Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[TWP]

14 minutes ago, Nadine said:

I'm 99% sure all the scenes from the promo will be in the final product...

::At which point TWP remembers the Cool Boys promo, which included Beckett, even though she didn't actually appear in the episode::

[Nadine]

4 minutes ago, TWP said:

::At which point TWP remembers the Cool Boys promo, which included Beckett, even though she didn't actually appear in the episode::

Just watched the finale promo again. Unless they did a drastic edit throughout the episode, all the scenes are in the finale.

[Lee4U]

I never believe anyone who anonymously posts about purported relationships online - just don't.  Could be true, could not be but I'm never going to buy it blindly.

I'm always amazed anyone thinks they know anything whatsoever about relationships between two people - let alone two complete strangers - I think we see quite enough in real life to know that sometimes we have no idea whatsoever what goes on between two people we actually do know.  I have friends who split up after years of being married because one was a serial cheater and no one ever knew or even suspected - and, other types of examples.

I don't care about their relationship, whatever it was or is.  Show is done and I will watch the finale just because I watched from the beginning though ducked out a few years ago when the writing really got stupid(er) - No one here will ever know anything as fact and, personally, I'm fine with that because it's really not my concern.  I never cared about the "romance" anyway - it is always forced and written badly in nearly every single show so I never pay much attention to it - 

For me, speculating about stuff I have no chance in hell of every knowing is not something I'm inclined to do - seems a waste of time - TO ME - please note I am speaking only about myself so don't fry me because I am not criticizing those that do, only saying that I don't do this and never quite understand why people do - but, that's my issue, no one else's.  And, yes, I do have a lot of curiosity about things - but, never this sort of stuff. 

[MDL]

Quote

but that eyeroll of hers during that cutaway to her when Kate and Richard say I love you just bugs me. 

Maybe it's me, but I saw the eyeroll as having 2 possible (and contradictory) interpretations:

1) she heard the ILY from Castle-and reacted as it would be out of character for him to say that out loud with Alexis in the room.

but

2) Was it a bit of an ominous eye movement-was her face hiding evil intent (I know  too weird!-hopefully)

[metaphor]

7 hours ago, Nadine said:

Just watched the finale promo again. Unless they did a drastic edit throughout the episode, all the scenes are in the finale.

Thanks, Nadine. 

[BlakesMomma]

6 hours ago, MDL said:

Maybe it's me, but I saw the eyeroll as having 2 possible (and contradictory) interpretations:

1) she heard the ILY from Castle-and reacted as it would be out of character for him to say that out loud with Alexis in the room.

but

2) Was it a bit of an ominous eye movement-was her face hiding evil intent (I know  too weird!-hopefully)

I don't really think it was an eye roll, more of a look of concern and worry?  Fear?  Alexis's attitude has annoyed me lately but I don't think this is one of those times.  Guess I'll wait to see it in context.

[MaryM47]

Yeah, it wasn't a full-on "Oh, Castle" Beckett eyeroll, but if she was trying to convey concern or fear, I certainly didn't get that from her.  She seemed more annoyed than anything else, and since I've rarely felt any true warmth between Alexis and Beckett for a while, I may be reading that into it as well. 

[verdana]

Quote

 

Watch what you love. ‏@Sandraxf  10h10 hours ago

FYI: The release date for the #Castle S8 DVD Box Set is August 23, 2016. Cover art below. No further details yet.

https://twitter.com/Sandraxf/status/731577348919791616

 

The artwork makes me smile in that it's obviously photoshopped as usual, no way you would get them posing together like that and rather misleading given the writers split them up for 8 episodes then spent their time trying to find ways to keep them separate whenever possible. They really need to have Hayley, Alexis or the boys poking their faces in between. 

[verdana]

19 hours ago, TWP said:

Of course Caskett was a crutch the show leaned on in the absence of other ideas to keep the audience. But I think the shows with the greatest longevity work hard not to put too much weight on any particular story line.

The seeds of Castle's demise were sewn a long time ago, the writing on the wall was there to see relatively early on. The obvious over reliance on Castle and Beckett coupled with the lack of fleshing out the secondary cast and their stories, the way they dropped important story lines until the very end of the season and never developed them properly was incredibly irritating plus the overblown mombatross saga which dragged on way past it's sell by date.  Marlowe was uncovered as a hack who had no idea how to write a love story - only the WTWT - or develop anything else for that matter - those fundamental weaknesses were bound to take their toll eventually. 

Isn't that way shows like NCIS are so popular? The people in charge appear to understand their product, they understand why it works, why the audience enjoys it, they don't try to be something they're not.  I don't watch NCIS that much but I get why others do and why it's still going strong, I wish other showrunners would understand their product and stop trying to pretend they're being bold and clever changing it into something else to satisfy their own egos and/or in their sheer desperation to squeeze as much cash out of it as they can.

Edited May 15, 2016 by verdana

[TWP]

3 hours ago, verdana said:

The artwork makes me smile in that it's obviously photoshopped as usual, no way you would get them posing together like that and rather misleading given the writers split them up for 8 episodes then spent their time trying to find ways to keep them separate whenever possible. They really need to have Hayley, Alexis or the boys poking their faces in between. 

