Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[femmefan1946]

And this week in the credits both were listed as 'Producer', although I understand this is a ploy to pay out more, without dealing with the union?

[verdana]

Quote

 

BuddyTV ‏@BuddyTV  2h2 hours ago

New #Castle couple alert! Are Hayley and Alexis falling for each other? http://buddytv.us/1NpGhG4

 

Ugh. 

I hasten to add I'm not against two women falling in love just not these two women, their relationship has been so forced I can't buy into it on any level. 

[westwingfan]

6 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

It would explain the contrived "growing up" Alexis is doing with the hard drinking and dressing twenty  years older than she is. They might not want it perceived as Hayley getting together with a young, naive college girl.

Could this be how they plan to woo the younger demo?

[MaryM47]

Quote

An example from this season is the extreme attachment that Alexis and Hayley have developed.  It makes no sense to me.

Quote

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. 

And y'all beat me to it. I was completely ready to like Hayley. I was one of the five people who watched The Neighbors and thought the actress was great. Sometimes after many years bringing a new person into the mix can liven things up, give the core cast someone new to interact with. I was even ok with having Espo moon over Hayley a bit, so he could finally get his own version of Badass Beckett. But when they made her nothing more than Beckett 2.0, able to kick ass and talk smart and even open a safe in 28 minutes, and when she got more screen time with Alexis than Beckett has had in 8 years, that was too much. And like many have said, if they had shown me how Hayley earned her place in the Castle family, and not just have her drinking scotch with Alexis every night, maybe I could have gotten on board. Now that I type this, it reminds me of a storyline currently on Nashville, where a woman in her mid-20s has become overly chummy very quickly with Rayna's 16 year old daughter - it's actually rather uncomfortable to watch. And don't get me started on Alexis last night pulling up police records and such - the desperation with which ABC is trying to shove Castle PI down our throats keeps sinking to new lows. 

[CheshireCat]

20 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

 

Yes, if the viewer doesn't see the relationship one character has with another, then they won't know the reasons for the change. Take your analogy with the grandmothers. If the viewer doesn't see that one grandmother was like a mother to the character, while the other she hardly ever saw and was maybe critical or not as likable, then all the viewer sees is a person weeping uncontrollably in nearly the same instance where they kind of tossed it off.

It doesn't even have to be that obvious. You can love them both equally, and just the circumstances of their deaths are different and already the grieving process is different and one death can hit you harder than the other.

I think if the behaves in a certain way, it makes sense to us because of how the character has been portrayed before. If there is no obvious reason given, we look at the precedent and determine from that whether it's "in" character or not.

To this day, I have no idea why Beckett blindly believed the evidence when they found out Castle might have orchestrated his disappearance. For 6 seasons this guy did just about anything to prove his unconditional love for her, there were several episodes which showed that but I think the ultimate proof was Still, when he stood with her while she stood on this bomb and he would have blown up with her. If that didn't prove to her that he would never ever abandon her, I don't know what would have. And over those same 6 seasons Castle also taught her time and again that there is more to the story. That the evidence is only part of it and that when it's too easy, you need to take a closer look, that the whole picture needs to make and not just the evidence. And yet, she forgot all about it. It was never explained, so all I had to go on was how she had reacted before, what she had learned, what she should know. Consequently, I viewed and still view her behavior as "out of character" or as not making sense.

If they had addressed it, if there had been a point in the episode when someone, anyone, would have taken a step back and reminded them of what Castle had taught them, if it had been made clear that maybe, during the time that Castle was gone, she had lost some of what Castle had brought out in here... anything really, then it would have been a whole other matter. But the way it was done made as little sense as Beckett's sudden regression in S8 or Castle's reaction to it because there were no obvious reasons and all we have to go on are precedence.

Edited May 10, 2016 by CheshireCat

[Annec]

1 hour ago, CheshireCat said:

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.

I think the wtwt was handled really well until 6x23 (that was a step too far for me).   The only thing I might have preferred would have been if they slept together once or twice and then stopped because, things.  Imagine if they had slept together in the LA episode and at the end of the episode Josh showed up.  Immediately both Beckett and Rick would have said that it was a mistake, they aren't cheaters, felt bad, and re-introduced the sexual tension. I think that might have added a dimension to the longing that would have been nice.  And, that's realistic, who doesn't have a "friend" who has a story like that?

