What's better than a snarky doctor named after a small dwelling? A snarky novelist named after a big dwelling with holes for dumping flaming oil on nosy annoying neighbors.
I just saw the pilot of Castle (on ABC.com for those who missed it). I'm pissed that the vast majority of good shows seem to be about cops/detectives with outlandishly convoluted crimes, but happy that Nathan Fillion gets to show off his 'lite acting skills again.
So far the show is not particularly remarkable, but was certainly entertaining, and I think it has the chemistry and cleverness necessary to compete with the endless sea of other cop shows.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I wanted to see this, but it's too late at night. Maybe we'll download it or something.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
As I said, available to watch (legally) from ABC.com. (I'd also take this opportunity to ask everyone out there to please watch shows online legally if you have the opportunity, especially if the show is new and/or in chronic danger of being cancelled).
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
And I'll also ask another random question: does anyone have a detailed knowledge of how the ratings system works? My understanding is that some households have actual boxes that report which channels you watch at what times, and that this data is used to extrapolate the total viewers. If that's the case, does it actually whether the rest of us watch the show at it's scheduled time?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Seems like they skipped shows with namesakes "Mansion" and "Estate".
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
I agree it was entertaining. I really enjoy watching Nathan Fillion.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
I assumed the name of the character was a reference to Stephen King, he being arguably the best-known current best-selling "quirky" writer.
Posted by Jeorge (Member # 11524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat: I assumed the name of the character was a reference to Stephen King, he being arguably the best-known current best-selling "quirky" writer.
That was my thought as well. I just watched the episode. I was rather amused.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: And I'll also ask another random question: does anyone have a detailed knowledge of how the ratings system works? My understanding is that some households have actual boxes that report which channels you watch at what times, and that this data is used to extrapolate the total viewers. If that's the case, does it actually whether the rest of us watch the show at it's scheduled time?
You are correct...some houses have boxes hooked up, and others are asked to keep a diary of shows they watch live. They use those houses to determine how many people are watching a given show.
I actually did the diary once (about 6 or 7 years ago). Not sure why I was chosen, I just got a thing from Nielsen asking me to participate. When I was given my instructions, they asked to to only count shows I watched live, and to not count any shows I watched on the computer.
As for those who are not "Nielsen" families, you are correct in that it doesn't matter when (or if) you watch the show. Though, perhaps that will change. Tivo and cable DVRs have the ability to track such things. Also, if you watch on hulu, or on the tv station's website (or download off itunes) that can be tracked as well.
It will be interesting how all this new tech impacts ratings over the next few years.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
If that's true, the current system oddly does not incorporate piracy at all. I suspect people who participate in the surveys are less likely to pirate tv shows in the first place, and the ratings wouldn't notice if the rest of the population pirated.
And while Hulu gives a better indication of which shows are popular, it also shows that more people are watching shows where their are fewer commercials.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
But piracy does harm shows IF they are shown on hulu, or the networks webpages. If you are downloading the show, you are not watching it on hulu, so you are not being tracked.
Also, piracy hurts DVD sales...which is another metric for judging a shows success. The movie Serenity was made because of the huge success of the DVD sales for Firefly.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
oh, and on the topic of the thread. I just watched Castle on abc.com, and I really liked it. It was funny, and quirky (my kind of show). It will be interesting to see how it does.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I watched about half of it this morning. It's a fantasy masquerading as a mystery show.
He's a best selling author, who is a CONSISTENT best selling author. Being nine weeks over your deadline is not nearly a big enough sin for a publisher to threaten to drop you. For example-- George RR Martin, Patrick Rothfuss. Especially in today's market, where the publishers are propping up their big names and cutting back on new authors.
Who were the authors at the poker table? I got James Patterson, I think; who was the lady?
I like Castle's daughter, and his Mom (his mom? Mother-in-law? I couldn't tell...) I'm a little weary of the mind reading amateur psychology meme spreading over the networks though. The part where Castle reads the female cop (I'm terrible; I can't remember her name) would have been much more effective if after he did his spiel, she refocused and said, "I'm from Wisconsin."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with all of Scott's words.
