Would you watch Castle if our caiptan wasnt in it? by alps2007

CASTLE

Would you watch Castle if our caiptan wasnt in it?

scan this with your smart phone to obtain URL for this page

POSTED BY: ALPS2007
UPDATED: Sunday, February 9, 2014 11:43
SHORT URL: http://bit.ly/qQhN47
VIEWED: 16702
PAGE 1 of 1

Sunday, September 25, 2011 9:41 AM

ALPS2007

Im gone say definitely NO.

The only reason i am keeping myself watching it is because our captain is in it, and he really truly is what makes the show great.

There are a lot of characters in Castle i strongly dislike, Like his family are horrible i fast forward through there scenes, there just so annoying.

I think its mostly the writers fault though, the whole castle Beckett thing is getting stretched to far. They are trying to make Beckett a deep character but its completely failing now. Now im the believe that she is just incredibly stupid for not going for Castle. And no man in there right mind would keep trying to get with her which makes Castle almost look desperate.

The 2 best things about the show is Castle funny jokes and that Beckett is alright looking.

I will keep watching though i will always support our Captain i hope the show just gets better season one was the best one so far.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 25, 2011 12:08 PM

LWAVES

Quote:
Originally posted by alps2007:
There are a lot of characters in Castle i strongly dislike, Like his family are horrible i fast forward through there scenes, there just so annoying.

What about Ryan and Esposito? Are they characters you like?
I think the banter between them is on a par with any other in the show it's just that we don't get as much because they aren't the main characters.

As for your question then I started watching Castle when it began because of Nathan as it was his latest show. To be honest it sounded a little bit like a modern take on Murder She Wrote and I didn't think it would go anywhere. But it had Nathan and once I started watching I realised it wasn't anything like MSW and was so much better.
Had Nathan not been involved then I wouldn't have watched it from the start. Had it still been a success with another actor and gotten good word of mouth then I might have caught up later but I might not - there's no way of knowing.

I really enjoy the show with it's lightheartedness (most of the time) and its sense of not taking itself too seriously. But I also like it when it goes into more serious areas as it's a nice change.
As for Beckett and Castle getting together then I don't want them as a couple yet. This is one of those shows IMO that works partly because they aren't together, that they keep getting obstacles in the way however improbable they may be. Relationships on TV between two main characters can work and writers are more than capable of doing it. The so-called 'Moonlighting Curse' is a load of bollocks but there is another problem.
If you put them together then a portion of the fans get what they want, then they start to miss the tension, then they get bored and then they stop watching because it's not the show they once watched.
Just my opinion and not really based on anything except shows I've seen and fan reaction to them over the years.

"The greatest invention ever is not the wheel. It's the second wheel." - Rich Hall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 25, 2011 1:43 PM

THESOMNAMBULIST

Yes I would; though I concede I started watching it because of Nathan.

However I do think they have fleshed out the secondary characters rather well, and personally I am enjoying the Esposito/Ryan partnership almost as much as the Beckett and Castle relationship, and would happily engage with a spin-off of those two, should it arise.

Thereafter it becomes a lot to ask of a show to make every character interesting week in week out, but I have always enjoyed the dynamic between Castle and his daughter. It makes a change not to have some angst ridden kid in a show raising hell and being rebelious. I think they did well to avoid this cliché.

I was a little disappointed that Montgomery had to go though, and I do hold reservations about the new chief thus far, but we'll see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 25, 2011 1:59 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

Probably not, and I don't even watch it live anymore. I catch up with it when I can on Hulu.

But if Nathan was not on it I would be watching whatever show he was on, and hopefully that would be the Firefly revival.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, September 25, 2011 7:10 PM

OLDGUY

What Would Mal do ?

nope..I wouldn't have even known about the show had it not been listing Nathan as the star...the wife and i do enjoy it..and it and Chuck are the only 2 series we make a point to watch (never in broadcast.. I can't tolerate commercials)..I itune em the next day.

i enjoy all the cast just fine except his mom..gawd she's tedious..his daughter is just total cuteness/sweetness to the max..but that's as far is she can run too.
if it makes it through this season4 without a cancellation, then that'll really be enough of it...best to be gettin on with something more challenging for Nathan..something with more "space".

