# What is going on with Castle? Spoilers



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

They have two new writers doing the scripts this season and so far the show has been going down the drain. I've watch every show this season and nothing is making any sense. Now they say they are going to stop in Nov and come back in Feb. I loved the show and watch reruns of it every nite on TNT. But the new shows are a waste of time.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

I agree.



Spoiler



The whole concept of what Kate is doing to "protect" Castle is ludicrous. No sane person would believe that something like that would actually work. It is obviously more likely to put Castle in greater danger, since he does not know he needs to take precautions.



By the way, please do not start threads like this. Either make a season thread or an episode thread.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

SNJpage1 said:


> the new shows are a waste of time.


I agree.

BTW please don't post messages with trite expressions like "down the drain" or with cutie spellings like "nite." And I don't care much for your screen name; please don't use it any more.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

SNJpage1 said:


> Now they say they are going to stop in Nov and come back in Feb.


Someone else said that many (?) broadcast shows are taking 10 weeks off this year...?????


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

since as of now this isn't a spoiler thread


Spoiler



I like Toks Olagundoye (Jackie Joyner Kersee on "Neighbors") as the former Scotland Yard Detective. Says she is new series regular, but only seen her in 2 episodes.


----------



## jamesl (Jul 12, 2012)

Wil said:


> I agree.
> 
> BTW please don't post messages with trite expressions like "down the drain" or with cutie spellings like "nite." And I don't care much for your screen name; please don't use it any more.


don't know if you're trying to be funny or serious

if serious, then you truly are a senile member


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

SNJpage1 said:


> They have two new writers doing the scripts this season and so far the show has been going down the drain.


What new writers might those be?

The credits I'm seeing on imdb are for writers who have been associated with the show for years.

I don't dispute that the show has gone into the crapper. The heart went out of it around 2010 when Stephen J. Cannell died, and they quit doing the poker games with Castle and all his mystery writer buddies.

I still watch because I like the cast, but I wish they would give them better stuff to perform. Which is true for many of the shows I watch.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

It was always been a "check your brain at the door" type of show, but the whole main character tension idea is just too stupid for words. The drama and crime parts of the show are now so far behind the (bad attempts of) humor as to be trivial. The Castle character has become so stupid, he could be as mentally disabled as the two frick and frack detectives. It's gone far "down the drain". I've kept this one around as light filler, but my fingers hovering over that delete OP button.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

john4200 said:


> By the way, please do not start threads like this. Either make a season thread or an episode thread.


Serious question: Is this a forum rule?


----------



## mulscully (May 31, 2003)

Big Deficit said:


> It was always been a "check your brain at the door" type of show, but the whole main character tension idea is just too stupid for words. The drama and crime parts of the show are now so far behind the (bad attempts of) humor as to be trivial. The Castle character has become so stupid, he could be as mentally disabled as the two frick and frack detectives. It's gone far "down the drain". I've kept this one around as light filler, but my fingers hovering over that delete OP button.


Agreed.. Watched the first 2 episodes Don't really have an interest in watching the 3rd right now, but I guess I will keep it around just in case there is nothing else to watch except </scorpion>.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

Agreed with what everyone else has said.

I like Castle when it is light-hearted and fun. Check your brain at the door and enjoy some easy mysteries and light humor. Nathan Fillion carries that well. Neither he nor Stana Katic play serious well.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

Cearbhaill said:


> Serious question: Is this a forum rule?


Absolutely not! Forum rules describe rules for season and episode threads, but also have rules about threads which do not fit into those two categories and have examples of such threads, many of those examples being very similar to the title of the current thread.

I'm afraid any rule about having only season and episode threads exists only in the mind of John 4:20. Perhaps it was an attempt at mocking thread Nazis that fell flat?


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

I caught an rerun of the 80's show "Hart to Hart" recently and was struck by how well the Hart's are portrayed as a loving couple who are on the same team. Such a contrast to Castle. I wish they had taken the show more in the H-to-H direction rather than the fight-bicker-pull-apart direction.

ETA: In case any youngsters are not aware, "Hart to Hart" was a show in the 80's where a millionaire and his wife were amateur sleuths and would investigate all sorts of crimes. A big part of the charm of the show was the close relationship of the main characters, much like the first few seasons of Castle.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Cearbhaill said:


> Serious question: Is this a forum rule?


No, I did not say it was a rule. It was a request.

The problem is that when people start threads like this, it is often very difficult to avoid posting spoilers. You frequently end up with either a discussion full of spoiler tags, or else untagged spoilers.

Why not just start a season thread with spoilers allowed in the first place?


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

john4200 said:


> The problem is that when people start threads like this, it is often very difficult to avoid posting spoilers. You frequently end up with either a discussion full of spoiler tags, or else untagged spoilers.


Sometimes I'm reluctant to post disparaging comments about a series in the series thread because I don't want to take the thread in a negative direction from those people who enjoy it. I saw this thread as more of a discussion about the faults in the Castle series rather than a typical series discussion thread which is focused more on each episode.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

warrenn said:


> I caught an rerun of the 80's show "Hart to Hart" recently and was struck by how well the Hart's are portrayed as a loving couple who are on the same team. Such a contrast to Castle. I wish they had taken the show more in the H-to-H direction rather than the fight-bicker-pull-apart direction.
> 
> ETA: In case any youngsters are not aware, "Hart to Hart" was a show in the 80's where a millionaire and his wife were amateur sleuths and would investigate all sorts of crimes. A big part of the charm of the show was the close relationship of the main characters, much like the first few seasons of Castle.


I thought Max was the "charm". Not sure how you grew up, but I found it difficult to connect with Jonathan/Jennifer. Too rich/suave/beautiful. Max, on the other hand, was the glue.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Right off the bat in episode one I thought the show had jumped the shark. We'll still keep watching but I'm no longer upset that we wait until Tuesday to watch it (DWTS on Mondays -- and I'm not a huge fan of DWTS either).


----------



## Chuck_IV (Jan 1, 2002)

Agreed. I have a hard time continuing due to the IMO terrible current storyline.

These days they seem to insist on pitting Castle against Kate. I hate that. They were successful at having them work together and that's what I liked about the show. They meshed well and keeping them on opposing storylines is not allowing them to mesh.

Character spoiler...



Spoiler



Only thing that is keeping me is that I saw they are bringing back Adam Baldwin to reprise his role as Detective Slaughter from a few years ago.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Agreed, am tired of Kate's alternate life, much preferred solving weekly cases.


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

warrenn said:


> ETA: In case any youngsters are not aware, "Hart to Hart" was a show in the 80's where a millionaire and his wife were amateur sleuths and would investigate all sorts of crimes. A big part of the charm of the show was the close relationship of the main characters, much like the first few seasons of Castle.


I read recently there is talk of reviving "Hart to Hart" as two gay guys.

Now back to the Castle discussion.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

wprager said:


> I thought Max was the "charm". Not sure how you grew up, but I found it difficult to connect with Jonathan/Jennifer. Too rich/suave/beautiful. Max, on the other hand, was the glue.


And Freeway!
Can't forget Freeway!


----------



## Shakhari (Jan 2, 2005)

I've been thinking that it jumped the shark, especially after watching this week's episode. The separation thing is completely forced, and making Beckett the Captain takes her out of the cases. While there is a certain logic to her getting promoted and for Esposito and Ryan to be working cases on their own, considering how long everyone was in their previous roles, it still takes away from the dynamic that makes the show worth watching.

The one thing I do like is the larger role Alexis has been playing the last few episodes. They kind of struggled with what to do with her for a couple of seasons.


----------



## mulscully (May 31, 2003)

Shakhari said:


> I've been thinking that it jumped the shark, especially after watching this week's episode. The separation thing is completely forced, and making Beckett the Captain takes her out of the cases. While there is a certain logic to her getting promoted and for Esposito and Ryan to be working cases on their own, considering how long everyone was in their previous roles, it still takes away from the dynamic that makes the show worth watching.
> 
> The one thing I do like is the larger role Alexis has been playing the last few episodes. They kind of struggled with what to do with her for a couple of seasons.


Maybe they're trying to set us up for a spin off..?. Maybe "Closer" to "Major Crimes" style? Who knows.. But if it hasn't jumped the shark, Fonzi has his skis on and is approaching the ramp at least....


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

mulscully said:


> But if it hasn't jumped the shark, Fonzi has his skis on and is approaching the ramp at least....


Ya people use Jumping the shark for a lot of reasons.. not correct, but...


----------



## inaka (Nov 26, 2001)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> Ya people use Jumping the shark for a lot of reasons.. not correct, but...


Please educate us, oh wise one...

How is that usage incorrect?


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

"Jumping the shark" means whatever I say it means.


----------



## mulscully (May 31, 2003)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> Ya people use Jumping the shark for a lot of reasons.. not correct, but...


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark

<Wikipedia>
The usage of "jump the shark" has subsequently broadened beyond television, indicating the moment when a brand, design, franchise or creative effort's evolution declines.

The phrase "jumping the shark" was coined in 1985 by Jon Hein's roommate at the University of Michigan, Sean Connolly, when they were talking about favorite television shows that had gone downhill, and the two began identifying other shows where a similar "jump the shark" moment had occurred.Hein described the term as "*A defining moment when you know from now on &#8230; it's all downhill &#8230; it will never be the same.*"
</Wikipedia>


----------



## jth tv (Nov 15, 2014)

Castle is Not the only show I skipped the first few episodes hoping the show would get back to crime fighting. Same with NCIS, NCIS LA, the Blacklist, Bones, Quantico.

I Am a fan of crime solving but Not of the hero in trouble, the hero doing wrong. There is no quicker way to kill a show than to have the lead do something they can be blackmailed for.

When there is an episode description that indicates the personal stuff is resolved, I'll catch up. With a lot of fast forwarding.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

jamesl said:


> don't know if you're trying to be funny or serious


Unsure is OK. Over the long haul I aim for about 9/10 but it does still take me back a bit when I'm confronted with a total zoomover. But within that 10% range of error, unsure is good.


----------



## agentpaul (Feb 28, 2002)

john4200 said:


> No, I did not say it was a rule. It was a request.
> 
> The problem is that when people start threads like this, it is often very difficult to avoid posting spoilers. You frequently end up with either a discussion full of spoiler tags, or else untagged spoilers.
> 
> Why not just start a season thread with spoilers allowed in the first place?