[chraume]

9 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

 

There are some episodes that are standalone episodes. This means that it might just be straight procedural.with no character stuff. Or they have a silly episode with Castle and some mob guys or whatever.

Then there are some really important episodes that rely on the history the characters have with one another. This is one of them. They can't treat it as a standalone. They can't make us forget the history of the characters.

Always, when you have a character act out of character, you need to give them a reason. For instance, if Castle had been shutting her out or had acted weird with her, etc., leading up to this, then it would make sense. The problem is, they make the characters act out of character for no reason in one episode, and then just go back to normal in the next. There's no buildup and no repercussions, thus you an only deduce that character was thrown away in favor of plot contrivance.

No motivation=bad storytelling.

You're 100% right, about no follow-through. But part of the struggle this season in particular has been, for me, the fact that there's all of these overarching arcs that do touch every episode, and still they aren't properly fleshed out. Like, with Castle's disappearance, if you didn't like it? Suffer through, or skip, the three episodes in S7 that addressed them in any capacity. But now, there are a number of season-long storylines (LokSat, the separation, Castle PI, Hayley being integrated into the 2/4 of the Castle family, etc.) that are continuously addressed, every episode, but still they're not going anywhere. LokSat's 'big threat' twenty episodes ago is still supposed to be a big deal, given that we've seen literally no threat from them since? The separation lasted sixteen eps, is barely resolved, and is literally never mentioned again? Hayley is suddenly an integral part of the Castle clan? When did that happen?

Basically, the beauty of the way the show was constructed in seasons 1-7 was that everything was short-term. I've seen a lot of people complaining about the DC arc (which personally I loved), but if you hated it, it was over and done three episodes later, resolved completely, and mentioned intermittently. Same with Castle's disappearance -- if you hated it, it didn't necessarily taint the remaining twenty-ish episodes of the season, which were largely stand-alone. Caskett's relationship, basically, got a season-long arc every year, and even that's been done terribly in S8, but basically if you don't like any of the given arcs or changes for S8, good luck, because they'll be the focal point of nearly every ep. 

[chraume]

4 minutes ago, SweetTooth said:

It all goes back to all telling and no showing. Let's go to Harry Potter and Voldemort. He was built up way before he got there, but it wasn't just people saying he was bad. There was a general sense of fear. He'd killed Harry's parents. The devastation was in the eyes of those he touched. It wasn't that a few people mentioned him in an offhand manner, but he's quickly forgotten. He was a pall that hung over all of them until he finally arrived.

If you set up a whole thing where y ou have to hide away from the sadistic killer but then make a mockery of it, youre not really painting this person as a great villain. By the time Loksat shows up, we should be able to see the breadcrumbs left along the way. I will bet that doesn't happen here.

Agreed. Also, the other big bad of the show was about finding Johanna Beckett's killer, and that really did feel dangerous because there were stakes set up, initially, by the fact that someone was actually killed and that had an impact on an existing character, and then, later, by the fact that Montgomery was killed for the cause, too. And so was the guy in 3x13, whose name escapes me. And so was (supposedly) Mr. Smith. It was pretty clearly an actually dangerous situation. 

This? A handful of people died offscreen, and then Beckett decides to pursue it, both of which I understood. But the remainder of the arc seems to be everyone else saying it's dangerous and that anyone could die at any second -- but who has? There's no evidence that LokSat is watching them, presumably because, once they know they're being watched, they'll start killing. I'll be intrigued to see if they kill off Caleb and/or Vikram next week, but honestly those are stakes that needed to happen somewhere around midseason to give a concentrated push to the end. 

I'm almost positive LokSat will be someone we've seen, though. I don't have any predictions, but I think that making it be Rita would make for an interesting story -- it would certainly devalue Beckett's decision in 8x02, but it would also be an opportunity of character growth for Beckett/Caskett relationship (both of which are kaput now, but whatever). Actually, I do think it'll be Mr. Smith, so maybe I have a smidgeon of a prediction. 

