Spoilers, Speculation & All Things Media!

[Zaffy]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/fien-print/castle-series-finale-strikes-a-894699
Dan Fienberg didn't enjoy the finale much...

[TWP]

This morning my DH asked me, "What's New?"

I said, "well, the internet is pretty much ticked about this Castle episode."

My DH replied, "No, you didn't answer my question.  I said, what's NEWWWW?"

Touche.

[CheshireCat]

In indsight, I wonder if Hawley/Winter knew Katic wasn't supposed to be back. When they said that they prepared a finale in case the show won't be the same when they return, I assumed it would put the majority of characters in danger - Castle, Beckett, Espo, Ryan, Hayley, Vikram (since they were all involved with LokSat). The fact that it was just the two of them and there was a 99% chance that the show wouldn't even be considered for renewal without Fillion, now makes me wonder if they knew. Just throwing it out there as a thought but could it be that they had been tired of BTS and asked that the show come back with only one of the actors/mentioned that they would prefer it?

[oberon55]

I have a question. Does anybody know what Alexis major was. Did they ever mention it.

[CheshireCat]

Quote

"At the end of the day, we didn't feel that even though Castle and Nashville were wonderful shows and good performers for a long time, the future for us didn't lie in those shows"

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/why-castle-canceled-nashville-894835

In other words, ABC didn't think that Fillion could carry the show and that a spin-off that would go on for more than 13 episodes was likely?!

[TWP]

6 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/why-castle-canceled-nashville-894835

In other words, ABC didn't think that Fillion could carry the show and that a spin-off that would go on for more than 13 episodes was likely?!

Nah, for me, the translation was, "I wanted the time slot for my sister's show".  Conviction is slotted for Monday at 10:00pm.

Reading the synopsis, Conviction is yet another, yawn, innocence project type show.  Those fail.  I think Castle PI would have had far more diverse potential.

Edited May 17, 2016 by TWP

[turnitwayup]

Nope. She was suppose to graduate this spring too. The show made a big deal of her hs graduation and choosing a college but totally dropped the ball on her undergrad education. Would a made a little more sense if s7-s8 had a one yr time jump and that's why Alexis was hanging around the PI office at all hours.

Heh

Quote

 

 

[pennben]

13 minutes ago, TWP said:

Nah, for me, the translation was, "I wanted the time slot for my sister's show".  Conviction is slotted for Monday at 10:00pm.

 

And I'm crazy because I felt like there was sexism with Stana being dropped from the show. Honestly.

[CheshireCat]

55 minutes ago, TWP said:

Nah, for me, the translation was, "I wanted the time slot for my sister's show".  Conviction is slotted for Monday at 10:00pm.

 

I think that could have been accomplished by doing any number of things. If there's a will, there's a way, and if they had thought Castle was worth investing in then they would have found to keep it on the air.

I have to admit, if they had renewed Castle and ended the show with the ending we got yesterday and then done a "7 years earlier" upon their return and opened with the audience being filled in that Beckett's still in rehab/decided to leave the NYPD because she just found out she was pregnant and became a senator after all (thus was in Albany/Washington, depending) a lot and we had gotten the occasional "fake" phone call or information on her (and then a final scene between her and Castle (with Beckett from behind so they can use a stand-in) with their just-born baby, or something along those lines) I probably would have watched. (If it hadn't turned into a Hayley-Alexis show)

Edited May 17, 2016 by CheshireCat

[TWP]

47 minutes ago, pennben said:

And I'm crazy because I felt like there was sexism with Stana being dropped from the show. Honestly.

I figured it was obvious that I was kidding. 

I never said anyone was crazy, BTW.  I probably did say that MY OWN opinion was that it wasn't sexism.  Yours is that it was.  I don't need validation from your opinion, thus you shouldn't need validation from mine. We don't have to agree.

[pennben]

I hope you can understand that when someone says the new lady must be just doing it for her sister, I get my hackles up and I don't think they are "just kidding". Bad on me that I didn't see a joke in what you said. That happens sometimes!  Mea culpa.  Whoops. The written word, whatever.

I wasn't looking for validation from you, never expected you seeking it from me from my thoughts on this board.  Nope.

And we were having such fun!!! I mean that.

We all sometimes miss the mark, but we all move on.  All the best.

Edited May 17, 2016 by pennben

[Noggin]

1 hour ago, CheshireCat said:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/why-castle-canceled-nashville-894835

In other words, ABC didn't think that Fillion could carry the show and that a spin-off that would go on for more than 13 episodes was likely?!