If you look closely, you'll see the corner of Castle's classic purple photo shoot shirt. Wasn't that a Season 3 shoot? If so, tensions maybe weren't so high and they didn't mind doing a shot like that. Thus they may have only needed to photoshop the rings, or hands and rings using hand models.  The shadows look pretty realistic.  Bad shadows are always a hallmark of photoshopping. A good artist could put in realistic shadows, but judging by the hacked lower eyeball iris lightening, they used a photoshopper of about my quality, LOL.

NCIS is certainly one example of what I'm talking about.  Basically, by focusing so much, Marlowe weeded out those who didn't care about the romance or the mombatross, and funneled his audience down to pretty narrow subset of the population.  Rookie mistake. I think Hawley was trying to fix it, just didn't have the talent necessary to do it, nor the right ensemble cast. I wonder if Marlowe's Take Two will be better if it ever gets off the ground. I'm not certain that I'll be around to find out.

[oberon55]

2 hours ago, TWP said:

I think Hawley was trying to fix it, just didn't have the talent necessary to do it, nor the right ensemble cast.

This could be true but they come across to me as totally inept at translating their vision from script to screen. Compare some of what they said they were aiming for in interviews & what we actually got on screen.

Exploring Beckett's obsessive behavior.

Alexis as an adult.

Hayley as Alexis mentor.

The lawyer as Beckett's foil.

LokSat as a scary bad guy.

Beckett as captain.

Vikrum as Beckett's confidant.

Tying Castle's disappearance to LokSat.

Bringing back the old sparks by breaking Castle & Beckett up.

Some or all of these may have sounded like good ideas on paper but in my opinion they failed miserably in the execution of every one of them. I would have enjoyed this season a hell of a lot more if Beckett was still a detective & I never heard of LokSat, Hayley or Vikrum.

[MaryM47]

Great article from the LA Times that echoes much of what we have said here: 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-castle-finale-20160510-snap-story.html

[TWP]

25 minutes ago, MaryM47 said:

Great article from the LA Times that echoes much of what we have said here: 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/tv/la-et-st-castle-finale-20160510-snap-story.html

From your article, I LOLed at this sentence:

Quote

which finally gets to the bottom of LokSat — the person or thing (don’t know, don’t care)

Ha-ha-ha.  The mark of a poorly defined "character".

If nothing else, I'm glad the showrunners are out of a job, maybe for long enough to think about what they did wrong. ;-).

[S55]

That S8 DVD cover uses a photo from the S3 TV Guide cover story (inside the magazine). They photoshopped in Nathan's arm/hand and the rings. I guess they thought no one would notice how "creative" it is. 

Also, Beckett is missing her actual wedding band. And doesn't wear her engagement ring in S8, but I suppose that's minor compared to the other ridiculousness of that cover. Sheesh. 

[McManda]

I'll take a vaguely photoshopped version of a cute, old photoshoot where they were both present over a completely computer generated photo or a a photo where Beckett is behind Castle and draped over shoulder ... again.

[pennben]

8 hours ago, TWP said:

 Basically, by focusing so much, Marlowe weeded out those who didn't care about the romance or the mombatross, and funneled his audience down to pretty narrow subset of the population.  Rookie mistake. I think Hawley was trying to fix it, just didn't have the talent necessary to do it, nor the right ensemble cast. I wonder if Marlowe's Take Two will be better if it ever gets off the ground. I'm not certain that I'll be around to find out.

You may be right that they were trying to fix those problems, while dealing with other restraints.  However, I also felt like there was a bit of going back to where he left and saying "this is how I would have done this, this is how I would have done that" that made it feel like the show regressed last year rather than progressed from where things where when Season 7 ended.

[CheshireCat]

9 hours ago, TWP said:

 

NCIS is certainly one example of what I'm talking about.  Basically, by focusing so much, Marlowe weeded out those who didn't care about the romance or the mombatross, and funneled his audience down to pretty narrow subset of the population.  Rookie mistake.

Comparing Castle and NCIS is like comparing apples and oranges, one is character driven, the other case driven. Did Marlowe's story appeal to a different and possibly smaller audience than NCIS. Yes. Does that make it a mistake? No. It makes it the love story he always said he wanted to tell and eight seasons, a general audience of over six million and a 1.0 demo rating until the very end don't exactly sound like a mistake to me. (And there are a number of other shows out there which follow the same pattern as Marlowe's story - character driven and possibly limited in the number of seasons there can be.)

[TWP]

4 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

Comparing Castle and NCIS is like comparing apples and oranges, one is character driven, the other case driven. Did Marlowe's story appeal to a different and possibly smaller audience than NCIS. Yes. Does that make it a mistake? No. It makes it the love story he always said he wanted to tell and eight seasons, a general audience of over six million and a 1.0 demo rating until the very end don't exactly sound like a mistake to me. (And there are a number of other shows out there which follow the same pattern as Marlowe's story - character driven and possibly limited in the number of seasons there can be.)

