Why do you think that? I've been amused how they always have moved the timeline two or three months ahead during the two or three month summer hiatus, so having Castle disappear for two months fits what they've done in the past. But we'll see.
I suppose a lot of it comes down to "how much do you like or not like their plot arcs instead of their episodic stuff?" It looks like a lot of this is going to be significantly arc-like.
There's also the fundamental question of how silly your plot-world is. I personally think that the whole thing went into unbelievable fantasy when they created an author who has a Manhattan penthouse apartment and a house in the Hamptons, so finding out that his father is actually a superspy seemed no wackier than the initial premise.
I'm more willing to give a pass for "medically induced amnesia deliberately done by established Bad Guys."
If that's what it turns out to be, then I think the shark-jumping coefficient goes back to reasonable numbers. Still a statistically significant chance, of course.
Actually, I stopped watching a while ago. Just got tired of it, I guess. On the superspy dad bit: he turned up shortly before I quit watching (the episode where Alexis is kidnapped) and I rather enjoyed the idea. James Brolin as SpyDad didn't hurt. Should I pull up this week's episode online to check out what they've done?
Comments 7
I suppose a lot of it comes down to "how much do you like or not like their plot arcs instead of their episodic stuff?" It looks like a lot of this is going to be significantly arc-like.
There's also the fundamental question of how silly your plot-world is. I personally think that the whole thing went into unbelievable fantasy when they created an author who has a Manhattan penthouse apartment and a house in the Hamptons, so finding out that his father is actually a superspy seemed no wackier than the initial premise.
Reply
Castle is depicted as on a par with Michael Connelly, James Patterson, and Stephen Cannell; I wonder what kind of homes they have.
Reply
If that's what it turns out to be, then I think the shark-jumping coefficient goes back to reasonable numbers. Still a statistically significant chance, of course.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment