The only problem I have on this show is that I spend a good twenty minutes waiting for the characters to reach the same conclusion I'd come to for whodunit. It is fortunately made up for through Fillion's antics. Castle and Beckett are really the only draw for me. One or the other leaves, it's done.
The only problem I have on this show is that I spend a good twenty minutes waiting for the characters to reach the same conclusion I'd come to for whodunit. It is fortunately made up for through Fillion's antics. Castle and Beckett are really the only draw for me. One or the other leaves, it's done.
Well, yea... Castle and Beckett are kind of the lead characters, of course it couldn't survive without them.
I really like this show...
Why bitch about the murders? Is it supposed to be a guessing game?
I just watch it for Castle and Beckett. They are quite hi-larious.
Who cares if you can guess who dunit? It's still funnier than half the crap on TV at the moment.
The fact that they always tell him to stay in the car but he always ends up in the middle of it is great.
rfalias on
0
Options
AlectharAlan ShoreWe're not territorial about that sort of thing, are we?Registered Userregular
I thoroughly enjoy this show, but I do wish it weren't so predictable.
You know, you're allowed to have the perpetrator be someone you didn't introduce in the first 15 minutes of the show.
It seems to me that's kinda the problem with TV whodunits (maybe whodunits in general). There are two conflicting desires at play, the first is to make the mystery accessible to the viewer. That is, provide the astute viewer with enough clues to allow them to make good guesses as to the perpetrator of the crime.
Opposing that is the desire to offer an interesting crime, with twists and turns and cool stuff.
The conflict here is that, if you're going to go with the latter impulse, you often have to reveal certain characters and motivations late, or "hide" clues. Basically, you withhold information from the viewer in order to ensure the viewer can't unravel the twist too early. That means a viewer can't ever actually solve the mystery until the solution is revealed. Sometimes that kinda sucks. On the other hand, if you err toward the former, your mystery is less mysterious, and even people who don't attempt to unravel the whodunit know the answer before the end.
I think in general either approach can function provided I feel interested in the outcome. I still feel like the Law and Order series generally give me reason to watch the show, even knowing I'll never be able to divine the mystery without the big reveal. Castle I love to watch despite the transparency of the crimes because Nathan Fillion (and the cast in general, really) are so compelling.
That said, I'm not sure I like Latino Cop Sidekick or White Cop Sidekick. Maybe not liking is the wrong way to say it, I'm just not sure they're particularly memorable or necessary.
House used to be ABC did it not before Fox bought the rights?
EDIT: Oh bollocks it didn't...
Ok, replace ABC with TV and away we go!
Well, House was so named because it is a play on the name "Holmes", which sounds sort of like "Homes", so they named their Sherlock-inspired Doctor "House".
What is it with TV shows naming there shows/characters after buildings?
First House, now Castle. What's next? Citadel?
There is also Bones, Buffy, and Angel.
Probably a lot more. :P
. . What?
Yeah. What? I've never heard of a Bones, Buffy, or Angel building.
However, on another note, I think I need to pitch a police procedural that teams up a chicken farmer and a cop to solve crimes. It'll be called "Cock".
I thoroughly enjoy this show, but I do wish it weren't so predictable.
You know, you're allowed to have the perpetrator be someone you didn't introduce in the first 15 minutes of the show.
It seems to me that's kinda the problem with TV whodunits (maybe whodunits in general). There are two conflicting desires at play, the first is to make the mystery accessible to the viewer. That is, provide the astute viewer with enough clues to allow them to make good guesses as to the perpetrator of the crime.
Opposing that is the desire to offer an interesting crime, with twists and turns and cool stuff.
The conflict here is that, if you're going to go with the latter impulse, you often have to reveal certain characters and motivations late, or "hide" clues. Basically, you withhold information from the viewer in order to ensure the viewer can't unravel the twist too early. That means a viewer can't ever actually solve the mystery until the solution is revealed. Sometimes that kinda sucks. On the other hand, if you err toward the former, your mystery is less mysterious, and even people who don't attempt to unravel the whodunit know the answer before the end.
I think in general either approach can function provided I feel interested in the outcome. I still feel like the Law and Order series generally give me reason to watch the show, even knowing I'll never be able to divine the mystery without the big reveal. Castle I love to watch despite the transparency of the crimes because Nathan Fillion (and the cast in general, really) are so compelling.