I wanted more time with the poker buddies, too - the lady didn't speak at all. I hope we get more of them.
I enjoyed it, although the lady cop was the worst part. Hopefully she'll lighten up a little bit. Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I really enjoyed it. Loved the daughter. Loved the mom - I read someone who said that she could've been really annoying, except that she was played by Susan Sullivan. I completely agree.
I think the cop being annoyed with Castle wore a little thin, especially considering she's supposedly such a fan. Then at the very end, I loved her last line to Castle when they were saying goodbye right before she walked away. "You have no idea." Redeemed her a little bit. (Well, it wasn't her very last, I suppose - he came back to the station to tag around after her some more.)
It had a very Moonlighting feel to it, and since that's my favorite show of all time, I'm looking forward to more of it. I thought it was a perfect role for Nathan Fillion - charming, funny, never following rules, and his relationship with his daughter is adorable.
Yeah, it's another cop show. If you prefer Moonlighting and Psych to CSI and Law & Order, check it out.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I don't see the Moonlighting parallel.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Huh. I guess I'm the only one that really didn't care for it.
I didn't like the cop. I didn't like the writer. I didn't like anybody except for Nathan Fillion.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I don't see the Moonlighting parallel.
Oh, to me it was in the dynamic between Castle and cop lady (I really had better learn her name).
"Beckett." There.
Especially the way Castle was hitting on her from the first moment they met. Also, he's sort of cocky and a rogue, but you get to see glimpses that he's a good guy. Like Dave Addison. However I do think they paid a lot more attention to the case and the details than Moonlighting ever did.
I've seen a lot of comparing it to Bones - which is funny, to me, because the relationship on Bones has also been compared a lot to Moonlighting.
[ March 12, 2009, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: JennaDean ]
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Who were the authors at the poker table? I got James Patterson, I think; who was the lady?
I'm pretty sure the woman was just a dealer and not an author. The other guy was Stephen J. Cannell, a screenwriter, producer and author.
I think they're going to continue with the authors' poker game, although it will be different authors most of the time. The idea is cute, but I'm also afraid that they'll use the authors' game too often and it'll get old very, very fast.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
More to the point, Stephen J. Cannell is known for creating or co-creating shows with quirky characters. A short list: The Rockford Files, The Greatest American Hero, The A-Team, Wiseguy, 21 Jump Street, Silk Stalkings, and The Commish. Making him perfect for this...
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The other guy was Stephen J. Cannell, a screenwriter, producer and author.
OH RIGHT!
I kept wanting to say he was Steven Bochco. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I liked the show.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
quote:
He's a best selling author, who is a CONSISTENT best selling author. Being nine weeks over your deadline is not nearly a big enough [/QB]
True, and expecting the manuscript for the next book 3 weeks after the release of the current book also seems nuts. However, since she is his ex wife, it might be that surprising for her to give him crap about it. He obviously didn't take the threat seriously, and she didn't really seem bothered by the fact that he brushed her off.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I didn't like the cop. I didn't like the writer. I didn't like anybody except for Nathan Fillion.
Wait ... Nathan Fillion was the writer. Are you talking about another writer? Or do you just like the actor but not the character he's playing?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
After watching the show all the way through-- yeah, NOW I definitely see the Moonlighting elements.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I loved it. The dialog is smart, and the Fillion's comedic timing rocks.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean:
quote:I didn't like the cop. I didn't like the writer. I didn't like anybody except for Nathan Fillion.
Wait ... Nathan Fillion was the writer. Are you talking about another writer? Or do you just like the actor but not the character he's playing?
Yup. The guy is funny and charming, and he was "on".
But it wasn't enough for me to like the character he was playing.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
so what did you all think of the next episode? I really liked it. They started to develop both castle and the cop. I thought it was interesting that he was the one who took care of his daughter when she was younger.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I thought it was even better than the first one. I'm really enjoying it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I have determined that, even though I like the show, that the killer is too obvious. Every week it has been way too easy to identify the bad guy.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
I watch it for Nathan Fillion. Every time he comes onscreen, my heart pitter-patters a little bit. Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I also watch for Nathan. But I like the banter and the secondary characters. I just wish they'd steal some of the Law and Order writers.
