Funny thing is though, I hated Moonlighting and never saw any chemistry between Bruce and Cybil. I'm also not a fan of The Thin Man movies. But I LOVE Castle. IMO you can write a compelling story when they get together, but if the chemistry isn't there between the actors it's useless. Fortunately for us, Stana and Nathan ooze that intangible 'it' that makes us all hold our breath when Castle and Beckett get close to one another.

The 'Moonlighting Curse' can easily be turned into 'Castle Magic' because we have amazing actors and a fabulous writing staff. All we need is for them to take the plunge and prove to the world there is no curse. Maybe if Andrew Marlowe runs around the outside of the studio and knocks on the door until someone let him it the curse would be reversed. [Image Can Not Be Found][Image Can Not Be Found]

dmcw said:

Thank you for that post little eve…what a great article.  Not only do I share the author's taste in dramedy TV (my mother said this exact phrase “You love Castle because it’s the 2011 version of Moonlighting.” just yesterday), but I also agree with her thoughts on what the Castle team will need to do to keep this great story going in a believable, fun, interesting way:

"What Castle will have to do, that Moonlighting couldn’t, is change the big problem and move on to a new big arc. They have to make the problem 'Can these two people who are still so different stay together?' as compelling and fun to watch as the 'will they get together?' problem."

Even more true is the statement that she makes regarding staying in a relationship being a greater challenge than getting into one.  My fingers are crossed that the Castle team is ready for this transition by the end of this season, and has the passion and drive to keep the stories fresh and enticing once the Castle/Beckett relationship is established.  

Finally, somebody has written what I have in my mind for a long time. I would like to note that the crucial question for Castle lies here: 'Can these two people who are still so different stay together?'. In the last season all efforts was made to make the two leads more similar, removing the differences in the name of character development. In long term, I'm affraid it could be a serious dead end. The innate source of their banter and swordfight were their completely different personalty. If this would change (and this has already happened yet) they will be premanently relied on outside sources of conflicts which is not good. Instead of making them similar it would have been a better (and definitely a more innovative and mature) way of character development to make them learn to accept the other one as they are, but this train has already gone, so hope for the best.

I love the comment about the challenge of KEEPING them together.  It's easy, and common, for writers to have characters repeatedly hook-up, break-up, then make-up.  Those all the couples I loathe.  So I can see how it's a challenge for TPTB to keep a relationship fresh while not falling into the "hook-up, break-up, make-up" trap.  I think the Castle writers can find that balance.

He-Touches-Things said:

halaci said:

Finally, somebody has written what I have in my mind for a long time. I would like to note that the crucial question for Castle lies here: 'Can these two people who are still so different stay together?'. In the last season all efforts was made to make the two leads more similar, removing the differences in the name of character development. In long term, I'm affraid it could be a serious dead end. The innate source of their banter and swordfight were their completely different personalty. If this would change (and this has already happened yet) they will be premanently relied on outside sources of conflicts which is not good. Instead of making them similar it would have been a better (and definitely a more innovative and mature) way of character development to make them learn to accept the other one as they are, but this train has already gone, so hope for the best.

As I go through my sequential rewatching, I don't think they have so much removed the personality differences as softened them. Isn't this what happens in real life when people become more accepting of their differences? Their shared qualities and interests would start to become more visibly obvious, and their differences less jarring. There is still plenty of opportunities for conflict available, for they are still fundamentally different people, but who have become only more accepting of their differences.

I try to phrase precisely my thoughts, I hope I will succeed. Originally Castle was a flighty, flirty manchild, with a serious core, but he enjoyed this life. When he told in the pilot that the parties are boring it was not because he wanted to settle, he just wanted new adventures and challenges instead of the known ones. Both because of his hectic childhood and the early fame and richness he considered the rules only as challenges to win, to have fun. Beckett on the other hand was by-the-book not because of her trauma. That made her a closed person and that turned her to the police, but the rules, the procedures are the basics of her profession. If she mentally accepts that breaking the rules is acceptable if someone feels having a good reason, than the whole system in which she works becomes relative, subject of personal judgement.

In the beginning there were two, really key part of their personalities: Castle's flirty and playboy(ish) persona and Beckett's by-the-book attitude. The other things came from these. Now Castle is turned to be a "I don't even look at anybody else" prototype husband while Beckett doesn't give a damn about the rules if she feels it will help to solve the crimes. (Remember the first episode, when she was pissed just because Castle used the mayor to get the result sooner? Beckett is a cop for 12 years – breaking these habits suddenly is like saying that a surgeon starts to operate in a different manner just because she has a new lover.) They are starting to be fundamentally the same. The "equatation" of their behaviour was like this: I know how you want me to do the things – It's not my way – I do the things in my way because I don't care or because I want to tease you.

Should they really remained fundamentally different only with softened edges that would have meant that Beckett realizes the solid core of honesty and trust under Castle's surface and while being annoyed by this surface, at the end of the day she would know that she see something, what is hidden to the others. From Castle's side it would have meant that even though he is constantly try to be unleashed without any reins he is avoid to do things (or try to instantly remedy them) which could seriously threat the chance of being forgiven. He could have accepted that the rules are important – just didn't like to obey and mainly didn't like to admit his willingness to obey. That's what they reached at the end of S2, again it is something like this: I know how you want me to do the things. – It's not my way but I see your point. – I do the things on my way until it won't hurt our relationship

What I see now is not this. Castle's surface completely vanished – Beckett doesn't even have a chance to accept it because that isn't exist anymore (at least we and she don't see any sign of it). Castle has hardly any actions what Beckett could not have been a partner without any problem. His "out of the box" thinking and acting was mostly limited to a few hazy conspiration theory and when it was really edgy (like with the Syrian agent in Countdown), he has Beckett's full support. (My problem is not that in life-and-death moments she trusts him even if his way is unorthodox. The problem is that he has unorthodox ways only in life-and-death moments.) They don't need to accept the differences because those are mostly gone. In the last season it turned to this: I know how you want me to do the things. – That's the same how I want. It's not softening the edges, there are no edges, maybe an uneven surface with small bumps.

So what I see now is that they are becoming fundamentally the same and then the tensions remain no real roots, those only scrape the surface. That can be done in a funny way, but those will not be able to replace the UST when it will be resolved => that's why they would need outside obstacles and conflicts. Should they keep the fundamental differences that could have kept the tension between them without the UST as they constantly should check themselves not to cross the limits of acceptance. That setup would have been much closer to the most referred predecessors (Nick and Nora, Thin Man, Tracy-Hepburn movies) as well.

I think money will only be a probably if Castle starts to smother her with expensive gifts.  The conversation they had about how money can change a person in "Lucky Stiff" clarified things for Beckett.

I think that Castle's public imagine and status, not necessarily "money", will be a bigger issue. What will be interesting to see is how he will respond to any publicity that may result from their relationship.  I know he won't sell photos to Star Magazine, but is he going to be pushing cameras out of their faces?  I guess we'll just have to wait and see.