I wasn't saying that Castle and NCIS are exactly alike.  What I was saying was that for a show to go on as long as it has, it has to attract a more diverse audience, meaning that it probably has to create less of a dependency on one story and two characters.  And I don't agree that NCIS isn't character driven. NCIS is sometimes case drive, sometimes character driven, just as Castle can be.

It's all right to compare Castle to NCIS in terms of reasons for longevity. Castle was a long-term show, that's true.  However, NCIS has run 13 seasons, is still going strong and was a spinoff of another 10-year show (JAG). NCIS also spun off two more shows that are doing fine.  THAT is a success and what Castle maybe could have been with the right people and stories involved.

Castle attracted a super-intense, passionate audience.  A super-intense audience is going to be a volatile audience.  Imagine Castle's potential if they hadn't focused so much on two characters.  A spinoff or spinout maybe would have actually been a comfortable change, whereas as it stood it was hard to imagine going on if either of the two main characters left.  This is a huge mistake, when you think in terms of TV show longevity, when you think of TV as a BUSINESS.

You can still tell a love story without making success or failure of a show contingent upon that love story (and on the BTS relationship of the actors portraying the love interests).  Develop other characters, develop other stories.  That wasn't done to any great extent, and I think it's why the show had to be cancelled.

[CheshireCat]

55 minutes ago, TWP said:

I wasn't saying that Castle and NCIS are exactly alike.  What I was saying was that for a show to go on as long as it has, it has to attract a more diverse audience, meaning that it probably has to create less of a dependency on one story and two characters.  And I don't agree that NCIS isn't character driven. NCIS is sometimes case drive, sometimes character driven, just as Castle can be.

It's all right to compare Castle to NCIS in terms of reasons for longevity. Castle was a long-term show, that's true.  However, NCIS has run 13 seasons, is still going strong and was a spinoff of another 10-year show (JAG). NCIS also spun off two more shows that are doing fine.  THAT is a success and what Castle maybe could have been with the right people and stories involved.

I think we have to agree to disagree. I'd say Castle was developed differently from the ground up. Some NCIS episodes may be personal and the characters get personally involved, but I'd say that everything on Castle was primarily designed that we learn about the characters, whereas everything on NCIS was primarily designed to that the cases get solved. Every character on Castle had a purpose so that we'd learn something about the characters whereas the characters on NCIS are there to make the workplace function. NCIS's characters are needed to solve the case first, Castle characters were needed to give us insight into who everyone was.

Castle was about the characters' journey, specifically, that of Beckett and Castle. The only character I'd say who truly ever had a journey on NCIS was Ziva and that was due to what she where she came from and what she went through. The others may have had development, but how much has Gibbs really changed? McGee is more secure, Tony not as immature and has reconciled with his father but apart from that. Yes, we learned background information on the characters and there were personal stories. But how many and how many compared to Castle? And where did the characters go and where did they go compared to Castle? That's what I mean by character driven/case driven.

Both shows want to tell a different story - one wants to tell the story of a team finding a killer, the other wants to tell the story of how two people come to love each other.

Was Castle spin-off material? No. Could it have gone on longer? Possibly. Because the moment they turned away from the love story and the character journey, the show started to decline. Namely, with the wedding-that-wasn't. That was when they stopped telling the love story, when they stopped having a real arc for Beckett and Castle and that was when the ratings took their first real hit.

I don't think the story per se or whether it's a procedural or not or where exactly a show puts ist focus is what makes or breaks it. I think what makes or break it is whether it stays true to the show's nature, to the show's core. NCIS has always been true to what it started out as. Castle has not.

 

55 minutes ago, TWP said:

Castle attracted a super-intense, passionate audience.  A super-intense audience is going to be a volatile audience.  Imagine Castle's potential if they hadn't focused so much on two characters. 

Then it probably wouldn't have stood out.

[MaryM47]

I know this is a moot point now, and someone wiser than me has probably already mentioned it upthread, but if so I can't recall as I am not braining well today...but... I got to wondering, were they prematurely maturing Alexis in anticipation of a multi-year time jump before Castle PI? Middle aged actors wouldn't need to change so much when skipping a few years, but a young college girl would change more dramatically. Which might explain the wanna-be chic haircut, the pencil skirts, the scotch, and the apparently not in college anymore. The plan may have been to kill off Beckett, then give Castle a few years to grieve so that a new love interest would not be as frowned upon (as I've heard that widowers usually remarry more often and sooner than do widows). It does seem as though much of this season involved deleting Beckett and fast-forwading Alexis. Although it would have made more sense to keep Alexis "young" til the end of Castle 1.0, then use her changes to further ground the new version as being a few years down the road, but no one said these writers were smart. Then again, I'm operating on about 3 1/2 hours of sleep, so I may have just shot down my own argument. Anyhow, feel free to ignore my exhausted babblings and return to your usually scheduled Sunday. 

[KaveDweller]

26 minutes ago, MaryM47 said:

I know this is a moot point now, and someone wiser than me has probably already mentioned it upthread, but if so I can't recall as I am not braining well today...but... I got to wondering, were they prematurely maturing Alexis in anticipation of a multi-year time jump before Castle PI? Middle aged actors wouldn't need to change so much when skipping a few years, but a young college girl would change more dramatically. Which might explain the wanna-be chic haircut, the pencil skirts, the scotch, and the apparently not in college anymore. 