My mom caught it the other day cause she loves that celebrity dance show, Castle was one right after, and she didn't feel like changing the channel. She said she thought it was really "cute."
I proceeded to gush to her about Nathan.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:I have determined that, even though I like the show, that the killer is too obvious. Every week it has been way too easy to identify the bad guy.
I agree, but it's fun to watch nevertheless. This latest one, though, I had the involved party or parties pegged, in order of involvement, from the moment they appeared. Don't know why it's quite that obvious, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi:
quote:I have determined that, even though I like the show, that the killer is too obvious. Every week it has been way too easy to identify the bad guy.
I agree, but it's fun to watch nevertheless. This latest one, though, I had the involved party or parties pegged, in order of involvement, from the moment they appeared. Don't know why it's quite that obvious, though.
Exactly. I don't know exactly how they broadcast, "we did it!", but they do.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I like the show still, but I don't think it's nearly as good as the first episode. First episode was new, quirky and funny. Everything since then has been standard paint by numbers cop show. Which is fine, except that I already watch 2-3 more cop shows that are more interesting.
Posted by Shanna (Member # 7900) on :
I really like the cast for that new show, "The Unusuals" or something but I really don't think I can handle one more cop show.
[ April 02, 2009, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Shanna ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
On the upside, the lady cop has become much more tolerable.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
This week's Castle is pretty awesome, fyi, for all of us missing Firefly.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Is this the vampire one?
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
Yeah.
Yesterday I saw all of Season 2 of Castle, and I loved it. He really is great in it, I gotta say.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
I love it that they're giving nods to Firefly fans. Yesterday's episode made me smile.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I like this show, and JenniK loves it. I don;t make time for shows, but if I am home and this is on I watch it. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Season 2 is finished?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Huh. I just really agreed with what somebody wrote earlier in this thread. Then I saw that it was me.
*high fives myself*
Posted by aeolusdallas (Member # 11455) on :
i loved the shout outs to the various actors previous roles. nathan fillian got shout outs to Firefly and Buffy Seamus Dever got a shout out to general hospital Jon Huertas got a generation kill shout out i am sure i am missing a few. anyone else see any i missed
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Season 2 is finished?
No. Yesterday's was Season 2, Episode 5.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That sounds about right. Thanks.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
The Halloween episode was fantastic. I've been a bit disappointed by the second season, but that episode redeemed it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Hulu doesnt work in Canada, does ABC?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
the first 5 minutes alone made it worthwhile
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I like the interactions between Castle and Alexis. My daughter's school also does the egg baby project, so it was neat to see that on screen.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
In the opening scene where Castle jumps out in his Mal costume, you can just barely make out what's on the shelf behind him: a catalyzer.
Nathan teased his Twitter audience until someone found it.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: I like the interactions between Castle and Alexis. My daughter's school also does the egg baby project, so it was neat to see that on screen.
Something I really liked about the episode? He brought home his daughter's drunk friend, and then called her parents. Simple as that, no questions, no letting his daughter wheedle him out of it, and it didn't become a zany plot point later (only mention was that her friend was now mad at her). Man-child that he is, Castle is a good dad and fun to watch.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yes - my daughter and I talked about that at length. We have the same deal with her than Castle said - if you get into trouble, or a situation where you think you're over your head or you are uncomfortable you can call us and we will come get you no questions asked, and no punishment.
Then, when she did call he dropped everything and went and got her - and yes, called the girl's parents. When Alexis asked if they could just say she was "sleeping over" he just said "No we can't - get me the phone." It was great to see. For all that they try to milk the "Alexis is the real responsible one in the family" angle, the truth is that Castle IS her father and she IS just sixteen. The writers haven't forgotten that, and last night was a good example.
Posted by daventor (Member # 11981) on :
The father-daughter relationship is also one of my favorite things about the show and I loved the moment where he called the drunk girl's parents. I just like seeing a warm, fully functional parent-child relationship portrayed and I it adds depth to Castle's character to have him, despite being a goof-ball in most situations, truly be a responsible, caring father.