If you think about it, in order to have a discussion about what the OP wrote, you have to have already watched past episodes up to the current ones this season so that you have an informed opinion. Therefore, spoiler is going to happen. How else are you going to talk about the show going downhill with examples without having watched any episodes this season compared to past seasons? I think it's great that OP created a separate thread so that he can talk about the overarching direction this show is going and if he posts in the weekly episode threads then he is constrained to only discuss that particular episode. It is also a negative sounding topic so OP is doing the Castle fans a favor by keeping all the negativity away from episodic discussions. Win-Win. I see nothing wrong with what OP did.

Let's stop with all these thread police stuff. There is hardly anybody posting anymore.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

agentpaul said:


> If you think about it, in order to have a discussion about what the OP wrote, you have to have already watched past episodes up to the current ones this season so that you have an informed opinion. Therefore, spoiler is going to happen. How else are you going to talk about the show going downhill with examples without having watched any episodes this season compared to past seasons? I think it's great that OP created a separate thread so that he can talk about the overarching direction this show is going and if he posts in the weekly episode threads then he is constrained to only discuss that particular episode. It is also a negative sounding topic so OP is doing the Castle fans a favor by keeping all the negativity away from episodic discussions. Win-Win. I see nothing wrong with what OP did.
> 
> Let's stop with all these thread police stuff. There is hardly anybody posting anymore.


If "spoiler is going to happen" then the thread needs to be a spoiler allowed thread, which this is not. If you post untagged spoilers in a thread that is not a spoiler-allowed thread, then you are breaking the forum rules.

It is not true that you can only discuss the current episode in an episode thread. You can discuss anything that happened up to and including the episode in an episode thread.

Or you can have a season thread, where all the discussion for all the episodes of the season that have aired so far is collected in one thread.

Maybe the reason some people are not posting is because the discussion is fragmented between threads like this and actual episode or season threads. Or maybe people don't want to have to spoiler tag everything they say in this thread, so they just do not post.

If you are correct that most people discussing in this thread have already seen the episodes, then that is all the more reason to start a season thread rather than this kind of thread. It is definitely NOT doing "Castle fans a favor" by keeping "negativity" out of episode discussions. An episode or season discussion is for discussing anything about the show, good or bad. There is no need to try to separate out criticism from gushing praise.


----------



## Cearbhaill (Aug 1, 2004)

john4200 said:


> Maybe the reason some people are not posting is because the discussion is fragmented between threads like this and actual episode or season threads. Or maybe people don't want to have to spoiler tag everything they say in this thread, so they just do not post.


Or they are tired of the ridiculous bickering and nitpicking.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Cearbhaill said:


> Or they are tired of the ridiculous bickering and nitpicking.


:up: yep, there are threads I don't post to because of this issue.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Cearbhaill said:


> Or they are tired of the ridiculous bickering and nitpicking.


Or they are tired of being spoiled by people who can't be bothered to take an extra 3 seconds out of their day to think about someone else besides themselves.

I know I've stopped reading many threads here after being frustrated by spoilers.

Also, maybe they are tired of being called a Nazi.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)




----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

mulscully said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_shark
> 
> <Wikipedia>
> The usage of "jump the shark" has subsequently broadened beyond television, indicating the moment when a brand, design, franchise or creative effort's evolution declines.
> ...


There was an episode of Arrested Development when one of the characters (I believe it was Buster) caught a shark with a fishing pole and landed it on the dock. Henry Winkler played the family attorney and deftly leapt over the shark on the dock in an obviously satirical moment. You had to understand the reference to get the joke.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

madscientist said:


> Or they are tired of being spoiled by people who can't be bothered to take an extra 3 seconds out of their day to think about someone else besides themselves.


And some are tired of people without common sense and choose to read a thread with a title that implies spoilers when they don't want to be spoiled, and complain when they're spoiled when it's their own fault.

This is a "meta" thread. A thread about the show, not about an episode. Spoilers are likely. Spoilers for the entire run, all seasons, are likely as people pull up examples of their opinion.

--Carlos V.


----------



## hummingbird_206 (Aug 23, 2007)

madscientist said:


> Or they are tired of being spoiled by people who can't be bothered to take an extra 3 seconds out of their day to think about someone else besides themselves.
> 
> I know I've stopped reading many threads here after being frustrated by spoilers.
> 
> Also, maybe they are tired of being called a Nazi.


:up: Yep. It takes just a few seconds to tag something. But you can't ever unsee an untagged spoiler.

I agree, a thread like this should be titled with 'spoilers'. It's not that tough to do and then people can discuss anything they want about the show.

Mods, please add 'Spoilers' to the thread title. See, easy peasy.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

mr.unnatural said:


> There was an episode of Arrested Development when one of the characters (I believe it was Buster) caught a shark with a fishing pole and landed it on the dock. Henry Winkler played the family attorney and deftly leapt over the shark on the dock in an obviously satirical moment. You had to understand the reference to get the joke.


That was great.


----------



## agentpaul (Feb 28, 2002)

hummingbird_206 said:


> :up: Yep. It takes just a few seconds to tag something. But you can't ever unsee an untagged spoiler.
> 
> I agree, a thread like this should be titled with 'spoilers'. It's not that tough to do and then people can discuss anything they want about the show.
> 
> Mods, please add 'Spoilers' to the thread title. See, easy peasy.


Just the title of this thread implies spoilers. Are some people really dense these days that they are incapable of deductive reasoning? Simple logics. Rules like that only make me think of someone as entitled and need to be spoon-fed spoiled brats.

What is worst is that 75% of the posts here now are talking about spoiler rules (I'm one of them). Is that fair to the OP? We are literally trolls ruining a good discussion thread. Why would anyone bother to create or post in threads if 75% of the posts are about forum rules?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

john4200 said:


> The whole concept of what Kate is doing to "protect" Castle is ludicrous.


I'm apparently missing a huge plot point.

Are you referring to their "temporary breakup" being her trying to protect him?

If so, from what?


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

mattack said:


> I'm apparently missing a huge plot point.
> 
> Are you referring to their "temporary breakup" being her trying to protect him?
> 
> If so, from what?


That's a very good question, and points out what's wrong with the show right now.

If there's a Big Bad after Kate, her separating herself from Castle and pursuing it doesn't protect Castle at all. Castle and the rest of his family are sitting ducks, going about their usual business in all their usual places.

At least on NCIS:LA, despite all their flights of fancy, they still give lip service to the problem, and recognize that in some times of duress the agents' families need to be put under protection.


----------



## rjcc (Jul 15, 2010)

murgatroyd said:


> That's a very good question, and points out what's wrong with the show right now.
> 
> If there's a Big Bad after Kate, her separating herself from Castle and pursuing it doesn't protect Castle at all. Castle and the rest of his family are sitting ducks, going about their usual business in all their usual places.
> 
> At least on NCIS:LA, despite all their flights of fancy, they still give lip service to the problem, and recognize that in some times of duress the agents' families need to be put under protection.


I think the plot point is that there isn't a Big Bad after Kate. She's going after the Big Bad, and for (reasons) wants to do it alone. It's still flimsy, but it's something.


----------



## Necromancer2006 (Jan 26, 2008)

Putting Kate in the Captain's job has altered the show. First off, a Captain of a NYC Precinct wouldn't have the time to be able to show up at cases. It is a much more administrative role than an active detective role so that part "broke" what made the show great (working together).

It's too bad that they didn't end the show with last season's finale. Everything got wrapped up in a nice neat little bow - sure there were a few straggling plot lines that could be addressed, but we started off this season with


Spoiler



some kind of assassin plot that wouldn't have anything to do with local law enforcement. If they (whoever was behind her former team's murders - of which she was part of for all of two minutes) can kill that many Justice department people without leaving a trace, have a convicted Senator murdered in prison, actually terminating Kate's life (or the lives of her friends and family to draw her out) would be a cake walk. She's a NYC Precinct Captain. She's exposed and out there. This season has started off dreadful and I can't figure out how it's going to get any better.



The show had a good run and even a few great seasons. But it's all downhill from here.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Add me to the disappointed crowd. The show has moved from "watch as soon as possible" to "watch sometime". Hopefully they will stop the current stupidity and move on.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

eddyj said:


> Add me to the disappointed crowd. The show has moved from "watch as soon as possible" to "watch sometime". Hopefully they will stop the current stupidity and move on.


Same here, I haven't been getting to it until Thursday or Friday, they have just lost the dynamic between Beckett and Castle completely, when they worked together and she was a detective the show was firing on all cylinders, even if they did that after getting married it could have worked, but this conspiracy and keeping them separate just chops the show off at the knees and removes what was so great about their previous interactions.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

I'm just confused by the plot. Her living away from him makes no sense to me.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

The ONLY thing that I like in the current season is seeing Alexis more involved.


----------



## HerronScott (Jan 1, 2002)

Necromancer2006 said:


> Putting Kate in the Captain's job has altered the show. First off, a Captain of a NYC Precinct wouldn't have the time to be able to show up at cases. It is a much more administrative role than an active detective role so that part "broke" what made the show great (working together).
> 
> It's too bad that they didn't end the show with last season's finale. Everything got wrapped up in a nice neat little bow - sure there were a few straggling plot lines that could be addressed,


Last season's finale really had me wondering if it had been cancelled since it did seem like it would have been a nice wrap-up.

I'm also wondering how having Kate in the Captain role is really going to work (like when she went to DC).

Scott


----------



## judyn (Feb 26, 2009)

We are big Castle fans and don't care for this season's shows either. We want the old Castle at our house. I get the feeling they are trying to turn it into a more violent more serious show, of which there are more than plenty. Or who knows, maybe we're just tired of Castle...


----------



## Honora (Oct 16, 2006)

HerronScott said:


> Last season's finale really had me wondering if it had been cancelled since it did seem like it would have been a nice wrap-up.
> 
> Scott


Renewal for this season was questionable at the end of the last one. They put that ending together just in case they didn't come back.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

eddyj said:


> The ONLY thing that I like in the current season is seeing Alexis more involved.


Yup. I always like seeing more Alexis.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

As the OP of this thread, I started this to discuss if Castle has been going down hill in it's writing. It has been reported in the news services that the former writers have been let go and they hired two new writers for the program. I think the new writers don't have a feel for what the show was about. I added spoiler to the title so that we could show examples of why I think the show has changed this season with out revealing any of the plots to people who haven't watched it yet. From what I am seeing some people are more interested in trying to be too strick in threads then actually discuss the thread. I thank all of you who have stood up for me.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

From what I have read jumping the shark was created by Henry Winkler's actions. I thought it was from the show where he was water skiing but now I realise that it had to do with the show where he actually jumped over a shark.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

SNJpage1 said:


> From what I have read jumping the shark was created by Henry Winkler's actions. I thought it was from the show where he was water skiing but now I realise that it had to do with the show where he actually jumped over a shark.