I don't think he could, not if it was just going to be an extension of Castle even for 13 episodes....a risk for ABC but was Conviction and better bet, we shall see.

[Noggin]

1 hour ago, pennben said:

And I'm crazy because I felt like there was sexism with Stana being dropped from the show. Honestly.

You're not alone in thinking that, several commentators have voiced similar opinions about Stana and other women in the industry, plus you have the BTS rumours but that subject has been done to death here and everyone has there own unshakable opinions on that situation.

[CheshireCat]

As I'm letting it all sink in I'm wondering what's up with Hawley/Winter cancelling a round of press calls as THR stated. Could it be that they really were convinced what they were doing with the show was right and were so disappointed with the cancellation that they didn't want to be hammered with questions? Or would they have liked to do something else and couldn't due to circumstances and they're angry and didn't want to have to face questions?

Edited May 17, 2016 by CheshireCat

[Cyranetta]

The Toast had an intriguing take on how to end the series: "An Alternative Ending to Castle"

[WendyCR72]

And the successor to Castle in the Monday nights at 10:00 p.m. slot is...Conviction, led by Hayley Atwell, formerly of Agent Carter.

[KaveDweller]

1 hour ago, Cyranetta said:

The Toast had an intriguing take on how to end the series: "An Alternative Ending to Castle"

That's kind of funny. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be, but it made me laugh.

It would still have been a crappy ending though. I can't fathom why they didn't skip the shoot out and just show a longer happily ever after. That's what happened in my head, I think. Or we hear that Castle/Beckett

1 hour ago, CheshireCat said:

As I'm letting it all sink in I'm wondering what's up with Hawley/Winter cancelling a round of press calls as THR stated. Could it be that they really were convinced what they were doing with the show was right and were so disappointed with the cancellation that they didn't want to be hammered with questions? Or would they have liked to do something else and couldn't due to circumstances and they're angry and didn't want to have to face questions?

They must have been planning to talk about how great season 9 would be, but were blindsided by the news and couldn't deal? It kind of sucks for fans who actually wanted to hear what they intended that crappy finale to mean. Most showrunners still give interviews after a cancellation, saying they are upset by it. I would have been curious to see what they'd said about the weird ending, but they probably would have just annoyed me.

I really do wonder if there's something else that went down BTS (aside from what has already come out).

[alihart41]

4 hours ago, KaveDweller said:

That's kind of funny. I'm not sure if it's supposed to be, but it made me laugh.

It would still have been a crappy ending though. I can't fathom why they didn't skip the shoot out and just show a longer happily ever after. That's what happened in my head, I think. Or we hear that Castle/Beckett

They must have been planning to talk about how great season 9 would be, but were blindsided by the news and couldn't deal? It kind of sucks for fans who actually wanted to hear what they intended that crappy finale to mean. Most showrunners still give interviews after a cancellation, saying they are upset by it. I would have been curious to see what they'd said about the weird ending, but they probably would have just annoyed me.

I really do wonder if there's something else that went down BTS (aside from what has already come out).

Yeah, it sounds like those calls were scheduled before the cancellation and they were expecting a renewal, so they would've talked about what a Beckett-less Castle looks like. Now they're too butt-hurt to do them (they're "processing emotions" as they say in the statement). I also don't understand THR pointing out that the Kings did calls the day after The Good Wife's series finale. That's completely different. They had known The Good Wife was ending since February (probably even earlier since the final season was only announced in February during the Super Bowl) and had months to plan the final episodes. That's not the same as TPW and Hawley haphazardly slapping together an episode they thought would be a season finale and then finding out four days before air that the show is canceled.

I'm sure someone will get a hold of one or both of them eventually to talk about it.

Edited May 18, 2016 by alihart41

[WendyCR72]

While the general audience (i.e. us poor schlubs) was largely uneducated until recently about ABC Network and ABC Studios as separate entities, I cannot buy that those in the biz, i.e. the show runners, were. Especially since one worked on other canceled shows.

So even if ABC Studios was hoping for a S9 and negotiating, the show runners should have anticipated all outcomes. I know they blah blahed about different endings, but overall, it seems to me they took a renewal for granted when they should have been more cautious, especially when you consider Paul Lee's exit (he seemed to be a Castle proponent) and the diminishing ratings along with its advanced age.

To me, there is no excuse for the slapdash ending. Proper contingency plans should have been in effect months ago with all of the above variables, so I just cannot buy "well, they had no time for a true ending; the network sprung it on them!". No. These folks have worked in TV for a while now. They should know nothing is guaranteed (again, especially given old age of the show and new management) and should have been planning accordingly.

