KalliopePL said:

1-and-done said:

I`ve posted this on Castle/Bones thread but I think it would work here too:

Just wanna say that whoever brought up this damned Moonlightning/Bones-thing on this site should be punished by ten whip lashes of Lady Irena .
 
 

You can`t compare apples with pears.

In Moonlightning there apparently was no concept of the whole idea … nothing like Andrew had in mind when he created "Castle". So, when there`s no real concept behind a story then there`s a really good chance of screwing it up. And even if there`s a good idea with a good concept then there`s also the possibility of directors not that good or actors not that good who can destroy the credibilty for the audience. It seems to me that Moonlightning was not planned as a love story … more like a crime story. So not putting the emphasis on the two characters falling in love was a logical step.

And in Bones it`s really obvious that the producers waited too long to show some kind of character progress and emotional/psychological development for too long. You now can see that they wanna show this development in showing some kind of attachment the characters should have to each other … but without making it believable to the fans. Chemistry between Bones and Booth?? Really? I haven`t seen it or felt it! Bones was kind of like 5 seasons showing "absolutely nothing" and then in season 6 it all happened too suddenly to be believable to the audience.

But in "Castle" the whole character progress was shown throughout all the seasons, even beginning in season 1 (if you recall Beckett`s behaviour in the first 4 episodes and compare that with what was shown in the last 2 episodes) Even within 10 episodes (instead of 23/24) they managed to evolve their characters in a way that attracted me in the first place to this tv show. And Stana and Nathan delivering that emotional development were really amazing in acting it out.

I think they`re both way better actors than Deschanel/Boreanaz (or Willis/Shepard). Looking cute/handsome/gorgeous is not everything (and not enough) when it`s needed to transport a storyline to an audience.

And because all of these facts and that no one should compare peaches with nuts I`m fully convinced that "Castle" (thanks to Andrew and the other writers) will fulfill all my expectations to the fullest. I don`t doubt anything they show us. If you wanna have doubts, go stuck with Bones. You won`t deserve any better. Having a little faith there wouldn`t be wrong, would it?

Couldn't agree more. Plus, getting rid of the show's creator (Moonlightning) in it's last season certainly didn't help the show, 'cause the new team of writers completely screwed up. 

And totally agree, Stana Katic is THE MOST TALENTED actress out there. She's the one who really impresses everybody with her performance. I have no idea why she hasn't been nominated to Emmy yet, 'cause she deserves it much more than everybody else. 

Same here. Perfect summary of the whole "problem"!!

Just started rewatching seasons 1 last night (once again…) and thought about the huge character development, so perfectly written and played! No way to compare to Bones (which I used to love but they totally lost me troughout season 6) or anything else out there.

ps. Rewatching s1e01 after having seen "Cuffed" is even more fun!

I've decided to take a 'I'll believe it when I see it" approach to Castle now rather than have my hopes dashed week in and week out. We'll see where the remainder of the season takes us, but I believe we will still be right where we are at the end of this season…with Castle and Beckett no closer together than they were in Rise.

southrnbygrace said:

I've decided to take a 'I'll believe it when I see it" approach to Castle now rather than have my hopes dashed week in and week out. We'll see where the remainder of the season takes us, but I believe we will still be right where we are at the end of this season…with Castle and Beckett no closer together than they were in Rise.

A quote from "unknown": Everybody can see but not everybody sees anything.

Hey, you really don`t see it?? Seriously??? Or do you mean by "closer" just in the physical way??

I don`t get it what you think,….. sorry!

1-and-done said:

Thanks, everyone for saying "Hallelujah" . And, RickNotCastle, there`s no need to clamp down the OCD,.. not in here . We all suffer from this serious mind condition. Do you think we may ever be healed?
And, Sonnenschein77, thanks for the tip of rewatching the pilot  (once again, … maybe the 63rd time or so). It really grows again now after Cuffed (that is really unbelievable, Andrew).

It`s really amazing brilliant how Stana is able to transport feelings her character has in all the details in her eyes. You may even see what kind of smile stays on her lips and the lower part of her face (and don`t reach her eyes)… like when she reacts to Gates (or Serena) and the kind of smiles that reach her eyes and the whole upper part of her face … like in C&R. And it doesn`t stop with the smiles. Almost every emotion I can imagine (disbelief, joking, sarcasm, joy, saying "Please", faith, hopelessness, astonishment, being desperate, forgiveness, ecstasy, seduction, confusion, denying, refusal, jealousy, admiration, self-control, consolation, flirting, embarrassment, consideration, distress, threatening, wondering, shyness, unsecurity, …. and I could go on and on and on) Stana is able to show only with facial expressions in no need of saying one word. That`s one of a kind ACTING ART…. that really deserves an EMMY, I`m with you on this, KalliopePL, … maybe we should give the commitee a hit over the head!

And this skills, from which Nathan has A LOT, too, but had to put in not that often as Stana has to do, you can`t compare to a Emily Deschanel. She`s definitely a fine actor… but with not that kind of a gifted skill like Stana. But maybe, I don`t deny it, it`s because the character of Bones is to be portrayed like Emily does, I don`t know. But it seems not authentic to me. But, I guess, that also could have been because of bad writing.

I think we should consider another mantra (all together): THERE IS NO CURSE!!

