But maybe in ten years we'll get a revival series about Alexis as a successful mystery writer who begins consulting with a male detective... Then again, when I think "sequel series about a detective's family member," all that comes to mind is Mrs. Columbo, so maybe it's not such a great idea.
The creator of Castle said he can see the show going on for 10-12 years, so that would be plenty of time to have Alexis graduate and Beckett have a few children.
In theory but even with the best writing team in the world it's near impossible to keep viewers with a show where the main focal point is the relationship between two characters. What storylines will you do after the wedding and the first kid(s)? You are left with a couple who is very much in love and living their private and professional lives and personally i can't see that watching for 10 years. They need to introduce artificial drama and then you've crossed into soap territory and that is definitely something i don't want to see. About the only show currently i see having the potential to go endlessly is Grey's Anatomy.. they regularly introduce new characters as Interns and some of the original cast is there to provide familiarity but the strange thing is that they found a really good balance between new people and the old guard. Of course once in a while they have absolutely ridiculous events and they often enough drift over to soap levels but that's part of the charm. Even if all the original cast members fade out over time i'd probably still watch it (well, maybe not if all the original cast is gone).
No comments about this week's episode? I just watched it last night, and thought it was the weakest of the season so far. Nice to see David Blue is still exercising; I don't get that crazy outfit he was wearing though. I did like the shootout that Ryan and Esposito got into, that was well done.
It was an okay episode, but I guessed right off the bat that the diamond was synthetic. I liked the bit where Beckett was amazed that Castle's elaborate theory was downright plausible. The main point of interest for me was that the fixer was played by Anthony Ruivivar, the voice of Batman on the current (though currently on hiatus until January) Beware the Batman animted series. As for the shootout, I was distracted by the presence of that NYC-style subway entry in a location that didn't resemble any part of NYC I've ever seen. This show just doesn't hold up well against all the shows that are actually filmed in NYC.
I also thought the diamond was man made ad pretty much the whole plot of the episode. It was a filler episode of a cop show and it was watchable, so no complaints, but it was also completely forgettable.
Agreed. I have a vague recollection that the first season of Castle was filmed in NYC and every season after was filmed in LA, but I may be wrong. The first season and the first handful of episodes in the second (hold-overs from the first season, IIRC) always seemed more authentically New York than subsequent episodes and seasons, at least by my perception.
I looked it up. The pilot was filmed in NYC, then there was some extra footage and such for the next few episodes. But according to this site only the first two episodes were filmed in NYC then the rest was LA. http://castlefans.org/wiki/index.php?title=Filming_locations#Episode:_Flowers_For_Your_Grave
Ah, thank you. The extra footage that was filmed must have caused me to arrive at the wrong conclusion.
I agree, it's been several months since I've seen season 1, but it does have a more NYC feel. It makes me miss a real Law and Order. SVU is just law.
I know what you mean. Just about every time I watch Person of Interest I see somewhere I recognize. The only time that happens on Castle is when they do the aerial shots of the city.
Yeah, there are just so many shows today that are actually shot in NYC, like PoI and Elementary and White Collar, that the fake-NYC shows just don't measure up. Come to think of it, Fringe actually did shoot its first season in New York and then moved to Vancouver to save money.
I remember one of the later season episodes of Fringe had them at 86th and Lexington in NYC and it was clearly not.
Most of Fringe takes place in a fake Boston, and not NYC. However Fringe was the worst show I have ever seen when it came to locations. At least LA is a city. I will never forget the time that Fringe had "Westfield MA" as a location and all it was was flat farmland, no hills or rivers besides hundreds of miles away it looks like the Rookies. It was stupid and everyone doing "research" for the show should have been fired.
Quite a lot of the first season took place in NYC because it was actually shot there. Once they moved to Vancouver in season 2, the prominence of NYC in the scripts diminished.
I have actually only seen about 8 episodes from season 1 now that I think about it. But wasn't Walt's lab in Cambridge aka Boston? Did they just travel down to NYC a lot?
I saw a behind-the-scenes of CSI:NY once that revealed they shot in LA, but any street scene with a wide shot had a huge green-screen background, and they had a second unit in NYC shoot matching backgrounds to put it. I thought that was pretty amazing. Conversely, there was a recentish ep of CSI (Las Vegas) where you could plainly see the LA City hall building in the background. This is why I love "Continuum" - they flat-out admit it's set in Vancouver.
Yes. Walter's lab was at Harvard University, but Massive Dynamic was in Manhattan, and a lot of the cases in the first season brought the characters to NYC. I also recall that in season 1, Nina Sharp's office at Massive Dynamic had huge windows with a great view of the Manhattan skyline, but from season 2 onward she was in a different office with a much smaller window, since it was now a set in Vancouver with a fake skyline backdrop.