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 26, 2011 4:15 AM

BYTEMITE

I actually liked Castle's family, although the mom is over-the-top considering that she's SUPPOSED to be. But even by season 2 the Castle-Beckett thing was getting too drawn out for me.

It's like every character they met would be commenting on how obvious their relationship is. Really bogged the show down and made the resolving crime plots take a back seat.

I need my NON-romantic plots to be the main focus of the series and I need there to be some meaning, otherwise it starts to just seem like fluff and I wonder why I'm watching.

Even Dollhouse with all of it's problems had some deeper meaning. Castle is just a vehicle for will-they-won't-they with a heap load of the Orwellian propaganda that tv executives insist on nowadays.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 26, 2011 4:31 AM

STORYMARK

I already don't. Sorry.

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 26, 2011 4:49 AM

BYTEMITE

^Yeah.

Sorry to say. I'd like to support Castle because Nathan's in it, and I even gave it a try for two seasons. I even bought the first book in a show of support, and for a while there I liked to read the twitter accounts. The show is funny, as are some of the supplementals, but not stimulating enough for me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 26, 2011 5:43 AM

OLDGUY

What Would Mal do ?

actually got a bit bent out of shape on their 2 parter with the terrorist nuke story line...as is the trend from hollywood these days, they ran the story as us all assuming the muslims were the bad guys, but in fact it was some poor deranged soldier.
and the "excuse" they use in the episode is that a straight up plot of the muslims being the bad guys was too obvious and cliche..but look at the movies made more recently..they all go the same direction..it's some US soldier, not the actual enemy. So I was put out with the Alliance propaganda that was force fed into this 2 part episode.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 26, 2011 7:44 AM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
not the actual enemy.

The problem with episodes like this of course is not WHO they define as the enemy, but rather that there has to be an enemy "group" at all. Just reinforces an "us vs. them" mentality, which is very easy for TPTB to play off of. Democrats versus Republicans, soldiers versus Muslims, and so on.

The ol' Divide and Conquer. So I agree with you, an example of "Alliance" or "Orwellian" propaganda.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 26, 2011 7:54 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by Oldguy:
So I was put out with the Alliance propaganda that was force fed into this 2 part episode.

That's kinda funny - The Alliance would have no reason to portray their soldiers poorly. Quite the opposite.

I know it's commonplace to refer to that which one does not like as "Alliance-like" 'round these parts. But try to apply a touch of logic, ya know?

"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 26, 2011 8:30 AM

ZEEK

Nah. The show isn't bad or anything. It just doesn't have much plot to it. It's just little self contained episodes. That's not really my thing.

Nathan's funny though and that at least give it some redeeming value.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 26, 2011 8:31 AM

FOLLOWMAL

Yes. I started watching it knowing it would be good because of Nathan Fillion, but I am quite fond of the other characters now and the show would actually work with any other lead actor. Mr. Fillion brings his own special funny and heartfelt acting to it, but anyone could do it.
The show isn't always fresh, they use cliches just like every other show, but it does have a sense of humor about itself and the reasons the main squeezes aren't together keeps getting handled in such a way that it's believable. I'm along for the ride. Fun is fun.

http://www.kidsneedtoread.org

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, September 26, 2011 3:14 PM

BUP

No more running. I aim to misbehave.

I still would have watched initially because I thought the premise was interesting. I seriously doubt I would have watched more than a couple of episodes though. This show is special because of everyone involved. If you remove one of the key components it's no longer the show we all love.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 2, 2011 10:17 AM

GREENKA61

Honestly, I don't watch it until the season comes out on DVD. It's on too late.

The episodes that I like - the serious ones - come too few and far between. They are the only time we get to see some character growth, and frankly, these characters are way too static. The jokes are just starting to wear on me - as is the "will they/won't they" arc.