Instead, arrogance took hold and this was the half-assed mess they served their fanbase.

But as much of a mess as it was, I think the likes of HIMYM can rest easy: That pile of excrement was still on its own plane of hideous existence. To me, anyway. (And TIIC knew it was the end. Scary! So maybe this would have been ridiculous either way, after all!)

[TWP]

14 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

And the successor to Castle in the Monday nights at 10:00 p.m. slot is...Conviction, led by Hayley Atwell, formerly of Agent Carter.

And co-starring Channing Dungey's sister Merrin Dungey....which was the reason for my joke above about nepotism and why they had to boot Castle ;-).

[BlakesMomma]

1 hour ago, TWP said:

And co-starring Channing Dungey's sister Merrin Dungey....which was the reason for my joke above about nepotism and why they had to boot Castle ;-).

The fact that they announced the sister's casting like a day or two after the announcement of Dungey's promotion was kind of stupid timing because it made it look like her first priority in her new job was getting her sister cast in a Shonda show. LOL  

[tljgator]

I was just reading the new THR round table discussion and thought I'd share a quote from Julianna Margulies that for some reason (can't imagine why!) reminded me of Castle:

Quote

MARGULIES I mean, it's enough at a certain point. I met with [CBS TV Studios president] David Stapf and [CBS Corp. chairman and CEO] Les Moonves, and we all talked about it and said, "Wouldn't it be horrible to go an eighth season and then have everyone say, 'Remember when it was great?' "

[IzeOfLight]

2 hours ago, BlakesMomma said:

The fact that they announced the sister's casting like a day or two after the announcement of Dungey's promotion was kind of stupid timing because it made it look like her first priority in her new job was getting her sister cast in a Shonda show. LOL  

Admittedly, Merrin Dungey had been on a Shonda show before (Grey's, playing Naomi before Audra McDonald took over the role when Private Practice started), and we've seen how much Shonda re-uses actors she likes. But yes, curious timing.

[CheshireCat]

20 minutes ago, tljgator said:

I was just reading the new THR round table discussion and thought I'd share a quote from Julianna Margulies that for some reason (can't imagine why!) reminded me of Castle:

I like that attitude and personally, I think that is the attitude I kind of think they should have. It gives me the impression TPTB and staff and crew care about what they're doing (their job, the show, the characters) and also that they care about the fans.

[madmaverick]

On 5/17/2016 at 0:54 AM, CheshireCat said:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/why-castle-canceled-nashville-894835

In other words, ABC didn't think that Fillion could carry the show and that a spin-off that would go on for more than 13 episodes was likely?!

I don't think it's about whether an actor can carry a show or not, and personally I'm really tired of the fandom wars about whether Nathan or Stana 'carried' the show, whatever that means.  There's a multitude of factors that goes into any show's success and it's not just about the actor.  It's far too simplistic to reduce it down to that.  But both Nathan and Stana have shown me over the years that they have a screen presence that would make me interested in their work in the future; for me, I came to that conclusion about Nathan even from his work prior to Castle when he was the lead.

As for ABC's decision, it seems to me that after weighing financial and creative considerations, Conviction was probably better 'value' for them than Castle, an aged show that was more expensive to produce even with a culled cast, and one that had had an uneven season creatively with no guarantee of lasting creative improvement ahead.  Conviction would be cheaper for them to produce, fresher creatively, another procedural, and even with all the risks that come with launching a new show it could deliver more in the long term which could be what ABC was looking for.  And yes, it has Dungey's sister in the cast whether that's relevant or not.  But Merrin Dungey's a long time actor (I know her from Alias), and I don't want to jump to any more conclusions about nepotism based on limited data than I do sexism. ;)

It's a moot point now but I'm still not entirely convinced that they would have killed off Beckett right off the bat in a hypothetical S9.  I could see her being put in a coma offscreen, leaving the possibility open to a guest spot return down the line or the insertion of that ending we ended up getting.    

[CheshireCat]

28 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

I don't think it's about whether an actor can carry a show or not, and personally I'm really tired of the fandom wars about whether Nathan or Stana 'carried' the show, whatever that means.  There's a multitude of factors that goes into any show's success and it's not just about the actor.  It's far too simplistic to reduce it down to that.  But both Nathan and Stana have shown me over the years that they have a screen presence that would make me interested in their work in the future; for me, I came to that conclusion about Nathan even from his work prior to Castle when he was the lead.

