.  Everyone will take the information they get and give it their unique spin.  Arguing that everyone should see things the same way is futile.  Thank heavens we have a place to come and discuss our individual takes that doesn't require complete agreement.

[Annec]

3 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

A lot of times with these types of discussions, I see an all or nothing approach. Like, "Oh, do you want the show to be boring and entirely dictated by the fans, or do you want interesting, creative storytelling?"

This is not an either/or proposition.

There has been many a show that takes risks and still keeps the viewers happy. 

The thing is, the risks have to involve good storytelling. Make the story compelling. SELL IT to the audience. Make them see and believe in your vision. But let's say you have quality storytelling. You have something that works. If you kept the core construct the same but shook things up creatively while still keeping true to the characters and who they are, then you keep the audience happy.

What happened to Castle and a lot of other shows that go off the rails and make the viewer unhappy, is not risk taking and the writers getting creative, it's that they forget who the characters are. It's shoddy storytelling. Sudden shifts without rhyme or reason. Then the story is so poorly done, they have to abandon it.

Sometimes the show brings in a bunch of other actors who aren't needed, and the whole thing gets muddled. 

In this case they had a character who was making strides. They'd given her a character arc that worked. People were pleased to see Beckett finally let go of her chains. Then, without warning and without any real good reason, they handed her back her chains, and she took them willingly. Did they make the story compelling? Did they have Kate realize what she was doing to the love of her life? Her friends and family? Nope. It was played for laughs and never fully explored.

So, I don't think it's that the viewers should dictate what the writers do, but maybe hear them out to find out what's working and what isn't. Maybe don't treat them like a mass of idiots who just scream to hear the sound of their own voice. Listen to the ones who make sense.

Again, to go back to the restaurant analogy, if you go to a place that serves a good steak, and then they decide to serve some other tasty dishes, but you can still get your good steak, you're fine. Maybe you'll even try one of the other tasty dishes. But then one day you walk in, and they've painted the place bright pink, you can no longer get your good steak, and they now serve bland steamed vegetables. "The chef wanted to get creative" they tell you. 

I don't think any viewer wants to stunt a show's creativity, but I think a viewer knows when their show has gone off the rails and forgot about their own characters. 

Stay true to the characters, and no matter what story you tell, the viewer will follow. Crap all over your characters and the viewers, and, well, then you have a problem. 

Oh, and it's couldn't care less. Because could care less means they still care, and I don't get that.

Bravo!  Well said.  I would just add that writers will have an easier time of it if they "show" rather than "tell" viewers why the actions of a character are consistent with history/make sense.  An example from this season is the extreme attachment that Alexis and Hayley have developed.  It makes no sense to me.  I know that Hayley told us that Castle and Alexis tore down her walls and Alexis decided that Hayley never had to do anything alone again but why????  Why do Castle and Alexis immediately trust someone who's most consistent trait, that we've been shown, is that she doesn't follow the rules and is out only for herself.  I know that we're supposed to love this little "family" but I have not seen anything that tells me why I should care at all about Hayley.
 

[Noggin]

40 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

YES. I've seen comments aimed at NCIS that it is boring, and I guess that could be an example of what you mean because the show just keeps on churning out the same format and yet it has been at the top of the ratings for its type of show for a long time, so it is obviously satisfying the mass of its audience, even when it has had to make cast changes. I think Castle was like that for the earlier seasons, people tuned in because they knew they were going to get some good Caskett banter, plenty of humour, and a not too taxing COTW. Good actors like to be challenged I guess, and writers want to test their characters but it must be a fine balancing act when you need the audience for the ratings to keep the show on the air to allow you to ply your craft.

I joined the ABC discussion board (not the Advisory Panel) towards the end of S5 and the the number of critical posters at that time could be counted on a few fingers, but then Marlowe decide to shake things up with the DC arc and gradually the tone of the board changed completely as posters became more and more disenchanted with the direction that was being taken, so that just before ABC pulled the plug on all of their discussion boards (early budget cuts no doubt) the number of positive posters were very few and far between. 

Indeed good actors like to be challenged, and in a pairing like this it in inevitable that differences in story preference will emerge. It became fairly obvious that Nathan was all for delaying the Caskett journey and enjoyed playing the goofball, an area where he felt most comfortable and didn't have to work too hard. Season 8 has shown that side of him to the extreme, last nights episode was nightmare of nonsense from the Castle character in the worst example of the season so far in my view. However that said Stana was given the brief for what the season held for Beckett and unless she was sold a pup seemed satisfied with her lot, the promotion to Captain was always going to be limiting to Beckett, the Loksat storyline was also a train wreck. We may never get the full story of what went on behind closed doors to result in the possible season 9 format, I have my theories and it has nothing to do with budgets and silence speaks volumes as they say. I cannot see how the new format can be successful even for a shorter 13 episode run, assuming ABC go ahead with it, but from what I can see ABC have little alternative programming in the pipeline at the moment. If it does return will they change the running night as some suggest knowing that would possibly loose viewers brought in by The Bachelor and DWTS, I guess we will have the answer shortly from TPTB.

[statsgirl]

The ABC discussion boards at the advisory panel as still going, westwingfan.  And right now it's 1 for waiting to see what the next season brings and everyone else against it.

30 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

I see the assumption that Nathan dictates what the show is and what his character is a lot.  So, if we're being fair, should we also assume that Stana dictates her character's choices as well?  If we're going by the words that were said by both actors at the beginning of this season, Nathan said he wondered if the writers were 'high' in going with the separation storyline. Stana said something about being excited for the direction her character was going in. 

Katic saying that she's excited about the direction for her character is standard actor p.r.   Of course she's going to say that, she's doing publicity for the show so even if she hated what was planned for the season she's say she was excited by it.

I don't recall Fillion's interview where he wondered if the writers were high so I don't know how to take the remark -- did he mean "wow, what a great idea and creative risk" or did he mean "this is crazy and I'm worried"?

NF stated publicly for years that he didn't want Castle and Beckett to get together ever because that would be the death of the show.  SK said that she thought they should get together after a time.  He did say that he was wrong after they got together but I still get the feeling that he'd like the old, single Castle. If he really wanted Castle and Beckett to be together, there was a ton of evidence that the audience did that he could have taken to ABC.

4 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

Then, without warning and without any real good reason, they handed her back her chains, and she took them willingly. Did they make the story compelling? Did they have Kate realize what she was doing to the love of her life? Her friends and family? Nope. It was played for laughs and never fully explored.
 

.I think you've got something there. Everything on the show seems to be played for laughs this season rather than character development.

 

1 minute ago, Annec said:

An example from this season is the extreme attachment that Alexis and Hayley have developed.  It makes no sense to me.  I know that Hayley told us that Castle and Alexis tore down her walls and Alexis decided that Hayley never had to do anything alone again but why????  Why do Castle and Alexis immediately trust someone who's most consistent trait, that we've been shown, is that she doesn't follow the rules and is out only for herself.  I know that we're supposed to love this little "family" but I have not seen anything that tells me why I should care at all about Hayley.

That's a good example of the lack of real character development, or real writing, on the show.  It feels like Hayley was brought in to replace Beckett, as if any tall smart woman was interchangeable with another.  Sure, Hawley and Winter may love their creation but that doesn't mean the audience automatically will.  The Mary Suie-ishness of both Hayley and Alexis have turned many of the audience against them.

Meanwhile people have been asking for Beckett/Alexis scenes for years now (two smart women who love Castle) and there's been nothing really since Alexis worked at the station in season 2 (?). That says to me that tptb don't really care about the character of Beckett.

12 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

.Again, to go back to the restaurant analogy, if you go to a place that serves a good steak, and then they decide to serve some other tasty dishes, but you can still get your good steak, you're fine. Maybe you'll even try one of the other tasty dishes. But then one day you walk in, and they've painted the place bright pink, you can no longer get your good steak, and they now serve bland steamed vegetables. "The chef wanted to get creative" they tell you.

Good analogy. Goofy Rick is bland vegetables to me.

It feels like the emperor is lacking a number of clothes, even as they tell us how wonderful these rich robes are.

[madmaverick]

Quote

Katic saying that she's excited about the direction for her character is standard actor p.r.   Of course she's going to say that, she's doing publicity for the show so even if she hated what was planned for the season she's say she was excited by it.

That was said in her Deadline interview after the negotiation drama of last season which seemed more about PR for herself than PR for Castle.  I am not sure she actually did any official publicity for Castle all season for whatever reason.

I just find it can be a slippery slope of assumptions when people take actors' or writers' words at face value or discount them.  That's all subjective.

Quote

 

I don't recall Fillion's interview where he wondered if the writers were high so I don't know how to take the remark -- did he mean "wow, what a great idea and creative risk" or did he mean "this is crazy and I'm worried"?

 

From what I recall of my impression of that interview, he clearly meant that he thought it was a bit of a crazy idea.  But again everything's open to subjective interpretation. ;)
 

Quote

 

NF stated publicly for years that he didn't want Castle and Beckett to get together ever because that would be the death of the show.  SK said that she thought they should get together after a time.  He did say that he was wrong after they got together but I still get the feeling that he'd like the old, single Castle. If he really wanted Castle and Beckett to be together, there was a ton of evidence that the audience did that he could have taken to ABC.

 

I don't believe either Nathan or Stana's thoughts on when Caskett should get together had any bearing on when they actually did.  I believe the network and Marlowe are the only ones who dictated that.  Just because Nathan never shipped Caskett as much as some fans wanted doesn't mean he influenced the show's writing in other directions or that he didn't see the value of that aspect of the show.

Quote

Meanwhile people have been asking for Beckett/Alexis scenes for years now (two smart women who love Castle) and there's been nothing really since Alexis worked at the station in season 2 (?). That says to me that tptb don't really care about the character of Beckett.

The lack of Beckett/Alexis (and Beckett/Lanie, Beckett/Martha) began under Marlowe not under the current tptb.  For whatever reason, he wasn't interested in exploring those relationships.  But at the same time Marlowe was giving a lot of attention to the character of Beckett in other respects- with Castle, with her career ambitions, with conspiracies. ;)  I don't think it's fair to say that tptb didn't care about the character of Beckett when she's gotten the lion's share of attention over the years.  What changed this season is people didn't like the direction she was taken in but that doesn't mean she wasn't given any attention. 

[CheshireCat]

38 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

A lot of times with these types of discussions, I see an all or nothing approach. Like, "Oh, do you want the show to be boring and entirely dictated by the fans, or do you want interesting, creative storytelling?"

This is not an either/or proposition.

There has been many a show that takes risks and still keeps the viewers happy. 

The thing is, the risks have to involve good storytelling. Make the story compelling. SELL IT to the audience. Make them see and believe in your vision. But let's say you have quality storytelling. You have something that works. If you kept the core construct the same but shook things up creatively while still keeping true to the characters and who they are, then you keep the audience happy.

What happened to Castle and a lot of other shows that go off the rails and make the viewer unhappy, is not risk taking and the writers getting creative, it's that they forget who the characters are. It's shoddy storytelling. Sudden shifts without rhyme or reason. Then the story is so poorly done, they have to abandon it.

I couldn't agree more. Also, often when they change something, they do so to create drama because they feel like they have to, so what they're doing makes absolutely no sense but it creates drama. Case in point, S8.

Also, many shows bring in a love interest for one of the leads who isn't the other lead simply for the purpose of dragging out letting them get together and to create drama. When Beckett had a boyfriend in S3 there was a purpose to it and it wasn't to drag it out but to actually bring the couple closer together. That, in my opinion, is excellent story-telling. Shippers may not have liked it but it was part of the story and at the end of the season, the couple was closer than it had been at the start of it. That's what it is all about, I think. Do things for a purpose. As you said, viewers aren't idiots. And they like when something makes sense and get frustrated when it doesn't. And I think as Long as it makes sense then you can sell them just about anything.

