posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 503 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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.
posted
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? Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1204 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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!
Posts: 1635 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1635 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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 Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Will-they-won't-they" shows consistently drag things out past the point where I care anymore.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