I watch it because of Nathan, but frankly, Castle himself is starting to annoy me. You've had someone die in your arms! Your secret crush got shot in front of you! That's got to effect you! Grow up!

I like Becket, Esposito, and Ryan, and I like Martha when she's actually getting to act like an adult. The daughter? I wish just for once she'd chuck a wobbly and roll her eyes, slam some doors,or get caught sneaking out after curfew or something that normal teenagers do from time to time.

Also, after watching 60 Minutes a week or so ago about the counter terrorism unit with all of the cameras filming everyone on the street all of the time - they can use this more in their investigations?

Sigh. Yes, the show is starting to frustrate me on many levels. I really want them to give Nathan something meaty to do - something to show off his acting chops more.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 2, 2011 10:44 AM

FIREFLYPASSENGER

I would because I love the entire cast. Mom and Alexis, Lanie, Esposito, Ryan and Beckett are all characters I wanted to get to know better.

I love Nathan Fillion and I love the fact that Castle is very close to how Nathan is in real life: funny, kind, generous and talented.

Not sure who else would be able to make this show as good. Without Nathan Castle would not be Castle.

Castle is the only show I keep on my DVR all season until I buy the DVDs and I don't buy DVDs in general.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 2, 2011 12:29 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Would you watch Castle if our caiptan wasnt in it?

Absolutely not.

I've reached the point where even our shiny Cap'n being in it isn't enough to keep me watching.

They shouldn't feel too bad, though - I also gave up on "The Mentalist" after the season opener, and I gave up on "The Playboy Club" after the pilot episode. Out of respect to SMG and Buffy, I actually gave "Ringer" two chances, which is two more than it deserved.

Life's too short for mediocre TV. Every year I try lots of new TV shows, but few hold my interest for very long.

My advice to network television? "I've upped my standards. Up yours."

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 2, 2011 1:03 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

I'm with you, Kwicko, even though I do eventually get around to watching Castle on Hulu. But it is only for Nathan, the show itself doesn't interest me that much.

I didn't even give Ringer two chances, and bailed on Playboy Club, Prime Suspect and Person of Interest after their pilots too. At this time I am only watching four hours of primetime TV live each week, and that is likely to go down in a week or so.

Yeah, Up Yours Network TV!

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 2, 2011 1:20 PM

KWICKO

I've got Prime Suspect recording, but haven't watched any of the episodes yet. But it certainly looks as if they've done the typical American-TV things and gone WAAAAAAYYYY over the top with it. I'll try it, but I have very low expectations.

Person of Interest has me at least mildly interested, so far. Jim Caviezel's character at least has some well-delivered snarky tough guy lines. The show needs more than that, though, so who knows... Hey, at least it's better than his execrable remake of The Prisoner.

I recorded Pan Am as well, and will give it a try, but I'm a bit annoyed that the networks think that the way to compete with shows like Mad Men is to simply set their shows in the 60s and be done with it. (Hint: It's not the time period that makes Mad Men watchable; it's the WRITING!)

I still watch too much TV, but I'm getting more picky.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 2, 2011 2:04 PM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.

Oh, I watch a lot of TV too, just not when it is broadcast. Netflix, Hulu, Amazon VOD, DVDs and Blu-Rays, downloads, etc. I prefer to watch what I want when I want, not when the suits tell me to.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 2, 2011 4:28 PM

KWICKO

Yup - DVR is my best TV friend. That, and DVD sets... It would probably be cheaper for me to have HBO, Showtime, Starz, etc., but I like to watch my shows when I want to, not when the suits want me to.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 14, 2011 6:09 PM

BUFO

For me, it was the opposite. I started watching Castle first. I love the show and all the characters. I laugh more at that show then most of the stupid sitcoms with canned laughter. But Nathan definitely stands out and I don't think anyone else can play Castle as well as he does. I was talking to a friend about Castle and she told me about Firefly. I watched FF and loved it so much I bought and bought the blu-ray of both the series and movie. I have lost count of how many times I've seen FF.