That said, I'm not sure I like Latino Cop Sidekick or White Cop Sidekick. Maybe not liking is the wrong way to say it, I'm just not sure they're particularly memorable or necessary.
Yeah, I know what you mean, and don't get me wrong, I love the show. However, I do believe that it comes down on the wrong side of both of those ideas.
Take the last show for instance.
I knew it was the sister right from the beginning. Admittedly, I didn't know the mother was involved right up until they revealed it at the end, but let's focus on the sister for the moment. The thing was, the sister was too predictable of a culprit, so the mystery was easy to solve BUT they didn't actually discover the evidence that led to the sister (the bunny) until the very end of the episode. So even if you were a fan of deducing the culprit from the evidence, there was no chance to do that until the very end of the show anyway. They might as well have pulled a stranger in at the end.
The other thing was, the only thing that had me doubting that it was the sister was the sophistication of the kidnapper's methods. All the technology stuff, rerouting phone calls, using the unrecognizable machine voice, how the hell would the sister know how to do all that stuff? That wasn't ever really explained either, even with some silly throwaway "she was an electronics major in college" line.
I'm just saying, it's a good thing that the whodunit part isn't the reason I watch the show. I watch the show because I like watching Nathan Fillion and Stana Katic trade lines. I just think it could be a lot better and appeal to more people if the whodunit portion was better.
Hi I'm Vee! on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
Well House is named House because he's supposed to be Sherlock Holmes. Holmes=House. see?
Speaking of Sherlock Holmes, Doyle didn't even bother to give the reader any clues, so creating an engaging mystery doesn't necessarily mean that the audience has to be able to parse the clues. It may help, but still.
Like many people have already said, the main characters, for me, are spot-on. They are the reason to watch this show. They'll work on crime drama aspect, and hopefully that part will be better in the future. But for now, the show is still loads of fun to watch, and that's really all I need.
Oh, and there's this, too:
<3<3
Kristmas Kthulhu on
0
Options
AlectharAlan ShoreWe're not territorial about that sort of thing, are we?Registered Userregular
Well House is named House because he's supposed to be Sherlock Holmes. Holmes=House. see?
Speaking of Sherlock Holmes, Doyle didn't even bother to give the reader any clues, so creating an engaging mystery doesn't necessarily mean that the audience has to be able to parse the clues. It may help, but still.
Like I said, it's not necessary to serve both impulses, but I feel like those are the contradictory impulses at the heart of creating an engaging whodunit.
Well House is named House because he's supposed to be Sherlock Holmes. Holmes=House. see?
Speaking of Sherlock Holmes, Doyle didn't even bother to give the reader any clues, so creating an engaging mystery doesn't necessarily mean that the audience has to be able to parse the clues. It may help, but still.
Like I said, it's not necessary to serve both impulses, but I feel like those are the contradictory impulses at the heart of creating an engaging whodunit.
Well, my point was that the show isn't serving either, really. It's too predictable to have a real mystery as to who the culprit is, but even if you weren't guessing it from the beginning, it's impossible to follow the clues to figure out who it is because the clues that let you guess it aren't available until 2 minutes before they reveal the culprit.
Hi I'm Vee! on
0
Options
AlectharAlan ShoreWe're not territorial about that sort of thing, are we?Registered Userregular
Well House is named House because he's supposed to be Sherlock Holmes. Holmes=House. see?
Speaking of Sherlock Holmes, Doyle didn't even bother to give the reader any clues, so creating an engaging mystery doesn't necessarily mean that the audience has to be able to parse the clues. It may help, but still.
Like I said, it's not necessary to serve both impulses, but I feel like those are the contradictory impulses at the heart of creating an engaging whodunit.
Well, my point was that the show isn't serving either, really. It's too predictable to have a real mystery as to who the culprit is, but even if you weren't guessing it from the beginning, it's impossible to follow the clues to figure out who it is because the clues that let you guess it aren't available until 2 minutes before they reveal the culprit.
I was just elaborating my position for Fencingsax. I actually agree entirely with your assessment as you presented it here, and in your previous post saying something similar. I hadn't looked at it that way, but it makes sense.