The term originated with Happy Days, where yes, Fonzie water skied over a shark (while wearing his leather jacket, I might add):





The actor who played Fonzie, Henry Winkler, then went on much later to feature in the show Arrested Development. In that show, as a bit of humor, his character on that show literally jumped over a shark, as a wry reference back to that original scene, and what "jump the shark" had come to reference.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

Fonzie jumping the shark was also a season cliffhanger.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

And Happy Days was still the #1 show for 4 years after that.

--Carlos V.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Unbeliever said:


> And Happy Days was still the #1 show for 4 years after


But, as Yogi said, nobody watched it after that.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Man, I can't believe that you guys spoiled that Fonzie jumped the shark. I was JUST getting to the California episodes! BASTARDS.


----------



## efilippi (Jul 24, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> Man, I can't believe that you guys spoiled that Fonzie jumped the shark. I was JUST getting to the California episodes! BASTARDS.


Having just come from the Castle thread, I award this the 'best post of day ' award.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> Man, I can't believe that you guys spoiled that Fonzie jumped the shark. I was JUST getting to the California episodes! BASTARDS.


I'm reporting this. I'm reporting this! Nah nah ... nah nah nah.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

SNJpage1 said:


> As the OP of this thread, I started this to discuss if Castle has been going down hill in it's writing. It has been reported in the news services that the former writers have been let go and they hired two new writers for the program. I think the new writers don't have a feel for what the show was about.


And I ask you again: what new writers were the "news services" talking about? If they don't name them by name in the article, could you at least post the link to the article you saw, so we can see whether the reporter is a credible source or not?

I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I would like to know what you saw.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

Here is info on new writers
http://castletv.net/new-writers-enter-the-castle-writers-room-marc-dube-chadgcreasey-daracreasey/

http://possibilityforjoy.proboards.com/thread/213/additional-new-writers

AS you can see two of the new writers were from the Following A very dark show and their writing style is not the same as what Castle requires to stay light and part comedy.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

efilippi said:


> having just come from the castle thread, i award this the 'best post of day ' award.


+1


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> Man, I can't believe that you guys spoiled that Fonzie jumped the shark. I was JUST getting to the California episodes! BASTARDS.


Next you're going to complain about Chuck Cunningham and conspiracy theories regarding the finale of Happy Days, right?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> Next you're going to complain about Chuck Cunningham and conspiracy theories regarding the finale of Happy Days, right?


What? It got canceled?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Necromancer2006 said:


> First off, a Captain of a NYC Precinct wouldn't have the time to be able to show up at cases.


This part, I don't have much of a problem with. It's just the "Captain Kirk" effect. (yeah, it probably happened in fiction long before that, but I don't think I'm the only one where that's the first instance of this kind of issue that comes to mind).


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

SNJpage1 said:


> Here is info on new writers
> http://castletv.net/new-writers-enter-the-castle-writers-room-marc-dube-chadgcreasey-daracreasey/


See, this is why I wanted to know what you meant by "new". This article is from *2013*. Posted June 14, 2013 -- about writers joining the show for Season 6.



SNJpage1 said:


> http://possibilityforjoy.proboards.com/thread/213/additional-new-writers
> 
> AS you can see two of the new writers were from the Following A very dark show and their writing style is not the same as what Castle requires to stay light and part comedy.





> Nancy Kiu
> twitter @nancysan
> 
> Michal Zebede
> ...


These are from the second link, from 2015.

imdb has:
Story Editor credit for Michal Zebede and Nancy Kiu for *XY*
Barry O'Brien Writer for *What Lies Beneath*
Nick Hurwitz's credit for _The Following_ is a writer's production assistant. See this link for an idea of what that means:

http://johnaugust.com/2003/being-a-writers-assistant


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

It is true that the creator/show runner has left the show. So in addition to whatever drama was behind Stana not signing on until the last minute... the original creative 'boss' is gone.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Drewster said:


> It is true that the creator/show runner has left the show. So in addition to whatever drama was behind Stana not signing on until the last minute... the original creative 'boss' is gone.


That's far more important for setting the tone of a show than any couple of writers.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> Man, I can't believe that you guys spoiled that Fonzie jumped the shark. I was JUST getting to the California episodes! BASTARDS.


P.S. Laverne & Shirley (friends of the Happy Days crew) moved to California a few years into their show.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Here's an article about Stana Katic's late contract renewal and a mini-interview with her regarding the new showrunners:

http://deadline.com/2015/07/castle-stana-katic-season-8-abc-1201485528/


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

There are far less favorable "rumor" reports from before she signed. I usually don't ascribe to such things, but we can observe:

* Beckett is on screen less than before.
* More screen time for Ryan, Espo, and Alexis.
* Beckett and Castle nearly never appear in the same scene.
* Stana now has a producer credit.
* Stana got married in the spring.

Plus the other staffing changes.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

I thought this week's episode (s08e05), the nose thing, was pretty good overall, the first good one this year and on par at least with the series as a whole. Maybe just a mini-slump.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

It's still pretty flat, IMO. This contrived storyline with them living apart is dumb.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I thought the nose episode was pretty good as well.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

I wonder if them not being in the same scenes is a result of her getting married.


----------



## warrenn (Jun 24, 2004)

I've always wondered if the big reveal of the first captain was planned in advance or not. I never went back and rewatched the episodes, but it seemed like they really pulled that out of nowhere that he was very much involved with Kate's mom's situation from the beginning. For anyone who has gone back and rewatched the earlier seasons, was there ever any clue or anything that would make the reveal seem plausible? When it happened on the show, it seemed like they just shoehorned an existing character into that story.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

laria said:


> It's still pretty flat, IMO. This contrived storyline with them living apart is dumb.


Yep and this week's episode was equally as frustrating, keeping them apart is all but killing my desire to watch the show, while the crime of the week was ok, it just feels like the magic is gone and I'm not happy about that.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

dianebrat said:


> Yep and this week's episode was equally as frustrating, keeping them apart is all but killing my desire to watch the show, while the crime of the week was ok, it just feels like the magic is gone and I'm not happy about that.


Exactly... the story for this week's was enjoyable but the whole contrived separation is just a bummer. Also, why are none of their friends and family asking "WTF???" with this separation! Everyone just seems to be taking it in stride... "oh well, Kate left you, man that sucks."


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Stephnie Weir was pretty good. She was on The Comedians.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

Maybe she'll join Castle and Alexis' PI office. Their office is more interesting than the police station these days.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

series5orpremier said:


> Stephnie Weir was pretty good. She was on The Comedians.


Forgot to look her up. I totally couldn't place her.. MadTV, that's what I know her from!


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

DouglasPHill said:


> I wonder if them not being in the same scenes is a result of her getting married.


if it were, that'd be one insecure hubby... considering how little on screen affection they have.

it's actually been one of my.. what's the word.. disappointments maybe is best, in this show over the years. The 2 of them just don't seem to have that much chemistry together in terms of relationship heat. Before they hooked up, the chemistry was good in that, "there's interest but nothing happening" way. Together though? There'd be glimpses here and there but, i never got the 'madly in love' vibe between them. Castle showed more, but Beckett always seemed more ...blah.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

milo99 said:


> if it were, that'd be one insecure hubby... considering how little on screen affection they have.
> 
> it's actually been one of my.. what's the word.. disappointments maybe is best, in this show over the years. The 2 of them just don't seem to have that much chemistry together in terms of relationship heat. Before they hooked up, the chemistry was good in that, "there's interest but nothing happening" way. Together though? There'd be glimpses here and there but, i never got the 'madly in love' vibe between them. Castle showed more, but Beckett always seemed more ...blah.


Stana Katic is really not a great actress. Hot yes. But mediocre acting.


----------



## milo99 (Oct 14, 2002)

Peter000 said:


> Stana Katic is really not a great actress. Hot yes. But mediocre acting.


i remember reading somewhere some review or analysis of Fringe, and the writer mentioned how (and this was as a sign of the show's strength) they had a lead character who is an attractive woman but has zero sex appeal. and i thought, yeah, that's true. You watch that show and Liv was just a good character but you never thought of her as sexy even though she's attractive.

I've kind of thought of Becket like that. Freakin' gorgeous, 10/10 on the looks scale, but like zero sex appeal. They dress her up hot once in a while, but there's just no heat. I guess that's her acting skills, but could just be her own personality for all we know.

This is all to say, that the show IMO has been on a decline since they hooked up Castle and Beckett. It's sad, i've enjoyed it but this season, as others already stated, has just accelerated the decline.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

milo99 said:


> i never got the 'madly in love' vibe between them. Castle showed more, but Beckett always seemed more ...blah.


Cold is the word that comes to my mind.


----------



## boywaja (Sep 30, 2001)

Peter000 said:


> Stana Katic is really not a great actress. Hot yes. But mediocre acting.


better than when she was in The Librarian: Curse of the Judas Chalice


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

boywaja said:


> better than when she was in The Librarian: Curse of the Judas Chalice


She's learned over the years to try less. It's the best way for an attractive actor with limited skills to do an effective job: present the audience with an interesting but blank slate, and let their imaginations fill in the acting. Do as little as possible to get in the way of that.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

I loved Stephnie Weir's performance. 

All by herself, she made up for a couple of seasons of crappily-written episodes. It was worth it to stick around to see *that* episode.

Here's the thing, though -- the whole "she's attracted to you, I can smell it" riff made the story feel like a trunk story -- something written for the days before Castle and Beckett became an Item. 

I can see why showrunners might say 'we made a mistake with this whole wedding thing, I wish we could go back to the way the show was before that' -- but if they want to transition the show back to that kind of vibe, they've gone about it completely the wrong way.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

The taking of one of Castles shirts and leaving one of hers behind might be a turning point. Perhaps all the bad reviews made the writers realise that maybe they better get them back together. What I still can't figure out is what happened to the story line for the first two shows where Beckett was being chased?


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

I guess you could say both characters have now literally jumped the shirt.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

SNJpage1 said:


> TWhat I still can't figure out is what happened to the story line for the first two shows where Beckett was being chased?


What good series runners know is you can pretty much reset anything you want without having to explicitly show Bobby coming out of the shower.


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

warrenn said:


> I've always wondered if the big reveal of the first captain was planned in advance or not. I never went back and rewatched the episodes, but it seemed like they really pulled that out of nowhere that he was very much involved with Kate's mom's situation from the beginning.* For anyone who has gone back and rewatched the earlier seasons, was there ever any clue or anything that would make the reveal seem plausible?* When it happened on the show, it seemed like they just shoehorned an existing character into that story.