Yeah, I think that was definitely part of it. I remember last summer there were spoilers about making Alexis an adult, and I think they did that because they knew they wanted her to be involved in the PI thing. Having her as an "adult" makes it a little more plausible that she could be running around solving crimes, and that Castle wouldn't object to it. It also seemed clear that the PI storyline and Haley were being added in case they had to do a season 9 without Beckett. It must have been in the back of their minds that if that happened they would need a time jump if that happened. Or they didn't think of a time jump, but just wanted her to be able to fill a gap left by Beckett. I wish that they'd allowed her to "grow up" more naturally and have her own life/interests. I think Alexis has actually annoyed me more than Loksat and the breakup.

Something else I have been thinking about....I know there was a lot of talk about why they would have been negotiating with the actors when they were going to cancel it. It makes me really wonder about who was involved with negotiations and the difference between ABC Studios and ABC network. Because a few weeks ago they announced that Nashville would have new showrunners for next season, which made a lot of people think that show would be renewed. However, it was also cancelled. So maybe it's not so weird to negotiate with people without a guarantee.

Edited May 15, 2016 by KaveDweller

[MaryM47]

I have no direct knowledge of contract negotiations, but I was following the WT/WT of the possible renewal of NBC's The Carmichael Show earlier today (spoiler alert - it got renewed)  and found this interesting - apparently the whole thing came down to the Studio wanting to do 13 episodes, while NBC only wanted 10. That seems like such a small detail (although I know that 3 eps do involve much time, energy and money) but to even consider dumping the whole thing because of that - especially as it was beloved by critics and is one of few network shows with an entirely minority cast - shows me how the entire jenga stack of a show can topple because of one block. 

[rspad]

1 hour ago, KaveDweller said:

Something else I have been thinking about....I know there was a lot of talk about why they would have been negotiating with the actors when they were going to cancel it. It makes me really wonder about who was involved with negotiations and the difference between ABC Studios and ABC network. Because a few weeks ago they announced that Nashville would have new showrunners for next season, which made a lot of people think that show would be renewed. However, it was also cancelled. So maybe it's not so weird to negotiate with people without a guarantee.

Don't forget, studios create the shows, networks air them.  The studio can negotiate/sign with cast/crew all day long, but there is no guarantee a network will air a show.  A studio and network may be under the same corporate umbrella, but they act, for the most part, independently of each other.  ABS Studios can produce a show, but sell it to anyone - ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX - and vice versa.  Of course, most sister companies like to "keep it in the family" when they can.

It was ABC Studio's job to produce Castle and make it as creatively/financially attractive as possible to the ABC Network.  So while ABC Studios was doing everything it could to get the show ready for a S9, it ultimately was the network’s decision to renew/cancel. 

Of course, nothing works in a vacuum, so I can only guess the Network gave signals to the Studio it was open to renewal under the right circumstances, the Studio tried to meet those circumstances, but in the end, it was a down to the wire decision and the Network felt their pilots gave them a better shot at higher ratings.  How the news trickling out of contract negotiations, who was/wasn't asked back and all the rest of it was handled is a whole other matter.

I think NBC’s Bob Greenblatt’s comments this morning also help illustrate the point of corporate synergy vs not, particularly:

Quote

“We certainly take into consideration ownership issues when we decide where a show goes on schedule. But at the end of day, we are looking for the best shows to get the best places on the schedule. It is an advantage if the shows come from our studio, that’s great, but we wouldn’t do that at the detriment of our schedule.”

As to Nashville, again, it was ABC Studios that hired the new showrunners to show the ABC Network that it recognized that show needed a new creative direction, attempting to make it more attractive for renewal.  It obviously wasn’t enough.

P.S.  Sorry if you already know the studio vs network thing, KaveDweller.  It's just that I've seen similar comments (“Why sign the actors if you aren’t going to renew?”) and the reality of corporate synergies in media and how that impacts some of the creative and financial decisions made are always interesting to me.

Edited May 16, 2016 by rspad
Being clearer is a virtue :)

[KaveDweller]

19 minutes ago, rspad said:

P.S.  Sorry if you already know the studio vs network thing, KaveDweller.  It's just that I've seen similar comments (“Why sign the actors if you aren’t going to renew?”) and the reality of corporate synergies in media and how that impacts some of the creative and financial decisions made are always interesting to me.

I find it really interesting too.  I knew the studio is the one who negotiates, it just seemed to me that the network would have given the studio a heads up that they weren't going to renew to save them all that trouble, especially since they both have the same owner. The decision about Stana was supposedly made by both the studio and the network and they were both getting a ton of flak for it, so you'd think they'd have announced the cancellation earlier to shut people up. Maybe the network really hadn't decided what to do, but I have a hard time believing they weren't leaning in one direction.

[TWP]

Wrrrrr (siren sound), correction police here. Nashville is produced by Lionsgate, not ABC Studios.  Lionsgate is attempting to shop Nashville to another channel, hopefully with some success. We'll see.

Just thought I'd be annoying, LOL, because it matters so so much (or not).

