Yesterday Deadline broke the silence on what previously has only been alluded to. One of the points for actor Nathan Fillion to agree to do a Castle season 9 was for them to fire his co-star Stana Katic. For many that certainly brings up issues of male arrogance and ego, and perhaps even vindictiveness – but that’s a lot of supposition. Individuals don’t always get along, and people do stupid and selfish things. As a person who was not on set I’m not about to guess about why these demands were made. Besides, that’s actually not the sexist part.
The sexism here is that ABC fired the co-lead, whom the show owes half of its success to, in order to sign Fillion. In ABC’s calculations, they believe doing thirteen more episodes in a Castle season 9 will be worthwhile. Unfortunately, there are some things they left out of the equation.
Just to be clear, this is how the show has been marketed for the last eight seasons:
The Key Art advertising for the last eight seasons of Castle
Looking at the formula that has made the show a success, it’s obviously not Fillion or Katic that’s the magic ingredient. What drew viewers in and kept them is, “Caskett” – the combination Fillion & Katic make playing writer Richard Castle & Detective/Captain Kate Beckett. How on earth do ABC executives think they are going to sell Castle, without Katic’s Beckett, to the audience that fell in love with Caskett? This is a marketing nightmare – and for what? Thirteen episodes?
For thirteen more episodes added to the show’s syndication numbers ABC is willing to trash eight seasons of fan loyalty – well, really seven seasons. According to The Hollywood Reporter ABC had plans to get rid of Katic for season eight. Being that ABC needed to so for Fillion to agree to a Castle season 9, it stands to reason that this was a request before. It certainly explains much about the strange ending of season six and creator Andrew Marlowe stepping down as showrunner. Season seven began the strange practice of trying to keep the leads apart and give more screen time to Fillion’s character. It also marks the beginning of the first serious ratings drops for the show. (Prior to season seven Castle was known for it being astonishingly steady in the ratings. )
The eighth season of Castle has gone on to have the lowest ratings of the series. This is likely because the plotline has been bizarre and un-Castle-like. It embraced the worst elements of season seven: keeping the leads apart on-screen even more than before, and bringing back the, “Castle P.I.” concept. Then it introduced a new plot called “LokSat” that attempts to add yet another layer to Johanna Beckett murder case – which was wrapped with great satisfaction in season six. Worse of all, in the second episode of season eight, the new showrunners, Alexi Hawley and Terence Paul Winter, split the couple up that had just finally gotten married in season seven. Viewers and critics alike were completely baffled as to why this was done – and the fans were furious!
More disturbing than the breakup has been what now can only be seen as the deliberate attempt to deconstruct the past seasons and destroy the character arc of Kate Beckett. The entire LokSat story that the new showrunners have put forth is illogical and ill-fitting to the past seven seasons. Even within its own eighth season arc the points of this story don’t add up. That’s because LokSat didn’t just separate Castle and Beckett. It set out to paint Beckett as a woman who, “likes being broken” rather than the woman viewers had watched transform her life from a tragedy to a triumph – both personally and professionally.
In the review for Castle, “Much Ado About Murder – just prior to this news coming out – I’d been addressing the misogynistic tones and themes that Castle season eight has taken on. It hasn’t just been with Beckett, but with women overall. With Hawley and Winter signed on for Castle season 9 viewers can expect more of the same frat-boy humor, derogatory commentary about women, and illogical plots that we’ve seen in season eight.
Castle is no longer the show that Marlowe wrote. His Castle showcased an equality and balance between the sexes – a balance that is highlighted in the season seven finale “Hollander’s Woods.” Written by both Marlowe and writer Terri Edda Miller (Marlowe’s sometimes writing partner, but always wife), the episode highlights the strength of the Caskett partnership. In particular, it shows Beckett as a completely emotionally healed woman who is able to stand by Castle’s side and support him the way he had supported her. In retrospect, I’m positive most viewers wish that, “Hollander’s Woods” had been the series finale.
Instead, ABC has chosen to go along with this sexist agenda that season 8 has presented. On the heels of the mess with Kelly Ripa, this doesn’t look good for the management. It suggests that ABC doesn’t value strong independent female characters, nor the viewers that love them. Yes, viewers. While the appeal of Beckett to women in that 18-49 demo is high, the appeal she holds to men is up there as well. From the letters to TV Guide, the polls, campaigns, and general social media storm, it’s fair to say ABC has upset a lot of viewers – for 13 episodes.
Castle is well over that magic number of a hundred episodes that is a hallmark for syndication – and it went into syndication even before it hit the hundred mark episode. Of what use are these 13 extra episodes going to be if no one wants to watch the series? That’s the thing ABC is missing in their accounting. Season 8 – and this possible season 9 renders the rest of the series unwatchable. ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Company, so you would think that this company, out of all the networks, would know the value of ending with, “they all lived happily ever after.” Castle has been marketed as a grown-up fairytale, and now that the princess is queen of the castle they plan to kill her. Isn’t that seriously off-brand? It’s certainly not the kind of thing that makes good box office – or good television.
When looking at the big picture, the idea of ABC renewing Castle for another season has more liabilities than assets. Forget about the blatant sexism these decisions show. If ABC renews Castle for a season nine the only legacy they will have from this, “legacy show” is how they let one actor lead them around by the nose – and straight into a brick wall. As it stands, the changes made to exit Katic have crashed the ratings. The best thing ABC could do right now is to announce the show’s cancellation.
Supposedly ABC will announce their decision about Castle today. Let’s hope they choose to end the series. A Castle season 9 will do worse in the ratings than season eight and break viewers hearts, but most of all, the damage to the ABC/Disney reputation will last much longer than thirteen episodes.
Follow Us
Joy,
Once again you did it – sensational analysis and you rightfully targeted ABC as the ultimate culprit. The NF demands are still hard to reconcile because NF and SK demonstrated a special chemistry, and so why insist on the “firing.” More important, ABC accepting such a demand sends the message, “leading women are expendable.” And like many fans who connected with the series, Fillion was never the “lead or superior” actor in the series. I really knew little about either Stana or Nathan. My wife who enticed me to start watching knew Fillion, but she watched for the drama and comedy combination that made CASKETT the central force of the series. I have become a strong Stana fan watching her earlier films and TV appearances. I have not done the same for Fillion. Shame on those ABC executives, and even if they swear that the intent was not sexist, the result is the same – the sexism that says women are expendable! Whenever I see your column, I eagerly open and read it. So thanks again.
You’ve been reading my mind! Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to watch earlier episodes of Castle since the crapfest that was 6×23. That episode destroyed my love for the show all the way back to the first episode and I was someone who watched Castle every time it was on. Including marathons on TNT. I became a casual viewer in season 7, watching approximately half the episodes and falling asleep halfway though most of them. The only episode I have watched in season 8 is the Beckett-centric one. It will be the last episode of Castle I will ever watch. Also, Castle was the last show I watched on ABC. At this point, I will never watch another ABC show, either.
I came to watch Castle as a fan of Nathan Fillion, since I was a fan of his Joey Buchanan character on OLTL. I tried to watch Firefly’s first episode, but found it ridiculous, but I was hooked from the first moment of Castle. Not because of Nathan alone, but because of the magic between him and Stana Katic. I loved the Kate Beckett character and I loved the story of her life, as told through the eyes and words of writer, Rick Castle, but when he stopped telling her story and became a PI, I lost interest. Does he even write anymore?
I do know I am going to miss your reviews. I will continue to read them through this dismal season 8, but after that, I’m done with all things Castle…And ABC.
ABC is now off limits in my house now.They have no idea how much damage they have inflicted with their attitude and poor decisions.Nathan Fillion cannot carry this or any other series on his own,(check the ratings on Beckettless or Becket lite episodes)and check his history on IMDB.
So is it greed,ego or just plain stupidity that is driving them?
My love for this show has taken a hit since 6 23 but I watched 7 and at least was happy they wed.Instead of ending it at Hollander’s Woods they give us the worst television ever with season 8.If there is a Razzy Award for the most epic collapse of a series I nominate Castle.
Joy I have and will always enjoy your reviews.
While I will fully admit that the show runners of Castle have mis-stepped in the last couple of years and the show has indeed suffered since the departure Series Creator Andrew Marlowe, this article both misquotes the Deadline article referenced and ignores other important factors.
Whether or not ABC is sexist can be argued on its own merits, though since ABC is the network of everything Shondaland (Grey’s, Scandal, How To Get Away with Murder, The Catch) I think that you may need to rethink your stance on that.