It was a completely neutral statement. It probably could have been phrased better but the fact that they considered renewal and certain circles seemed pretty sure that they'd get renewal makes me believe that someone thought the show could go on without Beckett and the fact that they then said they didn't see a future makes me believe that for some reason they reconsidered. Or maybe the network wasn't sold on the idea to begin with and it was just the studio which was confident. It has nothing to do with Fillion vs Katic but merely with the fact that even though someone first seemed to think there was a future in a Beckett-less Castle, someone else then thought otherwise.

As we all agreed, renewing it for 13 episodes only without Katic/Beckett seemed odd and many wondered if TPTB were hoping it would do well and/or they could create a spin-off out of it. Obviously, the network disagreed and didn't think Fillion/Castle alone could make that happen, not because Fillion isn't a strong enough character but because they, I'd say, didn't think a Beckett-less show was worth investing in, for various reasons.

[TWP]

38 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

 Conviction would be cheaper for them to produce, fresher creatively, another procedural, and even with all the risks that come with launching a new show it could deliver more in the long term which could be what ABC was looking for.    

I don't know about "fresher creatively".  The "innocence project" idea has been tried several times that I know of, and got very little footing. 

[madmaverick]

31 minutes ago, TWP said:

I don't know about "fresher creatively".  The "innocence project" idea has been tried several times that I know of, and got very little footing. 

Oh, I know the concept of the show's not new.  Just that a show from S1 is going to have more places to go creatively (even if they're predictable, well trodden places) than a show going into S9.  I like Hayley Atwell even though I never got attached to her cancelled ABC show, and think she's a more than capable lead actress, but I have to say I don't feel compelled to watch based on that trailer alone.  It's just all so predictable.  Which is a problem with many network shows.  Lead protagonist likely with a tragic or traumatic event in her past that makes her act out even though she's really got a heart of gold ;); 'bad' girl makes good.  Slowly earns respect of her motley crew.  Predictable WT/WT with her boss/mentor figure who got her the job.  Sure, Castle was a very predictable show from the get go too.  It was the sizzling chemistry and the witty dialogue (back then!) that made me give it a chance despite the predictability of it all.  I wish it'd stayed that charming little show it was then, rather than morphing into a mythology and conspiracy attached melodramatic mess.

34 minutes ago, CheshireCat said:

It was a completely neutral statement. It probably could have been phrased better but the fact that they considered renewal and certain circles seemed pretty sure that they'd get renewal makes me believe that someone thought the show could go on without Beckett and the fact that they then said they didn't see a future makes me believe that for some reason they reconsidered. Or maybe the network wasn't sold on the idea to begin with and it was just the studio which was confident. It has nothing to do with Fillion vs Katic but merely with the fact that even though someone first seemed to think there was a future in a Beckett-less Castle, someone else then thought otherwise.

As we all agreed, renewing it for 13 episodes only without Katic/Beckett seemed odd and many wondered if TPTB were hoping it would do well and/or they could create a spin-off out of it. Obviously, the network disagreed and didn't think Fillion/Castle alone could make that happen, not because Fillion isn't a strong enough character but because they, I'd say, didn't think a Beckett-less show was worth investing in, for various reasons.

The studio may have been more confident about a renewal, or they might have always known they might be cancelled (considering they decided to shoot 2 endings to begin with).  We simply don't know what kind of communication went on between the studio and the network prior to the final decision.  Maybe they even told the studio that they would have a better shot at renewal with a reduced budget, hence the cast cuts.  Who knows. The network wasn't going to commit prior to seeing how the final cut of their pilots turned out, and it could be that Conviction turned in a really strong pilot that made the network go with them instead of Castle.  Plus, importantly, they were cheaper.  We'll never know if ABC made the best business decision or not.  Even if Conviction bombs, we wouldn't know how a Beckett less Castle would have fared, although the finale did turn in strong numbers.

A lot of the TV media sites turned out to be wrong about the renewal/cancellation of quite a few shows on different networks, which indicates to me that a lot of those predictions along with their TV reporting are based on BS/incomplete data, and what's out there in the media is often not the complete picture of what's driving business decisions behind closed doors and often may only reflect one agenda at work.

Edited May 18, 2016 by madmaverick

[MaryM47]

TV Critic Matt Roush's take on the ending of Castle:

Quote

 

That “happy” ending was such a contrived and unconvincing joke, and the bloody cliffhanger—which was obviously their initial game plan, and a very bad one—reminded me why I had lost patience with this series years ago. This was almost an object lesson in how not to end a series. So awkward, so unsatisfying.