[CheshireCat]

I guess, LokSat is a perfect example of "Don't talk about it, do it/show me". And as experienced writers I actually expect that Hawley/Winter are familiar with that concept and I think that they talked about it more than they showed us can't be blamed on possible BTS issues with the leads but is entirely on them.

Beckett and Castle were split for eight episodes, they already went there, so go there all the way, spend less time on COTW but instead have Beckett/Vikram discover links to previous victims. Dig up new ones. Gives us clues which show us how dangerous LokSat is. Tie the occasional COTW to it (and not just one character like Brown, the entire case like they did before (and not just once in how many episodes?)). Have Espo and Ryan stumble over something in their investigation, have Haley find out something. She knows about the connection between Castle and LokSat, so she can find out and keep it a secret. They may or may not have had the leads available as they wanted, but they had all these other players, they just would have had to use them.

Edited May 10, 2016 by CheshireCat

[femmefan1946]

Kromm wrote:

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.

Actually. No.

The viewer is the product being sold to the advertisers.

The advertiser is the customer.

If the advertisers decide they want an audience that skews to young women who will buy lipstick and laundry detergent , forming lifetime attachments to the product as they do so, they will want more romance (not necessarily sex) and female protagonists.

If the advertisers want older male audiences who will buy expensive cars they will be more interested in thrillers and male protagonists (and maybe more sex than romance).

Not my opinion-- Marshall McLuhan.

If you want to see why Katic got bounced, look at who is buying commercial time on the US broadcasts. I see the programme on Canadian TV, and we don't even get the US commericials on the US stations, so all I've really noticed are those really bad "not your grandfather's Buick" ads. And those are aimed directly at late Boomers who are looking at their first high end car purchase after the kids are off to university and the SUV has been retired. If you are seeing those RV Nation ads, my point is made.

[Betweenthisandthat]

15 minutes ago, femmefan1946 said:

The viewer is the product being sold to the advertisers.

The advertiser is the customer.

Now that's a different way to look at this, and you're right.  If we're taking all the artistic value out of TV and talking about just business, then TV is a medium for advertisers to sell their commercials in exchange for the promise that people will see these commercials and buy their products.  They sell their commercials in exchange for viewers.  They get that if the network puts on shows that people will watch while they wait for those ads.  Who you really have to please are the advertisers, who want to appeal to certain customers, so the shows are just ways to attract people to these ads.  Who does ABC's advertisers want to attract if they keep Castle on for season 9?  Still doesn't sound like a good business decision.  Surely there's a show or pilot out there that can bring more eyeballs to the commercials than Castle next season without Beckett, but given the shaky state of the network's ratings, maybe that isn't the case.  I'm not sure why they'd proceed without Katic unless she gave signals bts that she didn't want to be on the show and the network decided to not try to negotiate with her and cut its losses instead.  If she were willing to be on for one more season, I don't understand why they wouldn't choose that option instead. Castle with Beckett has to get better ratings than without her, I'd think.  I'd think making money would trump sexism, but I could be wrong, and maybe Castle without Beckett is easier to write and gets the network those ad dollars anyway.  

Edited May 10, 2016 by Betweenthisandthat

[Annec]

1 hour ago, chraume said:

Has anyone seen the new spoiler?  The "big bad" is laughable.  As other have said, Rick kidnapped, AGAIN, a vague "the company" is supposed to scare us, and a miraculous drug (not memory erasing this time, truth serum).  The writers aren't even trying here, they just make stuff up (door ways, hidden rooms, miracle drugs).  It is the laziest writing I've seen on network tv.  I believe that bts drama has made the writers job more difficult but they are just plain bad this season.  No wonder the experienced writers are all jumping ship.

 

[CheshireCat]

20 minutes ago, femmefan1946 said:

Kromm wrote:

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.

Actually. No.

The viewer is the product being sold to the advertisers.

The advertiser is the customer.

If you want to look at it this way, I'd say the viewer is both. The viewer needs to "buy" the TV show from the network so that the network can "sell" the viewer (numbers) to the advertiser. If the network doesn't please the viewer then the numbers will turn out too low to sell to the advertiser. The advertiser doesn't care about the show itself, they only care about the viewer numbers, so, the power still lies with the viewer, not with the networks or the advertiser.

[Lee4U]

So, is this thing being set up so (if renewed) Castle will be investigating weird cases where there SEEMS to be something supernatural or something?   

I can't get over what they have done to Molly - she is dressed and styled like someone over 60 years old - it's ridiculous.  

[KaveDweller]

13 minutes ago, Annec said:

1 hour ago, chraume said:

 I believe that bts drama has made the writers job more difficult but they are just plain bad this season.  No wonder the experienced writers are all jumping ship.

Yeah, I can buy that some of the plots or the screentime for each character was out of the writers' hands. But that doesn't excuse the little things. Back in 8x02 they had Beckett steal insulin because Vikram (the convenient diabetic) said his blood sugar was so low that he needed the insulin. Only the point of insulin is to bring your blood sugar down after you eat, because for a diabetic the body fails to do that naturally. If your blood sugar is low and food wasn't working like Vikram said, he'd need a glucose injection. This may seem like a nitpick but this could mean the difference between life and death. And the writers couldn't spend five minutes researching a realistic reason for Beckett to have to steal medical supplies. That just shows laziness and that they don't care enough to think through what they write.

I keep thinking about the writers promising that Loksat will be tied up in the finale. I just don't get how Loksat could be tied up when he just shot Beckett and her life is hanging on by a thread. I wonder if they are going to do something like on Alias where they tie everything up and then in a final scene where Caskett is driving off to the Hamptons they get hit by a car.  That would be a bit easier to take because then she's not dying because of her Obsessive Justice Disorder. Then next year if Stana had returned they could pick up where they left off, but without her can do a time jump.

I hope Loksat is a woman. Because, why not?

[WendyCR72]

My spec now is we won't know the outcome of any potential new season versus cancellation until the finale airs. ABC will want eyeballs for it, I'm sure. And keeping the result a secret may be the way to achieve that.

I think it's going to be a long week.

[CheshireCat]

2 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

My spec now is we won't know the outcome of any potential new season versus cancellation until the finale airs. ABC will want eyeballs for it, I'm sure. And keeping the result a secret may be the way to achieve that.

I think it's going to be a long week.

They would probably get a lot more viewers if they announced a cancellation before they air the finale. I've come across a lot of comments which say that people won't watch the finale/haven't watched since the news broke. Me included. If the show were cancelled, then I think announcing it beforehand would make a lot of people tune in because they would assume they'd get the Castle-Beckett happily ever after.

[WendyCR72]

Just now, CheshireCat said:

They would probably get a lot more viewers if they announced a cancellation before they air the finale. I've come across a lot of comments which say that people won't watch the finale/haven't watched since the news broke. Me included. If the show were cancelled, then I think announcing it beforehand would make a lot of people tune in because they would assume they'd get the Castle-Beckett happily ever after.

Okay, but we have seen how competent ABC has been in handling this whole thing, as in, not at all. So I can still see the network keeping mum and hoping folks - despite their words - tune in out of morbid curiosity.

[chraume]

3 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

They would probably get a lot more viewers if they announced a cancellation before they air the finale. I've come across a lot of comments which say that people won't watch the finale/haven't watched since the news broke. Me included. If the show were cancelled, then I think announcing it beforehand would make a lot of people tune in because they would assume they'd get the Castle-Beckett happily ever after.

I think you're right, but for just the opposite reason; if people know it's Beckett's last episode, they'll tune in to see what happens. And, equally, if it's advertised as the series finale, even casual/delayed viewers will tune in for that, too. 

Edited May 10, 2016 by chraume

[TWP]

10 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

My spec now is we won't know the outcome of any potential new season versus cancellation until the finale airs. ABC will want eyeballs for it, I'm sure. And keeping the result a secret may be the way to achieve that.

I think it's going to be a long week.

TVGrimReaper is calling this #ReaperWeek, so I suspect if we don't find out this week, it isn't cancelled.  Just a guess.