But regardless of your “sexism” argument….
1 – Where exactly in the Deadline article does it say that Nathan insisted that Stana must be fired for him to return for Season 9 of Castle? Answer – It doesn’t. Click on the link and read the article for yourself. You won’t find that quote in the article… rather it’s in a comment from some reader. Comments are not vetted; therefore Deadline DID NOT report that in the article and said nothing even close to that quote. It simply is an comment from a reader, nothing more.
2 – It is common knowledge to those who watch the show on a regular basis that Stana was reluctant to sign her Season 8 contract last year, in part because she wants to do other things. Stana has started her own production company and is moving into the next phase of her career partly involving the producing, and sometimes starting in, movies made through her company. She is also working on a new television series of which the details have yet to be made public. Stana has been somewhat vocal in the last couple of years that the show should probably be ending as the story line has run its course.
3 — You completely fail to mention that as of this writing (Friday, May 6th — 7:00 PM) that ABC has not yet renewed Castle for Season 9. Nathan’s contract is in place only in the event of a renewal, a decision of which Deadline now reports ABC has delayed until sometime next week. There is still a strong chance that ABC will indeed CANCEL Castle and not renew the show for a season 9. Your article says that ABC gave into Nathan’s demands to fire Stana or he would not return for next season, yet Nathan’s contract is signed and ABC has yet to make a decision on Castle’s next season. Hmm. Again, your facts do not fit.
4 — In your attempt to make a case about sexism you ignore two more facts. First, while the success of the series and its magic HAS always been about BOTH Beckett and Castle (a point on which I fully agree), when the show was cast and the pilot was prepped by ABC, Nathan was the star power. He already had a loyal following from Firefly and other projects. At the time of the pilot, Stana was basically a complete unknown. And while she certainly has become a household name during the run of the show, the show itself is named CASTLE, not BECKETT. Can you have CASTLE with the character of Beckett? It remains to be seen (and honestly a big part of me as a fan wishes that they would just cancel the show instead), but you definitely cannot have CASTLE without the character of Castle.
Lastly, you basically state your case that since ABC has decided that budgets will not allow for both stars and therefore Stana has to go equals sexism on ABC’s part. You could have even stated, though I do not believe that you did, that since ABC also decided that Laney’s character had to go as well that would even further back up your case of sexism. But here’s the rub on that one, the show basically has 8 characters as of Season 8 (5 women and 3 men). If two women are leaving the show, then at worst the character count is even at 3 and 3. And this same show replaced the male Captain at the end of season 3 with a strong female captain, who while leaving the show in Season 8, lasted 1 year longer than her male counterpart. And you might ask what part did ABC play in that decision… but Castle is not like most other network television shows, its actually PRODUCED by ABC, rather than a third part production company like most. So that means that ABC, the very company that you accuse of sexism, is the same company that produced 8 seasons of a show where the female characters regularly outnumbered the male ones. This is also the same show where the main male character is shown to be an overgrown little boy most times, while Beckett, Alexis, Captain Gates, Laney and even Martha are all shown regularly to be smart, strong and usually level-headed. And again, ABC has COMPLETE CONTROL over Castle as a series and has since the day it started… remember, its ABC PRODUCED, not just purchased from a production company.
I have no doubt that there is sexism in Hollywood, but you should look deeper than you have this time because just a quick glance should show you that your case this time is pretty thin.
Being the home of Shondaland does not exempt ABC from sexism in its corporate structure and decision-making. Two words: Kelly Ripa.
1.
That’s the quote. The key points are “in order to secure that” and “also.” In order to secure Fillion’s contract they had to not bring back Katic. The “also” means that the reason for this was not just money.
2. It’s “common knowledge” that Stana was offered her contract at the last minute for a season 8 because they had to do Nathan’s contract first
and he didn’t sign until the next to last day of shooting. Most of the main cast were working to pull together other projects. Stana had committed to those projects and had find a way to make them all fit. Under the circumstances, she worked it out quickly.
3. Actually, the last part of the article says ABC is deciding on the renewal still. ABC couldn’t consider a renewal without Fillion’s contract in place. Fillion’s contract is now signed – because they fired Katic to secure that happening. Now ABC has the option of renewing – or not. Without his contract signed they wouldn’t have the option.