 All of those unhappy headlines preceding the news of Castle’s actual cancellationwere, it seems to me, a last-ditch effort to keep the franchise alive, when all signs pointed to cancellation being the most logical and sensible conclusion. A ninth season with Castle as a widower is something I can’t imagine anyone but the most ardent Fillion fan would be eager to witness, especially given all the negative publicity the show was getting in its final weeks. This is one of those cases when knowing too much about the inner workings of a show resulted in bad feelings all around. An unfortunate way to wrap a show that never aimed to be anything other than entertaining.

 

[KaveDweller]

6 hours ago, CheshireCat said:

As we all agreed, renewing it for 13 episodes only without Katic/Beckett seemed odd and many wondered if TPTB were hoping it would do well and/or they could create a spin-off out of it. Obviously, the network disagreed and didn't think Fillion/Castle alone could make that happen, not because Fillion isn't a strong enough character but because they, I'd say, didn't think a Beckett-less show was worth investing in, for various reasons.

Remember, Paul Lee was the one who was talking about how they were exploring ways to keep the show alive without both the stars (although he probably really just meant without Stana).  He also talked about wanting it to be on for "years to come." Maybe he really believed a Castle-only show would work and would have made a different call. Dungey clearly decided it wasn't worth the risk.

I think it's interesting that there was all that talk about ABC wanting more procedural when none of their new shows fit that model. Maybe Conviction will end up as one, but the trailer made it seem more like it was a soap-style show. 

I'm really curious who behind the scenes knew what when. Hawley and Winter cancelling their interviews make me think they were really surprised by the call, and that even though they filmed that extra ending, they really didn't think they'd be using it. But we also saw other writers fleeing to other jobs, as though they knew it was ending. Or maybe they were just tired of other BTS issues? I so want the whole story.

5 hours ago, madmaverick said:

A lot of the TV media sites turned out to be wrong about the renewal/cancellation of quite a few shows on different networks, which indicates to me that a lot of those predictions along with their TV reporting are based on BS/incomplete data, and what's out there in the media is often not the complete picture of what's driving business decisions behind closed doors and often may only reflect one agenda at work.

It could be because networks are starting to actually factor in more than just the demo rating, so the old formulas for predictions aren't as accurate. Or that as more sites start to make predictions it just becomes statistically more likely for some to be wrong.

[Nadine]

Conviction definitely fits into the procedural model (well the pilot does anyway).

[TWP]

1 hour ago, KaveDweller said:

It could be because networks are starting to actually factor in more than just the demo rating, so the old formulas for predictions aren't as accurate. Or that as more sites start to make predictions it just becomes statistically more likely for some to be wrong.

Or maybe secretly the demo has moved DOWN, to say, 15-45 or something.  That's how it feels to me anyway.  If not for my husband, I wouldn't own a TV anymore after this year. At 53 I am most definitely not the target market in any way.

[TWP]

From the trailer, Conviction might have its procedural moments, but it's definitely a soap. And the Criminal Minds (warped) and Shonda Rhimes (just as warped if not moreso) production combination, ewww, won't touch it.

I think I need to start a "#BringBackCastle" movement.  LOL.  I have a feeling I may develop a Firefly-ish feeling about the show.  Ended too soon, at least for me. Castle may have been bad, but it's not Shonda Rhimes disturbing bad.

[MaryM47]

Quote

Criminal Minds (warped)

Oh, you are so right. Had to sit through that show once when the in-laws were in town, and it gave me actual nightmares. 

[madmaverick]

I thought this was a really interesting read on the current state of the TV industry.

http://www.vulture.com/2016/05/peak-tv-business-c-v-r.html

Insights about the future prospects of all those involved with Castle: lead actors, series regulars, writers, showrunners, crew etc.

Will be interesting for me to see where the actors end up: broadcast or cable, lead or supporting.  Although of course I think luck, timing, as well as talent all figure into where actors end up along with business considerations and the market.

$500,000 for an episode of TV with Kevin Costner?!  What did they pay him for Waterworld?  Probably more. ;)

[femmefan1946]

Or maybe secretly the demo has moved DOWN, to say, 15-45 or something.

 

Well, that demographic now makes up 36% of the population of Canada and is probably very similar in the USA. And that's the group that is buying clothing, cars, homes, furniture, children's stuff. The early part of the demographic is all disposable income , even if it's just a McDonald's paycheck.

So for advertisers they are the goal.

We Boomers (I'm 70) are still 25% of the population, but we're not buying as much, are pretty set on our favourite products, are moving into our pension years, and dying. So not as attractive, unless you are selling funeral plans and Depends. (Also luxury cruises, RVs, and expensive cars, of course).