[CheshireCat]

2 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Okay, but we have seen how competent ABC has been in handling this whole thing, as in, not at all. So I can still see the network keeping mum and hoping folks - despite their words - tune in out of morbid curiosity.

It wouldn't surprise me since, as you said, ABC has been handling it badly, to put it mildly. I feel some people should be asked to find a different job because it feels like they haven't done their job at all... Anyway, I just had a look at TV Line and they put out an article about Nashville and there is no word on Nashville yet either. Or any of the other shows which weren't included in what I like to refer to as the "mass-renewal". So, maybe the hold-up isn't entirely Castle/cast related?

[chraume]

5 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

It wouldn't surprise me since, as you said, ABC has been handling it badly, to put it mildly. I feel some people should be asked to find a different job because it feels like they haven't done their job at all... Anyway, I just had a look at TV Line and they put out an article about Nashville and there is no word on Nashville yet either. Or any of the other shows which weren't included in what I like to refer to as the "mass-renewal". So, maybe the hold-up isn't entirely Castle/cast related?

They usually announce everything at upfronts, right? Or just before? I think they'll announce this week regardless, but I suspect the whole thing (pilot pickups/renewals) will be done en masse. 

I think they've got two slots for sure they need to fill (Sunday/Tuesday at 10:00), plus something to replace Scandal's shorter run. And then the bubble dramas of (possibly) Castle, Nashville, The Catch, and The Family, which I'm assuming will be cancelled (hence Sundays at 10:00.) I suspect that some of it is Castle-related (cast-wise), but largely it's probably figuring out which shows they want to keep (if The Catch goes, there's another filler needed post-How to Get Away With Murder in the spring, plus new timeslots to fill if they decide on a Castle and/or Nashville cancellation).  But honestly, the whole thing feels like anybody's guess. It'll probably be a fun run of articles about renewals from all the entertainment sites, plus a bonus article on every site exclusively dedicated to Castle's renewal.

[KaveDweller]

Usually ABC announces all there renewals right before the upfronts and if a show doesn't get mentioned they are cancelled.  But this year they already announced most renewals. So maybe no news is good news? Depending on what you think is good....

[WendyCR72]

Funnily enough, Fox has just announced a slate of pickups, so we're off to the races. (As an aside, one of those was for a TV adaption of Lethal Weapon. Cannot see this as a series and especially not on broadcast TV unless being very watered down.)

[KaveDweller]

9 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Funnily enough, Fox has just announced a slate of pickups, so we're off to the races. (As an aside, one of those was for a TV adaption of Lethal Weapon. Cannot see this as a series and especially not on broadcast TV unless being very watered down.)

No one has original ideas anymore, do they?

[TWP]

1 hour ago, Annec said:

3 hours ago, chraume said:

Has anyone seen the new spoiler?  The "big bad" is laughable.  As other have said, Rick kidnapped, AGAIN, a vague "the company" is supposed to scare us, and a miraculous drug (not memory erasing this time, truth serum).  The writers aren't even trying here, they just make stuff up (door ways, hidden rooms, miracle drugs).  It is the laziest writing I've seen on network tv.  I believe that bts drama has made the writers job more difficult but they are just plain bad this season.  No wonder the experienced writers are all jumping ship.

 

 

The following may be a little off-topic: the blue serum in the IV makes me want a blueberry Otter Pop. Can still smell them after not having one for 30 years. That is all.

[humean316]

33 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

No one has original ideas anymore, do they?

There is actually a theory that there are only so many stories that can be told, and after a while, every story is simply a variation of one of the original stories.

[KaveDweller]

44 minutes ago, humean316 said:

There is actually a theory that there are only so many stories that can be told, and after a while, every story is simply a variation of one of the original stories.

I've heard that, but at least people used to pretend their ideas are original.

[oberon55]

9 hours 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 read articles all the time about how network television is dying. How scripted shows have been on the decline for years. How viewers are turning elsewhere for their entertainment. I wonder how much all these disappointing finales effect peoples willingness to get emotionally involved with a new show. ABC's desperation to hold on to a mangled show like Castle without Beckett shows just how hard up they are. Their market is steadily shrinking & all they want to talk about is how smart they are. How they know what is best for the audience that they lose more of every year.