I watched all 6 seasons on TNT this summer. I had never watched it before up to that point. There were no hints that the first Captain was involved at all. It came out from left field, IIRC.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

After the story line of the new season and now the break they are on, I have decided that I really don't care if they come back. I think they really stuck it to their fans by what they did. I will continue to watch the old reruns on TNT. Plus they are now running Firefly one night a week if you like watching Fillion.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

SNJpage1 said:


> After the story line of the new season and now the break they are on, I have decided that I really don't care if they come back. I think they really stuck it to their fans by what they did. I will continue to watch the old reruns on TNT. Plus they are now running Firefly one night a week if you like watching Fillion.


I don't get too involved in show chatter, but maybe they had the early episodes constructed based on the Becket actress not coming back, then floundered around clumsily trying to patch her back in to where she didn't belong? In that case maybe it can be fixed and the show can revert to its mediocre but pleasant and mildly entertaining norm.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Wil said:


> (...) maybe they had the early episodes constructed based on the Becket actress not coming back, then floundered around clumsily trying to patch her back in to where she didn't belong?


No, that's not what happened. Supposedly, one of the whole reasons Katic decided to re-sign was the storyline for this season...


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

Wil said:


> I don't get too involved in show chatter, but maybe they had the early episodes constructed based on the Becket actress not coming back, then floundered around clumsily trying to patch her back in to where she didn't belong? In that case maybe it can be fixed and the show can revert to its mediocre but pleasant and mildly entertaining norm.


She was finishing up a movie, so yes, they did film around her the first 2 episodes, but it was planned.


----------



## Demandred (Mar 6, 2001)

Just watched this week's episode. Good Castle is back!!!!


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

I really didn't like this week's episode. The singing especially was very lame. No thanks, I gave up on Glee after one season. Also, at first I was sure that the guys had seen right through Castle and Beckett's pretending to be angry with each other. That would have been funny and just the way they would have played it a few seasons ago, egging them on into dumber and dumber stories to keep up the pretense. But at the end of this episode it really seemed like they were buying the whole thing. That's just bleah. I hope it gets better...


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

This was more an homage to Pitch Perfect than Glee. 

I thought it was just okay, but I was also watching it in a very annoyed state of mind. I had to watch it from XOD since the Boston/NH stations screwed up the guide data for Monday/Tuesday due to the election coverage on Tuesday, and for some reason it was in stretched SD, and of course filled with commercials that did not allow FF.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

I'm ready to throw in the towel. Didn't care much for this episode. The whole breakup story line is beyond lame.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

wprager said:


> I'm ready to throw in the towel. Didn't care much for this episode. The whole breakup story line is beyond lame.


I stopped back at this thread to see what others thought of the latest episode.

I found out over the extremely long winter hiatus that I did not miss Castle. At all.

This season has soured me on a show I once loved. Watching it became a chore, but I stuck with it to see if it might bounce back.

Nope.

Too bad, too. The series was one I always looked forward to. Fun, sexy, romantic, and sometimes very clever. But now, I can't bear to see this shell of a show limp along to a sad slow demise.


----------



## Agatha Mystery (Feb 12, 2002)

I always watched Castle the same week I recorded it. I've got several episodes now on my DVR. I realize when they did the silly split up the two of them for the sake of ratings, it grated. I enjoyed the fact that the show runners allowed the relationship to be a good one and still made a good show. I found that I didn't want to watch the show any longer because they were apart. Kind of the opposite of Moonlighting, I guess. I should probably pick it back up again.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I still enjoy the show, despite the unfortunate "lets pretend to be broken up" plotline.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I still enjoy the show, despite the unfortunate "lets pretend to be broken up" plotline.


Ditto.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

It's more than "unfortunate"; it's asinine.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

For those still watching, don't forget there's a new episode tonight at 10/9 Central.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

I have totally forgotten the entire Beckett storyline, it's been dragged on for so long.
But I now think the Public defender has something to do with it. zzzzzzzzz


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> I have totally forgotten the entire Beckett storyline, it's been dragged on for so long.
> But I now think the Public defender has something to do with it. zzzzzzzzz


The problem isn't that the storyline has dragged on; it's really that there really is no story to be told. The story really should have ended with Bracken, but someone had the idea to try and stretch it out longer... so now there's this vague conspiracy thing going on, and it involves vague powerful people doing vague bad things, and Beckett for some reason is insistent upon un-vague-ing it.


----------



## AeneaGames (May 2, 2009)

TIVO_GUY_HERE said:


> I have totally forgotten the entire Beckett storyline, it's been dragged on for so long.
> But I now think the Public defender has something to do with it. zzzzzzzzz


And I have no clue anymore as to why he has something to do with it.

Bored of that story...


----------



## justen_m (Jan 15, 2004)

I enjoyed last night's episode, "Witness for the Prosecution". To me, this was back to old Castle, almost. There was little mention of their separation. I have completely forgotten how defense attorney Caleb Brown is related to the whole ongoing horrible conspiracy storyline, which was also barely mentioned. Mostly just an interesting murder mystery. How is Caleb tied to the conspiracy. Why is he a monster? I've forgotten the character.

Was it ever mentioned what happened to the rest of the $5 million CIA cash... hope that isn't tied into the LokSat conspiracy thing in the future.


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

Count me in as one who still enjoys the show, but the LokSat story and the fake separation is beyond stupid. There was a significant time jump in "Witness for the Prosecution" (5 months), but still no resolution to the LokSat crap. In fact, there was a quick exchange between Kate and Vikram that the LokSat trail has been cold for weeks. I hope there is a good payoff when they finally decide to resolve it.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Fixer said:


> There was a significant time jump in "Witness for the Prosecution" (5 months)...


I don't think so. I think the scene at the party was 5 months ago, but this episode was at most a few weeks after the previous episode.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

john4200 said:


> I don't think so. I think the scene at the party was 5 months ago, but this episode was at most a few weeks after the previous episode.


That is what I thought, too.

I also cannot remember who the defense attorney guy is at all.


----------



## Jon J (Aug 23, 2000)

To me, Castle's appearance has changed since the previous set of shows.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Fixer said:


> Count me in as one who still enjoys the show, but the LokSat story and the fake separation is beyond stupid.


Me too. But whenever this lock set, lock sat, lok whatever thing comes up, I just tune out. I can't even remember what it's about, and I don't care anymore.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Jon J said:


> To me, Castle's appearance has changed since the previous set of shows.


If you mean he's still "Captain Tightpants" but now for a different reason then I concur.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

hefe said:


> Me too. But whenever this lock set, lock sat, lok whatever thing comes up, I just tune out. I can't even remember what it's about, and I don't care anymore.


Thunder stolen, except that I hated the subplot from the get-go and never cared about it in the first place.

It's painful to see a cast I like wasted on such god-awful writing, but I could say the same for most of the scripted shows I'm still watching these days. Except Castle is even more so than all the others.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

hefe said:


> Me too. But whenever this lock set, lock sat, lok whatever thing comes up, I just tune out. I can't even remember what it's about, and I don't care anymore.





murgatroyd said:


> Thunder stolen, except that I hated the subplot from the get-go and never cared about it in the first place.
> 
> It's painful to see a cast I like wasted on such god-awful writing, but I could say the same for most of the scripted shows I'm still watching these days. Except Castle is even more so than all the others.


Same here, and for the last 2 episodes they've had these contrived reasons to get them together to get past this huge albatross of their own making and the episodes are almost watchable.
But overall it's at the point where I don't care that much and would like them to just put it out of its misery.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

My wife and I are still watching, based on a vague Firefly-induced loyalty to Fillion. Judged on it's own merits, this show would have been off our SP list long ago. It still has a good moment here and there, and we get an occasional chuckle, but mostly it's just kind of tedious.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

I still enjoy the characters and their interactions a lot, and that keeps me watching, even then the plot lines may be moronic. This is not the only show I apply this to.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

Dawghows said:


> My wife and I are still watching, based on a vague Firefly-induced loyalty to Fillion. Judged on it's own merits, this show would have been off our SP list long ago. It still has a good moment here and there, and we get an occasional chuckle, but mostly it's just kind of tedious.


It's worse than that for me. If it were only Fillion, I would have booted the SP long ago. But back in the day, I liked the interaction that Castle had with his mom and daughter. Now they're morphing the stuff with his kid into a bad parody of Veronica Mars or something. Still like the actresses, but OMG.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Yes this season each episode goes its own way and they've completely left out any meaningful dialog for some of the supporting cast.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

murgatroyd said:


> It's worse than that for me. If it were only Fillion, I would have booted the SP long ago. But back in the day, I liked the interaction that Castle had with his mom and daughter. Now they're morphing the stuff with his kid into a bad parody of Veronica Mars or something. Still like the actresses, but OMG.


Yeah, his relationship with his daughter used to be great. Now, not so much. I think my wife's main interest in the show now his mother's jewelry. Almost every week we have to pause the show once or twice for her to check what the mother is wearing. (My wife was a metalsmith for ~35 years.)


----------



## thewebgal (Aug 10, 2007)

And Ric's daughter suddenly hit her 30s - very troubling!


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

thewebgal said:


> And Ric's daughter suddenly hit her 30s - very troubling!


wait, what? Isn't she supposed to be in college?


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

thewebgal said:


> And Ric's daughter suddenly hit her 30s - very troubling!


Wait, what?

Molly Quinn was born in 1993 and will turn 23 later this year. I thought Alexis (the character) was supposed to be pretty much the same age -- that _was_ one of the charms of the show, that they didn't have a kid played by an older actor.

Or are you talking about how the _writing_ for her FFed from someone-in-college to someone-early-30ish? If so, I agree. It's sort of generic and lame.

I know characters are supposed to grow and change, but can we really see these characters now as an extension of their younger selves? I don't think so. They're caricatures of their former selves -- the only thing that lends any authenticity to them is that the same actors happen to be saying the lines.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

dianebrat said:


> But overall it's at the point where I don't care that much and would like them to just put it [the overall arc we're in] out of its misery.


Hopefully an upcoming episode opens with Beckett waking up, looking disturbed but then relieved. The day continues with brief clips of her preparing for the original wedding, which proceeds (again in brief clips) beautifully and without incident. Immediately after the pronunciation of "man and wife" a guest stumbles forward up the aisle and falls dead at their feet. They look at each other, like here we go again.

A standard mediocre but pleasantly familiar whodunit episode proceeds and we all live happily ever after.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Dawghows said:


> My wife and I are still watching, based on a vague Firefly-induced loyalty to Fillion. Judged on it's own merits, this show would have been off our SP list long ago. It still has a good moment here and there, and we get an occasional chuckle, but mostly it's just kind of tedious.


And I'll toss in an affinity for Stana....thats almost reason enough alone to keep me watching......