But, yeah, the fave moment for me was the Firefly shout-out at the beginning: "Didn't you wear that five years ago?" "So?" "Don't you think you should move on?" "I like it."
You're far from alone in that respect, Nathan.
As far as the second season goes, I've been really enjoying it. At first I pretty much just watched the series for Fillion, but as it's progressed I think the writing's actually gotten better and more interesting (except for that con-man episode; the underlying story was good but there was just a tad too much cheese in the dialogue and performances for me). I really look forward to each new episode as they come.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Aw...
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
My wife and I dropped it during the first season because of the female cop. Found her EXTREMELY dull. If the show was a bit more like Murder She Wrote with just Nathan Fillon, but keeping/adding the family element it would be perfect.
Might have to watch the Jane episode though.
Posted by Vasslia Cora (Member # 7981) on :
I really enjoy Castle, I find it fun and witty.
Though I fear that they will dangle the Becket and Castle relationship too long. That while trying to keep the showing running as long as possible they will allow it to fail instead of end appropriately.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Though I fear that they will dangle the Becket and Castle relationship too long.
Yeah, I stopped watching this season because of that. If I ever hear that they're together, I'll tune back in.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Might have to watch the Jane episode though.
Jayne ep was not the best, fyi.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I agree, but it was still kinda sweet to see them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
True that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Fun show. Jenni and I like it.......go figure. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
That was hi-larious. I wondered if we were ever going to see Worf again.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I'm still watching the show as well. I really enjoy it, though the relationship aspect of the show is annoying. I hate how so many shows with a male and female lead need to toy with us over their relationship. Either have them strictly be partners, or have them get together. Having this halfway thing for years gets old. Besides, for the constant miscommunication thing to work for years, you have to have characters constantly behave stupidly, and have friends that don't sit them down and make them get it all out in the open. I do think it is funny that they still use firefly references. Jayne taking the brown coat from castle made me laugh.
However, aside from that aspect of the show, I really do enjoy it. It's one of the few shows I still watch every week. Now that I am married, and have a demanding job either my TV habbit or my reading habit had to be cut back to a degree and TV lost out. I still read as much as I ever did, but cut back my tv time dramatically.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Once boy gets girls the story is pretty much over.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Or you just find a different story to tell. Lol, it just takes more creative writing. Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Once boy gets girls the story is pretty much over.
I'm trying to find an example of when this is not true, and having no luck.
Moonlighting of course is the prime example of why you're correct.
I'm trying to imagine a Buffy the Vampire Slayer in a committed and audience-engaging relationship with Spike or Angel, and just not seeing it.
Lightman and Foster of 'Lie to Me'? Maybe...didn't they toy with a relationship in the first season?
Reese and Crews of Life? Nope, wouldn't work.
Posted by J-Put (Member # 11752) on :
Chuck
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I'm trying to find an example of when this is not true, and having no luck.
Pam and Jim from the Office, probably only really works because its an ensemble.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I just watched an episode of Bones, and was kinda freaked out that Booth and Brennan were not only together (I assume) but already had a baby.
They seem to have solved the problem by... not having their dynamic change much at all. They don't kiss on screen. I'm not sure they're even officially "together" except they're apparently about to raise a kid. They argue all the same ways.
This would be great, except the show had already jumped the shark for unrelated reasons.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Once boy gets girls the story is pretty much over.
I'm trying to find an example of when this is not true, and having no luck.
Wash & Zoe, but again, ensemble cast on a short show to boot.
But I think that's just a cheap excuse.
How many Firefly fans would have actually been bored watching a few Wash & Zoe centric episodes? Their scenes were great!
The idea that a couple stops being interesting once they get together is so fundamentally dumb that it really bothers me. I suspect that this attitude in pop culture & fiction contributes to lots of stupid problems that plague young people in their relationships (like thinking that some sort of "spark" or "magic" is gone as they grow more comfortable with their partner. Bleh.)
