Active Users:141 Time:21/09/2023 12:57:37 PM
Re: Okay, the perspective of a non-shipper viewer. nossy Send a noteboard - 18/05/2011 06:36:29 PM
What a farce. While the latest relationship story feint fortunately does not seem to have blinded many people to the identity of the third cop, the whole ending was lame and contrived to give a cheap thrill and artificial suspense. For a show called "Castle" the focus has been entirely too much on Beckett so much so that people are forgetting you can still have a show called Castle without her. Next season could be really interesting if they decide to let her die, and feature Castle trying to finish up the case on his own, with maybe some off-the-books help from his pals in the NYPD. It might actually give the titular character a chance to grow and develop and have a function beyond plot devices and comedy. It could be a really interesting show and they will never, ever, for any reason, do that. No TV show, especially on a major network, alters the formula without compelling, non-creative reasons (ratings desperation, casting issues, etc). Some shows might plausibly knock off the main non-titular character to move the title character in a new direction. Not a show as episodic and formulaic as Castle. Beckett will be back next season, and after an episode or two teasing out a couple more threads in the Big Mystery, will go right back to unusual murders-of-the-week, generally involving celebrities or wealthy people. It's called "the reset button" and it refers to the tendency to revert shows to the status quo after calender-inspired (sweeps, proximity to holidays, season-ending or hiatus-beginning) changes. Like how the season that began with Castle off on his own and none of the cops have heard from him in weeks and he's back together with his ex-wife. Oooh! The show's all different, right? Haha!

Yeah, because a show would be so fun all about one person. I find your response really silly, because as much as I <3 Nathan Fillion, I think that the show did a spectacular job of casting and providing interest other than what Rick Castle can provide by himself. It isn't supposed to be just about him, it's suppose to be about how he reacts to this real situation with this real woman. Re-watch the Alyssa Milano epi.

I do agree about the "reset button," however, because that is just what shows do. I don't mind some filler episodes as long as there is also the occasional beefy one. Castle isn't a show all about drama - it's almost as much comedy as anything else. Even so, I do think he's done a hell of a lot of "growing," and I love the way they've taken it.

Anyway, with the suspense disposed of, why the hell was Castle a pallbearer? A guy Montgomery met a couple of years ago and socializes with less than any other cop in the office? Its like when TV shows have weddings and rather than bring in new people to wear formal clothes and not talk, they fill up the wedding party with regular cast members despite the complete lack of any reason by real world standards why they should be there, or why their extended families would keep speaking to them after they picked virtual strangers and co-worker's siblings or spouses over their own siblings and cousins. That shit does NOT get forgotten, let me tell you! And I would think a pall bearer would be likewise, especially for cops and NYPD more than any other. They get really hyped up about their whole brotherhood thing, and unless Montgomery was exposed and disgraced, like Lem on The Shield, every former partner and relative on the force is really annoyed at the family for letting this civilian celebrity d-bag groupie take his slot. They even have alluded to this sort of thing once or twice on the show, that as much as they might like Castle, he is still not a cop, and the whole partner thing with Beckett would not be legitimate in the eyes of real cops.

I think it was more about Mont's relationship with Beckett. If they were the closest of the close (as they've made it appear), she would have easily been able to demand permission for her "partner" to be a pall-bearer. While I can admit that you have a point, I do also think you can find reasons for their choices to make sense if you're not focused on deciding that they shouldn't.

I'm not saying this episode was not entertaining in the manner typical of Castle, but let's not get overboard about a couple of pieces of stunt-writing.

I loved it. I thought it was very "Castle," and that's more than enough for me.
Reply to message
Ok, Castle was awesome. (no spoilers in my post, but the responses are dirty with 'em!) - 17/05/2011 04:14:01 AM 1049 Views
*spoilers* - 17/05/2011 09:46:02 AM 557 Views
Re: *spoilers* - 17/05/2011 12:50:51 PM 601 Views
Re: *spoilers* - 17/05/2011 01:16:36 PM 580 Views
Re: *spoilers* - 17/05/2011 04:22:16 PM 562 Views
Re: *spoilers* - 17/05/2011 02:15:52 PM 577 Views
Nothing specific, sorry - 17/05/2011 04:17:09 PM 571 Views
Good TV (*alluded to spoilers* ) - 17/05/2011 01:59:12 PM 744 Views
Yus! - 17/05/2011 04:15:48 PM 602 Views
I should have read yours first. - 18/05/2011 04:11:33 AM 555 Views
Copycat! =^-^= *NM* - 18/05/2011 06:12:30 PM 254 Views
- 18/05/2011 06:46:11 PM 606 Views
Bah... - 19/05/2011 02:25:39 PM 810 Views
Stop that. - 19/05/2011 04:47:35 PM 481 Views
Re: Good TV (*alluded to spoilers* ) - 17/05/2011 07:05:02 PM 583 Views
Pfft - 18/05/2011 04:00:39 PM 556 Views
Right. - 18/05/2011 05:19:52 PM 653 Views
Agree - 19/05/2011 06:56:09 PM 518 Views
I disagree with you - 24/05/2011 09:58:48 PM 490 Views
Re: Pfft - 18/05/2011 06:47:08 PM 617 Views
Re: Pfft - 19/05/2011 06:59:30 PM 541 Views
Re: Pfft - 19/05/2011 07:26:24 PM 477 Views
Nooooooooooooo! (spoilers) - 17/05/2011 02:15:28 PM 646 Views
Eee. XD - 17/05/2011 04:20:59 PM 510 Views
Re: Eee. XD - 17/05/2011 04:58:59 PM 699 Views
Why is everyone assuming a death? Did I miss something beyond the contrived ending? - 18/05/2011 04:06:37 PM 499 Views
I can't tell if you are being sarcastic or not - 18/05/2011 04:44:45 PM 525 Views
But we know she's not going to die, so he's got a point. (+edit) - 18/05/2011 06:16:20 PM 541 Views
Yup. - 18/05/2011 06:51:16 PM 576 Views
Silly man. - 18/05/2011 07:11:38 PM 510 Views
Most definitely. - 19/05/2011 06:49:31 PM 528 Views
I really need to start watching it. - 17/05/2011 03:32:35 PM 467 Views
Yes, you do. - 17/05/2011 04:24:47 PM 558 Views
Okay, the perspective of a non-shipper viewer. - 18/05/2011 04:35:04 PM 660 Views
Do you lack joy in your life? - 18/05/2011 05:28:02 PM 724 Views
I think this is his joy. - 18/05/2011 06:38:14 PM 583 Views
- 19/05/2011 02:25:02 PM 708 Views
The difference between you & me is I'm mean to imaginary people, while you are mean to real people - 19/05/2011 12:26:51 AM 515 Views
Hardly, Cannoli... - 19/05/2011 02:18:36 PM 864 Views
Why you are wrong - 22/05/2011 04:03:57 AM 601 Views
*slow clap* - 24/05/2011 10:04:58 PM 543 Views
Re: Okay, the perspective of a non-shipper viewer. - 18/05/2011 06:36:29 PM 557 Views
Re: Okay, the perspective of a non-shipper viewer. - 22/05/2011 01:30:58 PM 552 Views
It was good - 22/05/2011 01:12:14 PM 590 Views

Reply to Message