[rspad]

25 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

I find it really interesting too.  I knew the studio is the one who negotiates, it just seemed to me that the network would have given the studio a heads up that they weren't going to renew to save them all that trouble, especially since they both have the same owner. The decision about Stana was supposedly made by both the studio and the network and they were both getting a ton of flak for it, so you'd think they'd have announced the cancellation earlier to shut people up. Maybe the network really hadn't decided what to do, but I have a hard time believing they weren't leaning in one direction.

The network may have been leaning, but if the studio saw any daylight for renewal (and the chance to make more $$), they'd do whatever it took to get the show to a creative/financial place for S9 to present to the network.  That's why I really do think it was a down to the wire decision by the network because, like you said, they could have just announced cancellation earlier and saved themselves the trouble.

Remember too, the news of Stana & Tamala not being asked back was never any official announcement from the studio or network.  The report was going to be published, they were likely asked for comment before it did, and that's what we saw included from ABC.  If they had their choice, I believe the studio & network would have wanted that news to come out in a whole other way, if at all.  Just like people, studios/networks don't like their dirty laundry aired in public - or show how the sausage is made, so to speak - and prefer to shape their own PR. :-)

5 minutes ago, TWP said:

Wrrrrr (siren sound), correction police here. Nashville is produced by Lionsgate, not ABC Studios.  Lionsgate is attempting to shop Nashville to another channel, hopefully with some success. We'll see.

Just thought I'd be annoying, LOL, because it matters so so much (or not).

Ha!  Oops, my apologies.  Yes, Lionsgate.  But my point is the same, the studio hired the new showrunners in an attempt to make it more attractive to the network for renewal.

Edited May 16, 2016 by rspad

[KaveDweller]

33 minutes ago, rspad said:

The network may have been leaning, but if the studio saw any daylight for renewal (and the chance to make more $$), they'd do whatever it took to get the show to a creative/financial place for S9 to present to the network.  That's why I really do think it was a down to the wire decision by the network because, like you said, they could have just announced cancellation earlier and saved themselves the trouble.

Remember too, the news of Stana & Tamala not being asked back was never any official announcement from the studio or network.  The report was going to be published, they were likely asked for comment before it did, and that's what we saw included from ABC.  If they had their choice, I believe the studio & network would have wanted that news to come out in a whole other way, if at all.  Just like people, studios/networks don't like their dirty laundry aired in public - or show how the sausage is made, so to speak - and prefer to shape their own PR. :-)

Ha!  Oops, my apologies.  Yes, Lionsgate.  But my point is the same, the studio hired the new showrunners in an attempt to make it more attractive to the network for renewal.

It must have been down to the wire yes, I would just really love to know what made them make the final call. Everyone who claimed to have inside knowledge was saying it would be renewed and so did all the TV sites that do predictions.

ABC probably wouldn't have announced the news about Stana and Tamala until the upfronts. They definitely knew it would have caused backlash and did not want to deal with that. Also if it was cancelled they would never even have to admit it, which would have made things easier for them. Although if in this past month we were hearing about Nathan, Jon, and Seamus negotiating and hearing no news about Stana doing the same, the fandom would have gotten worked up too.

[femmefan1946]

 give Castle a few years to grieve so that a new love interest would not be as frowned upon (as I've heard that widowers usually remarry more often and sooner than do widows).

Castle had been married and divorced twice by the time Alexis was 14. So on average his serious relationships lasted seven years (or less since I gather divorce takes longer to complete than marriage.)

On that basis, they could have killed off Beckett and she would be just part of his pattern.

[westwingfan]

6 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

It must have been down to the wire yes, I would just really love to know what made them make the final call. Everyone who claimed to have inside knowledge was saying it would be renewed and so did all the TV sites that do predictions.

ABC probably wouldn't have announced the news about Stana and Tamala until the upfronts. They definitely knew it would have caused backlash and did not want to deal with that. Also if it was cancelled they would never even have to admit it, which would have made things easier for them. Although if in this past month we were hearing about Nathan, Jon, and Seamus negotiating and hearing no news about Stana doing the same, the fandom would have gotten worked up too.

I read on one of the tumblr blogs that suggested that all of the news about a possible S9 was coming from ABC Studios and that ABC Entertainment had been keeping very quiet until they had to announce their decision, it also claimed that Channing Dungey, in one of her earlier roles, had been involved in the development of Castle and would therefore be quite cogniscent as to what the show was supposed to be about.

According to Tamala she didn't expect the news of her and Stana not returning for a S9 to be released until after the finale aired, which would have presumably have been after the renewal or not decision had been made as the deadline for the showrunners knowing which ending to air was May 13th. I wonder if the show would still have been cancelled anyway without all the drama of the past few weeks, because the decision had to be made before people could have mobilised the support Stana campaigns. A lot has been said about how the online community is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and it wasn't as if TPTB weren't aware of how losing Beckett could effect the show if they did actually take any notice of the twittering because there were plenty NoStanaNoCastle tweets last year when  the renewal was announced before the news that she had re-signed, and all season virtually every post by the official twitter and FB account that highlighted Castle with just Alexis or Hayley has attracted a lot of negative comments and asking where Beckett was. So it wasn't as if they weren't already aware of the feelings of some of the audience if they took that into account.