It's also symptomatic of a deeply static and conservative outlook on writing an ongoing story. A reluctance to rock the boat or otherwise change anything that "works," which leads to the vast majority of even really good shows eventually getting stale and lame.
More to the point, most writers only know how to write romantic conflict. Which is sort of absurd on the face of things. Think about it: When Castle & Beckett are bantering (note: I've only seen first 2 seasons) they actually have a fun dynamic, but in these seasons all the "romancey" vibes have generally revolved around stupid miscommunications and dumb behavior. Comparatively, Esposito & Ryan don't have constant conflict and miscommunication. They have good natured banter and obviously like each other. They have a good relationship!
Because no other relationship in fiction has to be characterized by constant conflict... except maybe that of the protagonist & antagonist... which is really telling, when you think about it.
What so many writers fail to understand is that it's not actually all that fun to see "romantic" tension that consists of a protagonist and an antagonist and the two partners constantly swapping roles. That's just an illustration of a lousy relationship.
But portraying a couple that get along and enjoy each other's company (and yeah, banter!) and occasionally have actual, legitimate disagreements on substantive issues probably just sounds like way too much work.
Easier to end the story when boy gets girl after clarifying the oh-so-entertaining miscommunication.
Edited because I noticed a misspelling in Scott's quote of what I'd said.
[ April 24, 2012, 02:40 PM: Message edited by: Dan_Frank ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Didn't Wash & Zoe start already in a relationship? I don't think Kate was referring to characters who start out together. It's the ones where the show lives off the "will they finally get together or will they forever stay apart?" tension that exists.
On that show, Mal/Inara and Simon/Kaylee more fit the bill. Neither were resolved when the show was still on TV.
A good example would be Scrubs. JD and Elliot had to be broken up shortly after they became a couple, and finally were put back together near the end of the series. In contrast, Turk and Carla got together at the beginning and stayed together throughout. The show had a strong "will they or won't they" with the alpha couple, but not the beta one.
[ April 23, 2012, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: Xavier ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sure, sorry, I was more using them as an illustration of a pair of characters that were together, didn't constantly have stupid miscommunications to create tension, and were interesting.
But yeah, you're right. What's more, I question that either of those couples would actually make very stable, happy relationships. Certainly not without the characters changing a lot!
And of course if they changed then their dynamic with everyone else might change too, and what made them appealing to the audience might change... generally change is just too scary and unpredictable so if you've got a good thing goin' why rock the boat? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Dan, when the romance is the story rather than secondary or incidental to it the conflict (and thus the story) is over when the conflict is resolved.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, that's true, Kate. If the entire plot revolves around will they/won't they, then answering that question resolves the plot.
But in a show like Castle, the core plot revolves around solving murders. There are secondary plots like writing books, solving a specific unsolved murder, parenting a teenager, and romantic tension (and probably others).
Many or all of those secondary plots could be argued to be the best parts of the show! But they aren't the core plot, right?
And in that context, changing any of the secondary plots could certainly change the character dynamics on screen, in massive ways even, but it wouldn't have to result in the show ending.
If... Castle's daughter died, or his reputation was ruined and he couldn't get published, or they solved Beckett's mom's murder fully, or Castle & Beckett got together... no individual change like that would dictate the end of the show.
Certainly, they would probably all result in very significant changes to the show's formula... which was kind of my point.
That's a scary prospect to most writers, I think.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While for me the core of the story is the dialogue, often interesting murders, and funny exposition, I suspect for quite a few the will they won't they IS the core.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Ooh, good point!
I guess I hadn't considered that.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
The thing is, the core of the show is the murders... with a very specific chemistry between Becket and Castle as they solve those murders. That chemistry is partially dependent on the awkward tension between them. You resolve that tension, and yes, even the murder part changes.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Raymond: Yeah, it changes. The formula of the show changes.
Again, I don't think that's a qualitative difference than what changes would happen if Castle stopped writing or his daughter died. Those would both absolutely effect the way the A plots transpired.
I'm not saying it would be a trivial change. These are all big changes, and they require big changes in formula.