[BellyLaughter]

Yep the 

 

"you're not in the target demo so you don't matter and we don't care" is so condescending.  

 

Quite frankly all network TV stations are gonna have to evolve to survive the onset of cable streaming services where the talented story tellers are taking their stories to be told....

[TWP]

34 minutes ago, oberon55 said:

I read articles all the time about how network television is dying. How scripted shows have been on the decline for years. How viewers are turning elsewhere for their entertainment. I wonder how much all these disappointing finales effect peoples willingness to get emotionally involved with a new show. ABC's desperation to hold on to a mangled show like Castle without Beckett shows just how hard up they are. Their market is steadily shrinking & all they want to talk about is how smart they are. How they know what is best for the audience that they lose more of every year.

If they renew, it will be because they think they'll remain profitable. It's not about story or anything else.  They are smart. Even with low ratings, they make their leads millionaires while raking in big bucks for the company execs too. As long as they're doing that, they'll keep making shitty episodes. They don't care what's  "best for the audience".  

[oberon55]

26 minutes ago, TWP said:

If they renew, it will be because they think they'll remain profitable. It's not about story or anything else.  They are smart. Even with low ratings, they make their leads millionaires while raking in big bucks for the company execs too. As long as they're doing that, they'll keep making shitty episodes. They don't care what's  "best for the audience".

I wonder if you asked Paul Lee & the other top guys that just lost their jobs if they cared about what's "best for the audience" what they would say. ABC just cleaned house. They didn't do it because everybody was raking in so many bucks they didn't have any idea what to do with all the money they are making.

[pennben]

Exactly.  I've read with a show at this age, the syndication money is more important that the ratings. So they have a known quantity versus a new show that may start out at the Castle ratings now, with nowhere to go but down....so, boom, lots of expense for no return in the case of the latter versus plug a hole with a known ROI.

Also, they do have the experience of Grey's from last year killing off an original character co-lead love interest in Patrick Dempsey's character.  Now, it may not be a one-to-one comparison to Castle since there are so many others in that ensemble.  Last year, between online petitions to bring him back (I think one ended up with over 100,000 signatures) and all the internet vitriol and commenting on articles that was 99.9% pro Dempsey returning/never watching again if he doesn't, it felt like only me and maybe 400-500 would be watching this season. 

In actuality, ratings did not change at all between the seasons and are holding steady in the 2.3ish range in the demo.  So I could see how ABC might think the demo is the demo for a show this old and roll the dice for next season, thinking they likely have nothing to lose if there is no inventory in the new shows that they find compelling.

Edited May 11, 2016 by pennben

[KaveDweller]

2 minutes ago, pennben said:

Exactly.  I've read with a show at this age, the syndication money is more important that the ratings. So they have a known quantity versus a new show that may start out at the Castle ratings now, with nowhere to go but down....so, boom, lots of expense for no return in the case of the latter versus plug a hole with a known ROI.

That's why they don't want to do Castle PI as a spin off. A spin off is a new series and would not be part of the current syndication package for Castle.

[Kromm]

11 minutes ago, TWP said:

If they renew, it will be because they think they'll remain profitable. It's not about story or anything else.  They are smart. Even with low ratings, they make their leads millionaires while raking in big bucks for the company execs too. As long as they're doing that, they'll keep making shitty episodes. They don't care what's  "best for the audience".  

See that's the thing. It didn't USED to be that simple. There was a time, not many years ago, when doing the right thing by a show's viewers was part of protecting a brand. There was no altruism behind it, but that's the way they thought as companies. From that you got concepts like NBC during a certain era marketing themselves as "Must See TV", or CBS being referred to as "The Tiffany Network". 

Eventually that got winnowed down to an idea of protecting, at the very least, the brand of individual shows, if not the whole network. But again, as I said in an earlier post, even that has largely disappeared in an era where future profits for a show are bound up in content deals for entire catalogs. The individual quality of a show, it's individual rep, no longer matters past what can be squeezed out for ratings while it's still airing. 

So that's right. Networks don't give a crap about what's best for an audience, or best for a show's legacy, or however you may want to phrase it. Not in the current world of broadcast network TV. 

If anyone SHOULD care it should be showrunners/producers. Why? Because whatever rep they get from stuff like this DOES follow them to new shows. The network itself can bang out endless new product and basically have a reset button each time on viewer reactions. Not so with showrunners. What they do on one show affects how willing people are to give them a chance on a new show (even if it's on a different network).  Remember the jokey utterance "Damn you Berlanti"?  A good example.

[femmefan1946]

2 hours ago, humean316 said:

There is actually a theory that there are only so many stories that can be told, and after a while, every story is simply a variation of one of the original stories.

I think that is the basis for TV Tropes.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Funny/Castle

Notice how the posts peter out on the Castle tropes?

[AntiBeeSpray]

A bit OT: But I came across this tribute video to Stephen J. Cannell and I swear... the man had a very similar sense of humor to Castle. Makes me think that Castle might be in part based off of him.

Credit to garrisonskunk for posting this originally.

[TWP]

56 minutes ago, oberon55 said:

I wonder if you asked Paul Lee & the other top guys that just lost their jobs if they cared about what's "best for the audience" what they would say. ABC just cleaned house. They didn't do it because everybody was raking in so many bucks they didn't have any idea what to do with all the money they are making.

If you read why Paul Lee was fired, it was due to political and personality differences with Sherwood.

Both Stana and Nathan became millionaires during a time when the ratings on Castle episodes wouldn't have kept  the show that Castle replaced, Boston Legal, from being canceled.

[femmefan1946]

Exactly.  I've read with a show at this age, the syndication money is more important that the ratings.

Well, that was true.

But Castle has been in syndication for some years. I originally found it on Space- a very tiny Canadian cable network that caters to the SFF fen. I'm not sure if they've bought more than the first five seasons though.

And as has been pointed out, the next step is less likely to be syndication to many small independent stations and overseas (and don't forget how many nations Castle has already been sold to) as to the streaming networks like Netflix, Crave, shomi, etc.

Even the DVDs become less important with that.

[madmaverick]

Quote

A bit OT: But I came across this tribute video to Stephen J. Cannell and I swear... the man had a very similar sense of humor to Castle. Makes me think that Castle might be in part based off of him.

He died too young.  And seemed like such a fit guy too.  Always enjoyed that fun S1 'write along' video of him and Nathan at his house with all his gym equipment and posh cars and trying to teach him how to be a 'writer'. Pity we never got to see more real life writers on the show or delve more into the competitive world of crime fiction.

Allow me to indulge in the shallow for a moment, but I see shades of S1 'Richard Castle' here at this book signing.  Once thought that would have been impossible, but I think his getting fitter has made a difference.  Still can't understand why he looks so much better off the show than on it!

[pennben]

45 minutes ago, femmefan1946 said:

But Castle has been in syndication for some years.

If I understand the syndication argument correctly, and of course I could be wrong, it's all about the inventory.  Another season of castle gives them X more number of dollars per new episode for prior syndication deals and new ones, that may not be all syndication, but as you say Netflix, etc. Beyond that money, they feel they have a baseline of dollars for ratings. 

[westwingfan]

Someone has added Kenneth Mitchell (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1058987/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t9) to the cast for Crossfire on IMDb, reprising his role as Paul Whittaker from Heroes and Villains. He was a journalist so maybe that is why he is needed, but I’m really not sure if this is correct, as the character of Oscar von Eckland has also been added to the cast for the finale, and he died in the last episode, I understand, when some pipes fell on him.

Edited May 11, 2016 by westwingfan

[FlickerToAFlame]

7 minutes ago, westwingfan said:

Someone has added Kenneth Mitchell (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1058987/?ref_=ttfc_fc_cl_t9) to the cast for Crossfire on IMDb, reprising his role as Paul Whittaker from Heroes and Villains. He was a journalist so maybe that is why he is needed, but I’m really not sure if this is correct, as the character of Oscar von Eckland has also been added to the cast for the finale, and he died in the last episode, I understand, when some pipes fell on him.