[Sonik Tooth]

I don't think it is a question about whether he can carry a show. They thought he could carry a show 8 years ago, so now with even more exposure to the public eye, why would they suddenly think otherwise?

If it is worth to carry on with Castle without one established co-lead, that's another question. And who is to say he is as front and center as the first three years? If he didn’t re-up bis workload, Castle would become more of an ensemble show. Even more than this season. 

On another note: I find it funny that the showrunners were talking about season 9 being even less serial, and now ABC bought even more shows with probably strong serial elements. Communication problems? 

Edited May 19, 2016 by Sonik Tooth

[TWP]

1 hour ago, femmefan1946 said:

Or maybe secretly the demo has moved DOWN, to say, 15-45 or something.

 

Well, that demographic now makes up 36% of the population of Canada and is probably very similar in the USA. And that's the group that is buying clothing, cars, homes, furniture, children's stuff. The early part of the demographic is all disposable income , even if it's just a McDonald's paycheck.

So for advertisers they are the goal.

We Boomers (I'm 70) are still 25% of the population, but we're not buying as much, are pretty set on our favourite products, are moving into our pension years, and dying. So not as attractive, unless you are selling funeral plans and Depends. (Also luxury cruises, RVs, and expensive cars, of course).

Yes, and we as "old people" are set in our ways and thus not as influenceable as young, fresh, creatively thinking minds, and thus not important.

I'm certain that if the demo shifted down, it happened quietly. Nothing worse than a bunch of old people scorned ;-).

Femmefan you don't seem a day over 50. Me, I'm not really 53, just 29 plus shipping and handling.

[anoldfriend]

On 5/19/2016 at 8:48 PM, TWP said:

From the trailer, Conviction might have its procedural moments, but it's definitely a soap. And the Criminal Minds (warped) and Shonda Rhimes (just as warped if not moreso) production combination, ewww, won't touch it.

I think I need to start a "#BringBackCastle" movement.  LOL.  I have a feeling I may develop a Firefly-ish feeling about the show.  Ended too soon, at least for me. Castle may have been bad, but it's not Shonda Rhimes disturbing bad.

It's not a soap. It's procedural, where the lead character has a back story, and the attitude of House. 

Shonda Rhimes has absolutely nothing to do with it. It's produced by The Mark Gordon Company, he is attached to Grey's and Criminal Minds, but he's not a writer and all his shows very in types of drama.

He also produced/produces Army Wives, Quantico, Designated Survivor, Ray Donovan, Private Pratice, Reaper...anyway you get my point. 

I think the Castle crowd will like Conviction. 

On 5/19/2016 at 2:20 PM, TWP said:

Yes, and we as "old people" are set in our ways and thus not as influenceable as young, fresh, creatively thinking minds, and thus not important.

I'm certain that if the demo shifted down, it happened quietly. Nothing worse than a bunch of old people scorned ;-).

Femmefan you don't seem a day over 50. Me, I'm not really 53, just 29 plus shipping and handling.

I think it's a huge mistake that advertises are making and have been for years. Millennials aren't buying as much as they think they are, and aren't reached through TV ads. 

[femmefan1946]

I believe the reason for the golden demographic being the 18 to 30's , is not so much that they buy a lot, it is that they are setting buying patterns.

I know I have been buying many of the same brands for forty years. Ones that I settled on when I was in my 20s.

And then there is the forming families part.

It's pretty old now, but Boom Bust Echo was a popular book on demographics published around 1990. David Foote, the writer, has some wise words on how consumers change through the years. My favourite example was that people in their 30s play tennis, so sports clubs need courts when there are a lot of people in or approaching their 30s. But once those 30somethings reach 50, they will be playing golf and the tennis courts will be deserted. There was a followup in 2000, (BBE2000) and then Prof. Foote retired.

[KaveDweller]

Does anyone remember if TV Line's May Sweep's Scorecard had more items listed under "possible fatalities" last week? I'm assuming Castle and Beckett were originally both supposed to be included there (even if we knew Castle would live and Beckett wouldn't have).  I know they add items all the time, but I don't think I've ever seen them take something away before.

I did notice they added items under Time Warps and Giving Birth to account for the very end of Crossfire.

[CheshireCat]

52 minutes ago, KaveDweller said:

Does anyone remember if TV Line's May Sweep's Scorecard had more items listed under "possible fatalities" last week? I'm assuming Castle and Beckett were originally both supposed to be included there (even if we knew Castle would live and Beckett wouldn't have).  I know they add items all the time, but I don't think I've ever seen them take something away before.