It is curious how the renewal predictor sites almost all had Castle "likely to be cancelled" for the first half of the season, but then, even though ratings were still falling, albeit not as much as some other shows, they started to shift to "could go either way" and then at then end virtually all were predicting renewal, even the Grim Reaper gave it a 75% chance. I wonder where they were getting the positive vibes for a S9 from, was this part of ABC Studios plan to try to put pressure on ABC Entertainment to renew the show.

[chraume]

2 hours ago, westwingfan said:

It is curious how the renewal predictor sites almost all had Castle "likely to be cancelled" for the first half of the season, but then, even though ratings were still falling, albeit not as much as some other shows, they started to shift to "could go either way" and then at then end virtually all were predicting renewal, even the Grim Reaper gave it a 75% chance. I wonder where they were getting the positive vibes for a S9 from, was this part of ABC Studios plan to try to put pressure on ABC Entertainment to renew the show.

I think that's more reflective of the landscape of ABC at the end of the season than it was about Castle's ratings. S8 started off terribly -- wasn't it, like, a 1.2? -- and then stayed more or less steady throughout the season, which is a feat in and of itself, given that Castle fluctuated between about 0.7 last year. And then, towards the end of the season, all the othe ABC shows started to drop. Agents of Shield is getting 0.9s, Quanico is underperforming, OUaT is dropping like crazy. I think, initially, Castle looked terrible comparatively, but only improved as the network average dropped, and the entertainment sites' predictions reflects that. Not necessarily insider knowledge -- although, you're right, the contract and "sources say things are looking good" stuff from the past couple of weeks definitely feels like an ABC Studios leak to me.

[TWP]

29 minutes ago, chraume said:

I think that's more reflective of the landscape of ABC at the end of the season than it was about Castle's ratings. S8 started off terribly -- wasn't it, like, a 1.2? -- and then stayed more or less steady throughout the season, which is a feat in and of itself, given that Castle fluctuated between about 0.7 last year. And then, towards the end of the season, all the othe ABC shows started to drop. Agents of Shield is getting 0.9s, Quanico is underperforming, OUaT is dropping like crazy. I think, initially, Castle looked terrible comparatively, but only improved as the network average dropped, and the entertainment sites' predictions reflects that. Not necessarily insider knowledge -- although, you're right, the contract and "sources say things are looking good" stuff from the past couple of weeks definitely feels like an ABC Studios leak to me.

This recap of the season makes ABC's decision to dump Castle (and Nashville too, really) seem more emotional than logical. Dungey wants to make her mark, I know, but she may not be making the mark she wanted. 

[chraume]

16 minutes ago, TWP said:

This recap of the season makes ABC's decision to dump Castle (and Nashville too, really) seem more emotional than logical. Dungey wants to make her mark, I know, but she may not be making the mark she wanted. 

Eh, I'm not sure. I definitely could have seen reason to keep the show, but I think there was risk inherent in doing a Beckettless S9. For all that everyone complains about them, S5/S6, with Castle and Beckett together both professionally and personally, were the most successful seasons, ratings-wise, and the show has really only started sagging in ratings since it's tried to deviate from that format. I think the 1.0-1.1 was the new normal, but I wouldn't expect that to keep with another new change in format, and ultimately it had to be the most expensive show on the network after Grey's Anatomy (whose ratings can't even compare). It's smart, I think, to give up the time lot to a newbie with room to grow, but, you're right, I think if there was a guarantee that the ratings stay in that range for the next season (as could be assumed if S8 and S9 were to be comparably executed), ABC would've been smart to keep it.

[Annec]

15 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

Yeah, I think that was definitely part of it. I remember last summer there were spoilers about making Alexis an adult, and I think they did that because they knew they wanted her to be involved in the PI thing. Having her as an "adult" makes it a little more plausible that she could be running around solving crimes, and that Castle wouldn't object to it. It also seemed clear that the PI storyline and Haley were being added in case they had to do a season 9 without Beckett. It must have been in the back of their minds that if that happened they would need a time jump if that happened. Or they didn't think of a time jump, but just wanted her to be able to fill a gap left by Beckett. I wish that they'd allowed her to "grow up" more naturally and have her own life/interests. I think Alexis has actually annoyed me more than Loksat and the breakup.

I think the idea behind "maturing" Alexis was that she could leave college behind and be part of the PI office.  For me, Alexis has been annoying since she started college and the "uber wizard of everything" aspect of her this season just added to that.  Why they couldn't develop a Beckett/Alexis relationship was always strange.  They did a good job of setting up Beckett as a mentor in S1 and S2 but then seemed to drop it except of one scene a season.  It just seemed so strange how co-dependent her relationship with Castle became.  They even touched on it in "Child's Play".  It would have been much more believable to me if she'd gone off to med school and became an ME.  Don't even get me started on Alexis and Hayley.  IIRC, the original casting notice called for someone in her 20's but they went with Toks because of her "amazing" chemistry with Molly.  This was another case of the writers telling rather than showing.  I just never got the immediate trust between Alexis and Hayley and Castle. It also pointed to the lackluster casting this season.  Past seasons were full of memorable guest stars.  Aside from "The Nose" I think the casting this season was dismal.

