Who's in Chat? [Chat Now]
Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
2:12 pm
March 8, 2010
Offline
2:25 pm
June 23, 2010
Offline
thanks! Great interview.
2:26 pm
January 15, 2010
Offline
Another nice find, Leftfield…thanks! I enjoyed his take on the supernatural and his comments about Stana. It's cool that everyone was so happy to be back together for season 3.
Not that it matters, but it's too bad that Jon is also against the Castle/Beckett relationship. Hmmm…I wonder how a hook up without a relationship (as he mentioned) would really work out. But I agree with him; it's not just sexual tension with Castle and Beckett. There's also relationship tension.
Banner by petal of roses; icon by shaded color
2:35 pm
May 24, 2010
Offline
Thank you, it was interesting. I'm curious about this episode now, because as far as it was mentioned it seems that they actually catch the killer (or at least know him and suspect him) but somehow they have to let him leave. It will be interesting to see, how Beckett will handle this in her private life. I mean up till now it was obvious that if she had such a great work problem she turned to Castle (if she turned to anyone). But now she will have an alternative option.
So Caskett is widely known now. I think that a full fledged relationship (I mean with marriage and mybe kids) would maybe really to much for the show, but until that I expect at least five-six year more fun.
2:54 pm
January 13, 2010
Offline
dmcw said:
Not that it matters, but it's too bad that Jon is also against the Castle/Beckett relationship. Hmmm…I wonder how a hook up without a relationship (as he mentioned) would really work out. But I agree with him; it's not just sexual tension with Castle and Beckett. There's also relationship tension.
Yeah, I wondered about that too, a hook up without a romance? That would feel very empty and kind of ruin the slow build they've got going on. They're laying the foundation for something so much bigger, that could actually grow into a real relationship. A "hook up" and then nothing more would be more of a let down then never having them hook up at all.
So now two of the boys are against the relationship thing and Stana is in favor of it. I'm definitely on Team Stana in this situation 
3:00 pm
March 8, 2010
Offline
Kitten said:
dmcw said:
Not that it matters, but it's too bad that Jon is also against the Castle/Beckett relationship. Hmmm…I wonder how a hook up without a relationship (as he mentioned) would really work out. But I agree with him; it's not just sexual tension with Castle and Beckett. There's also relationship tension.
Yeah, I wondered about that too, a hook up without a romance? That would feel very empty and kind of ruin the slow build they've got going on. They're laying the foundation for something so much bigger, that could actually grow into a real relationship. A "hook up" and then nothing more would be more of a let down then never having them hook up at all.
So now two of the boys are against the relationship thing and Stana is in favor of it. I'm definitely on Team Stana in this situation
My feeling from the interview was that he was not against a relationship per se, but that he thought that it was too soon. He said "I think the show might be short-lived if we get them together too soon." Now, reading it a second time, I'm not sure exactly where he stands. IMO, a hook-up without the relationship would be a tremendous let-down, OOC for Beckett, and a good way to ruin the show, but… that just my opinion.
3:38 pm
May 24, 2010
Offline
Leftfield said:
Kitten said:
dmcw said:
Not that it matters, but it's too bad that Jon is also against the Castle/Beckett relationship. Hmmm…I wonder how a hook up without a relationship (as he mentioned) would really work out. But I agree with him; it's not just sexual tension with Castle and Beckett. There's also relationship tension.
Yeah, I wondered about that too, a hook up without a romance? That would feel very empty and kind of ruin the slow build they've got going on. They're laying the foundation for something so much bigger, that could actually grow into a real relationship. A "hook up" and then nothing more would be more of a let down then never having them hook up at all.
So now two of the boys are against the relationship thing and Stana is in favor of it. I'm definitely on Team Stana in this situation
My feeling from the interview was that he was not against a relationship per se, but that he thought that it was too soon. He said "I think the show might be short-lived if we get them together too soon." Now, reading it a second time, I'm not sure exactly where he stands. IMO, a hook-up without the relationship would be a tremendous let-down, OOC for Beckett, and a good way to ruin the show, but… that just my opinion.