I did notice they added items under Time Warps and Giving Birth to account for the very end of Crossfire.

I think they had 9 originally. Although I'm not sure who the third additional one would have belonged to. Maybe not Castle related.

[Annec]

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 2:47 PM, Sonik Tooth said:

I don't think it is a question about whether he can carry a show. They thought he could carry a show 8 years ago, so now with even more exposure to the public eye, why would they suddenly think otherwise?

If it is worth to carry on with Castle without one established co-lead, that's another question. And who is to say he is as front and center as the first three years? If he didn’t re-up bis workload, Castle would become more of an ensemble show. Even more than this season. 

On another note: I find it funny that the showrunners were talking about season 9 being even less serial, and now ABC bought even more shows with probably strong serial elements. Communication problems? 

I think they really missed an opportunity to delve deeper into why Rick was so fascinated with death.  3XK touched on it briefly in the motel scene when he asked Rick how close he wanted to get to death.  If they had started touching on the issue in season 5 or 6 there would have been a natural increase in focus on Rick as well as keeping Martha and Alexis more in the mix than they did.  "Hollanders Woods" was a stand-out episode in season 7.  Imagine how they could have developed that story if they had touched on the mystery in previous seasons.

[GoGiants]

4 hours ago, Annec said:

I think they really missed an opportunity to delve deeper into why Rick was so fascinated with death.  3XK touched on it briefly in the motel scene when he asked Rick how close he wanted to get to death.  If they had started touching on the issue in season 5 or 6 there would have been a natural increase in focus on Rick as well as keeping Martha and Alexis more in the mix than they did.  "Hollanders Woods" was a stand-out episode in season 7.  Imagine how they could have developed that story if they had touched on the mystery in previous seasons.

Key word you used there was natural. :)

It could have been a thread throughout the whole series, creating additional backstory/intrigue for Castle all along (an item which has received some discussion in recent years). It may have made the show a bit darker than the creators may have intended, so they may not have considered it. But I think it would have been far more in line with the show's established universe than the disappearance/Loksat/PI/GDS mashup that we were given in later years. 

Heck, it may have opened up more opportunities for Castle's "I know a guy" moments as well, which I sorely missed as the seasons went by. Also, the death fascination/know a guy thing may have made it easier to have Castle's past tie back to Beckett or the NYPD or a case they work in twisty and unique ways without going off the crazy mom deep end. Or even more refreshingly, develop a mythology section of the show that wasn't part of an overwrought and silly conspiracy. 

ETA: I didn't love the original mom conspiracy storyline that concluded in Veritas. It dragged on for season after season and had plenty of over the top moments, but I still felt like it worked well enough as a major series arc. Also, it was satisfying to see the characters go on that journey and reach a conclusion, even if I didn't love all the stops along the way. The later season attempts to bring it all together took it from fine enough to horrible.

From the variety of shows I've watched over the years, it seems that writing mythology and multi season arcs can be a real challenge to do well in a show like Castle.

Edited May 23, 2016 by GoGiants

[FlickerToAFlame]

Question: Had Castle not been cancelled, how was the show going to explain Stana Katic’s absence as Kate next season? You previously (and ominously) hinted that none of the options being bandied about were good. —Bobbi
Ausiello: According to sources, one scenario had Kate surviving the season-ending shootout, but everyone — Rick included — would think her dead. Why the ruse? I’ll divulge that little tidbit in the next Ask Ausiello Live! (scheduled for this Tuesday, May 24 at 3:30 pm/ET at TVLine’s Facebook headquarters).

Question: Were you shocked/surprised with any of the cancellations announced on May 12? I know viewers were, but I’m wondering if the bloodletting even managed to get to you and others who are “in the business.” —Amy
Ausiello: The Nashville axing took me by surprise (primarily because of this), but the Castle cancellation floored me. I thought at the very least ABC would pull a Bones and bring it back for an abbreviated final season, especially after its sister studio went to all that behind-the-scenes trouble (and sustained so much heat) to make a ninth season cost-effective.

http://tvline.com/2016/05/23/supergirl-season-2-calista-flockhart-returning-cat-the-cw/

[IzeOfLight]

From TVLine:

Quote

Question: Had Castle not been cancelled, how was the show going to explain Stana Katic’s absence as Kate next season? You previously (and ominously) hinted that none of the options being bandied about were good. —Bobbi
Ausiello: According to sources, one scenario had Kate surviving the season-ending shootout, but everyone — Rick included — would think her dead. Why the ruse? I’ll divulge that little tidbit in the next Ask Ausiello Live! (scheduled for this Tuesday, May 24 at 3:30 pm/ET at TVLine’s Facebook headquarters).

