insomniac said:

What got the UST going for me was Beckett's "you have no idea" and Castle's subsequent slackjawed expression as she sauntered away. Up until then she hadn't thrown anything like that at him after his extremely inappropriate come on. But then, when she thought she was finally free of him, she lets loose and he's totally gobsmacked and completely smitten.

He was just too hyperactive and obnoxious around her in that episode and I was totally on Beckett's side with the irritation. I'm really glad the writers moved away from that particular characterisation of Castle.

And it's true we don't have the old love/hate stuff, but based on the sneak peeks we have of 2x16, I'm not complaining!

I actually think that Castle's behavior in the pilot and other early episodes was a reflection of where he was at at that point in his life and career…bored with fame, working with a contentious ex-wife, surrounded by over-eager fangirls…everyone adored him and things came easy to him.  I think his involvement with Beckett (and his growing respect and caring for her) and his witness to the seriousness of her job has matured him so much from that behavior when they met.  I had the impression that Beckett didn't toss comments back at him much initially because she was unwilling to stoop to his level.

At this point, the flirty banter/will they or won't they scenario is driving the UST for me rather than the love/hate tension, but yes…it is just as good.  I'm excited to see Beckett in control of things in 216. 

Doz, I don't mind, but isn't your post better fitted into the Castle/Beckett relationship thread? This thread is about Castle vs other shows…

Doz said:

Hi unniw..Thanks!!

 

btw- this thread is about castle and other shows – in regards to URST..

 

 

everything is about URST

insomniac said:

Van said:

I think the Castle/Beckett URST is more about the characters being honest about who they really are.  I think Castle has always been mature but his environment (work, fame, money) catered more to his playful side.  By being playful he was able to kind of shield himself from any real commitment and protect who he is internally.  Beckett probably lost her playful side when she lost her mother.  Castle is reigniting that part of her.

I happen to completely agree with you. And that's why I enjoy their relationship so much – they each draw out different sides of the other's character. And it's fun watching them discover these new sides of each other.

Van said:

To not deviate from topic, I think the show can and will survive a hook up.  I've never watched Bones and I don't remember Moonlighting but it seems the writers of those shows seemed to take a different approach.  Bones, based on other posts I've read, has dragged the dance out so long that the viewers have become annoyed.  Moonlighting, sounds to me like there was no real character development so there was no where to go after the hook up.  The writers of Castle are really developing the characters and moving the two leads at a very believable pace. As much as I would love to see the Castle/Beckett hook up like yesterday, I really don't think they are there yet.  I'm content with the friendship which is inevitably leading to the romance.  I will definitely be there post hook up…..especially if the writers continue to give us good sincere material.      

I take Bones as an example of how not to write the progression of a relationship from adversity -> friendship -> romance. They keep jumping forward then resetting the relationship. It's like HH is afraid of another Moonlighting because he wants to squeeze as many seasons out of the show as possible, logical plot progression and characterisations be d*mned. It's a shame that the show has to be reduced to nothing but UST, to the detriment of all the other kooky/interesting characters that show has/had.

Moonlighting is just an example of how not to write and run a show, period. Don't let your stars be divas, don't have the entire show revolve around their (non-)relationship and don't hook them up and then have them separated for the majority of the subsequent season… Admittedly, there was bad luck/timing involved, too but still… Hollywood needs to get over its obsession with that show.

Unfortunately it's not going to happen any time soon, unless the writers and show's producers will sit down with their audience and discuss the issue TOGETHER. It's a pity that the "Moonlightning curse" wasn't the subject of discussion at Paley Event. 'cause it seems, and it was in the interview, that even Andrew Marlowe has the "Moonlightning curse" in the back of his head, as well as Nathan Fillion. Perhaps only Stana thinks differently.

insomniac said:

Kalliope said:

Unfortunately it's not going to happen any time soon, unless the writers and show's producers will sit down with their audience and discuss the issue TOGETHER. It's a pity that the "Moonlightning curse" wasn't the subject of discussion at Paley Event. 'cause it seems, and it was in the interview, that even Andrew Marlowe has the "Moonlightning curse" in the back of his head, as well as Nathan Fillion. Perhaps only Stana thinks differently.

Yeah, I won't pretend I didn't find Marlowe, Molina et al's recent interviews on the issue… disheartening, shall we say, in that respect. On the other hand, Marlowe also said that they must remain true to the characters – as long as that continues to be the case, I won't mind them stretching out the UST. If it feels organic, "realistic" and, most importantly, doesn't reduce Beckett and Castle to jealous, possessive little children who are incapable of communicating with each other, then I'll stick around. For now, I'm quite happy to continue watching Marlowe and his team toy with various plot devices. It certainly worked on Monday.

I can't absolutely say i'm as happy to see Marlowe et.al continue to "toy with various plot devices" as I used to be.

Go ahead and man up. It's time Castle put a little sugar on Beckett and see how that works.I wouldn't be offended at all.

Really, all Hollywood needs is to break the damn "Moonlighting curse." It would absolutely fantastic if Castle can do that. Then, maybe tv writers, producers, etc. can move on and not be afraid to venture out to explore storylines.

Hi Everyone.. yes this thread – again! :) It is a theme/ concept / or issue, however you like to say it, which I think is going to be ongoing for some time yet..

I just found an article which was an interview with Andrew Marlowe dated 31 March- I hadn't seen it posted on this forum before but I could have just missed it..sorry if I have stuffed up..  

Anyway, it discusses a bunch of general things about the show.. so I had no idea where to put it! then.. I realised this thread is about the Castle/ Beckett relationship in general and the future direction of the show- and Marlowe interestingly mentions knowing tv's history.. and he mentions another famous former UST heavy couple – Sam and Diane from Cheers..  but- it sounds like they don't have a plan.. or have I read it wrong??

take a read.. would love to hear people's thoughts about it! something tells me in about 3 weeks time we will have lots more to say about all this!!! (we can vent to each other about it!!) I'll cut and paste it here and save you heading over there.. hope that's ok..

   |  

March 31, 2010 6:20 PM ET

"Castle" creator Andrew Marlowe was feeling good about his show's chances for next season, but he's understandably very happy that ABC gave an official pickup to the show on Tuesday (March 30).

"It's very helpful to have the information that we're coming back and that we don't have to do any sort of quick, last-minute crazy wrap-up," Marlowe tells Zap2it. "We never wanted to tempt the TV gods by assuming it, but we were pleased to hear it. It does give us a little more clarity on how we can end the season."

The show is shooting its 22nd episode of the season now, with two more to go after that. Marlowe and his fellow writers haven't talked about specific Season 3 stories yet, but in the larger arc of the show, next year will be about "continuing the character development and really continuing to do what the audience has responded to — that romantic-tension dance between our two leads [Nathan Fillion and Stana Katic]. I also think our secondary characters are really terrific, so we're going to look for more opportunities to open them up a little bit and have them be part of the storytelling."

Some other highlights of our conversation:

On the April 12 episode, "The Late Shaft": "We get to have our fun take on the Jay Leno-Conan O'Brien of it all and who would want to kill one of those guys. … Tom Bergeron [as a late-night talk-show host] is the victim, and Fred Willard is his Ed McMahon sidekick. They're a terrific pairing; the two of them have so much fun together. Bill Bellamy is our late-night guy who's in the 12:30 timeslot — he's the young, hip, edgy guy. There are a lot of fun characters in that one."

On the show's appeal: "I think chemistry is a huge part, and I think another huge part is we give the audience permission to have fun with our characters. We know that we're dealing with murder and that it's a serious subject, but we also know there's a certain amount of gallows humor these people develop. The kinds of cases we deal with, I think, are a little bit more in the vein of an old-fashioned murder mystery than the procedural stuff. I have a problem coming home after a hard day and turning on shows that deal with such dark topics. I think we take a fresh look at it."

Beckett's mom: "It's something we're going to continue to touch upon as we move forward. … [Beckett's mother's murder] is so much a part of her personality. It's something we hope to unfold and uncover over the course of a couple seasons, if they let us."

Will there be more movement on the case this season? "We touched on it so hard in the middle of the season with 'Sucker Punch' that there wasn't a reason to return to it this season, especially knowing we were going to get more episodes. I think the conclusion of this season has really more to do with the Castle-Beckett relationship and where that's going to go."

So, about that relationship …: "The Sam-Diane [dynamic] in 'Cheers' I think is a more interesting template in terms of keeping people apart but keeping the friction there. But you have to honor an audience that wants them to get together. So it really is a delicate dance of how close can we get them, and to do it in such a way that people don't feel like we're cheating. … We know what the history of television is, we know what the screen precedents are, but these characters are their own particular kind of beasts. We're feeling our way through it, pulling back when we feel like we need to and pushing further when we feel like we need to."