Again, S8 would be a good example. Many didn't mind the split per se. They minded that they ignored the character development, they minded how Castle acted/didn't act and how he was portrayed as ignorant and forgot that he always thinks that there's more to the story and that he should investigate. Bottom line, they didn't like that it made absolutely no sense. Not that it happened but the circumstances under which it happened.

I believe that anything can be done and nothing is necessarily out of character. If we look at ourselves then we realize that there are similar situations in which we may react differently. How we react doesn't just depend on the situation but on the circumstances surrounding it. I think an excellent example is a grieving process. (It's still fairly fresh on my mind, so it has nothing to do with the show itself). We lose one grandmother, we grieve in a certain way and then we lose the other and the grieve is different. And neither is out of character for us, but it all depends on the relationship we had, what the person meant to us etc. If someone from the outside looked only at the grieving process they'd probably say it doesn't make sense - they reacted this way then, so they should react in the same way now because it's the same situation. But once they look at the whole picture, then it all makes sense and what seemed out of character isn't out of character anymore.

The same thing, I find, applies to story-telling. You can make your character react an any way that you want them to react. As long as it makes sense. As long as the character has a reason to react the way they do and that reason isn't simply to create drama. Because then it's contrived and frustrating. But if it makes sense, we may not like it but we're interested to see where it'll lead. Because we care about the character and we feel like the Investment in the character is still worth it.

I feel that for six seasons, Castle did that. Things were done with a purpose. Then S7 started and there were more and more situations in which the characters reaction didn't make sense because there was no precedent or no obvious explanation why the character would suddenly react this way when things that happened before would dictate that they react in another way. And then S8 happened and there was no story-telling anymore.  

Edited May 10, 2016 by CheshireCat

[verdana]

As an actor I believe you can get what you want without having to be a dictator or a diva. You don't have to say anything to the people in charge directly, they can figure it out for themselves - if they're smart enough. 

I believe Nathan prefers the comedic Castle over "all loved up" Castle. I don't have an issue with that, it's his personal viewpoint he doesn't have to side with the shippers, actors don't always like the exact same things fans do, I always rather admired the fact he was so brutally honest about it.  

But I can't lie, I really dislike the way Castle has gone humor wise over the last few years, I don't like the slapstick element and clown Castle turns me off completely and it's been to the character's detriment. I've always suspected my sense of humor and Nathan's aren't that compatible. I've wondered have the writers been pandering to his style of humor to keep him happy and settled? I'll never know the answer to that of course. *shrug* 

4 hours ago, madmaverick said:

But to play devil's advocate, if we look at Beckett's characterisation, her need for justice has always been a strong motivating force for her character, as strong as, if not more so, than her personal needs for love.  She certainly seemed to prioritise justice over her marriage this season.  Not saying I thought that was a choice that made sense or was right for the character at the time, but it was one chosen by the writers.  She may have changed her mind about keeping Castle out of it for his own good but she doesn't appear to have regretted her choice to pursue Locksat, whatever the cost.  Following that choice, with all its dangers that she was well aware of and yet still chose to pursue, if we do unfortunately get a 'tragic ending' to an 'epic love story', is it so impossible to make sense of it?  This is looking at it from a purely fictional level within the confines of the show, outside of any real life contract issues.

Kate getting killed in pursuit of Locksat would not be a surprise if we're basing it on her current characterisation (S8 version).  It wouldn't prevent the wailing and gnashing of teeth though if it does happen. I would not be one of those fans sobbing my heart out, I'm made my peace with Castle and Beckett's demise either separated by death or some other bizarre circumstance.  

The promo's anvils about death and tragedy for these two were so heavy it was laughable and in normal circumstances I would suggest it was an obvious misdirect and they were going to let her live but as Matt pointed out to fans hooked on the witness protection idea the writers have said ALL loose ends have to be tied up so why would she need protection from Locksat?  

I can't think of any other reason why she would be conveniently missing if the show continues. 

Some good discussions going on here by the way I've enjoyed reading all of them, far more interesting than watching the actual show.  I'll miss this. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by verdana