Question: Were you shocked/surprised with any of the cancellations announced on May 12? I know viewers were, but I’m wondering if the bloodletting even managed to get to you and others who are “in the business.” —Amy
Ausiello: The Nashville axing took me by surprise (primarily because of this), but the Castle cancellation floored me. I thought at the very least ABC would pull aBones and bring it back for an abbreviated final season, especially after its sister studio went to all that behind-the-scenes trouble (and sustained so much heat) to make a ninth season cost-effective.

[madmaverick]

Ah, TV Line squeezes every last bit of juice from Castle. ;)  Someone will have watch his Ask whatever and report back.

I never thought they were going to kill her outright in the S8 finale and wasn't entirely convinced they would have had her definitively dead in any S9.  I think they'd always want to leave the door open... just in case.  Castle thinking Beckett dead but her not actually being dead is a bit of a tropy storyline, but honestly in the hands of some good writers (which was a bit questionable), it could have been an interesting storyline dramatically, if allowed to pack real emotional weight.  Nathan would have portrayed a gutted Castle well (finale x 10), and if they could still have had their happy sunset ending in the end...

Maybe ABC had laid down a bottom line financially that the studio was trying hard to meet.  Who knows.

I guess the cancellation did really floor TV Line as they had that url all ready set to go.  Oh well, they win with their clicks either way. ;)

Sad to see all the pics of the Castle sets torn down.  I was going to call dibs on the loft. :P  Don't suppose anyone had time to sneak souvenirs off set or even have a wrap party given the sudden end.

I agree that a deeper exploration into Castle's fascination with death and the macabre, and why he chose to write mystery novels and not any other genre, could have been an interesting ongoing backstory/story arc for the character.  But I agree that the creators may have thought that a bit too dark to pursue for the character and the show.  That, and I don't think the creators were interested or capable of sustaining more than one long overarching arc at a time. ;)  They were 'satisfied' with just the mombatross (and the Caskett relationship arc), and when the mombatross finally ended, they decided another conspiracy was the answer. ;)  I did like the birth of Castle P.I. as something new for the character to do after so many seasons, though obviously I would have preferred it if it didn't result in less Caskett.

Board withdrawal, anyone? 

Edited May 23, 2016 by madmaverick

[CheshireCat]

Beckett's death being a ruse? Makes me think that they would have explained that either because she thought she was a danger to Castle no matter what and wanted to protect him or because she disappeared with Rita. And both options (and possibly any other) would only have made me furious because they would not have been true to the love they established Castle and Beckett share and the feelings they have for each other.

Anyway, the show is cancelled, so I'm going to take a deep breath and relax. ;-)

[GoGiants]

Wow. The soap opera playbook seems to have been in heavy rotation at Castle for the last couple of seasons. 

I still cannot wrap my brain around this. So fake dead Beckett would be the final mythology piece of the show? And the reason for her disappearance? She had to hide from Loksat's boss or son of Loksat??? I'll be curious to hear what TvLine reports on that. 

S9 Castle could mourn offscreen and the show could function like "normal" until the last episode or two when they would discover her fake death and then wrap it up with the seven years later scene. It would be an especially awful thing if it was again presented as Beckett's choice to go and leave Castle out of the loop once more. It boggles my mind that this was ever an option. I do get that ABC was in a bind and that there were possible business reasons to keep the show (despite how destructive it may have been).

I agree that NF could have portrayed that grief well but that doesn't seem to be where the show was headed with the characters. There were few well acted/written serious moments this season (and so much silly). Based on S8, I just can't see them giving a storyline like this the proper attention and tone. My faith in the ability of the writers etc to pull this off was pretty much nil. Plus I'll be honest, I just did not want to see that for this story or the characters, especially after everything that has happened over the course of the show.

It sounds like, at least per TV Line, that it was a very near thing indeed.

Definite board withdrawals for me, @madmaverick. :)

Edited May 24, 2016 by GoGiants

[Noggin]

Thank goodness this never came about, real soap opera stuff. Beckett has disappeared at the start of S9 yet Castle and co believe she's dead, I seriously doubt any of the actors have the chops to carry that off that sort of dramatic device and what really would be the point?. Grief like that devestates, Castle would spend 13 episodes in serious mourning, but obviously they could not have that so it would be a travesty. I do not see the point of this story diversion, Stana was fired, did they really believe she might be enticed back if they decided that might be the way to go, or did they intend to use this as a possible hook to lure Stana/Beckett viewers back to season 9 teasing a chance she might return.