But the show could absolutely continue with those changes in formula. Are you of the opinion that there are no ongoing works of fiction that involve major changes to formula that work? Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: While for me the core of the story is the dialogue, often interesting murders, and funny exposition, I suspect for quite a few the will they won't they IS the core.
Yup. The overarching story of the series is the relationship. The individual murder in each episode is (most f the time) a fairly predictable formula plot.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I know, for me, what killed Moonlighting was not the fact that the two leads eventually got into a relationship, but the fact that the writers didn't know what to do with that relationship and consequently kept splitting them up in increasingly traumatic and/or artificial ways.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:But in a show like Castle, the core plot revolves around solving murders.
Rather, I agree with kmboots: the story is the relationship between Beckett and Castle.
Buffy being happy in a relationship with someone wouldn't have worked because the character is built to derive power from loneliness. When she's no longer alone-- when she activates all the Slayers in the world -- the series ends (at least on TV).
quote:I know, for me, what killed Moonlighting was not the fact that the two leads eventually got into a relationship, but the fact that the writers didn't know what to do with that relationship and consequently kept splitting them up in increasingly traumatic and/or artificial ways.
quote:The idea that a couple stops being interesting once they get together is so fundamentally dumb that it really bothers me. I suspect that this attitude in pop culture & fiction contributes to lots of stupid problems that plague young people in their relationships (like thinking that some sort of "spark" or "magic" is gone as they grow more comfortable with their partner. Bleh.)
It's also symptomatic of a deeply static and conservative outlook on writing an ongoing story. A reluctance to rock the boat or otherwise change anything that "works," which leads to the vast majority of even really good shows eventually getting stale and lame.
More to the point, most writers only know how to writer romantic conflict. Which is sort of absurd on the face of things. Think about it: When Castle & Beckett are bantering (note: I've only seen first 2 seasons) they actually have a fun dynamic, but in these seasons all the "romancey" vibes have generally revolved around stupid miscommunications and dumb behavior. Comparatively, Esposito & Ryan don't have constant conflict and miscommunication. They have good natured banter and obviously like each other. They have a good relationship!
Because no other relationship in fiction has to be characterized by constant conflict... except maybe that of the protagonist & antagonist... which is really telling, when you think about it.
What so many writers fail to understand is that it's not actually all that fun to see "romantic" tension that consists of a protagonist and an antagonist and the two partners constantly swapping roles. That's just an illustration of a lousy relationship.
But portraying a couple that get along and enjoy each other's company (and yeah, banter!) and occasionally have actual, legitimate disagreements on substantive issues probably just sounds like way too much work.
Easier to end the story when boy gets girl after clarifying the oh-so-entertaining miscommunication.
:nods vigorously:
This really rings true, Tom/Dan. Very good points.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
Booth and bones are officially together. They even bought a house together. They are not a typical couple, but bones has some issues with emotion. They drive booth nuts sometimes.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
The episode with Adam Baldwin was fun, although I wish there had been more Firefly references (the only possible ones I noticed was the action figures at the beginning, which I assume is a nod to Wash's plastic dinosaurs, and possibly the brown coat)
Spoilers for Chuck: . . . . . . . .
The tension between Sarah and Chuck was a pretty major part of the show early on, but I didn't feel that the show suffered after they got together. Perhaps the fact that the writers were willing to change some fairly basic premises of the show around once a season contributed to the success.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:But in a show like Castle, the core plot revolves around solving murders.
Rather, I agree with kmboots: the story is the relationship between Beckett and Castle.
I thought about this some more and realized...
Yes, it is. But their interactions are against the backdrop of solving murders. If their interactions changed, but were still entertaining, they could continue to solve murders while interacting and the show would still be good!
Also, the idea that somehow they'd stop bantering and teasing each other just because they got together seems sort of absurd. Their interactions could continue in a very similar vein, just with less "romantic tension."
But I dunno, maybe my idea of the best Beckett/Castle interactions is different than most people. I like the banter and the wise-cracking and the one-upping. Are the stupid miscommunications like at the end of season 2 actually appealing to most viewers?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: If their interactions changed, but were still entertaining, they could continue to solve murders while interacting and the show would still be good!