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

jlb said:


> And I'll toss in an affinity for Stana....thats almost reason enough alone to keep me watching......


Almost, yeah.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I think that since the mid-season break, the show has been much improved overall. Yes, Castle and Beckett are still playing broken up, but at least they're together (in secret)... and yes, they have the occasional mention of the Loksat plot, but that's easily ignored.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I completely forgot about this woman who was supposed to be Castle's stepmother. Seriously, has there ever been a plot line in the history of shows that has been as forgettable as this one?


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

I've enjoyed the new episodes. Some of the old crackle is back, but moreover the show feels _fun_ again and that's why I watch.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

laria said:


> I completely forgot about this woman who was supposed to be Castle's stepmother. Seriously, has there ever been a plot line in the history of shows that has been as forgettable as this one?


I guess they really didn't want James Brolin back.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

I thought he was unavailable, so they invented the stepmother?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Drewster said:


> I thought he was unavailable, so they invented the stepmother?


Well, it is true that Brolin is now a regular on Life in Pieces.

But that show is a 30 minute single camera ensemble show with at least eight lead players.

Brolin generally doesn't have a lot of screen time on LIP and both shows are shot in Los Angeles (I think even in the same general area of Los Angeles) so theoretically, it wouldn't be that difficult to coordinate schedules and have Brolin appear in a scene or two of a few sporadic episodes of Castle.

It could be that the producers of LIP don't agree, the producers of Castle aren't enamored of Brolin, or Brolin at age 75 doesn't want to jump through the necessary hoops to do it.
(Shrug)


----------



## Fixer (Mar 29, 2005)

Well, no mention at all of LokSat in this week's ep, "The Blame Game". Although the "escape room" trope has been done to death in TV and film, to me it felt "fresh" as far as this show is concerned. I enjoyed it.

One thing that keeps bugging me is Beckett, Captain of the precinct, going out into the field as though she's still a Detective. Wouldn't her boss have something to say about that?


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I haven't watched this week's yet, but I remember thinking last week that I was wondering how many more times they were going to come up with excuses for why she was going out in the field for that particular case.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

It's seeming like they are going to efforts to minimize the number of scenes that include both Fillion and Katic. They'll still have scenes together, but they're few and far between. I'm beginning to think there is something to the rumor that the two of them hate each other.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

And now they're bringing out more Whedonverse guest actors. I adore this show, but it's gasping its last.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

A friend of mine once told me her theory that the natural life of a TV show is three seasons long. After that, the showrunners have run of stuff to do, so they start breaking down everything they established already.

I don't think three seasons is true of all shows, but she's not wrong about showrunners busting up their own shows for lack of any better ideas. Castle is a walking example of that.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

The last couple episodes since Beckett moved back in have been better, more like the old episodes, but man most of this season was terrible. 

Writers, no one cares about this stupid LokSat thing!


----------



## tvmaster2 (Sep 9, 2006)

the whole genie and the lamp thing was pretty funny. agreed, this show can't take itself too seriously or it's finished.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

I was tired of Beckett trying to find her mother's killer and was glad when the politician was put in jail. Now they are bring up that he is controlling a group called Loksat from inside the prison. Please let that story die.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

I think the whole series is to die this season. Please let the last show NOT be some syrupy good bye.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I still think it'll be renewed, if only for a shortened final season. It'll probably also be bumped out of the Monday night slot if it comes back.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

If you read entertainment press, *these spoilers have already been published*. If not, well... good luck on avoiding it. For now, I'll spoiler tag this.

*BIG FREAKING SPOILER FOR (POTENTIAL) SEASON 9 (NEXT SEASON) TO FOLLOW*


Spoiler



Stana Katic's one year contract renewal will end at the conclusion of this season... and will not be renewed. The show is choosing not to ask back either Katic or Tamala Jones (Lanie Parish).

TV Line and Deadline.com both have the story.



I was hoping for a shortened season 9. I'm no longer hoping for that, based on this spoiler. I want the show to end after this season. Any show that continues next season will not be the same show I've been tuning into.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

Dangit!! 

I can't decide if I want to read that, or not...


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

In addition to what you have in your spoiler, I read that they have shot a scene that could be tacked on to the end of this season's finale so that if they are not renewed, they can wrap things up.

And given what you mention in the spoiler, I'd rather they end it if the spoiler happens.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

jlb said:


> And given what you mention in the spoiler, I'd rather they end it if the spoiler happens.


It's not an if. ABC and ABC Studios have both confirmed it to TV Line.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

I'd rather the show end this season than continue with the spoilered info.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Not directed at anyone in particular, but no one will be forced to watch the next season (other than network censors and folks who add subtitles).


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Well, if they renew for next season, based on the spoilers, there's a 50% chance I won't be watching.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

I just hope the spoiler doesn't mean that if they continue with another season, then...



Spoiler



...Beckett gets killed.

Although, I can't think of any other scenario in which they get rid of the actress and have another season that isn't profoundly sad either.

Unless they pull a _Bewitched_ and just swap dicks.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Wow. Well, The Catch may be the replacement for light rom-com-like fare.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> Not directed at anyone in particular, but no one will be forced to watch the next season (other than network censors and folks who add subtitles).


The problem is that if it is renewed, the season will likely end on a cliffhanger. Only if canceled will the show provide closure at the end of the season. That's why I'd rather it be canceled than renewed.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> The problem is that if it is renewed, the season will likely end on a cliffhanger. Only if canceled will the show provide closure at the end of the season. That's why I'd rather it be canceled than renewed.


Yeah, that's a good point. I guess you could watch only the first episode of the next season to see how the cliffhanger is wrapped up.

That's how the get you!


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> It's not an if. ABC and ABC Studios have both confirmed it to TV Line.


 I know, was trying to be vague/spoilery-free


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> It's not an if. ABC and ABC Studios have both confirmed it to TV Line.


Would it be the finale or somewhere before?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

jlb said:


> Would it be the finale or somewhere before?


Even if I knew, which I don't, I couldn't say for spoiler reasons.


----------



## MusicMama (Mar 6, 2005)

Saw about 6 different posts from various entertainment sources with the spoilered information. Please, oh please, just let it all end this season. It's been a chore to watch and, like so many others, I'm so tired of the new characters and the changes to the characters I (used to) like.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

MusicMama said:


> Please, oh please, just let it all end this season. It's been a chore to watch (...)


I don't understand this sentiment. If you don't want to watch, don't. Why should you wish that no one gets to watch it just because you personally are not enjoying it?


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I said something similar on one of the news articles



Spoiler



While it sounds like BAD news to me.. I can imagine a Castle PI show, which I _later_ read was actually what has been considered in the past, being something interesting..

So basically, I'm admittedly being a hypocrite. I like Beckett, think it's lame to get rid of her.. But a Castle-led show COULD be entertaining/watchable..

Kind of like how "Boston Legal" was a great show, even though I still think the cast of "The Practice" was totally screwed over.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> I don't understand this sentiment. If you don't want to watch, don't. Why should you wish that no one gets to watch it just because you personally are not enjoying it?


I think there's a difference between "I don't like the show and think it should be canceled," and this.

This is more like


Spoiler



"I am a great fan of the show, and I think that choosing to continue in this diminished state does damage to the goodwill the show has developed over the 8 years thus far. I think continuing on without a character that is a critical element to the show is worse than just canceling it now."



The former is just crapping on a show you don't like; the latter is wanting what is best for a show you love.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Spoiler



I just read that Stana Katic won't be returning next season. Her contract has expired and they're not going to renew it. The woman that plays the medical examiner is also being cut from the cast. Apparently they're trying to cut costs and dumping Stana's contract is a huge savings. I can't imagine the show without Becket so they may be shooting themselves in the foot.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> I think there's a difference between "I don't like the show and think it should be canceled," and this.
> 
> This is more like
> 
> ...


Exactly! I don't think the show will survive the changes long term. I'd rather the show end on it's own terms on top of it's game, then to waste away and get cancelled because the ratings go down due to the changes.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> Spoiler
> 
> 
> 
> I just read that Stana Katic won't be returning next season. Her contract has expired and they're not going to renew it. The woman that plays the medical examiner is also being cut from the cast. Apparently they're trying to cut costs and dumping Stana's contract is a huge savings. I can't imagine the show without Becket so they may be shooting themselves in the foot.


Not to be a jerk or anything, but have you noticed any of the spoilered comments above yours? People have been avoiding posting things in the open, for those that would rather not know ahead of time about possible story lines.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

markz said:


> Not to be a jerk or anything, but have you noticed any of the spoilered comments above yours? People have been avoiding posting things in the open, for those that would rather not know ahead of time about possible story lines.


The thread title says "Spoilers" so anyone walking in can assume total spoilerific discussions within, I'm not sure if it always has, but at the moment this is a "you can spoil in the open" thread.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

dianebrat said:


> The thread title says "Spoilers" so anyone walking in can assume total spoilerific discussions within, I'm not sure if it always has, but at the moment this is a "you can spoil in the open" thread.


I think the assumption is that the spoilers to be expected to be out in the open are the ones for what has been aired. Not for stuff in the future.


----------



## dianebrat (Jul 6, 2002)

busyba said:


> I think the assumption is that the spoilers to be expected to be out in the open are the ones for what has been aired. Not for stuff in the future.


Nope.. 
By the forum definitions anything that has happened in a series prior to the aired episode referenced in a thread can be talked about openly. Anything from an outside source or not aired by that episode is considered a spoiler and must be tagged as such.

This isn't an episode thread, so if it didn't have "spoilers" in the title almost anything could be considered a spoiler and would need spoiler tags.

However a thread such as this with spoilers in the title can and is treated as an open discussion and spoilers of any sort need not be tagged. There's always the possibility that a thread did not originally have "spoilers" in the title and has since been modified, and in other cases posters are overly careful and using spoiler tags as a courtesy, but this is most definitely a thread at THIS time where spoilers do not need to be tagged.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

> I think the assumption is that the spoilers to be expected to be out in the open are the ones for what has been aired. Not for stuff in the future.


Maybe, but the thread sure is a general subject about the series, and is clearly tagged SPOILERS.

The overall discussion doesn't center of the specifics of the episodes, per se, except as those specifics relate to the diminution in quality of the show. Much of the discussion has focused on the degradation of writing, and the reasons for the show losing its way.

By its very nature, any examples (you might say "spoilers") regarding that sort of discussion would be more behind the scenes type: contract discussions with ABC, or interviews with the former show runner, or whose been hired or fired in the writers' room.

Little of this thread deals with spoilery episodic reveals.