[MaryM47]

Quote

Castle had been married and divorced twice by the time Alexis was 14.

True, but he married Meredith because she got pregnant and Gina because...she was there. And the show went to great lengths to show us that Beckett was the love of his life, so I would like to believe she was more than part of a pattern. 

Quote

they went with Toks because of her "amazing" chemistry with Molly

Or did they go with Toks because her show The Neighbors had just been cancelled and she was part of the ABC family, and perhaps like Fillion back in the day, IIRC, had a clause in her contract saying they would give her special consideration when casting their shows?

[Annec]

21 minutes ago, MaryM47 said:

True, but he married Meredith because she got pregnant and Gina because...she was there. And the show went to great lengths to show us that Beckett was the love of his life, so I would like to believe she was more than part of a pattern. 

Or did they go with Toks because her show The Neighbors had just been cancelled and she was part of the ABC family, and perhaps like Fillion back in the day, IIRC, had a clause in her contract saying they would give her special consideration when casting their shows?

I'm just going by reporting that they were originally going to cast a younger actress but Toks impressed them with her chemistry with Molly.  Hawley was very big on the Hayley/Alexis "chemistry" all season.

""The co-showrunner also teased that they have already shot scenes featuring the two characters and added that it was magical. Additionally, Winter said Alexis and Hayley will bring about a different kind of energy to the show." http://www.designntrend.com/articles/59628/20150826/castle-season-8-spoilers-hayley-shipton-inspire-mentor-ricks-daughter.htm

Although, I just saw this quote from Hawley so who knows how much you can trust what he said:

"However, Alexi Hawley went on to add that the heart of the show will stay the same:

"It's always been about the Castle-Beckett love story."

[MaryM47]

Quote

I'm just going by reporting

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, sorry if it came across that way. I think I'm just looking at the world through my "it's Monday morning and everything is crap" glasses today. Which I may have bought at the same eyeglass store where the showrunners picked up their "Our show is magical and fun" glasses ;)

[Guest]

I never saw this magical chemistry between Hayley and anyone, not even Alexis.  She was just kinda.... there.

[TWP]

30 minutes ago, MaryM47 said:

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you at all, sorry if it came across that way. I think I'm just looking at the world through my "it's Monday morning and everything is crap" glasses today. Which I may have bought at the same eyeglass store where the showrunners picked up their "Our show is magical and fun" glasses ;)

Oh yeah, today is the day when you'all will tell me how Castle ends.  Honestly, I totally forgot.  Thanks in advance ;-).

[TWP]

Tamala Jones is live-chatting before Castle.  Links to the chat hosts here:  https://twitter.com/tamalajones

[AntiBeeSpray]

Will be watching tonight. For the heck of it.

[madmaverick]

Verdana, did you get a laugh out of Luke calling Nathan his male muse?  Lol.  If that's the way he dresses his male muse, I shudder at the thought of how he dresses mere mortals.  Adios to ugly Castle menswear.  I won't miss you.  I'll never forget Beckett's swimsuit and wedding dress either.  Iconic, heh.  

I won't miss Bowman's directing in the dark either.  But there should be at least some Caskett scenes set outdoors so not much Bowman can do to ruin those, I hope.  Let's see if there's one last silhouette shot. ;)

Despite all our snark, I'm still going to miss seeing Castle and Beckett, Nathan and Stana, onscreen together.  They did generate some magical chemistry over the years.  It would be cool if ABC did some Castle TV movies down the line, but it'll never happen. So this is probably the last we'll see of them onscreen together. It'll be interesting to see if they exhibit the same degree of chemistry with costars who are fellow romantic leads in the future.  

[Annec]

6 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

Verdana, did you get a laugh out of Luke calling Nathan his male muse?  Lol.  If that's the way he dresses his male muse, I shudder at the thought of how he dresses mere mortals.  Adios to ugly Castle menswear.  I won't miss you.  I'll never forget Beckett's swimsuit and wedding dress either.  Iconic, heh.  

I won't miss Bowman's directing in the dark either.  But there should be at least some Caskett scenes set outdoors so not much Bowman can do to ruin those, I hope.  Let's see if there's one last silhouette shot. ;)

Despite all our snark, I'm still going to miss seeing Castle and Beckett, Nathan and Stana, onscreen together.  They did generate some magical chemistry over the years.  It would be cool if ABC did some Castle TV movies down the line, but it'll never happen. So this is probably the last we'll see of them onscreen together. It'll be interesting to see if they exhibit the same degree of chemistry with costars who are fellow romantic leads in the future.  

I sincerely hope that, given some distance, both Nathan and Stana realize what magic in a bottle they had and come together for a future collaboration.  I haven't seen either of them in much else (I did go find Firefly and For Lovers Only to watch) but I do think they elevated each other's work in a way you don't see very often.

[TWP]

12 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

Verdana, did you get a laugh out of Luke calling Nathan his male muse?  Lol.  If that's the way he dresses his male muse, I shudder at the thought of how he dresses mere mortals.  Adios to ugly Castle menswear.  I won't miss you.  I'll never forget Beckett's swimsuit and wedding dress either.  Iconic, heh.  