Reminds me of Hart to Hart, McMillan & Wife, Tommy and Tuppence, even Nick and Nora Charles. There is a definite thread of tradition in that kind of story setup.
I think Remington Steele drove a lot of the later relationship/detecting stories in popular culture, not the least of which was Moonlighting. Remington Steele struck me as a specific response in the era of feminism (that is, in the general cultural zeitgeist and conversation around women coming into the workforce in larger numbers and seeking different things from work than many did in the past). That dynamic -- the woman with brains or smarts or the know-how, and the man who admires her while bringing something she does not initially expect to value to the work -- is in the childhood of people who are now in their forties, and I bet it is something that both writers and those who watch the show respond to in a particular way.
Bones, Castle, Moonlighting, X-Files, etc: it's a newer tradition, I think, and it owes a lot to RS, which debuted in the gender conversation of the 70s (just before) and the early 80s (debut in 1982).
--- Edited to add: I like it, and I respond to it. I'd also like to see more of the Tommy & Tuppence style of detecting. Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I don't see why there has to be a lack of "romantic tension" just because they get together. I think the show might benefit from a little more overt flirting. It's not like that has to go away if they start a relationship. They don't have to move in together and become "domestic", just because they're sleeping together. They're both so broken that it would be plausible to stay in the early (fun, flirty, etc) part of the relationship for years.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I loved the Tommy and Tuppence mysteries. Too bad there weren't more of them. I also loved Remington Steele. Pierce Brosnan was just...yeah.
The mysteries on Castle would have to get much more interesting for them to carry the story in a Tommy/Tuppence kind of way.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lupus: Booth and bones are officially together. They even bought a house together. They are not a typical couple, but bones has some issues with emotion. They drive booth nuts sometimes.
And they've now set back the bar to them getting married. They could probably get a few years out of that.
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
I keep thinking back to an interview I read with the creator of the show during the first season where he said something along the lines of "I'm not going to let the relationship between Castle and Beckett become like Booth and Bones." He even said he wouldn't toy around with the audience about it. Uh, really? You've done exactly that!
That said...did you all see the promo for next week's season finale?? (link) Perhaps there is hope after all! I definitely agree with you, Dan, about the possibility of still having a good show after they get together. And after six seasons of toying with us, Bones seems to have done a good job on that front. I guess we shall see!
Posted by hansenj (Member # 4034) on :
No one had anything to say about the season finale??
My husband was out of town when it aired, so we didn't watch it until last night. All I can say is, it's about time! Also, [SPOILER ALERT!] it will be interesting to see the repercussions of Beckett's resignation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's partly inertia and partly enjoyment of the Castle family and the show's dialogue that keeps me interested at this point. They have almost totally played out the Castle-Beckett relationship with me, as well as the whole Mrs. Beckett murder conspiracy story. The one is simply so drawn out and has come so very close to progression only to back off so many times that I'm just pretty jaded. The second just seems too absurd and unlikely, even for a pop-fiction-y sort of theme they're going for.
It's interesting, House has run for longer and had elements of the will-they-won't-they between House and Cuddy quite a few times, but it wasn't as exasperating and eventually off-putting for me. I think perhaps because on Castle, they've gotten closer and had so many-dozens, I suspect-of the interrupted moments that when they happen now I'm usually just irritated.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
I did love the episode. It will be interesting to see what they do next season. She is unemployed after all. I just hope they don't cop out and have them split up before the season starts
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
I think the episode would have had more impact to me if they had finished with the following two scenes:
-that guy sitting at the desk with the castle-conspirator seeing him, no dialogue. It would have kept a question of "who is he working for?" in the air
-castle opening the door and seeing Beckett on the other side. Again, no more dialogue.
I enjoy more tension in my season finales Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
After all the build up of will they or won't they, I felt their finally going for it had no emotional impact.
"I know I should care about my dead mother's killer, who is incidentally trying to kill me, but I just wanted your hot writer's body so bad..."
Bleh.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
"Will-they-won't-they" shows consistently drag things out past the point where I care anymore.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)