There`s only an average idea with bad writers and not so good actors (how the hell it can be that an actress "is not available"??) to screw up a million times. If you`re having a good idea of a storytelling (take the example of Joanne K. Rowling and her "baby" Harry Potter,.. btw I`m neither a fan nor I had read the books, but I can observe the strategy) you have to do everything in your power to fulfill this idea… but with a red thread in it. And this has to be shown in all of your actions: casting the main cast, putting together only actors that don`t hate each other (for one thing it`s good), contracting them in the right way, agreement with producers who has to put the emphasis on decisions where the show is heading, agreement with the studios and the broadcasting, good and steady writing crew which has an ultimate understanding of the planned story and good public relations. And I think, once again other than the old Moonlightning desaster, ABC has a brilliant master of PR by having an ficticious author writing real books, creating a homepage in the name of this ficticious author, publishing and selling those books and getting that integrated in the show as a storyline. That kind of making business is to be seen to perfection. So there can`t be a curse.

Just perfectly said (once again)!!!

I really think about putting our new mantra into my signature. There is no curse!!! So true!

sonnenschein77 said:

mutha_nite said:

Sunshine!    Me too!  I'm actually amazed again at how much SK conveys with just her eyes.  1:1 the scene where Castle is "reading" her.  Her face remains immobile, smile doesn't change – yet the change in her mood from sardonic to shaken is plainly written in her eyes.  Best eyes on (American) TV – and Castle's response, the lowered eyes, the back-track to give her space, foreshadows the dance to come.  I think this scene is where the dance actually began.  Good stuff, eh?   

Hi mutha_nite! Definitely good stuff!!! Love this scene. And SK ist just incredibly good. Best eyes on TV!

Jawohl, meine kleine freunde!  Sehr gut!    ( . . . and that's about the limit of meine Deutsche.  )

I really think about putting our new mantra into my signature.  There is no curse!!! So true! 

Back in season 2 (after WRAPPED) and the summer before season 3 we had discussions about "the curse" and how to reverse the curse (continue with great writing afterwards) and even had Castle shirts that said .. There is No Curse!

little eve said:

1-and-done said:

I think we should consider another mantra (all together): THERE IS NO CURSE!!

 

That has been my thinking all along which is why I posted the article at the beginning of this thread in the first place, because it gave pointers as to "write around it" and addressed the issue from a story-telling perspective. That to me is key as it is the worries about quality story-telling that seem to have people in jitters. Now this might sound surprising to some but as far as I know US tv is the only place that has ever heard of the moonlighting thing. In Europe we have similar shows and the relationships between characters happen all the time…quite naturally actually. And with naturally I mean when they find each other attractive they just go out on a date .. *gasp*! And if they like that date they go out on another one, etc. Sometimes you will have people who are in a relationship working together on cases and it is very funny because of course that isn't always as easy as one might think; keeping the personal from the professional etc. As a viewer you get to see your favorite characters work through all kinds of relationship moments and it is interesting, engaging, and some times funny to watch. One of my favorite police teams on German tv used to be a couple in private life but are still partners at work. Now, that is an interesting dynamic, having two people overcome their private issues and still work effectively at work. They are a great team as they know each other so well and are actually good friends.

So, in summary, there is a life for characters beyond the will-they-won't they stage and for some tv shows to maintain it out of some ratings fears etc. to me personally means selling the writers, the actors, (the entire show crew) but also the viewers short. Now, that doesn't mean that I want our DD together at all costs now, but it does influence the way I observe their development. The balance in terms of story-telling that Marlowe and Co. have to manage becomes harder as the episodes go by. At some point (undetermined…I cannot and won't give that a 'sell-by date' viewers will start feeling that they are being played and stop watching. And I don't want that. None of us do.

Na Bravo!

Well said. It`s really well pointed out that story telling indeed is an art itself. If you manage to tell a believable story and stay on that path I think there`s only a small chance viewers will stop watching. Maybe some kind of people who got impatient too soon. But most of the viewers love what is not only told by pictures and words but also what kind of message the storyline wants to transport. Some viewers are not interested in the first place in some complicated mystery-kind-of storyline. So they don`t even make it past season 1 or 2. And I`m a believer  that the viewers who love the underlying message will stuck and admire "the art" along the way the episodes go. I strongly believe that Marlowe & Co put the emphasis on where the show is heading … not some kind of a broadcasting guy who only watches the weekly rates. Castle is not like a "telenovela" where you always have to fear that a half-believable story would be crashed in some kind of "unbelievable" just to fit the rates (or eventually to regain some viewers). The impatient viewers (with some kind of intelligence) who think they got played will always be that impatient with tv shows other than soaps or telenovelas. All the other viewers who don`t know if they `re played, they maybe stop watching because they don`t get the concept of "hearing an underlying message or admiring the art". Castle is not only a new art of making TV , it also lacks all kind of "cheap" tricks to gain viewers with a lot of spectacular action (like car exploding highway cops,… Germans know what I mean).  I think that`s the reason why it`s so good. And, I can only speak for myself, that`s the reason why I will stuck and admire. Just one thing Andrew Marlow must not do: letting anyone else decide what comes next. It`s his "baby" and he should bring it to end. And with this he can avoid the "Moonlighting" desaster very easily. I can`t imagine that Marlowe hasn`t thought of all that in the planing phase of Castle. The show is maybe too "perfectly planed", if you know what I mean. All the hints, the parallels, the light, the music… it seems as he had everything in mind even in pictures before filming it…. it`s almost a "Mozart"-kind of creating.

Another interesting question: it seems everybody knows about that Moonlighting-curse,… but has anybody mentioned Remingtion Steele on the way? I think, it should be mentioned as an example contrasting to Moonlighting. You can`t really compare the two shows but noone heard about the "Remington-Steele"-curse, do we? And hopefully we will see another example of creating some kind of tv history here, what do you think ?