I won't miss Bowman's directing in the dark either.  But there should be at least some Caskett scenes set outdoors so not much Bowman can do to ruin those, I hope.  Let's see if there's one last silhouette shot. ;)

Despite all our snark, I'm still going to miss seeing Castle and Beckett, Nathan and Stana, onscreen together.  They did generate some magical chemistry over the years.  It would be cool if ABC did some Castle TV movies down the line, but it'll never happen. So this is probably the last we'll see of them onscreen together. It'll be interesting to see if they exhibit the same degree of chemistry with costars who are fellow romantic leads in the future.  

Yesterday, I watched Stana in her "24" episodes and Nathan in "The Waitress".  IMHO, neither were as good as they were in even the earliest days of Castle. So yes, IMHO, the two are greater than the sum of the parts.

[CheshireCat]

9 hours ago, westwingfan said:

 

It is curious how the renewal predictor sites almost all had Castle "likely to be cancelled" for the first half of the season, but then, even though ratings were still falling, albeit not as much as some other shows, they started to shift to "could go either way" and then at then end virtually all were predicting renewal, even the Grim Reaper gave it a 75% chance. I wonder where they were getting the positive vibes for a S9 from, was this part of ABC Studios plan to try to put pressure on ABC Entertainment to renew the show.

I'm pretty sure that everyone changed their Castle renewal prediction after the mass renewal. I guess they were thinking that if shows which were performing much worse than Castle were getting renewed then Castle was a safe bet. Many believed that due to that mass renewal, Castle's renewal depended only on contracts and since Fillion had renewed, everyone thought it was a go. The question is, was it always such a "done deal" for ABC, too?

[madmaverick]

Publicly, Nathan and Stana have always attributed their chemistry to the writing and downplayed whatever x factor they had that contributed to it.  Privately, as actors, I don't know whether they realised they had some good onscreen chemistry that doesn't always happen.  They probably did, because I would think actors tend to know, even if they had a different perspective as the two people exhibiting it to outsiders looking in.

I watched Nathan in Firefly and thought he had good chemistry there with Morena Baccarin, the actress who played the character his character was doing the WT/WT with.  And I also enjoyed his chemistry with the actress from Kristin Lehman, who played Serena Kaye on Castle, though that was an even more short lived show.  Going further back, I enjoyed him with Dana Delany too when he played a priest seduced by her heh.  Would not object to seeing them onscreen together again.

As for Stana, can't say I enjoyed her with Mark Polish but that could have more to do with his acting and the poor script than her.  But I have to say that the trailer for her new film The Rendezvous didn't impress either and I didn't see any particular chemistry between her character and the male lead.

I would love to see Susan Sullivan guest star in something like Grace and Frankie.

It's not that Jon and Seamus are bad actors, but I'm not sure I see them as leads either.  I think they could be given the right roles, but I don't feel automatically drawn to them as actors either.

Molly impressed me as an actor at the start of Castle, but Alexis has definitely gotten less appealing as the seasons went on as the writers didn't seem to know what to do with her.  Maybe she'll impress again in a fresh role.  She should have lots of opportunities at her age. 

[FlickerToAFlame]

I could see Molly getting one of those ABC deals (official or just a verbal promise) where she's given an advantage in future pilot casting. The network seems to like her. And with the right script, I think she could thrive. 

[TWP]

16 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

Publicly, Nathan and Stana have always attributed their chemistry to the writing and downplayed whatever x factor they had that contributed to it.  Privately, as actors, I don't know whether they realised they had some good onscreen chemistry that doesn't always happen.  They probably did, because I would think actors tend to know, even if they had a different perspective as the two people exhibiting it to outsiders looking in.

In later years, they probably weren't even in the same room together for many of the scenes.  I don't know about earlier years.  But I really should have said their chemistry in Castle was probably in great part due to clever editing.  So maybe wherever the editing team goeth, the chemistry will also go.  We'll have to see if that is true.

[FlickerToAFlame]

So Alexi and TPW *still* haven't commented on *their* show being cancelled. At the very least, wouldn't you think they would tweet out a little promo/encouragement to watch?

Weird. 

[madmaverick]

4 minutes ago, FlickerToAFlame said:

So Alexi and TPW *still* haven't commented on *their* show being cancelled. At the very least, wouldn't you think they would tweet out a little promo/encouragement to watch?

Weird. 

Maybe they're too busy sending out their resumes? ;)

Not sure if it's too late for writers to get on board new shows for next season, but the actors probably have to wait for the next round of pilot season for regular roles unless midseason shows are still being cast.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

 

I watched Nathan in Firefly and thought he had good chemistry there with Morena Baccarin, the actress who played the character his character was doing the WT/WT with.  And I also enjoyed his chemistry with the actress from Kristin Lehman, who played Serena Kaye on Castle, though that was an even more short lived show.  Going further back, I enjoyed him with Dana Delany too when he played a priest seduced by her heh.  Would not object to seeing them onscreen together again.

 

They played a married couple on Desperate Housewives.