4. No one is arguing that you can’t have Castle without the title character. If this were season one going into two you’d have a point. However, this is season eight going into a season nine. The show, regardless of the title, is branded in the minds of viewers as being about Castle and Beckett. A while back I wrote about the 1980’s “New Coke” disaster. It’s was the contents of the can that counted – not the label on the outside. ABC is making the same mistake in logic.
Finally, the sexism isn’t about the money. The sexism is the idea that they could sell Castle without the female lead and be successful. The idea that the role of Kate Beckett has not be equally important to the show’s success and can be simply discarded is the point I’ve made – and I state near the top of the article.
It’s this discounting of the importance of the woman’s role in this story’s success that is sexist. This is not about math or quotas. That is a very shallow view of the sexism problem in general.
But why should I believe a one line tossoff from Deadline?
Joy? I know you are angry and hurt because a TV character is being written off the a show you love, but you have lost your objectivity with this post. I hope you don’t lose your credibility at the same time.
Joy,
Just an observation – the two critics, Jason and Chester, appear to be men. And certainly men have a right to an opinion, but in the words of Deborah Tannen, explaining why men cannot relate to sexism, “You just don’t understand.” I hope I can continue to try to empathize with those experiencing sexism. Joy you help readers, especially males, to stretch and see the world beyond the male POV to consider “if I were in HER shoes, I could understand and feel . . . from her POV.” Thanks for stretching my thinking!
In the end, all the Stana fans just sound bitter and they are grasping at straws. Sexism sounds like a sexy charge, but there is no foundation of evidence that is behind this. Plus, the new head of ABC Entertainment is Channing Dungey, who is also a women. And she has been in that role since February. Which means…wait for it…she knew and signed off on not renewing Stana to the show.
You know, I’m gonna thank you for this because it’s the second time I’ve seen that some don’t get what sexism means. Rather that explain again why this is typical Hollywood sexism, I’ll write an article on that. The short answer is this: Dungey A) Came into this already in play. B) It’s not about Stana, it’s about Beckett. The sexism that is entrenched in Hollywood isn’t simply about numbers and quotas – it’s about what stories and characters are valued.
Sorry Joy, but you are still rationalizing your position to make it sound more legitimate. Plus, I seriously doubt you would care if it was another character on another show. You’ve lost your objectivity here.
You wouldn’t say I was rationalizing it if something didn’t actually make sense. In terms of the character issue you really don’t know enough about me to have any idea about what I’ve done or written about in terms of sexism, other TV shows and the entertainment industry. As for being objective. I’ll say it again. I’m as at least as objective as you are. There’s certainly nothing in what you’ve ever written that makes you seem more objective or able to claim being a neutral party. We have opposing points of view. That’s all. However, if you want to talk about something objectively, take away the names and break the situation down to branding issues and product formulas. Anyone with an advertising background will tell you that what ABC is doing is a marketing nightmare that is prone to failure. That is why I’m not the only one writing about the fact that ABC seems to be on the verge of making a huge error in judgement by going for a season 9.
Ok, Objectively, ABC cut the star who had the far weaker star power in Stana Katic. An actress that ABC time in and time out choose not to single-out and never built a marketing campaign around. For example, when ABC was launching “Agent Carter”, ABC marketing rolled out the “Powerful Women:” campaign and Stana again was not even included. (She was briefly in 2015’s “Women of ABC”.) Look, knowing what I know, this was a business situation, but Stana through her time on Castle did next to nothing to help her star-power on the show. Her professional moves outside of the show surprised many who saw the situation. Hopefully, now, she will learn and better protect and prepare herself in the future.
They didn’t have to build a campaign around her, because the campaigns for the show were built around Caskett – aka Richard Castle & Kate Beckett. Let me put it a different way. If the show had been called Beckett and they’d tried to get rid of Castle I’d be having a similar argument because the show was “a love story wrapped in a procedural.” The idea that after eight seasons of a love story focused on two people it will be fine to get rid of one of them and focus on just the one character- that’s the marketing nightmare. ABC would have been better off wrapping the show with big happy bow and putting Fillion in a new project. Trying to change the formula at this point is a, “New Coke” scenario.
Joy,
Looking forward to your article on Hollywood Sexism. And it is about the character of Beckett – a complex, evolving character who engaged empowerment and in so doing became a character many women, and men, could relate to around the world.
Again, looking forward to your analysis!