How long till we find out if this gets a 2nd season?
No later than the end of the month, usually networks release their fall schedule around now because they have to shoot the first batch of new eps over the summer.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Posts
Yeah, it was a nice shot.
pleasepaypreacher.net
This show is becoming one of my favourite shows fast. Though that is probably due to my crush on Stana Katic.
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
http://tvbythenumbers.com/2009/05/07/monday-ratings-abc-wins-as-castle-surges-after-dancing/18044
You know, you're allowed to have the perpetrator be someone you didn't introduce in the first 15 minutes of the show.
Well, yea... Castle and Beckett are kind of the lead characters, of course it couldn't survive without them.
Why bitch about the murders? Is it supposed to be a guessing game?
I just watch it for Castle and Beckett. They are quite hi-larious.
Who cares if you can guess who dunit? It's still funnier than half the crap on TV at the moment.
The fact that they always tell him to stay in the car but he always ends up in the middle of it is great.
It seems to me that's kinda the problem with TV whodunits (maybe whodunits in general). There are two conflicting desires at play, the first is to make the mystery accessible to the viewer. That is, provide the astute viewer with enough clues to allow them to make good guesses as to the perpetrator of the crime.
Opposing that is the desire to offer an interesting crime, with twists and turns and cool stuff.
The conflict here is that, if you're going to go with the latter impulse, you often have to reveal certain characters and motivations late, or "hide" clues. Basically, you withhold information from the viewer in order to ensure the viewer can't unravel the twist too early. That means a viewer can't ever actually solve the mystery until the solution is revealed. Sometimes that kinda sucks. On the other hand, if you err toward the former, your mystery is less mysterious, and even people who don't attempt to unravel the whodunit know the answer before the end.
I think in general either approach can function provided I feel interested in the outcome. I still feel like the Law and Order series generally give me reason to watch the show, even knowing I'll never be able to divine the mystery without the big reveal. Castle I love to watch despite the transparency of the crimes because Nathan Fillion (and the cast in general, really) are so compelling.
That said, I'm not sure I like Latino Cop Sidekick or White Cop Sidekick. Maybe not liking is the wrong way to say it, I'm just not sure they're particularly memorable or necessary.
Battle.net
First House, now Castle. What's next? Citadel?
House is Fox.
EDIT: Oh bollocks it didn't...
Ok, replace ABC with TV and away we go!
Well, House was so named because it is a play on the name "Holmes", which sounds sort of like "Homes", so they named their Sherlock-inspired Doctor "House".
There is also Bones, Buffy, and Angel.
Probably a lot more. :P
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
. . What?
Yeah. What? I've never heard of a Bones, Buffy, or Angel building.
However, on another note, I think I need to pitch a police procedural that teams up a chicken farmer and a cop to solve crimes. It'll be called "Cock".
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
Take the last show for instance.
The other thing was, the only thing that had me doubting that it was the sister was the sophistication of the kidnapper's methods. All the technology stuff, rerouting phone calls, using the unrecognizable machine voice, how the hell would the sister know how to do all that stuff? That wasn't ever really explained either, even with some silly throwaway "she was an electronics major in college" line.
Speaking of Sherlock Holmes, Doyle didn't even bother to give the reader any clues, so creating an engaging mystery doesn't necessarily mean that the audience has to be able to parse the clues. It may help, but still.
Like I said, it's not necessary to serve both impulses, but I feel like those are the contradictory impulses at the heart of creating an engaging whodunit.
Battle.net
I was just elaborating my position for Fencingsax. I actually agree entirely with your assessment as you presented it here, and in your previous post saying something similar. I hadn't looked at it that way, but it makes sense.
Battle.net
Seriously, they just had to end the show right there this season.
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
Imdb and tv.com shows only 10 episodes too, I think it is, and the way it ended was fitting of a season finale.
3DS: 2852-6809-9411
pleasepaypreacher.net
See how many books I've read so far in 2010
Well word on the street is the Walken is in the Dr Horrible sequel.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
AC City folk=2965-2082-7154
No later than the end of the month, usually networks release their fall schedule around now because they have to shoot the first batch of new eps over the summer.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Friday, supposedly.