I love him as Castle but he IS Malcolm Reynolds.

bufo

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 16, 2011 11:25 AM

MALSDOXY

I know what did this...

i would have to say no...there might be one or two actors who could bring the same 'Mal-ness' to the Castle character but i probably wouldn't be as interested in it without him

"Haven't you killed me enough for one day ?"
- Mal, War Stories

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 20, 2011 10:06 AM

NIKI2

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

No. I don't watch network TV, haven't for years, except for Law & Order and (be still my heart) West Wing while it was on. I still watch L&O (specially SVU) reruns on cable when nothing else is on (which is all too frequently) Other than that, I've seen nothing new or unpredictable for so long, I stick with cable.

Castle is INCREDIBLY predictable, and the romance thing has been strung out just waaaay too long, to the point where it's laughable. I do like some of the characters; I wish they'd do a better job with the mom becuse she's a pretty good actress in her own right, and the kid's okay, as are the other cops. But it's absolutely true; it wouldn't be worth watching at ALL without Fillion. He brings a great quirk and humor I don't think anyone else could manage (with the writing), but the writing is too Hollywood crap and waaay too predictable.

I watched Chuck for a while for the same reason, but ended up giving up on it. It just got too silly, and I don't like the lead character at all.

I think it would be lovely if Fillion got a chance at some REAL acting, be it network (which it probably wouldn't be) or cable...or (be still my heart!) a movie. I was pissed he didn't get Green Lantern, but given how it turned out, I'm glad he didn't. Makes me especially angry because Green Lantern was MY superhero. Superman was too white bread, Batman too dark, and even at 12, I thought Green Lantern was hot. Oh well, went the same way as the attempt at Dune...good stuff turned to trash. What Hollywood does best!

I'll stick with Eureka, In Plain Sight and The Closer (tho' perhaps not once she's gone), L&O reruns, Animal Planet, SciFi (their movies are often low-budget trash, but I still enjoy 'em), Dog Whisperer and Science Channel...THEM I'm particularly taken with since they've started showing Firefly AND tieing it in with real science. That's kewl.. I either tape Castle or pick it up on Xfinity, as it's not worth staying up for, and I'll stick with it. For Nathan.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, October 20, 2011 11:40 AM

BYTEMITE

Aw.

But you know, he doesn't need to be Green Lantern (though that WOULD be cool). Our captain has cute-nice-guy-appeal as a superpower.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 21, 2011 1:51 PM

EBFIDDLER

I watch Castle only because Nathan Fillion is in it. If it were some other actor, I wouldn't have even looked at it, because I don't watch TV. (Yes, that is why I missed Firefly when it was actually being broadcast. Seriously, Fox needed to pitch the show to my demographic--people who don't watch TV ;^) but would turn the thing on if they knew something good was being broadcast.) So Castle is the only hour of TV I watch. Before I started watching Castle regularly, I didn't turn on the TV at all except for special events.

So, the only reason I started watching Castle was to see Nathan Fillion act. I would have much preferred to see him portray Mal, but I was willing to give it a try. After all, I thought he was a hoot as the smarmy Captain Hammer in Dr Horrible's Singalong Blog. I find the other characters in Castle to be engaging. I don't care for the weird murder scenarios very much. And I'm finding the whole relationship-that-can't-progress thing to be very annoying. I read Castle fanfiction, in which the writers almost universally have gotten Castle and Beckett together, and the better ones of these are more satisfying than the TV show.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, October 21, 2011 4:48 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I still watch too much TV, but I'm getting more picky.

Ha! "The more I watch, the pickier I get..." Sorry, I'm channeling C&W lyrics for some reason. Makes no sense since I was just watching a doc on Pearl Jam. I cannot pass on any band documentaries, not sure why, they all seem to follow the same patterns.
More to the point and thread, I get what you are saying and I'm with you and EC - I/my wife and I tell each other we watch too much tv. We try and set rules, "Monday is movie night, Tuesday is reading ..." And then there is general breakdown and chaos.
Morer to the thread: No, I would not watch Castle if it weren't for Nathan, same with any of the crews' post FF acting exploits. Funny is is my wife didn't really take to Firefly all that much, but she likes Castle, and I'm not that big a fan as of this season - glad for N. but I think it's pretty well played out at this point.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 22, 2011 6:52 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

Quote:
Originally posted by THESOMNAMBULIST:
Yes I would; though I concede I started watching it because of Nathan.