It can be my ever-optimistic approach, but I interpreted his remark, that they hook-up (I think there will be a moment when they lost their self control) but after it not parting away, but start to build a relationship. Not saying that this is my favourite scenario but better than the "Oh it wouldn't work, better to pretend it hadn't happened" cliché.
I think it's not so surprising that this "death of the show" idea is so deeply rooted in Hollywood. Keeping up the UST is the easiest way of generating permanent conflicts, you don't need anything else than two attractive actors with a certain degree of chemistry. Neither the actors nor the writers need to be extremely talented – and looking at the mass of the TV-shows most of them aren't. I think Rob Bowman told in an interview that it is very rare that excellent actors meet superb scripts, usually the staff of the show is not balanced. (Or just in a wrong way – mediocre actors with mediocre writers.)
Castle is a very lucky show, because now it seems that there are everything in its place – but it takes time even for those ones who are involved in it to believe that it could worth to go against the trend. Both Castle and Beckett has so many layers that it could provide enough conflicts without UST and then the supporting cast (like Esposito) was not even counted.
5:41 pm
May 16, 2010
Offline
Leftfield said:
Kitten said:
dmcw said:
Not that it matters, but it's too bad that Jon is also against the Castle/Beckett relationship. Hmmm…I wonder how a hook up without a relationship (as he mentioned) would really work out. But I agree with him; it's not just sexual tension with Castle and Beckett. There's also relationship tension.
Yeah, I wondered about that too, a hook up without a romance? That would feel very empty and kind of ruin the slow build they've got going on. They're laying the foundation for something so much bigger, that could actually grow into a real relationship. A "hook up" and then nothing more would be more of a let down then never having them hook up at all.
So now two of the boys are against the relationship thing and Stana is in favor of it. I'm definitely on Team Stana in this situation
My feeling from the interview was that he was not against a relationship per se, but that he thought that it was too soon. He said "I think the show might be short-lived if we get them together too soon." Now, reading it a second time, I'm not sure exactly where he stands. IMO, a hook-up without the relationship would be a tremendous let-down, OOC for Beckett, and a good way to ruin the show, but… that just my opinion.
That was my take on it as well. Essentially the same as Marlowe has been saying, that it can't happen too soon. But there's an awareness with Marlowe as well, I think, that it can't be left too long either.
A hook-up? I really dislike that idea. It would rob the show of a lot of tension that a slow burning relationship build wouldn't. The endgame (in some peoples' eyes) would already have been reached. I agree that it would be out of character for Beckett, vastly out of character. And I don't even think it's something Castle would want with her either. After watching him respond to her for the past two seasons, does anyone really think a 'hook-up' is going to be enough for him?
And that's before even considering the fan reactions. Can anyone even imagine the uproar caused by having them sleep together and then back off, keeping their distance even more because of the lapse? You want to talk about a Moonlighting Curse? That's it, right there.
A kiss or two, or maybe even a moment of weakness where something almost happens, but they're distracted or otherwise prevented from going through with it? Fine, because that would just build the tension even more, and it would whet the appetites of the fans without leaving a sour taste.
I often wonder just how many shows have been 'killed' buy putting their central characters together. You'd think it was a proven, guaranteed factor in the demise of a show, the way some people seem to talk about it.
I can't think of any shows I've watched where this has happened. And I can think of more than one which shows that it is complete nonsense, that good writing is not going to be crippled by the fact that two characters are sleeping with each other instead of just wanting to sleep with each other.
5:44 pm
October 19, 2009
Offline
Thanks for sharing.
6:19 pm
January 15, 2010
Offline
Leftfield said:
My feeling from the interview was that he was not against a relationship per se, but that he thought that it was too soon. He said "I think the show might be short-lived if we get them together too soon." Now, reading it a second time, I'm not sure exactly where he stands. IMO, a hook-up without the relationship would be a tremendous let-down, OOC for Beckett, and a good way to ruin the show, but… that just my opinion.