Stana's departure by season's end is a clearly related to the overall prospect of the show, and what has become of it. It's hardly something that has to be spoiler tagged in this thread until next year... if there is one.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Ok, whatevs. Sorry I said anything.

Not sorry though that I only read the first sentence of each post.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

This could be a great refresh for the show. Change the premise somewhat, perhaps make it more Castle working from his PI office rather than the murder of the week at the station. It would be nice if they wrapped it up and ended the series with Beckett and Castle going out as a happy couple solving crimes.


----------



## type_g (Sep 9, 2002)

Edited cause might have spoilers but mostly it's a far fetched IDEA that would be cool possibility for future season if another season happens.



Spoiler



Reboot sounds like a nice choice. Maybe Kate dies at the end, and maybe Alexis decides to transfer to LA or make it fun, London to finish off her college and Castle and mom leave everyone behind as there is nothing to stay for in NY.

Get an all new cast and characters and the OLD writing staff back and we got a new show.

Castle PI firm in an authentic castle in LONDON or Castle PI firm on the sand castle beaches of Santa Monica.

yeah yeah to far fetched but I am hoping it happens and it would be much better than this LOKSAT infested crummy season.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

markz said:


> Not to be a jerk or anything, but have you noticed any of the spoilered comments above yours? People have been avoiding posting things in the open, for those that would rather not know ahead of time about possible story lines.


This was posted in the Entertainment section of MSN.com so it's hardly a spoiler or a big secret. Anyone browsing the net could easily come across it. Now, if I divulged how it would be handled on the show, which I don't, that would definitely be a spoiler.

SPOILER ALERT!!! Here's a little tidbit I'm sure people were unaware of (I had no clue):

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/ca...ng-to-deal-with-on-set-feud-report/ar-BBrY3Kb

The only way anyone is not going to hear about this before the end of the season is if they live under a rock.

FYFI, Castle has yet to be renewed for season 9, but they do expect it to, albeit it for possibly a shortened season. The jury's still out on that so nothing's final.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

mattack said:


> I said something similar on one of the news articles
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know...there more I think about it, it could work.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

type_g said:


> Edited cause might have spoilers but mostly it's a far fetched IDEA that would be cool possibility for future season if another season happens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


:up::up:


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

mr.unnatural said:


> SPOILER ALERT!!! Here's a little tidbit I'm sure people were unaware of (I had no clue):
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/ca...ng-to-deal-with-on-set-feud-report/ar-BBrY3Kb


Wow, I had not seen that. Very interesting if it's true.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

markz said:


> Wow, I had not seen that. Very interesting if it's true.


I've heard that rumor for a few years now. It seems plausible. It helps to explain the break-up plotline, as well as some of the more extreme measures the show has gone through to film Stana and Nathan separately. (Consider the acapella music-themed episode from earlier this season, where Castle and Beckett communicated with each other through an air duct.)


----------



## RickyL (Sep 13, 2004)

From what I read...



Spoiler



Its not just Kate. Ryan and Espo have not been asked back yet and Castle isn't under contract yet either.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

Franky I think this guy is a good enough actor and personality, and an interesting enough character has been written for him, for this to be a viable "Castle" series, maybe with the family continuing to be involved but no attempt to replace the love interest on a permanent basis. Quirky. No gunlock or whatever long term arcs allowed!

Maybe they could take some of the money spent on a very attractive but limited second lead and invest in some better scripts. Some may say I'm a dreamer. And probably in this case I am the only one.


----------



## mr.unnatural (Feb 2, 2006)

Nathan Fillion could definitely carry the show on his own with some decent writing and supporting cast. They've already got a great second lead in Toks Olagundoye and another one in Molly Quinn (Castle & Daughter, anyone?). I wouldn't be heartbroken if they dropped Susan Sullivan from the cast. I like her, but the whole show people attitude hits a personal note for me that I can do without.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

My rampant speculation(not a spoiler): Alexis is Locksat.
Since childhood, she has pulled Bracken's strings and manipulated her father to get close to Beckett to keep tabs on her.
Why would Castle be so freaked over Locksat's identity that he needs to forget?
Who could they throw at us that we'd never expect?
Alexis.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

alpacaboy said:


> My rampant speculation(not a spoiler): Alexis is Locksat.
> Since childhood, she has pulled Bracken's strings and manipulated her father to get close to Beckett to keep tabs on her.
> Why would Castle be so freaked over Locksat's identity that he needs to forget?
> Who could they throw at us that we'd never expect?
> Alexis.


Too young. But the mother?


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

eddyj said:


> Too young. But the mother?


I like it. :up:


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

She was having an affair with Bracken, who is actually Castle's father.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Nahhh, Beckett is Locksat.


----------



## Flop (Dec 2, 2005)

JYoung said:


> Nahhh, Beckett is Locksat.


Locksat is the showrunner that approved/came up with the damn storyline and Beckett needs to put two in his chest and one in his head, then toss the Locksat corpse into a wood chipper, shovel the Locksat corpse chips into a steel box, wrap the Locksat corpse chip filled box with heavy steel chains, encase the chain-wrapped box full of Locksat corpse chips in 50 tons of concrete and dump the whole thing into the Mariana Trench


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

It's really too bad they went through the breakup and LockSat stuff. Since the characters reconciled, the show has at least been fun again. And heck, the episode set in LA even had some if the old crackle back. They could have settled into a steady pattern of Beckett and Castle opening and closing each episode, with her staying in the office and him only being in the field with Espisito and Ryan. Unfortunately, the breakup scenario burned too many viewers. 

As for the show's future, I suspect Nathan Fillion is smart and experienced enough to know you don't walk away from a steady series gig. I think he'll be game for whatever they try.


----------



## slimjimpencil (May 3, 2016)

Drewster said:


> It's really too bad they went through the breakup and LockSat stuff. Since the characters reconciled, the show has at least been fun again. And heck, the episode set in LA even had some if the old crackle back. They could have settled into a steady pattern of Beckett and Castle opening and closing each episode, with her staying in the office and him only being in the field with Espisito and Ryan. Unfortunately, the breakup scenario burned too many viewers.
> 
> As for the show's future, I suspect Nathan Fillion is smart and experienced enough to know you don't walk away from a steady series gig. I think he'll be game for whatever they try.


totally agree with your first paragraph. I think Nathan will keep going if the show does but I do feel he didn't do much or enough to help keep Stana since they supposedly dislike each other


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

I glad that the show still has some fans that say they will watch even after Stana's departure. However, based on the sagging online interest, and the mediocre to disappointing ratings, I suspect the numbers of those fans are dwindling.

Castle used to be my favorite show, the interplay between Nathan's wise-ass Castle and Stana's cool, professional Detective Beckett making me think of Tracy/Hepburn. 

But the LockSat mess and the writers' tired attempt to recycle the first years' sexual tension and romance was just sad. I am now firmly in the camp that thinks they are beating a dead horse.

Edited to add:

With Jewel Staite's guest appearance, I wondered how many more Firefly alum can they use in stunt casting to pique interest?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

I was sorry to see Jewel so under-used in this episode, though there was a good line at the beginning about working together after many years...


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> I was sorry to see Jewel so under-used in this episode, though there was a good line at the beginning about working together after many years...


Jewel Staite is appearing at a Comic Book Convention here in the Twin Cities this weekend. It costs $200 for the "Jewel Staite VIP Experience" package. 

https://wizardworld.ticketleap.com/jewelstaitevip2/dates/May-06-2016_at_0301PM


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> Jewel Staite is appearing at a Comic Book Convention here in the Twin Cities this weekend. It costs $200 for the "Jewel Staite VIP Experience" package.
> 
> https://wizardworld.ticketleap.com/jewelstaitevip2/dates/May-06-2016_at_0301PM


Exactly _what _is Jewel giving you for the $200?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

MikeCC said:


> Exactly _what _is Jewel giving you for the $200?




I'm guessing a photo-op, autograph and a minute of chit-chat.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> I'm guessing a photo-op, autograph and a minute of chit-chat.


Oh.

Never mind then.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

Maybe the NYC police department will hire the girl that has been helping with his PI business and give her Becketts original job. That way he can still be paid to help the police. The two new writers really killed the show and so far it hasn't been picked up yet for another season. I can only see two possible endings. They both take off on some world traveling on the motorcycles they mention in an earlier showing and the show is ended. Or she has to get killed in the last show and they renew it for another season.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

SNJpage1 said:


> Maybe the NYC police department will hire the girl that has been helping with his PI business and give her Becketts original job. That way he can still be paid to help the police. The two new writers really killed the show and so far it hasn't been picked up yet for another season. I can only see two possible endings. They both take off on some world traveling on the motorcycles they mention in an earlier showing and the show is ended. Or she has to get killed in the last show and they renew it for another season.


How about they both get killed? Maybe a Butch Cassidy and Sundance type scene....


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

SNJpage1 said:


> Maybe the NYC police department will hire the girl that has been helping with his PI business and give her Becketts original job. That way he can still be paid to help the police.


You can't just get hired directly into the NYPD Detective Bureau. You start off as a standard uniformed police officer. You then move up the ranks, until eventually (MAYBE) being selected as a detective, then finally (MAYBE) a homicide detective.


----------



## Dawghows (May 17, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> You can't just get hired directly into the NYPD Detective Bureau. You start off as a standard uniformed police officer. You then move up the ranks, until eventually (MAYBE) being selected as a detective, then finally (MAYBE) a homicide detective.


Or you could be a mega-inch mystery writer and just put in a call to your buddy, the Mayor.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> You can't just get hired directly into the NYPD Detective Bureau. You start off as a standard uniformed police officer. You then move up the ranks, until eventually (MAYBE) being selected as a detective, then finally (MAYBE) a homicide detective.


Is that a joke or serious? Can't someone as a detective in one city move and be hired directly as a detective in another city? Like seniority/experience in a company?


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

mattack said:


> Is that a joke or serious? Can't someone as a detective in one city move and be hired directly as a detective in another city? Like seniority/experience in a company?


Possibly but Haley was MI-6 not Scotland Yard or Interpol.
It would be like a CIA operative trying to become a homicide detective.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

MikeCC said:


> Exactly _what _is Jewel giving you for the $200?


From that link:



http://wizardworld.ticketleap.com/jewelstaitevip2/details said:


> Jewel Staite VIPs get:
> 
> ADMISSION/VIP ACCESS/EXTRAS
>  Wizard World Comic Con Minneapolis 3-Day Weekend Admission
> ...


BTW, the 3-day admission alone is $75.
(And who knows how valuable that tote bag is...)


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

mattack said:


> Is that a joke or serious? Can't someone as a detective in one city move and be hired directly as a detective in another city? Like seniority/experience in a company?


From what I can tell, in most cases you can't. First, while most police forces are similar, they're not identical; they may have differences in the ways one moves up the ranks and qualifications for holding particular ranks, so it's not a direct one-to-one equivalency between cities. Additionally, you'll likely have to go through the new city's police academy all over again to learn the laws/statutes/regulations in the new city, and they'll probably want you to do street level policing for a while to learn the new city before being promoted again to detective.

That especially holds true for someone who isn't American, as they'll be trained in their particular country's laws, not to mention ways of policing.

Of course, all of this is moot, because as pointed out, Hayley has no police experience that we're aware of. She was an MI-6 agent, not a detective inspector for Scotland Yard.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Dawghows said:


> Or you could be a mega-inch mystery writer and just put in a call to your buddy, the Mayor.


Yeah, but for all of that, I still don't think the Mayor could pull enough strings to get either Castle or Hayley sworn in as a police officer. Can't bend the rules that much.


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

But this is TV land. They can do anything they want.


----------



## Rkkeller (May 13, 2004)

I would rather the show just end like a few others have said then keep watching IF the spoilers about people leaving are true. I know I can just stop watching and I probably will, it wont be the same.


----------



## jlb (Dec 13, 2001)

Nathan has closed his deal to return next season, assuming ABC renews (which should be announced today or tomorrow)...

http://variety.com/2016/tv/news/nathan-fillion-castle-season-9-renewed-abc-1201767874/


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

Wife and I Tivo the old Castle shows on TNT. Back when it was more fun to watch. We do the same with CSI and she records the old Law and Order shows.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

alpacaboy said:


> From that link:
> BTW, the 3-day admission alone is $75.


So it's cheap then?

I paid $105 for 3 day Silicon Valley Comic Con, and ended up missing some of the sessions I wanted to see most! VIP tickets are $250.. I could almost imagine doing that next year, so as to not have to stand in lines.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> Yeah, but for all of that, I still don't think the Mayor could pull enough strings to get either Castle or Hayley sworn in as a police officer. Can't bend the rules that much.





SNJpage1 said:


> But this is TV land. They can do anything they want.


OK, I admit this is a big tangent, but since lawyers are another big TV cliche... On one of the episodes of the "Reasonable Doubt" podcast (Adam Carolla and Mark Garagos), episode 9 or earlier, Garagos mentioned something about being able to legitimately take the bar in CA after a what-seemed-to-me minimal "experience".

I don't remember the exact thing, but it was _ALONG THE LINES OF_ (probably wrong) interning with a lawyer for 18 months.

So Rob Lowe's character on "The Grinder" might be able to legitimately take the bar and become a lawyer without actually going to law school.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

I really liked the 5/9/16 episode of Castle. Really classic over-the-top Castle believing an outlandish theory and not giving it up even after the case was resolved.

But now that I'm looking for it, it's so obvious how separated they're keeping Becket and Castle even though they're back together on the show. Even in scenes they have together many of the shots are single shot back and forth conversations that don't necessarily have to have Stanic and Fillion on set at the same time. But I'm certainly not feeling any hate onscreen when they are together. A testament to their acting I guess.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

Castle has been canceled.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

Drewster said:


> Castle has been canceled.


Kinda sad, but hopefully Fillion can move on to something awesome and new!


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

To be honest I'd rather they cancel it than go on without Stana.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

I tried watching this season, but I bailed an ep or two after they came back from that long winter hiatus. I was so very disappointed in the direction the show took.

My dropping the show from my viewing habits was reinforced when I heard that Stana was not returning.

And now this. So apparently I was not alone in my dissatisfaction.

But I may tune in for the series finale, to see if they are able, in some measure, to redeem the mess they made.

We'll see.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

It's actually been fun again the last couple months.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Eh, it's time. A series finale that wraps everything up instead of leaving on a cliffhanger would be nice.


----------



## SoBelle0 (Jun 25, 2002)

Aw, man. I would have loved a show with him, his family, Hayley, etc. Base it out of the PI office - then have them run into Ryan and Espo here and there. Don't TV cops hire PIs sometimes, anyway?

It has been fun again the past few...

I'll miss the show.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

I still would be interested in HOW they were going to continue it without her.. (I have a few unwatched eps, but I don't think they knocked her off..)


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Drewster said:


> Castle has been canceled.


So far, every time they've been snooping into Locksat, they've been trying to be careful because if Locksat knew, he/she/it would kill them and everyone/everything they cared about. He/she/it is that powerful.

They keep trying to keep each other in the dark, because if Locksat knew the other was involved, he/she/it would kill them and everyone/everything they cared about. He/she/it is that powerful.

They kept snooping.
They told each other and now they're working together.
Locksat is bound to find out.
Now that they're canceled, Locksat can just kill them and everyone/everything they cared about, as promised.

(So if that happened, would you be disappointed, or would you have an awe/respect for the writers?)


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

alpacaboy said:


> So far, every time they've been snooping into Locksat, they've been trying to be careful because if Locksat knew, he/she/it would kill them and everyone/everything they cared about. He/she/it is that powerful.
> 
> They keep trying to keep each other in the dark, because if Locksat knew the other was involved, he/she/it would kill them and everyone/everything they cared about. He/she/it is that powerful.
> 
> ...


The final scene has leaked out:

Castle: I have to find this Locksat and get the bullshat over with right now! The fans hate it and Castle is gonna get frackin' cancelled.
Becket: Darling, we'll do this together. We'll be fine.
Castle: Together? Look, Prima Donna, I may get cancelled but you're already toast. Fired, done, gone, out of my fracking way.
Becket: But ... the viewers LOVE me. You think I'd put up with a leering old fat frat like you if it wasn't for my FANS? [pulls out a gun and shoots Castle dead, shoots him again in the bulls, smiles craftily at the screen and winks]

[Off screen voice]"Uhh, Miss Katic, the name of the show was "Castle."

[Beckett looks shocked, raises her gun and stares at it with realization, sadly; starts to move the gun to point towards herself; fade out; theme music]


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Wil said:


> The final scene has leaked out:
> 
> Castle: I have to find this Locksat and get the bullshat over with right now! The fans hate it and Castle is gonna get frackin' cancelled.
> Becket: Darling, we'll do this together. We'll be fine.
> ...


Well, according to the Hollywood Reporter


> Producers filmed two different endings as the drama remained firmly on the bubble and had prepared both of what would be a series finale and a season finale that left the door open for another cycle.


It's time for Castle to end but I am curious on what the setup was going to be for another season.


----------



## Wil (Sep 27, 2002)

JYoung said:


> It's time for Castle to end but I am curious on what the setup was going to be for another season.


It's the same scene I authoritatively described except that Castle jumps up, dashingly pulls off his bullet proof vest and cup and contemptuously throws them to the floor. The Boys drag a collapsing, shrieking Beckett away in handcuffs. Castle's family (including father) all come out and form a happy chorus line in rhythm to the extended theme music which continues over the fadeout.

Tivo alert: this version was the one actually scheduled and timed, and it runs 37 seconds longer than the cancellation version that will actually be shown, so the show following the final Castle will be starting 37 seconds earlier. Add some padding if you're not set up to do that automatically. Rovi threw up their hands and refused to make the adjustment.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

Wil said:


> [Off screen voice]"Uhh, Miss Katic, the name of the show was "Castle."


New show would center around Alexis "Locksat" Castle.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Just as an indication of how stupid the whole thing is, nobody even knows how to spell it...on the ABC website the synopses write it as "LokSat."


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

LOKSAT was the correct spelling. It was visible on screen spelled that way.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> LOKSAT was the correct spelling. It was visible on screen spelled that way.


Right, that's what I'm saying is correct. Not Locsat or Locksat...

By any name, it's pretty lame.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Hopefully the cancelation means that it's only a matter of time before Molly Quinn does a movie with a nude scene.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

busyba said:


> Hopefully the cancelation means that it's only a matter of time before Molly Quinn does a movie with a nude scene.


Dude! She's someone's daughter. She was a teenager when she started.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

wprager said:


> Dude! She's someone's daughter. She was a teenager when she started.


I believe she was a zygote when she started. Everyone starts as a zygote.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

All adult actresses are the daughters of someone, so I'm not sure what the importance of that is. They also all used to be teenagers.


----------



## Unbeliever (Feb 3, 2001)

busyba said:


> Hopefully the cancelation means that it's only a matter of time before Molly Quinn does a movie with a nude scene.


She's still wearing her purity/promise ring, so don't hold your breath.

--Carlos V.


----------



## laria (Sep 7, 2000)

I thought the transition this season from college student Alexis to middle aged office worker Alexis was kind of weird.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Showrunners said they filmed a scene that would serve as a series finale. So at least we get that much.


----------



## alpacaboy (Oct 29, 2004)

hefe said:


> Just as an indication of how stupid the whole thing is, nobody even knows how to spell it...on the ABC website the synopses write it as "LokSat."


Uh oh. I better watch out. The only thing that pisses off LokSat than nosy investigators is someone misspelling her name...


----------



## series5orpremier (Jul 6, 2013)

Stana will just have to rely on the income from her other job co-hosting Dancing With The Stars.


----------



## TIVO_GUY_HERE (Jul 10, 2000)

ZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

I will miss the cast, but not the craptastic writing of the last several seasons.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Well, you could see what the ending was supposed to be. Kind of an awkward ending added on there.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

alpacaboy said:


> So far, every time they've been snooping into Locksat, they've been trying to be careful because if Locksat knew, he/she/it would kill them and everyone/everything they cared about. He/she/it is that powerful.
> 
> They keep trying to keep each other in the dark, because if Locksat knew the other was involved, he/she/it would kill them and everyone/everything they cared about. He/she/it is that powerful.
> 
> ...


I told my wife that I hoped they actually killed them all, simply because I can't think of a show that has done that. I would respect the writers for that. Not every show has to end on a happy ending.


----------



## Ereth (Jun 16, 2000)

Blakes 7.

Show ended with the entire cast blown up, the bad guys won. Nerd Rage was quite extreme (and still is in some quarters).


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

I was just going to start watching that...


----------



## SNJpage1 (May 25, 2006)

I was hoping Castles real father and step mother would team up to save every one. That would have made for a happier ending.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

If LokSat had been Castle's real father, that would have been something.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

Ereth said:


> Blakes 7.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's the only sci-fi show that's as good as Star Trek, IMHO.

Though IIRC, I have read articles that said that your spoiler isn't actually what happened.. That is,


Spoiler



producers already had plans for the next season, and most if not all of them actually would have survived


.

and I'm not talking about the sequel book, which I read.. (I think I paid a lot, since I think it was imported from England.)


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

markz said:


> I told my wife that I hoped they actually killed them all, simply because I can't think of a show that has done that. I would respect the writers for that. Not every show has to end on a happy ending.


I'll give you a movie and TV show. They're both old. I'll spoilerize them, but I don't think it's necessary. TV show was opposite the norm. The ending was changed after the below was cancelled.



Spoiler



war of the roses and Son of the Beach



Edited to add I can think of several movies. Sorry, I refuse to spoilerize Romeo and Juliet.


----------



## murgatroyd (Jan 6, 2002)

hefe said:


> Well, you could see what the ending was supposed to be. Kind of an awkward ending added on there.


I thought there was no way the tacked-on ending could be worse than the past couple have seasons.

Clearly, I was wrong.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

series5orpremier said:


> Stana will just have to rely on the income from her other job co-hosting Dancing With The Stars.




Now that you said it, the resemblance is pretty strong.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

Finally watched it last night (after having read all the spoilers). What a pile of tepid manure that was.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

wprager said:


> Finally watched it last night (after having read all the spoilers). What a pile of tepid manure that was.


Yep.

This was once a show that had steamy hints of physical attraction and romance. Now it ends as a steaming pile.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Yes the added ending sucked&#128544;


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

The execution of the added ending sucked, but it's better than leaving a cliffhanger. Forever.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

I read the original thought was to time jump a year, or more. Move Rick and family to LA. Have him set up a PI practice. Consult on new movie adaption. Looking at the finale I guess he'd make himself head of the worlds greatest detective society. 

I read that idea was toast. New sets weren't going to be in the budget.

They were hoping for a reboot. I doubt they had the budget to shoot a completely different last episode, or even make significant changes. The few seconds, was it even a minute, was all we could hope for. It was the extra scene at the end or the show ending as a cliffhanger.

I'm not say the ending was great. Given the contraints it was as good as we were going to get.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Not really.

They could have jettisoned the whole shooting sequence at the end and just gone with the "happy ending".


----------



## pkscout (Jan 11, 2003)

JYoung said:


> Not really.
> 
> They could have jettisoned the whole shooting sequence at the end and just gone with the "happy ending".


Agreed. When they got back to the station and we saw Beckett smile at Castle across the room, it seemed like that was the rewrite to me. So when we got the twist, then a 30 second family shot, it seemed very forced. This is a case where less would have been more. They could have cut the last 30 seconds (or minute, whatever it was), ended at the station shot, and added a couple commercials. The twist of the lawyer coming back added nothing to the episode as the series finale.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

Cut the shooting and we wouldn't have known the lawyer was a part of loksak. Cut the shooting and we miss part if the reveal. JMO the episode was OK. About the best we could expect from an episode written vto be a cliffhanger. Maybe a C+ or B-.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

lew said:


> Cut the shooting and we wouldn't have known the lawyer was a part of loksak.


And why should we care? I'd rather have a smoother happy ending then another twist in the season-long plot that helped derail the show...


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

lew said:


> Cut the shooting and we wouldn't have known the lawyer was a part of loksak. Cut the shooting and we miss part if the reveal. JMO the episode was OK.


(Raises hand) We already knew he was working for Loksat. That's how Castle and Beckett got the special cell phone.

What was supposed to be the surprise reveal was that he faked his death (and how did he fake out the DNA test?) and the only reason it's a surprise was so that he could surprise shoot Castle and Beckett.

Cutting it would not have affected the story at all for a series finale.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

JYoung said:


> (Raises hand) We already knew he was working for Loksat. That's how Castle and Beckett got the special cell phone.
> 
> What was supposed to be the surprise reveal was that he faked his death (and how did he fake out the DNA test?) and the only reason it's a surprise was so that he could surprise shoot Castle and Beckett.
> 
> Cutting it would not have affected the story at all for a series finale.


Exactly. He was supposed to be dead. They should have cut that whole shooting scene, it was completely unnecessary to end the series. To make it that dramatic and then jump-cut to happily ever after was jarring and unsatisfying. But I do realize that they probably did not have sufficient time to do anything really satisfying...


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

hefe said:


> To make it that dramatic and then jump-cut to happily ever after was jarring and unsatisfying. But I do realize that they probably did not have sufficient time to do anything really satisfying...


And that pretty much describes the last season.


----------



## thewebgal (Aug 10, 2007)

We've been watching the show all along - but the whole "kidnapped on his wedding day" cliffhanger storyline for Castle was really the big stinkeroo - they had moments here and there after that, but that was the jump-the-shark moment for me ... such BAD writing!


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

thewebgal said:


> We've been watching the show all along - but the whole "kidnapped on his wedding day" cliffhanger storyline for Castle was really the big stinkeroo - they had moments here and there after that, but that was the jump-the-shark moment for me ... such BAD writing!


Speaking of that... anybody remember _why_ he was kidnapped in the first place?

Best I can recall, he came back with no memory of what happened, and they pieced together that he wiped his own memory on purpose because he stumbled onto the whole LOKSAT thing and wanted to protect everybody by forgetting it, but I don't remember why he ended up leaving and/or being taken in the first place.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

That whole plot line was pretty awful. Best forgotten.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Drewster said:


> That whole plot line was pretty awful. Best forgotten.


I don't doubt that it was awful, I was just wondering if at least it made sense.


----------



## Drewster (Oct 26, 2000)

busyba said:


> I don't doubt that it was awful, I was just wondering if at least it made sense.


Nope. They never resolved the mystery of his kidnapping and absence. The bit about roping it into Loksat was clumsy, as was the entire Loksat affair. It seems like they wanted Conspiracy 2.0 after wrapping up the Bracken storyline, believing that long-range arc was an essential part of the show.

I, for one, never felt that way. They could pivoted the show into a run-of-the-mill procedural, *and* kept the leads apart, without running it into the ground with the new conspiracy and breaking them up. Ah well, opportunities missed.

We'll always have S1-7!


----------



## verdugan (Sep 9, 2003)

busyba said:


> I don't doubt that it was awful, I was just wondering if at least it made sense.


One of his boarding school friends, actually acquaintance, needed his help.

I forget if he was working for the CIA or he just got involved with the CIA, but they needed Castle to help him with something.

it ultimately had nothing to do with Loksat.


----------



## ej42137 (Feb 16, 2014)

lew said:


> I'll give you a movie and TV show. They're both old. I'll spoilerize them, but I don't think it's necessary. TV show was opposite the norm. The ending was changed after the below was cancelled.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


How about "Six Feet Under"?


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

JYoung said:


> (Raises hand) We already knew he was working for Loksat. That's how Castle and Beckett got the special cell phone.


He denied any knowledge as to who wais part of loksat. He said the phone was his only contact. The reveal is that he was, apparently, one of the main players of loksak. The phone was given in order to set a trap.

I'm not sure why they had to fake the lawyers death, if they were going to kill Rick and Kate.

I don't think this last season, maybe even two, were that good. I don't think edited out the lawyer reveal, and adding another minute or so of the fast forward, would have salvaged a mediocre finale.

JMO, the final reveal was no better, nor no worse then whatever we would have gotten instead.


----------



## wprager (Feb 19, 2006)

ej42137 said:


> How about "Six Feet Under"?


Well, in that case, how about "Lost"? Everyone dies.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

wprager said:


> Well, in that case, how about "Lost"? Everyone dies.


Not during the show.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Drewster said:


> That whole plot line was pretty awful. Best forgotten.


Castle _did_ forget it.



lew said:


> He denied any knowledge as to who wais part of loksat. He said the phone was his only contact. The reveal is that he was, apparently, one of the main players of loksak. The phone was given in order to set a trap.


And this was surprise how?
We already knew it was a trap because they got ambushed.

Let's just call it what it was, bad writing.


----------



## MikeCC (Jun 19, 2004)

thewebgal said:


> We've been watching the show all along - but the whole "kidnapped on his wedding day" cliffhanger storyline for Castle was really the big stinkeroo - they had moments here and there after that, but that was the jump-the-shark moment for me ... such BAD writing!


Yeah that episode.... that supposedly funny plot were Kate finds out she was previously married, ha ha ha!... was a weak-ass try at light comedy; never mind the idiocy that no one knew Kate was married, even after multiple background checks by NYPD and then an FBI screening before she took her government job.

But that kidnapping cliffhanger was an annoying plot device that was more soap opera than prime time. The following season was dreck piled upon dreck.


----------



## lew (Mar 12, 2002)

JYoung said:


> Castle _did_ forget it.
> 
> And this was surprise how?
> We already knew it was a trap because they got ambushed.
> ...


I don't think much of the witting since Rick went missing before the wedding. Isn't that around the time Marlow reduced his role with the show? JMO some shows run out of good ideas.

When the body of the attorney was I thought LokSak discovered his treachery, killed him and sprung the trap. Assume LokSak has the software on someones phone which transmitted whatever was being said. The reveal was the fact that the attorney was one of the principles of Loksak. Could they have skipped that part. Yes. Would have made the episode any better. I don't think a few extra minutes of the fast forward would have made it any better. The names of the kids? What job Kate has?

Good final episodes come when the fate of the show is known early. This reminds me of the final JAG episode. I think JAG did a better job making the changes. Would you have rather the Nashville ending? I've never watched the show. I'll spoilerize this even though I'm not giving away any plot information


Spoiler



They had two endings reading to go. Even though the show had been cancelled they went with the cliffhanger ending, hoping that would help selling the show to another network or streaming service.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

lew said:


> I don't think much of the witting since Rick went missing before the wedding. Isn't that around the time Marlow reduced his role with the show? JMO some shows run out of good ideas.
> 
> When the body of the attorney was I thought LokSak discovered his treachery, killed him and sprung the trap. Assume LokSak has the software on someones phone which transmitted whatever was being said. The reveal was the fact that the attorney was one of the principles of Loksak. Could they have skipped that part. Yes. Would have made the episode any better. I don't think a few extra minutes of the fast forward would have made it any better. The names of the kids? What job Kate has?


That reveal of Calel knowing who Loksat was, was not a shock and certainly not a big surprise. 
The only reason it's there is to set up the shooting cliffhanger.

It does nothing as a series finale unless it was decided that Castle and Beckett die at the end of the show.
(And I would have had more respect for the writers had they gone this way.)

But we didn't get that as evidenced by the clumsily tacked on "Seven Years Later" sequence.

They could have dropped the whole shooting sequence, fade out with Castle and Beckett back at the apartment, fade in the "Seven Years Later" bit and maybe use a montage of Castle and Beckett highlights to pad the run time.

That certainly would have been better than what we got.


----------