I think he survived the pipes because Castle and/or the boys mentioned he was sent to that psych hospital. I could have misunderstood though. 

[westwingfan]

9 minutes ago, FlickerToAFlame said:

I think he survived the pipes because Castle and/or the boys mentioned he was sent to that psych hospital. I could have misunderstood though. 

I didn't watch the episode so I was only going on one of the reviews, but was his character just connected to the COTW or could he have a connection with Loksat? . IMDb allows users to post updates, which is why you have to be wary of the info that turns up there from time to time.

[Annec]

15 hours ago, CheshireCat said:

They would probably get a lot more viewers if they announced a cancellation before they air the finale. I've come across a lot of comments which say that people won't watch the finale/haven't watched since the news broke. Me included. If the show were cancelled, then I think announcing it beforehand would make a lot of people tune in because they would assume they'd get the Castle-Beckett happily ever after.

I was surprised when my mom said that she started watching Castle this week but she had to stop, just too depressing to think of Beckett dying.  Now, my mom is a former nurse who really doesn't get attached to tv shows or characters.  She has several PBS shows that she watches regularly but she isn't a fanatic about any of them.  Nor does she go online to find out news.  So, for her to have heard about Beckett dying and be upset enough to stop watching really says something to me.  Sure, she isn't the target demo but ABC really needs to think about their syndication money.  We've heard for years that the syndication strength has made Castle a stand out show.  Does ABC really want to put that in jeopardy?  Why not just end Castle and give Fillion a development deal for another show?  Either he's strong enough to carry a show or he's not.

[humean316]

11 hours ago, SweetTooth said:

A nice little essay from Forbes about how women are written out of franchises. Includes Castle mention, so it's relevant.This also shows how what happens on Castle isn't just one tiny bubble but is part of a bigger universe.

I do agree with this, but it is more interesting and relevant I think to think about why it happens. So of course, there is some sexism present here, but to me, the only way you are going to solve is to think about why it occurs. To me, when an executive looks at a show, its easy to see the middle aged white guy as safe and comfortable for an audience. So the guy on Sleepy Hollow or Castle, they are the safe choices because nobody is going to ascribe any preconceived notion to who or what they are on set or in the media. That's not, however what we think of women sometimes, and I think that's where this debate should go. Think about this, we have words for women who are difficult on set, and hell we even think that women are difficult on sets much easier than we do men. That word is diva, and when I say that word another word, bitch, comes to many people's minds. That's just the nature of the way things work these days, and unfortunately its all about our attitudes towards women in show business. It isn't right of course, none of it is, and in my opinion no woman should ever be thought of as a diva or a bitch, but I think that the way we think about women these days, especially powerful ones, is the reason Hollywood finds it easy to replace female leads versus male ones.

[madmaverick]

I don't disagree with what you say, humean, in a general sense, except I would note that in the Castle fandom at least, I've seen female fans (often those claiming to wage a war against sexism and misogynism) throw the words diva and worse at a male actor (and other women actors) rather than the other way around.  Of course it could be different in Hollywood management and I don't doubt sexism exists in the industry, though I do note that ABC did promote its first female president and does seem to support a lot of women centric TV series.  I think women as well as men have to reflect on their attitudes towards gender, their own and the opposite or more fluid ones.  Or maybe people need to constantly reflect on whether their attitudes towards other human beings are fair and respectful, period. ;)

[TWP]

Crud, when PTV didn't seem to want to save my post, I decided I wouldn't share it.  Then suddenly, instead of posting once, it posted 4 times!  So pardon all the deletes.  Wendy, if you can remove when you get a chance, please do.

Edited May 11, 2016 by TWP

[femmefan1946]

I think that was worth repeating. ;>)

[Thak]

William Keck ‏@WilliamAKeck May 10

"Was always a pleasure interviewing @Stana_Katic @MollyQuinn93 @tamalajones @seamusdever @Jon_Huertas @realssullivan for @TVGuideMagazine",  he added a wink at the end.

 

He left someone out.  

Edited May 11, 2016 by Thak