Originally it seemed like Jon's concern was about timing…that it would be detrimental if a Castle/Beckett relationship happened too soon…but he followed up that response in the next question with this: If we had Cas-Kett, it might be the funeral for the show. So, he seems to be closer to Nathan's position that a relationship between the two means the end of the show. It only matters, of course, what AM thinks, and as Danny franks indicated, he seems to also understand the risk in drawing out the UST too long.
I am also of the opinion stated by many of you that a hook-up and back off is a bad idea. I'd be ok with Danny Franks' idea:
Danny Franks said:
A kiss or two, or maybe even a moment of weakness where something almost happens, but they're distracted or otherwise prevented from going through with it? Fine, because that would just build the tension even more, and it would whet the appetites of the fans without leaving a sour taste.
good writing is not going to be crippled by the fact that two characters are sleeping with each other instead of just wanting to sleep with each other.
Banner by petal of roses; icon by shaded color
7:35 pm
January 5, 2010
Offline
Danny Franks said:
After watching him [Castle] respond to her [Beckett] for the past two seasons, does anyone really think a 'hook-up' is going to be enough for him?
A kiss or two, or maybe even a moment of weakness where something almost happens, but they're distracted or otherwise prevented from going through with it? Fine, because that would just build the tension even more, and it would whet the appetites of the fans without leaving a sour taste.
Not enough for Castle? I think that if it gets to that point it wouldn't be enough for the both of them. Beckett's a one-and-done kinda gal with lots of integrity, so I'm thinking that a casual fling, then backing off, would leave her really damaged emotionally. She strikes me as the kind of woman who wouldn't go all the way with a guy unless she REALLY thinks he has long-term potential. and we all know Castle loves the company of a beautiful woman, so the potato chip effect would happen with him – one time wouldn't be enough.
And I like your idea, Danny, of a kiss or another kind of moment of weakness. It would accomplish two goals – throw the shippers a bone and ratchet up the sexual tension (or relationship tension, if you prefer).
7:42 pm
October 10, 2009
Offline
I interpret Jon to see both sides of the argument: if Castle and Beckett gets together, then they can have a lot of fun with that, e.g. Esposito can tease them. But he also know it'll be harder to keep the stories interesting for an extended time.
One fairly recent example where I think it went wrong, was Gilmore Girls. I thought it was ok for Lorelai and Luke to get together, but then they made up some (to me) very strange story about how Luke discovered he had a daughter and wanted to spend time with her without Lorelai around. I didn't buy that at all, and I didn't like that they kept the two apart for so long. I think that's an error many series do: they think they can bring the characters together, then keep them apart again. If they get together they should stay together in my view, at least for the most part. Problems and sword-play should continue, with a possible shortlived break-up, but not keep them apart for ages. The fans are too invested to want to see that.
To go a bit further back in time: "All happy families resemble one
another, each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way" Tolstoy, Anna Karenina
It is harder to write interesting and funny stories about a happy couple than about people on the verge of becoming a couple. Just look at the fan fics. So many stories are about them getting together. And then the story ends. Only a few fan fics go beyond the first hook-up. And the same with movies and books and songs. So even though we have great writers on Castle, they know that they have tons of stories they can tell about the time before Castle and Beckett get together. And then only some good stories about when and after they get together. So they are pacing themselves.
Most Users Ever Online: 587
Currently Online: ohsotall, belle_lover, He-Touches-Things, lvncastle, pancon, kittycat, nicnac, jennymac, Piffi, RicardoCastelo, yazz, HH3674, antpertor
73 Guest(s)
Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)
Top Posters:
dmcw: 3399
Nev827: 3279
Alie: 3133
Jamz: 2644
Leftfield: 2492
He-Touches-Things: 2357
KalliopePL: 1924
unniw: 1738
MissWanderer: 1640
sarah_darling: 1626
Member Stats:
Guest Posters: 685
Members: 8753
Moderators: 2
Admins: 1
Forum Stats:
Groups: 6
Forums: 112
Topics: 3551
Posts: 112344
Newest Members: razzleedazzle, Myms, tbatt247, tcardec, Castlemaniac, aninha21, bela516, nanno2024, rogue17, CastlePedia
Moderators: Admin (4769), addonchat (-1)
Administrators: Admin (4769)
Usage Policy