However I do think they have fleshed out the secondary characters rather well, and personally I am enjoying the Esposito/Ryan partnership almost as much as the Beckett and Castle relationship, and would happily engage with a spin-off of those two, should it arise.

Thereafter it becomes a lot to ask of a show to make every character interesting week in week out, but I have always enjoyed the dynamic between Castle and his daughter. It makes a change not to have some angst ridden kid in a show raising hell and being rebelious. I think they did well to avoid this cliché.

I was a little disappointed that Montgomery had to go though, and I do hold reservations about the new chief thus far, but we'll see.

I agree with Sleepy about the whole daughter dynamic. Glad the writers and producers did not go the angst-filled teenager route. Castle is intelligent, so it stands to reason that his daughter follow suit. And no, not me I'm not convinced by the other characters, sometimes the writing is a bit cheesy. I would have preferred they not go the whole 'Moonlighting' route and kept their relationship strictly professional (I did meet a NY cop once who was drop dead gorgeous, so it's not that) would have made for more interesting plots. That's just me. But for me it's Nathan who makes that show go.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, October 22, 2011 7:07 PM

SHINYGOODGUY

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I've got Prime Suspect recording, but haven't watched any of the episodes yet. But it certainly looks as if they've done the typical American-TV things and gone WAAAAAAYYYY over the top with it. I'll try it, but I have very low expectations.

Person of Interest has me at least mildly interested, so far. Jim Caviezel's character at least has some well-delivered snarky tough guy lines. The show needs more than that, though, so who knows... Hey, at least it's better than his execrable remake of The Prisoner.

I recorded Pan Am as well, and will give it a try, but I'm a bit annoyed that the networks think that the way to compete with shows like Mad Men is to simply set their shows in the 60s and be done with it. (Hint: It's not the time period that makes Mad Men watchable; it's the WRITING!)

I still watch too much TV, but I'm getting more picky.

Hey Kwix, gotta tell ya' Prime Suspect is good, mainly because of Maria Bello. A plus is they have 'Scarlie' from Fringe (Kirk Acevedo) - Olivia's partner. Bello is a joy to watch as she solves crimes. They lay it on a bit heavy with the whole "woman on the force pitted against a male dominated profession" thing. Other wise its solid entertainment, although they could use better writing overall. Let me know about Person of Interest will ya' - for me the jury is out (I have yet to see an episode). And yes, I belong to the Watch Too Much Club.

SGG

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, October 23, 2011 2:51 AM

KWICKO

Yeah, I started watching Prime Suspect, finally. It's on the cusp for me - I find it annoying that seemingly every episode, Jane has to deal with dickish male cohorts, and by the end of the ep, they give her grudging respect - only to do it all over again the next week!

That said, it's not *quite* bad enough for me to dump it completely, and it seems to be getting better, so I'm still watching, for now anyway.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 8, 2014 1:47 PM

WOLFEE

Actually yes I love Castle. Great little show! Very entertaining. Actually loaned the 'Rents seasons 1-5 so they could catch up. Lets be honest FF was still in character building in my humble opinion, not sure if I would have liked it by season 3.

http://www.starpirates.net/register.php?referer=36112

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 8, 2014 2:22 PM

WISHIMAY

I'd have to say no. Every season they have one or two episodes that are marginally worth watching, but compared to my favorites Castle is weak tea.
Beckett is a non-character, it's like watching a friend fall in love with someone who is all wrong for him. Ryan and Espo have even gotten boring this season.

American television desperately needs to shorten its seasons and put out higher quality stories and characters.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:44 AM

SISTER

no.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, February 9, 2014 11:43 AM

VERASAMUELS

Depends on who was Rick Castle instead of Nathan.

Devout Keeper of Jayne's Lunchbox

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER

POST DATE