This is a line of discussion that I'm actually growing quite frustrated over, so I'll comment here then let it go to avoid saying something or offending someone.  Marlowe was asked this question some time ago in an interview (I don't remember where, but I do remember reading it or hearing about it) where he said a conscious decision was made at the beginning of the show to make each episode stand on its own so viewers don't feel like they've missed something if they tune in occasionally.  Doing it this way will not frustrate the casual fan.  Otherwise, if a fan misses more than one episode, they may not bother to watch the show at all if they know they have to see each episode to have any idea what is going on.  So from a practical standpoint, this makes sense.

Is it frustrating for us the obsessive fans of the show? Yes.  Why? Because we take significant chunks out of our free time to analyze every tweet, facebook posting, spoiler article, interview, and sneak peek we can get our hands on to speculate on what might happen in the upcoming episodes.  We are the minority of fans everyone.  The vast majority of fans are not nearly as OCD about the show as we are, so they may not even notice when 3XK isn't brought up again or the kiss isn't brought up again.  They may have a fleeting thought about it like "He's kinda acting normal after smooching her he did last week." but then the casual fan won't think much about it, but will just enjoy the show and move on with their life.  We, and the reporter, notice these things because we can't get enough of the show. 

BTW, Marlowe also said, regarding why he didn't plan on bringing up the kiss at least in a direct way, that to do so would show that Beckett & Castle didn't take it seriously.  If Castle jokes about it, it means it didn't mean much to him and Beckett will be hurt by his blase attitude about it.  As for Beckett, she keeps seriously personal things that mean a lot to her to herself behind her walls, so for her to bring it up would mean it didn't mean much to her either.  As for 3XK, the writers were planning on bringing it up later this season, but changed their minds.  As for "perpetually absent Motorcycle Boy" the writers explained that away in Setup when Beckett says he is gone a lot either to work at the hospital or traveling around the world.  Lastly, after Countdown, we seem to see a bit of renewed interest on Castle's part to slowly and subtly win Beckett's attention and maybe her heart.  Did anyone else catch the look on Castle's face just before he gives Beckett the cast photo in One Life to Lose?  And we all saw his smirk and know he deliberately kept quiet on how he had seen Forbidden Planet in hopes of getting Beckett to invite him to join her.  So at some point after Countdown, he pulled himself out of his melancholy and decided to be the best most awesome friend he could be, while trying to wheedle some time with just him and Beckett here and there unbeknownst to her.  So each of the writer's examples can be easily explained away.

Castle is a subtle show, so it makes no sense for it to overtly refer to one case, or episode, right after another.  These are just my thoughts.  I know some of you will disagree, but I have been dying to get all that off my chest for sometime now, so I appreciate your patience. 

One of the things I have been thinking about in reading the article is….How much continuity do we need to see when significant things happen?  What things should remain a running thread throughout the show and at what point should a plot line be "put to bed".  I'm not sure that I'm making much sense here, but I guess I'm wondering how much is enough in regards to continuity.  At what point is the viewer satisfied that a plot point has been addressed?  And how do you deal with the rabid fan, while satisfying the casual viewer, and at the same time attract new viewers who may be intimidated with having to catch up with serialized plot line?   

I think that the relationship, when you take into account the nature and character of Beckett and Castle and the issues that each of them are dealing with, is realistic and understandable.  I think that we are seeing some emotional fallout from the kiss and from Set-up and Countdown.  But not to the extent and as obviously as some viewers would like?  They have attempted to do and show us so so much this season, and they only have so much time to cram it all in.  I would love to see a little more of those introspective moment where they revisit things that have happened, but at the same time, I'm loving the subtle way they are handling the relationship and their desire and success in keeping both Castle and Beckett in character.  Is this a lack of continuity, or just the way they have chosen to tell the story?   

I think that the intention with 3XK was to bring it back this season, but they got a season four and decided to go in another direction.  So they did drop the ball on that, I think, but in the context of making a TV show, I understand why.  It would be nice to see some fallout from the bomb scare in Countdown, but as it was something that was secret and a matter of national security I think that it's reasonable to assume that they might not discuss it, at the same time I feel that we are seeing some emotional fallout from what happened.  There has been good continuity with the handling of Martha and Chet, the relationship and how she has handled his death.  There has been good continuity with the Alexis and her teenage angst.   One thing that was not brought up in the article is the amazing job they are doing with the continuity with Johanna Beckett's murder.

I'm just not feeling that I really have anything to complain about as far as continuity is concerned.      

dmcw said:

Just a couple of points here.  

I have wondered from time to time why they don't at least throw in the odd line in a following show to refer back to previous events – or at least the significant ones – like the Kiss and the nearly freezing to death/being blown to smithereens.  I understand the desire to have each show be free standing as far as possible – which incidentally also makes the show much more valuable for resales in syndication as it doesn't have to be shown in order.  But would it have killed them to have Castle make some comment to Beckett in a show that followed Countdown that he'd not quick managed to get warmed up yet?  Or for Beckett to say something about being able to see the countdown clock when she falls asleep?  The first would have been easy to work in and wouldn't have confused the casual watcher much.  I'd categorize these sorts of things as nice to have, but i don't really have to have them.  This way i – and everyone else on these boards – can spend my review time digging for clues in the subtext.  

On Halaci's comments above:

So if he is humorous and irreverent in an episode when there are no conflict, it's his normal happy way. If he behaves exactly the same, without any sign of doubt or awkwardness though we know there was a conflict, (see Ep3x18) then he is deflecting? To me when he is happy, he is happy. If he onlyshows happiness to deflect, I consider Nathan Fillion (or any other member of the cast) perfectly capable to play it in a different way.

Maybe Nathan Fillion could play these two scenarios differently to signal to all the audience members that this happy go lucky mood is different than the other one we saw earlier.  But i think he (and Stana Katic) already do an admirable job telegraphing precisely what they intend their characters to be saying in reality.  The point of a deflection is for people to not see what you are really feeling – and what the hell good is a deflection if everyone sees right through it. Intelligent adults who've been playing this game for years are usually VERY good at it so that only their nearest and dearest can tell the difference.  So for Castle, i'd expect only Alexis and Martha reliably can tell the difference between his cover-up happy and his real happy, and maybe not even them if he so choose.  Ditto Beckett who locks up all her feelings behind the walls.  Only a very few get to know/see what might be going on behind those walls.  Sometime i suspect Beckett doesn't really know.

On the whole discussion of the Castle/Beckett dance/flirting/whatever and that not being consistent – i disagree.  I find how the writers have shown that back and forth is really quite consistent given the nature of the participants in this little game, albeit the thread sometimes is rather subtle.  Stana Katic called the banter/flirting/back and forth between Beckett and Castle swordplay a couple of years ago and she's given it the right name – it's a duel with sharp objects – intellects, tongues, personalities and lots to lose if things go wrong. The back and forth on who's flirting with whom, who's holding off (attack/defend/parry etc.)  doesn't seem to be the least inconsistent for two highly intelligent, emotionally damaged people who are (or were) dating others.  Nothing is uncomplicated; nothing comes without strings attached; everything is fraught. There are no guards on these swords. Get it wrong, miss a sally and someone will bleed – and both players know it.  

Halaci's view of Castle's behaviour in the last couple of episodes seems to be that it is inconsistent with the high minded, not flirting back at a 'taken' woman from earlier. I say it's perfectly consistent with someone who's decided he's going to take friendship with a woman he wants to stay as close to as he can, even if he doesn't have a (present) hope of a romantic relationship with that woman.  He wants to be (or to stay) her best friend.  He's living the 'always' he promised (unlike what some of our fellow posters advocated after Countdown), so he's being true to his characterization as a faithful man.  And frankly, the characterization of his behaviour as "high minded" and not chasing a woman he knows is with someone else was made on these boards extrapolating from what we think his character is supposed to be like. From a purely pragmatic point of view, there wasn't a lot of time in the nightclub scene in Lucky Stiff for him to respond at all to Beckett's moves/actions.  However, the look(s) on his face during that whole scene screamed what was probably going on in his mind – which, at best, involved an immediate detour to the nearest hotel (and at worst involved the nearest wall) – and in the mind of most hetero males watching that scene. Was Beckett really flirting or playing a role for undercover op purposes?  Probably both.  She's clearly good at playing a flirtatious hotty – look at the way she flirted with the bouncer then the drug dealer in the rest of that scene.  What would she have done if Castle actually said something/did something – we will never know.  But at this stage of the show – probably deflected him with some sort of 'don't you wish/in your dreams' remark without  a reference to Josh. (Note: Castle's the one who brings up Josh, not Beckett. Beckett doesn't mention him, not because she doesn't care about him, but because her personal life lives in a different box/behind a different wall, from her work life – again consistent.)   

GhostWriter said:

Just a couple of points here.  

I have wondered from time to time why they don't at least throw in the odd line in a following show to refer back to previous events – or at least the significant ones – like the Kiss and the nearly freezing to death/being blown to smithereens.  I understand the desire to have each show be free standing as far as possible – which incidentally also makes the show much more valuable for resales in syndication as it doesn't have to be shown in order.  But would it have killed them to have Castle make some comment to Beckett in a show that followed Countdown that he'd not quick managed to get warmed up yet?  Or for Beckett to say something about being able to see the countdown clock when she falls asleep?  The first would have been easy to work in and wouldn't have confused the casual watcher much.  I'd categorize these sorts of things as nice to have, but i don't really have to have them.  This way i – and everyone else on these boards – can spend my review time digging for clues in the subtext.  

On Halaci's comments above:

So if he is humorous and irreverent in an episode when there are no conflict, it's his normal happy way. If he behaves exactly the same, without any sign of doubt or awkwardness though we know there was a conflict, (see Ep3x18) then he is deflecting? To me when he is happy, he is happy. If he onlyshows happiness to deflect, I consider Nathan Fillion (or any other member of the cast) perfectly capable to play it in a different way.

Maybe Nathan Fillion could play these two scenarios differently to signal to all the audience members that this happy go lucky mood is different than the other one we saw earlier.  But i think he (and Stana Katic) already do an admirable job telegraphing precisely what they intend their characters to be saying in reality.  The point of a deflection is for people to not see what you are really feeling – and what the hell good is a deflection if everyone sees right through it. Intelligent adults who've been playing this game for years are usually VERY good at it so that only their nearest and dearest can tell the difference.  So for Castle, i'd expect only Alexis and Martha reliably can tell the difference between his cover-up happy and his real happy, and maybe not even them if he so choose.  Ditto Beckett who locks up all her feelings behind the walls.  Only a very few get to know/see what might be going on behind those walls.  Sometime i suspect Beckett doesn't really know.

On the whole discussion of the Castle/Beckett dance/flirting/whatever and that not being consistent – i disagree.  I find how the writers have shown that back and forth is really quite consistent given the nature of the participants in this little game, albeit the thread sometimes is rather subtle.  Stana Katic called the banter/flirting/back and forth between Beckett and Castle swordplay a couple of years ago and she's given it the right name – it's a duel with sharp objects – intellects, tongues, personalities and lots to lose if things go wrong. The back and forth on who's flirting with whom, who's holding off (attack/defend/parry etc.)  doesn't seem to be the least inconsistent for two highly intelligent, emotionally damaged people who are (or were) dating others.  Nothing is uncomplicated; nothing comes without strings attached; everything is fraught. There are no guards on these swords. Get it wrong, miss a sally and someone will bleed – and both players know it.  

Halaci's view of Castle's behaviour in the last couple of episodes seems to be that it is inconsistent with the high minded, not flirting back at a 'taken' woman from earlier. I say it's perfectly consistent with someone who's decided he's going to take friendship with a woman he wants to stay as close to as he can, even if he doesn't have a (present) hope of a romantic relationship with that woman.  He wants to be (or to stay) her best friend.  He's living the 'always' he promised (unlike what some of our fellow posters advocated after Countdown), so he's being true to his characterization as a faithful man.  And frankly, the characterization of his behaviour as "high minded" and not chasing a woman he knows is with someone else was made on these boards extrapolating from what we think his character is supposed to be like. From a purely pragmatic point of view, there wasn't a lot of time in the nightclub scene in Lucky Stiff for him to respond at all to Beckett's moves/actions.  However, the look(s) on his face during that whole scene screamed what was probably going on in his mind – which, at best, involved an immediate detour to the nearest hotel (and at worst involved the nearest wall) – and in the mind of most hetero males watching that scene. Was Beckett really flirting or playing a role for undercover op purposes?  Probably both.  She's clearly good at playing a flirtatious hotty – look at the way she flirted with the bouncer then the drug dealer in the rest of that scene.  What would she have done if Castle actually said something/did something – we will never know.  But at this stage of the show – probably deflected him with some sort of 'don't you wish/in your dreams' remark without  a reference to Josh. (Note: Castle's the one who brings up Josh, not Beckett. Beckett doesn't mention him, not because she doesn't care about him, but because her personal life lives in a different box/behind a different wall, from her work life – again consistent.)   

 

Yes!  Exactly!  I heartily agree with what you've said here.