Would you watch Castle if our caiptan wasnt in it?

POSTED BY: alps2007
UPDATED: Sunday, February 9, 2014 21:43
VIEWED: 18586
PAGE 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE

ALPS2007

Sunday, September 25, 2011 7:41 PM

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.

LWAVES

Sunday, September 25, 2011 10:08 PM

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

THESOMNAMBULIST

Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:43 PM

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.

ECGORDON

Sunday, September 25, 2011 11:59 PM

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.

OLDGUY

Monday, September 26, 2011 5:10 AM

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".

BYTEMITE

Monday, September 26, 2011 2:15 PM

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.

STORYMARK

Monday, September 26, 2011 2:31 PM

I already don't. Sorry.

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

BYTEMITE

Monday, September 26, 2011 2:49 PM

^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.

OLDGUY

Monday, September 26, 2011 3:43 PM

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.

BYTEMITE

Monday, September 26, 2011 5:44 PM

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.

1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE