^ Oooh good point, which brings me something I forgot to mention...Alexis was beautiful in that period dress.
But that was Castle's minds eye casting his own daughter as a moll he was thinking about banging on his desk... And clearly the secretary played by his mother thought that he would eventually grow tired of all these floozies and appreciate that she loves him with out reservation, you know like Ducky and Molly Ringwald from Pretty in Pink... Oedipus, have you met Elektra?
I don't remember anything about Joe wanting to have sex with the "sister." His first reaction to her was that she was a hick. ETA: I really don't think that's a reasonable complaint. It obviously wasn't trying to imitate old-style cinematography, so why hold that against it? Or compare it to an episode of a TV show that aired a generation ago that it has nothing in particular to do with? Its goal wasn't to re-create every aspect of the old film noir genre, its goal was to play with it and have some fun. Being upset that the cinematography was too modern is like being upset it wasn't filmed in black and white. Well, yes, it's contrived. It's an excuse to goof around and have some fun, not an attempt to win an Emmy for Most Sophisticated Writing Evah. You either accept the creative conceit -- "We're just going to have some fun with this and not worry about plausibility" -- or you don't.
He looked at her feet longingly. He looked at her feet and remembered what sort of shoes she was wearing. Flynn was either gay, or he wanted to fuck her. Of course Castles minds eye was casting parts before he truly understood what those roles entailed. The producers however have no such defence.
Well, I detected no longing in his look. Or he doesn't fit your preconceived stereotypes about heterosexual men and footwear.
Yeah Guy you're way off on this one...there was no such sexual dynamic between Castle/Joe and the "sister" that Alexis represented. As Sci pointed out he outright dismissed her when he first saw her pretty much. He also remembered what she was wearing because Joe was a detective. They kind of have to make observations like that
I have no problem with heterosexual transvestites, its common because dresses are damn comfortable, but almost 75 percent of the time a man is looking at what a a girl is wearing on her feet, he's imaging what it feels like marching across his chest.
Do prostitutes charge more for a hand job or a foot job? It's best not to google for any answer to this question.
Good grief, when did we have to defend our opinions to a panel of judges? We're supposed to be here to critique the episode, not each other. We're allowed to have different opinions and reactions. And what does "reasonable" have to do with it? We're talking about our reactions to a work of fiction, not scientific research conclusions or legal findings. We're allowed to have subjective, emotional reactions that might not make sense to other people. Just because cinematography doesn't loom large in your reactions to a TV show or movie doesn't mean that I'm forbidden to have different standards from your own. "Nothing to do with?" Are you kidding? This whole series owes a great deal to Moonlighting, and this particular episode was a very close cousin to "The Dream Sequence Always Rings Twice." Both episodes were about a pair of detectives reopening an unsolved crime from the '40s and imagining themselves in the roles of the lovers at the heart of the case, as well as including the rest of the cast as other characters from the past. Both were homages to film noir and detective stories of the era. Both even had cast members singing '40s songs. To anyone who's seen both, the comparison is natural and inevitable. And since "Dream Sequence"'s Jerry Finnerman did such a fine, authentic job of capturing the look, feel, and technical details of film noir, and since I'm both a fan of Finnerman from his Star Trek work and a film-technique buff, the cinematography in that episode looms large in my appreciation of it. And so, in light of my own experiences and perceptions, it's entirely "reasonable" that the more modern cinematography in this episode would not be as satisfying to me. If you don't judge the episode the same way because your own life experiences are different, that's perfectly natural and normal. But it doesn't mean I'm in the wrong just because I'm not you. And it doesn't mean you have any right to judge the validity of my subjective reactions. One, I didn't say I was "upset," I said I found it less enjoyable as a result. Don't be so melodramatic. And two, as a matter of fact, I would have been much happier if it had been filmed in black and white. It would've looked a lot cooler that way, at least if they'd gotten the lighting and composition right. Not only that, but it would've made more sense in-story. What we were seeing was supposed to be Castle's imagination filtered through his hardboiled-detective fantasies, not flashbacks to the actual events. And it's hard to believe that Castle wouldn't have imagined it all in black & white. I've said before, one of my ongoing problems with this show in the past two seasons is that it's become too fanciful, too cartoony, too unbelievable. I don't like that, and I'm entitled to that opinion. I don't care about Emmys, I just like stories to be plausible, even when they're meant to be fun.
You know why this episode was better than the Moonlighting episode? We didn't have to listen to Cybil Shepherd try to "sing."
I think its the show attempt to set itself apart from the other crime drama's and it helped for a while with increases in the 18-49 demo. Though with that effect seemingly gone I can see Castle next season going back to season 1-2 form though personally while the Noir episode was a little underwhelming I do enjoy the silly nature of Castle.
^ Yep...and again no one is judging you Christopher. We're disagreeing with your opinion which we're allowed to do just as your entitled to your opinions, and making observations just as you have. I don't know why you're being so defensive. No one is attacking your opinion of the series at all. At least I wasn't. I just merely pointed out that you don't seem to have fun watching this show and that's fine, I was giving my opinion about your views on the show which happens in a discussion. Just as you gave your opinion over the use of the shipper term Caskett and made a big deal over it a few pages ago. Personally I don't have a problem with the goofy comedy, it has always been there from the very beginning. It was just tempered down in the first two series. Remember we still have a very "serious" story arc unfolding in the Joanna Beckett unsolved murder. Considering the very nature of Rick Castle's character (I don't think he's that much of an overgrown man child as you've described him in the past), he is a mystery writer who happens to have a ton of interest in pop culture and other things and gets excited about that. The character is designed to be the way he is to reflect Nathan Fillion's comedic skills. They're going to find a way to toss stuff in that reflects this. As we've seen over the series, the other characters are quite capable of this as well. Even Kate has lightened up over the last season or two. I don't think this tone is ever going to change, and frankly it seems to be a staple of the show that has drawn in the fan base "Castle" has now. I know this is true for me.
Pretty much ny thinking.. crime shows are a dime a dozen and while Nathan is a well known TV actor (and god to a sub culture ) he's not Hollywood A list to draw people to a show by name alone. I think what makes Castle work (and a success) is the well blended mix of crime, humor and the romantic tension between the leads that sets it apart from other crime shows and it has found its audience and i believe that can sustain the show for several more seasons (depending how long they will drag out the JB murder case or introduce something else). As to "Blue Butterfly".. i had a smile on for the entire time that was only interrupted by loud laughter and cheering at times (Castle gets to drive! - i was as happy as him and "Why am i narrating?" ). Everything was put together so well.. the costumes, the style of 40s pulp fiction stories with all their clichés, the absolutely stunning women (damn.. Stana Katic looks absolutely gorgeous in 40s wardrobe all glammed up.. and so does Molly Quinn) and the small "gifts" to all Castle shippers. It stood up to all the hype which is no small feat and it had such a sweet ending and hopefully a foreshadowing of things to come for Kate and Castle... growing old together and being happy for all time. Now onto the next hype.. the big two parter with CIA shenanigans, a muse from the past (remember how Kate got the claws out when that art thief moved in on "her territory"? a few episodes back ) and a big crisis waiting to happen. I certainly can't but it's less than a week
Well, I'm not so sure romantic tension sets it aside, since that's almost been a required ingredient in most male/female partner crime shows since, at least, Moonlighting. An ingredient I'm kind of tired of, in fact.
I think that she did a pretty good job. At least I don't feel the need to skip over her two songs on the Moonlighting soundtrack.